Let's talk about Trump saying he'd win Vietnam.... - Belle of the Ranch

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Trump saying he'd win Vietnam.

Trump made a claim that has simultaneously confused the country, turned the president into the subject of worldwide ridicule, and made people doubt his understanding of history in general, Vietnam specifically, and even his understanding of the current mess he embroiled the US in.

Trump, while on CNBC Squawk Box, said, "I just looked at a little chart. World War I, four years and three months. World War II, 6 years. Korean War, 3 years. Vietnam, 19 years. Iraq, 8 years. I'm 5 months. I would have won Vietnam very quickly. I would have if I were president."

First, just because I know the history majors are having an absolute fit, US involvement in World War I lasted about 19 months, not four years. US involvement in World War II lasted less than four years, not six. He got other stuff wrong, too, to include the length of direct US fighting in Vietnam.

But those two are important because understanding the timelines might help Trump and those who believe his ahistorical claims about Europe and NATO realize that while Europe was actively fighting US opposition during the World Wars, the US was sticking our heads in the sand.

We were pretending like it didn't matter to us and deploying a foreign policy similar to well Trump's. Mocking Trump's ignorance of history and the fact that he's claiming he could have won a war that he received multiple deferments to avoid and then later compared to his struggles to avoid social diseases is entertaining, but it's low hanging fruit.

By the way, he really did make that comparison and say he felt like a great and very brave soldier. You see it, right? DMZ, STD, VC, VD. You can see how he got confused. But again, that's low hanging fruit.

The part I want to focus on is his claim that he would have won it. No, he wouldn't have because the tactics he thinks make him a strategic genius and are bringing about victory in Iran, like trying to get the locals to do the fighting while the US provides air support and maybe arming an ethnic minority spread over multiple countries, then moving to unrestricted air campaigns, adding in the blockading ports and waterways, reliance on special operations while implying the threat of nuclear weapons is literally what we did in Vietnam.

He's just speed running early SF involvement. arming the Mong operations linebacker one and two market time and pocket money while Nixon deployed his failed Madman Theory.

The only thing that could make it more similar is if the US was underestimating the opposition because they don't have high-tech… Oh wait, forget that one. The only thing that can make it more similar is if Russia and China were helping the other side.

Oh, okay. If we couldn't get significant European buyin, if the opposition's military was split between regular and irregular forces, if it was unpopular at home. Get the point?

The one lesson that politicians refuse to learn from Vietnam. You can win the battles and lose the war. His concepts of a plan in Iran isn't a secret recipe for victory during Vietnam. It's how we lost.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.