US leadership failed then and failed now. The French had set up a model for us not to follow and writers such as Bernard Fall documented that model in "Street Without Joy", and "Hell In A Very Small Place" and elsewhere. The Domino Theory of the 1960s did nothing to dissuade us from the French Indochina model, and we Americans felt we could do a better job than the French, anyway. Nobody acknowledged that US national interests were not at stake in Vietnam, just as they are not at stake in Afghanistan.
2
The writer is a professor at a religious school in Orange County, CA, the dead center of hard core Republicanism. He writes very dangerous revisionist history. It is beyond dispute there was a massive, intentional, comprehensive gov't plan to lie to the American public about this unwindable war, and Westmoreland was absolutely complicit. It whitewashes that, and implies the Left was the cause for the defeat, "not understanding the nuances of war."
We allied with a despot: it was not "contentious politics" that did us in. We were an occupying colonial power: the people there wanted us out and had no choice but to tolerate what we did there "for them". The Left was not questioning the "sacrifices of the war", implying we were unwilling to sacrifice. We were protesting carpet bombing; lies; atrocities; endless deaths to no end; chemical weapon use' killing civilians, you name it, we did it.
The author says "we need to embrace the nuances of war", meaning we must accept that war is complex, best left to the generals, and to accept what we are told. Which is the line peddled to us then.
This is a travesty of writing, and masquerades opinion as fact, to tar the Left and advance war as a means to solve issues. The author's blatant attempt at saying the opposite in the article's final sentence is the height of hypocrisy.
Why was this article allowed to be published? Giving credence and platform to this nonsense is not balanced reporting. It is to publish deception as fact.
We allied with a despot: it was not "contentious politics" that did us in. We were an occupying colonial power: the people there wanted us out and had no choice but to tolerate what we did there "for them". The Left was not questioning the "sacrifices of the war", implying we were unwilling to sacrifice. We were protesting carpet bombing; lies; atrocities; endless deaths to no end; chemical weapon use' killing civilians, you name it, we did it.
The author says "we need to embrace the nuances of war", meaning we must accept that war is complex, best left to the generals, and to accept what we are told. Which is the line peddled to us then.
This is a travesty of writing, and masquerades opinion as fact, to tar the Left and advance war as a means to solve issues. The author's blatant attempt at saying the opposite in the article's final sentence is the height of hypocrisy.
Why was this article allowed to be published? Giving credence and platform to this nonsense is not balanced reporting. It is to publish deception as fact.
4
I remember Gen. "WasteMoreLand". I remember the "Five O'Clock Follies" as the military briefings were called. The American people were consistently lied to, our children were sent to murder and commit war crimes while being mutilated and slaughtered themselves.
Only the political and financial interests of the military-industrial complex were served. The same corrupt web of business and military interests that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned against.
Let's not sanitize the horrific crimes that were committed throughout in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam by despicable war crimes inflicted on civilian populations by an invading, imperial power.
American soldiers could valiantly fight and win most every battle and still lose an illegal, unjust criminal war. The lessons of that terrible debacle should be applied to the current unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Supporting corrupt and brutal dictators who are feared and despised by their own people will never be a wining strategy for the United States of America
Only the political and financial interests of the military-industrial complex were served. The same corrupt web of business and military interests that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned against.
Let's not sanitize the horrific crimes that were committed throughout in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam by despicable war crimes inflicted on civilian populations by an invading, imperial power.
American soldiers could valiantly fight and win most every battle and still lose an illegal, unjust criminal war. The lessons of that terrible debacle should be applied to the current unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Supporting corrupt and brutal dictators who are feared and despised by their own people will never be a wining strategy for the United States of America
5
It's over, let it go especially right now when we have a flaming lunatic in the WH whose mission is to destroy the country as we know it and is being abetted in that mission by the Republican Party members in Congress who are out to grab as much money as they can from the lobbyists as the country is being sold down the river.
3
Is history repeating, 'More troops needed to defeat ISIS'?
2
There is an interesting scene in the classic documentary "Hearts and Minds" where Westmoreland, interviewed at length, explains that the "Oriental doesn't place the same high value on life as does a Westerner... we value life and human dignity." If you really want to understand the inherent bankruptcy of that war and its inevitable failure, the quote says it all.
2
Westmorland had a difficult and challenging responsibility. The political folks fought the war based in part of political ramification or the "what if"..what if the Russians came into the war...what if the Chinese came into the war.." Both the Russians and the Chinese were active in the war. Who do you think supplied all the SAM's that shot down hundreds of our planes..and killed many hundreds of our pilots. Did the Chinese fly those Mig's against our people...perhaps and most likely.
Have the United States began to bomb or mine the harbors as recipients of Russian and Chinese supplies...the war in Vietnam would of been over...combines with training the South Vietnamese forces...highly more reliable than our Afgh soldier counterparts.
The Vietnam War and the historical failure was copied in Afghanistan..the bad guys know..we will eventually leave...so just bleed us slowly until time is on their side.
Now comes more troopers to Afghanistan as trainers/mentors...this means our guys will be "out there" with Afghan soldiers in some cases with very little backup. This means some of our guys will die at the hands of our Afghan "friends".
Afgh/2003-4;Iraq/2005..plus 6 other deployments
Have the United States began to bomb or mine the harbors as recipients of Russian and Chinese supplies...the war in Vietnam would of been over...combines with training the South Vietnamese forces...highly more reliable than our Afgh soldier counterparts.
The Vietnam War and the historical failure was copied in Afghanistan..the bad guys know..we will eventually leave...so just bleed us slowly until time is on their side.
Now comes more troopers to Afghanistan as trainers/mentors...this means our guys will be "out there" with Afghan soldiers in some cases with very little backup. This means some of our guys will die at the hands of our Afghan "friends".
Afgh/2003-4;Iraq/2005..plus 6 other deployments
4
Well, which should it be? Physical warfare or Information warfare? One is dumb and brutal. The other is smart and dangerous. Both can be lethal. Someday maybe we won’t need either, but that seems a long way off.
1
In 1967, the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly recommended to President Johnson that the U.S. Navy blockade North Vietnam ports and harbors to choke off the Soviet military equipment then flowing into NV. Johnson refused to do so. The rest is history. The failure of strategic planning headed by Johnson doomed all U.S. efforts in South Vietnam despite the tremendous U.S. military effort put forward.
With all the Soviet-supplied military equipment flowing down the Ho Chi Minh Trail into South Vietnam and with the U.S. inability to stop it in Laos, there was little to no ability for the RVN military to stand up to the NV military once armed after the U.S. pulled out all its forces in 1971. Defeat in South Vietnam was inevitable with this failed strategic planning and President Lyndon Johnson has to take the blame for that.
With all the Soviet-supplied military equipment flowing down the Ho Chi Minh Trail into South Vietnam and with the U.S. inability to stop it in Laos, there was little to no ability for the RVN military to stand up to the NV military once armed after the U.S. pulled out all its forces in 1971. Defeat in South Vietnam was inevitable with this failed strategic planning and President Lyndon Johnson has to take the blame for that.
2
Since we, as a species, have never been able to understand our past without resort to God's will (Gods' swill?), "progress" (we guess?) of "civilization" and other such BIG ideas, it is not reasonable, I think, to expect anyone--leaders dissenters, crystal ball gazers--to understand the present. Then or now. Stuff happens. Then we make up stories to tell around the campfire as to why they did.
" Reducing complex wars to one-word phrases — Vietnam as war of “attrition” or supposed successes in Iraq as a result of a “surge” — dangerously oversimplifies. Rudimentary language dismisses the inherent chaos central to the deadliest of human endeavors. Easy explanations for victory and defeat make it hard to understand what really happened, and makes us less ready to understand the next conflict. And in the end, simplifying war allows us to turn to it far more readily than we probably should." And a lie is a lie is a lie.
3
read macnamaras book for the real truth about nam
if you can stomach it it , that is
if you can stomach it it , that is
3
The Vietnam War on that its effects are with us still. We have never come to a reckoning. Why for example did we send our boys to fight then treated the veterans of that war so badly. Then we’ve had the Tom Brocaw misreading of history to suggest that “the greatest generation” was different in winning WWII and coming home to little fanfare. The data shows otherwise. A percentage of the returned were broken and never got “fixed.” War does damage to the victors and the so0called vanquished. The only “good” to come out of any war was Germans coming to terms with their responsibility for Hitler. We have not come to mourn our real loss—the faith we once had in government and the belief we were the “good guys.” A part of that failure to mourn has been exploited by later presidents like Reagan AND Bush, Reagan for economic purposes, Bush for arrogant military ones. That same failure to face up to our real selves and our shortcomings, keeps us divided as a nation and exploitable by a con artist who promises to make us “great again” but will actually make us grate again. Falkner was right: the past isn’t dead, it’s not even past.
2
Our experience in Vietnam goes back to WW-2 and our war there may have been avoidable; at least that's my opinion based on what I've learned over the years.....
I was at a luncheon of the COLO SPGS chapter of the World Affairs Council several years ago and our speaker was a former U.S.Ambassador to S. Korea. He told us of an OSS team that was dropped behind enemy lines as a part of Operation Deer into what was referred to then as French Indo-China.
Their mission was to hook up with the locals and find ways to help them push the Imperial Japanese Army out of that part of the world. The leader of the local group was near death but one of the OSS team was a medical type who saved the man's life. That man became a big fan of the USA.
Later, that man asked the USA for help getting the French to give up their colonial empire in his country but we turned him down. That man was Ho Chi Minh.
The rest of the history we know, but our war in his country was avoidable if only we had sat down and talked to an old friend who came to us for help….
See also: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm
I was at a luncheon of the COLO SPGS chapter of the World Affairs Council several years ago and our speaker was a former U.S.Ambassador to S. Korea. He told us of an OSS team that was dropped behind enemy lines as a part of Operation Deer into what was referred to then as French Indo-China.
Their mission was to hook up with the locals and find ways to help them push the Imperial Japanese Army out of that part of the world. The leader of the local group was near death but one of the OSS team was a medical type who saved the man's life. That man became a big fan of the USA.
Later, that man asked the USA for help getting the French to give up their colonial empire in his country but we turned him down. That man was Ho Chi Minh.
The rest of the history we know, but our war in his country was avoidable if only we had sat down and talked to an old friend who came to us for help….
See also: http://www.historynet.com/ho-chi-minh-and-the-oss.htm
4
Loved to picnic in his gazebo on shelter island while he was out manufacturing numbers. The year i learned to sail....so to speak.
1
Vietnam was a proxy war: USA vs USSR + China. It was also a asymmetric guerrilla war. The last time we fought a guerrilla war was the Revolutionary War. Great Britain lost. The American colonies won
3
Stephen Hawking gave us a hundred years, it's because we never learn. We are a violent primitive species, incapable of coexistence or sustainability.
"But if the American war in Vietnam was truly “unlike anything else in the experience of our country,” 50 years on, it still can remind us of the need to embrace the nuances of war." I don't understand this article. Why "embrace the nuances of war." If the Vietnam War was so hard to explain it was because the real explanation was unsayable, just as the real explanation for the two Wars in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan are unpronouncable. Because they are totally irrational! It's an assertion of American might, so important to so many - in order to...? Ahah! Be bigger! Be stronger! Assert our will, whatever that may be. In Vietnam, the whole reason given - to stop Communism from reaching our shores - was a giant scam on its face. Communism wasn't on the way. But there was a need to dominate the region economically. That was the unpronouncable part. So anything Westmoreland or the others said rang hollow for some reason. Why? It was lies! And so one of the best presidents we've ever had on the domestic scene destroyed his legacy and good name for ever after.
4
I see no evidence that we have learned anything from Vietnam. We still tend to assume military force provides the solution. We still do not understand the cultures of the peoples we supposedly defend and oppose. We still either lie about the reasons for our involvement in various conflicts or, more likely, don't really understand the reasons, but are afraid to admit this to ourselves let alone to the American public. We are still very arrogant and yet our leaders are very afraid of admitting their mistakes like our involvement in Vietnam.
4
"And while a confident Westmoreland painted a favorable military picture, he twice emphasized a point that most likely made Johnson wince. 'I do not see any end of the war in sight.' "
Westmorland told the truth and he did not lie in his speech to the joint session of Congress.
The attempt at rehabilitation LBJ continues in force at the NY Times. Can't wait 'till Model Cities part 2 comes out.
Westmorland told the truth and he did not lie in his speech to the joint session of Congress.
The attempt at rehabilitation LBJ continues in force at the NY Times. Can't wait 'till Model Cities part 2 comes out.
2
Fifty years on and the USA continues to interfere in other countries politics. Each time American lives and wealth are wasted. Never is the lesson learned.
Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
In addition, we are both broke and corrupted.
Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.
In addition, we are both broke and corrupted.
