Counterinsurgency For U.S. Government Policymakers

[Ken White]

Please elaborate on your comment concerning Vietnam War strategy; I'd love to read your thoughts!
Very respectfully,
Invictus

Sounds like masochism to me...

It's all in the books, idealistic WH looks for a way to boost the economy, get the nation out of the doldrums and spread democracy, seizes on Viet Nam as a likely candidate -- and has Eisnehower's treaty as a fall guy for the decision -- and away we go. (Moral: Idealism is dangerous)

Joint Chiefs aren't pleased with the idea so changes are made there and the buildup begins. Paul Harkins was ComUSMACV and tried to get the VC to stand up and fight like men -- and tried to get the south Viet Namese to do the same thing. Little success either way. (Moral: Can't change the culture)

Kennedy is shot, Johnson took over. Johnson was breathtakingly shrewd; he was also a great and crooked politician -- but knew zilch about geo politics (as was true of MacNamara and Rusk wasn't much better off) -- and he decided to cement his reelection by upping the war several notches.

Westmoreland replaced Harkins and used US troops to try to get the VC (who were being chewed up pretty bad by several things and were increasingly replaced by the PAVN, later NVA) to stand and fight. They generally didn't elect to do that, when they did they got whipped (which was why they normally tried to avoid it, d'oh...). The South Viet Namese reaction to that was to hang back to husband strength because they knew we'd leave. (Morals: [1] "Corrupt" does not mean stupid; [2] One can win battles and lose the war)

Long story short; we tried to fight a European style war in the rice paddies from 1962 until late 1968 because of two Euro-centric Generals. When Abrams took over and CORDS got going, the war turned around and was effectively won by 1973. It is very important to note that the final tactical solution was a mix of COIN doctrine plus Armor * and infantry tactical battles suited to the terrain and the enemy both relying on good intel. Unfortunately or fortunately (viewpoint dependent) US domestic politics -- which started the war in the first place -- ended it.

ERRATA: Apologies to RTK, CavGuy, Ironhorse, Gian and all the other Treadh... er, Tankers and Cavalrymen for omitting Armor above (*). I plead old age; last time I ran the TCPC was in an M41A1C...

NOTE: That is not to say that the politicians 'lost' the war, they did not. Nor did the Media 'lose' it for us; they didn't help but they don't have nearly as much power as they like to think. First there is no lose or win, no 'victory' or 'defeat' in any modern insurgency. Second, a satisfactory outcome was not reached because the Army fought the wrong war; took to long to get its act together though it eventually did but by the time they did, the American people and their elected pols had tired of it. It's far more complicated than that but that's the gist.

I can remember standing on the beach at Tuy Hoa in 1966 and saying "We'll be here another 10 years, spend fifty billion and get 100K KIA all to give Uncle Ho 15 airfields." That doesn't mean I was particulalry prescient, a number of Officers and senior NCOs believed along those lines. I was off on the time and the numbers but fortunately, I was too high on everything, particularly the KIA, except the dollars. However, it's the thought that counts...

Two lessons out of Viet Nam appropriate today are; one does not always get to fight the war one wishes to fight, own politicians and the enemy have votes in that. That and be very careful to do your homework BEFORE you decide to commit troops and be very aware that Americans do not care that much about casualties, they expect them in a war and will give you a couple of years but then they want progress or cessation.

On that first point, I'd note that every single war or major operation outside CONUS in which we have engaged since 1945; from the Greek Civil War forward has been one picked by the Politicians we elected and was decidedly not one with which the Armed Forces really wanted to be involved or one for which they were really prepared (we would've flat been prepared for a land war in Europe, though...) Note further that only a few have had satisfactory conclusions.

I think there's a message in there somewhere...