Defeat Factors

[Mike Chambord]

Hello

I am required to do an extended essay on why the USA lost in Vietnam, covering all "defeat factors" ie poor morale, language, unused to guerilla warfare, and media influences. I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some material on this.

Thanks

Mike

[zenpundit]

I would look in the H-Diplo archives from 1999 -2006; there are a great many Vietnam War threads containing intense debates by diplomatic historians and political scientists, many of whom are specialists and/or vietnam vets over every aspect of the war. Plenty of bibliographic sources.

H-War would no doubt be a good place to look as well.

[DDilegge]

... at our very own SWJ Reference Library - the Vietnam section. That said, there are many, many "non-defeat factors" contained in the references - good things that must be drawn on as true lessons learned - the good, the bad and the ugly. Moreover, make sure to address the political and information (media) components in your paper - do not focus just on the military. In many cases the former drove the later.

[Stratiotes]

Yes - I would agree about not just focusing on the military aspects.

There is a new paper out now at the SSI site about "what went wrong in the Iraq war" and one of the points made is perhaps the biggest failure was assuming the military option could bring the results being sought. Perhaps the problem is not a military one but the idea that they were trying to resolve a non-military problem with a military solution.

[Merv Benson]

Two books I recommend are Strategy for Defeat, by Admiral U.S.G. Sharp and Dereliction of Duty, by H.R. McMaster. Admiral Shap focuses on the air war over North Vietnam, while McMaster focuses on the war in the Pentagon. The two are somewhat interrelated when it comes to the militaries push for the "hard knock" and the restraint imposed by the Secretary of Defense and the President.

Of course there were other factors that caused the defeat. Many believe, including the communist, that if the US had cut the Ho Chi Minh trail the communist aggression would have failed. Another factor was the resistance to providing the force requested by the military effected the tactics and strategy that could be used. During the entire course of the war the US was kept on the strategic defensive by politicians who hoped that fighting the communist to a draw would force them to quit.

Another book that is interesting is The Secret War Against Hanoi, by Richard H. Shultz, Jr. This book focuses on Kennedy and Johnson's attempt to mirror the communist strategy.

[Brian B]

You might read "Unheralded Victory" by Mark Woodruff. In the last 1/3 of his book he dissects what he considers to be all of the "myths" from the Vietnam War and reasons why we lost. It would not only provide you a good list to work from, but also give you the other side of the debate. Your choice whether you agree with him or not.

"How Democracies Lose Small Wars" by Gil Merom is a good study (akin to a doctoral thesis) on the subject as titled. From about page 233 on, he talks specifically about Vietnam.

"The Savage Wars of Peace" by Max Boot gives some perspective starting with Chapter 13.

You could also contact Dr. Peter Maslowski at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln. Don't have his e-mail handy, but you can track it through the University website. He's a Vietnam expert and I suspect he'll be more than happy to point you in the direction of the loss in Vietnam.

Good luck!