2
Please read "Fire in the Lake."
The war was always "lost." It should never have been "won."
The war was always "lost." It should never have been "won."
1
If we had truly believed in capitalism we would have dropped Sears catalogs with $250.00 gift certificates on Vietnam then sat back and waited. We would have saved millions of SE asian lives, thousands of American lives, and the honor of our country. But we didn't really believe in ourselves evidently.
2
LBJ knew the war was lost.
But for political reasons he could not admit it.
The Democrats had been savaged by the China Lobby for "losing" China.
LBJ was not going to allow that type of criticism to be directed at him and the Democrats.
So it was necessary for over 50,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese to did unnecessarily.
When the French were losing in IndoChina General Matthew Ridgeway sent an Army team to determine what would be required if the US were to intervene to help the French.
Ridgeway's report of what was required was more than the US could deliver.
IKE listened and did not intervene. But IKE and then JFK and then LBJ and then Nixon still could not withdraw. Each increased US support for the South Vietnamese.
When college 2-S deferments were lifted and middle class males were subject to the draft, their parents put pressure on the Congress and Congress cut off funds for the war.
It had been acceptable for lower class youths to get killed.
But for political reasons he could not admit it.
The Democrats had been savaged by the China Lobby for "losing" China.
LBJ was not going to allow that type of criticism to be directed at him and the Democrats.
So it was necessary for over 50,000 Americans and countless Vietnamese to did unnecessarily.
When the French were losing in IndoChina General Matthew Ridgeway sent an Army team to determine what would be required if the US were to intervene to help the French.
Ridgeway's report of what was required was more than the US could deliver.
IKE listened and did not intervene. But IKE and then JFK and then LBJ and then Nixon still could not withdraw. Each increased US support for the South Vietnamese.
When college 2-S deferments were lifted and middle class males were subject to the draft, their parents put pressure on the Congress and Congress cut off funds for the war.
It had been acceptable for lower class youths to get killed.
8
This opinion piece would indicate that the "Selling" of our war against Vietnam continues to this day. Under the Democrats the war was foolish and under the Republicans the war was cynical; but it was always wrong. Why are we so reluctant to admit this to ourselves? The answer is that we are human and it is very difficult for an individual or a society to admit that it was simply wrong about its investment of the lives of its children, never mind its national pride. In this country we perfected this mechanism in dealing with our own Civil War and we unfortunately continue to apply it, even at our national peril.
7
The author's discussion of the war diverges from the reality on the ground. In this article, US forces are painted as benevolent. In my view, and I think in the view of most Western European historians, our activities in Vietnam were immoral, killed thousands of innocents and were not needed to protect the US.
The author quotes Westmoreland as saying only a strategy of “unrelenting but discriminating military, political and psychological pressure” on the enemy would lead to success."
Westmoreland''s miiltary actions were anytjhing but discriminating. Entire swaths of Vietnam were free fire zones where we bombed anything that moved. In the Mekong Delta, we shot at anything that moved. We bombed all civilians living in areas held by the Vietcong -- that induced them to flee those areas and gave the US the opportunity to say they were fleeing Communists.
The writer also says the war was complex, and hard to define, and that we never really succeeded in explaining what it was all about.
NONSENSE. If the war seemed unclear, if we did not know why it took 15 years to train the South Vietnamese army, if the fierce opposittion to the war bewilders you, it is because our Government was essentially lyinng
OUR GOVT CONTENDED: We are defending south Vietnam from Communist Aggression.
IN REALIITY: Most of the South Vietnamese viewed the Vietcong with favor. They were tired of being serfs for the West. We weren't defending S Vietnam; we were fighting most of it.
The author quotes Westmoreland as saying only a strategy of “unrelenting but discriminating military, political and psychological pressure” on the enemy would lead to success."
Westmoreland''s miiltary actions were anytjhing but discriminating. Entire swaths of Vietnam were free fire zones where we bombed anything that moved. In the Mekong Delta, we shot at anything that moved. We bombed all civilians living in areas held by the Vietcong -- that induced them to flee those areas and gave the US the opportunity to say they were fleeing Communists.
The writer also says the war was complex, and hard to define, and that we never really succeeded in explaining what it was all about.
NONSENSE. If the war seemed unclear, if we did not know why it took 15 years to train the South Vietnamese army, if the fierce opposittion to the war bewilders you, it is because our Government was essentially lyinng
OUR GOVT CONTENDED: We are defending south Vietnam from Communist Aggression.
IN REALIITY: Most of the South Vietnamese viewed the Vietcong with favor. They were tired of being serfs for the West. We weren't defending S Vietnam; we were fighting most of it.
11
@David Gottfried: But you don't know that most South Vietnamese viewed Vietcong with favor, and where does your information come from: a "sondage"taken in the midst of the fighting? In Algeria, scene of another third world struggle for independence from colonialism, in this case French, more than 1 million Algerians were slaughtered by FLN "djounouds" in order to compel the "amorphous masses" to buckle under to the Front. Native Algerians who smoked, played dominos,listened to Radio Alger had their noses and ears cut off. Whole villages which sided with Messali Hadj, FLN's rival, were wiped out, Melouza in 1957 being most egregious example. Amirouche ruthlessly killed tens of thousands of his countrymen suspected of betrayal, and there r statues of him today in the Kabylie. Same antagonisms, necessary differences observed, were extant in South Vietnam Was in Rhodesia in 1965 on UDI and returned periodically, and inter tribal, ethnic hatred was intense. When Mugabe assumed power with his ZANU followers in 1980, black RHODESIANS were as fearful of him as Cambodians were of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge.Gen. Salan brought almost a million Vietnamese catholics south in 1954 to protect them from Vietminh.Read your history.
1
I was drafted in 1968. As part of basic training, we were shown films that were supposed to explain our involvement in Vietnam. These propaganda films actually made me question our involvement more than I had before. They were lame rah-rah pieces, and frankly, insulted my intelligence. I suppose that is because there was no good reason for our involvement, from the lie that was the Gulf of Tonkin incident right up to our ignoble retreat. Vietnam was the first of our modern, inexcusable involvements in overseas skirmishes that did nothing but cost American (and other)lives, and enrich the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower valiantly tried to warn us about. Enough!
15
I am disappointed that this initial newsletter of Vietnam '67 is about Gen. Westmoreland or, more generally, on the inability of Americans to realize or discuss war's nuances. I think all who care to think (as opposed to emote) for a moment know that the Vietnam War was incredibly complicated. We don't need Mr. Daddis to tell us that. What we do need is a clear understanding of how we got into this mess and why. Remember, without The Pentagon Papers, most of what we know about the origins and implementation of American policy in this War would have been unknown. We do know that this War was started for venal reasons and continued for worse ones. Yet, even today, many people think that the War could have been 'won' if the Generals had been left to win it. Westmoreland says that the people we are fighting don't value human life as much as we do - didn't we say the same about the Japanese and Germans, not to mention Chinese. Let's not look at why the military got it wrong, or why the usual prejudices surfaced, but why our political system failed us. That failure is still killing people - a friend recently died of exposure to Agent Orange - a brave friend who had thought he survived the worse experience of his life.
6
The Vietnamese were not our enemy. We were the enemy. The Vietnamese helped the Americans when the Japanese invaded what was known as French Indo China. When the war ended the Vietnamese hoped for their freedom from the French but that was not to be as the US sided with the French occupiers and said that the land had to go back to the French.
When the inevitable war broke out between the Vietnamese and the French, the US backed the French and Eisenhower even mulled over the idea of using nuclear weapons. The war ended in defeat for the French.
The country was divided with an election scheduled to take place to decide the fate of the nation. It was obvious to the Americans that the winner would be Ho Chi Minh and the Americans would not allow that to happen. The elections were called off and what could have been a peaceful transition turned into a war that took the lives of between two and three million Vietnamese while 59,000 American troops gave their lives in vain.
Today the remnants of our war against Vietnam still haunt the people. Because of our use of Agent Orange there are a high number of births of children with horrible birth defects and high levels of cancer not only among the Vietnamese but among American troops. To its utter shame the US has never accepted the blame for what we did to Vietnam. It was American privilege that allowed us to go and devastate that country.
When the inevitable war broke out between the Vietnamese and the French, the US backed the French and Eisenhower even mulled over the idea of using nuclear weapons. The war ended in defeat for the French.
The country was divided with an election scheduled to take place to decide the fate of the nation. It was obvious to the Americans that the winner would be Ho Chi Minh and the Americans would not allow that to happen. The elections were called off and what could have been a peaceful transition turned into a war that took the lives of between two and three million Vietnamese while 59,000 American troops gave their lives in vain.
Today the remnants of our war against Vietnam still haunt the people. Because of our use of Agent Orange there are a high number of births of children with horrible birth defects and high levels of cancer not only among the Vietnamese but among American troops. To its utter shame the US has never accepted the blame for what we did to Vietnam. It was American privilege that allowed us to go and devastate that country.
9
Vietnam reflects the failure in Iraq by the mis-understanding by our government and armed forces of how it is to fight a war as a counter insurgency problem, not being tuned in to properly serve the existing population while combating the enemy....ie... read again the wisdom of " Fiasco" written by Mr Strick to get the point as he so accurately describes a similar war in Iraq from 2003 on
3
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 - 31 May 1968) at the 12th USAF Hospital at Cam Ranh Bay AFB. Most wounded grunts told me the war was over. What had changed according to these grunts was they were killing ten NVA soldiers instead of five earlier in their tour. This was months before the Tet Offensive of 1968 when American voters back in the world finally gave up on the war. Sam Adams, a CIA analyst, discovered in 1967 after two extended trips to Vietnam there were more than a half-million Vietnamese Communists under arms - twice the number the U.S. command in Saigon, 250,000 at the time, would admit to. Gen. Abrams, Gen. Westmoreland's deputy commander, admitted in a SECRET/EYES ONLY cable on August 20, 1967: "We have been projecting an image of success over recent months," and cautioned if the higher figures ( of Sam Adams) became public, " all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion." Adams went through the chain-of-command to get his estimate released but he was overrruled by the CIA, MACV and LBJ. But Adams decided not to leak his estimate though someone did after the Tet Offensive to the NYT which published it in March, 1968. In 2002 Ray McGovern, a retired analyst, co-founded the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence to counter the faulty narrative that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Past recipients of the Sam Adams award have included Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.
9
Anyone contemplating waging war should have to read historian Barbara Tuchman's follow-up to her acclaimed 'Guns of August', 'The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam'. This penetrating discussion was dismissed by some to be a minor critical historical observation of certain past government's pursuits of action contrary to their own best interests. I believe it to be a cogent read that cuts to the chase pointing out man's inability to accept their mistakes as evidenced in past wars, thereby sabotaging their current or present day involvements. Simply put, 'you ignore the past, you are doomed to repeat it.'
4
There was the same kind of hatred some Americans feel towards terrorist today, but it was pointed at communism. Many who opposed to it could not even define what communism was. We see the same seems to hold true today, when right wing enthusiasts talk about the Middle Easterners.
We were told that Vietnam was a vital link in a chain of dominoes that runs through Southeast Asia . . . it was lies, lies, lies. Sound familiar?
We were told that Vietnam was a vital link in a chain of dominoes that runs through Southeast Asia . . . it was lies, lies, lies. Sound familiar?
4
We should avoid getting into a war where we have no respectable friends on the ground. Alliances of convenience are the first warning that we will gain nothing even if we "win". It takes decades and patience, but the only long-term victory comes from cultivating our friends.
4
Westmoreland was an experienced and well informed commander of the U.S. forces but like most of the leadership in the military and the national security establishment, he was unable to see the war as it was, a political struggle waged by nationalists who would never give up until the occupying forces were gone, forever. The government in the South was not representative of the people who lived there, and in fact disrespected key populations like the rice farming villagers and the Mountain People in the Southern Highlands who were in the middle of the war and whose allegiance or lack of opposition were crucial to the outcome. By 1967, the U.S. Government was using measures of attrition to determine the progress of the war, and those numbers reported were grossly inaccurate and so consistently misrepresented the remaining strength of the enemy forces. It was this misunderstanding of what was required to win that made the Tet Offensive in 1968 a decisive turning point for the Communist forces. It was obvious that the U.S. had underestimated the size of the enemy forces, even though the losses of the enemy forces meant that the Viet Cong was greatly diminished in fighters, and it was the lack of credibility concerning the government's ability to control events that this caused which brought down both Johnson and Westmoreland in the aftermath.
3
While the Vietnam conflict was indeed complex, Mr. Daddis underestimates the power of the body count. It was not simply a "trope;" it was a metric.
