The U.S. attempted to apply conventional warfare strategy to the communist insurgency in South Vietnam. The result of this strategy was that U.S. forces were victorious in almost every military battle, but could not translate tactical achievement into operational and strategic success. However, during the course of the war, the U.S. discovered three elements of strategy that, if melded into a cohesive whole, could have achieved American objectives for a reasonable cost. First, the U.S. should have fully resourced and implemented a counterinsurgency strategy of pacification, as the primary U.S. military effort in Vietnam. Second, a robust network of South Vietnamese paramilitary forces, integrated with U.S. pacification, would have been the vital link to winning South Vietnamese popular support. Third, the synchronization of pacification with air mobility and air power operations would have effectively incorporated U.S. conventional firepower with the counterinsurgency effort. Next, the claim that U.S. military forces could not have been organized or resourced to implement an effective counterinsurgency will be refuted. Finally, a bridge forward explores whether the U.S. learned from Vietnam how to identify and fight a complex insurgency. In Vietnam, the insurgent’s source of strength was the South Vietnamese population (Krepinevich, 10). The methodical effort to deny the enemy access to the South Vietnamese population was the counterinsurgency strategy known as pacification. Mao Tse-Tung stated that “weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive factor; it is people, not things that are decisive” (Tse-Tung, 217). Wresting control of the population from the insurgency through pacification should have been ... ... middle of paper ... ...es in Vietnam relating to the nature of war? It depends. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a perfect example. The rapid defeat of the Iraqi Army and subsequent fall of Baghdad lulled U.S. forces to believe that superior technology and firepower had achieved a quick decisive victory (QDV). However, the QDV did not happen because the U.S. was not adequately prepared to protect the population following the destruction of the Iraqi regime. The resulting insurgency almost defeated the U.S. effort, but after three years, a change in strategy was made by U.S. leadership, and the “surge” was eventually successful. The U.S. experiences with insurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq, and currently in Afghanistan underscore the point that to wage a successful counterinsurgency the core line of effort must be towards defeating the goal of the insurgent which is to control the population.
The relationship between conventional and guerilla operations was a key element of the Vietnamese communists’ “Dau Tranh” strategy to fight and win the Vietnam War. A brief description of the Dua Tranh (meaning struggle) strategy is appropriate since it was the basis for North Vietnam’s success. The strategy consisted of an armed struggle and a political struggle. The armed struggle began with Stage One hit and run guerilla tactics to “decimate the enemy piecemeal and weaken then eliminate the government’s administrative control of the countryside...
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
Should the United States have participated in the Vietnam War? Some people felt that the US should have been there for two reasons. The first reason was the US was attempting to establish a stable democracy. The second reason was that our participation in Vietnam helped the US win the Cold War. Others believed the US should not have participated for two reasons. One reason was that the South Vietnamese government was a brutal dictatorship. Another reason was our strategy for winning the war was inept. While it appeared that we were trying to spread democracy and win the Cold War., in truth we were supporting a mini-Hitler, and our war strategy had little chance of success.
In the early 1960s the U.S. began sending military advisors to South Vietnam beginning the Vietnam War, arguably the most controversial war in United States history. This incident followed Vietnam gaining its independence from the French Empire’s Indochina in 1954. The nation soon split, creating a communist North Vietnam, and a noncommunist South Vietnam. In fear of communism spreading the U.S. supported South Vietnam and sent troops. As the incident dragged on it caused a huge anti-war movement and a lot of political turmoil.The troops were withdrawn in 1973, the whole country fell to communism, and the U.S. failed. How did a superpower such as the U.S. take defeat from a small country like Vietnam? Many have wondered and continue to wonder
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 United States has again stumbled into an overseas quagmire from which there is no easy exit. History seems to be repeating itself when again, we are led by a group of men who launch wars without exit strategies and fail to understand the nature of their enemy. In Vietnam the United States became involved because they felt the need to stop the spread of communism throughout the rest of Asia and attempt to prevent the "domino effect." The belief is that if Vietnam fell, so then would Cambodia, Laos, etc. Vietnam was the longest U.S. war with its never ending deaths, escalating destruction of Vietnam and Cambodia, and growing danger of splitting the American people (Carter 28). In Vietnam the Americans were told that U.S. was there because the South Vietnamese asked us to save them from the communist threat. But what the soldiers experienced did not add up to what the American people were being told (Thura 9). Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein, eliminate him from power, abolish Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from aiding terrorist groups. (Anderson 5). In Iraq the soldiers are anxious with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein no longer in power the reason why U.S. is still fighting in Iraq when the war was declared over a year ago is questionable (Moore 19).
