"Why the USA lost the war in Vietnam" Topic

"The US army had superior conventional weapons but they were ineffective against a country that was not industrialized and an army which employed guerrilla tactics and used the dense jungle as cover.

North Vietnamese soldiers were dedicated to fighting for independence and for communism. They were fiercely loyal to their leadership, which had already provided land reform in the north.

These soldiers were conscripted and served long tours of duty. As a result, the Vietcong became highly experienced and knowledgeable about American tactics…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

It's quite simple.
They cared more than we did, and were willing to suffer.

Let's hear no nonsense about losing Walter Cronkite.

My father was there (Hanoi) in 1952-53 and again in 1967-68 (Saigon). He always thought the French deserved to lose and that the US were fools who had not learned anything by watching the French go down.

Vietnamese opposition???

The US didn't lose. They achieved what they set out to do. They just didn't tell the truth about what the war was all about.

By 1968, they had installed right wing, pro-US dictators in The Philippines and Indonesia. Right wing regimes were already in place in Thailand and South Korea. Laos and Cambodia were never held to be significant – they have no natural resources to speak of and are not in a strategic location – so they could be allowed to 'fall'.

All that was needed post Tet-68 was a face saving way out of the mess. In the end the US just left without saving much face.

There is quite a lot about this in the Pentagon Papers, though you do have to infer some of it.

For me, the question you have to ask is 'What would winning look like?' Then analyse US strategy to asses what they were actually trying to accomplish.

Some people [mistakenly IMO] imagine an independent South Vietnam resembling modern day South Korea. There is no reason to believe this would be the case.

To 'win' in Vietnam according to the simplistic sense that most people understand would require either:-

1 – mounting a full scale land invasion and regime change of North Vietnam [which would probably have triggered Chinese counter-invasion (something like 300,000 Chinese troops were already in North Vietnam, remember) and even risked nuclear war.]

2 – committing US troops to decades of occupation and a constant guerilla war. Since 500,000 US troops were not enough to provide security, you might need 1 million?

There was nothing in it for the US to make these kind of risks/commitments worthwhile.

So the US left.

Final point. We naturally ascribe some overarching intelligence to governments. It's just a way of making the complexities comprehensible. But in reality complex systems are not controlled by a single individual or even a committee. Powerful forces are at work that defy our ability to understand them. And when policies have to be packaged in sound bites for the public to digest it's impossible.

x2 for Skarper.

Generally I agree with what Skarper said … which is rare … see my other comments here – TMP link

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

Skarper,
I don't think the US ever wanted a "win" like in WWII. It was about containment and not starting WWIII. Johnson and McNamara had been presented a plan to mine Haiphong harbor and close down the shipping by Marine Gen Krulak in 1965 along with an "ink blot" strategy to control population centers. Krulak had experience in military matters in China and the Far East since 1938 when he was with an observer the Chinese National forces. Johnson didn't like him and went with Westmoreland and his convventional focrces strategy.

You forgot to mention killing the Communist insurgency in Indonesia. That's somethng very few people are aware of.
link

The US also prevented a complete takeover in Laos and Thailand but not so successful in Cambodia. There were quite a few Cold War "victories" and the Domino Theory never came to pass. Just like any war, there are victories and defeats. Along the way the CIA and DC made many unfortunate and immoral compromises regarding who they supported and how (drug trade). With the West not having a very good understanding of the historic and political dynamics and drivers in the area their intel and decisions were often wrong.

I knew a guy that was a crew member on C-130 gunships. He said they'd almost completely shut down the Ho Chi Minh Trail night and day traffic and then the NVN would want to talk peace under the condition that we lifted the bombing and interdiction actions and Kissenger caved to their demands. He said the trail became a highway with trucks using their headlights, etc. They'd stall the talks until they stockpiled enough for an offensive and then cease the talks and attack. Henry Kissenger should be executed as a traitor.

When I was in the Med after the Yom Kippur War several times we went on alert ready to go in somewhere (we were never told) and it made me very uncomfortable know what Kissenger might get us into.

Wolfhag

+1 Wolf !

Kennedy had selected Krulak to be his man to formulate military policy in VN. Here is a good article on Krulak:
link

Krulak's strategy of blockading the ports would have reduced 85% of the goods coming into the NVN. The inkblot strategy would have protected the people and population centers and most likely prevent a popular uprising. Instead, Johnson went with Westmoreland's conventional war attrition strategy and MacNamara's spreadsheet formulas and drafting borderline morons into the military. I was at HQMC in 1973 as part of a high level logistical war game simulation of the 1st and 3rd Marine Divisions invading NVN.

Trying to find the enemy gave them the initiative to fight on their own terms and avoid our strengths. That gave them the time needed for their PsyOp war with the Useful Idiots in the states to erode the people's and politicians will to fight. Ho didn't have to worry about that. If you opposed the "struggle" you ended up fertilizing a rice field – permanently.

It seems that the narrative about wars is that there is a winner and loser, start and end date but it is not that simple, especially with Vietnam. As part of the peace terms the US promised VN $2 USDB but reneged on it. The US also started an economic war on VN until it was lifted in 1994.

Quote from: link

Although there had some much foreign investment by United States western allies, Vietnam was affected greatly by the embargo. Because the United States had blocked aid from the IMF and the World Bank, Vietnam had concentrated on exporting natural resources, rice and cheap labor. With financing problems and without foreign credit, the country was not able to build factories or import equipment to process its raw materials and agricultural products before they were exported. Some business agreements with foreign countries were not concluded because equipment included US components.

Hanoi's view towards the United States changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their reference frame, the point from where they framed their problem, changed. The reference frame is a threshold, where below the threshold is loss and above the threshold is gain. Before, they did not view trade with the United States as important.

