Victory was never an option in Viet Nam any more than it was in Korea. Of course the military wants to win but, in case you've forgotten, in our country civilians run the military. This is as it should (MUST) be. Every now and then, a general or admiral seems to lose track of who runs the show and ends up getting fired, as what properly happened to McArthur.

The State Department didn't want victory in either Korea or Viet Nam because that might upset the balance of power with the Soviets and China. They hoped for a stalemate in both cases. Incredible idiots like Robert McNamara and LBJ were more interested in micromanaging the war in the pursuit of "body counts", sortee rates, and other useless statistics.

The military didn't win because they weren't allowed to win. Read up (or watch the movie) on Hamburger Hill as an example. Our forces would charge up the hill and take heavy causalties. Eventually, we'd win and then immediately leave. The enemy would simply walk back up the hill, reestablish their positions, and wait for the next time. What kind of idiotic way to fight a war is that?

There is another question that's harder to answer - could we have won if we wanted to? The answer might well have been no. Guerrilla warfare is among the hardest to wipe out, and fighting in the jungles is also very tough.