Triumph Forsaken

[Mister D]

I'm reading a recent book about the first decade of US involvement in Vietnam (i.e. 1954-1965). It's a "revisionist" work and it's quite good.

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Forsak.../dp/0521869110

Moyar challenges many of the widely accepted notions about America's involvement and South Vietnam's political and military potential in particular. Moyar's research seems exhaustive. He uses a great deal of primary documents including a great deal of VC/NVA material that, IMO, makes for a solid case. For example, the South Vietnamese military's early counter insurgency efforts were regarded as lackluster by the 1970s but the contemporary evidence tells a mjuch different story. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the Vietnam War.

[MMC]

I will have to check that out D. Thanks!

[Mister D]

It's really quite good. I'm looking forward to going home, having a drink, and reading all night. I thought we could use this thread as a forum to discuss whatever history related books we're reading.

[MMC]

It's really quite good. I'm looking forward to going home, having a drink, and reading all night. I thought we could use this thread as a forum to discuss whatever history related books we're reading.

Yeah thats sounds good. I will see if I can get into the book.

[Mister D]

What year(s) were you in Vietnam?

Moyar also sheds a whole new light (for me anyway) on French involvement. He only deals with France briefly but he inspired me to seek out a good work on that subject.

[MMC]

What year(s) were you in Vietnam?

Moyar also sheds a whole new light (for me anyway) on French involvement. He only deals with France briefly but he inspired me to seek out a good work on that subject.

"68" to the End, I volunteered remember. Plus my moms had kicked me out on the streets. I was also underage when I first signed up and she had to give Consent.

[Mister D]

Moyar really paints the US State Department and press in a bad light as far as Diem's assassination is concerned. Wow.

[MMC]

Well he called it the Winnable War. He not only places Vietnam in its proper geopolitical context, but demonstrates the Clausewitzian principle that war is a struggle between two active wills. An action by one side elicits a response from the other that may be unexpected.

He also thought that if the Christmas bombings would have happened earlier in the conflict. That we would have won it then. Which would have been before any other surges of Troops being sent in. That the North would have folded up.

Seemed to me they were always willing to pay the price. Knowing it was their land.

[Mister D]

Well he called it the Winnable War. He not only places Vietnam in its proper geopolitical context, but demonstrates the Clausewitzian principle that war is a struggle between two active wills. An action by one side elicits a response from the other that may be unexpected.

He also thought that if the Christmas bombings would have happened earlier in the conflict. That we would have won it then. Which would have been before any other surges of Troops being sent in. That the North would have folded up.

Seemed to me they were always willing to pay the price. Knowing it was their land.

This book deals with events prior to 1965. A major aspect of his argument is that the US would not have needed a substantial ground presence had the State Department not ousted Diem.

[MMC]

Yeah but he still acknowledged that he was corrupt and that they were so corrupt they would have never been able to hold the country. At least thats how I took it.