# VietNam War Thread



## Marauder06 (Apr 21, 2012)

This thread is a spinoff of the Dr. Phil discussion.  

Ref. whether or not the war in VietNam was a military success, I think we could craft a very simple formula.  1) establish what the military objective of the war was; and 2) a yes/no answer to the question of whether we achieved it.

IMO, the military objective of the war was something along the lines of, "prevent the military takeover of South VietNam by the regular and irregular forces of North VietNam."  If that is the case, then we failed to achieve that military objective.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 21, 2012)

Another way to look at it, as another battle in the cold war.  Problem in wars like this  is on how it differs from WWII,  WWII was a war to end.   After WWII, Korea, Viet-Nam, El Salvador, and all the other places in the world where  political battles.  

Look at Afghanistan today,  Let say we pull out, and a number of years later the T-ban comes back and takes over again.   Would you consider Afghanistan a loss?

I hear people argue that the measure of victory was not in hold land.  So-called victories for the NLF was in that it over ran some unit or position or place.   They would consider that a NLF victory.    Yet they say we lost in Viet-Nam, because we did not hold the contested ground.   

As I posted the US made a deal with the communists, to let North and South fight it out with out help from outsiders.   The US upheld it's agreement the Communists did not.  We did not get kicked out of Viet-Nam, we were not in retreat, we were not even there when the South fell (except for some small units).   The NFL can not claim a military victory.    The can claim a political victory.  

There are a lot of reasons why it is a political victory and why for the NLF.   Some are wrong,  the biggest aspect was mostly internal US politics.  

As I posted in the other thread:



> One aspect of the Viet-Nam war that became very clear, The effectiveness of propaganda and that the West would not be united, that political infighting in the west would aid in the promoting anti-west propaganda themes. Just like today, propaganda is the most effective weapons against any Western country. The anti-War force, political opponents of those support the war, etc would by their own natural self interests aid the enemies of the West.
> 
> Just like the propaganda war surrounding Gitmo. When Bush was president it was a serious blemish against the West, it would be closed under the new administration. The D's made it a big issue, knowing that Bush could not close it for solids reasons. When Obama D, was elected, for those same solid reasons Bush could not close Gitmo, Obama has not closed Gitmo. Our enemies know that our worse enemy is our own partisan political process. As Pogo said in the '60's, "We have met the enemy and he is us."


 
I think it is also important to tie this into the rest of the bigger war, the Cold War.    Military people think of a military victory or loss,  politicians do not ee it that way.   The sad part is that the political gains or loss back home are more important than the military gains or loss on the battlefield.    Our politicians are very much like what is said about the North Viet-Namese, the did not care how many of their people where killed.   

Viet-Nam was decided by our politicians, the NFL where just merely players in that conflict.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 21, 2012)

HOLLiS said:


> Another way to look at it, as another battle in the cold war. Problem in wars like this is on how it differs from WWII, WWII was a war to end. After WWII, Korea, Viet-Nam, El Salvador, and all the other places in the world where political battles.
> 
> Look at Afghanistan today, Let say we pull out, and a number of years later the T-ban comes back and takes over again. Would you consider Afghanistan a loss?


 
The Taliban are going to re-take Afghanistan after we leave, there is little doubt in my mind about that.  But I don't think the war was ever about the Taliban in the first place; they were in Afghanistan long before we started caring about them and they will be there after we leave.  IMO we went to war in Afghanistan to get after AQ and to make sure Afghanistan couldn't be used to launch attacks against us in the future.  So if we leave before AQ is defeated (not destroyed) in the area, then I feel we will have lost- although I think that endstate has already been met.  That leaves the second part.  If AQ or HQN or even the TB (if they decide to expand their game) use Afghanistan as a base to launch attacks in the US, then yeah, we failed to achieve victory militarily.  But it's going to take a while to see how that works out.



