This is coolbert: Here is a thought I have had for some time. It is generally accepted that the U.S. "lost" the Vietnam War. Well, perhaps this war should be thought more as a battle that the U.S. lost in a bigger war. That bigger war was called the "Cold War" most of the time. The forty five year war that raged cold most of the time, hot some of the time, between the Soviet Union, it's proxies, and the U.S. This war was hot when "battles" were fought in Korea and then in Vietnam. And the war was tepid when submarines jostled one another under the oceans or manned bombers tempted the air defenses of one another's side by penetrating airspace of the opposition. More important perhaps was the continual clash between societies as to who was going to be dominant in the world stage. No contest here in retrospect. As Eisenhower well understood, the national defense of a country depends upon the overall strength of a country. A well educated, healthy populace, motivated, with a sound industrial base and manufacturing capability and scientific know how, is a formidable opponent. For a long time, it was accepted by the world at large that the Soviet Union and the U.S. were in a battle in this regard, society against society. I believe the thought was that the Soviet Union possessed a society that if not equal to the U.S., was at least competitive in most regards, and perhaps ahead in some, and was constantly gaining and improving where they were weak. This again, in retrospect, was proven to be not so by a long shot. Militarily strong, but societal weak is what the Soviet Union was. During this war, the U.S. drew a hot battle, lost a hot battle, but ultimately won the war.

coolbert.