The American-Vietnam War an ALT

Search and Destroy, more a gestalt than a tactic, brought up alive and steaming from the command psyche. Not just a walk and a fire-fight, in action it should have been named the other way around, pick through the pieces and see if you could work together a count, the sponsor wasn't buying any dead civilians. The VC had an ostensibly similar tactic called Find and Kill. Either way, it was us looking for him looking for us looking for him, war on a Cracker Jack box, repeated to diminishing returns. Michael Herr, Dispatches

Was there an alternative to the tactic of search and destroy, and an alternative to the strategy of attrition that The United States could have deployed that would have resulted in the preservation of South Vietnam, I.e. 'victory'?

One alternative strategy comes from David R. Palmer who argued in Summons of the Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective (1995) that The United States should have extended a continuous defense line along the 17th parallel from the China Sea to Thailand (ignoring Laotian supposed 'neutrality') and then fought a completely defensive war, thus (I assume) forcing Hanoi to seek to infiltrate its troops and supplies south through the territory of a better organized and more successful anti-communist Thailand (instead of Laos and Cambodia).

Does anyone believe this or any other alternative strategy could have resulted in an American victory in Vietnam?

P.S. Palmer recognized that search and destroy missions would still have had to be deployed against the Vietcong (NLF) in the south but would have been successful without Hanoi's support.
 
Search and Destroy, more a gestalt than a tactic, brought up alive and steaming from the command psyche. Not just a walk and a fire-fight, in action it should have been named the other way around, pick through the pieces and see if you could work together a count, the sponsor wasn't buying any dead civilians. The VC had an ostensibly similar tactic called Find and Kill. Either way, it was us looking for him looking for us looking for him, war on a Cracker Jack box, repeated to diminishing returns. Michael Herr, Dispatches

Was there an alternative to the tactic of search and destroy, and an alternative to the strategy of attrition that The United States could have deployed that would have resulted in the preservation of South Vietnam, I.e. 'victory'?

One alternative strategy comes from David R. Palmer who argued in Summons of the Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective (1995) that The United States should have extended a continuous defense line along the 17th parallel from the China Sea to Thailand (ignoring Laotian supposed 'neutrality') and then fought a completely defensive war, thus (I assume) forcing Hanoi to seek to infiltrate its troops and supplies south through the territory of a better organized and more successful anti-communist Thailand (instead of Laos and Cambodia).

Does anyone believe this or any other alternative strategy could have resulted in an American victory in Vietnam?

P.S. Palmer recognized that search and destroy missions would still have had to be deployed against the Vietcong (NLF) in the south but would have been successful without Hanoi's support.


The vast majority of fighting occurred, and even the majority of bombs dropped (if I recall correctly), were in South Vietnamese territory. The Vietnam war could not be won by defeating the Vietcong or North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The history of vietnam, going back to pre-history, is a story of fighting off outside invaders. The act of fighting a larger enemy could be said to have been a part of their culture, with historical figures such as the "Trung Sisters" having their whole mythos based around the idea of breaking the shackles of outside powers.

I would argue therefore, that the only real way America could win outright would be to win the public relations battle in Vietnam. They would have to convince the people of Vietnam that they were there to help them. What we did ended up taking us in the exact opposite direction. Keep in mind, a lot of first hand literature sites the fact that the local populations didn't start out on any real side. They were systematically mistreated by both the South Vietnamese/Americans and the Vietcong.

Abandoning the strategic hamlet program could be a massive move in securing the support of the local population. This program did nothing but drive them away from American and South Vietnamese control. The Vietnamese population, from what I have gathered, is very culturally tied to the land on which they live and how it is connected to their family's past. If American forces focused on winning over the local population instead of forcefully relocating them, it would have helped if even slightly.

Of course, the other matter is Diem, I would argue that America could not win the war if Diem remained in power. He was similar to Saddam in the way that he was a brutal bastard, but he was the brutal bastard forcing everyone in line and maintaining at least a semblance of order. The problem with Diem that cannot be overlooked, is that he was rabidly Catholic and oppressed the Buddhist population, which was the majority of the South Vietnamese population. You need Diem gone, but you need him solidly replaced with a leader backed by America who will bring both sides together. I don't really see this working, unless America gets a little heavy handed on the diplomatic front and plays a more active role in ousting and replacing Diem.

If I remember correctly, Kennedy kind of just dismissed Diem and let the South Vietnamese handle the aftermath for the most part. As the constant shifts in power afterword showed, how it was done was not effective and ended up greatly weakening the South Vietnamese.

Short of writing an essay, I guess I would say that there is not one single answer. But a great deal of the effort should be placed in securing political stability and undertaking a massive hearts and minds campaign. One where America recognizes that the Vietnamese cultural is very distinctive and independent and uses that to shape their strategy, which may in itself be impossible at the time.
 
