Vietnam Myths

[GeorgeD]

Did I not mention that what I said my teachers told me... I was just suprised at the complete difference. And My question at the end was just a question... You dont have to have a heart attack over it...

 

[Staff Weenie]

Western militaries tend to have a very significant CSS component. I've seen 8:1 to 10:1 as relatively standard. But this includes everybody from the tps packing the cargo trucks at home, to the deployed force. While it is typically heavily maligned, it's not really a bad thing. A large, well equipped and well trained CSS can get a fighting force into play fast, and sustained/effective for longer. That helps to win wars.

What's the old line - "Small minds think tactics, great minds think logistics"

Objective historical analysis of the Vietnam War is difficult at best due to the polarization of those involved. I was taught that a true objective analysis of any historical event really isn't possible until after all those involved (on all sides of the issue) are gone.

BTW - before you go getting into it with GAP, I'd check his profile. He's been there, done that, and probably has a few of the T-Shirts left! Show him, and his opinions, some respect.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Did I not mention that what I said my teachers told me... I was just suprised at the complete difference. And My question at the end was just a question... You dont have to have a heart attack over it...

Bear in mind that these are likely the same (Canadian) teachers who suggested to me that Canada participated in an endless series of war crimes in WW2 against the poor defenceless Germans, and that the US forces were so racist that they nuked poor little Japan.

 

[Danjanou]

Bear in mind that these are likely the same (Canadian) teachers who suggested to me that Canada participated in an endless series of war crimes in WW2 against the poor defenceless Germans, and that the US forces were so racist that they nuked poor little Japan.

Gee I remember those enlightened teachers too :

 

[Greymatters]

These teachers who teach our kids are the same ones who go to University and get taught by Professers who spout political science based on peace research and political theory.  Very few of them are in touch with the real world, only their perception of it.

 

[Baseline]

Hello all. First time poster here. As such, I'll stay away from the more potentially controversial subtopics here and go with something more concrete: the bit about 'body counts' on the Vietnam Myth website. http://www.rjsmith.com/war_myth.html#bodies

If I'm remembering right, We Were Soldiers Once... And Young (the book, not the film) includes some discussion of body counts. Now, the author (Lt. Col. Moore) did NOT inflate body counts. However, he DID say that upon combining the body count reports of his subordinates he cut a certain percentage off the top before repeating them up the chain of command, because (again, IIRC) the numbers he was getting from his subordinates were themselves inflated. This does NOT mean those subordinates were deliberatly making stuff up, but it does suggest that inflation was a problem. If anyone knows/can remember why Lt. Col. Moore believed those initial numbers to be too high, it would help clarify things a bit, but the bottom line for me is that the colonel's account suggests this particulary 'myth' has more grounding in reality than the RJSmith website gives it credit for.

Now, this would seem to contradict what the RJSmith website says about the NVA suffering more KIAs than the US itself estimated. However, it may be that the website is misinterpreting the NVA statement to Agence France. According to RJSmith "the Communists declared, in an official press release to Agence France, that we had actually killed 1.1 million NVA soldiers" (emphasis added). I can't find the original Agence France statement (if anyone else can find a link, I'd be interested in reading it), but according to a different website (http://www.nam-vet.net/book1_11.html), the Agence France statement says (in a "Loose translation") that "Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded  and an additional estimated 666,000 Viet cong killed in 21 years of war" (again, emphasis added). In other words, the 1.1. million KIA would be the result of both the French and American military campaigns, meaning the US-contributed total would be substantially below 1.1 million (though probably still a strong majority).

So, where does all this leave us? If the second interpretation of the Agence France statement is correct, then Lt. Col. Moore's concerns about body count inflation seem justified, which in turn suggests that inflated body counts were NOT a myth (though it may still be a myth to attribute inflation to deliberate intent). On the other hand, if the RJSmith website is correct, then we've got a bit of a contradication between Lt. Col. Moore's concern and the final NVA KIA total; I don't know how one would resolve that.

Anyway, if anyone could clarify this entire situation, I'd be interested in learning more.

 

[nihilpavor]

These teachers who teach our kids are the same ones who go to University and get taught by Professors who spout political science based on peace research and political theory.  Very few of them are in touch with the real world, only their perception of it.

Of subject a bit but this made me jump...

You sound a little harsh with our political science professors. Completing my pol. sci. degree right now, I think you're giving them a bad rep for no reason. Although I'm in the worst Marxist University of the country, my international relations teachers are highly professionals, interested both in facts and theory. I prefer remaining optimistic about their skills, as they tend to be put in highly influential positions in our society (Stéphane Dion for example).

