Was Vietnam winnable?

[pdf27]

PDF,
Nice tab in your avatar!

Cheers. Stole it from Arrse (British Army Rumour Service). Someone cooked it up during a thread about the various Walter Mitty type characters you get floating around - particularly those doing airsoft or paintball who cover themselves in wings, daggers and the like. It was suggested that the tab I've appropriated would be more relevant to them.
There's also a "Chairbourne Piefinder" badge with a plate, knife and fork between the "Chairbourne" and "Piefinder". I tried to find that to use as an avatar, but it's vanished into the forums.

The original thread is here, currently at 213 pages. Sadly, some of the best photos (such as the guy who must have been at least 20 stone dressed up as a WW2 Fallschirmjaeger parked on a tiny motorbike) are no longer live.

[leib10]

Several factors would have to be rectified:

1. The South's gov't and the ARVN would have to be cleansed of corruption and incompetence. Many position appointments were not made by merit but rather by who could pay the highest price for them. The ARVN, though it made a few valiant efforts, was simply too poorly led to effectively stay cohesive and fight the NVA. Even if the North surrendered, incursions into the South would've probably started again once we left.

2. The South's unity had to be strengthened. The Diem regime was excellent at dividing the country and turning many into Communist sympathizers. "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

3. Unrestricted warfare against the North, including a full-scale invasion of the North and using the threat of the A-bomb. This would've angered the Soviets and Chinese, but it's doubtful that they would've laid their existence on the line for the Vietnamese.

[gunnut]

That's a tricky question.

Was Vietnam winnable? Depends...

What would be the definition of "winning?"

If by winning you mean the US and South Vietnamese Army take over North Vietnam, establishing a democracy, develop and eventually thrive like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, all during the 70s and 80s, then no. I don't think that would have happened.

If by winning you mean at the tactical level that we can kill VC by the thousands, yes, we could win.

If by winning you mean in the short term (communists retreat from Vietnam) during the 60s and 70s, then no.

If by winning you mean in the long term as in 50 years, then yes, we can win. In fact, we are winning right now. Capitalism is taking hold in Vietnam as of now and they are going the way of China rather than the old Soviet Union.

[Shek]

1. The South's gov't and the ARVN would have to be cleansed of corruption and incompetence. Many position appointments were not made by merit but rather by who could pay the highest price for them. The ARVN, though it made a few valiant efforts, was simply too poorly led to effectively stay cohesive and fight the NVA. Even if the North surrendered, incursions into the South would've probably started again once we left.

The ARVN had numerous competent generals in it; while it was an inefficient way to make the right promotions, Thieu had the guts at least to fire generals and replace them with proven ones when the fired generals proved their incompetence under battle. Not as effective as firing them before they kill soldiers, but its more than what the US Army has demonstrated in Iraq, where we haven't fired a single general.

As far as incursions go, it took NVN two years to prepare the 1975 push - they were spent logistically after 1972. If all the purse string limitations on military action hadn't been placed: the bombing of the HCM trail hadn't been enacted, the limitations on operations in Vietnam, then a small steady state force advising SVN coupled with air power could have continued to have made these incursions strategically ineffective and costly for the USSR/China to supply.

[ArmchairGeneral]

When my roommate was taking Vietnamese history, he told me that at one time the mayor of Saigon sold the entire police dept to the Saigon mob. Of course, when they eventually decided to clean up Saigon, they found themselves fighting against the mob and police.

[-{SpoonmaN}-]

Basically the US failed in Vietnam due to a lack of commitment, both in sustaining the war effort, and in expanding it to eliminate the NVA safe areas. That being said, I fully understand every restriction that was placed on the USAF in Vietnam, it was just a product of the times.
There were also some issues with the failure to hold ground effectively (an understandable mistake) and an overall lack of understanding about how to fight an insurgency as vicious as that of the VC. The Australian Military Forces did much better for a Force their size because we'd been training and preparing for just such a war, so we knew how to fight guerillas more effectively, whereas you guys hadn't had the Malaya experience under your belt, and did not really understand that insurgencies are best beaten through interdiction and publicity, not through attrition.

[akhiluppal]

many of you have forgetten the major cause of loss of Vietnam
Karma Power!!!!!
Those weed smoking hipies caused America to lose!!!
If they invested more on Propaganda, Less on carpet bombing villiages and spraying chemicals on the Viet-cong they would have a better chance of winning support of the public. Also instead of drafting people in america they should have drafted people in south vietnam.

[Fortudinae]

Was the Vietnam War winnable?
Oxymoron.
The "Vietnam War" was WON by the Allies.

