Vietnam War Question

[BengalHawk62]

Why on God's Earth did LBJ leave Westmoreland in charge for so long? By late 66 at the latest, it was clear his search and destroy war of attrition tactics were not working. The Marine leadership, the US Army Chief of Staff at the time, and many prominent Army Generals at the time, such as General Abrams, disagreed with Westmoreland's strategy.

So, why didn't LBJ seek out other opinions within the military by late 66 or early 67 at the latest? That certainly would, or should, have led to Westmoreland's dismissal and a new strategy for the war.

[*michaelsean*]

Seems we have a history of that. The most notable being the Civil War. If I remember correctly they started with McClellan who was too scared to do anything. Then a couple others until we got to Grant. BTW...Bengalzona thanks you for this thread. As you get older you don't have as many things to occupy your time, and this will set him up for a night.

[BengalHawk62]

I've been watching the new Vietnam War show on IPTV, who hasn't right?, and this question just keep coming back up.  Has anyone else been watching it? 


The narrator of the show is the same narrator of Ken Burns' Civil War show.  He could literally read me the phone book and I'd sit in amazement. 

[HarleyDog]

In a nutshell, we were not supposed to win it.

[*Awful Llama*]

(09-27-2017, 05:56 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I've been watching the new Vietnam War show on IPTV, who hasn't right?, and this question just keep coming back up.  Has anyone else been watching it? 


The narrator of the show is the same narrator of Ken Burns' Civil War show.  He could literally read me the phone book and I'd sit in amazement. 

Peter Coyote.  He's like Leiv Schreiber, who does all of the HBO sports docs.  He could read the airplane vomit bag and make it sound compelling.

As for my takeaway, I don't see it as an Xs and Os type thing, LBJ should have zigged when he chose to zag.  The French experience there was a cautionary tail the US chose to ignore.  My .02.  It's a compelling series regardless, though, and well worth viewing.

(09-28-2017, 07:49 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: In a nutshell, we were not supposed to win it.

Just like the NFL   

[grampahol]

Well when you consider most every war is about making money and NOT all the happy horseshit patriotic stuff why wouldn't they want to drag it out as long as possible? Nobody cares that a flag has stripes, stars or polka dots and pictures of clowns.. It's always about the money and by the way, we don't get a cut of the profits. 
And by the way, you know who the most patriotic people in this country are? CAR DEALERS!  Even if they only sell foreign built cars.. 

[Bengalzona]

(09-28-2017, 07:49 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: In a nutshell, we were not supposed to win it.

^This

Ideally, we wanted the South Vietnamese to do their own fighting and win their own war. And they generally tried to do that. However, there were flaws in their government that undermined everything and tore the South Vietnamese people apart rather than bringing them together (something we in America ought to consider today).

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I think Johnson had the "Who in their right mind thinks they can beat the United States, Especially some third world and backwards people like those in Vietnam?"

What I don't understand is why Westmoreland used a defense strategy and didn't go on the offensive and invade the north. I get that he may have been afraid of China and what happened in Korea but by not invading the north, Westmoreland created a "Safe Space" while the north ran all over the south.

[Interceptor]

(09-28-2017, 07:49 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: In a nutshell, we were not supposed to win it.

Who said we won?

[*Awful Llama*]

(10-05-2017, 11:22 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: ^This

Ideally, we wanted the South Vietnamese to do their own fighting and win their own war. And they generally tried to do that. However, there were flaws in their government that undermined everything and tore the South Vietnamese people apart rather than bringing them together (something we in America ought to consider today).

Yeah, that was one of the elements well-explained in the doc, and that I found enlightening, that it wasn't a simple case of the ARVN soldiers being inept or cowardly.  They did fight, bravely by some accounts, and died by the bushel.  That wasn't the impression I'd been given over the years.  

[*bengalfan74*]

(09-28-2017, 07:49 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: In a nutshell, we were not supposed to win it.

