Vietnam War

Being such an interesting and disputed subject, I propose a topic on Vietnam War.

Basically I want to hear opinions on:

1. justification of America involvement in Vietnam

2. military operations.

1. No justification what-so-ever.

2. No idea...

Justification of America involvement in Vietnam

Actually I think they were quite good. Putting a brake on communism expansion, boy, it looked like a good idea on paper.

Unfortunately it was harder to justify preventing nationwide elections, for if you fear that the people will prefer communism you start loosing morale ground trying to enforce another system on them.

To add to the misery, the government(s) that the US tried to protect was so unbelievably rotten* that no amount of support (political or military) was going to win the populace.

US military doctrine in Vietnam was a mixed lot.

- Exceptional development and use of airmobile doctrine
- Good show in cityfight environement (check Hue)
- resiliance (Khe Shan)

Abysmal : success measured by "bodycounting", completely useless in guerilla warfare. Few limitations on the use of firepower in SV. Air sorties scheduled as a measure of efficiency - then if you don't find valid targets just unload on any village, it might be VC controlled, for all you know. Same for artillery barrages, - also endemic in the ARVN and leading directly to the quick landslide in the heart & minds battle.

Intel problems : coloring the delta 3/4 blue when it is 3/4 red on operation maps just to please the commanding general. Things that look furiously like burying your head in the sand.

* I was astonished when I learned that several ARVN commanders were selling defensive artillery barrage to provincial outposts during VC attacks, now just imagine that "Hello want some help ? Ok it will cost you 3$ per 155mm shell. How much do you want ? 500. Fine that's 1500$ +10% fee for early delivery and the boss personal commision, mmm,. 1700$ and deal..."

Ok that was just some quick ideas to start discussions. I'm sure our American buddies can bring much more to this topic


[ Pzking you must be kidding ? ]




This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 20, 2004 12:38 am

I think it was more important to prevent a government than to protect a government. I don't think the US gave a damn on the south Vietnamese. I also think the anti-comunist justification was strong.

Well the US needed an SV government to fight the war against communism. That it was first choosen among the catholic minority in the country was only the first in a long serie of blunders.

It was not completely cynical, many good people gave their best in a fight they believed in. But that was never the problem.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 20, 2004 12:45 am

I think that unlike the today involvement in Iraq, US had a strong argument in Vietnam. Now I expect our american members to hammer me

fire at will !

No criticism from me. I agree with the statement above and with Dragos's and Chander's comments regarding the war in Vietnam.

Yes, the argument for involvement in Vietnam was much stronger than the one for Irak. However, it doesn't mean that the Irak argument is non-existent. It's just not nearly as strong.

Regarding the Vietnam war, it is said that it was the only war where the americans won *every* battle but managed to lose the war.

My contribution to this thread is to propose that the US lost the Vietnam war due to the constant interventions and hesitations of the political branch. The White House and Congress practiced poor politics and repeatedly prevented military commanders to make decisions based on the situation on the front line.

Mabadesc,
Do not believe, such American BS as they won every Battle! You gotta be kiding me, the Americans can claim whatever they want. The Simple truth is that Vietnamese were excellent, tough, intelligent and dam-near fearless soldiers. The American are always crying about how disadvanteged they were, give me a F------ brake. The Vietmanese sometimes shoot down US helicopters, with Arrows!! Who was the more disadvanteged? Americans quite frankly lied about both their own losses and the North Vietnamese.


Thank You.

well, let's be serious. vietnam was a war which was definetly won by the usa, from the military point of view. this, however, does not refer also to the political area, this being the place where it was lost. so before all the vietnamese start jumping up and down with joy about defeating usa, think a while. a modern war cannot be won with mediaval tactics. at least not as long as the modern opponent has the strong will. of course if there is no political unity behind the gun, the gun becomes useless and sometimes even turns into the face of the shooter. this is in my opinion, what happened in vietnam. clear and simple, and i would love to hear somebody say i am wrong, usa won that damn war. the act that it was poorly planned and forwarded, that is another issue.

vietnam had a couple of strong points: demographics and general Giap. i cannot introduce nature in the discussion, because that is a passive element. what is not passive, however, and may be another cause of the retrea of usa was the media coverage of the issue. basically, imagine napoleon in the era of television. could he have mounter armies like he did if all the wives back home saw imags of their husbands blown to pieces? who knows............

