"What the Vietnam War Hawks Got Wrong" Topic

"Earlier this week, Francis Sempa offered a curious effort to rehabilitate James Burnham, best known as a columnist for the National Review, and as author of Suicide of the West. Burnham began his career as a radical Trotskyite, but by the 1950s found himself on the right edge of the American conservative movement.

What's odd about Sempa's column is that very few try to resurrect the reputation of Vietnam hawks, the people who argued that the only problems with the war in Indochina are that the United States didn't squander enough blood and treasure and didn't slaughter enough Asians. America's historical memory has struggled to flush such voices from its consciousness, and has largely succeeded. It also bears note that the National Review itself rarely enjoys being reminded of the sort of sentiments it published during the 1950s and 1960s.

In any case, Sempa believes Burnham deserving of attention and rehabilitation because Burnham "was mostly right about the ‘big' items." Which of these "big items" does Sempa cite? Here's one: "It is a critical battle in the war for Asia, the Western Pacific and the South Seas," [Burnham] wrote. If the U.S. withdraws from the struggle, "we will have demonstrated our inability as defender. It will become next to certain that the whole vast region, sea and land, will shift into the camp of the enemy."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well, "the whole vast region" idea was a bit extreme, but Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia fell to communism.

Tom

An interesting article, and interesting comments on it.

"resurrect the reputation of Vietnam hawks, the people who argued that the only problems with the war in Indochina are that the United States didn't squander enough blood and treasure and didn't slaughter enough Asians."

Really? Did Pol Pot "slaughter enough Asians"?

From my studies the biggest problem with the US actions the Vietnam was was that from '66 to '68 the war wasn't waged with enough military force. LBJ and his group held back US air operations over North Vietnam and didn't go after the safe havens the communists had in Cambodia and Laos with ground troops.

When this was done in early '70s, the political will to continue the war had been lost in the US populace, yet they scored hugh military benifits. Cambodian invansion of May, 1970 knocked the communist time table for an invasion of South Vietnam back 2 years to April, 1972 (Easter Offensive) and the bombings of '72 of North Vietnam (when B-52s were actually used on North Vietnam) brought them to the peace tables in Paris quickly.

So, what would have happened if those actions had taken place earlier, say, right after the Tet Offensive when the military of the communist forces had been crushed on the battlefield? Would Tet have even been possible if the base camps in Cambodia had been attacked by ground troops in '67?

"rehabilitation" my foot, I believe history has shown that the LBJ administration and the Doves approach to the Vietnam War's early actions were the wrong. Overwhelming immediate military might was needed, not the gradudual increase used by LBJ.

To coin a phrase from the period:
"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

didn't slaughter enough Asians.

Not for want of trying … Which from my former Grunts POV on a Tactical level is your job …

When this was done in early '70s, the political will to continue the war had been lost in the US populace, yet they scored hugh military benifits. Cambodian invansion of May, 1970 knocked the communist time table for an invasion of South Vietnam back 2 years to April, 1972 (Easter Offensive) and the bombings of '72 of North Vietnam (when B-52s were actually used on North Vietnam) brought them to the peace tables in Paris quickly.

So, what would have happened if those actions had taken place earlier, say, right after the Tet Offensive when the military of the communist forces had been crushed on the battlefield? Would Tet have even been possible if the base camps in Cambodia had been attacked by ground troops in '67?

Some may argue about all that … but I agree … Yet to this day others will argue about how effective the VC/NVA were vs. the US/SEATO. In some cases, they were. But in most engagements, the Communists forces lost … and in the case of Tet … lost big on the battlefield. But won in the media … The VC/NVA were certainly willing to lose many, many troops. That was one thing in their favor. The other, it is their backyard. They waited out the Japs in WWII, the France afterwords and now the US … That being said, that after Tet, the VC/NLF had been very much attrited. By the '72 Easter Offensive, they only could affectively field about 3 Rgts., mostly in the Cham Coast region. Being fleshed out with some NVA in many cases. During Tet Giap pushed the VC forward, and in turn they took high losses. I feel among other reasons for this is. They know that for every hard corps VC communist troop, there was just another Nationalist. Maybe the North new that once they defeated the ARVN after the US/SEATO left[like the French]. They didn't want to deal with Southern Nationalists. It was just as easy to use them up at this point … Regardless, the US/SEATO was fighting a war of attrition against the birth rate of a 3d World Asian country as noted by Joe Galloway among others …

I believe history has shown that the LBJ administration and the Doves approach to the Vietnam War's early actions were the wrong. Overwhelming immediate military might was needed, not the gradudual increase used by LBJ.

