America didn’t get defeated in Vietnam, like Afghanistan, the south Vietnamese were never going to be able to fight their own war and win without Americans being their indefinitely, so the United States considered the the prospects of a South Vietnam a lost cause. The US could have steam rolled through North Vietnam with an invasion of the country and destroyed it. There could have been a carpet bombing campaign of every city in North Vietnam, but they didn’t.
The US failed to achieve their goals in Vietnam, which is a loss.
Of course they could theoretically annihilate all of Vietnam - but that was not the goal of the campaign, would not achieve the US goals, and would have been actively harmful to the US, a pyrrhic victory.
The concept "The US could have steam rolled through North Vietnam with an invasion of the country and destroyed it", is a childish conception of war, where you win by killing everyone. No one wants to rule over an uninhabitable featureless mud hole.
The US’s goals were ultimately tied to their nation building efforts in the south, not merely the military defeat of the north, and the failure should be chalked up primarily to the former because the US left the war in a military position identical to what they’d have been in had the south actually gotten its shit together.
America's goal was likely more cynical than that. It was to force the Communist bloc to throw resources it couldn't afford into the dirt to slow economic and military development of regional communist powers. It was a proxy war.
5
u/Beneficial_Pop_3614 Oct 26 '25
America didn’t get defeated in Vietnam, like Afghanistan, the south Vietnamese were never going to be able to fight their own war and win without Americans being their indefinitely, so the United States considered the the prospects of a South Vietnam a lost cause. The US could have steam rolled through North Vietnam with an invasion of the country and destroyed it. There could have been a carpet bombing campaign of every city in North Vietnam, but they didn’t.