It is doubtful that the US could have overrun North Vietnam without risking a Chinese invasion as a result, a repeat of the same set of circumstances that took place during the preceding Korean War. For all the mistakes made by the US during the conflict, at least trying to overrun the North in a full scale invasion was not one of them.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑29 Apr 2019, 14:53The USA could have over run North Vietnam at any time, but chose not to do so. Therefore, North Vietnam could not lose.
Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Yes, definitely the wrong side. Who are we (the United States) to say what sort of political system is adopted by a foreign country, regardless of what it might be? Vietnam turning communist was never a direct economic or military threat to the US. But I still encounter a few true believers that fervently believe the opposite, perhaps as a handy excuse (the evils of communism) for what in reality was a war of an obscene and unjustifiable cost.Plain Old Dave wrote: ↑29 Apr 2019, 04:34Thoughts.1. The U.S. had stupid, incompetent Politicians relying on stupid, incompetent Military Officers and stupid incompetent Intelligence Agencies who got us engaged a war in which the U.S. was fighting for the WRONG SIDE
1. Definitely not the "wrong side." Both History and human nature trstify to the unsustainable nature of communism.
Reminds me of one of the Gold Star moms I knew (and respected for the sacrifices their family made even though I disagreed with the war) that also insisted that the war was absolutely necessary, otherwise the death of her son would make no sense to her; an understandable psychological justification that sadly does not reflect the reality of the matter.
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Diem was a bit of an anomaly, religiously speaking. How much dissent was there in the North?
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Double post.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 20 May 2019, 06:23, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Hi Sejanus,
How would it have been to anybody's advantage (including that of the local populations) if South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia.... had fallen to Communism? After all, the Communists weren't going to stop of their own accord. Should the US have withdrawn from South Korea too? Where does it stop? Giving up Berlin? Withdrawing from NATO, perhaps? After the fall of Nationalist China, the US pretty much had to make a stand somewhere or lose global influence altogether. And, if a stand had to be made, surely the further forward the better?
By comparison to the alternative, the USA was the right side, however flawed its policy enactment may have been.
Cheers,
Sid.
How would it have been to anybody's advantage (including that of the local populations) if South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Indonesia.... had fallen to Communism? After all, the Communists weren't going to stop of their own accord. Should the US have withdrawn from South Korea too? Where does it stop? Giving up Berlin? Withdrawing from NATO, perhaps? After the fall of Nationalist China, the US pretty much had to make a stand somewhere or lose global influence altogether. And, if a stand had to be made, surely the further forward the better?
By comparison to the alternative, the USA was the right side, however flawed its policy enactment may have been.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
I watch "Russian Car Crash" videos (bit of a busman's holiday, that) and it amuses me no end to see the Russian landscape so wholly enamored of capitalism.
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Many good points from all of you, although this subject does stir up a confusion.
The most vulnerable conduits of the supply system in North Vietnam were seaports and rail link with China. Attacking those targets posed yet another serious political problem with allies, because North Vietnam was not a threat to U.S. National Security.
The signature military operations carried out by Abrams; invasions of the Ashau Valley, Cambodia, and Laos had nothing to do with Pacification. There was no holding of gains, just a continuation of the old attrition strategy.
Operation SPEEDY EXPRESS (1969) made a mockery of the Pacification program in the Mekong Delta. Official probes later determined that the body count of 11,000 Vietcong dead was padded with thousands of civilians, a war crime that prompted Newsweek to report that “the death toll there made the My Lai massacre seem trifling by comparison”. Abrams was again accused of inflating body counts with civilians during Operation ROCK CRUSHER in Cambodia (1970).
If we follow the money, this too confirms that Abrams was more concerned with spending it on conventional warfare. Pacification and civil affairs accounted for less than 5% of the Vietnam budget in 1969, per Thomas Thayer in his classic “War Without Fronts”. In Fiscal Years 1969-1971, just 2% of funding was spent on police and local militia units that were supposed to protect the villages from the Vietcong.
The CORDS organization that guided Pacification in Vietnam was started under Westmoreland, but program direction was not significantly changed when he departed. Abrams did prefer William Colby because he was in effect, a toadie to MACV, often deferring to Abrams’ staff on decisions. No so with Robert Komer, who was not beholden to the military. The main reason why a civilian was put in charge is because this individual was not supposed to be swayed by army interests.
General Abrams never met a B-52 air strike that he didn’t like, and this is how he propped up the ARVN for three years. A dispute over control of air power is the reason why Abrams was fired by President Nixon, who was fed up with empty promises that South Vietnamese troops were almost self-reliant.
