Plausibility Check: Victory in the Nam

stalkere

Banned
upstream, somebody asked about a good book on the conflict, using sources in Viet Nam.

I'd suggest "Inside the NVA" by Dan Cragg. Old book, but should be on a library shelf somewhere. I know Dan personally, he spent a total of seven years in Viet Nam, and speaks the language fluently. He went back in the eighties, and the People's Republic granted him unprecedented access to their archives. He got to speak to many former PAVN and NLF fighter - some that had been on the other sides of the battles that he was in.

Fascinating book, with a lot of food for thought. To sum up the question the OP gave, Dan feels that turning the war into an American Mass War was a mistake. It was not a land war in Europe, but that was what the Generals and Politicians kept trying to turn it into.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Oh really? How about Roman Empire? How about Russians/Soviets (sure it's messy but in the end effective).

Crimes Against Humanity are Not Substitutable for Effective Tactics ad Strategies in COIN operations, as has been Stated Before.

Ethics Enters into the Equation here, as does the Concept of Hearts and Minds, Which are not to be Crushed under your Heel, or Raped viciously, and without reason, (something that your above two examples would oh so joyously do), they are Supposed to be Courted and Nurtured, so as to deny the Enemy Support.

Also, Your Definition for Foreign land is Lacking, and It should be some place a bit more distant than a Neighboring State or Your Literal Back Yard, Like say 1000km+ for "Foreign".

Which Brings us to five or Six Countries that have ever done something close to that:
The United States on four Occasions: The Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Britain on several dozen Occasions in the Empire: The Boer Wars, Deutch Ost Afrika, Malaya, The ARW, Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc.
France on one Occasion: Indochina.
Spain
on several Occasions: Mexican revolution, Latin American Revolutions, the Inca, the Maya, Cuba, and The Philippines.
Portugal on three conected Occasions: Angola, Guinea, and Mozabique.

Go Ahead, Piss and Moan about how "it's not fair" and your stupid idea of "Eastern" and "Western" schools of combat is correct. It's Not, and you've Lost.
 
Crimes Against Humanity are Not Substitutable for Effective Tactics ad Strategies in COIN operations, as has been Stated Before.

JFC, they are not substitute for effective tactics, they ARE effective tactics strategy or even grand strategy, to be precise). There are two ways to defeat insurgency. Winning hearts and minds or genocide/ethnic cleansing. Both work if done properly, what doesn't work is trying to strike a balance between tem

Ethics Enters into the Equation here, as does the Concept of Hearts and Minds, Which are not to be Crushed under your Heel, or Raped viciously, and without reason, (something that your above two examples would oh so joyously do), they are Supposed to be Courted and Nurtured, so as to deny the Enemy Support.

Romans didn't bother with winning hearts and minds. Except in "They have to understand that if they rebel we'll rip out their hearts out" kind of way. Even the vaunted british COIN had a population transfer as integral part of plan (not exactly ethnic cleansing butnot far from it). Russians and Soviets routinely depopualted areas to crush the rebellions.

Also, Your Definition for Foreign land is Lacking, and It should be some place a bit more distant than a Neighboring State or Your Literal Back Yard, Like say 1000km+ for "Foreign".

Foreign = outside your borders. Neighbouring state is by definition foreign land.

Which Brings us to five or Six Countries that have ever done something close to that:
The United States on four Occasions: The Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Britain on several dozen Occasions in the Empire: The Boer Wars, Deutch Ost Afrika, Malaya, The ARW, Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc.
France on one Occasion: Indochina.
Spain
on several Occasions: Mexican revolution, Latin American Revolutions, the Inca, the Maya, Cuba, and The Philippines.
Portugal on three conected Occasions: Angola, Guinea, and Mozabique.

how about Soviet Union crushing Basmachi? Or Russians crushing Chechnya? Or Rome crushing Jews? Or Iraqis crushing both Kurds and shi'ias? France and Vendee? Crushing of various left insurections in Europe 1918-20 (e.g. Germany and Hungary). Soviet crushing of various nationalist movements (e.g. Ukrainian). and so on....

Go Ahead, Piss and Moan about how "it's not fair" and your stupid idea of "Eastern" and "Western" schools of combat is correct. It's Not, and you've Lost.

It is correct.
 

Keenir

Banned
2. Attack and seize the Ho Chi Minh trail system to close the NVA's major supply line. The existence of the trail was a violation of Laos' neutrality. The US and South Vietnam have a legal right to close it. 1 to 3 divisions should do the trick.

3. After that the US and South Vietnam need to target the NVA force in Cambodia. As with the trail, it's presence there is illegal under the laws of war. It is the main force by which the North can attack the South. Destroying it will effectively end the "insurgency".

...except that you've just violated any sense of Cambodian neutrality, and have dragged Cambodia into the Vietnam War, very likely on the side of the North.
 
Cambodia's government can rather easily be *taken care of*. Nixon would do it in an instant, but the Democrats wouldn't for two reasons: escalation for Kennedy and dislike of said methods for Humphrey.
 
...except that you've just violated any sense of Cambodian neutrality, and have dragged Cambodia into the Vietnam War, very likely on the side of the North.

Seeing how Hochiminh trail ran through Cambodia that kind of ended Cambodian neutrality and by being host to it was already dragged into the war and by hosting it was de facto taking part of war on North's side.
 

Typo

Banned
JFC, they are not substitute for effective tactics, they ARE effective tactics strategy or even grand strategy, to be precise). There are two ways to defeat insurgency. Winning hearts and minds or genocide/ethnic cleansing. Both work if done properly, what doesn't work is trying to strike a balance between tem
It is correct.
ummm, what you just said essentially nulls your original argument, you've pretty much admitted the difference is in the level of brutality involved rather than because the "eastern way of war" is some how more resilient.

Actually come to think of it, wasn't essentially all western imperial powers awfully good at crushing all sorts of insurgencies in all corners of the globe the 19th century (From Americans on the Indians to the British on their Indians)? Doesn't that also null your entire theory since it seems to be based on "western powers are bad at COIN?"

Seeing how Hochiminh trail ran through Cambodia that kind of ended Cambodian neutrality and by being host to it was already dragged into the war and by hosting it was de facto taking part of war on North's side.
IIRC the Cambodians weren't capable of defending their own borders against the north
 

NothingNow

Banned
ummm, what you just said essentially nulls your original argument, you've pretty much admitted the difference is in the level of brutality involved rather than because the "eastern way of war" is some how more resilient.
I'll Agree with you on that.

Actually come to think of it, wasn't essentially all western imperial powers awfully good at crushing all sorts of insurgencies in all corners of the globe the 19th century (From Americans on the Indians to the British on their Indians)? Doesn't that also null your entire theory since it seems to be based on "western powers are bad at COIN?"
Yes They were. Absurdly good in fact.
 
Top