The Vietnam War

nesf

Why was it lost? Could it ever have been won? Did it have a major effect on tactics and army composition? Or was it just a PR stunt gone wrong?

orangerooster

The way the americans were under pressure for sending 19 year olds to fight a war for them,probably not when an armie has massive superiority in the terrain it fights in it will always have the advantage.

---

dont open ... that door- resident evil 1

Magwitch

Contrary to the opinions of the unwashed couch potatoe masses, the Vietnam war (as defined as a war within the boundries of Vietnam) was ultimitly winnable by the US.

Chinese support and their adopted stance of entering into the war should North Vietnam be invaded led to a winnible war becoming an unsustainible war as the terms of victory could not be achieved bne achieved without wider conflict.

To illustrate the seriousness off this point China redistributed its state industries through out the entire country and build massive fortifications and air defences accross its enormous land mass, to in effect prepare China for protracted nuclear and conventional war. This huge effort alone was enough to convince the Americans that war with China was on the cards should it invade north Vietnam. On a number of occasions American had the oppertunity to deal a death blow to North Vietnam - yet it never happened.

Though brave and dedicated, the Viet Minh (NOT CONG) would not have defeated the American presence by themselves. In effect America chose not to win the war by not callig Chinas bluff recinding operation rolling thunder (heavy arial bombardment of north Vietnem) which was grinding the North Vietnamese war industry into dust. There after it was just a matter of how to pull out and when.

orangerooster

Yeah they couldve won it buthe entire nation was near up in arms especially the hippies and the cost of life was becoming high on both sides particulary on the vietnamese sides.p.s magwitch im no couch potatoe.

---

dont open ... that door- resident evil 1

.ak

Right, here's it in a nutshell:

• You can't fight Gurellia Warfare with Field War Tactics.
• The American's couldn't find their own asses out there.
• Even the seals (elitest of the elite) found it hard to cope.
• The American's packed up bags and went home.
• They said they won, they didn't win jack.
• Morale of the story: Don't send the American's to fight people...

Come back next time, for another history lesson from the Dark Angel! Goodbye kids, and put that fricken rifle down, punk!

-Dark-Angel-

Manach

It was lack of political backbone, which seems to have hamstrung the military by not allowing them to attack their targets as hard/often as they wished

The media reporting was also conveying a negative message to the public. In contrast during the Gulf war, reporting was strictly controlled.

On the North Vietnamese side, Gen. Giap was an excellent tactician, esp. with his victory over the French at Dien Bien Fu.
But, the NVA disregarded their own very heavy causulties, & the VC often dealt brutally with supposed collabraters in the south.

The "bad guys" won that round.

Lemming

Operation "Rolling Thunder" brought the North Vietnamese to the table with the U.S. which resulted in the two sides signing a ceasefire treaty in 1973.

Shortly afterwards however, the South Vietnamese government decided to re-open the war (as far as my knowledge goes. I distincly remember reading that in a book on vietnam).
The americans began withdrawing troops after the treaty was signed in 1973, with more and more operations being handed over to the RVN (south vietnamese army).

ALso, mentioned elsewhere in this thread was the problem of fighting guerillas with conventional thinking. In the early days of the 1965-1975 war, the Vietnamese did actually commit to several field engagements with the Americans, and needless to say, lost badly in all of them. After that they resorted to Guerilla tactics, which the americans couldn't cope with effectively.

Victor

Ultimately winning or loosing a war is about how much you care about your assets (population, money, land, material). You effectively had the whole Cold War focused in one place - when two irristable forces collide something breaks, reaaaal bad.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

klong

1. McNamara made fools of the USAF, telling them not to bomb SAM sites, enemy airbases and most of the targets around Haiphong and the other city, whatever it is, with his reasoning that if they didn't shoot at the SAM sites etc., the Vietnamese wouldn't shoot at them. The result? Thousands of US aircraft destroyed.
2. Operation Linebacker brought the North to the negotiating table and those tactics should have been used throughout the war.
3. The media were not controlled enough (even though i'm in favour of a free press etc.) and turned the popular oipinion in the US against the war. Maybe if there had been some form of censorship the Americans would have had a much smaller anti-war movement.
4. The aircraft used by the USAF were totally, for the most part, unsuited for the job. Only the Skyraider was of much use.
5. If the war had been conventional, the Americans would have won. However, it wasn't and they sucked. But what tactics would have really excelled in that sort of environment?

