...by "winning" I mean sustaining independent South Vietnam. Bonus points for changing Vietnam into more or less "democratic" (as for Asian standarts) country.
Could US win in Vietnam?
- Thread starter Otis Tarda
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
Yes. My impression from reading Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace is that the US, particularly under Westmoreland and his successors, fought a conventional setpiece type of war, which wasn't entirely suited to the situation. They completely turned their backs on nearly 50 plus odd years of experience in fairly similar situations in Haiti, Nicaragua and the Caribbean. The Marines produced a wonderful manual titled Small War Manual, which was a complete distillation of operation proceedures for such 'small wars'. Without doubt this would be a time that it would have been better to have let the Marines not only go in first, but entirely command.
I'm tempted to say; of course the US could win in Vietnam - they nearly did! 
Well, actually, I think the war could have been won, but most likely not by the US as such. Before LBJ lost his temper, and Pentagon their collective minds, somewhere around Tonkin, there were a highly successfull Special Forces program, you know Hearts and Mind-stuff, in South Vietnam, and propbably a few other places out there. Following Tonkin, and the commitment of lots and lots of ground troops and especialley all the heavy firepower, be it artillery or bombers, the Vietnamese began losing faith in their own army, government and what have we, because the US and the government destroyed everything in, and sometimes out of, sight instead of actually helping the Vietnamese. The smash 'em flat tactics did create immens dislike towards the US and Saigon out in the countryside.
A far better way to handle the situation in Vietnam would be for the US to supply the Saigon government with equipment, incl.weapons and ammunition en masse, and the rare advisor, and keep the Special Forces fully committed in a british style win-em-over-campaign (ala Malaya, Kenya and what have we). It would be a very different Vietnam war, not a war at all, actually, but then the South Vietnamese might have won the damn thing themselves.
If thats' not enough for LBJ* and his generals, then the USAF could have bombed North Vietnam flat from day one and kept hitting them, while the guys in Green Berets worked wonders in South Vietnam.
Best regards!
- Bluenote.
*) BTW, I actually like LBJ and found him to be an excellent president, but regarding 'Nam he dropped the ball...
Well, actually, I think the war could have been won, but most likely not by the US as such. Before LBJ lost his temper, and Pentagon their collective minds, somewhere around Tonkin, there were a highly successfull Special Forces program, you know Hearts and Mind-stuff, in South Vietnam, and propbably a few other places out there. Following Tonkin, and the commitment of lots and lots of ground troops and especialley all the heavy firepower, be it artillery or bombers, the Vietnamese began losing faith in their own army, government and what have we, because the US and the government destroyed everything in, and sometimes out of, sight instead of actually helping the Vietnamese. The smash 'em flat tactics did create immens dislike towards the US and Saigon out in the countryside.
A far better way to handle the situation in Vietnam would be for the US to supply the Saigon government with equipment, incl.weapons and ammunition en masse, and the rare advisor, and keep the Special Forces fully committed in a british style win-em-over-campaign (ala Malaya, Kenya and what have we). It would be a very different Vietnam war, not a war at all, actually, but then the South Vietnamese might have won the damn thing themselves.
If thats' not enough for LBJ* and his generals, then the USAF could have bombed North Vietnam flat from day one and kept hitting them, while the guys in Green Berets worked wonders in South Vietnam.
Best regards!
- Bluenote.
*) BTW, I actually like LBJ and found him to be an excellent president, but regarding 'Nam he dropped the ball...
David S Poepoe
Banned
"A far better way to handle the situation in Vietnam would be for the US to supply the Saigon government with equipment, incl.weapons and ammunition en masse, and the rare advisor, and keep the Special Forces fully committed in a british style win-em-over-campaign (ala Malaya, Kenya and what have we). It would be a very different Vietnam war, not a war at all, actually, but then the South Vietnamese might have won the damn thing themselves."
This is very much what should have been done. The key point would be winning over the South Vietnamese thereby depriving the Vietcong of local support. This would be the simple stuff of building/repairing bridges, sanitation works, hospitals, etc. A local police force of US and Vietnamese would be established. The whole deal with the mass army set on fighting a conventional war against an enemy that wouldn't would be avoided.
