Is Afghanistan today's South Vietnam? The Logistics Perspective

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/25/wiest.afghanistan.vietnam/index.html?hpt=T2


Hattiesburg, Mississippi (CNN) -- After the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, U.S. Col. Harry Summers remarked to his North Vietnamese counterpart, "You know you never defeated us on the battlefield." After a moment, the North Vietnamese officer replied: "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
Although that blunt exchange took place nearly 35 years ago, it's still worthy of close consideration in light of America's wars in Iraq (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/iraq) and Afghanistan.
Americans did win their battles in Vietnam (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/vietnam), but, as the outcome of the war made clear, raw battlefield prowess did not lead to victory. Why? Because the war there was not for Americans to win or lose. It was a Vietnamese war.
Only South Vietnam had the capability to transform battlefield success into strategic sustainability. In the end, South Vietnam had to be both capable and worthy of its own survival.
But, after the U.S. withdrew the bulk of its combat forces from Vietnam in 1973, after more than 20 years of effort and eight years of war, South Vietnam only held out until April 1975. What went wrong? Why was so much sacrifice in vain? And what lessons might history offer to make our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/afghanistan_war) less transitory?
First, we must examine the old chestnut regarding the American understanding of the Vietnam War; the idea that we simply backed the wrong Vietnamese. The idea that, no matter what, the South was never viable. South Vietnam certainly had its share of problems -- endemic corruption, endless political infighting, and a sense of nationalism so weak it couldn't hold back a massive uprising. For all of its failings, however, South Vietnam fought long and hard against difficult odds.
In South Vietnam, during 20 years of war, more than 200,000 people were killed in battle, as many as 1 million civilians died and 1.5 million fled the fallen country as refugees. This is not the story of a nation that did not fight and was simply doomed to defeat. Indeed, South Vietnam's government and its military, though troubled, were arguably much more functional than those of the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
The real story of the Vietnam War lies in the flawed nature of the U.S.-South Vietnamese alliance. Our raw power combined with their will should have produced victory.
The failures of the alliance were legion, ranging from a lack of reform on the part of the South Vietnamese to an overarching hubris on the part of the Americans. The most significant failing, though, was perhaps the simplest. In the end, the South Vietnamese military was not Vietnamese enough to survive our eventual departure from the war.
With the very best of intentions, American advisers in South Vietnam labored to create a military there that looked very much like the American military (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/u_s_army). Flush with U.S. aid, South Vietnam built a military based on lavish logistical support and the primacy of overwhelming firepower -- a military that was only an adjunct to the American war in Vietnam.
The Army of the Republic of Vietnam was created to fight alongside its American sponsors in crushing battles of annihilation. Battles, when all else failed, that relied on air- and artillery-delivered firepower to save the day. What is often forgotten is that the plan worked remarkably well, as long as American forces (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/u_s_marine_corps) and or support was close at hand.
But the South Vietnamese military was never meant to fight on its own. Once American troops had gone back to "the world" and U.S. funding for the continuation of the war in Vietnam dried up, the doom of South Vietnam was clear.
The tattered, war-torn economy of what was, after all, a Third World nation could never hope to supply the needs, in either manpower or firepower, of its First World-style military. The North Vietnamese invasion of 1975 found a South Vietnam littered with parked and unusable aircraft, tanks that quickly ran out of gas, artillery that could only fire a few rounds per day, and a demoralized infantry.
Today, Americans are urging the Afghans to fight alongside a major U.S. advance in the Helmand Province. With the aid of capable U.S. advisers, and as the recipients of overwhelming U.S. logistical and firepower support, the Afghans will, no doubt, achieve some notable success.
But one day, possibly soon, American forces will withdraw, and -- good intentions not withstanding -- American funding for continued operations in Afghanistan will dry up. We must ask ourselves, is the state and military we are helping to create in Afghanistan "Afghan" enough to survive very long after our withdrawal?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Andrew Wiest.

[Hollis]

Outside of bullets flying about and it being a Afghan war, no comparison. Also who is the comparable support for the Taliban that N. Viet-Nam had from the communist block countries? Some how the writer is grasping to promote their view. Not long ago, Iraq was called the new Viet-Nam war. Probably with all the myths and confusions about the Viet-Nam that most people seem to accept it is far game to compare anything too when one wants to predict some sort of failure.

There is no comparison in troop size in-country or even causalities.

