"Today’s Wars Are Based on a Fundamental Misunderstanding" Topic

…of History

"Vietnam: It's always there. Looming in the past, informing American futures.

A 50-year-old war, once labeled the longest in our history, is still alive and well and still being refought by one group of Americans: the military high command. And almost half a century later, they're still losing it and blaming others for doing so.

Of course, the US military and Washington policymakers lost the war in Vietnam in the previous century and perhaps it's well that they did. The United States really had no business intervening in that anti-colonial civil war in the first place, supporting a South Vietnamese government of questionable legitimacy, and stifling promised nationwide elections on both sides of that country's artificial border. In doing so, Washington presented an easy villain for a North Vietnamese-backed National Liberation Front (NLF) insurgency, a group known to Americans in those years as the Vietcong…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Wars are quick, clean and neat. Police actions are endlessly draining, dirty and messy.

Yep. Nothing cleaner or neater than war. No blood, no body parts, no cripples, no burned houses, no widows. Just good, clean fun.

And, you always are home by Christmas!

Yep. Nothing cleaner or neater than war. No blood, no body parts, no cripples, no burned houses, no widows. Just good, clean fun.

Well, not from that standpoint obviously since everyone knows that "war is hell." But in terms of not getting bogged down into a quagmire, which is the point of the OP's article if you've read it, it's quick, clean and neat. Not that I'm for war or anything in case you're wondering.

Both schools of thought are correct…we did not engage in the offensive actions in North Vietnam and/or Laos or Cambodia that would have quickly won the war, nor did we focus on the "hearts and mind" strategy…but if you undertake option #1 you may not need #2.

As far as the following famous quote goes with a "Colonel Tu, whom he assured that "you know you never beat us on the battlefield." "That may be so," replied his former enemy, "but it is also irrelevant."

It is irrelevant if the fighting is done in non strategic areas away from the key infiltration routes in Laos or Cambodia or even in North Vietnam, but if you engage the NVA in those those areas losing every tactical engagement does matter over time.

And the fact this author is apparently a West Point graduate tells us a lot about what is wrong with the current military hierarchy.

Not to rehash a long term augment, but why would an invasion of North Vietnam have successed any more than the war in Korea (for example)?

It was a 30 plus year war that started as an anti-colonialist war, was hi-jacked by the US when the land was divided (that's where the supposed election came in and was not held), the US was supporting a minority supported government (I'm thinking religion here, as well as it not be a democracy in any fashion), we dropped more tonnage of bombs on the North than were dropped on Germany in WWII, and the US could not at any point prevent conventional attacks, guerrilla warfare attacks or terrorist attacks in any area we "occupied", while losing over 50,000 American lives and a supposed 3 million Vietnamese lives.

I was born in 1953 while my US Army father was stationed in Hanoi helping the French in their failed war to defeat the nationalist communist and regain control of their colonies. 13 years later he went back to Saigon during the American attempt to "win" the war and came home a broken man with a nasty skin disease, a bronze star and an unending anger at having spent 2 years of his life in what was to him an useless war that merely wasted lives. He only died a few years ago, but would always ask if the subject came up, how would things have been any different if the US had just refused to support the French or intervened itself? They would still be a communist country that we visit as tourists and have large business commerce with.

No flames, just curious as to the thinking.

I was born at Camp Lejeune in 1968 while my father was on his 2nd and 3rd tour. He is suffering a variety of ailments now, some from age and some from his service. I have nothing but respect for my father and yours.

Under the theory prevalent at the time, if we'd done nothing and allowed the country to go communist, the rest of SE Asia would have followed. Since we were in an existential fight with the Soviets we couldn't allow that. There's an argument to be made that by fighting as long as we did we bled the Vietnamese badly enough that they couldn't spread communism into the rest of SE Asia.

For an idea of the horrors that would have caused just look at what happened when the south fell, political reeducation camps, mass imprisonment, mass executions, the boat people, etc. In Cambodia a third of the population was killed.