This is very much what should have been done. The key point would be winning over the South Vietnamese thereby depriving the Vietcong of local support. This would be the simple stuff of building/repairing bridges, sanitation works, hospitals, etc. A local police force of US and Vietnamese would be established. The whole deal with the mass army set on fighting a conventional war against an enemy that wouldn't would be avoided.
actually what the US went in to do was put down local communists. the main reason why we lost the v.w. was b/c it was a revolution, not a hostile takeover. so no we could not. had we 'won' and had democratic elections, instead of 'democratic elections' taken place the commies would haev been in power.
hmm...what if the us accepted a commy congressional victory and still treated teh south as allies and vice versa? possible?
hmm...what if the us accepted a commy congressional victory and still treated teh south as allies and vice versa? possible?
By the early 1970's the US could not of won the War in Nam .
1 . the people of the US were not behind the War
2 . The Army had lost it soul there . You can't fight a war if the pop. calls its fighting men Baby killers . Service men did not wear the uniforms off base at this time .
3 . By the 1970's the service men did not give a damn about fighting all he wanted to do was go home .
1 . the people of the US were not behind the War
2 . The Army had lost it soul there . You can't fight a war if the pop. calls its fighting men Baby killers . Service men did not wear the uniforms off base at this time .
3 . By the 1970's the service men did not give a damn about fighting all he wanted to do was go home .
Had the bombing campaign been persued more effectively and, dare I say, ruthlessly, the US would have had a much easier time of winning that war. This would have to include the removal of any and all targeting restrictions in the late '60s. This means the systematic targeting and destruction of dikes around the country. This means a larger emphasis on strategic rather than tactical bombing. This means the pulverization of the North Vietnamese cities of Hanoi and Haiphong.
While it is not nearly the most humane way to conduct a war, war by its very nature is not a humane action. Besides, none of this is any worse than the bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan during WWII. The only way for the US to win in Vietnam was to demoralize the North Vietnamese population to the point where they simply refused to fight any longer. The destruction of the dikes would cause chronic food shortages, and the destruction of the nation's two largest cities (and hopefully their infrastructure and leadership, as well), both of which would go a long way to ending the war with a US victory.
While it is not nearly the most humane way to conduct a war, war by its very nature is not a humane action. Besides, none of this is any worse than the bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan during WWII. The only way for the US to win in Vietnam was to demoralize the North Vietnamese population to the point where they simply refused to fight any longer. The destruction of the dikes would cause chronic food shortages, and the destruction of the nation's two largest cities (and hopefully their infrastructure and leadership, as well), both of which would go a long way to ending the war with a US victory.
You notice how every time a nation tries to "break the enemy will to resist" it never, ever works? Did the british quit fighting when the luftwaffe was tasked with "breaking their will to resist", have the palestineans just gone "oh, well, shoot- pointless fighting back now!" after the latest rounds of israeli counter-attacks?
No. No, they get angrier and they go out and pick up a gun or strap on a bomb and fight. Counter-insurgency campaigns are never, ever won just by pounding the enemy. The earlier ideas about reducing VC support by providing an alternative would have won the Vietnam war for the US, but I really don't see how killing civilians in huge lots will help us defend freedom or even attempt to claim moral superiority.
I guess it's a common misconception with fighting geurillas- "we-just-need-to-hit-them-harder" as a path to victory. The very nature of a war like vietnam means that force alone- although needed to kill off the current crop of insurgents- will not solve the problem, which is that people are motivated to join the insurgency in the first place.
Using SF and actually humanizing ourselves to the vietnamese people at large would be a winner in that it would present free-market democracy as a better, kinder alternative to communism.
No. No, they get angrier and they go out and pick up a gun or strap on a bomb and fight. Counter-insurgency campaigns are never, ever won just by pounding the enemy. The earlier ideas about reducing VC support by providing an alternative would have won the Vietnam war for the US, but I really don't see how killing civilians in huge lots will help us defend freedom or even attempt to claim moral superiority.
I guess it's a common misconception with fighting geurillas- "we-just-need-to-hit-them-harder" as a path to victory. The very nature of a war like vietnam means that force alone- although needed to kill off the current crop of insurgents- will not solve the problem, which is that people are motivated to join the insurgency in the first place.
Using SF and actually humanizing ourselves to the vietnamese people at large would be a winner in that it would present free-market democracy as a better, kinder alternative to communism.
Of course they could have won. They won Korea, didn't they? The Berlin airlift? the Cuban missile crisis?