In a messy and largely unquantifiable situation, body count was one easily calculated and understandable number that, from MACV headquarters in Saigon to the company level, people could readily grasp. Its use had predictable effects on commanders who wanted good efficiency reports and promotions. This pressure resulted in lies that were far from bright and shining. As a combat Marine friend of mine said to me, the basic message the troops informally understood was "if it's dead, its a VC." Could be men, women, children, cows, or dogs. Didn't matter. It was reported as an enemy death.
There is a somewhat ghoulish 18th century precedent. Sir William Johnson, a prominent British colonial official in New York, encouraged his Six Nations allies to collect enemy scalps (i.e., those of the French and their allies) to demonstrate that they were doing their job well. Johnson knew that this could result in non-combatants being killed and scalped, but like MACV commanders, he needed something to show for his efforts.
In a messy and largely unquantifiable situation, body count was one easily calculated and understandable number that, from MACV headquarters in Saigon to the company level, people could readily grasp. Its use had predictable effects on commanders who wanted good efficiency reports and promotions. This pressure resulted in lies that were far from bright and shining. As a combat Marine friend of mine said to me, the basic message the troops informally understood was "if it's dead, its a VC." Could be men, women, children, cows, or dogs. Didn't matter. It was reported as an enemy death.
There is a somewhat ghoulish 18th century precedent. Sir William Johnson, a prominent British colonial official in New York, encouraged his Six Nations allies to collect enemy scalps (i.e., those of the French and their allies) to demonstrate that they were doing their job well. Johnson knew that this could result in non-combatants being killed and scalped, but like MACV commanders, he needed something to show for his efforts.
2
"Throughout his tenure in Vietnam, Westmoreland wrestled with how best to communicate, to numerous and varied audiences, the complexities of a war so unlike the conventional battlefields of World War II."
Westmoreland wrestled with how best to communicate the status of the Vietnam war by lying through his teeth to the American public. In 1967 after the surprise Tet Offensive against South Vietnam and the U.S. by "North Vietnam" (many North Vietnamese originated from the south), Westmoreland spun the Tet Offensive as having exhausted the north in terms of munitions and men with "victory" for the south just a short time away.
During that time period, anyone with a brain and critical thinking skills could see that the Vietnam war was unwinnable, and there was no "domino effect." It was an ungodly waste of human life - especially for the Vietnamese. Vietnam continues to suffer the effects of the war to this day with un-exploded ordinance, generational effects from Agent Orange, and the massive destruction of the countryside from more aerial ordinance dropped on Vietnam than by the U.S. in all of Europe in WWII.
Westmoreland wrestled with how best to communicate the status of the Vietnam war by lying through his teeth to the American public. In 1967 after the surprise Tet Offensive against South Vietnam and the U.S. by "North Vietnam" (many North Vietnamese originated from the south), Westmoreland spun the Tet Offensive as having exhausted the north in terms of munitions and men with "victory" for the south just a short time away.
During that time period, anyone with a brain and critical thinking skills could see that the Vietnam war was unwinnable, and there was no "domino effect." It was an ungodly waste of human life - especially for the Vietnamese. Vietnam continues to suffer the effects of the war to this day with un-exploded ordinance, generational effects from Agent Orange, and the massive destruction of the countryside from more aerial ordinance dropped on Vietnam than by the U.S. in all of Europe in WWII.
6
The Tet offensive was in 1968.
Well, terms like "body counts" definitely increased a deeper understanding of the War in Vietnam for our family. My brother in law John Martin Bell died for a lie in Vietnam in 1967. As a result our reactions to Vietnam, The Gulf War,
The War on Iraq and the War on Syria are not "nuanced". They are very simple:
Get Out and Stop the Wars!" This is why our family spent the past 15 years in the Peace Movement.
The War on Iraq and the War on Syria are not "nuanced". They are very simple:
Get Out and Stop the Wars!" This is why our family spent the past 15 years in the Peace Movement.
5
The US has been in a state of war for 65 years, longer than any nation in modern history. Not one of these US wars and military conflicts was fought to preserve America’s way of life, American democracy or the defense of American soil. Not one!
After 65 years of warmongering here is just a partial list of the war and military conflicts that the U.S. Military won or lost or were on the winning side or losing side since 1950.
Korean War (1950 – 1953). Lost
Vietnam War (1959–1975). Lost
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66). Won
Six-Day War (1967). Lost
USS Liberty incident (1967). Lost
Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). Lost
Multinational Force in Lebanon (1982). Lost
Invasion of Grenada (1983). Won
Invasion of Panama (1989–1990). Won
Persian Gulf War (1990–1991). Lost
Kosovo War (1998–1999). Lost
Global War on Terrorism (2001–present). Lost
War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Lost
Iraq War (2003–2011). Lost
War in Afghanistan (2015–present). Lost
International campaign against ISIL (2014–present). Losing
After 65 years of warmongering here is just a partial list of the war and military conflicts that the U.S. Military won or lost or were on the winning side or losing side since 1950.
Korean War (1950 – 1953). Lost
Vietnam War (1959–1975). Lost
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66). Won
Six-Day War (1967). Lost
USS Liberty incident (1967). Lost
Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). Lost
Multinational Force in Lebanon (1982). Lost
Invasion of Grenada (1983). Won
Invasion of Panama (1989–1990). Won
Persian Gulf War (1990–1991). Lost
Kosovo War (1998–1999). Lost
Global War on Terrorism (2001–present). Lost
War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Lost
Iraq War (2003–2011). Lost
War in Afghanistan (2015–present). Lost
International campaign against ISIL (2014–present). Losing
4
For the life of my I cannot understand what on earth were we doing in Vietnam. The Vietnamese were not our enemies nor they did represent a danger to our values. If they wanted a Communist government (and they got it, by the way) it was their right and we had no business to interfere. The result was 14 years of fruitless death and devastation. Over 57,000 American and 1.4 million Vietnamese died. Our military people should have listened to the advice in the movie The Princess Bride: "Never go to a land war in Asia." We still are doing that, and the results of our butting into other people's business are still not met with any better success.
5
I query the whole idea of the importance of "simplification" versus "nuance". "Nuance" can be just as bogus as any "simplification". There are whole revisionist books out, trying to sell a "stab in the back" theory of the war - they use plenty of "nuance", all to promote a false conclusion. Truths can be very simple - "We should never have fought any of that war." Or they can fill whole libraries of history, memoirs and novels from all sides. Westmoreland's problem wasn't trying to sell nuance - it was trying to sell lies. Unfortunately, he sold lies well enough for years more of destruction and death before the war ended.
2
> War is chaotic and messy. It defies easy explanations.
How so? The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence. Pretty simple.
How so? The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence. Pretty simple.
5
The opposition from the most dedicated antiwar activists was far more complex. Perhaps "popular" support for that war waned as it dragged on, because more children were at risk of the draft. and because we could see the bloodshed on the nightly news. Compare it to coverage of events in Afghanistan, Iraq - and Syria and or Yemen, where we might see some officially released footage - no child running in terror, no officer ( ARVN) shooting a captive in the head. And a tiny number of parents worry that their son or daughter will be killed.
If I accept the observations of a number of reporters, by 1967 President Johnson backed himself into a corner, in part out of his chagrin at being the first President to "lose" a war, not because of his deep convictions that this was making sense. It's hard to keep selling a really lousy product when day after day, it became obvious that this was one nasty mess, with no clean "win" accompanied by US style democracy for all possible. Vietnamese wanted autonomy, not a new colonizer.
Westmoreland and others did take stock of the political and psychological factors - which was an important change -- but this was still pursued as something that the US military would decide. It wasn't as if they were doing focus groups with villagers to ferret out their deepest values, to use those as guidance. The military and administration goal was to succeed militarily; pacification was a manipulation to get them to submit to our plans.
If I accept the observations of a number of reporters, by 1967 President Johnson backed himself into a corner, in part out of his chagrin at being the first President to "lose" a war, not because of his deep convictions that this was making sense. It's hard to keep selling a really lousy product when day after day, it became obvious that this was one nasty mess, with no clean "win" accompanied by US style democracy for all possible. Vietnamese wanted autonomy, not a new colonizer.
Westmoreland and others did take stock of the political and psychological factors - which was an important change -- but this was still pursued as something that the US military would decide. It wasn't as if they were doing focus groups with villagers to ferret out their deepest values, to use those as guidance. The military and administration goal was to succeed militarily; pacification was a manipulation to get them to submit to our plans.
9
Not our war. I enlisted in late 1967, though would have been drafted. Most of those, that I know of, who were drafted to the army and went to Vietnam from my hometown died.
It was a waste of everything. Just call it stupid and move on. One cannot even say the lessons were learned, in that George W. Bush tricked us into invading Iraq, nation building, and creating ISIS, and along the way destabilized the entire Middle East.
Our leaders are not brilliant, they are like the guy next door or down the block. But I am a genius when it comes to hindsight. I learned my lesson, wish the nation had as well.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
It was a waste of everything. Just call it stupid and move on. One cannot even say the lessons were learned, in that George W. Bush tricked us into invading Iraq, nation building, and creating ISIS, and along the way destabilized the entire Middle East.
Our leaders are not brilliant, they are like the guy next door or down the block. But I am a genius when it comes to hindsight. I learned my lesson, wish the nation had as well.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
64
@Hugh Massengill: Eloquent succint comment, and was fortunate to have done my "service militaire," 6 mohths active 6 months reserve before LBJ widened the war in 1965 after the Gulf of Tonkin skirmish, by which time I had been discharged "at the army's convenience," and was employed as a translastor by Services Culturels Francais on 79th Street and Fifth. Later served as MM staff officer on Liberty Ships converted to MSTS vessels, and only combat I participated in was with fellow crew members. But heart goes out to those who were involved militarily on front lines like yourself. Jimmy Breslin wrote an article in 1967 about LBJ's visit to St. Albans's hospital in Queens where he was taken into intensive care, saw two marines who had lost their legs in a land mine explosion, and that was a turning point. Thereafter he no longer spoke about "bringing back the coon skin,"and really began to have second thoughts about our involvement and his main advisors, Rostow and Bundy brothers.Later descended into alcoholism, wore his hair long like the anti war activists who had opposed him , and passed away several years later."Guns and butter did prove incompatible. But his intentions were laudable. LBJ never intended it to end as it did.
1
War is a complicated thing? For some, I suppose it is. For suppliers out of the line of fire, it is quite lucrative. For non-compbatants, job security and more prosperity. The sustained pattern of vast spending indicates it is a good deal, not complicated at all. Praise the Lord and sell the ammunition.
20
Your sentiments are well taken. If I may add a flip side - war is about weapons - if it were not we would be discussing a boxing match. And when both sides have weapons of essentially the same quality and accuracy then, quite frankly, war's only measurement is in the level of annihilation one belligerent or the other is willing to sustain.
On the other hand - if the highly profitable weapons industry can deliver me a weapon or weapons system that will make the other think twice about using theirs in the first place - I, for one, am willing to give them their profits to the last nickel.
On the other hand - if the highly profitable weapons industry can deliver me a weapon or weapons system that will make the other think twice about using theirs in the first place - I, for one, am willing to give them their profits to the last nickel.
Spot on.
1
"The Best and the Brightest" is still probably the best book about the Vietnam War. I highly recommend it for anyone interested.
13
Also: "Fire in the Lake" + "Dispatches" + "A Bright Shining Lie"
2
"A Bright Shining Lie" by Vann, was very good also. First-hand, "Dispatches" by Herr. of course "The Things They Carried" by O'Brien... great books are still coming out, also from the Vietnamese perspective.
1
War:
- Must have public opinion behind it (WW II)
- Must have superb leadership (Roosevelt, Marshall, Nimitz, Eisenhower)
- Must have willing and involved allies (U.K., DeGaulle)
- Must let the military win the war without civilian meddling (WW II)
- Should achieve absolute victory (WW i and II)
- Should help the vanquished rebuild and establish new government (Germany, Japan, Italy)
- And, probably, have censorship to prevent leaks of war plans, and to help limit press and civilian interference.
- Must have public opinion behind it (WW II)
- Must have superb leadership (Roosevelt, Marshall, Nimitz, Eisenhower)
- Must have willing and involved allies (U.K., DeGaulle)
- Must let the military win the war without civilian meddling (WW II)
- Should achieve absolute victory (WW i and II)
- Should help the vanquished rebuild and establish new government (Germany, Japan, Italy)
- And, probably, have censorship to prevent leaks of war plans, and to help limit press and civilian interference.
6
Your last item would have been disastrous in the case of Vietnam. Getting the truth out was all that got us out of there when we did - far too late. Imagine what the Bush administration would have done with even more control over the media than they had. Disaster. A free press was always willing to work with actual military secrecy - the Normandy invasion plans and so on - but as much real news as possible is crucial in a free society. Let's hope ours lasts.
