Using Conventional Warfare, could America have won the Vietnam war?
JTF.org says it was possible, but that the "Leftists" tied the hands of the Military,
Just like the Leftist in Israel, tie the hands of the IDF, and prevent them from properly dealing with the Terrorists.

And let's not forget
Vietnam II, which is going on right now in America

"The War on Drugs"
The book

10 Things you can't say in America, by Larry Elders details this.

I think that the Vietnam War was unwinnable unless we had nuked the entire country and killed EVERYBODY.

It started as a civil war... North versus South, and the government of South Vietnam was hirtorically "corrupt", so anybody fighting to preserve the South's way of "government" was supporting corruption.  Fighting for the South was not like fighting for a "noble cause".

Heck, John F. Kennedy supported the overthrow of the corrupt South Vietnam government in a coup.  Next goivernment was more of same, and did NOT have the support of the population, either.

In Vietnam, there were many Southerners who WANTED to unify with the North under communism.  Their life under South Vietnam government sucked, so why not try communism?  South Vietnam was not just attacked by North Vietnam.  The Viet Kong were southerners fighting for communism, guerrilas.

Most military people will tell you that fighting somebody ELSE'S civil war is dangerous and fruitless.  And that is the danger that we now face in Iraq.  With Saddam out of the way, Iraq faces a 3-way strife between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.  We need to get the heck out of there becfore we get caught in somebody ELSE'S civil war.

So... in my opinion it was unwinnable because in order to "win", you have to win the "hearts and minds" of the population.  And we did not due to the historical corruption in the South.

Opposing viewpoints welcomed!

Corruption to many on Earth is actually a way of life, even survival.  Having lived in the 3rd world for several years with the poorest country fork, corruption was non-existent.

Quoting:
It started as a civil war... North versus South, and the government of South Vietnam was hirtorically "corrupt", so anybody fighting to preserve the South's way of "government" was supporting corruption.  Fighting for the South was not like fighting for a "noble cause".

Heck, John F. Kennedy supported the overthrow of the corrupt South Vietnam government in a coup. End Quote

In a word: No.

We would have had to secure the entire country and made it an imperial province of the United States.  Then we would have spent billions upon billions on a puppet government and an imperial military presence to force our will and cow the unwilling populace.  And for what?

I cannot emphasize enough the unfathomable human suffering the Vietnam conflict visited upon the people of South East Asia.  From napalm to carpet bombing, we cannot imagine such terror.  Southeast Asians were toughened by centuries of bloody conflict, but even they had their spirits broken by the bloodbath of the early '70s.  Not to mention what Pol Pot did to the Cambodians.  

In retrospect, we got a much better deal.  Communism failed in the Soviet Union, and is slowly dying in China.  Saigon may be Ho Chi Minh City, but so what.  Corporations like Nike get to exploit cheap labor over there and we get our empire on the cheap!

Even Robert McNamara admits now we botched it from the start.  Oh, you notice his kids weren't over there.  Neither was George W.  I don't blame them, really.  Lots of eligable recruits got out of the draft via power and privilege, medical excuses, or student deferments.  My father didn't go, he was in grad school (on the other hand, he was in his late 20s when the draft really started heating up, so he wasn't prime cut), if you had a card to play, you played it.  

It's important to bear in mind who did go.  Yes, there were privileged John Kerry types who could have gotten out of it but went into the thick of it anyway.  But most were poor kids who couldn't get out of the draft, or volunteered for the armed forces because it was their best opportunity.  When they came home with their bodies torn up and their minds scrambled, Uncle Sam turned his back on them.

To this day you'll find paranoid John Bircher types (especially online) who feel emasculated by our loss in Vietnam.  They are the only ones still dastardly enough to blame the protest movement and the counterculture for it.  You noticed we have fascists who like to say those who object to our current military actions "give aid and comfort to the enemy."  On the other side, there are aging hipsters, eyes glossy with nostalgia, who unduly credit their own rock-throwing and rock 'n' roll for stopping the Vietnam war.

I think the military failure was due to strategic impossibility at the core.

ASK THIS QUESTION AT ....THE WALL.....IN WASHINGTON...AND THEN ASK AT WHAT COST....IF ANYTHING I WOULD HOPE WE LEARN HOW HIGH THE COST....OF ANY WAR....ON ALL SIDES....