The only way i see the US have victory in Vietnam is 3 million troops at the border and marching north untill they reach Hanoi. Brutal, criminal, horrendous. But, victory.
 
The vast majority of fighting occurred, and even the majority of bombs dropped (if I recall correctly), were in South Vietnamese territory. The Vietnam war could not be won by defeating the Vietcong or North Vietnamese on the battlefield. The history of vietnam, going back to pre-history, is a story of fighting off outside invaders. The act of fighting a larger enemy could be said to have been a part of their culture, with historical figures such as the "Trung Sisters" having their whole mythos based around the idea of breaking the shackles of outside powers.

I would argue therefore, that the only real way America could win outright would be to win the public relations battle in Vietnam. They would have to convince the people of Vietnam that they were there to help them. What we did ended up taking us in the exact opposite direction. Keep in mind, a lot of first hand literature sites the fact that the local populations didn't start out on any real side. They were systematically mistreated by both the South Vietnamese/Americans and the Vietcong.

Abandoning the strategic hamlet program could be a massive move in securing the support of the local population. This program did nothing but drive them away from American and South Vietnamese control. The Vietnamese population, from what I have gathered, is very culturally tied to the land on which they live and how it is connected to their family's past. If American forces focused on winning over the local population instead of forcefully relocating them, it would have helped if even slightly.

Of course, the other matter is Diem, I would argue that America could not win the war if Diem remained in power. He was similar to Saddam in the way that he was a brutal bastard, but he was the brutal bastard forcing everyone in line and maintaining at least a semblance of order. The problem with Diem that cannot be overlooked, is that he was rabidly Catholic and oppressed the Buddhist population, which was the majority of the South Vietnamese population. You need Diem gone, but you need him solidly replaced with a leader backed by America who will bring both sides together. I don't really see this working, unless America gets a little heavy handed on the diplomatic front and plays a more active role in ousting and replacing Diem.

If I remember correctly, Kennedy kind of just dismissed Diem and let the South Vietnamese handle the aftermath for the most part. As the constant shifts in power afterword showed, how it was done was not effective and ended up greatly weakening the South Vietnamese.

Short of writing an essay, I guess I would say that there is not one single answer. But a great deal of the effort should be placed in securing political stability and undertaking a massive hearts and minds campaign. One where America recognizes that the Vietnamese cultural is very distinctive and independent and uses that to shape their strategy, which may in itself be impossible at the time.

I am of the opinion that the only way we could have won the public relations battle (hearts and minds) was if we first denied Hanoi from occupying the country, I.e the North needed not to be defeated but denied entry into the South, re Palmer's alternative strategy. I would say we (USA) didn't brutalized the local population (I will address Diem in the next paragraph) but agree that at best we were dismissive, and at worst disrespectful, of their culture (recognizing that, as with all war there were events that could be considered brutal, e.g. My Lai, but these were exceptions not the norm.) I agree wholeheartedly that the Strategic Hamlet program in the end did much more damage than good and even when it was revisited under Nixon with a gentler hand as 'pacification' still did more to alienate the population than win their support.

In regards to Diem, yes! That fault lies with American arrogance and cultural bigotry, and the blame for Diem needs to be laid directly at (John Foster) Dulles's feet. He allowed Diem to stay in power even well after he showed us his true nature. I never thought JFK's decision to abandon Diem and allow him to be murdered by the generals wrong, only too late.

This takes me back to Palmer's suggestion about extending a defensive line across to Thailand. His argument was that we were more than capable of repelling Hanoi's intervention into the South (even with only the half a million troops we eventually deployed,) had we fought a purely defensive war, and with Thai assistance could have denied the North access to the South. It would then be left to the ARVN to interdict the Vietcong and gain control the countryside. This would have had a two fold effect. With American troops only being deployed along the (newly defined and extended) DMZ they would not have encountered the local populace much. Secondly by giving the ARVN a true role in the fight and not pushed aside as it was, it would have gained the respect it was sorely denied by both us and the local population. (The logic being, as I stated in the OP that the Vietcong, unsupported by Hanoi in troops and arms, could have been defeated by a motivated ARVN.)

I am not sure I buy this myself, but I do agree with his assessment that this would have removed us from contact with the local population and would have allowed the southern population to believe they were winning their own war against communism. It has become popular to believe that the South Vietnamese, due to the rhetoric of frustrated and (rightly so,) angry American vets and the simplistic evaluations of Hollywood movies, that the South wasn't willing to fight for its own liberty. This I believe is bogus; I would argue that 243,000 ARVN graves belies that claim.