I have no idea if an invasion of the north would have prevented the fall of the south, delayed it, or changed nothing. I think, considering how badly that war was run, the best we could have hoped for would have been a permanent separation of the two sides along the lines of Korea. If that had happened, (which was a real possibility until we pulled all support in 1975 I believe), those living in the south would have at least had a shot at eventual self determination.

The reason invading North Korea didn't end the war was because of the Chinese intervention. The question is would the Chinese have intervened in Vietnam? It's a similar situation except the Vietnamese and Chinese hate each others' guts and it's possible Ho would try to revert to a guerilla war strategy instead of inviting in the devil on the doorstep.

Hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops were already in northern Vietnam. Many were killed in the bombing or flying fighters. North Koreans were also present along with a plethora of other nations as advisers and sometimes in combat roles [Cubans, Czechoslovakians and some Soviets among them].

The chance of Chinese intervention in the event of a US invasion of the north was extremely high. Far too high a risk and nothing tangible to be gained.

Not to rehash a long term augment

Yes … really we are going to beat this horse to death again ?

Hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops were already in northern Vietnam. Many were killed in the bombing or flying fighters. North Koreans were also present along with a plethora of other nations as advisers and sometimes in combat roles [Cubans, Czechoslovakians and some Soviets among them].

Yes very much so … And yes since they were supporting the NVA/VC … they became targets as well …

Warfare has and is to destroy enemy assets and killing large numbers of their troops and supporters to break their will to fight and carry on the war. Short answer that means breaking things and killing/maiming people in large numbers. That is the nature of war. That should be no surprise to anyone.

But with many modern wars becoming an insurgency with other than 1st World nations. Collateral damage, Restrictive ROEs, Hearts & Minds, etc., makes it tough on warfighters to do their job.

Generally combatting an insurgency is in the guerillas' favor for a number of reasons as ew all know. And as we saw in Vietnam and today in A'stan, they didn't have to win … they just didn't have to loose. By simply killing as many of the "invaders" as possible. Costing them e.g. the US a high price in blood & treasure. The insurgent is not going anywhere. No matter how many we kill/maim plus destroy anything they use as support. Especially in the case of the NVA/VC & Chinese, their leadership didn't care how many they lost. Sooner of later the "invader" i.e. the US, ROKs and SEATO will go home.

They will just keep coming and restrictive ROE, CD concerns only plays into the insurgents favor. It is classis Che' and Mao …

We see the same with the GWoT, the same belief is in affect. The Terrorist/jihadi don't care how many they loose trying to kill the infidel. As it assures them a place in Paradise. Plus in many cases the Hearts & Minds concept does not apply to A'tan. Or even Iraq.

Something similar we saw in WWII PTO. The IJFs didn't care how many they lost. Either of their military or their civilian population.

As long as the enemy does not care how many they loose. And the COIN forces have CD concerns, and the insurgent doesn't … it really is a no win situation.

On a tactical level, the Plt Ldr's and Co Cdr's priority is to save the lives of their troops. By killing as many of the enemy as often as possible and in as large a number as possible. Because on that level, the tactical level, I'm familiar with. You complete the mission and kill all the bad guys you can. Which may include in some cases non-combatants. But in an insurgency in many cases you can't tell who is who.

The next day or week, etc., you do it again. As well as use all the assets at your disposal, e.g. FA and CAS. If you can based on ROE.

"Dead men tell no tales" as the old saying goes … but dead men[or women] can't kill you or your comrades either …

The point that is missed is that we never had to overrun all of NV…we could have bitten off the bottom 1/3rd, in conjunction with a strong bombing campaign, ala 1972, and interdiction of the trails in Laos and Cambodia would have crippled the NVA…possible Chinese intervention…perhaps if they found their client state was going to fail but that is mere speculation.

I agree … with that. We used firepower to bring them back to the peace talks in Paris. And almost rubbled Hanoi. Had we started sooner with that type of tactic, things may have turned out different. I see no reason to invade NV … just turn it into a moonscape.

