Could one man have shortened the VN war?

[Sabrejet]

An interesting hypothesis.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23037957

 

 

[Sabrejet]

VN War timeline.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-16568035

[ScottG]

We should also include the works of Bernard Fall in this discussion. "Street Without Joy" and "Hell in a Very Small Place" along with the numerous reports he did for the government should have caused many to listen. Unlike Kellen, Fall died in Vietnam on the very road he wrote about. Scott.

[ajbUSWM]

An interesting hypothesis.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23037957

 

 

 

Of course under this argument, anytime the communists want to over take and destroy a country, we should drop our guns and run because they aren't going to stop. I would assume that Konrad Kellen told us the North Koreans/Chinese would never stop and we should surrender South Korea.

 

The BBC often overlooks key facts in their articles ... some say it is intentional. The US homeland communists undermining of the war effort was more effective for the communists fighting in the battlefields. Also, if you had interviewed captured Nazis through 1943, they would have said the same. Should we have surrendered as well? Nonsense.

 

America's fight for liberty in Korea and Vietnam prevented the worldwide domination of communism. If we had listed to Konrad Kellen and author Malcolm Gladwell ... we would have witnessed 50 Cambodian killing fields and a world that looks like present day North Korea.

 

I wonder if Malcolm Gladwell interviewed South Koreans to ask if the Americans should have surrendered in 1952 based on Konrad Kellen's vision? Oops... he left that out. Intentionally no doubt. Selective revisionism.

[J_Andrews]

Re #4: Amen!

 

The BBC article is correct on what the "Washington Leadership" had as their "mindset": the Great Powerful U.S. Will Save Southeast Asia, no problem. Lots of bombs, lots of conventional ground troops, lots of Rand Corp studies and data!

 

But, to my small experience, this was most pronounced in the LBJ era. Not as "ripe" in the precursor JFK years, and often called into question (within the Army and elsewhere in govt) in the Nixon years.

 

I believe that if "Vietnamization" had run its course, Watergate never happened, AND the 1972-1974 crop of left-wing Congressmen had not deliberately betrayed the RVN, "we" (???) would have won. (NOTE: A true, lasting victory would then have required an RVN invasion and subjugation of NVN, IMHO.)

[Jack's Son]

Too many "IF's" in this question.

[Sabrejet]

At the end of the day, and after weighing the pros and cons, the answer is probably "Hell no!"

[ajbUSWM]

I guess the question is... if we had listed to "expert" Konrad Kellen and never entered Vietnam, where would the killing fields stop? Would North Korea been emboldened to try again? Of course with no resistance, all of Asian (except Japan) would be communist today which is probably what author Malcolm Gladwell is hoping for.

[Bob Hudson]

By the time the US got involved in fighting in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh and his men in black had been fighting the Vichy French, the Japanese and de Gaulle's France for 20 years: that force was quite different in experience, tactics and motivation than the enemy we faced during the Korean War.

[skautdog]

A very interesting article and certainly with merit for thought. Rule of war # 1: Know your enemy.

 

However, it is also true that for many years the US did not prosecute the war as we did WWII. We bombed the same non strategic bridges and factories over and over instead of unleashing our full military might on the North Vietnam. In WWII we leveled entire cities and in the VN war were more concerned about world opinion and "collateral damage" than with defeating an enemy. Coupled with a doomed to fail strategic philosophy (i.e. not fighting to defeat the enemy) was the extreme left influence at home which further affected military and political decisions regarding the war. For example, Tet 1968 was a significant military allied victory yet was played in the press as a huge defeat. When the President of the United States is personally selecting bombing targets on a daily basis, the military does not have much chance to effect a militarily significant strategic or tactical plan to defeat the enemy. For grunts in the field this often meant not searching or returning fire coming from a village as the village was "pacified."

 

A good read on this subject is A Better War, The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam, by Lewis Sorley. Mr. Sorley is a West Point graduate with a Doctorate from Johns Hopkins University.

 

Ken

[ajbUSWM]

Interesting ... I asked an intelligence officer who was in Vietnam if we could have won the war. He said we already had won the war ... the Tet Offensive set the enemy back two years or more. But the left influences at home prevented us from securing the victory.

 

When they were singing "Give Peace A Chance" in the US... what they meant was "Surrender! Surrender!"

 

It is a shame that our service men and women had to fight two wars; the one in Vietnam and the one when they came home.

[ajbUSWM]

By the way... the intelligence officer was a big player... not a low-level person.

