We could have. We just didnt really want to. There was too much controversy back home... politics. We didnt go in "full force" and left because tree huggers care more about the trees than about the quality of human life at the other side of the world. Look at all the controversy in the war with the middle east now. Patriotism shot up when we were attacked. War was permissible when we were fighting terrorist groups and producers of WMD's. Why? Because the US was directly threatened. But when we fight dictators and genocide and whatnot, we bicker back home about our place to interfere... we use the "petroleum"-card as an excuse to call injustice and ulterior agenda into the picture. Passivists would have you believe that turning away from evil is more righteous. Also, I dont believe the VN war was actually a war... according to the political definition. In the US, the Congress must declare war. I dont believe that happened with Vietnam. Its was merely a presidential "action"

Mostly because of the politicians, they would not let the combat trained leaders call the shots. I was there and saw it first hand, and it's a shame because we could of won that war if the politicians had of stayed out of it and let the military do it's job.

They were not allowed to go above incident. Some of the bombing was pretty bad but nothing to what it could have been.Also our soldiers were not trained for guerrilla warfare. Which is the tactics the Viet Cong used. If they had really been at war it would have been over much sooner but would probably have caused many other conflicts.

Because they let the politicians run it rather than the military. Politicians don't want to win wars. It's not politically expedient.

Because China was backing North Vietnam, just as they did North Korea. The US government didn't want to risk all out war with China. So they attempted a limited war, one that drove the communists back behind a certain line, but didn't provoke China into all out war. It didn't work very well in either case.

We spent so much time with defensive strategies that we never really considered what it would take to win. Other then bombing, we never really made serious incursions into North Vietname, prefering to simply defend South Viet Nam. If we had taken the war to the streets of Hanoi - along with the show of power it would have taken to get to that point - the story probably would have been very different. But keep this in mind as well. Viet Nam was an immensely unpopular war. President Nixon knew this when he took office and spent his first four years devising an exit strategy while trying to avoid the appearance of turning our back on South Vietnam. But in the end he did exactly what the American people wanted and ended the war. I was in DaNang in January 1973 when the end of the war was announced. It was a profound experience that I will probably remember forever.

It was never a war but a defensive action. In a war all means are used as needed to win. The objective in Vietnam was to prevent the North from taking over the whole country. Politicians control a military action, even in a dictatorship. As in the mideast, the North used civilians to aid them under threat of death that would actually involve an entire family whereas US troops were prohibited from such conduct. If the South and US went across the S/N border China would have entered the conflict which the US did not want to chance happening. War profiteering was rampant in the South and in the US. It was not a war to win.

1) Bowing to anti-war pressure from home, the media damaged the war cause beyond repair, hence the early American withdrawal came in 1973. 2) Russia and China poured modern weapons and resources into Vietnam. 3) Finally, so many Vietnamese were so poor that joining Vietcong was an attractive proposition economically. Vietnamese society was very stratified with no way to move up whereas the Vietcong promoted on the basis of merit. 4) The VC were vastly superior in their tactics and numbers. They had cause to be at war, many of the GI's believed Americans did not. 5) The US troops completely underestimated the VC,who were skilled jungle fighters, and also had mass peasant support. The American tactic 'search and destroy' increased VC support. As one soldier said "If they weren’t VC before we got there, they sure as hell were by the time we left" 6) The VC's great defensive system the 'Cu Chi' tunnel was not shut down , allowing the VC to take cover during the'Air War'which could potentially have been very successful for the Americans 7) The Americans killed more Vietnamese than the Vietnamese killed Americans. Of this, 58,000 Americans died whereas 1.1 million North Vietnamese were slaughtered. 8) USA lost because you can't win when 90% (or more) of the indigenous population either very much dislikes or actively hates you. The VC were able, in the words of Mao, "to swim in the sea of the people" 9) USA lost because we troops didn't really know (or care much) why we were over there. 10) But the VC and the NVA were fighting for their homeland and their families. They were willing to die to protect both. 11) They underestimated the tenacity and organisation of the VC and NVA 12) Despite dropping more tonnage of high explosive on Vietnam than the whole of WW2, the Americans could not stop the movement of troops or supplies to the south along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. 13) After 1969, there were deep questions about the efficiency of US troops. There was a serious drugs problem; desertion rates were high and morale low. Many troops were ‘time-servers’, i.e. counted the days until the tour was over. 14) The strength and resourcefulness of the VC ,for example the high complex CU CHI tunnel system the US never shut down. 15) Mostly because of the politicians, they would not let the combat trained leaders call the shots. All decisions were made by the politicians not the generals who know what they are doing.