Now, with fleeting subsidies from the collapsing Soviet Union, trade with the United States was important for economic development. The Vietnamese now stood more to lose in not dealing and cooperating with the United States. Economic subsidies ended, and the ideological underpinnings of communism were brought into serious questions by the Vietnamese leadership. Vietnam wished to integrate itself into global economy into a much greater extent and central to this was the lifting of the United States trade embargo. Consequently, they began to seek a policy of conciliation with the United States over the MIA issue. This occurred simultaneously with the United States seeking conciliation with the Vietnamese, especially after the United Nations agreements over Cambodia, and were led largely by US multinationals hoping to do business in the new Vietnam as well as elements of American polity morally opposed to long standing trade sanction.

Just as the US fought two wars against GB and Germany, VN will soon become a friendly trading party and sooner or later throw off the suppressive government that controls them. The Vietnamese people deserve better.

Did you get the part about how when the subsidies dried up from the Soviet Union the VN leadership looked to the US for economic relief? Again, Socialism fails when you run out of other people's money. It appears they are a hybrid of capitalism, debt, free market, corruption, and social/government subsidies just like many Western countries, including the US.

Of course the US has a large and unfair advantage. They print the crack (Federal Reserve fiat money) that the rest of the world is addicted to.

Wolfhag

Trời ơi!

We'll never see eye to eye on this Wolfhag but it's always good to hear opposing points of view.

It's an article of faith for many that capitalism creates wealth better than other systems. However, every 5-10 years the economy crashes and needs government hand outs to survive. We were overdue for another crash when COVID happened along and the economic fall out will be huge

The US economy is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

In many key measures the US lags behind its competitors. Cuba, despite a socialist system and an ongoing trade embargo has equal life expectancy and lower rates of infant mortality than the USA.

Economics is a wild beast that can never be tamed. No 'ism' is ever going to be able to control the chaotic forces and just when it seems to be understood somewhat, it mutates into an entirely different beast.

I agree Vietnamese people deserve better. But so does the average American. It's hypocritical to ignore the glaring inequalities and injustices endemic to US society. I'm not going to pretend there are not serious human rights issues in Vietnam. There certainly are. There are also human rights violations in America and these have been worsening in the last 20-30 years. The UK too is far from perfect. And if we widen the scope of our survey to US allies we can consider Saudi Arabia, Israel and a slew of other regimes that are much worse than Vietnam. But it's futile to compare like this. All countries have work to do in this field and should be judged on their own records.

Sadly, it's looking like Americans will lose their freedoms and democracy long before Vietnamese can gain theirs.

We'll never see eye to eye on this Wolfhag but it's always good to hear opposing points of view.

Yes, Wolf and I are very similar. E.g. He is a former US Marine and I a former Paratrooper. We generally have a a different opinion than you and some who think and believe as you do. For better or worse … no harm … no foul.

The US economy is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

That is to bit too simplistic, from my POV. And I am not really considered middle or upper class. And I'm generally doing pretty good as are many others like me.

Sadly, it's looking like Americans will lose their freedoms and democracy long before Vietnamese can gain theirs.

I don't believe that for a second ! I live here … Like many I'm not on the outside looking in …

But once again … I think the topic has jumped the shark … 🦈

Jumped the shark, but a most interesting discussion with some very fine points on all sides. As a general observation personal liberty is never dear to the heart of 'isms' of any kind. In the UK the government has recently legalised criminal behaviour – of any kind – by security services and made a new law to prevent legal challenges in the courts. Trump's packing of SCOTUS is not much different in intent..

Hi uglyfatbloke,
With all due respect, you have things a bit wrong. Trump is not, in the generally accepted sense of the term, "packing" the Supreme Court.

As a matter of long tradition, the Supreme Court of the United States consists of nine justices. But that number of nine seats is not specifically enumerated in Constitutional law. Theoretically, the Supreme Court could consist of any number of seats. Franklin Roosevelt, back in the 1930s, frustrated by the existing nine member court ruling much of his New Deal legislation as unconstitutional, attempted to add a number of politically "friendlier" justices over and above the traditional nine members to remove this constitutionality problem. This was deemed an attempt to "pack" the court. Roosevelt's gambit was rebuffed by Congress.

By contrast, Trump has never made any effort to add any justices over and above the traditional nine members. He has only acted in the traditional manner to nominate candidates to fill those vacancies that have arisen through death and/or retirement during his administration.

Trump's first term in office has, by happenstance, seen three vacancies in the Supreme Court which have been filled by three legally conservative judges – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and now Barrett. This has altered the persona of the court from an aggressively liberal to a more "strict constructionist" stance in deciding matters of constitutionality.

The political rumblings you are hearing out of the USA about "packing" the Supreme Court have all emerged from the political left, for whom "strict constructionism" is being viewed as an obstacle to their more leftist long term legislative ambitions.

B

but a most interesting discussion with some very fine points on all sides.

Certainly, some pretty well read and experienced members here on TMP.

But guys when we start to talk current politics … then we really have jumped the Shark ! 🦈

Legion 4 – quite right, but SCOTUS has never been 'aggressively liberal' at any time. The US simply does not have a political Left of any note. There's the Cnetre_irght Democrats and there's the Far Right Republicans -- just look at how many traditional Republicans have distanced themselves from Trump. I speak a life-long political Conservative – though I could never vote for Johnson and his kleptocratic cronies.

As a foreigner I cannot (however much exiled UK royalty feel able to) justify my commenting on either of those two candidates for the US Presidency, but I really do not think either can be blamed in "Why the US lost the Vietnam War"

X2 for deadhead

I speak a life-long political Conservative

either of those two candidates for the US Presidency, but I really do not think either can be blamed in "Why the US lost the Vietnam War"