The goal of the LBJ administration wasn't to crush the enemy but to put enough pressure on them (i.e. inflict enough casualties) to force them to the negotiating table. LBJ inherited the SecDef of JFK after the latter's assassination, Robert McNamara, a bean-counting technocrat ('Whiz Kid') who was a Ford Motors executive before he entered government service. He authored the doctrine of "Flexible Response" which succeeded Eisenhower's doctrine of "Massive Retaliation" of the 1950's.

The problem was that the US never went "all out" to win Vietnam because it did not threaten core American interests. It was a half-hearted attempt to stem the tide of communism in SE Asia ("Domino Theory") which underestimated the will of the North Vietnamese. Even when Nixon turned up the pressure after he took office with the massive 'Linebacker' strategic bombing campaign his goal was to force Ho Chi Minh to negotiate so America can withdraw "with honor."

Good point on the birthrate, the well known "body count" stats used by McNammara never came with near the numbers needed to effect military aged manpower in the North. The communists were willing to take huge losses and still had the bodies to put into the fields.

Yet, if the base camps across the boarder had been hit on regular basis by ground troops, Prince Sinanok (sic) be damned, the ability to conduct large operations in the South would have been compromised.

Also, a full air campaign to destroy the North would have prevented supplies from moving down Ho Chi Mihn trail. Turning B-52s loose on the trail would also have cut down on supplies. Although B-52 were used on the trail, the vast majority of B-52 missions were done against targets in South Vietnam, not the North, Cambodia or Laos.

I agree with you that Gaip wanted the NLF/VC wiped out before the big push from PAVN/NVA troops came in. He didn't want them around to cause problems.

I had read that by '69 a full 75% to 90% of VC units (esp. Main Force Batt) were made up of Northern troops. This figure is taken from POWs. When I was younger I never understood how they would know if the POW was from the North or South. It was explained to me very clearly in terms of the United States. A person from Alabama and a person from New York might both speak English, but there is a difference in how they speak English.

Anyway, I could talk about Vietnam strategy all day, but I won't accept that the Doves / LBJ way of fighting that war was correct. The war was lost to the American people by the time Nixon started policies that would end the war, but were very Hawkish. It did bring the communist to the peace table.

Jesus I had 4 uncles that fought there. Dont talk to me about the big Damn picture. Lets talk about the guys who bleed and died there. Always easy to send others off to die . Especially if you dont think they are as good as you.

Not the only one doug redshirt.

1 Brother (from Dad's first marriage) – Medic w/ 101
1 Uncle – B-52 ground crew (he got the lucky part)
1 Uncle – Marines (I'm named after him).

The article was about the rehabilitation of a person who had Hawkish views during the war. My belief is that he needs no rehabilitation because he was correct.

Just off hand, a great writer who covers the big picture and the guy on the front lines is Keith Nolan. He's written 12 books on the Vietnam War. All are very good.

Glad you enjoyed the article my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

Lets talk about the guys who bleed and died there.

When I started ROTC in '75 most of our instructors had served in Vietnam, many times more than one tour. Then throught out my 10+ years on active duty '79-'90. Many of my instructors, senior officers and NCOs had served in Vietnam as well. Again some more than one tour … I learned much from them and saw the Purple Hearts when in dress uniforms. Some having more than one. Some of our SGM served in Korea as well …

I live in Vietnam and have lived in South Korea.

From my experience the average person in Vietnam is happier that the average person in South Korea. Funny when you think about it. I am certainly far happier and feel less oppressed by society in Vietnam than I did in Korea. Vietnam is not without it's issues and problems but neither is Korea – which was a military dictatorship until the early 1990s – almost for 40 years after the armistice. Even now it is barely democratic and rife with corruption. The USA and UK are far from perfect too of course.