---

The Boss

Magwitch

orangerooster_2000, you over-estimate the effects of counter culture in the US or any society. Though many "hippies" did cut their hair, don ties and become media mogols and pundits, when they claim today to have changed the world they are talking through their ar*ses.

Politica, ecomonics and idiological strategy does not alter its course for a few "slumming" grads or wanna-be peaceniks. There were more paid up KKK members in the US (to name but one ultra hardline grouping) than hippies in the sixties. Wars are always different, those who fight them and the results are not. NO politicaian was going to loose his job by sleep-ins and protests by non-voters (basic math).

American Voters were instrumental in the ending of the war, but the inevitability of their involvement was on the Cards after the war became protracted (my origional point). It is beyond dispute that American could have bombed north Vietnam into submission or choked its routes into the south should it have been able to expand large scale operations into adjoiing countries.

It is also beyond dispute that America did loose the war. Claims to the contrary (or that there was a draw of sorts) are based on the flawed precident. Ho Chi Minh, was not going to make Vietnam a client or puppet state of China, hence after the American withdrawl Vietnam fought a war with China (twice) and invaded Chinese backed Cambodia.
This begs the question, what was America fighting for in the first place? It was in fact Vietnam that halted the dreaded "domino" effect of communism throughout southeast Asia in order to preserve its own independance. Which ponders a greater question.....

mayhem#

Originally posted by nesf
Why was it lost? Could it ever have been won? Did it have a major effect on tactics and army composition? Or was it just a PR stunt gone wrong?

Let's put it this way;
The American military never lost the Vietnam war, the American politicians did...

Blitzkrieger

What war? War was never declared in Vietnam.

mayhem#

Listen, you want to bitch about formalities or you want to dela with fact?

Manach

Didn't the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 by the US Congress authorise the US to take action in Vietnam?

As a side note, I don't see how any Country can launch an attack on another without formally declaring war, ie US vs Serbia in 1999 & the soon to be US vs Afganistan.

Lemming

Originally posted by Manach
Didn't the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 by the US Congress authorise the US to take action in Vietnam?

As a side note, I don't see how any Country can launch an attack on another without formally declaring war, ie US vs Serbia in 1999 & the soon to be US vs Afganistan.

War was never officially declared. I can remember someone pointing out in a book that 'War' was never spelt with a capital 'w' as regards the Vietnam conflict.

nesf

Hmmm, they kinda got around the whole world politics problem by merely sending in "advisors" to help a fledgling democracy, then when these guys were in danger they had an acceptable reason politically to send in the marines or somesuch, and more guys sent in to protect those ones and so on.

What really bugs me was that, were the americans merely protecting a future puppet state of their own??

Magwitch

Well Nesf, the devil you know.......etc etc

And Vietnam was officially a "police action" as opposed to a war in the legal sence (a la Korea) . However American public support for the "war" in Vietnam was never against involvement ,though it is true to say it was slackening towards the end. The American public always supported the war (those opposed are laid out in a point of mine above), just though I would point that out to end the constant quoting of "lack of public support" for the war in vietnam.

Lemming

Originally posted by Magwitch
Vietnam was officially a "police action" as opposed to a war

You've been watching "Goof Morning Vietnam" haven't you???

<Williams Voice>
"Yes .. that's right .. the police action that'll wake you up faster than a strong cup of cappucino .. yeahhhhhhhhh yyou know what I mean!!!!!"</Williams Voice>

Victor

I understand the law in the US allows the President to engage in Military action for up to 90 days without Congressional authorisation (hence a response can be made to an attack or a foreign declaration of war), however any such action would have to come from the President's budget.

From http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=39170711720+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

"Lord Stowell (1 Dodson, 247) observes, `It is not the less
a war on that account, for war may exist without a declaration on either side. It is so laid down by the best writers of the law of nations. A declaration of war by one country only is not a mere challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other.' "

The US Constitution says little on the matter. However it does say:

---

Section 8 - Powers of Congress ...

• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

....

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States ....

• No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

---

Fidelis

Originally posted by nesf
more guys sent in to protect those ones and so on

At a time during the conflict, there were half a million US troops stationed in Vietnam. Obses-much ?