"The Real Lesson of the Vietnam War" Topic

"Why do we continue to revisit the Vietnam War, or any historical event? Because we hope that the disastrous experience will hold lessons for future strategic decisions. The best that might be argued about the Vietnam War is that it established, for U.S. allies, that the United States would expend tremendous amounts of blood and treasure for areas that Washington didn't really care about. This, consequently, would indicate U.S. toughness, and preempt aggression in areas the U.S. did care about.

Many arguments in modern geopolitics run along the same lines. By fighting in Syria, or Iraq, or Nigeria, the United States can show toughness and deter potential aggressors in other areas. Putin, we like to say, is always watching, and presumably is assessing the toughness and resolve of American leaders.

But did the loss of 56,000 American lives and a tremendous amount of U.S. treasure really convince anyone that America was tough in the 1960s and 1970s? A new article in International History Review suggests not. Effie Pedaliu studies the failure of the United States to fire up more enthusiasm about the Vietnam War in Europe. Despite U.S. efforts, none of the NATO allies bought into the logic that fighting the Communists in Vietnam would make it unnecessary to fight the Communists in Central Europe. Instead of making U.S. allies more confident in America's willingness to defend them, the Vietnam conflict made NATO countries skeptical of whether the United States could focus on their defense…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personally I think the main lesson of the Vietnam war was don't with the Vietnamese.

Fatman

Probably controversial, but I thought the lesson was after military victory, a long term occupation is generally necessary to secure the victory.

US successful examples include Indian Wars, Mexican wars, ACW, Spanish American, WWII, & Korea which all utilized occupations and the unsuccessful examples without occupations that include WWI, Vietnam, Iraq?, and the current places we are thinking about leaving.

Before the US, this also seemed to be the successful model for other land powers such as the Romans, Normans, and British.

Lesson of Vietnam: Just hold out long enough and the U.S. will pull out.

LostPict: good point. I would add that except in the instance of Korea and WWII, the US absorbed all of the territories gained in the other wars. In WWII, we stuck around in areas that were considered our allies, or were completely vanquished and desperately wanted to become our allies. Similar to your other historical examples.

The US was never going to literally absorb Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan. One key is that the world after 1945 was anti colonial. Large, perhaps majorities, of the populations in Viet Nam et al did/do not want us there. Hence the difference with So. Korea.

Lesson of Vietnam: Just hold out long enough and the U.S. will pull out.

As mentioned here already. Uncle Ho out waited the French and then the US/SEATO. It's their back yard … Sooner our later the "round-eyes with long noses" will leave. And the same paradigm exists or existed or will again come about in A'stan and Iraq … And many in those regions/conflicts know this as too well. They may do things that may sound and look crazy to us. But their leadership is not "dumb" … But as also noted, in the ROK, we were welcomed as "librators" along with the rest of UN forces. And the ROKs were glad to have us stay around since the truce in '53. Many will note this is part of the reason the Norks stayed North and the ROKs "South" … As I mentioned previously. I served with a forward deployed Mech Bn in the ROK '84-'85/22 months, With 2 DMZ tours … But as we see, that did not/would not happen in places like Iraq and A'stan. For a varity of reasons … Beside which they are generally massive 3d World holes in most/many parts of those countries … Which we clearly see today many still living very much in the past … And fanatical followers of backward religious beliefs, etc. … Didn't have that problem with the ROKs …

The saying goes that winning a war is easier than securing the peace after "victory." That has been the case since the Vietnam War with the exception of the 1991 Gulf War, only because Bush Sr. stopped short of rolling into Baghdad.

Vietnam has shown us that wars cannot be won without also winning the "hearts and minds" of the populace. While we won every military engagement, we failed to win the more important propaganda war over communism in Vietnam. The people did not see us as liberators but as imperialists who took over in the wake of the humiliated French.

Similarly, the adherents of Islam will always view us as meddling "infidels" who support Zionism and prop up the state of Israel.

Hence, our military intervention is no longer to send a message that we're "tough" and will defend even peripheral interests but simply reacting to what the current politicians in power believe we should be fighting for.

Lee Kwan Yew [not guaranteeing spelling] thought America WON the Vietnam war, in the sense of achieving a strategic victory that bought the rest of SE Asia time. I agree in general, I think the right approach to combatting misty-eyed fanatics is to hold them up long enough for the inevitable turning-upon-fellow-revolutionary meme to kick in. Naturally, one can't absorb VERY many tactical defeats, however!

"Lesson: You can win militarily and lose politically".

The national media can defeat you if they are allied with the enemy.

Lee Kwan Yew [not guaranteeing spelling] thought America WON the Vietnam war, in the sense of achieving a strategic victory that bought the rest of SE Asia time.