Yes President Lyndon Johnson must be held responsible for escalating the war, but he showed more wisdom and restraint about illegal, full-scale invasions of Cambodia and Laos. The most important outcome of President Richard Nixon’s attempt to expand the war outside Vietnam was the Cooper-Church legislation.James A Pratt III wrote: ↑19 May 2019, 00:43Causes
Inept US leadership LBJ and Westmorland are the two most inept
The most vulnerable conduits of the supply system in North Vietnam were seaports and rail link with China. Attacking those targets posed yet another serious political problem with allies, because North Vietnam was not a threat to U.S. National Security.
Lewis Sorley is more skilled at writing gossip than facts. He gives little credit to the Vietnamese, who apparently had no important role in his version of the Vietnam war. He exaggerates minor changes made by General Creighton Abrams. He claims that Abrams was a champion of Pacification, when in truth the focus never deviated from body counts and search and destroy missions. Abrams’ One War strategy was a hoax.
The signature military operations carried out by Abrams; invasions of the Ashau Valley, Cambodia, and Laos had nothing to do with Pacification. There was no holding of gains, just a continuation of the old attrition strategy.
Operation SPEEDY EXPRESS (1969) made a mockery of the Pacification program in the Mekong Delta. Official probes later determined that the body count of 11,000 Vietcong dead was padded with thousands of civilians, a war crime that prompted Newsweek to report that “the death toll there made the My Lai massacre seem trifling by comparison”. Abrams was again accused of inflating body counts with civilians during Operation ROCK CRUSHER in Cambodia (1970).
If we follow the money, this too confirms that Abrams was more concerned with spending it on conventional warfare. Pacification and civil affairs accounted for less than 5% of the Vietnam budget in 1969, per Thomas Thayer in his classic “War Without Fronts”. In Fiscal Years 1969-1971, just 2% of funding was spent on police and local militia units that were supposed to protect the villages from the Vietcong.
The CORDS organization that guided Pacification in Vietnam was started under Westmoreland, but program direction was not significantly changed when he departed. Abrams did prefer William Colby because he was in effect, a toadie to MACV, often deferring to Abrams’ staff on decisions. No so with Robert Komer, who was not beholden to the military. The main reason why a civilian was put in charge is because this individual was not supposed to be swayed by army interests.
This is what drove President Nixon into the arms of Red China. He knew that South Vietnam might not survive without direct intervention by the United States, so he looked for other ways to undercut North Vietnam while stopping the proxy war with Hanoi’s suppliers in Peking. Open ended support of South Vietnam was no longer possible. Détente with China seemed like the best alternative and a means for both sides to save face.James A Pratt III wrote: ↑19 May 2019, 00:43The South Vietnamese Goverment was inept, corrupt, unpopular
General Abrams never met a B-52 air strike that he didn’t like, and this is how he propped up the ARVN for three years. A dispute over control of air power is the reason why Abrams was fired by President Nixon, who was fed up with empty promises that South Vietnamese troops were almost self-reliant.
Last edited by EKB on 15 Mar 2020, 04:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
The aftermath of Hamburger Hill was also significant. President Nixon was embarrassed with the bad publicity that erupted. In August 1969 he reminded General Abrams that goals had changed when he issued a new mission statement that emphasized Vietnamization.
However Nixon’s ultimatum was often ignored, and in November 1969 he told Henry Kissinger that, “ In reading Abrams' analysis of the military situation in South Vietnam, I get the rather uneasy impression that the military are still thinking in terms of a long war and an eventual military solution. I also have the impression that deep down they realize the war can't be won militarily, even over the long haul.”
But unfortunately that idea is as old as politics. Our allies seemed to like it. Following the British practice of establishing “New Villages” in Malaya, Australian Army Brigadier O. D. Jackson gained permission to dislocate people and livestock, destroy property, and generate refugees for his Vietnam mission. When the Task Force base was built at Nui Dat, the nearby hamlets of Long Tan and Long Phuoc were forcibly evacuated. The inhabitants were resettled while their abandoned buildings were bombed, shelled, set ablaze or bulldozed.paulrward wrote: ↑28 Apr 2019, 22:33Diem created the 'Strategic Hamlet Program ' which, while publicly touted as the means to protect the rural people from the Viet Cong … This further strengthened the position of the Viet Cong, especially when U.S. Troops were involved in forcibly removing Vietnamese peasants from their lands and placing them in the concentration camps that were the Strategic Hamlets.