The Domino Theory.
The Left thought it was a big joke back then, poopooing it as silly - however it was the aim of the "Vietnam War".
As soon as that aim was considered fulfilled, the Allies withdrew and left the communists to whack on each other. Nothing else they could do.
The cream of the NVA had been destroyed; Thailand had completed a defense road network on their border. The Soviet Gambit was over; they knew they wouldn't obtain their target - Malaya and the Singapore Strait. The NVA itself ended the Chicom move in that direction. The Chicoms have shifted their attention to Borneo now (good luck with that one).

The US made it obvious as all getout - the RVN regime meant nothing to them; they took no guff from Diem and left him out to dry. Survival of the Saigon regime (corrupt as a bag of bugs) was not the war aim.

The strategic hamlet concept that defeated the Chicom attempt on Malaya was used in Vietnam.

Unfortunately the incredibly incompetent Saigon regime managed to put a Viet Cong operative in charge of the program! Way to go you Mutts!

It would have worked as well as it did in Malaya and the Boer War (where it first became a concept). It was massively successful in Kenya as well. COIN warfare always succeeds where the tactic of strategic hamlets is properly used.

The first target of the Chinese was Malaya - they wanted the Straits too - and a footrace between the Chicoms and Russia began.

The question is moot - the Allies did win the SEADomino War - of which SVietnam was just one theater in six - the NVietnamese, Laotian, SVietnamese, Cambodian, Thai and Malayan theaters.

The eastern passage into the Indian Ocean did not fall, which was the aim of it all.

[Fortudinae]

many of you have forgetten the major cause of loss of Vietnam
Karma Power!!!!!
Those weed smoking hipies caused America to lose!!!
If they invested more on Propaganda, Less on carpet bombing villiages and spraying chemicals on the Viet-cong they would have a better chance of winning support of the public. Also instead of drafting people in america they should have drafted people in south vietnam.

As I recall the draft age for the ARVN was 16.
For the VC it was 2.

[Rifleman]

I believe a military victory was possible, meaning the insurgency could have been stopped and the communists prevented from taking control of South Vietnam.

It would still be unwinnable in the long run.

After a military victory the combat forces go home and a lesser number of occupation forces garrison the country, sort of like in Europe after WWII. Soon after that the guerrilla war and terrorism starts again and we have the U.S. version of Northern Ireland for the next 25 years.....at least.

The public was going to get tired of it no matter what.

[Shek]

The strategic hamlet concept that defeated the Chicom attempt on Malaya was used in Vietnam.

***

It would have worked as well as it did in Malaya and the Boer War (where it first became a concept). It was massively successful in Kenya as well. COIN warfare always succeeds where the tactic of strategic hamlets is properly used.

The strategic hamlet in Malaya had mixed success, and in the end, was not program that resulted in success in Malaya. Were it not for the Korean War, and the boom in the tin industry, the strategic hamlet program in Malaya would have been a complete disaster, as it was ineptly funded in the beginning and acted in favor of the Malayan Communist Party by providing a more centrally located population to target, a population that was removed from its land. Furthermore, the hamlet only serves its purpose while the people are in the hamlet - once they have to leave during the day to work the fields, they are once again easy targets for guerillas to intimidate.

[Shek]

My reading on topics goes in spurts, and right now, I've picked up two books on Vietnam that I plan on reading by the end of my Christmas vacation:

A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam

On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War

While I think that I will really enjoy the book on John Paul Vann, one of the early themes that has emerged within the first ten pages is that Vietnam was "unwinnable."

Brigadier Ray:

Sir,
I just wanted to let you know that I've recently added the Ugly American to my wish list. It's been referenced nearly a dozen times by Sheehan in A Bright Shining Lie.

One of my future COIN to study will be the Huk rebellion in the PI and the role of Lansdale in it, which was the inspiration for the Ugly American - I'm curious if anyone has some recommended reads on this.

[Fortudinae]

There may be such a thing as Scotch Whisky
There may be such a thing as Scotch Candy

However there is nae such a thing as a Scotchman.

Remember that if ye ere go to Scot Land.

In Pittsborough they pronounce it YWNS.

[Shek]

There may be such a thing as Scotch Whisky
There may be such a thing as Scotch Candy

However there is nae such a thing as a Scotchman.

Remember that if ye ere go to Scot Land.

In Pittsborough they pronounce it YWNS.

It's kind of early to be drinking Scotch out there in AZ, even with it being the holidays and all

[Officer of Engineers]

Well, here's the other side, about the only country who believed the US would lose the Vietnam War was North Vietnam. Neither Moscow nor Beijing expected Hanoi to prevail, even after the American withdrawl.