To understand the history first understand that the US misadventures in South East Asia were intended as an object lesson to countries like the Philippines and Indonesia and in that it worked very well. The US were never 'saving' south Vietnam from communism. That was just the cover story.

It's infuriating but not surprising how little the average American knows about the politics behind the tragic events of the 1960s-70s. Most barely know what happened let alone have any understanding of why.

Though the rank and file and junior officers of the US military contained some psychopaths who went off the rails [any organization will] many if not most behaved as honorably as we have any right to demand of soldiers in combat. The US troops were highly skilled, motivated and professional – just as much as the US military in WW2.

It's such a pity they were misled from the highest level and right down through the general officer grades and many of the field officers too. I mean misled in the sense of duped and that poor strategy and tactics were employed.

Nixon's ideas would never have led to victory even if attempted earlier – all they would have done is brought China into the war. They had no effect on the outcome and cost the lives of perhaps 2,000,000 including 20,000+ US fatalities that occurred after he came into office.

All in all an enormous tragedy that the US fails to face up to and therefore risks repeating.

I tend to hesitate getting involved in these kind of threads because they often become acrimonious. Let's hope we can keep it civil and accept each others right to express an opinion.

Agree!

Amicalement
Armand

I served in a US ARMY Mech Bn, in the ROK for 22 months, '84-'85. With 2 tour on the DMZ … We had a Vietnamese soldier in our Scout Plt. His father was ARVN and managed to get to/escape to the US …

It's infuriating but not surprising how little the average American knows about the politics behind the tragic events of the 1960s-70s. Most barely know what happened let alone have any understanding of why.

Most Americans know very little about their histroy … sad fact. But they do know what the score of lastnight's game, who Kim and Jlow are sleeping with and the news story that has anything to do with sex …

Though the rank and file and junior officers of the US military contained some psychopaths who went off the rails [any organization will] many if not most behaved as honorably as we have any right to demand of soldiers in combat. The US troops were highly skilled, motivated and professional – just as much as the US military in WW2.

Yes, I agree, very much so … I served with some of those honorable, highly skilled professionals … And my Father served honorably in the 90th ID in WWII. And was highly decorated – Brz/Str, P/Hrt, Sil/Str …

It's such a pity they were misled from the highest level and right down through the general officer grades and many of the field officers too. I mean misled in the sense of duped and that poor strategy and tactics were employed.

You could say that in a number of conflicts. From Ancient time to now. And it is not a paradigm that is only seen in the US Military … But we all know this …

All in all an enormous tragedy that the US fails to face up to and therefore risks repeating.

Not completely true in many/all cases. After Vietnam the US Military had to "pull itself up by it's boot straps" and evalutate/re-evalutate, study lessoned learned and re-learn, etc. … I was in that Army as a cadet and then when I lead a Rifle Plt as a young 2LT in '80-'81 … The ghosts of Vietnam, as I said was in ranks of many of our officers and senior NCOs … They were good soldiers to learn from and train us … The tactics, techniques, etc. that I learned from them. As I said stayed with me and I used many times in my 10+ years on active duty in 4 Inf Bns. Especially dismounted night attacks, raids and ambushes, for which I had a predilection …

The military lessons the US learned pretty well – no more draftees and a more professional attitude. This was especially evident in the late 80s and early 90s.

Someone I knew who had spent his whole life in the British Army always stressed is how the Army [British in his case] always trains for the LAST war not the next. When he was first in it was all jungle warfare training [Malaya] and his first experience was the Suez crisis. I suspect the US military is similar.

I am more concerned with the failure or indeed refusal to learn from the geo-political errors. But I don't feel this is the place to get into all that – maybe the Blue Fez is?

The military lessons the US learned pretty well – no more draftees and a more professional attitude. This was especially evident in the late 80s and early 90s.

I know … I was there … We did jungle warfare training in Panama. And then planning ahead, US units started desert training in the Mojave Desert … By the time, US units were deploying to GWI, many had been thru Desert Training at least once before the war broke out … In the early '80s there was still "things" going on in Central and South America. I deployed with the 101 3 times to the jungle. Then 2 tours on the DMZ in the ROK, followed by 2 deployments to Desert Warfare training. And I was in (West)Germany for REFORGER '88 … So like a tart at the dance … I got around …

I am more concerned with the failure or indeed refusal to learn from the geo-political errors.