Exactly

(10-05-2017, 09:56 AM)grampahol Wrote: Well when you consider most every war is about making money and NOT all the happy horseshit patriotic stuff why wouldn't they want to drag it out as long as possible? Nobody cares that a flag has stripes, stars or polka dots and pictures of clowns.. It's always about the money and by the way, we don't get a cut of the profits. 
And by the way, you know who the most patriotic people in this country are? CAR DEALERS!  Even if they only sell foreign built cars.. 

There's a large element of truth here. The Vietnam war made a lot of people a lot of money.

(10-05-2017, 11:22 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: ^This

Ideally, we wanted the South Vietnamese to do their own fighting and win their own war. And they generally tried to do that. However, there were flaws in their government that undermined everything and tore the South Vietnamese people apart rather than bringing them together (something we in America ought to consider today).

Right, there were a ton of angles, agendas, politics, and so on watering down every aspect of the war.

[Bengalzona]

(10-07-2017, 02:08 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I think Johnson had the "Who in their right mind thinks they can beat the United States, Especially some third world and backwards people like those in Vietnam?"

What I don't understand is why Westmoreland used a defense strategy and didn't go on the offensive and invade the north. I get that he may have been afraid of China and what happened in Korea but by not invading the north, Westmoreland created a "Safe Space" while the north ran all over the south.

We didn't invade North Vietnam because we didn't want the the war to escalate and include Chinese and Russian troops, which would have also expanded the war to the Korean Peninsula and Germany and probably would have involved nuclear weapons at some point.

We were in South Vietnam at the invite of the South Vietnamese government. A government can invite another country to send their troops to help defend them. By the same token, North Vietnam could have invited Russia and China to send troops to help them if they felt there was a need for it. That was what happened in Korea. When we pushed deep into North Korea, the North Koreans requested aid from China and China sent millions of troops across the border. Eventually, we stabilized a line and were able to negotiate a ceasefire with the Chinese and North Koreans (after we threatened to use nuclear weapons).

When we started bombing targets in North Vietnam, they responded by ordering air defense radars, missiles and guns from China and Russia and created one of the most advanced air defense networks our airmen have faced to date (which is why we lost so many aircraft during the war). There is no doubt that if we had invaded with ground troops, they would have responded with requests to Russia and China for combat troops.

That is why we took the defense and set our goal only on preventing incursions and insurrections in South Vietnam. And that probably would have been successful if the South Vietnamese would have had a government that wasn't full of corrupt and nepotistic turds and dumbasses representing only a small fraction of the South Vietnamese population.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-07-2017, 08:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We didn't invade North Vietnam because we didn't want the the war to escalate and include Chinese and Russian troops, which would have also expanded the war to the Korean Peninsula and Germany and probably would have involved nuclear weapons at some point.

We were in South Vietnam at the invite of the South Vietnamese government. A government can invite another country to send their troops to help defend them. By the same token, North Vietnam could have invited Russia and China to send troops to help them if they felt there was a need for it. That was what happened in Korea. When we pushed deep into North Korea, the North Koreans requested aid from China and China sent millions of troops across the border. Eventually, we stabilized a line and were able to negotiate a ceasefire with the Chinese and North Koreans (after we threatened to use nuclear weapons).

When we started bombing targets in North Vietnam, they responded by ordering air defense radars, missiles and guns from China and Russia and created one of the most advanced air defense networks our airmen have faced to date (which is why we lost so many aircraft during the war). There is no doubt that if we had invaded with ground troops, they would have responded with requests to Russia and China for combat troops.

That is why we took the defense and set our goal only on preventing incursions and insurrections in South Vietnam. And that probably would have been successful if the South Vietnamese would have had a government that wasn't full of corrupt and nepotistic turds and dumbasses representing only a small fraction of the South Vietnamese population.

From my understanding, the south wanted the same thing as the north, the south wanted different leaders, that was the difference. 

The United States should had never been there in the first place since we weren't allowed to do what needed to be done to win. But that's a different argument to be had over in P&R.

[WiregrassBenGal]

A few months ago, the company I work for had a series where an organization in Washington was running an interview series of soldiers who had won Purple Hearts. I do transcriptions for a living and my job was to make documents of the interviews.