What he didn’t understand is that a key goal of any legitimate pacification program is to expand security into existing populated areas, instead of burning down homes and uprooting residents to designated “secure” zones.
More than a few U.S. military leaders, including Westmoreland, expressed doubts about the political legitimacy of the military junta that forced Ngo Dinh Diem out of power. There was no reason to think that unpopular, amateur civil servants could build a lasting society.
But Westmoreland and Abrams lacked the power to do anything about it. Despite appeals from both generals, President Lyndon Johnson rejected every request to invade cross-border sanctuaries and a U.S. military occupation of the Ho-Chi Minh trail. That was the only way to apply serious pressure on North Vietnam. But it would not matter unless our allies approved of these border violations and a better South Vietnamese leader was found first.
Agreed, but that is exactly why Westmoreland and Abrams argued for approval to fight communist troops at cross-border bases in the hinterlands, instead of using firepower in populated areas.paulrward wrote: ↑28 Apr 2019, 22:33The U.S. and ARVN forces embarked on a series of programs aimed at 'Rural Pacification' that only succeeded in further alienating the people of South Vietnam. Programs such as the widespread shooting of rural water buffalo from helicopters to prevent their use by the Viet Cong did nothing but impoverish and enrage the rural peasantry.
The U.S. Marines did try a clear and hold mission on the McNamara Line and with small-scale experiments like the Combined Action Platoons. Whatever success these gestures might have shown on the surface, they worked only for as long as Marines remained on station.
Everyone knew that U.S. troops could not stay in Vietnam indefinitely. That is why many officers, Marines included, knew that a defensive posture was not a long term solution. South Korea differed in that respect because of geography; it’s a peninsula. The open seas on both sides eliminated the possibility of a communist supply route akin to the Ho Chi Minh trail.
- Maxschnauzer
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 08:36
- Location: Philippines
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
A very succinct but correct answer. Although I was drafted into the US Army in 1970 I was never deployed to Vietnam, so my impressions are more or less those of a very concerned observer of the political scene of the time. So please take them in that context, rather than that of a military historian.
America did not lose the war. American politicians convinced the populace that the war was unwinnable. After the Tet offensive, which was actually a crippling military defeat for the North Vietnamese, the anti-war factions in the USA convinced the already skeptical public that it was a great victory for the NVA. At that point LBJ gave up and said "If you lost Cronkite (the most popular American TV news reader) you have lost the nation". Even after Nixon became president and America began drawing down its presence to hand the fight over to ARVN the leftist Democrat Congress reneged on promised military aid even though the military situation was sill winnable. The ultimate outcome was then assured.
Of course there were other factors leading up to this , political interference (MacNamara, Johnson, American Congress and others), poor military leadership (Westmorland), restrictions on incursions into neighboring countries which the NVA didn't have to respect (e.g. Ho Chi Minh Trail). Of course I don't discount the military prowess of General Giap and a large percentage of the populace fighting what they viewed as a patriotic war against foreign invaders. And don't forget Russian and Chinese assistance. Those Migs (and some of their pilots) had to come from somewhere.
Cheers,
Max
Max
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
I arrived in-country on Jan. 14th, 1970. Did Riverine duty for the next two years and 3 months. Passed out in a Huey and woke up in San Diego.
- Maxschnauzer
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 08:36
- Location: Philippines
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
I thank you for your service. In my later Civilian capacity working in the Navy I had friends with Riverine experience, Seabees, as well as the Harbor Cleaners.
Cheers,
Max
Max
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
If Manny Pacquiao walked away from a boxing match before it's officially ended, who wins the fight?
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
I prefer "No mas". So hyped and so disappointed.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
T/Y The Navy EOD divers were crazy mofos.Maxschnauzer wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020, 12:30I thank you for your service. In my later Civilian capacity working in the Navy I had friends with Riverine experience, Seabees, as well as the Harbor Cleaners.
- Maxschnauzer
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 08:36
- Location: Philippines
Re: Why USA do not won Vietnam War ?
Roger that. It's a job qualification. Hoo-Yah!OpanaPointer wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020, 22:37T/Y The Navy EOD divers were crazy mofos.Maxschnauzer wrote: ↑15 Mar 2020, 12:30I thank you for your service. In my later Civilian capacity working in the Navy I had friends with Riverine experience, Seabees, as well as the Harbor Cleaners.
Cheers,
Max
Max