Philippine-American War

[MilesGregarius]

Battlefield victory is not measured by assaults repulsed, by territory seized/held, or by bodycounts. It's measured by imposing your will upon your opponent. The US failed categorically in this respect, ergo Vietnam is by definition a battlefield defeat.

Had the US been capable of imposing its will upon the North, the South's shortcomings and the discontent on the homefront would have been irrelevant. Instead, the US's inability to break the North's dogged determination made all of America's tactical successes irrelevant instead.

[Geezer57]

Had the US been capable of imposing its will upon the North, the South's shortcomings and the discontent on the homefront would have been irrelevant. Instead, the US's inability to break the North's dogged determination made all of America's tactical successes irrelevant instead.

Let me quibble over wording: substitute "willing" for "capable", and you're correct. The U.S. had the capability to impose it's will on the North (witness the results of Operation_Linebacker_II, which forced the North back to the negotiating table), but lacked the will to use that capability to its full extent.

You're absolutely right in that it was a strategic defeat for the U.S. (but at a staggering cost to the North), look who's still in control there!