The most chilling one came from the guy who talked about the Vietnam war. He was a lucid, thoughtful person who said he had grown up wanting to be a Marine since he was a little boy. He described how there was no clear objective that he could tell for much of his time there, that troops had been dropped there without being properly trained for jungle warfare, and that the South Vietnamese forces were a mess.

Like others, he talked about getting cussed out and spat on when he returned and spent decades fighting alcoholism and depression. He also said he admired the North Viet Cong's reserve and ingenuity. In all, it was a really sad interview but from what he said, his life turned out mostly okay and he had a nice family and a wife who stuck by him.

Beyond that, I don't know much else about Vietnam because I was a little kid when most of it happened. As an adult I learned about Eisenhower's exit speech way back in 1960, when he chillingly warned about the Military Industrial complex. Yeah, it seems like that war was generated to line a few people's pockets rather than stop the spread of communism.

[*Awful Llama*]

(10-08-2017, 08:35 AM)WiregrassBenGal Wrote: Like others, he talked about getting cussed out and spat on when he returned and spent decades fighting alcoholism and depression. He also said he admired the North Viet Cong's reserve and ingenuity. In all, it was a really sad interview but from what he said, his life turned out mostly okay and he had a nice family and a wife who stuck by him.

In the last ep of the series, they showed several vets who went back to Vietnam.  They visited the places they'd fought and were reunited with some of their fellow soldiers.  But they also got to meet with NVA/VC veterans from the war.  I admired the acceptance both sides seemed to have for one another, a sort of camaraderie that came from having survived this horrific experience together, albeit on opposite sides, and getting a bit of closure.  It's always amazing how well people can get along on a personal, one-on-one level when there aren't governments and their ideologies getting in the way.  

For those who may be interested, PBS is re-running the eps each Tuesday night.  I believe this week is episode three, but you could start watching at any point really and still get a lot out of it.  Can't recommend it enough.     

[Nebuchadnezzar]

My first memory is of Vietnam.

I was two or three years old sitting on the floor playing and listening to the tv. My mom was in the kitchen doing the dishes when I heard "Fighting broke out in Vietnam again today" and I looked up at the tv screen and saw soldiers crouched down behind a wall and they were taking turns moving forward. I remember there being smoke and seeing a boot sticking out from behind a wall. I walked into the kitchen to where my mom was and asked about what I saw. I don't remember what I asked but I remember my mom saying "There's nothing to worry about, it's far away from here."


I had three uncles and an aunt serve in Vietnam.
One uncle was the gunner on a helicopter.
One uncle was a medic and to this day will not go to a funeral. He can't look at a dead body.
One uncle was Marine Recon, did two tours. His first tour was to hunt down soldiers who were AWOL since he was only 17 years old and his second tour he was the demolition expert for his squad. 
My Aunt was a nurse at China Beach.


They all never talked about their experience in Vietnam. The one uncle did tell me about the soldiers that he found that we're AWOL though. He said many were missing noses and ears from being eaten by rats and that they would rather endure living like that than to go back out into the jungle. He tried to talk me out of joining the service when I joined up, he said he done enough in the service that none of his nephews should ever need to.

[*Awful Llama*]

(10-08-2017, 01:34 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: My Aunt was a nurse at China Beach.

You remember the show from the late '80s/early'90s by the same title?  I was a fan, so I'm curious if your aunt ever mentioned having seen it and what she thought about it.

[BengalChris]

(09-27-2017, 03:25 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Why on God's Earth did LBJ leave Westmoreland in charge for so long? By late 66 at the latest, it was clear his search and destroy war of attrition tactics were not working. The Marine leadership, the US Army Chief of Staff at the time, and many prominent Army Generals at the time, such as General Abrams, disagreed with Westmoreland's strategy.

So, why didn't LBJ seek out other opinions within the military by late 66 or early 67 at the latest? That certainly would, or should, have led to Westmoreland's dismissal and a new strategy for the war.

I can tell you since I lived through that.

LBJ wanted Westmoreland all the way because the war was being micro-managed out of the White House and Westmoreland was a guy who would accept this.