The Vietnam War to this day is thought of as a grim, long-lasting battle that took place between 1955 and 1975. The American people were never fond of this war, as they polled and constantly spoke out against the idea of being involved in Vietnam throughout the entire duration it took place. This war was fought between North Vietnam (with their Soviet, Chinese and other communist allies) and South Vietnam whose main supporter and ally was the United States. This paper will validate what this war was like for the American troops and all the diversity they were able to overcome. Ranging from the lack of American support, to the physical combat and hardships the soldiers had to face while on the battleground.
President Lyndon Johnson had several issues he considered as he developed the rules of engagement for Vietnam. One of which was how he maintained tight control over the selection of targets for the air war, for fear that the bombing provoke the Chinese and the Soviets into a confrontation with the United States. (Moss 163). The other was how he counted on a reasonably quick and easy victory over the NLF and Hanoi. As a result President Johnson “did not confront the crucial question of what would be required to achieve its goals until it was bogged down in a bloody stalemate.” (Moss 162).
Roark, James L. "Vietnam and the Limits of Power 1961-1975." The American Promise: A History of the United States. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 1,062- 1,100. Print.
So many things influenced our involvement in the Vietnam War, and Lawrence examines the decisions we made in a greater context than just our own. He argues that international pressures controlled the attitudes and ideas of the United States, for the most part.
Road to Failure in Vietnam: Why America was Defeated Why did America Fail to Defeat its Vietnamese Enemies Between 1965 and 1969?
The Vietnam War is known to be one of America’s toughest wars, starting in November of 1955 and ending with the “Fall of Saigon” in March of 1975. In 1973 all American combatant troops had departed Vietnam due to a peace treaty which only left a couple thousand Americans for humanitarian aid with only a handful of Marines for their protection. The North Vietnamese knew that with American military forces withdrawn, taking over South Vietnam would no longer be a challenge. As the North Vietnamese Army started migrating south the remaining Americans relied on the U.S. Government to develop a plan to safely extract the remaining personnel without involving U.S. combatant forces.
Have you ever wondered what events, conditions, and leadership decisions caused America to be unsuccessful in the Vietnam War? The way that the war was fought favored the Northern Vietnamese and was a big factor in giving the Viet Cong an edge over the Americans. The tactics that the Northern Vietnamese used, the number of soldiers that the United States sent over plus the conditions they were put into, and the changing of US Presidents part way through the war all play vital roles in making Vietnam unachievable.
In December, 1941 the United States entered World War II. The U.S apprehensively late involvement provided Allied Powers with fresh competitors and monetary backing that the Axis Powers lacked. America's late entrance inevitably led to the end of the war in favor of the Allies, further settled America's place as a world power. The United States fought unreservedly on the side of democracy, freedom, and justice against dictatorship. In contrast to some of Americas admittedly bad wars such as, we can fairly say near genocidal Indian wars and the viscous conflict in Vietnam, World War II is widely celebrated as a crusade. Although, some are unwilling to question the ethics of the means by which they won the war which makes others question if the war was in fact a "bad" one.
Going into the Vietnam War, America didn’t know much of anything about Vietnam, their culture, or their people. We didn’t even speak their language. We didn’t understand what exactly to do. We continued to increase the number of troops to send over, and we continued to get more casualties and fatalities. American methods including a hi-tech war, search and destroy, and strategic hamlets did nothing to help them; it only hurt them and help the Vietcong destroy them (“BBC- GCSE Bitesize: Vietcong and American tactics,” (n.d.). The American tactics were not effective at