The hilarious thing is, the entire time the US was in Vietnam, top leadership in the US admin was pretty much convinced they could never win, but had to put in a good show.
So they were never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning.
I'm doubtful of your assertion that 'top leadership didn't think they could win' and especially in the context of 'put on a show'.
Which elements of 'top leadership' believed this?
For whom would that 'show' be for?
You'll have to state which individuals took that position.
"never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning. "
This directly contradicts your first statement. Did US leadership think they were winning or not?
The data (i.e. 'body count') was initially misleading, but that lesson was learned quickly enough.
By 1965 , at the start major escalation, The Pentagon wanted to do strategic bombing of the entirety of North Vietnam. US political leadership wanted to avoid Hanoi and other targets for political reasons i.e. 'Rolling Thunder'.
Rolling Thunder failed.
Later, with political limitations removed, Op. Linebacker I and II (in 1970's) successfully dismantled N. Vietnam's ability to fight.
Imagine how history would have changed were, in 1965, the Pentagon were able to fight on it's own terms? The big rise in casualties to 1969 probably never would have happened, and the political repercussions would have been at least somewhat less.
Even the populist miasma is affected: when people are dying, it's one thing if 'major progress' is being made (think sicily and european campaigns against Hitler, once they started and were winning, it'd be impossible to bring them back until it was over), but altogether another if there's a stalemate or there isn't evidence of material progress.
But history is 20/20 and that's the whole point.
In 2021 we're still not done politicizing this war, the PBS documentary had some very good elements, but was still only one lens and entirely ignored the geopolitical aspects.
Macnamara v. Pentagon was realized 'All Over Again' with Maj. General Tommy Franks vs. Donald Rumsfeld. This time, the Army mostly go their 'Boots on the Ground and Overwhelming Power' to guarantee a fairly immediate collapse of the enemy. Too bad there was no plan for the occupation.
> Which elements of 'top leadership' believed this?
Macnamara. LBJ. Kennedy.
> For whom would that 'show' be for?
For the American people, for Congress, for the world. To prove that the US stands by its allies and can still win wars. To prevent accusations of being losers by domestic political opponents, both in the same and different parties. Pretty basic stuff, these political dynamics are in play in nearly every war.
> This directly contradicts your first statement. Did US leadership think they were winning or not?
You are misreading the line. I am saying there were not winning either in reality nor in the leaderships minds. The US leadership did NOT think they were winning.
> Imagine how history would have changed were, in 1965, the Pentagon were able to fight on it's own terms?
How do you propose to fix the problem of Chinese troops overwhelming any serious success like they did in Korea? That's nearly the entire reason the US couldn't fully commit to destroying North Vietnam.
How do you even fix the problem of having unreliable and problematic allies in Southern Vietnam that could never really rally the country properly?
So they were never even "winning" in the sense that the US leadership thought they were winning.