But I agree with you with teachers of lower levels (I've never seen any of those in my pol. sci. classes) not receiving enough quality education in the subjects they will teach, mostly teaching what they think is common knowledge. Political education here in Quebec is practically nonexistent and it sure lacks, people relying more and more on media and looks to shape their opinions on politics.

 

[GAP]

I think you are dreaming in technicolor!  Political science professors don't preach their own views?

And I will just bet that Dion always gave all sides of the equation to the class.....

 

[nihilpavor]

I think you are dreaming in technicolor!  Political science professors don't preach their own views?

And I will just bet that Dion always gave all sides of the equation to the class.....

You're right to a certain extent on both counts. As I said, the vast majority of them are highly professional and although they tend to promote their own views (half of their job is self-promoting in order to obtain research grants, etc.) they are open to other opinions.

As I said, I don't think they have to for the held responsible for the bad quality of history and politic education in the country.

 

[GAP]

As I said, I don't think they have to for the held responsible for the bad quality of history and politic education in the country.

They are a major influence on the next generation's take on the context in which things have happened and people tend to form opinions based on what they have learned/been taught. 

I'm not saying others don't help formulate those opinions, but if you are a political science student what you are taught and the context of the material you are taught play an immense role in the end game.

 

[time expired]

The interesting thing about this "Peace movement "is that it got its start during the
Vietnam war and is still with us today.I feel that President Johnsons refusal to declare
war on North Vietnam was one the first major mistakes of his administration.This
led to his inability to put the country on a war footing, a majority of the American
public were allowed to go on with their lives as if nothing had happened.The student
defferment programme let many young American avoid the war by going for a degree
in underwater basket weaving or teaching at Podunk U.However I feel that many of
them,and remember most of their parent had lived through WW2,felt subconsciously
guilty about not answering when their country called.So they then felt ,if there is
nothing wrong with me there must be something wrong with the war,there were plenty
of left wing agitators who saw that catering to this confused mass as a way to political
power.they supplied the slogans, the half truths and the down right lies that got the
movement on its way and when violence broke out at a anti war demo. at Wisconsin
U. their dreams were answered.Next to jump on the band waggon,excuse the small
pun,were the musicians,a good anti war song would bring you to the top of the hit
parade in a matter of weeks,there were millions to be made.There were not to many
Country and Western anti war songs however,blue collar,working class America stood
its ground.Next to join this unholy alliance were the media,they put their fingers in the
air saw which way the wind was blowing and got on board and after this happened if
you came out of University with a solid left wing agenda and a degree in journalism
the media would snap you up,in Europe you were also required to have a solid
grounding in anti Americanism.So here we are 40 years later and GeorgeD tells us
what he has heard about the Vietnam war,folks is it any wonder.
                                            Regards

 

[tomahawk6]

GeorgeD,just because I am so strident about my condemnation of the "Peace movement"
and the politicians for their actions in this war does not mean that they were the only
reason that it turned out to be such a cluster f§$&k,the US army must bear responsibility
for its totally failed tactics and strategy.The ratio of teeth to tail in Vietnam reach the
in credable level of 11 to 1 and at the time of the highest troop level (500,000) there
were 6000 grunts actively involved in engaging the enemy on any given day.The rest were
fixing the generals air conditioner,being lifeguards at China beach,or doing resupply for the PX,
you get the idea.However this does not mean that this war could not have been won
given competant military and political leadership. The fact you did not learn this in
history says a lot about your history prof.,and that this is not general knowledge says
plenty about the media.
                               Regards

I object to your characterization that Vietnam was an Army failure of strategy and tactics. Name the battles that the US Army or Marines lost.You cant because we won every major engagement. The NVA had to move into the RVN because their VC cousins had been decimated. The NVA did not fare any better than the VC did against US forces.Instead they fought a war of attrition coupled with the anti-war movement which caused the democrat controled Congress to force US ground forces from Vietnam and then they stopped funding the RVN military which guaranteed a communist victory.

As to tail to teeth ratios through Vietnam it was closer to 10. Today its not very much different maybe a little higher even. This ratio is something I thought could be reduced to maybe 8  but I just dont think its possible. The modern Army is just too complex.You wont find a tooth to tail ratio of 10-1 at the battalion/brigade level which is where the tip of the spear is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

At the risk of dragging this thread off topic, here's a good review of Jack Granatstein's thoughts on 'Who Killed Canadian History'

http://fathersforlife.org/hist/grhistry.htm

More on topic, I'd be interested to hear from those with experience in Vietnam about what we can learn and apply to our current operations in Afghanistan?