HOLLiS said:


> I hear people argue that the measure of victory was not in hold land. So-called victories for the NLF was in that it over ran some unit or position or place. They would consider that a NLF victory. Yet they say we lost in Viet-Nam, because we did not hold the contested ground.


 
Not only did we not hold "contested ground," we ended up holding no ground whatsoever ;)



HOLLiS said:


> As I posted the US made a deal with the communists, to let North and South fight it out with out help from outsiders. The US upheld it's agreement the Communists did not. We did not get kicked out of Viet-Nam, we were not in retreat, we were not even there when the South fell (except for some small units). The NFL can not claim a military victory. The can claim a political victory.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why it is a political victory and why for the NLF. Some are wrong, the biggest aspect was mostly internal US politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 21, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Not only did we not hold "contested ground," we ended up holding no ground whatsoever ;)


 
That is probably what bother me the most,  we left some good people behind.   I guess if there is any good of this, Viet-Nam and US are becoming friends again.   From the Viet-Namese that I know, they like Americans.    The other part the do not like the Chinese.   The Cold War was sort of a period of global insanity.   The only good point was compared to the first half of the 20th century, there was a lot less life loss to war.


----------



## JohnnyBoyUSMC (Apr 21, 2012)

For those interested, since leaving the Corps I've started attending Texas Tech university here in Lubbock Tx. Texas Tech holds the Vietnam Center and Archive which is the nation's largest and most comprehensive collection of information on the Vietnam War. If you ever get the chance or are interested in the war's history I highly suggest paying the campus and it's center a visit. That is all, Semper Yut Yut.


----------



## AWP (Apr 21, 2012)

By 1948 or 1949 our war in Vietnam was guaranteed, it just took another decade and a half to play out. Kennedy wouldn't have saved us.


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

I remember seeing a memorial to the Korean war, the inscription read "Communism's First Defeat".
I was puzzled by that for quite a while.

But as Hollis mentioned, if you look at Korea in particular and also Vietnam, although the localized war may have been lost/ended in stalemate, what did it achieve globally? In terms of the cold war they are far more important than just the fighting within those countries.


----------



## QC (Apr 22, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> By 1948 or 1949 our war in Vietnam was guaranteed, it just took another decade and a half to play out. Kennedy wouldn't have saved us.


 
Didn't Eisenhower warn him about getting involved?


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

QC said:


> Didn't Eisenhower warn him about getting involved?


 
I'm a bit hazy on it but I think Ike was the one who wanted to increase aid to the French during Dien Bien Phu with American bombers but was shot down by Congress.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 22, 2012)

pardus said:


> I remember seeing a memorial to the Korean war, the inscription read "Communism's First Defeat".
> I was puzzled by that for quite a while.
> 
> But as Hollis mentioned, if you look at Korea in particular and also Vietnam, although the localized war may have been lost/ended in stalemate, *what did it achieve globally? In terms of the cold war they are far more important than just the fighting within those countries*.


 
I think you may be conflating military victory with political victory.  Victory in the Cold War was a political victory, much of which was a result of military actions, some of which were successful and some of which were not.

I can see the Korean War as a defeat for Communism because it prevented the Communists from achieving their goal, which was unification of Korea under Communist ideology.  Also, if our goal in Korea was "prevent South Korea from being taken over by the Communists," then I think we achieved our goal.   Since we achieved our goal and prevented the Communists from achieving theirs, I would be comfortable calling that a victory, even though some say *Korea is the first war we lost.  *America just wasn't used to achieving anything short of complete destruction of the other side, on the Germany/Japan model.  After WWII though, we weren't willing to do that as a nation any more, and it's unlikely we will have that degree of national will in the future.


----------



## Brill (Apr 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I think you may be *conflating* (I really don't like it when you do that.  ) military victory with political victory.


 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate


----------



## AWP (Apr 22, 2012)

Okay, US involvement in "Indochina" through the fall of Dien Bien Phu.