[mashkur]

Well said, victory in the battle field doesn't led to victory in war. Whether we like it or not this is a fact. Napoleon learned it hundreds years ago, the US learned it at Nam and USSR got their lesson Astan.
The very idea of increasing the strength of Afghan National Army from 90,000 to 260,000 in 5 years, is laughable. An army is not just bunch of guyz in uniform holding chinese made rifle. A professional army also requires huge logistics support and supporting branches, which I am sorry 2 say takes lot of time 2 build. Plus using US fund to keep feeding these army is any thing but a solution (did I forget 2 mention they r also bad a** corrupt + US tax payers won't like the idea either). As an example just look in to the Myanmar Army: over sized and under fed.

[Hollis]

Well said, victory in the battle field doesn't led to victory in war. Whether we like it or not this is a fact. Napoleon learned it hundreds years ago, the US learned it at Nam and USSR got their lesson Astan.
The very idea of increasing the strength of Afghan National Army from 90,000 to 260,000 in 5 years, is laughable. An army is not just bunch of guyz in uniform holding chinese made rifle. A professional army also requires huge logistics support and supporting branches, which I am sorry 2 say takes lot of time 2 build. Plus using US fund to keep feeding these army is any thing but a solution (did I forget 2 mention they r also bad a** corrupt + US tax payers won't like the idea either). As an example just look in to the Myanmar Army: over sized and under fed.


You might to review how the War in Viet-Nam ended. The US was out of Viet-Nam for nearly two years or so when the South was finally defeated by the North. The US left on agreement with the communist block countries that all outside parties would leave the two Viet-Nams alone. The US kept it agreement, the communist block did not and continued to support the North.

The article is right in the point, that battles now are decided by political solutions rather than military solutions.

[mashkur]

The discussion here is not whether this is a war to be won by the US or the Afghan Army, but the capability of the Afghan army to win the war. Sure Taliban is not like NVA supported by the USSR (At least that what we know of, remember no one knew there was some one called Chalie Wilson arguing at US senate for funding until well after the war ended) but they are a force to be recon with, even the US strategist thinking of negotiating with them. Whether the N.Vietnam agreed to a term is irrelevant (after sprayed with Agent Orange, I doubt that they will...no body wants to look orangish lol), the question is why there was indiscipline and mass desertion among the South's army after all they were trained by the best army in world (come on US is the meanest bad a** in the battlefield). U can hav an army strength increased from 90K 260k in 5 yr, but in my opinion its not sustainable at least not in current A'stan.

[Elfstone44]

Sigh..here we go again. Vietnam...south vs north, west vs east. 26 PAVN divisions deployed against the south in sanctuaries we wouldn't attack, fed by a supply we wouldn't cut, along with North Vietnamese Politbureau controlled guerillas...130mm guns, tanks, trucks, whatever. Vietnam was a conventional war...aided by the West's tying its hands. Saigon fell by an all out assault by 19 regular army divisions. You doubt me redkins?..Read "Our Great Spring Victory" for a sobering dose of reality.

Afghanistan? a bunch of bandits; aided by the west tying its hands and wringing its hands.

If you are going to write a serious article about Afghanistan..leave the "Vietnam" moniker alone..the analogy is quite simply lame and not apt. The war in SE Asia had more to do with France vs. Germany than Mao's "people's war" concepts. Write instead about Pakistan State terrorism and bizarre thought about "strategic depth" and paralyzing fear of both Afghanistan and India which led Pakistan to destroy its neighbor and essentially declare war on the world. Only Iran could match the paranoia and isolated group-think exhibited by the Pak government...and they have a lot to answer for.

The only possible comparisons is the "nation building" aspects of the two conflicts..and even there, Afghanstan in 2001, destroyed, utterly, intelligensia murdered, was in far worse shape that SVN in 1956. Grow up and stop this historical agit-prop, urban-legend, baloney!

[NineLine]

The discussion here is not whether this is a war to be won by the US or the Afghan Army, but the capability of the Afghan army to win the war. Sure Taliban is not like NVA supported by the USSR (At least that what we know of, remember no one knew there was some one called Chalie Wilson arguing at US senate for funding until well after the war ended) but they are a force to be recon with, even the US strategist thinking of negotiating with them. Whether the N.Vietnam agreed to a term is irrelevant (after sprayed with Agent Orange, I doubt that they will...no body wants to look orangish lol), the question is why there was indiscipline and mass desertion among the South's army after all they were trained by the best army in world (come on US is the meanest bad a** in the battlefield). U can hav an army strength increased from 90K 260k in 5 yr, but in my opinion its not sustainable at least not in current A'stan.
Dude you suck at spelling


.....and grammar

[California Joe]

Yeah he does. That greatly annoys me. Well that and the whole "LOL Agent Orange" cause defoliants are hilarious, and the typing with his sphincter.

