That way, labeling a proposed military operation “another Viet Nam” means it’s completely unwinnable, no matter what we do, so we shouldn’t even start.

Because, if we start, we might win, and that would never do.

I can agree with and applaud that.

Here too there is an apt, if also limited, analogy with the Korean War wherein we not only advanced beyond the 38th parallel but overtook Pyongyang and even advanced to the Yalu River, at least in the east, where North Korea borders Mongolia. Of course, that far advance in turn was the rationale China used for entering the war, nonetheless that simply allows that similar strategies needed to be attuned to the specifics of Vietnam, not excluded altogether, or at least virtually so (there were some tactics deployed against the North, but not major initiatives and not more sustained for comprehensive, strategic advantage - if I need to be corrected in that vein I’d welcome the correction).

The concern that China might have entered the Vietnam conflict in a more concerted manner (with the Soviets they provided logistical support and some covert personnel support) is a perfectly valid concern as such, but it does not adequately provide the rationale for the various misstakes that were committed primarily at the political level by the McNamara’s of the world back in D.C. - in turn variously instigated by the Left, and then disseminated by the MSM more broadly, of that era.

It was NOT clear that Vietnamization was working — because the MSM refused then to give the hated Nixon any credit for doing anything good. MSM Leftis bias led to US/ S. Vietnamese defeat (led directly to defeat).

And what enrages me is that the Leftists, whose policy of leaving was followed, are unwilling to accept that they supported the bad results.

Whenever one’s strategic policies are followed, like war in Iraq or leaving Vietnam or invading at Normandy or agreement at Yalta, one is responsible for the outcomes, even though many specific tactical issues (like Abu Ghraib) were not part of the plan. The Leftist dishonesty is why we lost. (It’s great you linked above to the Vietnam site.)

Revisionism is easy at virtually any distance. Ad hoc revisionism was taking place contemporaneous to Tet and post-Tet developments. Despite the rather thorough-going military victory, despite any number of other developments (e.g., the North’s atrocities or purge at Hue), the Left/MSM was reporting in a revisionist manner at the very time the events were occurring.

Your final statement is more simply a resignation accepting of a defeatism that was not at all obvious, especially so given that the South was much more simply attempting to repel the North’s invasion, not invade and defeat them on their territory. Further, the Soviets were growing weary of supporting the North. Many other factors (e.g., one of the North’s objectives in initiating Tet was to incite a rebellion among the South’s populace against both the Americans and the South’s regime - it never occurred) could be listed as well.

It’s deeply ironic and particularly telling that your own account itself is simply a perpetuation of the Left/MSM’s revisionist and status quo line.

I’m quite pleased, though, because it always helps to link to the NY Times when debating with folks on the Left.

*************

One has to wonder, if the United States had kept the will to back South Vietnam, would the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan.

Since college (82-86), I’ve always held that the Vietnam War was lost because of a loss of political will, and that the missteps leading to the end would have been forgivable had South Vietnam won.

All the more reason to see Iraq and Afghanistan through…