Vietnam War Collection: books plus

[davidbfpo]

Another short article from Defence-in-Depth, by a USMC LtCol, which I expect will be of interest.

It opens with:

In the 50 years since US Marines first landed at Da Nang on the morning of 8 March 1965, the history of their involvement in the Vietnam War has been one of the most misunderstood and sometimes contentious topics in modern military history. In most cases historians assert that the Marines had neither a clear understanding of the conflict nor the American military strategy to contain the spread of Communism in South Vietnam. By extension, the Marines’ involvement from 1965 to 1968 is often depicted as a series of unplanned and isolated events, demonstrating a divide between the Marines’ long-term vision and operational approach and the overall American military strategy in Vietnam. This interpretation, whilst enduring, has come to obscure the centrality of the Marines’ approach to implementing American strategy.
The landings at Da Nang, exemplify this problem.

Link:http://defenceindepth.co/2015/08/17/...e-vietnam-war/

The author's very short bio:

LtCol Nevgloski, assigned as the operations officer of The Basic School School, Quantico, VA, is completing his doctoral thesis on the US Marine Corps planning for Vietnam in the Defence Studies Department, King’s College London.

[Condor]

Another short article from Defence-in-Depth, by a USMC LtCol, which I expect will be of interest.

It opens with:
Link:http://defenceindepth.co/2015/08/17/...e-vietnam-war/

The author's very short bio:

Good article, but I could be biased since a) I know the author (went to TBS with him) and b) I'm a Marine.

[SWJ Blog]

Living and Breathing: Just Another Day in Vietnam

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Spies, Advisors, and Grunts: Film Portrayals of Counterinsurgency in Vietnam

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Game Review: Fire in the Lake, the Vietnam War, 1964-75

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Moving On In Vietnam, But Remembering Its Lessons

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Some Sounds and Senses - Vietnam

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

1967: The Era of Big Battles in Vietnam

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Bob's World]

Moderator Adds

This post was copied from another thread: Strategy begins with empathy: Netflix series "Colony" and lightly edited to sit here.(Ends).

The attached link is to an perspective on Vietnam that closely mirrors my own assessment of the nature of that conflict. For those who buy into the uniquely American perspective that "we defeated the insurgency in South Vietnam, and it was only after we left that the state of South Vietnam was defeated in traditional combat by the state of North Vietnam," this will require taking a more empathetic perspective.

I have heard General Keane state in person, but many other "experts" as well, and certainly the dominating theme in US written histories of the conflict is the "we won but they lost after we left" perspective. That is, IMO, not being able to see the strategic forest for the tactical trees.

A good read, regardless of personal perspective:

http://discover.wooster.edu/jgates/p...ar-in-vietnam/

[davidbfpo]

With the catalyst of Bob's Post and it's link I have merged eleven small threads into this main thread. Some had 9k views, but only one post.

When you search for Vietnam in thread titles there are just over thirty, but for the purposes of the history of the Vietnam War a small number, all closed appear very appropriate:

1) The Advisory or Advisor Challenge, with 102 posts and 90k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...hlight=vietnam
2) Vietnam collection (lessons plus), with 140 posts and 82k views:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...hlight=vietnam

Neither can be merged in, as the sequence of posts would be crazy.

[davidbfpo]

A new book 'A Great Place to Have a War: America in Laos and the Birth of a Military CIA' by Joshua Kurlantzick and a WoTR article reviews the arguments. It starts with:

If you work at it, you can make a case that Americans fought on the right side in Vietnam. There is an argument — not conclusive, but defensible — that with all its faults, the anti-Communist side offered South Vietnam’s people a freer and more prosperous future than they would face if the Communists won. That didn’t mean war was a wise choice or that its goal justified the death and destruction it caused. But Americans looking for some moral comfort could at least tell themselves that they were fighting for a better outcome for the Vietnamese. By contrast, it is harder to find anything morally defensible in American actions in Laos and Cambodia. U.S. operations in those countries, including among the heaviest bombing in military history, were conducted to support American objectives in Vietnam rather than for any achievable benefit for its smaller, weaker neighbors. That was also the reason for U.S. air support and military aid that kept weak, ineptly led local Laotian and Cambodian ground forces in the field long after it was clear they had no chance of winning against their stronger North Vietnamese enemies.