I think the problem with Viet Nam was that the US regarded it too much as a military conflict. Had this been a straight-up war between North and South Viet Nam, the US strategy would have been exactly right. Unfortunately, it was much more complicated than that. After all, war was never even formally declared, with both sides happily breaking the rules they thought they could get away with (bombing outside SV territory, specops across the border, infiltrating arms and trained troops) while avoiding escalation. Incidentally, I don't think 'brinkmanship' would have worked, here. What the US should have done was
- strengthening the South Vietnamese govt (and try to push them into being a bit more, well, nicer I think is the word. as in not kidnapping 16-year-old kids as recruits, pillaging and raping in their own villages, torturing and detaining suspects indefinitely, and running assassination programmes to take out 'Cong')
- talk to the North Vietnamese (not directly, of course. Through channels. There are people at State who know how - at least I hope they still had them). Most Communist governments were very realistic about politics, and the North Vietnamese had become Communist by default rather than active choice, so they'll be even less inclined to be dogmatic. Especially if their big brother lets them know they'd look kindly upon a peace settlement.
Negotiate from a position of strength. Show the flag in the South. And try not to antagonise the people too much (it is really not a good idea to forcibly relocate, torture, bomb, or humiliate people if you want them to vote for your candidate afterwards). Of course, all of this would have been much easier if Truman and Eisenhower had not chosen to file the Viet Minh under 'EVIL' and half-heartedly support French rule, and then, with greater enthusiasm, a local dictatorship. But then, *that* goes for about every second third-world conflict of the post-1945 world.
I think the problem with Viet Nam was that the US regarded it too much as a military conflict. Had this been a straight-up war between North and South Viet Nam, the US strategy would have been exactly right. Unfortunately, it was much more complicated than that. After all, war was never even formally declared, with both sides happily breaking the rules they thought they could get away with (bombing outside SV territory, specops across the border, infiltrating arms and trained troops) while avoiding escalation. Incidentally, I don't think 'brinkmanship' would have worked, here. What the US should have done was
- strengthening the South Vietnamese govt (and try to push them into being a bit more, well, nicer I think is the word. as in not kidnapping 16-year-old kids as recruits, pillaging and raping in their own villages, torturing and detaining suspects indefinitely, and running assassination programmes to take out 'Cong')
- talk to the North Vietnamese (not directly, of course. Through channels. There are people at State who know how - at least I hope they still had them). Most Communist governments were very realistic about politics, and the North Vietnamese had become Communist by default rather than active choice, so they'll be even less inclined to be dogmatic. Especially if their big brother lets them know they'd look kindly upon a peace settlement.
Negotiate from a position of strength. Show the flag in the South. And try not to antagonise the people too much (it is really not a good idea to forcibly relocate, torture, bomb, or humiliate people if you want them to vote for your candidate afterwards). Of course, all of this would have been much easier if Truman and Eisenhower had not chosen to file the Viet Minh under 'EVIL' and half-heartedly support French rule, and then, with greater enthusiasm, a local dictatorship. But then, *that* goes for about every second third-world conflict of the post-1945 world.
Otis Tarda said:
It depends entirely upon the level of ruthlessness the Americans are willing to employ which in turn depends upon them knowing exactly what it is they want to accomplish there. If North Vietnam is hellbent upon uniting the country under Hanoi at all costs then the Yankees may not be able to keep the South independent with the North still in existence. How much is the U.S. willing to pay in blood and treasure for Southern independence? And would they think it is worth it?
David S Poepoe
Banned
DocOrlando said:
You are right. It is working right in Iraq. The problem there, and I have to agree with a POV mentioned on the BBC, that the minute the Americans come in they are looking for some way out. The US doesn't have what it takes to hunker down and sit things through to see that it does work.
I would take issue with that. I think a vocal number of Americans have become so used to fast and easy engagements like Desert Storm, Grenada, etc., that any engagement that lasts more than a few weeks is unconscionable. That's a shameful way to look at things, and bespeaks of common ignorance. In remarks today regarding the 60th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, Pres. Bush stated that the United States would help its friends again, if necessary. But I wonder, would this soft American public be able to stomach months and months of a slogging ground campaign ANYWHERE?
I'm not trying to turn this thread into a bully pulpit, but I will make the comment: Bush warned the country -- the world! -- that this would not be a fast fight, whether in regard to the "war on terrorism" or the occupation of Iraq. Wars can last years. Occupations can last years. Given a proper understanding, America -- Americans -- can tolerate this. But fed by a media that thrives on failure, rather than success, a chest full of pride quickly becomes a sour stomach.
Vietnam was a war that was lost not in the trenches and paddies, but in the aisles of Congress and the halls of the Pentagon. The United States of 1945 would not have lost Vietnam, as they would have been given every instrument necessary to win. Restrictions on combat left us with one hand tied behind our backs, opening us to the kind of ass-whipping we didn't deserve...which was then broadcast back to our living rooms.
Iraq, in spite of all the good we are doing to rebuild their infrastructure, introduce a representative, non-abusive government, and bring them back into the family of nations, is becoming another Vietnam because Coalition troops have become subject to politicalization (it's an election year!) and a media circus.
Anyway...
Could we have won in Vietnam? You bet. Should we have been there? That's up for debate. Ironic that the reason we ended up there was in an attempt to bail out those stalwart allies...the FRENCH...again.
I'm not trying to turn this thread into a bully pulpit, but I will make the comment: Bush warned the country -- the world! -- that this would not be a fast fight, whether in regard to the "war on terrorism" or the occupation of Iraq. Wars can last years. Occupations can last years. Given a proper understanding, America -- Americans -- can tolerate this. But fed by a media that thrives on failure, rather than success, a chest full of pride quickly becomes a sour stomach.
Vietnam was a war that was lost not in the trenches and paddies, but in the aisles of Congress and the halls of the Pentagon. The United States of 1945 would not have lost Vietnam, as they would have been given every instrument necessary to win. Restrictions on combat left us with one hand tied behind our backs, opening us to the kind of ass-whipping we didn't deserve...which was then broadcast back to our living rooms.
Iraq, in spite of all the good we are doing to rebuild their infrastructure, introduce a representative, non-abusive government, and bring them back into the family of nations, is becoming another Vietnam because Coalition troops have become subject to politicalization (it's an election year!) and a media circus.
Anyway...
Could we have won in Vietnam? You bet. Should we have been there? That's up for debate. Ironic that the reason we ended up there was in an attempt to bail out those stalwart allies...the FRENCH...again.
This issue has been discussed before in such other posts as my old 1 on C. David Walton's book THE MYTH OF INEVIATBLE US DEFEAT IF VIETNAM on the old board- which included discussion on the US govt continuing to provide substantial materiel and air support to the RVN into the early 1970s so's Saigon didn't fall in 1975- and the previous post I did a few mths back on WI there'd been a more expanded US Marine CAPS-style combined civic action-militaary program thruout VN, instead of the predominant focus on 'Search and Destroy'.
Easy victory in Vietnam
Why did the enemy fight? Ask them.
1. Buy out all the landlords and give the land to the peasants. They aren't about to go communist and 'elect' somebody to steal their crops.
2. Hold free elections and let them vote in honest local governments that won't shake them down for permits and fees.
3. Pay for schools for their kids so they can learn enough to get jobs in factories making the stuff we were buying from Japan.
Or we could have fought twice as long with twice as many troops and spent four times as much money and suffered four times as many casualties backing up the corrupt thugs of the South Vietnamese government. The Vietcong would have run out of soldiers eventually.
Why did the enemy fight? Ask them.
1. Buy out all the landlords and give the land to the peasants. They aren't about to go communist and 'elect' somebody to steal their crops.
2. Hold free elections and let them vote in honest local governments that won't shake them down for permits and fees.
3. Pay for schools for their kids so they can learn enough to get jobs in factories making the stuff we were buying from Japan.
Or we could have fought twice as long with twice as many troops and spent four times as much money and suffered four times as many casualties backing up the corrupt thugs of the South Vietnamese government. The Vietcong would have run out of soldiers eventually.
Well, mostly out of conviction, forced recruitment and because of the heavy handed American tactics. The use of overwhelming firepower did do more harm than it did good seen in the long run. As mentioned in the ancient Old-Board-thread and above somewhere, the US had a very good Support-the-Locals-SF-program running in Vietnam before Tonkin, and even for some time after.wkwillis said:
Before anyone begin to see similarities between present day Iraq and long gone South Viernam, please bear in mind that the South Vietnamese Army was a major player, on whom the Americans could rely upon if needed. It's not like in Iraq today where the country is occupied and the US has to do everything themselves (more or less).
As they did after Tet! The VC was a spent force after the horrendous casualties that they took during the offensive.wkwillis said:
Besides, the Americans fought hard enough as it were, but they did nearly all they could in the wrong way - they being commanding generals and politicians. The only thing I can see as being to soft, meaning that it could have been more powerfull, was the bombing campaign of the North. It should have started from day one and continued til the very last day of the war.
Best regards!
- Mr.Bluenote.
Mike Collins
Banned
cow defender said:
B.S. It very much was a hostile takeover! The Vietnamese in the south did not want to come under the control of the Hanoi regime. They may not have liked the folks in Saigon, but there was never any true support for the goons in Hanoi.
The notion that the Communists would have come to power had there been true elections is silly. Again, the support was not there.