I doubt he said that. As Singapore's leader he knew that most of the Communist-inspired insurgencies in SE Asia had been defeated before VN ramped up in 1962 (Malaya-Singapore, the Konfrontasi, Burma, Brunei, Thailand and, ironically, Laos and Cambodia- which the war in VN re-ignited, and which then fell to Communist regimes).

The VN War was the last gasp of the Domino Theory, not the first. It was also the most successful, chiefly because most of the world's media and national leaders were mobilised against the US/SEATO efforts in the RVN.

Cheers.

Dal.

'Personally I think the main lesson of the Vietnam war was don't bleep with the Vietnamese. – Fatman'

As someone who is married to a wonderful Vietnamese woman, I have to agree with Fatman 100%. Do not bleep off the Vietnamese, especially when they're pregnant.

'The national media can defeat you if they are allied with the enemy.'

This entire 'the media defeated us' trope seems to be based on an implicit assumption that the Vietnam War was a battle for the hearts and minds of Americans, not Vietnamese. For all the mistakes made at the time, at least the people in charge then knew they were fighting for the hearts and minds of Vietnamese people, most of whom could not read English and did not give a darn about US media. The entire implicit assumption that the war was about Americans and not Vietnamese is probably more a reason for lack of success than anything the media could ever say or do.

'Lesson of Vietnam: Just hold out long enough and the U.S. will pull out.'

Or to rephrase that, if you don't have a strategy to win, there is only so long the US public will tolerate feeding young men into a meat-grinder to achieve stalemate. Good on the US public for that.

If you play-play to win.

Sadly, GROSSMAN, we haven't done that, really, since WWII, with predictable results.

I think you won the Cold War, and quite convincingly. It was a long-term strategy, but it worked.

For the USA, Vietnam was just one battle in that war. You can't win every battle, but the USA won where it counted.

The national media can defeat you if they are allied with the enemy.

Debunked thoroughly many times over the years, as it applies to Vietnam, but still a canard that's trotted out regularly in some circles.

Hell, we're already seeing the same revisionism applied to Iraq and Afghanistan – in some circles.

Yes – media coverage had some influence but far less than the damage NLF/PAVN forces were doing to the US troops. That's what caused the US withdrawal – unsustainable losses with diminishing returns.

Now – here's the thing. The US had achieved its primary war aims long before the Tet offensive of '68. Nobody gave an LBJ cuss for the South Vietnamese government or troops – let alone the people. That was all just talk. If they had they'd have stood by them in '74-'75 and probably would have armed the ARVN properly much earlier. The maximal war aims of turning South Vietnam into an Asian version of El Salvador was proving too costly in lives and in $. USD

The primary goal all along was to prevent Vietnam being an example of defiance/self determination for Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines among others. Well they'd done that by 1965. They hung around a bit longer out of inertia and the 'one more election' factor and also Westmoreland lied about how well it was going and those in charge bought his lies hook line and sinker for far too long.

The US lost 'face' and prestige due to messing about in SEA for about 10 years and then leaving the place devastated and under control of communist governments, but they got over it quickly.

Some in the US were awakened to the real nature of US policy – pay lip-service to democracy and freedom but crush it whenever someone tries to go against US interests.

Same applies today – whoever they let lodge in the Whitehouse. But relatively few Americans are aware of this.

A good maxim in all circumstances is never listen to what they say – watch what they do.

pay lip-service to democracy and freedom but crush it whenever someone tries to go against US interests.

True of almost all of our small wars, "police actions," coups, and regime changes, unfortunately . . . and there have been a heck of a lot of them over the last two centuries-plus: link

Personally I think the main lesson of the Vietnam war was don't with the Vietnamese.

That is a bit of a broad brush statement, IMO … The VC/NVA gave as good as they got in many cases. But again US/SEATO won all major battles. And even though some don't like to use bodycount. But as a former Grunt, it works for me on a tactical level. See here > rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

I think you won the Cold War, and quite convincingly. It was a long-term strategy, but it worked.

For the USA, Vietnam was just one battle in that war. You can't win every battle, but the USA won where it counted.

Yes, for better or worse the USA and it allies [don't want to forget the UK, ANZACs, etc. !] won the Cold War. The War in SE Asia was one of a number of conflicts in that period. Again, militarily US/SEATO won on the ground in SE Asia. A study of Tet and later the '72 Rat Offensive will demonstrate that. However, something no one mentioned here. The Anti-War Movement in the US was really "Anti-Draft". Had there been no draft, the only ones protesting the war would be Jan Fonda, Joan Baez types. Otherwise very few Americans gave a rat's about SE Asia. Few could even find it on the map … If it was an all volunteer military like we have today and since 1972. The media version of the war may have been a little different ?

