In Vietnam archives, somewhere, there is their report where they put "arguments" for using body counts as "progress parameters".Originally Posted by JUNKHO
"None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
Just me that conjures up parallels with the 2003 invasion of a hot sandy place? Blair's puppy like devotion to Dubya notwithstanding.
Here are some points about Vietnam and McNamara, Johnson, Westmoreland, that should be considered.
- The American public did not abandon support for the Vietnam war, ever. The election of Nixon, twice, proves it. They did lose confidence in the conduct of the war and in its objectives. But when the war "heated up" in the early '60s, the public was all for intervention, "go anywhere, fight any battle... to ensure the survival and success... etc." A failure to intervene to prevent the fall of Vietnam to the communist invasion in 1964 would have defeated Johnson.
- McNamara and Johnson never remotely understood the purpose and means of warfare, which is to bend the enemy's leadership to your will. They simply could not understand why North Vietnam did not quit... "But it's in NVN's interest to stop.. they would be much better off and richer if they just quit doing that nasty invasion stuff..." Hence the lunacy of "rolling thunder," the white house picking individual bombing targets, "graduated response," etc.... which only allowed matching countermeasures instead of seeking an end by causing unbearable pain.
There is a corollary with Afghanistan.. in that the people "leading" the Taliban have been given no incentive to stop the war.. because they are not personally at risk. Indeed the Pakistani ISI and many general officers have been given monetary incentives to continue their proxy war, and thus continue their fantasy great game against the rest of the world. Until the "rain of stones" begins hitting the people responsible, the low level military action will continue. (Solution - begin killing Pakistani Generals and ISI agents - all the while denying it of course).
- Lots of our allies supported us. ROK sent over two divisions. Australia, New Zealand, the Phillipines, etc. Thailand committed their entire force in the shadows of Laos. 18 countries contributed troops and/or support for the allies in Vietnam. True our European allies didn't send much material help, but they were not asked to... the threat to Europe was the critical ground and keep in mind the US kept 300,000 troops in Europe all during the Vietnam war. At the same time, UK and Australia et. al., were fighting a low-level war against Indonesia in Sabah and Sarawak (Malaysia), lots of indirect and direct military action was taking place elsewhere, especially in Africa, and armies were still required in Korea, etc.
- Westmoreland was actually a pretty good General. The conventional aspect of the Vietnam war was handled methodically and pretty well, up to a point. When he expanded to the borders in 1967, creating the logistic network as he went, he suddenly realized that there was no strategy for winning the war except that of attrition. To Westmoreland's credit, in 1968 he proposed a strategic military solution, ... the "Korea solution" ... a fortified DMZ from the S. China Sea to the Mekong. He requested an additional 200,000 troops to carry it out, and it would have worked... The fact that the NVA reacted so violently to Lom Son 719, which was only a reconnaissance in force compared to a true attempt to cut the supply line, proves the strategic concept.
- McNamara never came to grips with the central issues of the war and the conventional military side. He and his whiz kids bought into the statistical, political polling, entire "hearts and minds" theory of warfare. The military security that must precede hearts and minds was often disregarded in favor of college sociology. The problem is sociology has never stopped an armored division.
- Re: Afghanistan, yes there has been a conspicuous failure to publicize Afghanistan and drum support for the cause.. perhaps because if Pakistan's role in killing ISAF and keeping that war going was public, the public would demand retribution from Pakistan. But the US military conventional establishment has not actually publically tabled a military-based strategy of "winning" in Afghanistan ... even when Patraous himself asked. As in Vietnam, the war has been allowed to fester in part because of military doctrine, in part because of a failure of political leadership, and in part because the military had abandoned certain capabilities (advisory, special forces) in favor of ones they understood (muscle-direct action). This is what I call a military institutional preference for the "death star" option.
Last edited by Jacknola; 07-06-2012 at 12:47 PM.
Another really good read (in addition to Summer's On Strategy) is Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Lies that Led to Vietnam by (now MG) HR McMaster.
Thanks Jack....you always have great points, well thought out and understand more of the era that most folks for certain! My Summers book arrived today so will start reading it.
I was going to comment on McNamara's quote about the allies but you beat me to it. First, I'm guessing because of McNamara's old age he forgot about all of the US allies that fought alongside the Americans in Vietnam. Many people choose to forget other countries that sent troops. During the course of the war the following amounts of troops were sent: (excuse me for getting my stats from wikipedia)
Australia: 60,000; 521 dead; 3,000 wounded
New Zealand: 3,000; 37 dead; 187 wounded
Philippines: 10,450 but don't know dead or wounded
South Korea: 320,000 (not a typo) 5,099 dead; 10,962 wounded; 4 missing
Thailand: Don't know the number but 1,351 dead
It's a common mistake but it is important to remember facts. Of course, Germany and Japan did not get involved.
