But I thought the US was there to liberate the Vietnamese, so why the the liberated Southern Vietnamese subverting the US?
You see, that's where I have a rpoblem. In a war of liberation, war and diplomacy inevitably get tangled up. How do we liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated? The only way to do so is to liberate the sh!t out of it, which defies the purpose of liberation in the first place, in which case it's time to pull out.
The inherent contradiction of such a misison is precisely why such a war should not be allowed.
If we go to war, it should be all out war. In other words, we're not pretending to be liberating anyone. That's what gets government in a mess. We make it clear from the start that it's an all out war or no war, and that everyone in the enemy nation shall be viewed as an enemy unless he proves otherwise. That beig the cae, heavy firepower becomes allowable to subdue the enemy nations' military and then we pul out. After all, we wouldn't be there to liberate them anymore.
But if we do go to liberate them, then we must be consistent. Liberating them and liberating the sh!t out of them are not the same thing. In that case, diplomacy clearly becomes important and public scrutiny to make sure it remains a war of liberation and not an all-out war becomes important.