With Palmer's strategy the only real US contact with the local population would have been our civilian 'nation builders' (Peace Corp types) who I think you would agree were the key to winning the local population over to the side of liberty.
 
The only way i see the US have victory in Vietnam is 3 million troops at the border and marching north untill they reach Hanoi. Brutal, criminal, horrendous. But, victory.

Mao only had control of China for one year when he threw 800,000 troops across the border into North Korea; had we advanced into North Vietnam, how many troops do you think Mao would have been capable/willing to add to the fight in Vietnam 15 years later? Two, three, four million? Mao would never have allowed us to take over North Vietnam just as he didn't allow us to take North Korea.
 
stop the coup of the week. Ky and theiu need to stop the internecine bickering. They both have talents.
Don’t take the picture of loan shooting the suspect. That vc raped a woman, and comitted assault. Totally blown out of proportion.
 
Mao only had control of China for one year when he threw 800,000 troops across the border into North Korea; had we advanced into North Vietnam, how many troops do you think Mao would have been capable/willing to add to the fight in Vietnam 15 years later? Two, three, four million? Mao would never have allowed us to take over North Vietnam just as he didn't allow us to take North Korea.

I think you can hardly compare the Korean war and Vietnam war.

What i proposed it proposterous. The US isn't going to be able to commit 3 million troops to vietnam, the US public and world community won't stand for that.

But, then again, i don't think Ho Chi Minh is going to allow millions of Chinese troops to enter his country either. No way, the war is supposed to be to kick the foreigners out, not invite some to kick the other one out. Or they would have welcomed the Japanese.
 

Deleted member 94680

Why would the US support NV at all, instead of simply not bothering with the whole place ?

I have just finished watching the Ken Burns Vietnam War documentary and towards the end they quote a general, I can’t remember who, who claimed the Americans had been supporting the wrong side. It was probably said in bitter jest, but there was a feeling, it seems, that the Saigon Government was corrupt and self-serving to the point of a terminal weakness.

You could argue a North Vietnamese government supported by America would swiftly control the whole country, be outside of Soviet or Chinese influence and be used as a wedge against international communism.
 
I think you can hardly compare the Korean war and Vietnam war.

What i proposed it proposterous. The US isn't going to be able to commit 3 million troops to vietnam, the US public and world community won't stand for that.

But, then again, i don't think Ho Chi Minh is going to allow millions of Chinese troops to enter his country either. No way, the war is supposed to be to kick the foreigners out, not invite some to kick the other one out. Or they would have welcomed the Japanese.

I agree with you regarding Ho and China, ("It's better to eat the French dung for 100 years than Chinese dung for 1000 years") -- but I doubt Mao would have cared whether Ho cared; it wouldn't have surprised me if Mao had Ho removed. I just don't believe Mao lets us advance any further into Asia. - When Mao moved into North Korea I suspect he acted unilaterally, of course that is something we could never possibly know; but MacArthur had North Korea at bay driven to the extreme northeast corner of its territory and on the verge of collapse. I suspect it was Mao's call, not the North Koreans.

Why do you feel the two wars can't be compared? I think they are very similar in many ways.

And yes I realized, that you understood that we weren't ever going to commit three million to that cause; but that "we should have taken Hanoi" argument has always bothered me, it is just not a realistic strategy, and back in the 60s as I was growing up we use to have to abide it as a serious hawk argument and I guess I have thin skin about it.
 
Are we considering scenarios where the US supports the Vietnamese over the French? You could call that a victory.
 
I have just finished watching the Ken Burns Vietnam War documentary and towards the end they quote a general, I can’t remember who, who claimed the Americans had been supporting the wrong side. It was probably said in bitter jest, but there was a feeling, it seems, that the Saigon Government was corrupt and self-serving to the point of a terminal weakness.

You could argue a North Vietnamese government supported by America would swiftly control the whole country, be outside of Soviet or Chinese influence and be used as a wedge against international communism.

Not only is that true we could have had Ho back in '45 without a fight; as a communist ally on the Asian continent; he was offering us venture capital investment opportunities LOL; and god knows we would have had an ally that was willing to fight, not like the French. He would have been a bulwark against the Chinese. He could have moved Laos and Cambodia our way as well.

We got played by Churchill and screwed over by Mountbatten, when he let the French back into Vietnam in '45. We had them, the French, stranded in India with no way back in, but the Brits had a vested interest in supporting French colonialism and we lost our nerve and started looking Communists under our beds. A more dynamic foreign policy would have played both Ho and Tito as wedges against Moscow.
 
Does anyone believe this or any other alternative strategy could have resulted in an American victory in Vietnam?

Mine the Harbors, bust the Red River dams, and do Linebacker II level bombing in 1965, and dare the Soviets and China start WWIII over it.

