Out of the mouth of babes comes the true story of Vietnam.......

haha

Chronoserpent, your 1st Sgt probably meant a "major" battle which would be true.

Originally Posted by chronoserpent

I am a Vietnamese-American, raised by Vietnamese parents who escaped from Viet Nam during the war, and I was born and raised in Southern California (Orange County, very near Little Saigon).

Never, EVER have I heard any comments against the American military effort in Viet Nam from my relatives or any other Vietnamese person.

The 1SGT of my NJROTC unit, who served a tour in Viet Nam, has always proudly said that the US military never militarily lost a battle in Viet Nam. I think that's probably an exaggeration, but from my studies of history, it's mostly true.

I don't think any blame can be put on American forces. The American military was the only thing keeping the North from overwhelming the South, and it's no surprise that once the US pulled out, the South was defeated.

Rather, in my opinion the war was lost by political micromanagement of the war (rather than leaving it to soldiers) and by American anti-war sentiment at home which magnified the political effects.

I share your opinion, and it comes as a great satisfaction to me, you personally would have more experience on this subject than I do by your background alone.

plain and simple.

We did not lose Vietnam. They did not Win, if i had to say


A) Won
B) Lost
C) Neutral (No One Won)
I will say C everytime and twice on Mondays.

I think doing to most damage to the enemy is a success.

But really I think it was a moral defeat yet a military victory.

We lost under the definitions of the US war aim.

The official reason why we were in Vietnam was to set a independent and communist free South Vietnam. Did we do this in the end? No we did not. We won most of the battles in the war. However, military victories do not guarantee complete victory. Tet is a great example of this. 100,000 VC and 80,000 NVA (give or take) rose up and attacked US and RVN forces all over South Vietnam. In purely military terms, the US waxed the enemy. In political terms, the VC and NVA delt the US a fatal political blow. For 3 years, LBJ and the government had been telling the people that the US very close to victory. Then the American People get to see thousands of enemy mount a huge offensive. In my opinion, it's no surprise that the American people lost faith in the government and abandoned support for the war. America was no longer willing to stomach the fight and demanded that the US pullout.

A big problem with the American strategy in Vietnam was a general lack of waging political war against the enemy. The US conentrated most of the war effort on killing the enemy rather than protecting the civilians and winning the hearts and minds of the locals. In insurgencies, denying the enemy access to the local population is as important as searching for and destroying the enemy. Look at the USMC's CAP (Combined Action Platoons). 7-15 Marines would move into a village, live with the locals and help the villagers defend against VC. The Marines called this "hold and defend." I am still doing research on CAP. My initial reaction is CAP was more successful than the Army's sreach and destroy tactic.

Oh, and North Vietnam won according to their war aims. Their war aims were to get rid of yet another imperial power (the US), overthrow the RVN government and unify Vietnam.

War is policy by other means

Originally Posted by Doody

We lost under the definitions of the US war aim.
......................................

American people lost faith in the government and abandoned support for the war. America was no longer willing to stomach the fight and demanded that the US pullout.

.....................

The US conentrated most of the war effort on killing the enemy rather than protecting the civilians and winning the hearts and minds of the locals. In insurgencies, denying the enemy access to the local population is as important as searching for and destroying the enemy.

......................................

I don't completely disagree with you Doody ... HOWEVER ... search and destroy missions can only go so far in winning a conflict ... the US government and US military commanders decided to limit warfare to targets in South Vietnam and to ONLY pinpoint military targets in the north. Millions of tons of ordnance were jettisoned over the water that was destined for targets in the north that were never delivered on target for a variety of reasons. This ordnance COULD have been used to break the back of the north's intransigence.

Unlike WWII, the bombing over North Vietnam was NOT designed to bring them to the peace table to seek peace on an equitable basis. Had we had the cohones to do what every military man KNEW was essential to winning, B52s would have flown over North Vietnam and bombed anything in sight until they hollered 'UNCLE'. This never happened ... the single time we bombed the dikes in the north, you would think that we had just gassed a school full of kids.

THE WAR COULD HAVE BEEN WON IF THE CIVILIANS WOULD HAVE LET THE MILITARY WAGE A 'REAL' WAR INSTEAD OF A 'POLITICAL' WAR.

Originally Posted by Doody

War is policy by other means

Someone's been reading Von Clausewitz.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Someone's been reading Von Clausewitz.

you got me

Now here are my views on Air Power in Vietnam.

The US made a hude mistake in concentrating on North Vietnam. General Westmorland even said in 1965 that the VC only recieved 10-15% of its support from North Vietnam. The amount of external support to the VC prior to 65 was under 10%. This meant that the VC was getting most of its support from the population of South Vietnam. When the US entered the conflict, we took most of our forces and placed them to stop the North Vietnamese from infiltrating the south. Keep in mind, the VC were only getting like 15 tons of supplies from the north per a day. That is not a lot when you consider the VC numbered at least 150,000 (VC regulars and irregulars). Robert MacNamara, in his book In Retrostpect; the Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam,even said the US spend all its energy worring about the NVA rather than concentrating on VC irregulars. The Pentagon went as far as to not count the VC irregulars (80,000 strong) in their count of the enemy's stenth.

The US thought by destroying North Vietnam, the VC would have collapsed. I do not agree with this notion. The VC and Uncle Ho would have continued the fight with or without North Vietnam and the Communist cause. Ho accepted Communism because it aided him in unifying Vietnam.

So we dropped all kinds of bombs on the Ho Chi Mien trail in an effort to stop 15 tons of supplies per a day. We were dumping massive amounts of input into B52ing the trail and getting little output from our actions. BullDog should remember Clausewitz's views on this. Massive amounts of input does not gaurantee massive out put. One only must look at WWI for that lesson. Many times in war a little input gives massive output; German mechanized units in the begining of WWII, German Shock Troops of WWI, 300 Spartans and 3000 of thier allies holding off an Pershing Army of 1 million for 7 days, the Allied bombing of oil refineries near the end of WWII, the Chechnyian rebels taking back Grozny after the Russians siezed in during the first Russian invasion.

My point is massive air power against North Vietnam from 65-67, when North Vietnam did not give much support to the VC, would not have won Vietnam. In insurgencies, the civilian population is the center of gravity. Our efforts should have been placed there first, not the intervention of North Vietnam. That came much later.