Way above my pay grade [CPT 0-3 , I lead a Rifle Plt and Commanded a Mech Co. … We go incountry, we would do the usual Infantry things. Didn't matter who sent us there. We took an oath … to follow the orders of the POTUS and the officers appointed over us … As long as they are lawful orders. I … we would follow them. Didn't really matter who was on the recieving end of one of our ambushes, raids, etc. …

I can understand that when you're in a the armed forces you go along with the orders. It's the culture and necessary for cohesion and often survival. I gather military personnel are not allowed to criticize the commander in chief. This rather contradicts the idea of democracy though.

However – as a citizen – the President works for YOU so you have right and a responsibility to inform yourself and have an opinion. I know in the US [like elsewhere] voting changes nothing – or nothing much for the better at least.

I don't have a practical solution in the short-term but the more the US people know about what their government does and has done in the past the better. I think there is a sinister attempt to keep people ignorant of this and while it is not 100% effective it is 70-80% effective and that is good enough. You can find out if you look into the history but you have to look.

I can understand that when you're in a the armed forces you go along with the orders. It's the culture and necessary for cohesion and often survival. I gather military personnel are not allowed to criticize the commander in chief. This rather contradicts the idea of democracy though.

Normally the military does not openly criticize their Commander in Chief. And we were/are only required to follow lawful orders. Regardless what is said in a cold fighting position or an AFV in the dark, almost anything goes. But as many of us know who served, have heard a 1st SGT loudly say something like, "This is not a democracy, your color choice is green and you eat what is served or issued !" That is at least the cleaned up censored version.

However – as a citizen – the President works for YOU so you have right and a responsibility to inform yourself and have an opinion. I know in the US [like elsewhere] voting changes nothing – or nothing much for the better at least.

Well that is both the way things should work and along with the way the do work in reality … And of course as a soldier, you can vote absentee. But in the long run. In many cases most of the citizens who can vote … don't. The average number of voters only being about 25-30% that actually cast a ballot.

I'm sure people in the US military complain about the POTUS in private. If they tried to organize a meeting to discuss his competence and whether his orders were lawful I think they would be in some kind of serious trouble.

I think people should be more involved in politics at a grass roots level but that does not mean they should vote if they do not support any of the candidates on the ballot.

I myself have not voted in over 20 years and do not anticipate voting again.

Thanks for posting this, I have had a read of the other links from this…and find this quite ummm…interesting .

I'd suggest the 'American' Vietnam War was one of the great turning points of the second half of the 20C …it certainly wasn't understood by the general populace of the USA (likely still isn't), and it was "lost" by the Politicians of the day (MacNamara and Kissinger et al) and most importantly by the theatre Commander ,Gen Westmoreland.

The idea (in retrospect) that the USA failed to "Kill enough Asians" or be "aggressive" enough … seems to ignore every lesson of this period and reveal that these 'hawks' are still in denial about their role in losing this conflict …for the South Vietnamese.

True; this conflict happened against a backdrop of a recent history of worldwide Communist aggression and expansionism.
True; if the USA did not get involved then the RVN would likely have been overrun earlier than it eventually was.

However besides the problem of the Communists, the biggest problem in RVN was the amazingly corrupt , inefficient and parochial government that represented the interests of about 30% of the population …the Catholic urbanised elites. The USA steadfastly backed the (laughably) 'Democratic' Govt(s) of RVN, with enormous military might and aggression …and alienated the 70% of the population (mostly non-Catholics) who mostly lived in the countryside. This was an (unrecognised) strategy for failure. Yes there were plenty US folks 'in country' at the time who knew/understood better … but they were ignored by the people who put them there.

Once the 1965+ buildup was underway, Westmoreland's strategy was "Attrition" …which is the strategy you have when you don't have a strategy. Someone (anyone) should have called him on this but (as stated above) military culture doesn't do this. …and lots of good US soldiers died , as did about nearly four times this many RVN soldiers versus about seventeen times this many Communist soldiers.
…. and about seven times as many RVN/south Vietnamese civilians.. the people of the "Democracy" who the US were supposed to be helping.