They won't risk it.

While that is going on, build up the local RL/PF forces sooner over ARV, while a Phoenix Program gets started early.

Assassinate Prince Sihanouk for his glee on hearing JFK was shot.

Will it be pretty?

Not at all.

But probably cut supply to VC and PAVN will be in no shape to assist them across the DMZ, and Cambodia will play out far different than OTL
 
I agree with you regarding Ho and China, ("It's better to eat the French dung for 100 years than Chinese dung for 1000 years") -- but I doubt Mao would have cared whether Ho cared; it wouldn't have surprised me if Mao had Ho removed. I just don't believe Mao lets us advance any further into Asia. - When Mao moved into North Korea I suspect he acted unilaterally, of course that is something we could never possibly know; but MacArthur had North Korea at bay driven to the extreme northeast corner of its territory and on the verge of collapse. I suspect it was Mao's call, not the North Koreans.

Why do you feel the two wars can't be compared? I think they are very similar in many ways.

And yes I realized, that you understood that we weren't ever going to commit three million to that cause; but that "we should have taken Hanoi" argument has always bothered me, it is just not a realistic strategy, and back in the 60s as I was growing up we use to have to abide it as a serious hawk argument and I guess I have thin skin about it.

Ironically the "we should have taken Hanoi" argument is actually done when someone does compare the Vietnam War with the Korean War. The Korean War was a back and forth taking of territory, untill they eventually came to a stalemate at the DMZ, whilst the Vietnam War started for the US when the DMZ was already created.

You can't compare the two wars, but the only way i ironically can come up with a way for the US to "win" is to treat it like the korean War and have them just advance, except way more stronger, faster and determined than in the Korean War. Again, this is a ridiculous scenario that will no doubt escalate into WWIII between the US and China.

Realistically, the US can't win, not with what they had in mind. Simply the fact that the US was fighting the wrong war, a war against communism whilst in reality it was an independence war, caused the US to never be able to achieve any of their goals. I believe the South Vietnamese didn't understand this from the Americans either, hence why the VC and NVA was able to infiltrate South Vietnam so deeply and profoundly. The South Vietnamese were also fighting for independence, but the Americans were having none of it, they didn't understand why the South Vietnamese weren't helping fighting communism.

Like @Expat said, if the US would have simply supported the Vietnamese independence movement, they could have won. If only they hadn't so much feared the communist idoelogy of people like Ho, who if they didn't would have been less radical and if granted independence early enough would have probably dropped the most extreme and radical ideas.

Small example; Be the country that liberates Vietnam from the Japanese and then grant them full independence from the French, asking for a democratic government, i'd say Ho would agree and back down. You got a new problem then though, the French.
 

Deleted member 94680

Or, you know, the next offensive after 72 is smashed without a US withdrawal, SV does not fall and exists to this day.

I severely doubt SV would exist to this day if NV exists. Because there would be an offensive after ‘75 (the one after ‘72) and one after that and so on. If you want America to “smash” these offensives, you need to stabilise the support for the war at home. You need to stop Tricky Dick from taking office (or campaigning for office and messing up the peace process out of self-interest) or have a better exit so it doesn’t distract the Americans from the War.
 

longsword14

Banned
Because there would be an offensive after ‘75 (the one after ‘72) and one after that and so on.
No such thing is guaranteed. The timeline of events shifted by even 2-3 years could flip things drastically. NV sources are scarce, but the idea of a successful invasion was not considered a done deal in Hanoi.
or campaigning for office and messing up the peace process out of self-interest
This is just nonsense. Why do you assume that SV leadership wanted peace then ?
Not only is that true we could have had Ho back in '45 without a fight; as a communist ally on the Asian continent; he was offering us venture capital investment opportunities LOL
This is both wrong and irrelevant, LOL. By the time the US was in the thick of it Ho Chi Minh had been sidelined.
In 1945 the US did not care much about SE Asia, why would they stick their noses in French affairs ?
 
Last edited:
I severely doubt SV would exist to this day if NV exists. Because there would be an offensive after ‘75 (the one after ‘72) and one after that and so on.

Between Tet and Phoenix, there was no more VC, Cambodia mostly closed off for the Trail, so as shown by 1972, it would have to be a conventional Invasion.

Had US airpower been applied, 1975 invasion would have failed the same way. The US Military had the core task of destroying Warsaw Pact armored spearheads during the Cold War, and 1975 was exactly that. It's a far easier task than Westy style Search and Destroy.

From what I read, NV was pleasantly surprised at the lack of US military response, and ramped up what had been planned as minor attacks into a major invasion after Thieu started a fatal case of Bug-Out Fever
 
Top