No 7. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose, and the conventional army loses if it does not win.
'We Fought a military war; Opponents our Fought a political one. We sought physical attrition, Opponents Aimed for our psychological exhaustion. In the process, we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerilla war. The guerilla wins if he does not lose, the conventional army loses if it does not win. The North Vietnamese used their forces the way a bullfighter uses its cape - to keep us lunging into areas of marginal political importance. ' (Kissinger, 1969, 214)
When I first read the statement above, actually a bit confusing for personnel and soldiers who does not understand the tactics and strategy of guerrilla and conventional warfare. How can guerilla wins if he does not lose, the conventional army loses if it does not win. After I analysis that statement, it is indeed true, as guerrilla warfare is really a protracted war where there is no time limit in the implementation, expected outcomes , namely the guerrilla attacks launched by the enemy will decrease morale to fight and eventually they will resign or lose . Whereas in a conventional war period became a major factor in achieving the end result , and characterized by destruction of the opponent's strength or lack of ability to fight again in accordance with the specified time limit . To understand this statement , then I will try to give some idea or explanation according to which I have knowledge .
To facilitate the understanding of this essay , then I made a few parts in accordance with the relevant material . First , the meaning of victory in war . Second , the strategy and tactics of guerrilla and conventional warfare . Third , background selection and co...
... middle of paper ...
...s in the cohesiveness and mutual trust between the military and the people ' ( AH Nasution , 1953 , ... ) .
He sees that it is the weaker party , which only has a personnel strength of approximately 50,000 personnel to fight against America and its allies with modern equipment and weaponry . In addition to strength in terms of personnel , the leader of Vietnam 's Ho Chi Minh communist movement also realize that military equipment and soldiers fighting capability is very limited . But in terms of mastery of the battlefield as well as the support of the community in the Vietnam war , it is a positive factor and excellence in the fight against the Americans .
references
- Henry A. Kissinger , " The Vietnam Negotiations ," Foreign Affairs , 1969
- AH Nasution , " Fundamentals of Guerrilla Warfare " , 1965
- Robert Leonhard , " The Art of manuever " , 1991
When understanding the types Guerilla warfare tactics dates back to the earliest recorded history and continues today, as it will in the future. A formidable strategy used against the military by the Native Americans to preserve their way of life. After the Civil War in 1865, U.S. settlements exceeded ...
The aftermath — No More Vietnams — is well-covered in Appy’s work. The No More Vietnam mantra is usually presented as avoiding quagmires, focusing on quick, sharp wins. Instead, Appy shows politicians have manipulated No More Vietnams into meaning greater secrecy (think Central America in the 1980’s), more over-the-top justifications (“You don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”) and an emphasis on keeping American deaths inside the acceptable limits of the day to tamp down any public anti-war sentiment.
The Vietnam War: A Concise International History is a strong book that portrays a vivid picture of both sides of the war. By getting access to new information and using valid sources, Lawrence’s study deserves credibility. After reading this book, a new light and understanding of the Vietnam war exists.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse-tung, “Che” Guevara, Osama bin Laden and others have professed unique qualifications as innovators and practitioners of Guerrilla warfare. However, in our relatively short military history, we have periodically had to use or defend against irregular warfare. During the French and Indian Wars as well as the Revolutionary War, we were the guerrillas. In the Civil War, there were the partisan operations of Mosby, Forrest and the outlaw Quantrill, who played a key role in the Confederacy’s ability to wage effective war against the numerically and industrially superior Union for over four years. It is often forgotten, that regular forces require a ratio of ten to one to prevail against a partisan operating on their native soil3. Nevertheless, one thing remains constant: the adaptability and courage of the American Soldier under the harshest of circumstances continues to allow them to prevail.
Historical interpretations relating to small wars in the post Napoleonic period in relation to insurgent guerrilla warfare in urban and agrarian societies across the globe share universal themes. These commonalities will be explored relating to how combatants in guerrilla warfare fight. Moreover, what objectives guerrilla leaders wanted to achieve with their theories of social revolution? The works discussed are Mao Tse-tung, On Guerrilla Warfare, Ernesto Che Guevara, Guerilla Warfare, and Carlos Marighella, Minimanual of The Urban Guerrilla. All three of these historical leaders were well-educated men who were social reformers.
The North Vietnamese Communist leadership's ability to reassess and adapt during the Vietnam War was reflected in how well they combined guerilla and conventional operations to achieve their strategic goal of unifying Vietnam under communist rule. Throughout the conflict, the Viet Cong (VC) were employed to conduct guerilla operations while North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and VC "main force" units were used to transition to conventional operations. Guerilla operations enabled Hanoi to inflict a steady flow of casualties on US forces which increased anti-war sentiment in America. NVA and VC main force conventional operations reinforced the US Army's conventional approach to the fight which caused the Americans to alienate the people of South Vietnam. By alienating the South Vietnamese people, the Americans enhanced the VC's ability to conduct guerilla operations and control rural population centers which weakened the credibility of the Government of South Vietnam (GVN). The combined effects of guerilla and conventional operations supported the North Vietnamese strategy of a protracted conflict that was sure to weaken the resolve of the United States and eventually defeat the GVN.