The US 'jumped in', fought the war for the Vietnamese, raised the stakes, then left when it wasn't achievable or affordable to 'complete the mission' within one or two political terms-of-office.

Now all of this might have been worth something if the US Military High-Commanders and politicians (and/or populace) actually learned something from the Vietnam 'experience'…but the recent adventures to Afghanistan seems to suggest the US leadership (including the voters) learned nothing.

The idea that the 'Hawks' of the Vietnam era could be 'justified' in retrospect and 'rehabilitated' in the history books … seems like an "Alice-in-Wonderland" level of bizarre.

In wanting to 'support the troops' a lot of people include the officers. In my opinion any one holding field grade or higher bears some culpability and the general officers a great deal. The politicians – Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon more blame again and the most guilty are the advisers who advocated for the war to be waged at all and then allowed utterly futile strategies to be employed without speaking out.

Kissinger is still alive and was recently the target of a demonstration when he appeared before some committee or other – John McCain was in the chair and called the demonstrators 'low life scum' – which is about par for the course for him. There's a good documentary on Kissinger's crimes – quite a career he's had.

The various wars in South East Asia were wrong in two main ways.

ONE – It was a bad idea to try to override the will of the people in a former colony by force. This is a cornerstone of US policy to this day unfortunately. Better to have some thug in charge who can be relied upon to follow US interests than risk a democracy that might not.

TWO – it was wrongly carried out. There was no workable strategy to win the war on the ground. The US troops tried their best and they tried [though often failed] to fight within the 'rules'. Bombing of South Vietnam killed hundreds of thousands of peasants and destroyed the rural economy. Agent orange and the other chemical weapons poisoned the environment – [just had a US project here in Da Nang to remove agent orange left in the storage area at the airport.]

Because so many died or were maimed/wounded we naturally want it to be for something. But no amount of revisionism or twisting of the facts is going to change anything. The US fought for values the average American abhors. They didn't die and suffer for nothing – they died and suffered for the wrong things. Soldiers of course do not fight for any particular cause – they fight to support their comrades in the same unit. This is even more powerful than the instinct to fight for your own life.

It would have been better for everyone, the US, South East Asia and the world as a whole if Kennedy had looked the other way. Really the US never should have helped the French get back into Indochina when they had the chance. Roosevelt was against it but was dead and buried by then.

I'm sure people in the US military complain about the POTUS in private. If they tried to organize a meeting to discuss his competence and whether his orders were lawful I think they would be in some kind of serious trouble.

Yes … that all is or would be true.

and lots of good US soldiers died , as did about nearly four times this many RVN soldiers versus about seventeen times this many Communist soldiers.
…. and about seven times as many RVN/south Vietnamese civilians.. the people of the "Democracy" who the US were supposed to be helping.

Very true … but are we all know … very bad horrible things happen in war … As we see again today in the Middle East, among other places …

This is why the leaders of a country that starts an aggressive war must be held to account – since any war will inevitably unleash such horrors.

War will always remain a necessary evil and it may sometimes be justifiable to launch a pre-emptive attack. But the onus is on those launching the attack to justify it.

Skarper

Really the US never should have helped the French get back into Indochina

That's the most perspicacious comment in this thread. I've never understood why the US supported France's move back into her former colonies, yet pushed the UK hard to divest itself of its empire. HCM himself was not wedded to VN becoming communist, but turned to the USSR and PRC when the French were allowed back in. If not for that then VN may have played the same role in SE Asia as Yugoslavia played under Tito.

Legion 4, I also joined in 1975 (enlisted 11 August) and got the benefit of training by veterans of Viet Nam, Malaya/Singapore and Borneo. Nearly all the battalion's NCO's and WO's, and all the officers of CAPT and above, had been through VN and usually also Borneo or Malaya. Unlike the later 90's and early 2000's, the training was relevant, realistic and purposeful. If Viet Nam did nothing else (and I am one of those who sees it as an unnecessary waste of lives- the author is obviously trying to spin what happened to make Burnham look less of a goose), it at least gave our army a good basis of experience which lasted through the long peace of the late 70's, 80's and 90's, until East Timor.

