quest on Tet offensive

[deagle]

Hey folks. Saw a documentary on it. Why was it called "offensive" ? From US point of view, weren't we on the defensive ? Or was it a lack of defensive planning that it was called "offensive" ? Kinda weird, but it was buggin me.

[StukaJr]

One side was on the offensive - the other side was on the defensive... What's not to understand? The Tet Offensive is named after the actions of the North and the date they chose.

[Hollis]

TET, 1968 was initiated by the Bac Biet and VC. It was theirs offensive move. Ergo Allies went defensive for a while...

[c46thva]

The real "offensive" thing about TET was the US news media hoodwinking the sheeple back home into viewing the whole thing as some sort victory for the communists. What was it that Cronkite said 'the war is now unwinnable'? Thanks Walt for your brilliant insight. Im not sure how the near total destruction of the Communist infra-structure in the south can be seen as a positive for the bad guys. Unless you buy into the theory of North Vietnam tricking the communists in the South (NLF VC etc) into exposing themselves to US firepower. Therefore ensuring the dominance of Uncle Ho's North Vietnamese Communist Party in the south as well.
Walter Cronkite and his ilk were dupes, useful idiots if you will.

[deagle]

One side was on the offensive - the other side was on the defensive... What's not to understand? The Tet Offensive is named after the actions of the North and the date they chose.


not to be rude, but "no $hit".

From our point of view, we were on the defensive, so why didn't we call it that. The nva would've called it an "offensive".

[California Joe]

Seriously? Ask Robert McNamara, maybe he has some insight from the Pentagons "historical battle naming group" HBNP. Are you f*cking obtuse?

[XxDualityxX]

It was the tet holiday and the NV launched attacks on the u.s troops hence the tet offensive name cause they tet holiday isnt a U.S one.

[Hollis]

It was heavy action, and the media played with it... as a big lost. But when you consider 2 regiments of Marines, re-inforced with Army Arty at Khe Sahn.. held off and kept 2 Div of NVA in that area for over a year.. who had who by the balls......... At the end, the Reg VC were gone.. it was not longer a VC war.. it was a NVA controlled war and The paid heavily for that tactical error. The NVA gambled all and lost. IMHO because of Media.peace movement in the USA supporting the NVA "victory" it still took them another 7 years to defeat the SVN, then After the USA pulled out and did SVN was on their complete own for over two years, no aid from the USA. The deal was suppost to be the same was for the NVA but aid still poured in from Communist countries..

I agree with yoy c46.....



The real "offensive" thing about TET was the US news media hoodwinking the sheeple back home into viewing the whole thing as some sort victory for the communists. What was it that Cronkite said 'the war is now unwinnable'? Thanks Walt for your brilliant insight. Im not sure how the near total destruction of the Communist infra-structure in the south can be seen as a positive for the bad guys. Unless you buy into the theory of North Vietnam tricking the communists in the South (NLF VC etc) into exposing themselves to US firepower. Therefore ensuring the dominance of Uncle Ho's North Vietnamese Communist Party in the south as well.
Walter Cronkite and his ilk were dupes, useful idiots if you will.

[KB]

It is now widely accepted that the Tet Offensive was a tactical defeat for the Communists, particularly the NLF which came out of hiding to mount attacks across SVN and were decimated. Thereafter VC Main Force units were largely staffed by NVA replacements.

On the strategic level the Tet Offensive discredited the rosy outlooks on the war's progress previously communicated by MACV. Only a few months earlier Gen. Westmoreland had addressed a joint session of Congress and gave a glowing report on the progress the US was making toward winning the war. Shortly after Tet broke out Westmoreland cabled "we were facing an entirely new war" and requested 240,000 additional troops. Pres. Johnson lost confidence in Westmoreland and replaced him with Abrams and announced he would not run for re-election.

Perhaps if Pres. Johnson had mobilized the nation to WWII levels and create the combat power required to enable US forces to surge into Laos and Cambodia to eliminate NVA base areas and infiltration routes the war could have been won. However, the SVN government was dominated by Catholics, a religious minority in Vietnam and it never seemed to have the support of the people nor the ideological commitment (or ruthlessness) of the Communist forces. Multiple US presidents (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson) agonized over whether the stakes in Vietnam were high enough to justify US intervention. The US sort of "slipped into" the war, rather than approach it with a comprehensive strategy for fighting and winning it.

