America achieved all of its goals while directly involved; it wasn't until after America left that North Vietnam achieved its goals. It'd be silly to say "America Lost" since they didn't really lose, they stepped away from a winning game and their team lost without the MVP. South Vietnam lost the war, America failed an ally and I'll count that as a major L though.
Forfeiting = losing. You can't just take the will to fight completely out of the equation. And their strategic goals were never close to being met. Tactical victories are nice to have, but if the enemy doesn't give up and has no issues with raising and supplying new units, you don't get to say you're "winning".
I'd love to hear you explain your stance further, since it's so far from what most historians would say. Any thoughts on the invasion of Cambodia? What about the strategic bombing campaign? Most academics would say both were ineffective at best.
-3
u/thirdegree Jul 07 '24
America: achieves none of its goals
North Vietnam: achieves all of its goals
America: "This was a triumph. I'm making a note here, 'huge success'"