>>98169116> The US did understand the nature of the conflict at the endNo it didn't, because it still hadn't built an effective proxy even after a decade of war. That's the thing about proxy wars, the war is won or lost by the proxy. If you try to just roll in, push the proxy aside, and do everything, you'll accomplish nothing. That's why the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, and it's the same reason that the US lost in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and the Afghans were both fighting for something near to their hearts. The US and the Soviets were sending people far afield to die for something nebulous. The loses of the patron are always felt more than the loses of the proxy because the patron can question if it's really worth it. But if you've got a good proxy, like the North Vietnamese or the Afghans, there is no question in their minds that it is worth it.
In the end, ARVN was left as a weak, ineffective proxy. The US had neglected it for years, confident that it could do all the work itself. Even when Nixon started trying his Vietnamization strategy, the US wasn't willing to actually address the root causes of their ineffectiveness, namely the intense corruption present in South Vietnam.
> But I guess your state funded communist propagandaI'm an American. I just happen to not be swept up in the idea that America must have never been defeated. We did lose that war, and if we want to avoid losing future wars we need to understand why we lost that war. Remaining in denial about the fact that we lost just leads to making the same mistakes all over again.
The Soviets, in a way, made a similar mistake. They didn't understand WHY they had won in Vietnam, and ultimately that led to them going into Afghanistan and making all the same mistakes the US did. They tried to push their proxy aside to do everything themselves, largely ignored the corruption that made their proxy ineffective, and ultimately got bled out by an enemy fighting for something they really believed in.