Link:https://warontherocks.com/2017/02/th...ormed-the-cia/

His Amazon bio:

Joshua Kurlantzick is a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. He has been a correspondent in Southeast Asia for The Economist, a columnist for Time, the foreign editor of the New Republic, a senior correspondent for the American Prospect, and a contributing writer for Mother Jones. He has written about Asia for publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine. He is the winner of the Luce Scholarship and was selected as a finalist for the Osborn Elliot prize, both for journalism in Asia. He is the author of four previous books on Asia. For more information on Kurlantzick, visit CFR.org.

Link to Amazon, with very mixed reviews:https://www.amazon.com/Great-Place-H...+to+have+a+war

[davidbfpo]

I have reviewed a number of the Vietnam-related threads in this area and merged eight of them into this the main thread.

Five others remain in this arena, I have added Vietnam to the title field so they can be readily identified. They remain separate as they are large and merging would destroy the posts in response. A larger number in various places refer to Vietnam.

Possibly the most significant is a "lessons learnt" thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=1041

[SWJ Blog]

Vietnam ’67: At Quang Nam, a Raid and a Reckoning

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Vietnam '67 - Bernard Fall: The Man Who Knew the War

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Was Vietnam Winnable?

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[SWJ Blog]

Ken Burns Talks About the Vietnam War, the Wall and His New Documentary

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[Azor]

By Robert Farley at War is Boring: https://warisboring.com/could-the-un...on-in-vietnam/

Introduction:

Mark Moyar, the scholar of U.S. foreign and military policy, recently had the opportunity to update an older argument on the viability of the Vietnam War.

Moyar argues that the historical consensus on the war is wrong on several points, and that in fact the United States could have won the war and preserved the Saigon government at acceptable cost.

While Moyar’s argument is worth consideration, he still fails to make his case against the long-standing consensus on the war.

Moyar's key points:

• South Vietnam was a viable state by 1972, afflicted but not overwhelmed by insurgency
• Local Communist forces in South Vietnam had been mortally wounded in 1968
• With U.S. support, South Vietnam could blunt and even defeat North Vietnamese offensives
• Saigon was far more democratic and less repressive than Hanoi
• The war was less unpopular in the U.S. at the time than it is presently

Farley’s “realities”:

• South Vietnam could not survive on its own in the way of South Korea
• Hanoi was unified whereas Saigon was prone to infighting
• The U.S. could not have stopped North Vietnamese aggression
• The war was unpopular enough that Nixon faced no opposition in 1972 for abandoning South Vietnam, and Ford could not generate any support for re-engagement in 1975
• The U.S. could have militarily won by invading and occupying North Vietnam or have merely remained engaged in the South indefinitely, but both options would have been very costly politically and materially

[Bob's World]

Gotta disagree with Mark, as he is arguing based upon the US narrative on the war, rather than the Vietnamese reality. The "states" of North and South Vietnam were legal fictions created by the US in an effort to deny the Vietnamese people the victory they had won to remove the French and attain a self determined government. The victors came from across Vietnam and were forced to withdraw into what became North Vietnam. Meanwhile the insurgency continued in the Maoist model of ebb and flow until they finally prevailed. Sure, we could have delayed their independence even longer than the 30 years we did, but it would have happened eventually. Conflicts are what they are, caring little for how they are named or perceived by various parties. The US completely misunderstood and mis- defined that conflict. A mistake we are repeating in a few places currently as well.

[davidbfpo]

There are a number of SWJ articles on this question and two caught my attention:

1) In 2009'A Better Understanding of the Vietnam War'byColonel Gian Gentile and there is a telling quote:

...the war could [not] have been 'won' in any meaningful sense at a moral or material cost most Americans deemed acceptable.

Link:http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...he-vietnam-war

2) In 2011 'Vietnam Postmortem: A Senseless Strategy' by David Maxwell, that is a pointer to a Parameters article by Colonel John Collins. This led to thirty-five comments. Amidst them is one by Ken White, cited in part, with my emphasis:

If we cannot discuss history and current activities then we may have to fight them again as you say -- but I do not believe it will be a like it or not problem. It will be a choice on our part. I for one submit that Vietnam was a mistake in all aspect

Link:http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/vie...eless-strategy