2
Regarding censorship, I am thinking of the Tet Offensive, which surprised the military and shocked the U.S., but actually resulted in a huge tactical victory on the ground for the U.S. though it culminated in a strategic victory for North Vietnam due to our press refusing to acknowledge our success militarily. Would censoring Tet made a difference in the way the war was perceived here? Who knows.
Westmoreland never was able to understand that without a political solution the military efforts would not result in victory, although he probably thought that he was doing so. The government in the North represented the victors in the war of independence from both the Japanese and the French. The government of South Vietnam was a creation of the U.S. and of Northerners who opposed the government in the North while most people who lived in the South lived in ancient rural villages and wanted nothing to do with anybody outside of their immediate communities. Without the allegiance of those masses of rural villagers, the Viet Cong, NLF, and North Vietnamese soldiers could be killed but not defeated because they could replace their losses and continue to operate with the acquiescent support of those villagers. Westmoreland believed that once the Communist forces suffered enough casualties, they would be unable to continue the struggle, and the government in the South would become a stable and permanent one. For this reason he never felt able to apply the lessons of counterinsurgency as fully as was necessary, and he was unable to see that the government in the South was the wrong one to enable a counterinsurgency strategy to be successful. The U.S. military fought well and stubbornly through the entire war, winning nearly all it's battles, but the politics in the South was something that we never were able to affect well at all.
8
Wasn't Westmoreland the genius who sent in a platoon to "smoke 'em out"? He was referring to an unknown number of No. Vietnamese in the hills. I remember this as the Ia Drang Valley fiasco; our troops were overrun by a battalion of No. Vietnamese. A few brave men stood their ground around a small space so that Hueys could rescue the wounded; one of the heroes of that hopeless stand later died in the World Trade Center rescuing people. The Vietnamese honored those men with a small American flag on a wall; it is still there. As I recall, there was another example of Westmoreland's ego and stupidity when he had soldiers in need of a break and a hot Thanksgiving dinner stand at attention while he gave one of his braggadocio speeches. The dinners were eaten cold. He was not universally honored at home; more than a few Americans thought he was an egotistical jerk whose command in Vietnam was not remarkable, as compared to men like Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton and others. He lost a lot of young American lives.
I have been asking myself this question for 47 years. I served in the Navy in Nam from 69 to 70 and couldn't understand why. It has made me question any military intervention. The lesson I thought we learned there was that other countries don't want our help and we shouldn't have the World Police.
24
Evading the draft was a frequent conversation among my peers back in 1967. They all evaded, but I could not.
Years later they still tell stories about how they gamed the system or drew a lucky number, and then launch into another discussion about how we ought to be putting boots on the ground somewhere.
In my book - speaking as a combat soldier - we didn't learn a darn thing in Vietnam. And neither did the people who didn't go.
And that is what makes me so sad today. How in the dickens can we turn that around so that everyone has some skin in the game and perhaps then we can objectively evaluate whether we should be doing anything with our sons and daughters and those of our neighbors.
Perhaps my sentiment is naive, but hope is all I got left some 50 years later.
Years later they still tell stories about how they gamed the system or drew a lucky number, and then launch into another discussion about how we ought to be putting boots on the ground somewhere.
In my book - speaking as a combat soldier - we didn't learn a darn thing in Vietnam. And neither did the people who didn't go.
And that is what makes me so sad today. How in the dickens can we turn that around so that everyone has some skin in the game and perhaps then we can objectively evaluate whether we should be doing anything with our sons and daughters and those of our neighbors.
Perhaps my sentiment is naive, but hope is all I got left some 50 years later.
17
We must persevere, we must not "cut and run", etc. etc. There was one enormous unanswered question--unanswered because it was largely unasked, namely: what would "winning" look like? It's the same unanswered--because unasked--question applicable to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. How can a policy goal ever be achieved if it remains forever undefined?
18
It is impossible to convey a "nuanced" narrative for any war to the American public, which gets its ideas about war from movies, primarily Star Wars. If the war cannot be justified in one sentence, Americans will not support it beyond a month or so.
When Americans think of war, we can only think in terms of good vs evil. "They" must be evil and we must be good. If that simple dualism cannot be established, the war will get but little support at home.
And maybe this is good. Why should anyone need to "embrace" war at all, except if one is attacked first? This article appears to imply that Vietnam could have been justified if only we at home had more appreciation of its complexities. This is an amoral way of thinking about a war that history has proven beyond any doubt to have been completely invalid.
It makes me wonder what war the author may be preparing us for next.
When Americans think of war, we can only think in terms of good vs evil. "They" must be evil and we must be good. If that simple dualism cannot be established, the war will get but little support at home.
And maybe this is good. Why should anyone need to "embrace" war at all, except if one is attacked first? This article appears to imply that Vietnam could have been justified if only we at home had more appreciation of its complexities. This is an amoral way of thinking about a war that history has proven beyond any doubt to have been completely invalid.
It makes me wonder what war the author may be preparing us for next.
6
There is a theory known as the "Just War"; Vietnam was not one of those. WWII was, and Korea. Iraq never was, nor is Syria. It is defined by the seriousness of the threat to one's own country. Vietnam was never a threat to the U.S. Afghanistan was, might still be; however, it looks as if it will be a "forever war" fighting locals who live there.
Fifty years later I still recall those days of the war. War in Nam, war on our streets and war at our dinner tables.
Vietnam has haunted us for all most my entire life. I expect to die with it still in my thoughts.
Vietnam has haunted us for all most my entire life. I expect to die with it still in my thoughts.
15
I'm with you. I still can digest it without it coming back up from time to time.
3
I had to look twice to make sure I wasn't reading an article about Afghanistan.
14
It is hard to say what Kennedy or Johnson should have done with almost 60 years passed. It is tempting to inject condemnation of the leaders who bore responsibility for the escalation and its results. Lies are not defensible in a democracy. But for those who dismiss Johnson's fear of "losing Vietnam" and its potential, let us not forget the real, not imagined, threat that communist expansion represented. In the USSR, they made a deal with Hitler to take a democratic country, Poland, violently apart without provocation. Then the USSR, despite promises made to people in Eastern Europe, enslaved them for the better part of 50 years, having traded one hideous regime (Nazi) for another (Soviet). Then while the democratic forces of China fought as allies to liberate China from the Japanese, the much smaller and largely un-engaged communists under Mao, looted surrendered Japanese weapons stockpiles and used them against the war ravaged democratic forces and drove them to Taiwan. The communists seized power in China and enslaved and starved millions in their wake. The minority, like their Russian forbears, seized power through violence. Vietnam was more complicated. Ho, despite promises, never held elections. How many perished as a result of his takeover of S. Vietnam? We'll never really know what could have been or what was prevented by such a long, brutal and losing struggle. We may have lost the war in S. Vietnam, but maybe other countries are, as a result, free.
4
Actually they hold elections, although they aren't multiparty free elections - but it's a form of popular government. The successive South Vietnamese governments we were defending weren't free either. Maybe if we had worked more to promote freedom right from the start, instead of supporting the French attempt to re-colonize their lost colony, then trying to maintain the corrupt, unpopular, undemocratic government of South Vietnam - well, we could have used our substantial resources in much more positive ways than we did. But you can't turn back the hands of time.
3
He was sold a bill of goods by MacNamara and Rusk - that they both later confessed was a bill of goods - and you seem to still buy it!!! More fool you.
2
It was the United States that prevented the previously agreed to elections from taking place in 1956--because it knew Ho would win.
The death counts and destruction and expense of several bad wars in recent years have not stopped the great majority of white Christians from voting the hawk party. They are more dangerous to the world than ISIS for they promote the maintenance of and the use of the U.S. military. They have shown no inclination to learn from mistakes.
15
In 1967, I was between tours in Vietnam. When I returned for my second tour, on the first day of the Tet Offensive in 1968, I thought, "what the hell ..."
Two months ago, I emailed Senators McCain and Flake as well as Congresswoman McSally and asked them, "what is the US's overarching national objective in Afghanistan?" I'm still waiting for an answer from any one of them!
Feel free to provide the answer if you know it.
Two months ago, I emailed Senators McCain and Flake as well as Congresswoman McSally and asked them, "what is the US's overarching national objective in Afghanistan?" I'm still waiting for an answer from any one of them!
Feel free to provide the answer if you know it.
16
There are two reasons:
1. Running an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to a port in Pakistan, probably Karachi.
2. Mining all kinds of valuable things that lie under the ground in Afghanistan.
Both are all about the money and nothing more.
1. Running an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to a port in Pakistan, probably Karachi.
2. Mining all kinds of valuable things that lie under the ground in Afghanistan.
Both are all about the money and nothing more.
1
Minerals and natural gas up North where the Chinese have a stronghold? I think the Chinese have managed to cement alliances up North. Our alliances are a bit corrupt, I think. There is the lucrative heroin trade. There is a lack of support for women and girls education. After killing bin Laden, we seem to be between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
Stop referring to the Viet Cong as "the enemy." Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger and allied vermin were the enemy.
12
Geez. Sounds like Iraq.
4
".... and with a stubborn enemy committed to Vietnam’s reunification and freedom from Western influence."
Stubborn? Now that's a "simplification."
Stubborn? Now that's a "simplification."
4
Why were they being so stubborn, dang them? Because it was THEIR country, and it was being invaded! They were patriots! We had no business being there. This article is a bunch of hokum, as though it were all about one-sided spin.
2
Perhaps a reference to Ho Chi Minh, the guy who got rid of the colonial French powers at Dien Bien Phu and became a folk hero; the guy who modeled a constitution on ours, thinking we would support his independence government. He was wrong; Dulles preferred the corrupt French plantation owners and government. So, Ho continued on with a loyal Northern army; we continued on with an army not loyal to their corrupt So. Vietnam government. We lost boys and a certain amount of national honor, not the honor of those who fought, the honor of those in government who supported an old WWII political hack. My cousin was there with the Marines; he said the No. Vietnamese fought in heavy rubber sandals; he remembered that. He felt sorry for the farmers who lost their water buffalo, and their crops. His sons are not in the military.
With the money the US spent in Viet Nam; we could have built a house and bought a tractor for every family in that country. Same with Iraq. Maybe that's a more effective way to "win hearts and minds". At least morally we would feel better than bombing people. Who, final counts totaled in both "wars"; were more likely just people; than they were "the enemy".
14
There's not enough profit in tractors for the military-industrial complex.....
3
LBJ is a tragic figure worthy of Shakespeare, so committed to the abolition of poverty but nailed to the cross of an unwinnable war by figures like Westmoreland.
11
The hard truth is it was a failure of wisdom or as Barbara Tuchman wisely stated, the March of Folly. There was no compelling interest for the U.S. to supplant the French after 1954 except in the heads of Ike and the Dulles brothers. The sad fact is the Geneva accords made in 1954 letting the French out of the bag in Vietnam provided for elections in the whole country in 1956 which would have been overwhelmingly won by Ho Chi Minh, something out of the mindset of the Eisenhower administration. These were not altogether wise leaders generally, as demonstrated in other countries, like Iran, overly afraid of a Russian monolith.
The U.S. continued as it had since Truman by suppling all the arms to the French since the end of WWII. Had it not, there would never have been a U.S. disaster in the 60's because the French would have long before lost. The U.S. just as blithely ignored the accords for elections. These were conscious decisions by U.S. leaders, Ike, the Dulles brothers, then JFK. It was not preordained to be the U.S. disaster it became. Men make choices. They chose badly, and killed millions for hubris.
It was of course an action doomed from WWII. The Vietnamese having fought off invaders, the Chinese mostly, over 1000 years were not fading violets. 4 presidents afraid of domestic criticism failed the test that JFK wrote about, who himself was in this instance not a profile in courage. Maybe he would have been. We can never know.
The U.S. continued as it had since Truman by suppling all the arms to the French since the end of WWII. Had it not, there would never have been a U.S. disaster in the 60's because the French would have long before lost. The U.S. just as blithely ignored the accords for elections. These were conscious decisions by U.S. leaders, Ike, the Dulles brothers, then JFK. It was not preordained to be the U.S. disaster it became. Men make choices. They chose badly, and killed millions for hubris.
It was of course an action doomed from WWII. The Vietnamese having fought off invaders, the Chinese mostly, over 1000 years were not fading violets. 4 presidents afraid of domestic criticism failed the test that JFK wrote about, who himself was in this instance not a profile in courage. Maybe he would have been. We can never know.
14
The period of war described here is that of strategic equilibrium - a mid-period of a conflict. Equilibrium is not to imply a static state (although it can be that) - but rather a period when gains and losses on either side typically off-set one another.
The state of equilibrium in WWI went on for years with gains or losses measured in yards. WWII between Pearl Harbor and Leyte would fall into this state.
I would hesitate to use - as is done here - the word "selling" – but rather, and more accurately I believe, is the term "re-branding" or "re-marketing" the war.
