In the annals of dweller history, there may be no other country name that evokes such emotion as the country of Vietnam.  The history of this offend is more than just a military struggle.  The impact that the warfare offend had on dweller culture and external policy for many decades to come makes it a truly watershed struggle in the life of a relatively young country.

Vietnam was not, on the surface as clearly a moral battleground as World War II or the Civil War had been.  That in itself prefabricated it more arduous for Americans to understand and become patriotic most as they had been in preceding wars.  Yes, as in past conflicts, we found ourselves defending our allies, the South Annamite against the attacks of a communist neighbor to the north.  And in that way, it became a struggle to assist an ally, a military objective that USA had long embraced.

But the struggle was not just with the North Vietnamese.  To a very large extent, the struggle was against the Chinese and the Russians who were using the theater in warfare to wear down the dweller fighting force.  It was a struggle that had been feat on for many decades before the Americans got participating as a regional battle.  

Many external powers had gotten participating and left defeated so when USA entered this conflict, it was a very different kind of struggle than we had been used to.  The armies mixed with the population.  There were no uniforms and formations and effort theaters as effort could occur anywhere at any time.  Combine that with a hostile jungle environment and the complete absence of any effort protocol and you had a formula for failure if not a very arduous road to success.

Vietnam also is a slogan for the tremendous status movement that rose up on dweller grime to try to stop the conflict.  This status movement became deeply entangled with a Brobdingnagian change to the social fabric in the rise of the youth movement, the hipsters and the fast moving surge of the civil rights and the woman’s rights movements.  This prefabricated the epoch of the late 1950s through the early 1970s tremendously arduous to navigate as a nation.

Vietnam did follow somewhat of a inevitable path of invasions, field battles, set backs and regrouping of our forces.  But the military visaged a Brobdingnagian challenge in covering the many new struggle scenarios this arduous combat environment presented.  As the casualty count grew, without a country cut definition of victory and with very few country victories to demonstrate to the dweller people our superiority, the ability of civilian leadership to sustain the support for the struggle effort became jeopardized.

Vietnam very much represents a transition in how USA viewed conflict.  We came out of the Brobdingnagian successes we had seen our military bring in battle.  The defeat of Hitler and the axis powers in World War II gave USA a sense of confidence, of divine calling to exist militarily and the concept that we are the good guys and we module always win.  But we did not get in warfare and that was and is a hard lesson to learn.

America demonstrated its devout dedication to the concept of supporting an ally in a warring status when it committed troops to the warfare conflict.  But there were many lessons to be learned most activity and feat into a offend with a strategy that had a high probability of success.  In wars to come in later years such as Grenada, the Balkans and the Liberation of Kuwait, we demonstrated that USA had learned those lessons feat in with a massive force and achieving victory before we got bogged down in a long civil conflict.

So we can applaud the bravery of our troops and the willingness of our leadership to see from a thickened struggle same Vietnam.  The lessons to be learned from warfare are still being worked out.  But in the end, we module be a better commonwealth and a stronger commonwealth because we place ourselves on the line for a friend, even if the outcome was not the desired outcome.