>>212452705Vietnam is one of those conflicts that seems incredibly retarded in hindsight, but if you contextualize it and understand the decision making as politicians at the time would have, it makes sense.
Truman had got absolutely shit on and lost an election on the back of being "the man who lost China" and NO politician in either party wanted to be the next Truman and loose a bunch of countries to Communism. On top of that no one wanted a tactical repeat of Korea where a larger Communist country (like China) got involved and directly challenged the US militarily.
Basically, as an American politician in the early 60s you are stuck between the political suicide of allowing the commies to take over everything, while also not being able to start a major war because the American public is sick of war.
That's how you wind up with Vietnam, a slow tit-for-tat buildup that starts with advisors and air bases and winds up with a huge chunk of the military being deployed to defend an essentially worthless strip of coastal jungle against an enemy that can't be bombed into submission or invaded with conventional tactics.
The real red-pill about Vietnam, the reason it split the country and is arguably the catalyst for most of American policies to this day, is because it brought the stark divide between traditional-right wingers and "progressive" left wingers to a total head. I could argue the US has been in a cold Civil War between these two sides for like 60 years now and as shit deteriorates it becomes more and more likely to become an actual war.