The original "selling" point was to stop the spread of communism - but by early 1967 the war had gone through several strategic adaptations and was re-branded as "Vietnamization."
Ultimately however - any selling or re-marketing is indicative of strategic failure. Westmoreland for his part was merely a celebrity spokesperson.
The state of equilibrium in WWI went on for years with gains or losses measured in yards. WWII between Pearl Harbor and Leyte would fall into this state.
I would hesitate to use - as is done here - the word "selling" – but rather, and more accurately I believe, is the term "re-branding" or "re-marketing" the war.
The original "selling" point was to stop the spread of communism - but by early 1967 the war had gone through several strategic adaptations and was re-branded as "Vietnamization."
Ultimately however - any selling or re-marketing is indicative of strategic failure. Westmoreland for his part was merely a celebrity spokesperson.
7
North VN PT boats were certainly in the vicinity, but we will never know if the Maddox and Turner Joy mistakenly fired on each other and the Pentagon and Johnson seized on a friendly-fire incident as a reason to retaliate.
There are plenty of suspicious facts and conflicting statements from the crews to suspect this.
There are plenty of suspicious facts and conflicting statements from the crews to suspect this.
2
“How we....talk about war, then and now, matters. Reducing complex wars to one-word phrases — Vietnam as war of “attrition” or supposed successes in Iraq as a result of a “surge” — dangerously oversimplifies.”
How about we try a new word for unnecessary war – “murder”.
In Vietnam, exaggerated pretexts were used for our unnecessarily intruding into another country’s civil war, leading to great loss of life & treasure & the savage Pol Pot reactive extremists in Cambodia.
In Iraq, exaggerated pretexts were used for our unnecessary “war of choice” in 2003, leading to great loss of life & treasure & the savage ISIS & Assad reactive extremists in Syria/Iraq, regional instability, & a refugee crisis spilling into Europe & the U.S.
War, except as last resort self-defense or necessary defense of innocent others, is ethically equivalent to international murder, the culpability for which lies with those making the decisions, not soldiers under orders.
The main problem with unnecessary war is that even if the intentions of such a war are genuinely good (though they're usually dubious) and even if it "works" (though they're usually counter-productive), we are left in the dangerous position of having shown the whole world that evil means can achieve good ends. And then what? If ends justify means, which innocents should be sacrificed next for a workers’ paradise, or in holy submission to the will of God, or to forcibly spread democracy?
How about we try a new word for unnecessary war – “murder”.
In Vietnam, exaggerated pretexts were used for our unnecessarily intruding into another country’s civil war, leading to great loss of life & treasure & the savage Pol Pot reactive extremists in Cambodia.
In Iraq, exaggerated pretexts were used for our unnecessary “war of choice” in 2003, leading to great loss of life & treasure & the savage ISIS & Assad reactive extremists in Syria/Iraq, regional instability, & a refugee crisis spilling into Europe & the U.S.
War, except as last resort self-defense or necessary defense of innocent others, is ethically equivalent to international murder, the culpability for which lies with those making the decisions, not soldiers under orders.
The main problem with unnecessary war is that even if the intentions of such a war are genuinely good (though they're usually dubious) and even if it "works" (though they're usually counter-productive), we are left in the dangerous position of having shown the whole world that evil means can achieve good ends. And then what? If ends justify means, which innocents should be sacrificed next for a workers’ paradise, or in holy submission to the will of God, or to forcibly spread democracy?
9
But enough about our 15 year long fiasco in Afghanistan. Victory is just around the corner.
"Temptation’s page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you’d just be one more
Person crying"
- Bob Dylan, 1965
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you’d just be one more
Person crying"
- Bob Dylan, 1965
3
Professor Daddis claims that, "..most troubling, by 1967 the American military command faced a home front increasingly questioning the sacrifices for a war that seemed to produce so few tangible results."
No, Professor, what was "most troubling" was the fact that we were fighting that senseless war in the first place. And with the hindsight of half a century, it is disturbing that you can't admit it.
No, Professor, what was "most troubling" was the fact that we were fighting that senseless war in the first place. And with the hindsight of half a century, it is disturbing that you can't admit it.
13
Agreed. It is not a question of using the right language, but of having the right morals.
1
Exactly. It was a civil war in which we had no overwhelming interest. We could, and now do business with either side. Those of us who were young thought Ky was a corrupt dandy with a war hawk wife. We read about Ho Chi Minh's fight for independence and sympathized with him. A bit simple, but it galvanized millions to march against the war. When your potential soldiers are out in the street marching, you might want to think again.
1
Unfortunately, we have not learned from our bad experiences in Vietnam and Iraq. There is now talk about having a "Surge' in Afghanistan. There is a new book that goes into considerable to detail to explain what we have been doing in Afghanistan and why it is failed. The book, "Our Longest War: Losing the hearts and Minds in Afghanistan" contains a series of articles written by military people and others who have witnessed what has taken place. Its criticism is devastating and should be read by everyone interested in our foreign efforts. Anybody who read this book could not possibly support the surge that is now being discussed. Further, it challenges the way we wage war against insurgencies and our use of civilians from the State Department and other federal agencies in the countries where we are fighting..
If Westmoreland's approach was as politically astute and as effective as the author claims, would he please explain the events of the first month or so of 1968? Specifically, the Tet Offiensive, including the capture by North Vietnamese force of Hue and the invasion of the American Embassy in Saigon by a VC sapper unit. I would also include the extended battle for Khe Sanh, a tactical and strategic repeat of the disastrous French experience at Dien Bien Phu.
This is not to discount in any way the response of American Army and Marine units who retook Hue and the embassy and relieved Khe Sanh (subsequently abandoned) in Operation Pegasus. The leadership of men such as Marine Colonel David Lowndes, the commander at Khe Sanh and 1st Air Cavalry Commander Major General John Tolson proved both laudable and effective in correcting the mistakes and blunders of men like Westmoreland. But politically the damage was done and domestic support for the war was gone.
We have been in Afghanistan for fifteen years. We have spent considerable blood and treasure training and equipping their military and fighting on their behalf with nothing to show for it. What is the point of persisting?
This is not to discount in any way the response of American Army and Marine units who retook Hue and the embassy and relieved Khe Sanh (subsequently abandoned) in Operation Pegasus. The leadership of men such as Marine Colonel David Lowndes, the commander at Khe Sanh and 1st Air Cavalry Commander Major General John Tolson proved both laudable and effective in correcting the mistakes and blunders of men like Westmoreland. But politically the damage was done and domestic support for the war was gone.
We have been in Afghanistan for fifteen years. We have spent considerable blood and treasure training and equipping their military and fighting on their behalf with nothing to show for it. What is the point of persisting?
"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson
4
As serious history of US intervention in Vietnam, and its military, this is vacuous stuff. And it adds this: "Acts of terrorism targeted local officials" What a fine example of rewriting history as a 9-11 event brought on by "terrorists." In fact that term was rarely used by U.S. military, or NYTimes reporters; "Vietcong," "aggressors," "communists," perhaps. Any genuine terrorists would have been, in addition to men dropping more bombs, napalm, and agent orange on Vietnam than the entire tonnage dropped during World War II, "local officials"--South Vietnamese government agents carrying out assassinations and torture, by design, of any suspected "Vietcong" agents.
7
Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese regime and its armed allies in the South had captured the mantle of anti-colonial nationalism. No regime in the South ever could equal this. Unfortunately neither President Johnson nor General Westmoreland fully appreciated this. I can still remember Sec of State Rusk blaming it all on the men in Peiping (as it was then spelled), as if Ho wasn't a revolutionary in his own right or the Viets just puppets of China or USSR. Westmoreland, though sincere proved to be one of the most inefficient, incompetent and ill-informed theatre commanders in US military history. I will put up another post to explain that.
The penultimate word in this essay is ridiculus.
We should "PROBABLY" not turn to war so readily?
The full essay is a whitewash of the Vietnam War. I was there before Westmoreland.
We should "PROBABLY" not turn to war so readily?
The full essay is a whitewash of the Vietnam War. I was there before Westmoreland.
6
In an earlier post I argued that Westmoreland was a terrible commander. He was not only head of the MACV (the military assistance command in Saigon), bot also USARV (an American field army of three corps and many divisions and regiments, plus a logistical command that was designed to support twice the number of troops that the general had in country at the time he was replaced in'68 (about 500,000). He had over learned Army doctrine that the purpose of the Army is to destroy the enemy force, not to capture land or cities -- hence the body counts and the withdrawal from contested territory. His search and destroy and airmobile tactics sacrificed several military principles (mass, concentration of forces, surprise) in favor of one -- mobility. US soldiers were used as decoys, wandering through jungles so heavy air and artillery weapons could fire on the enemy that attacked them. The representative Ia Drang battle was a disaster, even though many NVA soldiers died. The pacification program might have given out some succor to the civilian population, but it also required free fire zones and forced removal of rural peoples who mainly wound up in urban slums -- recipe for resentment. General Abrams turned this around, or he tried. He adopted a clear and hold tactic. Given the political situation there and at home, it was too late.
6
Simplifying the War Against Vietnam does not encourage us to turn to war.
1.) The country was partitioned after the French lost to Ho Chi Minh.
2.) In Geneva the Europeans signed an accord with Vietnamese leaders promising free and fair elections with the possibility of reunion in 2 years. THE US DID NOT SIGN THIS ACCORD, so they could and did hold unfree fair elections which resulted in brutal and ineffective dictators.
3.)These dictators were unpopular so we invaded to support them and supported a coup against Diem.
4.) Our war wasn't even about Vietnam; it was about saving face.
5.) Kennedy and Johnson both knew we couldn't win but pushed an ever bigger war to save face for AMERIKA.
6.) There were lots of CIA wars like this but not as big: e.g. Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia
7.) Why does the Times need to lie when it told the truth by publishing the Pentagon Papers?
1.) The country was partitioned after the French lost to Ho Chi Minh.
2.) In Geneva the Europeans signed an accord with Vietnamese leaders promising free and fair elections with the possibility of reunion in 2 years. THE US DID NOT SIGN THIS ACCORD, so they could and did hold unfree fair elections which resulted in brutal and ineffective dictators.
3.)These dictators were unpopular so we invaded to support them and supported a coup against Diem.
4.) Our war wasn't even about Vietnam; it was about saving face.
5.) Kennedy and Johnson both knew we couldn't win but pushed an ever bigger war to save face for AMERIKA.
6.) There were lots of CIA wars like this but not as big: e.g. Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia
7.) Why does the Times need to lie when it told the truth by publishing the Pentagon Papers?
8
While it may sound strange given his command, Westmoreland was in reality only a secondary actor in the Vietnam war escalation. His sponsor, Maxwell Taylor and his sponsor, Robert McNamara were the major protagonists in selling Johnson's war to the American people. Nobody else even comes close to the duplicity of those two individuals in the deepening American involvement in Vietnam.
The whole concept of "body counts" can be laid at the feet of Robert McNamara who desperately sought any means to characterize the US military build-up as successful.
Perhaps the best examination of the roles of JFK, LBJ, McNamara, Johnson's cabinet, Taylor and the Joint Chiefs of Staff can be found in HR McMaster's uneven, but exceedingly well researched book, "Dereliction of Duty." This history examines critically the role of both the civilian cold warriors and the senior military command in marching our country deeper into the Vietnam morass during the critical build-up through 1965.
Vietnam was a war of political choice first by JFK, then expanded by LBJ. Its political goals were determined in the context of communist aggression, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the determination of politicians to use the military as an overt instrument of foreign policy to stop the spread of communism.
Unfortunately, with the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, the temptation to use our military in mercenary roles is once again on the rise.
The whole concept of "body counts" can be laid at the feet of Robert McNamara who desperately sought any means to characterize the US military build-up as successful.
Perhaps the best examination of the roles of JFK, LBJ, McNamara, Johnson's cabinet, Taylor and the Joint Chiefs of Staff can be found in HR McMaster's uneven, but exceedingly well researched book, "Dereliction of Duty." This history examines critically the role of both the civilian cold warriors and the senior military command in marching our country deeper into the Vietnam morass during the critical build-up through 1965.
Vietnam was a war of political choice first by JFK, then expanded by LBJ. Its political goals were determined in the context of communist aggression, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the determination of politicians to use the military as an overt instrument of foreign policy to stop the spread of communism.
Unfortunately, with the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, the temptation to use our military in mercenary roles is once again on the rise.
25
Actually, the U.S. decided to support France's efforts to re-establish control of it's colonies in Indochina during the Truman Administration, and when the French decided to let it's colonies become independent, Eisenhower's Administration established an anti-Communist government in the south and encouraged it to refuse to allow the elections in 1956 which were to decide who would govern the country of Viet Nam because the Northern Communists were likely to win. By the time the Communists rolled into Saigon in 1975, the U.S. had been involved in opposing them since 1945.