There's an excellent book on this, Valley of Death by Ted Morgan. IIRC,  US aid to the French WAS the war. We paid for the French to fight Uncle Ho while wringing our hands over French colonialism in Indochina. Once Korea kicked off and the domino theory (Ike used the term in '54, but as early as 52 or so he and his advisers were worrying about the spread of Communism, citing the loss of China and then Korea as reason
s to become involved in Indochina) became a fear in Ike's cabinet, we doubled down on our aid. By '54 we were pressuring France to "allow" us to "advise" them on the war, essentially strong-arming France to fight their war with our equipment, money, and leadership. Yes, Ike tried to force the French to fight their war on our terms using aid as leverage.

Ike may have warned Kennedy, I don't recall, but under his presidency we laid the groundwork for our involvement. We sent a carrier task force out on at least one occasion, and placed others on stand by. CAT pilots from the US participated (2 were killed) in the airdrops and we even had small numbers of troops on the ground. One was in Haiphong helping the French build pallets for the airdrops.

Ike was prepared to commit US ground forces IF the Brits would agree to do the same, a la Korea. The Brits told Ike to bugger off, but Dulles pressed so hard for UK involvement that he actually damaged his relationship with his UK counterpart. We even went so far as to offer B-29 carpet bombing and the use of nukes at one point.


----------



## CDG (Apr 22, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> We even went so far as to offer B-29 carpet bombing *and the use of nukes* at one point.


 

Really?  Wow....


----------



## pardus (Apr 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I think you may be conflating military victory with political victory.


 
Semantics, or is there a real difference in this case?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 22, 2012)

pardus said:


> Semantics, or is there a real difference in this case?


 
Yes; you can have military victory but political defeat, and vice-versa.  This thread is a good example.


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I think you may be conflating military victory with political victory. Victory in the Cold War was a political victory, much of which was a result of military actions, some of which were successful and some of which were not.


 
I don't think so, I mentioned that earlier;



> I think it is also important to tie this into the rest of the bigger war, the Cold War. Military people think of a military victory or loss, politicians do not ee it that way. The sad part is that the political gains or loss back home are more important than the military gains or loss on the battlefield. Our politicians are very much like what is said about the North Viet-Namese, the did not care how many of their people where killed.


 
One can say the war in Viet-Nam was a part of the larger war, the Cold War.  The goal was to keep communist expansion to a mini mun in Indochina.   Which it did.  So now we have a victory?  ;)  

I think we both are saying,  after WWII ended, the way we fought wars greatly changes.   As I mentioned earlier;



> Another way to look at it, as another battle in the cold war. Problem in wars like this is on how it differs from WWII, WWII was a war to end. After WWII, Korea, Viet-Nam, El Salvador, and all the other places in the world where political battles.


 
All of this can be pretty confusing for the American citizen and military personal.


----------



## AWP (Apr 22, 2012)

CDG said:


> Really? Wow....


 
Yes. It came from the JCS and Dulles even offered the use of them to the French Foreign Minister. Eventually the US would back off on the offer and no weapons were moved to French control, but the reality is that we offered three nukes for France to use around DBP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vulture

http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/explore/v1n2-art2.html (This sources say two nukes)

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1901759?uid=3739504&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56072348153 (Doesn't specify the quantity)

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2004/August 2004/0804dien.aspx (Three nukes, this also lists the amount of support we gave the French)


> In an effort to assist the besieged garrison, French forces had borrowed and were using a US Navy aircraft carrier, 10 US Air Force B-26s, several C-47s and C-119s, and hundreds of US Air Force personnel.


 
The Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964 was a forgone conclusion and the second incident on August 4, 1964 was at best a misinterpretation of data and at worst a total fabrication.


----------



## CDG (Apr 22, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Yes. It came from the JCS and Dulles even offered the use of them to the French Foreign Minister. Eventually the US would back off on the offer and no weapons were moved to French control, but the reality is that we offered three nukes for France to use around DBP.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vulture
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the links.  I had never heard of anything like that before. It's pretty astounding that we would do something like that.... Money, troops, training sure, but some fucking NUKES?  Goddamn.....