The Linebacker II B-52 bombing campaign was aimed at driving Hanoi back to the Paris peace talks. It provided Nixon cover to withdraw American troops "with honor." After that, it was only a matter of time (turned out to be a couple of years) before the south was overrun in 1975.

Following Linebacker II the exact same terms were given as had been demanded before. It was a face saving exercise only.

'we bombed them into accepting our concessions' – as John Negroponte put it.

Legion 4, I always respect everything you post. The argument for nukes was strong then. It's what brought the Japanese to their knees. Wny not not the North Vietnamese? Oh yeah, nuclear armed China and USSR I guess? I dunno.

I met a lot of Viet refugees in Australia sometimes who's entire families were exectuted by the V-Comms. They tell me they appreciated the American and Aussie troops for keeping them free as long as they did. One old Vietnamese guy and veteran of the ARVN told me the one thing he was scared of more than the North Vietnamese was the ROKs. He told me they would kill anyone Vietnamese, North or South who was in their path..

It provided Nixon cover to withdraw American troops "with honor." After that, it was only a matter of time (turned out to be a couple of years) before the south was overrun in 1975.

Following Linebacker II the exact same terms were given as had been demanded before. It was a face saving exercise only.
'we bombed them into accepting our concessions' – as John Negroponte put it.

Yes that all is true … geopolitics and reality some times are polarized. Sometimes the same, etc … I think much of the world's leaders understand the term "realpolitik". Sometimes for better or worse that means someone has to die. In some cases many hundreds is not thousands. E.g. Dropping A-Bombs on Japan to end WWII.

Wny not not the North Vietnamese? Oh yeah, nuclear armed China and USSR I guess? I dunno.

In WWII the US was the only player that had Nukes. After that it was a race to get them by the Super Powers, etc.

Nukes are dirty, fallout could go everywhere in the region. Not really worth the risk, IMO. And as I always believe we can do everything we need to do with standard weapons/No WMDs. We would just have to hit strategic targets. In some cases repeatedly … E.g. Hanoi, all their harbors, etc. Too much ordinance was wasted elsewhere, IMO. We blew up a lot of trees, killed some monkeys, etc. Turning Hanoi into the dark side of the moon world have been a better option.

Plus the risk of the PRC and/or USSR think it would be a good idea to start tossing them around. And remember Vietnam was a sideshow compared to the NATO-WP face off in the ETO.

As far as the ROKs, besides I served 22 months in the ROK with 2 tours on the DMZ, '84-'85. The ROKs were tough little .

And as I said on another thread here.
Yes, everything I had heard or read. The ROKs thought most ARVN were cowards, etc. And the ROKs had no love for Commies of an type. VC, NVA, or suspected … They were not so much into the whole "Hearts & Minds" concept. If they took fire from a village they'd call in FA & CAS. Regardless of CD concerns.
My one friends who was a USMC Rifle PL in Vietnam. He said the first time he ever saw someone waterboarded was when the ROKs were interrogating someone. They'd do it to the women of the village, to get information. They broke first …
And the ROKs would destroy a village with little remorse or for few reasons.
They were feared by many … and justifiably so …

… even thought they were not part of SEATO.
The US plus some of the UN, did help them out in their war with the North's Communists. With the US more than any other nation providing support, etc., during the Korean War, '50-'53.
When the North Koreans heavily supported by their Communists "brothers" i.e. the USSR and PRC. Invaded South Korea to make it a Communist "Workers' Paradise". Under the North's leadership/dictatorship and the USSR's & PRC's support and influence.

So the ROKs certainly had no love for Communists and their supporters … As well as they were paying back the US for it's strong support. During both the Korean War and afterwards. With the ROK sending troops to "Kill Commies" in Vietnam …

Excellent reading as always Legion 4. Thanks for your post!

Thank you !

Thanks also!…

Amicalement
Armand

Glad to share …