You're confusing the viet cong with a unified Vietnam. Also, you do realize what happened when North Vietnam did unite the country? They gained all the equipment that the U.S. had given to the South Vietnamese when they pulled out. Which is why they were so well equipped to take on the Chinese. That war was not a total victory for them anyways, if you look into it further you'll see why. The Vietcong never formed a government, because the north took over the south when we pulled out.
What I meant to say was that militarily we were winning, but politically it was a loss because of what was going on at home. Had we stayed longer the North would have been defeated as they no longer had the support they once had from the vietcong after the Tet Offensive. I am not implying that the USSR won in Afghanistan, as that was a money pit they could ill-afford, while the U.S., simply put, had plenty of money to spare.
To sum it up, we lost the war, but not for the reasons you have listed. And one thing you should remember is that war is hell, innocents will die, no matter what conflict it was. Do you believe the allies in WWII were wrong to fight Germany, because they firebombed cities and slaughtered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians in the process? The allies destroyed entire cities, destroyed countless historical sites and pieces of art, and soldiers pilfered much of what was left and took it home with them at the end of the war. Those were the so-called "good guys". So no matter how you look at a war, there will be brutal acts committed. People will die, there will be destruction. It is unavoidable, once you are in the conflict.
That' it? You went from saying that the americans won, to saying that the Viet Cong did not have a "total victory"? Implying they therefore did win.
The Viet Cong were also being supplied, they weren't dependant on looted equipment. Had the Viet Minh not been supplied, then guess what? The Viet Cong would have gained power like a breeze, and wouldn't have needed their equipment anyways. As for the sino-vietnamese conflict, the books I read attributed it more to chinese incompetance and them underestimating their enemy (such as by using the old traditional routes they used for centuries, allowing easy ambushes). Did the viet cong form government? If you want to be all technical and anal, you could say no. But they were largely affiliated with the northern forces and fought for reunification.
By what criteria do you judge the American army was "winning"? By my lectures, the Viet Cong weren't anywhere near the brink of defeat when the states pulled out. I guess you were well on your way of just killing everyone in the country, though. That is why I bring up Afghanistan: the war was for the Soviets similar to what Vietnam was to the states. Both fought a guerrilla faction armed and aided by the other superpower, both had to pull out because the political and economic costs of the war were too high. Seems to me that they should either both be considered a victory, or a defeat, but not one a victory and the other a defeat. Imo, they are both defeats.
Yes, "war is hell" and "innocents will die". That's why I think that 99% of wars were outright stupid, and were nothing short of tools for the elite to maintain their oppression on the rest of society. Do I believe the allies were wrong in fighting Nazi Germany? My god, that's a good one! Doesn't it suck, though, that they didn't actually attack when it really mattered? The US only pitched in when they got surprise attacked. The Soviets only pitched in for the same reason. France collaborated. I don't remember when the UK got involved, but the point is moot. Was fighting the nazis and imperial japan a good thing? Hell yea. Sucks that nobody declared the wars for the right reasons, though. Freeing the jews only came much later, it was not an issue at first.
Also, it's not because a war is justified that all acts in that war become justified as well. Not all means justify the ends.
In a way, the US participation in WW2 is the opposite of its involvement in the 1812 war: the first was done for !@#$ty reason with good consequences, the second was done for excellent reasons with !@#$ty consequences.