The world’s history is majorly shaped by mega wars that happen both inside and outside the boundaries of individual nations. Almost every sovereign state in the world had to forcefully liberate itself from its colonizers and oppressors mainly through warfare. For instance, America had to fight a long and exhausting revolutionary war against the British before it could attain its independence in 1783, likewise is the fate of many other nations. It is important to understand the two distinct types of wars that exist and their implications. Guerrilla warfare and the conventional military warfare are two types of war that are very different in their execution and military approach. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the similarities and differences existing between the American war in Vietnam and the American Revolution (Vetter, 1997).
The Vietnamese Communists or Vietcong was a communist army in South Vietnam that fought the Americans using guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare was brand new to American soldiers. They would surprise attack the Americans in the jungles and hills and then they would somehow vanish without a trace. When the Americans tried
The Viet Cong had also prepared for the previous war, which was counterinsurgency against the French from 1946 to 1954. Krepinevich says, "The strategy of the Viet Cong again under the direction of General Vo-Nguyen Giap was an adaptation of Mao Zedong's people's war in China. Insurgency is done in three phases: First, mobilize the masses against the occupying force; second, guerrilla operations and direct violence; third, the organized open warfare against the occupier. It can be summed up as contention, equilibrium, and counteroffensive"(7). The Vietnam War lines up directly with this outline, increasing violence and protests with United States entrance, increasingly powerful guerrilla strikes, cumulating directed offensives, such as the Tet offensive, which, according to Nagl, "was instrumental in convincing the United States public that Vietnam could not be won through advancing though territory"(7). Minh, the leader of Communist North Vietnam was was critical in the war, through his
This brings me to the discussion of Gentiles critique of Malaya, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I argue the fact that Colonel Gian Gentile is correct with his assumptions regarding aspects of counterinsurgency aiming to win the hearts and minds of people from Iraq and Afghanistan is futile. Furthermore, Vietnam was a Maoists “Peoples War” and had the backing of the North Vietnamese, the NLF, or the PLAF. The corrupt puppet government and military of South Vietnam aided the enemy by not wanting to become part of a capitalist system, they wanted to reap the benefits of foreign aid, but not build a strong resilient Nation. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars were and are unwinnable. However, with the Malayan Emergency I believe some key themes from Sir Robert Thompson’s principles were effective. Simi...
War is an inevitable human phenomenon which is often the byproduct of strained politics and an innate human drive to reign supreme over other lands. With the enactment of war follows the never ending question of what is just or ethically acceptable and what is unjust and morally reprehensible even during times of war. In modern times the word conventional war has been coined to describe warfare which involves fighting between two or more distinct well defined sides and only includes the use of weapons which will only target the opposition military units. Conventional warfare excludes the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons which threaten the lives of citizens and often times ravishes the opposition land beyond civilian use. Even
David Galula and Roger Trinquier have common roots, they were French citizens and both lived in the 20th century when the study of counterinsurgency theory was coming into focus. Each of these men experienced bitter conflicts of war. Galula fought in North Africa, Italy, and France. In addition, Galula fought in irregular wars located in China, Greece, Indochina, and Algeria. Galula was a lieutenant colonel when he decided to author his now classic book. Whereas, Trinquier an officer in the colonial infantry defended the French concession in Shanghai and later in Indochina under the Japanese occupation where he was held prisoner of war in a Japanese internment camp. After Trinquier’s release from prison, he continued to serve in Indochina and additionally in Algeria. Both men wrote from first-hand experience and published their accounts in 1964 while the Cold War waged. Communism ideology vs. the free world theorists collided across the face of the globe in a race for domination. Counterinsurgency has been an American strategy since the 1960s ebbing and flowing in strategic signi...
Clausewitz already warned against this misleading concept. Victory is related to the political objectives defined for a conflict, not to the results of the military confrontation . Obviously the achievement of military victory matters, at least as far as it contributes to the achievement of the political objectives. However, a victory in the battlefield can be completely irrelevant, even damaging , and often only provides a temporary situation of advantage. This is perhaps the real meaning of every military victory: just a window of opportunity to facilitate a political victory through the application of different instruments of power in a situation of
When comparing and contrasting U. S. military operations and capabilities with regard to regular versus irregular warfare it is important to understand the definition of irregular and the spectrum of conflict. In recent history, the term “irregular warfare” has been used interchangeably with or alongside insurgency and counterinsurgency warfare. This usage and comparison is too narrow. ...