If it meant the destruction
of all of NVN's capability to wage war, so be it. (Not a bad
objective during any war, eh?)

Except that, outside of the mining of Haiphong harbor, and the required strikes
against SAM sites, LB II attacks weren't designed to destroy their capability
to wage war. Our strikes that continued further south against their mechanized
ground units were designed to destroy as many fielded forces as we could, but
these were not part of LB II.

I don't particularly care WHY they pulled out. LB II convinced
them to *change their ways* - which you conveniently would like
to ignore.

I don't believe either one of us is ignoring the fact that the NVN returned to
Paris, what we're saying (or at least I am) was that had Nixon forced Thieu to
agree to the initial agreement, without the bombing, the end result would have
been the same. Neither one of us is arguing LB II was a waste of men and
equipment, but it's over stating its impact on the war in SE Asia to claim; "it
ended the war". If you mean it was the last large scale operation for US forces
in SE Asia, then yes, it ended the war. If you mean without it the war would
have gone on longer, you're wrong.

Please refrain from confusing political goals and wartime
objectives

In this case, they're inseperable. And that should be the lesson learned from
LB II, not that if you bomb a nations capital round the clock for 11 days with
enough aircraft, you'll win any war.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"