Cheers.

Dal.

This is why the leaders of a country that starts an aggressive war must be held to account – since any war will inevitably unleash such horrors.

Can't agree strongly enough !

Particularly when you are conscripting the best of your nations' youth, and calling for volunteers …you should be required to know what you are doing, and how you intend to win….if you are demonstrated incompetent to achieve this, does "held to account" mean manslaughter-type charges that would be applicable in any other (ie: civilian) setting if you killed your own citizens through negligence ?
IMHO it should be taken this seriously.

Vietnam was a case-in-point of the US Military's complete overconfidence that that they would win the war for this "piss-ant country" just by showing up.
Lots of good US soldiers doing their duty were burned like sticks on a fire to provide a smokescreen for the US leaderships' incompetence (eg; "Strategy of Attrition").
… and public figures like John McCain screaming "let us jump into another war in Syria/Iraq" (without really thinking it through)…suggest this incompetence is still endemic.

Legion 4, I also joined in 1975 (enlisted 11 August) and got the benefit of training by veterans of Viet Nam, Malaya/Singapore and Borneo. Nearly all the battalion's NCO's and WO's, and all the officers of CAPT and above, had been through VN and usually also Borneo or Malaya. Unlike the later 90's and early 2000's, the training was relevant, realistic and purposeful. If Viet Nam did nothing else (and I am one of those who sees it as an unnecessary waste of lives- the author is obviously trying to spin what happened to make Burnham look less of a goose), it at least gave our army a good basis of experience which lasted through the long peace of the late 70's, 80's and 90's, until East Timor.

Cheers.

Dal.

Very Much Agree …

In wanting to 'support the troops' a lot of people include the officers. In my opinion any one holding field grade or higher bears some culpability and the general officers a great deal. The politicians – Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon more blame again and the most guilty are the advisers who advocated for the war to be waged at all and then allowed utterly futile strategies to be employed without speaking out.

A bit broad bushed IMO … many Field Grads only had so much "power", and still have to follow lawful orders. And yes, some officers realized that sometimes when running ops out there in bush on your own. You may want to take less risks with your troops lives …

OOPS !!!! Double post !!!!

Some culpability – I get that a Major is a lot less guilty than a General officer. But I'd say the guilt kicks in at Major. Majors are career officers for the most part and would be privy to the big picture unlike many Captains and LTs. They would attend the briefings and read the reports. They cannot claim not to know. Colin Powell was a Major in 1968 and he knew. David Hackworth was Major in 1965 and a Colonel in 1971. He knew too.

I realize my views are not mainstream. I do sympathize greatly with the troops. All gave some and some gave all – as they say.

Err… I think you got that backwards, the US vehemently opposed the French return to Indochina unlike the British which were more sympathetic (up to a point). The US position was only reversed with the start of the Korean War (i.e. a good 4 years into the war) when the Indochina was repainted as an anti-communist war and no longer a colonial one.

Skarper

Really the US never should have helped the French get back into Indochina

That's the most perspicacious comment in this thread. I've never understood why the US supported France's move back into her former colonies, yet pushed the UK hard to divest itself of its empire. HCM himself was not wedded to VN becoming communist, but turned to the USSR and PRC when the French were allowed back in. If not for that then VN may have played the same role in SE Asia as Yugoslavia played under Tito.

Thanks Risaldar – that makes sense.

They still should have stayed out of it or supported the Viet Minh – diplomatically not militarily.

I'm sure people in the US military complain about the POTUS in private. If they tried to organize a meeting to discuss his competence and whether his orders were lawful I think they would be in some kind of serious trouble.

If you actually get to the point of discussion legality of orders, the officers holding the discussion are in less trouble than the entire US!

The troops will often discuss the lack of a clue the POTUS has (regardless of who is in that office). Politicians are always fair game. "Why in God's name did we get sent here?!?" is a valid and legal question, as is "What on earth was the POTUS thinking when he sent us here?!?"

Questioning the legality of orders is bordering on mutiny.