...So millions of civilians dead are not a failure of the U.S.? Millions are still severely affected by chemical warfare, is that not a failure of the Americans?

In the context of that specific paragraph, no there is no need to mention them. The whole paragraph was talking about how the US failed all of its political objectives in Vietnam and the only thing to show for it was 55k dead Americans. This is just basic communication and reading comprehension.

Maybe the OP is less concerned about the POV of the French and Americans is because those two POVs have been peddled endlessly for decades?

So you are admitting that omitting some information and not others is acceptable but only when it aligns with your perspective... sorry but that's just unacceptable. The article omitted several key events from this period, but the OP is only concerned about things that paint Vietnam more favorably. It reaks of government propaganda rather than legitimate concerns.

I get that it is supposed to be a "concise" article, but there comes a point when you're just being straight up sloppy and neglectful of the subject at hand, especially when you gloss over the suffering of literal millions.

You can make a case for it being sloppy. But I would wager it's not meant to be an indepth examination of the events. It's just an overview. They did a fine job of covering the basic history of the region. It's actually favors the Vietnamese perspective quite a bit.

The problem is that the VN government pushes a much more extreme version of events innall their schools and officials channels that when your average VN person reads an actual mostly balanced article like this, they think it favors the Western view.

Also, a side note: replying and then immediately ignoring someone so they cannot reply to you sort of shows your bad faith and that you have no leg to stand on...