Indrid,
Are you joking, the US won the Vietnam War. In that case somebody had better tell that to the Vietnamese. I do not think, they would to happy to have their country divided again and the extremely corrupt South Vietnamese Government put back in power. I'am quite sick and tired of lessoning to US cry about how they should have won. They Lost and should shut up about it. They got their butts handed to them by a people, who they considered inferior to them.
Someone should have told the Vietnamese, because they certainly did not act that way. The Viet Cong and North Veitmanese People's Armed forces fought with a determination and conviction. That the soft America troops could never and will never fight with. How long would US troops last if they were starved, bombed daily, out-numbered, out-gunned, and often ill-equipped? The answer is not long at all, they are soft!!!..
Any time a US soldier is killed they act like it is the end of the world, how long would the have lasted on the eastern durring world war 2, where the war was decided; not long, because they can not handle losses.
The did not win every Battle, that is just America ego and propaganda. They got their butts wiped a few times and many battles were draws. The US never destroyed the North Vietnamese Amry and they never surrendered! So how did the US win?
The Last time I checked North Vietnamese T-55/54's tanks rolled through Saigon in 1975. US simply put it's tall between its legs, it was the was the most humilating defeat that the US every suffered.It does not matter what may have happened, what did happen was US was Defeated!!!..... Period.

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 20, 2004 09:19 am

Now this appears furiously like a commie propaganda leaflet. Perhaps you did not exactly look at what happened in history when US forces were starved, bombed and outnumbered, like in Bastogne , or Chosin reservoir. The supposedly soft nut was harder to crack than what you think. Ask the Germans and the Chinese. The idea that the US soldier is soft is bullshit. Reality is that the political homefront of a democracy is sometimes soft. But paradoxaly that is precisely a consequences of it's strong points.

Sorry but militarily it pretty much amounted to that. However such wars are not won based on WWII miltary criterias. The ultimate and unique goal is to break the enemy nation will to fight.

Now this appears furiously like a commie propaganda leaflet. Perhaps you did not exactly look at what happened in history when US forces were starved, bombed and outnumbered, like in Bastogne , or Chosin reservoir. The supposedly soft nut was harder to crack than what you think. Ask the Germans and the Chinese. The idea that the US soldier is soft is bullshit. Reality is that the political homefront of a democracy is sometimes soft. But paradoxaly that is precisely a consequences of it's strong points.

Chandernegore,
First let me make one thing clear to you, I'am not a communist, I'am someone who values democracy and the High ideals which originate in ancient Greece. However I'am huge fan of the underdog and the rights of all peoples to self-ditermination; therefore in the case of Vietnam, I'am quite glade that Vietnam prevailed. Against an America, which at the was inqnoring it's own Ideals and belief's, as well as acting neo-imprelailisticly against Vietnam. The sad fact is the whole war could have been prevented had America, allowed elections to take place. America can not claim it wants to spread democracy around world, then prevent elections when, It knows that it will dislike the results!!!......
Second you point to few examples were US troops fought well at peak of American military might. Today however American troops relie mostly on better firepower and more advanced technology then the skill of their troops. Bastogne was an elite american division holding out a few days, and Luftwaffe was flying little or none bombing missions against them. If Germany had its JU-87 and Ju-88's bombing American strong points or just another 48 hours, Bastogne would have fallen. And what about Kasserine Pass, did the Germans not soundly rout the Americans. Chosin was one location that US troops fought well, while the rest of US military, was in full retreat from chinese forces. Also the chinese had few heavy weapons, almost no tanks and no Air support. How many times would US troops have been wiped out by the VC or NVA, without air support durring the Vietnam War.
Given the emounous advantege that American forces enjoyed in numbers, technology, firepower and Air Power over both the VC and NVA, the US should have defeated Vietnam in few weaks. But in ten years they could not Defeat the North Vietnamses, it does not matter how many battles you win, if can't brake your enemies will to fight. And in end the North Vietnamese conquered South Vietnam, the final result is all that matters.
If that is not true then the US would still be a part of England, the British won nearly every battle in the American War of Independence, so would say that the British won that war? It's this simple who ever wins the final battle wins the war.
Finally I'am not claiming that the Americans are poor troops, simply that their are tougher soldiers to be found, a few examples are the British, Isreali's, Vietnamese and Romanian's.

Thank you

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 20, 2004 05:24 pm

I think that's irrelevant. in modern war it's not the individual toughness that counts, it's the overall efficiency of the Army and the equipment and technology.
After all, the germans in Stalingrad were also tough, no doubt about it, but what good did it bring them ?

Perhaps. You assume NV would have accepted the result of electoral defeat (I admit such result would not have been very likely). But I think Ho would have rejected it too.

No I pointed out a few case were the US forces were encircled and outnumbered.

Pure guesswork. Airpower alone didn't bring any armies to surrender during WWII.

Green troops in early war. The fighting ability of US divisions would increase continuously as the war went on. By 43 they already presented sound tactical and
operational abilities.

False. Firepower and technology are often negated in guerilla warfare in rough environment and can also prove counterproductive as it often did in Vietnam. To suppose that the US (or anybody else) should or could have won in Vietnam in a few weeks is a farce.

In that we easily agree.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 20, 2004 07:11 pm