The war strategy was not Westmoreland's but was a strategy dictated from the White House. Pure politics. Enemy air bases were not allowed to be bombed, neither were railways bringing in equipment from China and the Soviet Union.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(10-08-2017, 06:19 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: You remember the show from the late '80s/early'90s by the same title?  I was a fan, so I'm curious if your aunt ever mentioned having seen it and what she thought about it.

None of those that I knew who were in Vietnam ever talked about their experiences except for my one uncle who told me about those he went after who were AWOL and the only reason he told me about that was because I was joining the Service.

I do remember that show but never watched it.

[Dill]

(10-07-2017, 08:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We didn't invade North Vietnam because we didn't want the the war to escalate and include Chinese and Russian troops, which would have also expanded the war to the Korean Peninsula and Germany and probably would have involved nuclear weapons at some point.

We were in South Vietnam at the invite of the South Vietnamese government. A government can invite another country to send their troops to help defend them. By the same token, North Vietnam could have invited Russia and China to send troops to help them if they felt there was a need for it. That was what happened in Korea. When we pushed deep into North Korea, the North Koreans requested aid from China and China sent millions of troops across the border. Eventually, we stabilized a line and were able to negotiate a ceasefire with the Chinese and North Koreans (after we threatened to use nuclear weapons).

When we started bombing targets in North Vietnam, they responded by ordering air defense radars, missiles and guns from China and Russia and created one of the most advanced air defense networks our airmen have faced to date (which is why we lost so many aircraft during the war). There is no doubt that if we had invaded with ground troops, they would have responded with requests to Russia and China for combat troops.

That is why we took the defense and set our goal only on preventing incursions and insurrections in South Vietnam. And that probably would have been successful if the South Vietnamese would have had a government that wasn't full of corrupt and nepotistic turds and dumbasses representing only a small fraction of the South Vietnamese population.

Excellent points, B-zona.   Back in the 80s, I met a Chinese national who said he would have certainly been willing to "go south" as a soldier if the US invaded North Vietnam. The guy was an opera singer, not a soldier, and he liked Americans.  But like many East Asians, he viewed the US as another Western colonial threat, if its soldiers set foot anywhere in Asia.

To expand upon your last point--many Americans still do not realize that the North's Leader, Ho Chi Minh, was regarded as their George Washington by the Vietnamese, including by a majority in the South.  It was HE who threw out the French so the Vietnamese could have their own country. The weak corrupt regimes in the South then tried to capitalize on the Vietminh victory by scrapping the Geneva accords and setting up an administration of mostly former--much hated--colonial officials.  The US wanted to "stop the dominoes from falling" and create a buffer state like South Korea, so it recognized the Diem government.  But South Korea had a mass of hard core rightist, anti-communists.  South Vietnam did not. It had a mass of anti-colonialists who credited Ho with their freedom.

Imagine if, after the colonies won their independence from Great Britain, the Carolinas seceded from the new US government in 1791, lead by Tories and British sympathizers whom most Americans considered traitors, and then Great Britain recognized them and began building them an army. Out of work Carolinians took soldier pay, so they got their army, though with poor morale. Other Carolinians rebelled, joined by their brothers to the north, perhaps led by Washington again, and Great Britain decried US "aggression." That would be somewhat analogous to the Vietnam war, as viewed by most Vietnamese at the time.  At least considering this analogy would help Americans understand the dynamic, whereby northerners were willing to march south for months and fight to the death, while well armed and relatively well paid southerners could not withstand them without American air support.

I should add, too, that invading the North would have been unimaginably expensive and costly, even if China and Russia did not send help. Americans would have to do it, not South Vietnamese, and they might take large cities, but the guerrilla war would continue into the countryside. If Americans at home already had a problem with a pointless occupation that cost almost 60,000 US lives and greatly damaged Johnson's domestic programs, how would they feel about losing another 100,000?  Think about the invasion in stand alone terms for a moment, then come back to the real world and add a sudden infusion of 500,000 Chinese ground troops with tanks, artillery and thousands of SAMs.

B-zona you probably remember Johnson and Nixon also considered bombing the dams and dikes in the North, to destroy their agriculture. Why do you suppose they held off on that?