2
The Tet Offensive ripped Johnson and Westmoreland's lies to pieces. How many people died or were grievously wounded as a result of those lies? We may never know the complete total of Americans and Vietnamese but one thing is for certain - fifty years later the results and reverberations of those lies are still being felt.
5
My father, 32 years old at the time and an Air Force medic, volunteered to go in June of 1966. He spent a year in Pleiku and other bases and was, strangely enough, attached to a unit of Green Berets at the front doing BOTH "search and destroy" and "hearts and minds" missions. He came home 50 years ago next month.
He went for economic reasons, "volunteering" for a tour in Vietnam was the only way to garner a promotion at the time for NCOs.
He went for economic reasons, "volunteering" for a tour in Vietnam was the only way to garner a promotion at the time for NCOs.
4
During the build up to the Iraq War I was astonished to hear Right Wing "Media" voices peddling a revisionist history of Vietnam- "If we hadn't cut and run we could have prevailed in Vietnam" and "If our Military Leadership hadn't been constrained by rules of war and treasonous anti-war protest at home." Etc. Yes the Communist North Vietnamese prevailed and the US withdrew after losing over 50,000 souls not to mention countless Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. Here we are decades later and despite that loss, Vietnam is a thriving nation and a frequent destination for American tourists. When will we ever learn?
9
LBJ almost destroyed our country with his management of the war. His lackeys, McNamara and Westmoreland, along with others, told him what he wanted to hear. The public did not know at the time but how did LBJ think he was qualified to pick bombing targets is just one sad example.
Sadly for the ones who served and died, it was LBJ's political war from the beginning and he was clueless. :(
Sadly for the ones who served and died, it was LBJ's political war from the beginning and he was clueless. :(
2
Yes - people talk about Johnson's distress and doubts, but at the time he presented a public face of harsh aggression and relentless prosecution of the war - very hostile to all criticism, very dishonest about the whole thing. He may well be some kind of tragic figure - I'm looking forward to Robt Caro's next volume of his bio, to try to get more understanding - but if he was a tragic figure, it was like Macbeth, spreading chaos and death all around him in his confusion.
1
It would seem that the "selling" of the war against Vietnam continues to this day. We still cannot admit as a country how deeply misguided our participation was.
I believe the Vietnam War's close proximity (less than 20 years) to WW2 was a key reason why it was so easy for us to get in and so difficult to leave.
The Second World War--promoted as the greatest undertaking in our nation's history--produced millions of (voting) veterans who couldn't imagine the US walking away from a noble struggle against communism. Any president suggesting such a move would surely risk political suicide.
The real lesson should have been to take care not to get involved in unwinnable civil quagmires in the first place. But that continues to fall on deaf ears today more than ever.
The Second World War--promoted as the greatest undertaking in our nation's history--produced millions of (voting) veterans who couldn't imagine the US walking away from a noble struggle against communism. Any president suggesting such a move would surely risk political suicide.
The real lesson should have been to take care not to get involved in unwinnable civil quagmires in the first place. But that continues to fall on deaf ears today more than ever.
4
What is more troubling to me than the selling of the Viet Nam war, which was aided and abetted by the US media, was the selling of the Iraq War, also aided and abetted by the US media, particularly the NYT. It was then, with the endorsement by the Times of a war based on such widely known false evidence, that I knew our Fourth Estate had been co-opted. This state of affairs exists to this day, as evidenced by the "selling" of Hillary and Trump, and the lack of any real confrontation to the lies spewed by our leaders.
And what is disheartening is that so many Americans remain ignorant of the lessons that should've been learned by the exposure of betrayal by our government to its people, a betrayal that is ongoing.
And what is disheartening is that so many Americans remain ignorant of the lessons that should've been learned by the exposure of betrayal by our government to its people, a betrayal that is ongoing.
4
I was 7 when Westmoreland came home for his "selling the war" tour. As a first grader, and later a second grader that year, I was required to watch the evening news with my parents every night, along with clipping articles from the front page of the Washington Post for current events discussions in class. All I really remember of the Vietnam War was that it seemed to last forever, since I was 13 when it finally ended. Yes, we were most definitely involved in a quagmire, and no matter what we did, there was no way out. Wars are always easier to start than they are to end, and sadly those in charge of wars are loath to quit, no matter how badly a war is going.
4
LBJ thought he could turn to the traditional marketing exercise of war, explaining it through the troops' experience, in this case reaching right to the top in having Westmoreland explain the "complexities." Talk to the AP, talk to Congress, and appeal to the patriotism of Americans of a several generations who'd lived through WWII, then experrienced the stalemate of Korea.
LBJ and Westmoreland were up against television. With access provided by MACV that might shock Americans used to the Pentagon's now more carefully scripted wartime photo ops, TV's glass eye went everywhere.
What was perhaps most pervasive was GIs jumping out of copters, often into hot LZs. Day after day, with body counts, theirs and ours tracked weekly and monthly. The problem was TV showed virtually the same thing on Dec. 31, 1967 as it did on Jan 1, 1967.
Where was victory? Not even in sight, as Westmoreland himself admitted. A war unlike any before became a political liability unlike any before because of this lack of resolution during 1967. Those guys jumping out of copters on search and destroy on TV seemed attractive to kids watching Combat on TV, but several years running re-runs of the same old operations, different name wore out the patience for war among most of the public.
LBJ and Westmoreland were up against television. With access provided by MACV that might shock Americans used to the Pentagon's now more carefully scripted wartime photo ops, TV's glass eye went everywhere.
What was perhaps most pervasive was GIs jumping out of copters, often into hot LZs. Day after day, with body counts, theirs and ours tracked weekly and monthly. The problem was TV showed virtually the same thing on Dec. 31, 1967 as it did on Jan 1, 1967.
Where was victory? Not even in sight, as Westmoreland himself admitted. A war unlike any before became a political liability unlike any before because of this lack of resolution during 1967. Those guys jumping out of copters on search and destroy on TV seemed attractive to kids watching Combat on TV, but several years running re-runs of the same old operations, different name wore out the patience for war among most of the public.
1
Whoa. What a great article and great comments from people who obviously lived through Vietnam and know what they're talking about. Thanks, everybody!
I agree with many of the suggestions that the chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney seemed to learn nothing from Vietnam, and, foolishly, actually tried to fight it again in Iraq. Younger baby boomers like Obama (and myself) could watch the horrors of the war on TV without being directly affected by it, which probably lent a degree of objectivity to the situation, and better final judgments about it like the ones on this thread.
I agree with many of the suggestions that the chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney seemed to learn nothing from Vietnam, and, foolishly, actually tried to fight it again in Iraq. Younger baby boomers like Obama (and myself) could watch the horrors of the war on TV without being directly affected by it, which probably lent a degree of objectivity to the situation, and better final judgments about it like the ones on this thread.
4
Westmoreland was the wrong commander for Vietnam (he would have been a fine NATO commander); in fact, the Army should not have been running the show . The Marines, at that time, still had an institutional memory of counter-insurgency because of decades of fighting in the Banana Wars and an intellectual flexibility that the Army lacked. Westmoreland derided Marine General "Brute" Krulak's ideas as the "ink-spot strategy." Eventually, after Westmoreland was relieved of command, the Army's Creighton Abrams took over and pursued a traditional counter-insurgency strategy, with some success. However, it was too late; the American people had given up on the war.
2
If you want to know why the regime in North Korea is so "peculiar" - look to the American action in that preivous Asian war, Korea 1950-53, where we so flattened North Korea with napalm that not one significant building was left standing by the time of the armistice in the summer of 1953, with millions of dead Koreans in the bargain.
6
A good read about the xenophobia of US policies abroad, especially in Southeast Asia is "The Ugly American." It's a good read for everyone!
3
We have the embodiment of the " ugly American " in the White House....
I highly recommend the book "Westmoreland: The general who lost Vietnam" by Lewis Sorley. I also believe Westmoreland drew the wrong lesson from the Ia Drang battle, convinced our massive firepower could defeat Hanoi on the borders. This let the Republic of Vietnamese off the hook, assigned the secondary role of guarding big cities while we did the heavy lifting.
1
Although Westmoreland's job was to paint a rosy picture of military progress in prosecuting the Vietnam War, what maintained public support then were appeals to "support our troops" and "our country right or wrong." Those of us who opposed the war back then were labeled "unpatriotic" and "aiding the enemy," never mind that we questioned time and again the rationale behind putting our soldiers in harm's way. Many of the troops returning from deployment were asking the same questions. I don't see that things have changed that much.
5
This article reads as though the author belongs to a retrograde faction in the Army that can't see the forest for the trees. All the talk of "complications" and "defying easy expectations" is just gobbledygook to cover up the not-so-complicated facts that the war had no valid purpose, was terribly destructive to Vietnam and its people, and harmed the U.S. politically and personally.
An example of gobbledygook: "Nor ... did these speeches cause the American public to embrace the complex realities of the continuing war in South Vietnam." is a tortured way of hinting, without admitting it, that much of the public, despite the Administration's propaganda effort, wasn't confused by superficial "complex realities" and was able to see the simple fact that we had no good reason to fight in Vietnam.
An example of gobbledygook: "Nor ... did these speeches cause the American public to embrace the complex realities of the continuing war in South Vietnam." is a tortured way of hinting, without admitting it, that much of the public, despite the Administration's propaganda effort, wasn't confused by superficial "complex realities" and was able to see the simple fact that we had no good reason to fight in Vietnam.
23
Plenty of us smelled a rat in those days, and got tired of hearing about the "communist aggressor"- especially after we studied Vietnam's history.
We were clearly the aggressor, against a country that had successfully resisted invasions by the Chinese for a thousand years. We were never going to "win" that war, and if Ho had signed a treaty with us it would have been overruled by the people we had bombed for years.
Time Magazine was probably our most gullible and war hungry media outlet. When our troops were photographed splashing through the ocean on their way to the South Vietnam shoreline, it was celebrated as some kind of grand occasion. None of Luce's writers fought there, though, and the editors stayed in their US offices all through that war.
The good outcome was that it made us wary of questionable foreign occupations. The bad news is that this was revived by the Bushes, which accomplished restoring the chandeliers in the Kuwaiti palaces and giving us Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Some of us are sick of this action. Let's see if our media companies can wake up those who aren't, and study a little history first- and geography. It's too late for the friends I lost there, but maybe....
We were clearly the aggressor, against a country that had successfully resisted invasions by the Chinese for a thousand years. We were never going to "win" that war, and if Ho had signed a treaty with us it would have been overruled by the people we had bombed for years.
Time Magazine was probably our most gullible and war hungry media outlet. When our troops were photographed splashing through the ocean on their way to the South Vietnam shoreline, it was celebrated as some kind of grand occasion. None of Luce's writers fought there, though, and the editors stayed in their US offices all through that war.
The good outcome was that it made us wary of questionable foreign occupations. The bad news is that this was revived by the Bushes, which accomplished restoring the chandeliers in the Kuwaiti palaces and giving us Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Some of us are sick of this action. Let's see if our media companies can wake up those who aren't, and study a little history first- and geography. It's too late for the friends I lost there, but maybe....
55
The 'selling' of the Vietnam War - just like the selling of the Iraq War - was based on political fraud.
The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, also known as the USS Maddox incident, drew the United States more directly into the Vietnam War based on shady claims that North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox.
There were no U.S. casualties in the USS Maddox 'attack'.
The Maddox was unscathed except for a single bullet hole from a Vietnamese machine gun round.
Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression".
In 2002, Bush-Cheney and his GOP War Caucus used Nigerian yellowcake uranium forged documents to portray Saddam Hussein as a threat to civilization. Shortly thereafter, Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the Iraq Debacle was enabled.
Meanwhile, the militaristic Trump administration is considering sending several thousand additional American troops to Afghanistan and America's longest war.
America should be deeply suspicious of political warmongers and the destructive, corrupt political-military-industrial profit complex.
Deadly violence should always be an extreme last resort instead of a stupid first reflex to a complicated international world.
The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, also known as the USS Maddox incident, drew the United States more directly into the Vietnam War based on shady claims that North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox.
There were no U.S. casualties in the USS Maddox 'attack'.
The Maddox was unscathed except for a single bullet hole from a Vietnamese machine gun round.
Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression".
In 2002, Bush-Cheney and his GOP War Caucus used Nigerian yellowcake uranium forged documents to portray Saddam Hussein as a threat to civilization. Shortly thereafter, Congress approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and the Iraq Debacle was enabled.
Meanwhile, the militaristic Trump administration is considering sending several thousand additional American troops to Afghanistan and America's longest war.
America should be deeply suspicious of political warmongers and the destructive, corrupt political-military-industrial profit complex.