[heli-cal]

The recurrent theme is that the invading military force will have departed without achieving its objective!

[Jacknola]

The recurrent theme is that the invading military force will have departed without achieving its objective!

I'm confused... help me ... After 10 years and numerous overt and covert terrorism, murders, attacks, full-scale military offenses, etc., in 1974, the North Vietnamese Army (PAVN) again invaded the RVN with 19 divisions, including 4 armored brigades.

The PAVN invasion overran the country, resulting in 2-3 million international refugees, and a further 1.5 million interned in concentration camps or killed outright. To my knowledge, the PAVN forces are still occupying the country. Yet you seem to think they "departed without achieving its objective?"

Based on this idea, do you think the Pakistani inspired and supported invasion and destruction of Afghanistan will eventually result in that invasion force "departing without achieving its objective?"

Perhaps you need to study some history, because the forces of good and right do not always win. If the above is not what you intended in your flippant and incomprehensible post, then I still suggest some history lessons... better yet, some study of ethics and morality so you can understand the nature of good and evil.

[heli-cal]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by heli-cal http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4791175#post4791175)
The recurrent theme is that the invading military force will have departed without achieving its objective!





I'm confused... help me ...


I was referring to the invading US military force.

[Jacknola]

OHHH!! the "US military" was the "invading army..." Well, will it shake your hold on reality and logic when one day you discover that:

… the population of South Vietnam (RVN) in large measure welcomed the arrival of the allies (26 countries, not just US) with open arms, and the population was not forced into concentration camps or tortured or executed as a policy … and the population did not find it necessary to flee the country to get away from the “invader US military” on the contrary …

Yet when the “non-invading liberating” North Vietnamese Army, the PAVN, advanced into the RVN, millions fled their homes and cities, took to the roads in carts and motorcycles, took to the oceans in small boats and rafts … None fled toward the advancing communists, all fled from their advance. Millions more of the population were subsequently put in re-education camps, hudreds of thousands murdered, many in front of their relatives, etc.

Does it concern your choice of semantics when the apparently "non-invading" communist armies in Cambodia murdered 25-percent of the population of the country in the killing fields ... many by putting plastic bags over their heads, sufocating them in horrific numbers to save ammunition? Was Pol Pot, who acted as a SEAsian Ghingis Khan, an "invader" in your eyes or not?

Does any of that truth bother you? … My guess is “no”… you just want to stir the pot, hoping most people accept your dumb propaganda name calling. Trouble is, history has dumped your version of the reality of Vietnam on the ash heap, along with all of the other platitudes that drove the dead religion of communism.

Enjoy your life in the Gulag… you must surely be a guard because most of the population in the world has seen the truth behind the mask of your masters... and NO ONE voluntarily wants what they were offering... not even the brainwashed stunted masses shivering and starving in North Korea.

Your version of what constitues invasion is bizarre in the extreme.

[heli-cal]

OHHH!! the "US military" was the "invading army..." Well, will it shake your hold on reality and logic when one day you discover that:

… the population of South Vietnam (RVN) in large measure welcomed the arrival of the allies (26 countries, not just US) with open arms, and the population was not forced into concentration camps or tortured or executed as a policy … and the population did not find it necessary to flee the country to get away from the “invader US military” on the contrary …

Yet when the “non-invading liberating” North Vietnamese Army, the PAVN, advanced into the RVN, millions fled their homes and cities, took to the roads in carts and motorcycles, took to the oceans in small boats and rafts … None fled toward the advancing communists, all fled from their advance. Millions more of the population were subsequently put in re-education camps, hudreds of thousands murdered, many in front of their relatives, etc.

Does it concern your choice of semantics when the apparently "non-invading" communist armies in Cambodia murdered 25-percent of the population of the country in the killing fields ... many by putting plastic bags over their heads, sufocating them in horrific numbers to save ammunition? Was Pol Pot, who acted as a SEAsian Ghingis Khan, an "invader" in your eyes or not?

Does any of that truth bother you? … My guess is “no”… you just want to stir the pot, hoping most people accept your dumb propaganda name calling. Trouble is, history has dumped your version of the reality of Vietnam on the ash heap, along with all of the other platitudes that drove the dead religion of communism.