As for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I'm afraid your comments are again misinformed. Here is a list of countries that supported the US by sending troops to Iraq. It would be easier to list the countries who didn't support the invasion in Europe because the majority of European governments supported it:
United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak-(withdrawn 12/11)
United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)
Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 11/08)
Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 09/08)
Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/08)
Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03-withdrawn 08/07)
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/06)
Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 4/04)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 2/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03-withdrawal date unknown)
I'm not sure why the popular image is still that the US went it alone, but I find it degrading to non-US troops who sacrificed (not saying you were being degrading, just the whole media image). Yes, France and Germany did not support it. I never understood why they were considered the "traditional allies." Anyway, just pointing it out because it is still one of those myths of the Iraq War.
Great post^^^ The documentary was really good as well.
Well Jacknola, I finished reading the Col. Summers book last night on American Strategy in Vietnam. Extremely good book, smoke was coming out my ears from thinking so hard while reading it, as it really makes excellant points.
Clausewitz was and is still being studied diligently at the Army War College. I didn't feel that Summers skewered McNamera that badly though.
One point Summers made I thought still interesting was "American vital interests are determined in large measure by the President alone."
That is after he pretty much came down hard on the US military leaders for not "tendering their resignation rather than be the instrument of his armys downfall".
What I got out of the book was the the US strategy did not "secure the battlefield" by preventing the flow of NVA troops and supplies into the south.
The US strategy did not focus on the correct objective, i.e. North Vietnam but rather focused on the viet cong.
The US strategy did not take advantage of inititive when we had it, and keep on pounding the north...excepting when Nixon orderd the xmas bombing of December 1972 which broke the back of the north. (the US was focused on non stratigic issues, nation building, and viet cong, and not the main objective, North Vietnam's regular army/military)
I thought it was good when Summers quoted Nixon as saying he had "...the will in spades" to take the war to the North, whereas LBJ did not.
It probably has already been asked but what was the reason for not crushing Hanoi? Taking the capital seems pretty important.
Most of the allied nations you mentioned, South East Asia is their back yard, or close as makes no difference. McNamera was patently referring to major allies like Canada, Britain and France (who's colony it was), who chose not to contribute troops in support of the US.I was going to comment on McNamara's quote about the allies but you beat me to it. First, I'm guessing because of McNamara's old age he forgot about all of the US allies that fought alongside the Americans in Vietnam. Many people choose to forget other countries that sent troops. During the course of the war the following amounts of troops were sent: (excuse me for getting my stats from wikipedia
Obviously the US didn't go it alone and theres a sizeable lists of nations who turned up. However it's pretty clear that the level of support from allies was significantly lower than in say Afghanistan. In Afghanistan almost every major NATO ally has commited significant numbers of troops and has remained there for an extended period of time. Iraq 2003many of the major US allies who have made sizable deployments to Afghanistan or the first Gulf War, like Canada and France were notably absent.
I think McNamera is right to make the point that the absence many nations considered "close allies" in Vietnam is something the US should have reflected on. I think it's also something the US should reflect on post the Iraq war.
According to what I read, LBJ was afraid of drawing either China or the USSR into an active war with the USA....similar to the Chinese troops flowing down into North Korea during the early 50s Korean War. LBJ believed in a war of containment. Summers makes the case that if the USA had secured the battlefield (south vietnam), let the south vietnamese handle the nation building themselves and the USA had kept up unrelenting pressure on North Vietnam, just like bombing Hanoi in Dec. 1972.....the war might have had a different end result in 1975. Summers also notes and Clausowitz states that war results are not forever things...and everything changes. So even if south Vietnam had survived much longer than 1975, it may have succumb later to the north or another enemy. (that is what I got from it anyway)
Thanks commanding. Not to be an arm chair quarterback but they should have taken Hanoi. Seems it became a proxy war any way. I disagree with China or Russia openly fighting a conventional war.
Yeah...hindsight is 20-20 as they say. If after the battle of Ia Trang valley in 1965 when Hal Moore's troops defeated the huge NVA mass of troops, the US had followed up and right then bombed the crap out of Hanoi with scores of B-52s and other aircraft and kept it up, in addition to sealing off the south from infiltration....the North would have cried "uncle" I think. But it is all speculation..who knows? The enemy always has a vote in the outcome.
Kind of like if the CSA had marched into Washington and occupied it, following the first battle of Mannassas, the "civil war" might not have lasted but a few weeks.
They didn't take advantage of the momentum they had at the start. Both wars.^^
Of those, France wasn't going to go back to Vietnam - way too much historical baggage. The UK was going from financial crisis to crisis and still trying to keep a decent sized army for Germany and carry out operations in Malaysia. Any contribuition would have been token at best. And the Canadians were also NATO focused and were also under extreme budget pressure. The doesn't really leave any other major ally in a position to assist.
The USSR wasn't going to go to war with the US over Vietnam, just like the US wasn't going to go to war with the USSR over it.
The worry about the Chinese taking an active role on the other hand would almost certainly have been influenced by events in Korea just 20 years sooner.
Things were (believe it or not) on the improve in South Vietnam in the 1970's. The green revolution had massively increased the rice crop, the VC were no more and support for the government (while not strong) was certainly there. Almost certainly the North Vietnamese recognised that if they didn't take South Vietnam before (say) 1980, they never would be able to. It'd have become another South Korea (whom you have to remember had started out just as corrupt and incompetent as the SVN one had been with nearly as many coups).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