Deadly violence should always be an extreme last resort instead of a stupid first reflex to a complicated international world.
104
I often wondered who it was, in which office, who wrote the Tonkin Resolution. After much digging I think I found it. It seems William Bundy (Asst Sec of State for Far Eastern Affairs) wrote a Resolution two months before the Maddox incident. Found it on page 46 of this document, left column, midway down: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/relea00012.pdf
1
Mr. Daddis does a laudatory job summarizing Westmoreland's role in 1967. But the U.S. problem in South Vietnam, arguably the cause of failure, were Vietnamese politics and culture, about which we knew precious little. Daddis alludes to this, but doesn't address it.
The issues were not unknown. In 1999 Robert McNamara in his work, "Argument Without End" says in essence that "Americans were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture, knew little of the language, knew little of the county's long history, exhibited a pronounced tendency to assign American motives to Vietnamese actions, and ignored Diệm warning that it was an illusion to believe that copying Western methods would solve matters."
Yet we spent the equivalent of $690 billion in 2017 dollars, dropped more bomb tonnage than was dropped in Europe in WW II, were involved in, literally, the deaths of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians, and sacrificed the lives of 58,315 Americans, and the minds, and bodies, of tens of thousands of others.
Much of the money spent in SVN never made it down to a people who in general were never vested in a government that came into existence in 1954 with the flight of over a million mostly Roman Catholics from the North to the South upsetting a primarily Buddhist society still loyal to the emperor Bao Dai.
Westmoreland was fighting a WWII war for a nation that mostly didn't care.
Would that we had learned from Vietnam. We haven't. Our stupidity continues.
The issues were not unknown. In 1999 Robert McNamara in his work, "Argument Without End" says in essence that "Americans were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture, knew little of the language, knew little of the county's long history, exhibited a pronounced tendency to assign American motives to Vietnamese actions, and ignored Diệm warning that it was an illusion to believe that copying Western methods would solve matters."
Yet we spent the equivalent of $690 billion in 2017 dollars, dropped more bomb tonnage than was dropped in Europe in WW II, were involved in, literally, the deaths of millions of Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians, and sacrificed the lives of 58,315 Americans, and the minds, and bodies, of tens of thousands of others.
Much of the money spent in SVN never made it down to a people who in general were never vested in a government that came into existence in 1954 with the flight of over a million mostly Roman Catholics from the North to the South upsetting a primarily Buddhist society still loyal to the emperor Bao Dai.
Westmoreland was fighting a WWII war for a nation that mostly didn't care.
Would that we had learned from Vietnam. We haven't. Our stupidity continues.
89
David Halberstam recounts a lunch in Cambridge, MA with David Reisman and a couple former students who were in Kennedy's White House. Reisman wasn't happy with their talk about the escalating war and asked the men what people in Vietnam ate for lunch. They laughed and thought his question was a joke, but Reisman shot back with words to the effect that they were nothing but a bunch of brilliant North Atlantic provincials.
7
Substitute "Vietnames culture" in this excellent letter with "Iraqi, Afghani, or Iranian culture" and there you have it. We are where we are because our leaders haven't passed World History 101.
8
An excellent comment. Particularly your comment "Americans were almost completely ignorant of Vietnamese culture, ....." The situation was the same when we went into Iraq. We have been meddling in the middle east for years and know little about the religion, culture, society, etc. We wonder why these wars never end.
3
Actually defining war is simple. It is putting young men and women in harms way in order to fight over land masses. Our involvement in Vietnam ultimately and thankfully failed because the American public finally decided that spilling our blood over swamps and jungles on the other side of the world was not worth it.
12
Agree that a major factor in the Vietnam war was that the American soldiers were draw from all across society even though it was easy to get deferments. There were many people like businessmen, bankers, politicians, even some congressmen and senators who had sons in the military. All of these important people had a great interest in the war and its progress or non progress. I knew many people in Vietnam and had some relatives who served.
The situation today is quite different. I don't know anybody who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan in the military. I think that if you check you will find that no Congresspeople or senators have children fighting in the services. If there are any it is very few. I think that if important people had children fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, those wars would have ended quicker or might not have been fought at all.
The situation today is quite different. I don't know anybody who has been to Iraq or Afghanistan in the military. I think that if you check you will find that no Congresspeople or senators have children fighting in the services. If there are any it is very few. I think that if important people had children fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq, those wars would have ended quicker or might not have been fought at all.
3
Not to mention that we lost.
1
There may be no current members of Congress with children in active duty service, but the percentage of veterans in Congress is far higher than the percentage of veterans in the general U.S. population.
There are slightly more than 100 military veterans in the current Congress. Of those, many served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
As the number of women who represent us in Congress (very slowly) rises, the number of veterans may fall further, veterans such as Tammy Duckworth, Tulsi Gabbard, Joni Ernst, and Martha McSally notwithstanding.
You may also forget that former Vice President Biden had a son who was deployed to Iraq.
I don't disagree that the millionaires who make up the Congress tend not to have children in military service, but I don't see the American public approving a return to an active military draft, either.
There are slightly more than 100 military veterans in the current Congress. Of those, many served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.
As the number of women who represent us in Congress (very slowly) rises, the number of veterans may fall further, veterans such as Tammy Duckworth, Tulsi Gabbard, Joni Ernst, and Martha McSally notwithstanding.
You may also forget that former Vice President Biden had a son who was deployed to Iraq.
I don't disagree that the millionaires who make up the Congress tend not to have children in military service, but I don't see the American public approving a return to an active military draft, either.
When China fell to the Chinese Communists, the republican right wing demonized the democrats ( General Marshall, Truman, etc.) for "losing" China.
I have read that Johnson was afraid that they would do the same to him if he left Vietnam. The sensible thing to do might have been to say that our national interests were not tied up in Vietnam and to leave it for the Vietnamese to resolve.
Of course, there are many situations in American history like the Vietnam War. We can't approach the given situation rationally and make an informed decision because the republican right will have a hissyfit. We had the Red Scare after World War I, charges of a "sellout" after Yalta, another red scare and communist witch hunt in the late 1940's and early1950's, on up to the hysteria and fearmongering today about immigrants and muslims.
Imagine what we could do if we spent our time dealing with real problems instead of spreading fear.
I have read that Johnson was afraid that they would do the same to him if he left Vietnam. The sensible thing to do might have been to say that our national interests were not tied up in Vietnam and to leave it for the Vietnamese to resolve.
Of course, there are many situations in American history like the Vietnam War. We can't approach the given situation rationally and make an informed decision because the republican right will have a hissyfit. We had the Red Scare after World War I, charges of a "sellout" after Yalta, another red scare and communist witch hunt in the late 1940's and early1950's, on up to the hysteria and fearmongering today about immigrants and muslims.
Imagine what we could do if we spent our time dealing with real problems instead of spreading fear.
45
"When China fell to the Chinese Communists, the republican right wing demonized the democrats ( General Marshall, Truman, etc.) for "losing" China.
I have read that Johnson was afraid that they would do the same to him if he left Vietnam."
LBJ never wanted to be a War President, which is one significant aspect in which he differed from Cheney, et. al. He wanted to be a great domestic President, to finish what FDR started, who would institute his Great Society, a difficult task at best, which he feared the Right would never allow if he was seen to be "soft on Communism" . Thus he grabbed the tar baby of Vietnam, which unfortunately, could not be put down. Communism aside, the politics and history of Vietnam were not that of Texas, let alone Washington. Ho Chi Minh was not going to cut a deal after a suitable bit of chest thumping on both sides.
The rest, as they say, is history, the fallout from which we are still living with.
I have read that Johnson was afraid that they would do the same to him if he left Vietnam."
LBJ never wanted to be a War President, which is one significant aspect in which he differed from Cheney, et. al. He wanted to be a great domestic President, to finish what FDR started, who would institute his Great Society, a difficult task at best, which he feared the Right would never allow if he was seen to be "soft on Communism" . Thus he grabbed the tar baby of Vietnam, which unfortunately, could not be put down. Communism aside, the politics and history of Vietnam were not that of Texas, let alone Washington. Ho Chi Minh was not going to cut a deal after a suitable bit of chest thumping on both sides.
The rest, as they say, is history, the fallout from which we are still living with.
1
Thanks, Tom. Interesting comment. Ho Chi Minh definitely was not a Texas politican of the Johnson mold.
The selling of Viet Nam revealed the lengths to which our government would lie to U.S. citizens. In the earliest stages of the war, up to an including the non-incident at the Gulf of Tonkin, the media coverage was blindly supportive of the "facts" laid out by Westmoreland, McNamara, Acheson and President Johnson.
Can we trust our government and military to tell the truth in the future? Or will we be given more false promises, such as "Mission Accomplished" back on May 1, 2003.
Can we trust our government and military to tell the truth in the future? Or will we be given more false promises, such as "Mission Accomplished" back on May 1, 2003.
22
We lost VN for the same reason that the French Expeditionary Force pulled out of "Indochine" after fall of Dien Bien Phu. As Alistair Horne wrote in his comprehensive work on French history, "Savage War of Peace."is is impossible for the West to win a colonial war, whether in se. Asia or the Mahgreb, in Algeria. French Army won in Algeria but lost its overseas "departements" at the diplomatic table, because De Gaulle, first President of the newly formed Cinquieme Republique,saw that unless France let go of Algeria, despite the opposition of the settlers, "pieds noirs," and the Legion and "reserve generale," conflict could become internationalized. Telling moment: When De Gaulle was making a tour of forces in the field in 1961, in the "bled,"accompanied by Gen Dufour, advocate of keeping Algeria French, De Gaulle informed his fellow general: "Dufour: Arretez le cirque!"Big Charlie was "prevoyant," and always said that his officer corps "ne voyaient plus loin que le djebel," that Algerie francaise was a cause lost in advance. We should have learned from French experience, but LBJ, egged on by Gen, Westmoreland, did not want to be tagged as Preident who lost s.e. Asia to the communists.
14
As Mr. Harrison demonstrates (but is too polite to say), the Daddis column is 99 percent wind--Daddis appears to believe that Westmoreland got the strategy wrong, but the crucial point is that no strategy exists for a Western power to permanently win a colonial war. France learned this in Indochina and Algeria. England learned this in India. Belgium learned this in Africa. The US learned this in Cuba. The list goes on.
No strategy devised by Westmoreland (or Johnson, or McNamara, or Rusk, or any of the Best & the Brightest) would have helped. The "loss" of Vietnam was guaranteed the moment France seized it as a possession.
Given the blurb at the foot of the column, it's hard not to conclude that the piece is, at bottom (and I do mean, at bottom) an ad for the associate professor's book on the same subject. As the president is fond of tweeting, Sad.
No strategy devised by Westmoreland (or Johnson, or McNamara, or Rusk, or any of the Best & the Brightest) would have helped. The "loss" of Vietnam was guaranteed the moment France seized it as a possession.
Given the blurb at the foot of the column, it's hard not to conclude that the piece is, at bottom (and I do mean, at bottom) an ad for the associate professor's book on the same subject. As the president is fond of tweeting, Sad.
3
Too bad LBJ didn't speak French.
more importantly than the rants of a general like westmoreland--- " the facts that the united states highlighted the attacks on civilians as crucial to the success of the american puppets that governed south vietnam ". this is the take away knowledge of this article, and the collusion of these attacks on civilians , by our senate and administration, so dutifully elected by the american citizens. americans slept better knowing that it was a police action, not a war...............
4
"In truth, Westmoreland proved unable to articulate the convoluted nature of a struggle over Vietnamese national identity that no foreign entity was likely to resolve. The war remained as 'undefinable' as ever."
Ans there you have it.
The US failed two lessons: 1. No nation can successfully prosecute a war that it cannot define or justify and 2. Civil wars are fraught with danger for those who would intervene/interfere.
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
Ans there you have it.
The US failed two lessons: 1. No nation can successfully prosecute a war that it cannot define or justify and 2. Civil wars are fraught with danger for those who would intervene/interfere.
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
43
Agree. We went into Vietnam with out a clear rational for doing so. It was then hard years later to explain why we were there. General Westmoreland and others could do a great job at fighting the war and the pr work, but he still did not have a clear explanation of why we were there and what soldiers were dying for.
2
War always implies destruction of lives and property, and rarely morally defensible, WW-II perhaps the exception. Vietnam had no head nor tail in its conception, nor in its execution. And not wanting to learn from our mistakes, and by deceiving us, 'W' embarked in a lie of non-existent WMD, to leave the Middle East in what it is today, chaos and escalation of religious wars, culminating in ISIS; and now, having a brute as president, who knows what mess he'll get us involved in. There is nothing simple in a war, not even the spoils some fools expect from it. But blood and loss of treasure are guaranteed.