Enjoy your life in the Gulag… you must surely be a guard because most of the population in the world has seen the truth behind the mask of your masters... and NO ONE voluntarily wants what they were offering... not even the brainwashed stunted masses shivering and starving in North Korea.

Your version of what constitues invasion is bizarre in the extreme.

Keep wearing the tinfoil hat! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/happy0009.gif

I simply gave my opinion.

The incontrovertible fact is that the US departed Vietnam without achieving its objective!

Since the 'Mission Accomplished' statement, Iraq became more unstable than at any time in living memory, and as for Afghanistan, that's hardly a bedrock of stability with the terrorist masterminds dead or captured. Its the opposite!

When the US departs Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be without achieving its objectives, there exists no credible basis to suppose otherwise!

The recurrent theme is that the invading military force will have departed without achieving its objective!

Whether or not you agree with the term 'invading', you don't disagree that the objectives have not been achieved, unless you consider Vietnam a victory!

Pol Pot was ousted by the forces of... Vietnam!

[California Joe]

Until your credentials remotely begin to reach Jacks you'd better wind your f*cking neck in. Does that hat in his avatar look like it's made out of tinfoil?

In fact what are your credentials to make blanket generalizations and post annoying smilies?

[heli-cal]

Until your credentials remotely begin to reach Jacks you'd better wind your f*cking neck in. Does that hat in his avatar look like it's made out of tinfoil?

In fact what are your credentials to make blanket generalizations and post annoying smilies?


Congratulations! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/clap.gif



You've found the cure for insomnia! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/tired-sleeping-smiley-17403.gif



Perhaps consider reading and comprehending the points which each poster makes, rather than just the one's you agree with.

Don't let the smilies scare you! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/sad0068.gif They're not actually real! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/sign0195.gif

In a forum, everyone gets to put in their http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/twocents.gif but predictably, some will try to stop opinions which they either don't comprehend, or agree with.

That attitude is very welcome in North Korea and Beijing.

[Jacknola]

I was referring to the invading US military force

Heli-cal - The problems I have are not with a statement or question. It is with ideologically driven knee-jerk left-wing political opinion masquerading as fact that is revealed in your way casual use of emotive language... beginning with insisting on calling the US in Vietnam an "invading army."

Sir, your poor choice of adjectives reveals your mindset. That language is the equivelent of making a political statement about Vietnam along the lines of ... "hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today" ... and thinking it apt and generally accepted as truth.

Don't you find it odd how that U.S. “invading army” was invited in, landed without opposition, and fought alongside to South Vietnamese national army for 10 years ... against the true invaders? But when challanged, instead of questioning your assumptions or choice of the word “invading” to describe the US in Vietnam, or even being a little uneasy that ill-chosen words have put you in the same camp as Pol Pot ... you double down, repeat it, and then come up with this amazing justification for your foolish statement and PAVN aggression …


Pol Pot was ousted by the forces of... Vietnam!

SO the f WHAT! The North Vietnamese put Pol Pot and his ilk in power in Cambodia and were fine with him killing three million or so of his own. They just removed him after he started killing theirs. IS that OK with you? Do you not see that maybe you have a funny idea of what does or doesn't entail "invading?"

Let’s see, so far, with just a few ill-chosen words and statements, you have aligned yourself with the muderous invading PAVN and NorthViet Polit Bureau in three countries, Laos, RVN and Cambodia, and with Pol Pot. These [I suppose from your point of view] "non-invading" forces you apparently admire managed to murder four to six million civilians, drove millions more into small boats and caused hundreds of thousands of combat deaths and the complete destruction of several entire countries. But that isn't enough for you is it?

So.... you make this killer of a statement....


Since the 'Mission Accomplished' statement, Iraq became more unstable than at any time in living memory

Freaking fool ... you switch from amazingly identifying the allies in SEAsia as being “US Invading Army in Vietnam,” and now declare yourself an expert in Iraq history. Tell me is Iraq more unstable now than ... say ... during WWI, or when Saddam fought his war with Iran, or when he murdered the Shia revolutionaries or used poison gas against the Kurds, or when he invaded Kuwait?

And what is this love of "stability" that you apparently so admire? Is that what you think we went into Iraq for? Are you one of those people who admired Hitler because he introduced "stability" to Germany? Or the fascists because they made the trains run on time in Italy in 1924?

And, who the hell made you the judge of “stability?" You apparently pine for "stability" so much that you actually would like to see the restoration of Sadaam and his lovely sons for "stablity’s" sake? Do you miss his mass murder, public torture, physical police-state oppression? Do you miss his penchant starting four wars that literally killed millions, polluted the earth and seas, destroyed billions of dollars worth of the worlds resources, looted and pillaged whole provinces and countries... all in the name of "stability?" Are you freaking daft?