[Sabrejet]

Fast forward almost forty years. For "Vietnamisation" substitute "Afghanisation". Same underlying principle and probably the same end result?

[ajbUSWM]

Fast forward almost forty years. For "Vietnamisation" substitute "Afghanisation". Same underlying principle and probably the same end result?

 

Excellent point. Although the spread of communism and Islamic extremism are two vastly different problems. Communism can be stopped and derailed... so far... the only way to stop Islamic extremism is to destroy it.

 

On the other hand... the 10 year call for an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East is similar to the call for a communist far east. The difference is that we stopped the latter .. and are helping the caliphate (for reasons I cannot understand).

[rr01]

Fast forward almost forty years. For "Vietnamisation" substitute "Afghanisation". Same underlying principle and probably the same end result?

My very exact thought upon seeing this topic. Or maybe more about who will be the one man or woman to deter the next conflict? How will we know when that one person is upon us? How will we respond?

[bunkerhillburning]

Interesting ... I asked an intelligence officer who was in Vietnam if we could have won the war. He said we already had won the war ... the Tet Offensive set the enemy back two years or more. But the left influences at home prevented us from securing the victory.

 

When they were singing "Give Peace A Chance" in the US... what they meant was "Surrender! Surrender!"

 

It is a shame that our service men and women had to fight two wars; the one in Vietnam and the one when they came home.

 

I should have saved the article but a number of very high ranking NV have said the anti war protest movement strengthened their resolve not to surrender. That they would have had it not been for them.

[Jack's Son]

Fast forward almost forty years. For "Vietnamisation" substitute "Afghanisation". Same underlying principle and probably the same end result?

All too true! When will we ever learn that one way of government will not work in the entire world.

[ajbUSWM]

Understood. But if we do nothing... then what? Stopping National Socialism (Nazis) and Communism (China/North Korea) in the 40s and 50s has been critical to world peace. Some could argue that giving North Vietnam, Soviet Union and China a bloody nose in Vietnam made them unable to meet their long-term goal of total Far East domination. South Korea still thanks us today.

 

If we can isolate the threats, then that is perhaps the way to go (as in Afghanistan).

[Bob Hudson]

Fast forward almost forty years. For "Vietnamisation" substitute "Afghanisation". Same underlying principle and probably the same end result?

The Vietnamese had a sense of nation that just doesn't exist in places like Afghanistan, where tribalism rules. In Vietnam. the question was would the North's central government also become the South's central government? The commonality seems to be that the US had more concern for the outcome than do the people who live in those places. The South Vietnamese seemed not to want to fight the war and the Afghans don't seem to put much faith in the idea that a central government can protect them.

[skautdog]

Jack's Son "All too true! When will we ever learn that one way of government will not work in the entire world".

 

I agree. Put another way, when will we stop killing our young men and women on meaningless wars which we have no intention of being the victor?

 

Yes, sir, we are in "Afghanisation" and no telling what ill conceived mess we'll jump into next.

 

Ken

(IN platoon leader, VN, retired US Army)

[Jack's Son]

Let's just admit to ourselves that we go to war for economics and politics, not right or wrong. The only person who can get us out of these situations, is the person who puts us IN these situations!

[ajbUSWM]

The Vietnamese had a sense of nation that just doesn't exist in places like Afghanistan, where tribalism rules. In Vietnam. the question was would the North's central government also become the South's central government? The commonality seems to be that the US had more concern for the outcome than do the people who live in those places. The South Vietnamese seemed not to want to fight the war and the Afghans don't seem to put much faith in the idea that a central government can protect them.

 

Well.. that is true. That was the problem. In contrast, the South Koreans knew what the invasion meant and wanted to fight it off. And to this day are the most grateful of all countries.

[ajbUSWM]

Let's just admit to ourselves that we go to war for economics and politics, not right or wrong. The only person who can get us out of these situations, is the person who puts us IN these situations!

 

What about the Korean War?

[m1ashooter]

Yes one man could have shortened the war. All LBJ had to do was let General Lemay and the Strategic Air Command loose at the beginning of the war.

[skautdog]

Yes one man could have shortened the war. All LBJ had to do was let General Lemay and the Strategic Air Command loose at the beginning of the war.

 

My point above. We should stop killing our young men and women if we don't intend to be the victor (as difficult as that is to define). That is, "going to war" without a clear defined reason for war, winning the war, and going home.

 

Ken