16
As you say, we should not oversimplify our language when speaking about war. War is just too complicated for simple words which only lead to simple solutions which inevitable lead to tragedy. Vietnam was about so much more than "defeating Communist aggression". Perhaps if we had tried to understand all of the complexities and nuances of Vietnam we would have save both countries thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
We face a similar situation today in Afghanistan. We have had a military presence in that country for 15 years! Yet there is talk today about increasing the number of U.S. and allied troops in the country. And all we hear about is the need to defeat the terrorists, that is, the Taliban and ICIS. From what I know of the situation, it is so much more complicated. In fact, peace seems to depend on reaching a political solution with those same groups.
Isn't it time we had a detailed discussion about our goals in Afghanistan and how best to achieve those goals before we squander thousands of more lives and billions of more dollars. Is it too much to ask our unfit and unstable president to put aside his focus on himself and his brand and think about our country for just a few minutes?
We face a similar situation today in Afghanistan. We have had a military presence in that country for 15 years! Yet there is talk today about increasing the number of U.S. and allied troops in the country. And all we hear about is the need to defeat the terrorists, that is, the Taliban and ICIS. From what I know of the situation, it is so much more complicated. In fact, peace seems to depend on reaching a political solution with those same groups.
Isn't it time we had a detailed discussion about our goals in Afghanistan and how best to achieve those goals before we squander thousands of more lives and billions of more dollars. Is it too much to ask our unfit and unstable president to put aside his focus on himself and his brand and think about our country for just a few minutes?
5
Milions of lives. I believe millions of Vietnamese lost their lives because of this war.
4
The most conservative estimates of loss of Asian lives suggest 1,500,000. Some respected scholars put the number at 3,600,000. A widely accepted number is 2,500,000. Over 300,000 alone were murdered by the various governments for suspicion of colluding with opponents. American, and U.S. allies' deaths, are not included, nor are those of Cambodians murdered in The Killing Fields epoch in Cambodia after Saigon fell in 1975 and up until a Vietnamese invasion hastened the end of Pol Pot's rule.
The sickening, depressing truth is that no one knows and at this distance very few care.
All those lives lost, destroyed, for what?
Humanity in general, and the U.S. in particular, is, without doubt, a killer angel. We learned little, and our unjustified, indefensible stupidity is a measure of our concern.
The sickening, depressing truth is that no one knows and at this distance very few care.
All those lives lost, destroyed, for what?
Humanity in general, and the U.S. in particular, is, without doubt, a killer angel. We learned little, and our unjustified, indefensible stupidity is a measure of our concern.
2
There are 58, 307 names on the Vietnam memorial thanks to Johnson and Nixon. That's not an oversimplication.
29
Don't forget Kennedy, an architect of the Vietnam War.
2
yes it is. You left out JFK.
2
For those not yet of age in 1967, Vietnam was the first war to be televised. Each evening, father figure commentators like Walter Cronkite showed America grainy black-and-white film of recent fighting, mixed with occasional human interest stories about "our boys." Almost as an aside, the daily body counts were read, just like the score of a football game. Communist forces -280, brave U.S. forces -84, which meant we were winning. Besides young lives, what was lost was our belief in our country and each other. You were either for the war or against it and never the twain could meet. America's hearts and minds were lost, just as the Vietnamese were.
10
And, do the authors have a plan for an Afghanistan sequel?
7
An intelligent and sober assessment on the oversimplification of wars.
One line captures the question that bedevils every military quagmire we, and other nations experience when we cannot explain why we are there:
"In truth, Westmoreland proved unable to articulate the convoluted nature of a struggle over Vietnamese national identity that no foreign entity was likely to resolve. The war remained as “undefinable” as ever."
One line captures the question that bedevils every military quagmire we, and other nations experience when we cannot explain why we are there:
"In truth, Westmoreland proved unable to articulate the convoluted nature of a struggle over Vietnamese national identity that no foreign entity was likely to resolve. The war remained as “undefinable” as ever."
12
The term is not undefinable but unwinnable. We backed the losers, although Ho first asked us to allow his nation to exist. The war was pursued to enrich arms manufacturers, but sold as anti communism. Those B52 bombs cost $50,000 each plus the plane and its operation costs. I never understood why they did not just load up a $100,000,000 dollar bills and drop them on the country side. The Viet Namese would then have reason to side with the US, and their attitude towards the US would have been different.
1
Some truth - but not really. There were real political reasons - bad ones, but real - involving a whole theory of global power and anti-Communism. The "Masters of War" certainly profited, but they weren't the primary motivators - except in that they were part of the US political economy. Think imperialism, ties with Europe, and the global economy, not just profits from selling bombs and planes.
The simplifications of the language of war ? Don't make me laugh. It is the American government and the American corporate media who in every decade conveniently decide to label an entire nation or group of innocents & civilians "the enemy" and then try to rallye around the stupefied ultra-propagandized American public to hate them and want them mass-murdered by our vast brutal U.S. military machine, even though people like the villagers of Vietnam and the citizens of Iraq who America bombed & bombed & bombed were NEVER my enemy.
32
The truth in this fine essay about the Vietnam war, a war Congress never ratified, is a bitter pill to swallow.
I have a crumpled piece of paper that lists in chronological order excerpts from rousing speeches by 1960s- and '70s-vintage politicians and military leaders. All of the speeches include the phrase, "light at the end of the tunnel." The light was always down the road and around a bend; GI's couldn't see it; but somehow the generals could see it clearly. The light turned out to be a very costly mirage.
Obama, to opprobrium from various quarters, in his foreign policy decision making, absorbed well the lessons of a "light at the end of the tunnel." To a laudable degree, he kept the U.S. out of Vietnam-like civil wars. One hopes that Trump will do the same.
I have a crumpled piece of paper that lists in chronological order excerpts from rousing speeches by 1960s- and '70s-vintage politicians and military leaders. All of the speeches include the phrase, "light at the end of the tunnel." The light was always down the road and around a bend; GI's couldn't see it; but somehow the generals could see it clearly. The light turned out to be a very costly mirage.
Obama, to opprobrium from various quarters, in his foreign policy decision making, absorbed well the lessons of a "light at the end of the tunnel." To a laudable degree, he kept the U.S. out of Vietnam-like civil wars. One hopes that Trump will do the same.
30
Ophthalmologists know that when a weak electrical shock is applied to the scalp of someone who has been in a dark room for a few minutes, that individual will say that he saw a flash of light even though no one in the room with him saw a light flash. These are called electrically-induced phosphenes.
Kilroy, I think that the US generals in the Vietnam War "saw a phosphene at the end of the tunnel."
Kilroy, I think that the US generals in the Vietnam War "saw a phosphene at the end of the tunnel."
1
The U.S. cannot dispel hundreds of years of ethnic and colonial strife with a few years of high tech cauterization. Is there some national interest at stake in, say, Vietnam or Afghanistan? And if so, what, exactly, is it? And if identified, how is it engaged?
10
....and thus began the 'selling" of American wars. We have been in the midst of multiple "sales events" for the last 16 years, now under 3 administrations. There will be more "selling" under the Trump administration. Vietnam resulted in the public's hesitancy to "buy in".
18
Vietnam had been an issue for longer than Korea, with Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all vowing to never let South Vietnam fall, but kicking the Vietnam can down the road to the next administration. When it landed in Johnson's lap, he had to take action or S. Vietnam would fall under his watch. But It seems Johnson did not want to get embroiled in a murky, conflict 10000 miles away with no end in sight. The reasons were never as clear as WW2, or even Korea.
2
"seems he did not want to" and yet he did. And seemed to get more enthusiastic about it, to vilify his critics, to lie about it, more and more until he stepped away, leaving the way wide open for the hideous Nixon and Kissinger. Maybe he didn't "want" it, but it shows the possible irrelevance of what you "want" compared to what you do.
I'm Not trying to excuse what the Johnson administration did, but it is a fact Johnson did not want that stupid war. I doubt Eisenhower would have gotten the country involved over there.
The problem, at least one big one, was McNamara giving advice and Kissinger also gunning advice to the president,
And none of the three of them ever fought in a war, especially one like this one that was unwinnable. -Zin out
And none of the three of them ever fought in a war, especially one like this one that was unwinnable. -Zin out
7
Both Kissinger (European theater, sergeant, bronze star) and McMamara (Pacific theater, Lt. Colonel, Legion of Merit) were WW2 veterans.
In 1942, Johnson left his congressional seat to join the Navy as a Lt. Commander in the Pacific and was awarded the Silver Star for bravery in an air engagement.
In 1942, Johnson left his congressional seat to join the Navy as a Lt. Commander in the Pacific and was awarded the Silver Star for bravery in an air engagement.
1
Yes. The "chicken-hawk" thing may be emotionally satisfying - what a great insult! But it's not really a useful truth. If only veterans were all anti-war - what a wonderful world!
"And they instituted programs to 'win the hearts and minds of the people.'" This is a chilling reminder that winning the hearts and minds of the people, which is always part of a military counter-insurgency, is an extremely difficult thing to accomplish. We have heard this kind of talk from Bush, Obama and Trump in fighting terrorism. It has been an abysmal failure so far, just as it was in Vietnam. Trump´s missiles and bombs to send a political message have also been a failure. The Civil War was not won by winning the hearts and minds of the opposition. 150 years later many of those minds have not been won.
Citizens, beware of a war to be won by counter-insurgency and not in battle.
Citizens, beware of a war to be won by counter-insurgency and not in battle.
16
Exactly. counter-insurgency is a tactic, it is NOT a strategy.
Beware data driven generals.
9
I worry about calling "body counts" and "attrition" "longstanding tropes...a mainstay of the historical narrative..." They aren't something historians made up looking back at the war, they were real concepts at the time - in the case of "body counts", that was a huge part of how the US military and government presented the story of what supposedly was happening. The "body counts" were a daily "reality" - that they were actually false was a part of the giant lie that defined the whole war. To call the phrase a "trope" now seems like a way of suggesting that it was never really important - but it was a deliberately created "trope" at the time, that determined a lot of real life and death.
When Daddis says Westmoreland failed to "...cause the American public to embrace the complex realities of the continuing war..." I'd say it would be more accurate to say he failed to keep the public from starting to realize the realities of the war - and to turn away from it. The war was a false cause from the start, and the more people learned about what was really happening, and why, the more they rejected it.
When Daddis says Westmoreland failed to "...cause the American public to embrace the complex realities of the continuing war..." I'd say it would be more accurate to say he failed to keep the public from starting to realize the realities of the war - and to turn away from it. The war was a false cause from the start, and the more people learned about what was really happening, and why, the more they rejected it.
42
We need some winning. Forget N.Korea, Iran, Pakistan... all those countries with nukes. Let's send another 5,000 troops to Afghanistan.
War is good business.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and...
War is good business.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and...
6
Not a terribly informative piece. For starters: Westmoreland was being touted, by the likes of TIME, as presidential material … until he opened his mouth in addressing Congress, and after that decidedly lackluster performance, there was no more man on a white horse talk. Also, body counts were the centerpiece of the daily five o'clock for a long time. The US didn't know what in God's name it was really doing in Indochina, and its ignorance and spin showed the bankruptcy of what passed for policy from the LBJ govt of the best & brightest – catastrophic.
19
Yes, LBJ made horrible decisions about Vietnam. Part of it was the Cold War era. But let's not forget his true legacy-the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, legislation barring discrimination in immigration decisions on the basis of religion, race or nationality and the first environmental protection legislation. Oh but to have him today!
To think that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld lived through that war, most assuredly on the sidelines as good Chickenhawks do, but didn't think twice jumping into a war in Iraq turns my stomach.
As a side note, I served as a 1st lieutenant at Headquarters Air Force Intelligence at the Pentagon towards the end of the war. In the fall of 1971, the head of Air Force Intelligence consistently removed from our briefings any mention of the lack of effectiveness in bombing the Ho Chi Ming Trail to stop a build up for another Tet Offensive. He didn't want to tell the Chief of Staff of the Air Force that our planes weren't doing the trick, and consequently, the President never heard the information too. Big surprise, in February 1972 came a Tet Offensive 'nobody expected.'
As a side note, I served as a 1st lieutenant at Headquarters Air Force Intelligence at the Pentagon towards the end of the war. In the fall of 1971, the head of Air Force Intelligence consistently removed from our briefings any mention of the lack of effectiveness in bombing the Ho Chi Ming Trail to stop a build up for another Tet Offensive. He didn't want to tell the Chief of Staff of the Air Force that our planes weren't doing the trick, and consequently, the President never heard the information too. Big surprise, in February 1972 came a Tet Offensive 'nobody expected.'
52
Robert: Thank you for this bit of truth. The fact seems to be pretty consistent that ill-founded wars lead to huge lies at every level except that of the "grunts".
I was in Viet Nam 66-67. The TET offensive didn't happen in 1972.
What was that AF Intelligence head's name?