Born in 1956, I, for the most part, missed Vietnam. On May 14, 1975, I went to USAF basic training, exactly one week after the Vietnam era officially ended (May 7, 1975). I am not ashamed to say that every day, I thank my personal God for missing Vietnam. As a boy, I grew up watching the price of this brutal war every day and saw William Westmoreland on TV quite a bit, especially when he addressed the Congress. After a 30-year military and civil service career with the USAF and Army, my sympathies remain, not with him, but with the men on the ground -- the grunt who paid the price for WW's strategic fantasies. Again, not with the generals, and certainly not with the politicians in power, but with them. God bless them.
Lost opportunity for a short war. In early 1965 the Joint Chiefs presented Johnson with what could have been a war-winning strategy, but was contrary to the way the war was then being directed by Johnson and McNamara. The Chiefs proposed an immediate and massive air bombing campaign code named LINEBACKER against Hanoi, and Haiphong, the North’s principal port. A fierce, intense, short campaign, they believed, would bring the North to discussion of terms for peace. At the time, the North’s air defenses were weak; chances of operational success were high. In four stages over thirteen weeks the US would deploy waves of B- 52s and fighter bombers to destroy the North’s air forces, mine its rivers and harbors, destroy its civil support infrastructure and power grid, isolate it from China, and annihilate as much of its political leadership as possible. The first waves of B-52s were actually inbound to targets in Vietnam when the operation was cancelled on recommendation of Secretary of Defense McNamara, who advocated a ‘gradualist’ escalation of bombing against selected and tightly-controlled targets in the North. Ironically Nixon’s decision to unleash B-52s against Hanoi in 1972, which was instrumental in finally driving the North to negotiate, was code named LiNEBACKER II.
I didn’t know that. So McNamara was a “gradualist.” And in hindsight that seems condemning. But for those of us who lived through those times we have to remember that Americans we’re extremely concerned not to trigger a nuclear war.It’s very hard for us to put ourselves in decision-makers places.
NO DOUBT: Over 58,000 Americans would have NOT lost their lives if McNamara's "Gradualist" policy was "sh-t canned" in 1964 and the LINEBACKER approach was used instead.
Westmoreland didn't lose the Vietnam War because it was unwinnable in the first place. The North had all its weaponry and other supplies provided by China which bordered them. We were unable to cut the supply trails by which the North maintained the VC. So long as the North maintained the VC, they were almost impossible to uproot. They could hide and pick the time and place for ambushes. Mostly, it was a war of booby traps and sniping. To win the war in Vietnam, we would have had to greatly expand operations, including sealing off the Chinese border with the North. Such action risked conflict with China and the Soviet Union. No U.S. politician dared such a move because an uproar would have followed and intense scrutiny as to why we were there the first place. The VC were never destroyed. At the beginning of Tet, they possessed a field force of 240,000. Casualties from Tet phase one were 48,000. Tet phase two cost 24,000 and Tet three 20,000. The first statistic comes from "The Pentagon Papers", P. 617. The other two from Wiki. So out of a starting force of 240,000 VC, 148,000 survived. The North would later replace one-third of the losses, sending in some 30,000 PAVN regulars. Hence, by the middle of 1968 the VC still possessed 180,000 troops, with the PAVN component being better armed. Tet failed to accomplish its goal of seizing the major cities. But as consolation, since the urban fighting drew in most of the U.S. and ARVN forces, it left a vacuum in the countryside the VC filled., setting back the pacification program. This is not exactly total destruction. The Kit Carson program later whittled the VC down further, but not enough to put them out of action. Yes, the bombing of Hanoi at the end of 1972 to 1973 forced the North to the negotiation table. But the truce which followed wasn't much of a victory. The VC retained control of the countryside they held in the South.. American ground forces were almost entirely gone.. Nixon knew the war was lost the day he took office. His solution, "Vietnamization" was to transfer the burden of war to the South Vietnamese. As a teenager, I knew from returning vets the ARVN was no match for the North. So Nixon got us out of the war, but by abandoning the South. As for Congress, they were simply sick of the whole affair. They were lied to. South Vietnam was a dictatorship, not a democracy. Much of the aid we sent ended up on the black market, especially gasoline. The idea of risking American lives to prop up such a rotten regime was anathema at that point. The lesson to be learned from Vietnam is that we were maneuvered into it by the CIA, specifically by way of its 34A plans which led to the Gulf of Tonkin. We can conclude the agency operates outside the law and civilian control, and represents an ongoing threat to undermine U.S.foreign policy in the pursuit of its own goals.
Delusional, unhinged and quite frankly borderline mentally ill opinion so heavily rooted in ancient orthodox historiography and outright myths that your version of reality is totally separate from that of any real person.
You always send in an army to overwhelmingly win, never to sit back and contain. Queasiness back home at the horrors of war should never sit, and should never be permitted to sit, on an army's conscience.
Some mistakes and misunderstood about Vietnam War! General Westmoreland DO his best and He Win after all by and with Korea US Alliance! Do you not agree with me ? That's OK! I don't mind ~~ because of American.
I have a different view. In 1967 Westmorland made repeated statements about how well the war was going, giving people the impression that it was just a matter of months. In January 1968 there was the Tet Offensive in which it was clearly shown that the Americans had no control whatsoever of the situation. Every major city and town and all the state capitals in South Vietnam were invaded by the north whose operatives murdered local leaders and intelligencia, as communists do. