Could US win in Vietnam?

[Mike Collins]

I read an article on the internet about this topic a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I cant find it. However, the author proposed a three step process to victory.

1. Consolidation- A massive influx of American troops to stabilize the situation combined with a comprehensive civilian and military advisory program to get the Government of Vietnam (GVN) back on its feet. After the GVN military improves, two things occur. First, temporarily occupy the Southern tip of Laos to cut off much of the logistical flow into the lower half of the country. Second, US forces gradually begin to depart.

2. Negotiation- Two main events here. Convince the Cambodians to deny the communists access to port facilities (thus cutting off the remaining source of supply) and negotiate with the Hanoi regime to remove its forces in the south.

3. Follow Through- The author assumed the Hanoi regime would either not negotiate or would default on any agreement. If/when this event happens, the US forces come back in force again. Except this time they go into North Vietnam proper in areas that would not excite the Chinese (just north of the 17th parallel to Vinh and/or the Haiphong area). This would not be a temporary occupation. The land would be turned over to GVN and incorporated into their system. Of course, there would be a huge expose on the abuses and atrocities inflicted on the locals by the communists to gain world support.

 

[Peter]

3. Follow Through- The author assumed the Hanoi regime would either not negotiate or would default on any agreement. If/when this event happens, the US forces come back in force again. Except this time they go into North Vietnam proper in areas that would not excite the Chinese (just north of the 17th parallel to Vinh and/or the Haiphong area). This would not be a temporary occupation. The land would be turned over to GVN and incorporated into their system. Of course, there would be a huge expose on the abuses and atrocities inflicted on the locals by the communists to gain world support.

And when the abuse do not materalize, what then?

 

[Mike Collins]

And when the abuse do not materalize, what then?

When it doesnt materialize? We already know it existed. Its there, you just have to put a human face to it.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Peter:

"And when the abuse do not materalize, what then?"

Seeing as it was constant and widespread, that isn't really an issue, is it?

cow defender:

There haven't been any majority-led revolutions in favor of communism since Sparta fell to pieces (and probably not then, either). Proletarian revolutions don't do farmers any good. Farmers constituted majorities just about everywhere communists took power by "revolution" (as opposed to invasion). At least at first. In the long run they tended to be starved and massacred until they were in the minority.

 

[jgack]

I agree that a major problem was that both the American people and the Vietnamese people lost faith in their governments. Maybe if we forced the South Vietnamese government to allow free elections or we would not acontinue to support them then the South Vietnamese would have supported a government they elected and the American people would have supported a war to protect democracy as long as it was neccessary (by which I mean that the American people would have supported it at least as long as I figure it would take to clean out the communist forces now that the people of Vietnam no longer would support them.)

 

[Ward]

I agree that a major problem was that both the American people and the Vietnamese people lost faith in their governments. Maybe if we forced the South Vietnamese government to allow free elections or we would not acontinue to support them then the South Vietnamese would have supported a government they elected and the American people would have supported a war to protect democracy as long as it was neccessary (by which I mean that the American people would have supported it at least as long as I figure it would take to clean out the communist forces now that the people of Vietnam no longer would support them.)

The common Trooper in the US Army by the end of 1970 did not want to be there . Why do you think the Viet Nam Vets aginst the war started .
Rember the war was being fought by an Army of Draft men and the Draft was not fair . I have a friend who got his draft notice and high school dipolma the same day . This war draft was not like WW II or Korea . It was the poor and working class who got Drafted not the rich , How do you think dear old Bill and George got out of going . And moms and Dads were tired of seeing there sons come home in a box .
Also the War was on TV every night that started to hurt . AS one guy at the VFW hall said his dad a WWII Vet sent his younger brother to Canada when he saw his middi;e son killed on the evening news .
Get some of the anti war songs from that time and listen to them . Like woodstock and Crosby Stills and Nash .
Also we had fighting in the streets here at home and on the college campus across the nation .
The will was not there to fight the War guys take it from some one who was there . I served three terms in Nam .

 

[Valamyr]

When it doesnt materialize? We already know it existed. Its there, you just have to put a human face to it.

What do you mean if they find no WMDs? Of course they have WMDs! We just can't proove it right now because they move their stuff around and we have to protect our undercover guys and stuff. But help us invade and we'll give you proofs after...

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

The common Trooper in the US Army by the end of 1970 did not want to be there.

Well, we both know that the war started a lot earlier than this, and btw was quite popular at the beginning of the conflict. Whatever PoD we pick for out Victory-in-Vietnam-scenario will have to be introduced in the mid- to late 60's. And it's absolutely certain that a more successful war will butterfly away most of the Fonda-peace-movement or whatever they were called in the US at the time. And again most of ther posts actually stresses that less troops should be sent, hence way fewer conscriptions etc etc.

Oh, and regarding songs, I believe that the Ballade of the Green Beret or some such thing was a best seller too...

Best regards!

- Mr.B.

 

[Mike Collins]

I agree that a major problem was that both the American people and the Vietnamese people lost faith in their governments. Maybe if we forced the South Vietnamese government to allow free elections or we would not acontinue to support them then the South Vietnamese would have supported a government they elected and the American people would have supported a war to protect democracy as long as it was neccessary (by which I mean that the American people would have supported it at least as long as I figure it would take to clean out the communist forces now that the people of Vietnam no longer would support them.)

By the 1970s, the Republic of Vietnam did run relatively clean elections. They didnt let the Communists participate but so what? They probably didnt deserve to participate with their penchant for assasinating people that voted or ran for office. This may not be most libertarian route but nations we considered enlightened have banned certain political parties from participating in their systems.

 

[Mike Collins]

What do you mean if they find no WMDs? Of course they have WMDs! We just can't proove it right now because they move their stuff around and we have to protect our undercover guys and stuff. But help us invade and we'll give you proofs after...

Not sure what your point is. We're talking about Vietnam, not Iraq. If youre trying to make an analogy it doesnt work. Consider these factoids:

1. Its not known exactly how many people were killed in Ho's Agrarian Reform in the mid 50s but it probably hits the high 5 digit to low six digit figures. What did these people do wrong? They usually committed such capital offenses as being middle class or owning property.

2. North Vietnam was a police state of the sort that would make Big Brother look like a Jeffersonian Democrat.

3. The Hanoi regime ran Gulags all during the war. Very nasty things happened in these places. I wont go into the details.


This isnt conjecture and its just the tip of the iceberg. It is cold hard fact.

 

[Tyr]

They could have adapted a hearts and minds approach like the British did in Malaya (I think it was Malaya...Or was it Malaysia, they sound too similar).
Where they make friends with the locals and help them out with token medical treatment so the villages rat out commies to them and all.

 

[Melvin Loh]

Leej, Malaya and Malaysia are virtually the same country, the former applying only to the contiguous Malayan peninsula where the bulk of the country's population and resources are, and the latter to the Federation of Malaysia which also includes Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo, and formerly Singapore until the early 60s IIRC.

BTW, there were at the time many advocates for the US utilising the same Hearts and Minds techniques as applied by the Brits in Malaya, and some aspects were, such as the Resettlement scheme for poor Vietnamese villagers, which turned into a total foulup due to poor administration and organisation, and relocating the ppl into areas which were unsustainable for their needs. As stated before, the USMC attempted to facilitate a limited Hearts and Minds policy thru CAPS, as did the Green Berets and CIA in the central highlands, which underpinned my earlier post on WI such a systematic Hearts and Minds program had been adopted by MACV more extensively ?

Then again, you also need to consider the ethnic factor which differed in the 2 cases- in Malay the Communist insurgents were mainly ethnic Chinese, while the overwhelming majority of Malays and Indians were opposed to such a godless ideology, thereby facilitating the effective utilisation of an isolation policy targeting a specific population group. By contrast in VN, everybody in the villages was of the same ethnic extraction, with the exception of in the highlands which became very pro-American anyways- with the Montagnard tribes- so the implementation of resettlement was much more difficult.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"And when the abuse do not materalize, what then?"

Peter,

Ho's 1956 "land reform" campaign sparked an uprising that was crushed bloodily. I'm unsure of the casualties; Mike seems to have a better idea of them.

 

[jgack]

Alright, first of all I'm talking in the earlier years of the war NOT 1970, okay? Second, the draft wasn't for only the poor, there was no $300 escape like during the Civil War. Bill Clinton, that coward, ran away. George W. served in the military, in a unit that could have easily been sent to Vietnam. No matter what those yellow-bellied cowards in the media who spent the war doing drugs and refusing to do their duty say. He did a hell of a lot more than they did! The simple fact is that the only true mistake the U.S. made in Vietnam was letting the American Public find out what we were doing there. The Public has proven time and time again that they are incapable of accepting the realities of war. They did it in Nam and they are doing it again in Iraq. The American people think we can win without bloodshed, well, let's ask the the 600,000 casualties we lost in the Civil War. We won that against a hostile population by showing them what would happen if they didn't surrender. How can we beat the Vietnamese? show them their choices: peacful democracy or all their problems solved with cleansing fire. We had military firepower, we should have used it. Show the Vietnamese that they can join us, or die. The only thing stopping us was the timidity of the public and the lying, yellow press. The American public needs to either accept the reality of total warfare, or get the hell out of military affairs. Personally, I'd prefer the later.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Oh, come on Mike. Vietnam rose up in rebellion against the French under Ho Chi Minh, who was viewed as a national hero, akin to (or possibly greater than) George Washington. They won the war, and suddenly the US came in and divided the country and set up their own government in the South.

The fact that Ho Chi Minh was fighting the Americans ensured that the majority of the common people in the South wanted the North to win. Unlike in Korea, the Vietnamese had gained a united nationalist idealogy before they were divided (Korea was a colony of Japan before being split into a communist North and a capitalist South; and if people keep saying "Communist North and Democratic South" I'm going to scream! The opposite of communism is CAPITALISM, not DEMOCRACY! Rhee Sing-Man was as much of a dictator as Kim Il-Sung). When their national hero, their national icon, led the North, most of the people followed him.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Bill Clinton, that coward, ran away. George W. served in the military, in a unit that could have easily been sent to Vietnam.

Odd, though, that he wasn't, huh? I mean, what are the odds that the son of the director of the CIA would get an absolutely sweet position in the Texas Air Guard? But that's ridiculous; I'm sure plenty of CEO families and bluebloods lost their boys in Vietnam.

The simple fact is that the only true mistake the U.S. made in Vietnam was letting the American Public find out what we were doing there. The Public has proven time and time again that they are incapable of accepting the realities of war. They did it in Nam and they are doing it again in Iraq. The American people think we can win without bloodshed, well, let's ask the the 600,000 casualties we lost in the Civil War.

Notice, though, that names of the slain were posted in newspapers across America during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. I don't remember Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt putting pressure on a newspaper to not say the names of the dead, like the current Administration tried to prevent Nightline from airing the names of the dead in Iraq.

And what? To hell with our rights, in defense of our rights? I'm sorry, I'd rather we didn't attack other countries and kept the right to know what our government is doing, than to attack other countries and be told to shut up and stop asking questions. That's the reason why I live in America. The American public at large, actually, has not shown "that they are incapable of accepting the realities of war," considering that the United States has been in some of the deadliest wars in the history of the world. It has shown, rather, an uncanny ability to sniff out which wars are just by their moral system, and which ones are the work of the elite for less than noble purposes.

Have you ever read the Pentagon Papers? Not heard of them on Limbaugh, but actually read them? For all the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations' talk about halting communism, the Pentagon Papers make little mention of communism in their strategic outlook, but rather talk about rubber and lumber and other resources of a united (and US friendly) Vietnam. Hmm, I wonder why? Could it be that the war was for less-than-noble purposes?

And we won the Civil War by "by showing [the Confederacy] what would happen if they didn't surrender"? I'm sorry, are we talking about the same war? I don't recall any massacres of cities that wouldn't surrender to Union troops; Atlanta was burned, yes, but it was not a situation that caused bloody civilian massacres (for example, the Union army didn't do anything like surround the city, preventing refugees from leaving, then burned them all alive). And wasn't Lincoln's peace one of friendship, not punishment? The Union showed the Confederacy that it couldn't win the war under any circumstances, and would only keep losing boys if it continued to fight. It removed the capability for war, but it didn't butcher Southrons to "show them what would happen if they didn't surrender." Unless, by that, you mean "soldiers would die," in which case all wars are won in the same way.

And as for the last few sentences of your "argument," that is just terrifying, and, I dare say, the reason you aren't in a position to make such decisions. Absolute blindness to realpolitik and the way the world works doesn't make a good leader. Guess what? If the US had used nuclear weapons in North Vietnam, you can bet that the Soviets would immediately do the same in hot spots they got into; soon after Vietnam ended they got deeply entangled in Afghanistan; without this many-year-long war and its drain on the Soviet economy, military, and morale, the USSR would very, very likely have not collapsed. And most of Afghanistan would have gone up in nuclear fire. Not to mention that the US would have been absolutely denounced the world over as a warmonger, and in the interrim between the nuking of the North and the nuking of Afghanistan, many neutral countries would flee to the Soviet banner because it would mean protection from American nuclear holocaust.

Christ, I can't believe you just tried to argue "either join us or we'll kill you all."

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

Oh, come on Mike. Vietnam rose up in rebellion against the French under Ho Chi Minh, who was viewed as a national hero, akin to (or possibly greater than) George Washington. They won the war, and suddenly the US came in and divided the country and set up their own government in the South..

Hmm, that's not quite the way it went, KoA! As far as I remember the Southern part of what was to become Vietnam was pro-French and basically Catholic. In general the Vietnamese just wanted peace - don't forget that Uncle Ho forced the war and Communism upon them when the US after the war ignored him and his request for independence. Furthermore the reason why the fighting was so intense in both Indochina (mostly in the part that's Vietnam, though) and Algiers was that the French was not especially disliked. Have you been to Vietnam? You'll be surprised how many people still speak French, and like doing so, and how big an imprint the French left on the area. So the myth of an united Communist Viernam under their beloved Ho fighting the bad french and later the very bad Americans shoulder bu shoulder are simply not true! Remember btw, that Communist countries, and dictatorships in general, tend to have cults of personalities build around their leaders, so the extent of true hero-worship can only be determined when Vietnam become a free nation...

(...) and if people keep saying "Communist North and Democratic South" I'm going to scream! The opposite of communism is CAPITALISM, not DEMOCRACY! Rhee Sing-Man was as much of a dictator as Kim Il-Sung).

Well, you could argue that the opposite of Communism is both Democracy and Freedom, and as you say, of course, Capitalism. Communism is totalitarian, no two ways about it, and that's not something that goes well alongside Democarcy and/or Freedom, you know, KoA! Lenin hated the western Democracies, so did most of the other Communists, present or past. The core of Communism is the Proletarian Dictatorship (is that the correct english term?) and the total destruction of class-enemies in the name of the people. Communism is a revolution led form the top by intellectuals (ala Lenin), and Vietnam is a good example - Only God knows how many ordinary Vietnamese people had to die to make Uncle Ho, the Great "Hero", master of a Communist state. Reagan said it best, as usual; "the Communists don't understand Lenin and Marx, the anti-Communist do!"

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"And we won the Civil War by "by showing [the Confederacy] what would happen if they didn't surrender"? I'm sorry, are we talking about the same war? I don't recall any massacres of cities that wouldn't surrender to Union troops; Atlanta was burned, yes, but it was not a situation that caused bloody civilian massacres (for example, the Union army didn't do anything like surround the city, preventing refugees from leaving, then burned them all alive). And wasn't Lincoln's peace one of friendship, not punishment? The Union showed the Confederacy that it couldn't win the war under any circumstances, and would only keep losing boys if it continued to fight. It removed the capability for war, but it didn't butcher Southrons to "show them what would happen if they didn't surrender." Unless, by that, you mean "soldiers would die," in which case all wars are won in the same way."