However, Johnson had a lot of factors to consider:

the potential for Soviet mischief in central Europe (remember there was a Cold War going on at the time)
the possibility of active Chinese intervention in the fighting
ongoing domestic turmoil inside the US as it struggled with the civil rights movement
the unrest on college campuses in opposition to the war.
conflicting objectives of funding his "Great Society" programs and a major armed conflict.At times the US seemed ready to come apart.

Nixon came to office with a reputation of being a hardline anti-Communist which insulated him from "soft on Communism" charges when he began his diplomatic initiatives with China and the Soviet Union, which in turn helped isolate North Vietnam. His secret bombing of NVA sanctuaries across the border in Cambodia and Laos, together with the 1970 Cambodian incursion into NVA base areas severely dented the NVA's war making capabilities. His escalation of the bombing during the 1972 Easter Offensive, mining of North Vietnam harbors and the 1972 Christmas bombings that December were also decisive actions.

IMHO, had Nixon not been dragged down by Watergate he would have had the power to bring about an acceptable negotiated settlement backed by US firepower. When the NVA launched their final offensive in 1975 Congress refused to authorize additional military support to the SVN government. Public opinion decided enough was enough.

[c46thva]

KB

Have you read "Derilction of Duty"??
Curious to hear your opinion on the book if you have. Great post by the way.

Ive never been a big fan of the Johnson administration but you do bring up some very valid points in terms of his concerns and the way they affected policy decisions

[Mastermind]

If you want a front to back, and in depth analysis of the Vietnam War, read Stanly karnow's book, "Vietnam A History" ISBN:0-14-014533-8. It is completely objective and gives a highly detailed examination of what was going on and why. After I read the book twice, I had to conclude...it was one huge record breaking cluster fvck! It is very difficult to imagine five US Presidents were so G-dmned stupid....

[Asheren]

Vietnam was lost by media and pigeons not by army. It was like world fell in to some sort of mass psychosis or something in that time period. Many victories like Tet were reported as a lose by media. When US solider killed a civilian it was a war crime. When VC murdered hundreds of vilage chiefs, teachers, priests and other educated peoples to get control of vilages no one even mention it. When they put thousants of peopels in work camps or better say concentration camps after they finaly conquered whole country no one even blink. What pisses me most is that some pigeons still belive that whole s$%t about Vietnam war.

[PeterG]

Vietnam was lost by media and pigeons not by army. It was like world fell in to some sort of mass psychosis or something in that time period. Many victories like Tet were reported as a lose by media. When US solider killed a civilian it was a war crime. When VC murdered hundreds of vilage chiefs, teachers, priests and other educated peoples to get control of vilages no one even mention it. When they put thousants of peopels in work camps or better say concentration camps after they finaly conquered whole country no one even blink. What pisses me most is that some pigeons still belive that whole s$%t about Vietnam war.

Don't forget the ridiculous 'bodycounts', the fighters who couldn't attack the MIGs on the ground, couldn't bomb the SAM storage sites, etc. Rules of engagement from hell. And the politicians micro-managing the war, and using the armed forces to send 'political messages' instead of fighting to win according to sound military tactics.

[Mastermind]

There was a little farming village called Ap Cao Bang... it is located a few miles south of Hue and east of Hwy 1. ...or at least it was. We attacked it first on May 1, 1968. We took two dead and five wounded. We killed over 120 NVA....we then left. The next week, we attacked Ap Cao Bang again...and took a few less casualties...body count of dead NVA, 60+.....the following week, we got a call from a chopper pilot...enemy activity in Ap Cao Bang...AGAIN! We attaked in almost the exact same manner...and the result was the same. We then returned with bull dozers and flattened the place...when we left, it looked like a gigantic foot ball field with no grass. That was the way you had to fight in VN. It was pointless, silly, deadly and frustrating.

Look at the "Hamburger Hill" debacle...we took horrendous casualties, so did the enemy (on their sacle)...and the week after finally taking the hill, the USA left! Abandoned it....what the hell was the point? Same with Khesahn....You do not win wars fighting like that.

[WolverineBlue]

No question about it -- fighting a war with one arm tied behind your back ain't gonna cut it.