Lets see… your little posts have put you on the side of Pol Pot, the PAVN, Sadaam Hussain… what else can we get from your ill-considered screed?


When the US departs Iraq and Afghanistan, it will be without achieving its objectives, there exists no credible basis to suppose otherwise!

So now you add the facistic world-wide islamists, Al Quaeda, Taliban murderers, bombers, killers, and lifestyle police to your list of favorites. And in addition, you now claim …

… to be gifted with fore knowledge and can see the future. Unlike anyone in the alllies millitary or political world, you know that "nothing will have been changed" when the “US departs Iraq and Afghanistan?” Somehow you again ignore the existence of the allies. Somehow you ignore Sadaam Hussain and sons and the Bathists … gone forever, the Taliban regime destroyed in Afghanistan.

Do you think it arrogant and jingoistic to be so positive about your knowledge of ongoing events that you set yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes “achieving objectives.” Are you that stupid?

Sir, I doubt you have any idea of what the national objectives; much less the international objectives of the allies in Iraq and Afghanistan are, just as you apparently have no clear idea of what happened in South East Asia 40 years ago.

By your ignorant language you have revealed your roots. I suggest adding Stalin and Mao to your admired list to go along with the“stability" of Saddam and Hitler, et. al, Pol Pot, the PAVN invading army, the Islamo-facisists and Talibanites. Then you could proudly claim admiration of all the worst mass murderers in the 20th Century and their political systems.

If all this is not what you actually believe, STFU about calling the U. S. an "invading army in South Vietnam.” And maybe your should review how you present your "arguments." Especially maybe you ought to take a close look at who your apparent anti-west, anti-US sentiments ally yourself with. Not even their own peoples believe that group listed above to be anything but pure unadulterated evil.

[California Joe]

Congratulations! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/clap.gif



You've found the cure for insomnia! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/tired-sleeping-smiley-17403.gif



Perhaps consider reading and comprehending the points which each poster makes, rather than just the one's you agree with.

Don't let the smilies scare you! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/sad0068.gif They're not actually real! http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/sign0195.gif

In a forum, everyone gets to put in their http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv29/helixpteron/twocents.gif but predictably, some will try to stop opinions which they either don't comprehend, or agree with.

That attitude is very welcome in North Korea and Beijing.



I'm sorry, I don't speak 13 year old mongoloid.

[T.S.C.Plage]

You might to review how the War in Viet-Nam ended. The US was out of Viet-Nam for nearly two years or so when the South was finally defeated by the North. The US left on agreement with the communist block countries that all outside parties would leave the two Viet-Nams alone. The US kept it agreement, the communist block did not and continued to support the North.

The article is right in the point, that battles now are decided by political solutions rather than military solutions.
As far as I know the limit of US financial help for South Vietnam was set to 1 billion $ in 1974 just for example. Besides that there was still US personal incountry (many of them operating as "civilians") which had more or less relevant functions till the last day with an US fleet waiting just 45km offshore. You also seem to forget that US military equipment for millions of dollars was left in the country as the US troops were leaving. I wouldn't exactly define that as "leaving SVN alone". Of course there was a reduction of help compared to the years during or before the so called "Vietnamisation" but saying nothing happend on the US side is a little blind sighted.

[Hollis]

As far as I know the limit of US financial help for South Vietnam was set to 1 billion $ in 1974 just for example. Besides that there was still US personal incountry (many of them operating as "civilians") which had more or less relevant functions till the last day with an US fleet waiting just 45km offshore. You also seem to forget that US military equipment for millions of dollars was left in the country as the US troops were leaving. I wouldn't exactly define that as "leaving SVN alone". Of course there was a reduction of help compared to the years during or before the so called "Vietnamisation" but saying nothing happend on the US side is a little blind sighted.


I hate to tell you this, I did not forget anything. Maybe go peddle your fish else wheres. They stink. Also try reading my post again. You added statements that I did not make.

"At this time, Congress cut financial aid to South Vietnam from $1 billion a year to $700 million. The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war. Congress immediately voted in restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976.....................

On 13 December 1974, North Vietnamese forces attacked Route 14 in Phuoc Long Province. Phuoc Binh, the provincial capital, fell on 6 January 1975. Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused. The fall of Phuoc Binh and the lack of an American response left the South Vietnamese elite demoralized and corruption grew rampant."