My reading on topics goes in spurts, and right now, I've picked up two books on Vietnam that I plan on reading by the end of my Christmas vacation:
A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam
On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War
While I think that I will really enjoy the book on John Paul Vann, one of the early themes that has emerged within the first ten pages is that Vietnam was "unwinnable."
So, my poll question is whether Vietnam was "winnable" or "unwinnable"? For those that answer that it was winnable, could you please describe what courses of action should have been taken and how feasible your course of action would have been (e.g. a land invasion of North Vietnam would have likely drawn a Soviet response, making the Cold War hot, especially after the declaration of the Brezhnev Doctrine). Thanks.
A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam
On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War
While I think that I will really enjoy the book on John Paul Vann, one of the early themes that has emerged within the first ten pages is that Vietnam was "unwinnable."
So, my poll question is whether Vietnam was "winnable" or "unwinnable"? For those that answer that it was winnable, could you please describe what courses of action should have been taken and how feasible your course of action would have been (e.g. a land invasion of North Vietnam would have likely drawn a Soviet response, making the Cold War hot, especially after the declaration of the Brezhnev Doctrine). Thanks.
Comment