Guy Alcala wrote:

There is absolutely no support in the historical record, none, for Ed's belief that
LB II somehow 'won' the war or even that it brought about significantly better
terms, or that Nixon and Kissinger were even trying to accomplish that.

Nope. The historical record categorically confirms the
fact that LB II won the VN war: it - and it alone -
convinced the N. Vietnamese that the gloves were coming
off, for the very first time. They had a choice: return
to the Paris talks with a fortright attitude toward peace,
or return completely to the stone age at home.
For the very first time, the N. Vietnamese approached the
talks with something other than deceit and delay in mind:
their continued survival.

Academics can revise history as much as they want, as can
bureaucrats and politicians write books glorifying their
own involvement and marginalizing the contributions of
others (best recent example: Richard Clarke's shameless
book-marketing 09/11 committee) - but they cannot change
the actual events that occurred. Far too many direct
participants (and individuals extremely interested in
then-current events) survive to permit them to push their
"inspired by a true story" fiction on an unsuspecting public.

In fact, I was so impressed with the change in direction at
that time, I returned to active duty back then... and became
a "lifer".