Essex Files: Could America Have Won the Vietnam War If the Liberal Media Had Backed the Troops?

On April 30, 2025, Vietnam marked the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon with a grand military parade in Ho Chi Minh City, celebrating the end of the Vietnam War and the birth of its modern nation. The event, filled with patriotic floats, foreign troops from China, Laos, and Cambodia, and speeches about unity and peace, highlighted Vietnam’s journey from a war-torn country to a rising global player. But for many Americans reflecting on this milestone, the celebration stirs a lingering question: Could the United States have won the Vietnam War if the liberal media had fully backed the troops instead of undermining them?

Vietnam celebrates the end of the war on April 30, 1975, with a military parade that included Chinese and Cambodian troops. https://t.co/RH8TmUQKVc pic.twitter.com/GuHPH7j9pm

— DW News (@dwnews) April 30, 2025

The fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, was a bitter moment for the U.S., marking the collapse of South Vietnam to communist North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces. For decades, conservatives have argued that the war was winnable, pointing to military successes like the Tet Offensive’s strategic defeat of the Viet Cong in 1968. They contend that the liberal media’s relentless focus on American casualties, anti-war protests, and alleged atrocities—like the My Lai massacre—eroded public support and emboldened the enemy. Outlets like The New York Times and CBS News, with Walter Cronkite’s infamous 1968 broadcast declaring the war a “stalemate,” are often cited as turning points that sapped America’s resolve.

Massive military parade in #Vietnam celebrating 50 years since the end of the #war – AFP, AP pic.twitter.com/k0BGElA4ud

— mahmoud khalil (@zorba222) April 30, 2025

The media’s narrative painted U.S. troops as aggressors rather than defenders of freedom, ignoring the broader Cold War context of containing communism. The Domino Theory, which warned that a communist Vietnam would destabilize Southeast Asia, was dismissed by liberal pundits as fearmongering, even as Laos and Cambodia fell to communist regimes shortly after. Supporters of the war argue that sustained public backing, fueled by a media that highlighted North Vietnamese aggression and the bravery of American soldiers, could have pressured Congress to maintain funding and troop commitments, potentially forcing Hanoi to negotiate on U.S. terms, especially when it was said that the Vietcong would have surrendered in two weeks before the withdrawal of U.S. Troops.

Vietnam’s own commemoration offers a glimpse of what might have been. General Secretary To Lam’s speech emphasized national unity and reconciliation, but also framed the war as a victory over “U.S. imperialism.” This rhetoric underscores Hanoi’s propaganda machine, which conservatives argue was aided by American media’s anti-war stance. The presence of Chinese, Laotian, and Cambodian troops in the parade, alongside references to Soviet and Chinese support during the war, reminds us that North Vietnam was no isolated underdog but a well-backed communist force. Could a unified American front, unhindered by domestic dissent amplified by the press, have countered this alliance more effectively?

Critics of the media’s role often point to data: By 1971, 60 percent of Americans opposed the war, according to Gallup polls, a shift driven partly by graphic TV coverage and skeptical reporting. Meanwhile, military leaders like General William Westmoreland insisted that U.S. forces were winning on the ground, with North Vietnamese losses far outstripping American ones. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords, which briefly paused hostilities, might have held if Congress hadn’t slashed aid to South Vietnam, a move emboldened by public disillusionment. For many veterans, the media’s failure to celebrate their sacrifices—like the 58,000 Americans who died—remains a betrayal.

RELATED: Putin’s Visit to North Korea and Vietnam May Have Done Him More Harm Than Good

Maybe Our Mistakes After the Vietnam War Show a Way to Mitigate the Stupidity and Cruelty of Our Afghanistan Fiasco

Yet, the counterargument persists: The war’s unpopularity wasn’t just media-driven but rooted in its human cost and unclear objectives. Over two million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans died, with Agent Orange and unexploded ordnance still scarring Vietnam today. Some historians argue that media scrutiny exposed strategic flaws, like the Pentagon’s inflated body counts or the bombing of civilian areas, forcing accountability. But for those who believe in the war’s necessity, these critiques were overblown, drowning out stories of heroism and South Vietnamese resilience.

Today, U.S.-Vietnam relations are complex. Vietnam’s 2023 upgrade to a “comprehensive strategic partnership” with the U.S. reflects shared economic interests and concerns about China’s South China Sea ambitions. Yet, President Trump’s recent tariffs and cuts to USAID, which funds war remediation like Agent Orange cleanup, signal tensions. For American conservatives, these moves align with a tougher stance on nations that glorify their victory over the U.S., as Vietnam’s parade does. They see a missed opportunity in the war’s outcome—a chance to secure a non-communist Southeast Asia, squandered by a media that failed to rally behind the troops.

As Vietnam looks to a future of “peace, unity, and prosperity,” Americans might reflect on what could have been. A media that championed the war effort, highlighting the stakes of communist expansion and the valor of U.S. soldiers, might have sustained public will, bolstered South Vietnam, and altered history. Instead, the fall of Saigon remains a painful reminder of a war lost not just on the battlefield but in the court of public opinion.

This post was originally published on this site