----------



## SpitfireV (Apr 22, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Yes; you can have military victory but political defeat, and vice-versa. This thread is a good example.


 
I disagree. Military action is an extension of political foreign policy. You can have politics without military action but not vice versa. The two are inseparatable IMO, a failure for one is a failure for the other (in the context of a conflict).


----------



## digrar (Apr 23, 2012)

We raised conscription for troops to deploy to Malaya and Indonesia, not for Viet Nam. At the end of the day, very few national servicemen served in either of those places, Viet Nam became the main game in town and the Communist threat in the bottom part of SE Asia basically faded away. There is a school of thought that wouldn't have been the case if the North rolled the South early on and US and the rest of us, didn't step in. As far as Australia is concerned not having Communist countries that close to our border is a win.


----------



## Kylepl (May 29, 2012)

I personally think that the Vietnam war was embarassing for the United States of America just like the war in Afghanistan by the Reds was a failure also.  They're both failures because the indegenious population (therefore the North Vietnamese and the Mujahideen) were able to fend off a much more advanced force and, sorry to say it, a cocky one at best.  Both the Americans and Russians had not felt defeats for some time and therefore thought that victories in both wars would be quick and decisive.  Both obviously didn't do enough research and ended up being stuck in a pointless and bloody war that cost the lives of thousands of Americans and Russians for what gains? The Americans went into Vietnam to fight off the commies but instead they instagated them and caused them to rally even more support than before which allowed them to take power by the end of the war/the retreat of the Americans.  Vietnam was supposed to be a democratic and "free" country after the war, but all it became was more communist, the complete opposite of what the Americans aspired to gain.  Therefore, the Vietnam war was a failure by the American government (*Not the troops or the people*) and should be remembered as such forever.


----------



## pardus (May 29, 2012)

I personally think you should do some research before you decide to post again about subjects like this on this board.

Read more, post less.


----------



## Gypsy (May 29, 2012)




----------



## Kylepl (May 29, 2012)

Explain to me where I went wrong Pardus.


----------



## QC (May 29, 2012)

In light of the above, were there valuable lessons learnt in COIN that we're missed in Vietnam and not acted upon?


----------



## pardus (May 29, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> Explain to me where I went wrong Pardus.


 
You posted that horseshit above.

Go do some research to find out on your own why, like I suggested before.


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> I personally think that the Vietnam war was embarassing for the United States of America just like the war in Afghanistan by the Reds was a failure also. They're both failures because the indegenious population (therefore the North Vietnamese and the Mujahideen) were able to fend off a much more advanced force and, sorry to say it, a cocky one at best.


There isn't a single example of the US being "fended off" or defeated in anyway in Vietnam. We were defeated by politicians and by a gov't and a people (RVN) who lacked the will to win.

You know, I had an epiphany while I was in Afghanistan about 6 months ago. I was looking over our ALP candidates talking them over with a friend and said, "are there no men in Afghanistan who are willing to stand up for what they believe in?" Then I immediately answered my own question- "yeah, they are called the Taliban." So in the same light, through talking to my father and other Vietnam vets, my theory seems to be somewhat true there as well. Aside from some loosely organized tribes, the people that had staunch beliefs and decided to stand up and fight for them in The RVN were called Viet Cong.

It's very hard to kill an idea, that's what makes UW successful- whether we are promoting it or fighting it.

I think it was Ho Chi Minh who said this- He was being talked to after the war and someone confronted him with the fact that his forces had never dealt a defeat to the US in any single battle, his response- "that's irrelevant."  Well put, sir.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 30, 2012)

Erm, HCM died before the war ended...

but it's a salient point nonetheless.


----------



## QC (May 30, 2012)

Yes Etype, valid point. You can always kill an idea with a better idea.


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Erm, HCM died before the war ended...
> 
> but it's a salient point nonetheless.


Good catch.  I admit, I'm not sure who it was- but I do know it was said...


