WI Hamburger Hill in 1967

The support of the majority of Americans to the war in Vietnam began to go down in October 1967 (March 1965: 64 percent supporting, 21 percent opposed; October 1967: 46 percent opposed, 44 percent supporting). Just as the war seemed to go on endlessly and aimlessly, America’s patience ran out.

Since March 1966 the A Sầu Valley had evolved into a major logistics depot for the PAVN. WI the US Army had launched an operation in August 1967 to disrupt it and, during the fighting, there had been a battle like the one for Hill 937 (same losses, same mistakes, same final result)? How would the public opinion back in the States have dealt with it? Would it have been so controversial? Would some US senator still have called it a "’senseless and irresponsible…madness…"?
 
I wish I knew more about those early years in the Vietnam War. The Feb 1967 Battle of Tra Binh was touted as a huge victory for South Vietnam which was also along the South Central coast and even with that sort of news the public was losing patience (as you said above). I believe previous posters have alluded to the issue of South Vietnam's government being institutionally corrupt and unable to maintain a consistent President during that time period.

Bottom-line: Any battlefield win really does nothing to stave off the US publics bad perception of what is being reported while every misstep just puts the nail in the coffin of the US policy in Vietnam.
 
I think that they key element that puts a difference between Hamburger Hill and, for instance, the battle of Dak To (November 1967) is the Tet Offensive. The US public was losing patience, as I've mentioned, since late 67, but the Tet simply changed everything. The US citizens was fed up with Vietnam, and could no longer stand more US casualties. For that reason I was wondering how a battle like Hamburger Hill would have fared with a US public opinion that had not endured the Tet or had even begin to tire about the war.
 
The 9-month 1968 Tet Offensive (all 3 phases) really was a public opinion debacle because of the US government/DoD "lack of forthrightness and clarity".

Compare the Tet Offensive to the Battle of the Bulge, in both cases the battle swung back and forth until the battlefield victory by the US and its Allies, it was a kick in the gut to how the governments had been telling everyone the end the war was coming soon.

Interestingly, both German and North Vietnamese leaders were "despondent" after the each of the battles due to the losses and the failure of their quick strike strategy. In the North Vietnamese case, they actually changed leadership to go back to their long-term protracted battle strategy that won vs. the French.

The difference was any US public support was destroyed due to the perceptions of having lost. Additionally, instead of going full-out to get public support, Johnson announced he was not running for reelection and he replaced Westmoreland with Abrams. Abrams "Vietnamization" strategy to hand off the war and prepare South Vietnamese troops to defend the country was just what the Giap strategy needed.
 
The support of the majority of Americans to the war in Vietnam began to go down in October 1967 (March 1965: 64 percent supporting, 21 percent opposed; October 1967: 46 percent opposed, 44 percent supporting). Just as the war seemed to go on endlessly and aimlessly, America’s patience ran out.

Since March 1966 the A Sầu Valley had evolved into a major logistics depot for the PAVN. WI the US Army had launched an operation in August 1967 to disrupt it and, during the fighting, there had been a battle like the one for Hill 937 (same losses, same mistakes, same final result)? How would the public opinion back in the States have dealt with it? Would it have been so controversial? Would some US senator still have called it a "’senseless and irresponsible…madness…"?

the battle for hill 937 was pretty much the same result as any battle fought by the Americans, lots of casualties and territory switches and in the end no gain. A battle like that would not get much media coverage, its not what they wanted to show the American public at that point. It doesn't matter whn or where battle like that take place, and a lot did after Tet. It wouldn't soften the blow of Tet either, as the idea was the war was going well, not that they were fighting over hills that had no military importance and were abandoned right after with zero gain. Hell, it might even worsen the blow of Tet as that actually seemed to have a lasting effect. It was a crushing blow whilst fighting over hills didn't harm the NVA or VC at all.
 
Top