I depends on what "win" would've meant. South Vietnam was the creation of the US. It didn't really have any popular support, it was dictatorship, massively and systematically corrupt, and existed because of US aid.
It's doubtful that the US could've continued to keep troops in Vietnam.
By the time (1973) the Paris Peace Accords happened, there was little US domestic support in the public, in business leaders, or in Congress. US troops hadn't done any major offensives for years, in order to keep casualties low.
By 1970, within the US Army in Vietnam, there was an level of mutiny, with entire units refusing to go on missions, officers and NCOs getting fragged (murdered) if they sent troops on missions felt to be too dangerous or pointless. The US strategy was one of attrition, and they simply couldn't continue. The Vietnamese were going to kick the foreigners out and re-unite the country, no matter how long it took.
For the whole war, the NVA / Viet Cong - largely held the initiative - around 85% of the time from '65 to '68' and then around 75% afterwards, they could choose when, and if to engage US troops and thus control their casualties to a certain extent. Once engaged, the US could bring massive firepower, but it required grunts as bait to go searching for ambushes, in addition to the constant threat of mines and booby-traps.
> Bears repeating. This was true of a lot of "anti-communist" US actions: propping up a hated local elite who were in no way democratic.
Not wrong, but I'm curious to know how things worked out (so far?) over the long-term: a lot of non-communist dictatorial countries (that the US propped-up?) managed to move over onto more democratic systems eventually, whereas (AFAICT) communist governments have managed to hang on and are still single-party states.
The Commies are still around and one party though they've gotten more capitalist over the decades. I think the only ones left are China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and I think Belarus(?).
Most(all?) of the anti-communist dictators/juntas are gone. Greece in the 70s, South Korea in the 80s. The last that I can think of were El Salvador and Guatamala in the 1990s.
Supporting hated dictators/rulers is still around, e.g. all the Gulf states.
It's doubtful that the US could've continued to keep troops in Vietnam.
By the time (1973) the Paris Peace Accords happened, there was little US domestic support in the public, in business leaders, or in Congress. US troops hadn't done any major offensives for years, in order to keep casualties low.
By 1970, within the US Army in Vietnam, there was an level of mutiny, with entire units refusing to go on missions, officers and NCOs getting fragged (murdered) if they sent troops on missions felt to be too dangerous or pointless. The US strategy was one of attrition, and they simply couldn't continue. The Vietnamese were going to kick the foreigners out and re-unite the country, no matter how long it took.
For the whole war, the NVA / Viet Cong - largely held the initiative - around 85% of the time from '65 to '68' and then around 75% afterwards, they could choose when, and if to engage US troops and thus control their casualties to a certain extent. Once engaged, the US could bring massive firepower, but it required grunts as bait to go searching for ambushes, in addition to the constant threat of mines and booby-traps.