----------



## HOLLiS (May 30, 2012)

I was in-country for HCM funeral. IMHO, problem with remembering that war is all the propaganda, not only do we have East VS West but we have good old down home partisan politics.  Kerry called our soldiers, something in the order like Genghis Khan. 

http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm

I posted this site and it is a good read. The parallels to Iraq and Afghanistan is not the battles, how the military does things, logistics, none of that. It is propaganda and partisan politics. Like what Kerry said, "I voted for the war before I voted against the war." I have a loathing for our politicians, their own political welfare, getting elected is more important than the lives of men and women who are put into harms way. That partisan politics is a ally to our enemies.

Sat Cong. The indigs were not rice paddy daddies. another myth.


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2012)

Here we go, I was way off- but I maintained the gist.


> One of the iconic exchanges of Vietnam came, some years after the war, between Col. Harry Summers, a military historian, and a counterpart in the North Vietnamese Army. As Summers recalled it, he said, "You never defeated us in the field." To which the NVA officer replied: "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/30/obama-s-vietnam.html


----------



## Etype (May 30, 2012)

And from Kerry's site that HOLLis referenced-


> *If the Vietnamese communist military were such a superb, uncanny, divinely lead fighting force, that always outfoxed the Americans, how come they didn’t take more prisoners? It’s because the communists were defeated on the field of battle in every single major engagement of the War. In order for the communists to have taken significant numbers of prisoners, they would first have to win battles and overrun American positions.*


----------



## Kylepl (May 30, 2012)

Etype said:


> There isn't a single example of the US being "fended off" or defeated in anyway in Vietnam. We were defeated by politicians and by a gov't and a people (RVN) who lacked the will to win.
> 
> You know, I had an epiphany while I was in Afghanistan about 6 months ago. I was looking over our ALP candidates talking them over with a friend and said, "are there no men in Afghanistan who are willing to stand up for what they believe in?" Then I immediately answered my own question- "yeah, they are called the Taliban." So in the same light, through talking to my father and other Vietnam vets, my theory seems to be somewhat true there as well. Aside from some loosely organized tribes, the people that had staunch beliefs and decided to stand up and fight for them in The RVN were called Viet Cong.
> 
> ...


When I said fended off, what I meant was not defeated but more like brush off.  Obviously the Americans were a superior force to the Viet Cong but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective.  Obviously all major battles between them ended with the Vietnamese on the killing end but you could relate these tactics to wars before Vietnam such as wars in North America like the beginning of colonization and the war of 1812 etc.  Don't quote me on those exact references, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason why the Americans won some battles in that war was because they used tactics that were not common to the battlefield of the day because the Americans were on the less superior side at the time.  Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.

I do agree with you though and it was very well said Etype!!


----------



## HOLLiS (May 30, 2012)

Part of the myth was the RVN soldiers where worthless.   With out resupplies and all by themselves (meaning no Western support at all)  they held the North Viet-Namese for two years.   The NVA was still being supplied and supported by the communist block countries.  

Look into the Viet-Namese Airborne Commandos.   They were dedicated. 

There is a myth about the Viet-Cong,   VC regulars and NVA (plenty of them) did most of the heavy fighting and they did it as modern military not a guerrillas or indigs irregulars.  

Sat Cong. 

BTW toi tieng biet


----------



## pardus (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> When I said fended off, what I meant was not defeated but more like brush off. Obviously the Americans were a superior force to the Viet Cong but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective. Obviously all major battles between them ended with the Vietnamese on the killing end but you could relate these tactics to wars before Vietnam such as wars in North America like the beginning of colonization and the war of 1812 etc. Don't quote me on those exact references, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason why the Americans won some battles in that war was because they used tactics that were not common to the battlefield of the day because the Americans were on the less superior side at the time. Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.
> 
> I do agree with you though and it was very well said Etype!!