'Yes, for better or worse the USA and it allies [don't want to forget the UK, ANZACs, etc. !] won the Cold War.'

You're right. I did not mean to diminish the contributions of the many other nations involved. But there is no doubt the USA was the leader of the free world during that conflict. Some may disagree, but I'd argue it still is.

'Again, militarily US/SEATO won on the ground in SE Asia. A study of Tet and later the '72 Rat Offensive will demonstrate that.'

Here I would agree with Colonel Tu (I had thought it was Giap until I looked it up) that that is irrelevant. None of those victories on the ground won the battle for the hearts and minds of South Vietnamese, yet alone North.

The man who is usually (and rightly) credited with the US tactical victory at Tet was under no such illusion that such tactical victories would win the war.

"I've destroyed a single division three times . . . I've chased main-force units all over the country and the impact was zilch. It meant nothing to the people. Unless a more positive and more stirring theme than simple anti-communism can be found, the war appears likely to go on until someone gets tired and quits, which could take generations." – General Frederick Weyand

Now there was a man who recognised stalemate.

Personally I think Vietnam was a mis-step along the way of a winning strategy. An embarrassment for the USA but a tragedy for Vietnam. It was a product of the domino theory as much as anything, and ironically, the war(s) in SE Asia disproved that theory once and for all.

Vietnam proved it was not going to be China's domino, and Cambodia wasn't going to be Vietnam''. Eventually it fell to the the God-awful Communist Vietnamese regime to rescue Cambodia from the orders-of-magnitude worse Pol Pot regime. They ended up handed the county back to a UN-sponsored govt rather than try to absorb it. The domino theory wouldn't have predicted that.

However, even with the 20/20 hindsight of all these years, the rights and wrongs and might haves and should haves and shouldn't haves of Vietnam are still pretty murky.

As a personal aside, I recently attended a Buddhist memorial ceremony in Dong Nai for my wife's father, who died six months previously. He was a good man, who had served in both the NVA and Viet Cong during the war, and he had the bullet holes to prove it. After the war he tried to flee the grinding poverty and oppression of the Communist regime he had helped to install (not that the had a choice in the matter), but they lacked the cash to get far and ended up turning back.

The wrong side definitely won that war, but I do not think the South ever had it in them to win even with massive US support.

There were always two domino theories. One for public propaganda and one for secret policy.

There was never any fear that countries all over Asia would 'fall to the communists'. There was a very real fear that the poor people would rise up and demand self determination – but when they saw what happened to Vietnam they were cowed. It is the same story in South America with Cuba and later Nicaragua and nowadays Venezuela, Ecuador et al.

Look at Indonesia under Suharto – the Philippines under Marcos and all the appalling regimes the US set up, supported, armed and trained in South America.

The US did win the overwhelmingly vast majority of engagements between their forces and the PAVN/NLF. But not all. They got badly mauled on numerous occasions. The strategy of attrition was doomed because the PAVN/NLF could control the pace of attrition by retreating into safe areas – some in Laos and Cambodia but there were areas inside Vietnam's borders that were hard for the US to operate long term. Going into Cambodia/Laos with a land invasion was never going to achieve a decisive result unless the US sent enough ground troops to occupy the country long term. Even the peak of just under 500,000 only put about 50,000 combat troops on the ground. Wherever the US went in force they conquered – and left. Then the NLF/PAVN would return.

I disagree the wrong side won. I don't think there was a 'right' side like there was in WW2. If the corrupt, murderous and anti-democratic Southern government had prevailed it would have been far worse. Aid from the US and others may not have been turned off like it was to Vietnam and crippling sanctions not put in place. This would have meant less 'grinding poverty' – but aid in these situations tends to be diverted into the pockets of those in control and a lot is military aid anyway.

I'm not pretending Vietnam is paradise and there weren't huge problems post 1975. Of course there were and still are.

But people have got to see the GVN for what it was and not fall for the lies about freedom and democracy.

'Yes, for better or worse the USA and it allies [don't want to forget the UK, ANZACs, etc. !] won the Cold War.'

You're right. I did not mean to diminish the contributions of the many other nations involved. But there is no doubt the USA was the leader of the free world during that conflict. Some may disagree, but I'd argue it still is.

I very much agree …

'Again, militarily US/SEATO won on the ground in SE Asia. A study of Tet and later the '72 Rat Offensive will demonstrate that.'

