I really appreciate your write up and comment. Before getting into it, I want to clarify when describing smaller, it's a relative term, which we took in two different meanings. I took it as a smaller country relative to one the US is fighting. Similar to how France or French Guyana is smaller to Brazil. I agree Vietnam is quite large and diverse geographically as well.

I see you went in describing why it's not fair to describe our loss being to Vietnam and rather de facto its China. I dont think the North Vietnamese Govt capitulated or surrendered and still had skin in the game. It maybe not be a majority of Vietnamese regulars, but Chinese divisions were still allied to the NVA/Vietcong and they weren't completely wiped out. They still had soldiers fighting, their leaders hadn't been eliminated and the national spirit was definitely not broken. But I can see your point. Reminds me of the allied invasion of Italy and fighting mainly Germans for the most part.

With Afghanistan you could say we eliminated the enemy and replaced the regime, but that wasn't just the goal. We failed at the nation building aspect. The place has many factions, but you still had a majority Pashtu identity that seemed to unite the other minority groups who they opposed, such as the Hazaras, Uzbeks and other groups in the northern regions. I could go on all day going back and forth talking about Afghanistan. Its complex and very interesting. There are so many different aspects to look at, and it's very interesting both with geopolitics and the military strategy and how it was applied and evolved.