 

You need to think more about what you post _before_ you post it. 
You have big opinions that are backed by nothing but your ego for the most part, that is based off of your posts thus far.



Kylepl said:


> Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.


 
Bullshit, we'd been engaged with those tactics on one side or another for the previous 20 years, in that region alone.


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> When I said fended off, what I meant was not defeated but more like brush off. Obviously the Americans were a superior force to the Viet Cong but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective. Obviously all major battles between them ended with the Vietnamese on the killing end but you could relate these tactics to wars before Vietnam such as wars in North America like the beginning of colonization and the war of 1812 etc. Don't quote me on those exact references, but I remember hearing somewhere that the reason why the Americans won some battles in that war was because they used tactics that were not common to the battlefield of the day because the Americans were on the less superior side at the time. Such as the tactics used by the Viet Cong were not common of the day.


 
You have a very poor grasp of history and appear to be operating from hearsay rather than any understanding of your examples.

The Revolutionary War did see the US using guerrilla war tactics but it was the set piece battles, and the US lost quite a few, with European politics that brought the French into the war. There's a myth that the Colonists ran around like Viet Cong or Taliban or ninjas and did all of their fighting in that manner and it just isn't true. If anything, the Colonists were at times their own worst enemy and early in the war George Washington's tactical brilliance coupled with British ineptitude prevented the war from ending in 1776.

War of 1812? Ditto. The US did so well that the UK sacked and burned our capital.

Insurgent tactics are new? The Viet Cong were doing something different or uncommon? In the 1940's-60's alone you have numerous insurgencies or unconventional warfare examples, even Wikipedia will help with that. As for history, Alexander faced an insurgency in Bactria and I'm sure if I did 5 minutes of research I could find more examples of insurgencies/ UW in Antiquity.

And for the love of the deity of your choice, man, do some research and stop swallowing whatever it is you've been fed all your life. I was there once at your age so I know what it is like.

Go read.


----------



## Etype (May 31, 2012)

Kylepl said:


> but it was the tactics that the Viet Cong used against the Americans that were effective.


I'd say the only tactics they really used effectively were promoting their ideas and staying in the fight through adversity, to the end.
The fact that the VC didn't go completely underground and fight the same way the Taliban does is incredible. It's either a testament to their lack of intelligence or their fanaticism. All they had to was keep the idea alive and enough of a semblance of resistance to promote the revolution in others. Using Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as historical lessons, I don't see a need for any revolutionary group anywhere around the world to ever actually engage in combat until the very end. You only need a couple well placed explosives or sniper rounds each month to keep the big green war machine running in circles and chasing their tail. If you have the support of the populace and can keep a leg up on recon teams, the only fear you have is SOF elements and ISR.


----------



## HOLLiS (May 31, 2012)

Etype,   If you notice after the fall of the South,  the VC flag was completely gone.   The VC were pretty much gone by the end of 1969.    The Nam Biet and Bac Biet where not the best of friends.   United in the war,  The VC wanted to control South Viet-Nam and the Bac Biet want to unify and control all of Viet-Nam.  The consensus of the VC and Nam Biets (South Viet-Namese) was that Tet '68 was planned in a way by the North (Bac Biet) to end the  VC problem.    

IMHO, the abilities of the VC were greatly exaggerated.  VC Regulars were a standard fighting force, like the NVA.


----------



## pardus (May 31, 2012)

HOLLiS said:


> IMHO, the abilities of the VC were greatly exaggerated. VC Regulars were a standard fighting force, like the NVA.


 
They never posed a serious threat to the ANZAC sector. The NVA gave them a good scrap on occasion but didn't pursue it meaningfully after they were given a few black eyes.


----------



## digrar (Jun 1, 2012)

Flogged them early and never took the boot off the throat.


----------



## LarryGrut0311 (Jun 3, 2012)

Read up on what the Combined Action Groups accomplished in I Corps http://www.cap-assoc.org/documents/CombinedActionProgram_stats.pdf

Another site http://www.capmarine.com/


----------