Here I would agree with Colonel Tu (I had thought it was Giap until I looked it up) that that is irrelevant. None of those victories on the ground won the battle for the hearts and minds of South Vietnamese, yet alone North.

The man who is usually (and rightly) credited with the US tactical victory at Tet was under no such illusion that such tactical victories would win the war.

Unfortunatley, I agree … but again on a tactical level as a Grunt … you do your duty. In a firefight why you are there, what the politicians tell you, etc., etc., is irrevelant … You fight for the survival of your comrades and yourself. The easiest way to do the is kill the enemy, the guys shooting at you and trying to kill you. It gets real clear and simple at the squad, platoon and company levels …

The man who is usually (and rightly) credited with the US tactical victory at Tet was under no such illusion that such tactical victories would win the war.

"I've destroyed a single division three times . . . I've chased main-force units all over the country and the impact was zilch. It meant nothing to the people. Unless a more positive and more stirring theme than simple anti-communism can be found, the war appears likely to go on until someone gets tired and quits, which could take generations." – General Frederick Weyand

Now there was a man who recognised stalemate.

Indeed … hard not to agree with that …

The wrong side definitely won that war, but I do not think the South ever had it in them to win even with massive US support.

For better or worse, I very much agree. And I'm afraid, we may see similar conclusions with the current situations in Africa, the Middle East and SW Asia …

great thread, interesting article ! ..I'm sorry I missed the first few days of this!

?Lessons of the Vietnam war?
?..maybe depends on where you are standing..different lessons could be drawn for the US, the US allies and the Communists…and wether you were a soldier in the conflict or a politician.

May I offer;

If we accept that "War is Politics by other means" then the Communists never forgot this, and they played the 'Political war' near perfectly. The US completely fumbled this..at home and in-country. As stated above the US claimed not to have 'lost a battle' (this is very disputable), but in the end, it didn't matter.

For the US politicians and High-command perhaps the lesson is/was that despite the application of; an aggressive hi-tech war machine, billions of dollars, tens of thousands of lives, and shameless political coercion (eg.Cambodia) …you can't win a war for someone else, …especially if their government doesn't represent the views and will of the populace.

'Vietnamisation'(on a US model) was only token lip-service to begin with, it wasn't taken seriously,(and was rushed-through for political expediency) until the US had decided to pull out…despite the investment in (/donation of) military equipment that the RVN was not going to be able to operate/maintain independently..let alone refuel or rearm once the US had cut themselves free.
The US (?Kissinger) eventually (cheaply)negotiated a settlement that excluded the RVN's best interests (and wishes) from the agreement, to save "US honour", and expedite a withdrawl. Even the Nth Vietnamese were surprised by this result.

The Australian government of the day, despite initially backing the US 'all the way' right from the opening scenes of the FWF involvement (and may I add; "paid it's own way" as a participant)…found out about the US governments' decision to begin withdrawing from Vietnam from the US popular media (CBS I think)…not from the diplomatic channels that you would expect from a 'long-time ally'. This hurt US-Australian trust for a long time thereafter. CIA involvement in Indonesia and the tacit US approval for the Indonesian invasion of Timor(1975) against Australian advice and wishes, AND the revelations of the US/CIA interfering in domestic Australian politics and lying about 'intelligence-sharing' in the immediate post-Vietnam period (the 'Falcon and the Snowman' story)..didn't help much either.

? Lessons learned by US allies (South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, the Montagnards/Hmong ….Australia/NZ) ?
…the US Government will act according to it's own perceived interests of the moment (/political administration) first and foremost … from behind a seemingly dishonest veneer of "Championship of Democracy, Capitalism and the Free World", as they choose to interpret this.

? Lessons learned by returning servicemen;

Soldiers are expendable.

..May I add …

Lessons learned by the South Vietnamese who joined the "Nationalist Liberation Front"(NLF) wanting genuine self-determination for the south … "we was robbed."

Lessons learned by the South Vietnamese civilians who lived through the civil war, and the North Vietnamese civilians who lost nearly an entire generation (or two) of menfolk …
"war is hell"

Lessons learned by the South Vietnamese who joined the "Nationalist Liberation Front"(NLF) wanting genuine self-determination for the south … "we was robbed."

Again for every one or two Hard Core Communist in the VC/NLF, there was probably another Southerner who was just a Nationalist. Another reason during Tet, Giap pushed the VC forward in many locations. The North did not want to have to deal with Nationalists from the South once the RVN is defeated.

Lessons learned by the South Vietnamese civilians who lived through the civil war, and the North Vietnamese civilians who lost nearly an entire generation (or two) of menfolk …

As time went on, it was not rare to find young dead NVA with "Born in the North to Die in the South" tattooed on the arms …