Almost every one knows that the vietnam war was a disiaster not becouse of troops and bad intelligence but rather the fact that the key targets were politicaly defended unless the executive branch gave the order. This I think limited our power to stop supplies from going to the front lines and destroying specific targets that would have kept the enemy from being resupplied. I still don't understand why we didn't blockade the vietnamese ports from communist countries that supplied them. Any comments would be appreciated.
Vietnam screw-up
- Thread starter Ender89
- Start date
Throughout the Johnson era there was a fear of inciting the Soviet Union and/or China. As such some of the more obvious things which could have helped the war (like a full blockade of Haiphong Harbor) were never considered.
Nixon did understand the value of this however when he ordered the May 72 mining of the Haiphong Channel (Operation Pocket Money). All ships were given sufficient warning to get out and the channel was successfully mined while he gave his address (actually slightly before in case it went bad). Ultimately the NVA would not have enough SAM's (only delivered by the USSR by sea) to curtail the 73 Christmas bombings which ultimately led (in some opinions) to the signing of the Paris Peace accords in January 1973.
Now if the Johnson administration had done the same maybe the outcome would have been different but at the time fear of a broader conflict was justified. So maybe its fair to mark this one as maybe one of the lesser errors under many greater errors.
Nixon did understand the value of this however when he ordered the May 72 mining of the Haiphong Channel (Operation Pocket Money). All ships were given sufficient warning to get out and the channel was successfully mined while he gave his address (actually slightly before in case it went bad). Ultimately the NVA would not have enough SAM's (only delivered by the USSR by sea) to curtail the 73 Christmas bombings which ultimately led (in some opinions) to the signing of the Paris Peace accords in January 1973.
Now if the Johnson administration had done the same maybe the outcome would have been different but at the time fear of a broader conflict was justified. So maybe its fair to mark this one as maybe one of the lesser errors under many greater errors.
This topic is a healthy reminder how politics is separate to warfighting (contra to Clausetwitz although the notion that Vietnam demonstrates his point that war is a natural extension of politics could also be argued). The Vietnamese were pawns in the US and USSR's geo-political chess game and the actualities of warfighting came second for both parties. In this way the decision for the US to concede Vietnam was political and not military.
The ‘one arm behind their back’ analogy goes for the Soviets too.
The ‘one arm behind their back’ analogy goes for the Soviets too.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12
Snayke- thanks for the correction on the forces and as to your question the US didn't go into the north but i maybe wrong I know our air forces did strike targets in the north as for our special forces in Cambodia they may have penetrated the north but I'm not sure.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #14
That's true for ground forces but since our air force couldn't hit them from the air because Alpha-targets were only aloud to be destroyed by the executive branch. I'm still confused why the president didn't just let the commanders do their jobs instead constricting them to suffer unneccesary losses.:fly
Perhaps they were influenced by events from the Korean war. McArthur was doing very well, pushing well into north korea. China warned the US not to send its armies north of a certain point; a warning that was ignored. Anyways, this led to the china entering the war, and McArthur getting sacked.
The events of the vietnam war were set against the Cold War; winning the vietnam war was less important than other things, such as avoiding nuclear war.
The biggest mistake, if you ask me, was getting involved in the first place. The premise was that south vietnam had to be supported so that vietnam wouldn't enter the "Communist" sphere of influence. What resulted was that the Vietnamese were driven into China's open arms by necessity. They didn't really like each other; shortly after the US pulled out of Vietnam, Vietnam and China went to war with each other. This isn't my idea, by the war; see "The March of Folly" by Barbara Tuchman.
The events of the vietnam war were set against the Cold War; winning the vietnam war was less important than other things, such as avoiding nuclear war.
The biggest mistake, if you ask me, was getting involved in the first place. The premise was that south vietnam had to be supported so that vietnam wouldn't enter the "Communist" sphere of influence. What resulted was that the Vietnamese were driven into China's open arms by necessity. They didn't really like each other; shortly after the US pulled out of Vietnam, Vietnam and China went to war with each other. This isn't my idea, by the war; see "The March of Folly" by Barbara Tuchman.
Thats all politics there. We aren't allowed to talk about politics on this forum. From a military standpoint North Vietnam had no business invading the south which was mostly a free country unto itself, and we didn't want the soviets setting up camp in all those asian countries. Unfortunately they managed to cause enough trouble as it is. Look at North Korea today. Now they have nuclear missiles and a mad man in charge.KGB said:
Sorry but the purpose of this discussion is about...?? Strategy used in Vietnam - air, land, sea, Marines etc? Or the tactics - COIN? Incidentally a comparison of the COIN tactics and strategy used in Vietnam with other countries would better suit this discussion. Vietnam is long past - digging up the skeletons of whose fault in not allowing the full application of military force is not going to be fruitful as it be going over old ground and re-opening old wounds.
If its any salve to old wounds, this time round the US are not going for any dictated/negotiated semi-political solution. It's going to be a solution fixed to their terms, which can be rather extreme. Example Afghanistan - a total military solution that resulted in the military defeat of the Taliban, followed by political/economic phase which is where the US is slogging it out now and learning old lessons anew.
Not being rude but I brought this up as some threads which had a healthy discussion slipping into the political side got nipped and we were told to go to GTN.
If its any salve to old wounds, this time round the US are not going for any dictated/negotiated semi-political solution. It's going to be a solution fixed to their terms, which can be rather extreme. Example Afghanistan - a total military solution that resulted in the military defeat of the Taliban, followed by political/economic phase which is where the US is slogging it out now and learning old lessons anew.
Not being rude but I brought this up as some threads which had a healthy discussion slipping into the political side got nipped and we were told to go to GTN.
Unfortunately, the vietnam war was as much political as it was military - it's hard to understand one side without looking at the other. I've just done some research on the history of that war; the politics get really curly. Aside from the US vs USSR backdrop, there was a USSR vs PRC conflict being proxied...
Here's a nonpolitical question; the NVA and VC made extensive use of tunnels for basing/transport etc. Were the significance of these tunnel systems underestimated by the US or was the technology required to detect and destroy these systems simply not available at that time?
Here's a nonpolitical question; the NVA and VC made extensive use of tunnels for basing/transport etc. Were the significance of these tunnel systems underestimated by the US or was the technology required to detect and destroy these systems simply not available at that time?
I agree with KGB here, war and politics are intertwined -the answer the the origibal post is basically a politics answer.
If the US had esculated the war by going all-out on N.Vietnam, Soviet and/or Chinese forces were likely to be brought in. Ultimately we are talking about nuclear powers here.
If the US had esculated the war by going all-out on N.Vietnam, Soviet and/or Chinese forces were likely to be brought in. Ultimately we are talking about nuclear powers here.