 

[tomahawk6]

I didnt serve in Vietnam but I dont see any similarities from a tactical level other than from a COIN standpoint. COIN operations were largely successful but once the NVA moved south it no longer was a COIN operation but a conventional operation. Neighboring countries were used as base camps to support and allow main force units to reconstitute. We see Pakistan as a safe haven for the taliban much as Laos and Cambodia was used during the Vietnam war. The enemy are religious zealots and in Vietnam we faced a dedicated communist enemy. Neither enemy really observed the rules of war. I think we may have seen the last of enemies that observe the Geneva Convention. Instead of training soldiers to resist the enemy when captured we will have to discourage the notion of being captured by an enemy that has no qualms about using torture and murder of captives.

 

[GAP]

The collective West is going to have to decide if they are going to play by old, outdated state-to-state rules of war, or if they are going to have to develop a new set of rules for nonstate combatants.

This will not happen until one or more 9-11 equivalent acts occur. Only in this way will the population accept a change in the nice guy rules.....at present they will not.

 

[Red 6]

This is just my opinion, but I think the antiwar movement during the Vietnam war was totally selfish and the university base was energized by the draft. The so-called antiwar movement in the US today is a non-starter because there isn't a draft.

 

[3rd Herd]

My Opinion:

First Indo China War:

French (with US help) Losers Viet Minh-Winners

Second Indo China War:

US (and others Losers) Viet Minh Winners

two kicks at the can and lost both times. Now we have almost 30 years of explaining or should I say defending why they lost.

 

[proudnurse]

The following is a Link to the "Virtual Wall" site. You can read about Soldiers that were KIA in Vietnam and there are several tributes on the Soldiers page from friends and family, and even others that they served with. They also have an MIA/POW tribute page in which you can read about those Soldiers also.

http://www.virtualwall.org/

May They Never Be Forgotten

~ Rebecca

 

[time expired]

3rd.Herd,the only thing wrong with your theory is that when the NVA won the war
in 1972 the VIET CONG had to all intense and purposes ceased to exist, and the NVA
could not have beaten the US Army because the US Army had left 2 year before.
Tomahawk6,I did not I anyway wish to belittle the efforts of the troops in Vietnam
please accept my apology if I gave this impression.You are correct when you state
the Army won every battle it entered ,tactically and operationally it did almost every
thing right but the casualties it suffered were too high.One must question the use of
small formations,plts., coys., to bait the VC/NVA to committing forces and then trying
to destroy them with firepower,this worked for a while until the enemy adjusted his
tactics allowing the bait to get closer robbing it of the firepower option and then badly
mauling the bait formation.Under the command of Gen.Westmoreland this did not
change,he was desperately wanted the big battle but most often when contact was
made with a large enemy unit it was able to escape into a sanctuary,generally Cambodia
or the DMC.Gen.Creighton Abrams changed to tactics when he took over after TET and
pretty well had the NVA and what was left of the VC on the run,but nobody noticed as
it was too late.
Strategically one could not really fault the Army as for most major decisions they were
not involved,and in many cases not even consulted.One can however fault the Generals
for allowing themselves to dictated to by a bunch of Harvard business school amateurs
I also feel some of the personnel decisions made,man for man rotation,"shake and bake"
NCOs,were disastrous to the Army´s war performance
As a Canadian soldier serving at the time of the Vietnam War I felt a little guilty that
we did not come to the assistance of our friends,I know mine will be a definitely minority
opinion,however I felt then and do now, that this was a just war,remember no oil in
Vietnam,and the aftermath proved that the US was correct in its decision to fight it.
                                  Regards
   

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are some interesting parallels here between Iraq and Vietnam. My impression is that, in both cases, the politicians forced the soldiers into adopting tactics that were supposed to achieve a 'quick victory' at the expense of following the tried and true methods for conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign. McNamara and Johnson seemed to have a similar approach to the Rumsfeld-Bush team. However, Malaya, Borneo, Aden-Dhofar, and Northern Ireland took the British decades to resolve, but it could be argued that all were backed by a political will to pursue the 'right' course, as opposed to most politically expedient. Still, I find it hard to give British politicians more credit than those in the US. There must be other influences in there that I'm missing.