There were many cases where Union soldiers looted, raped, pillaged, and otherwise misbehaved. There were also some cases of deliberate massacres (hostage-taking and that sort of thing) ordered by Union commanders.

Remember, most people in the South (this is excluding slaves and the mountain people) supported the Confederate cause. If winning hearts and minds doesn't work, then the State will resort to increasingly cruel methods.

I wonder why the Left enthusiastically endorsed terror-bombing of Germany, the expulsion of 15 million East European Germans, and even the insane Morganthau Plan (which would have caused 20 million deaths by starvation), but went berserk over Vietnam.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Don't count me in with that, Matt; I abhor the firebombing of Dresden and other terror-bombings, call the massacre and expulsion of Germans from E. Europe a genocide, and am horrified at the idea of the Morgenthau Plan.

Are you saying that the Union won the hearts and minds of the South, and made the country whole again, by massacring the population? He said that we win by showing them what would happen otherwise; if the US had tried that, we would still have terrorist CSA organizations in the South.

And to think that communism = the dictatorship of the proletariot is a confusing of communism and Marxist-Leninism. There is a difference. Land reform ideas and the like are all added onto the original idea of communism (as are dictatorships); that is why there are always the suffixes, such as "Maoism" or "Leninism," to show whose idea it was.

And, honestly, how many people are killed in the United States due to capitalist policies? Dirty air, due to pollution, causes an estimated 35,000-38,000 heart attack-related deaths a year. Just heart attack-related deaths. What is the difference between taking someone's food and letting them starve, or dirtying someone's air and letting them die of a heart attack? I'm not negating the evils done by communist dictatorships, but this is really a case of pointing out splints in the eyes of others while ignoring the logs in your own.

And Ho Chi Minh hated passionately the cult of the personality that was developed by Stalin and used in both the USSR and China (and, after his death, in Vietnam). That is why most Minhists believe that, based on his writings, Minh would have fought against any attempt to deify him.

And when, historically, have a people risen up completely as one? The American Revolution had people who supported the British; the Algerian revolution had many Francophiles. Hell, how many French embraced the conquering Germans with open arms? To thus call the American Revolution a revolution, but dismiss Vietnam's revolution as something else entirely, is rather hypocritical.

 

[Torqumada]

Alright, first of all I'm talking in the earlier years of the war NOT 1970, okay? Second, the draft wasn't for only the poor, there was no $300 escape like during the Civil War. Bill Clinton, that coward, ran away. George W. served in the military, in a unit that could have easily been sent to Vietnam.

Which unit would that be? The one in the Texas Air National Guard, which was an air combat unit that could be sent in Vietnam or the Alabama Air Natiional Guard (9921st) unit that was a postal unit and according to its commander "We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing". He never received orders for the transfer from the TANG unit to the AANG unit. From May 1st, 1972 to April 30, 1972 Bush didn't log a single hour with any Air National Guard unit anywhere in the US. The published records show it. Now, he was working on an election for a Senator in AL, but that was only for 4 months of that 12 month period. So what was he doing during that time? One thing is for sure, he wasn't completing the military obligation he agreed to. Now in late 1972 Bush applied for another AANG unit, 87th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama, and he never appeared for that post either. In fact, after the elction was done he went back to Texas. All of his evaluations for that peiord indicate that he wasn't observed at all and hadn't reported for duty. What was his punishment for deriliction of duty? He was finally transferred to an Air Force unit that existed only on paper and had no duties.

So who is the worse person? The man who says he had a moral objection to the war in Vietnam and took steps to not become involved in it or the man who said to his country "Yes, I'll serve." and then didn't report for duty. All of the above is part of the public record. See this site for information:http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671. Please be sure to know your facts and not what the Bush administration would have you believe. At least people like John McCain and John Kerry served in Vietnam, where they were in real danger, instead of using the influence of their Father to get into the National Guard, like Bush and Quayle.

Torqumada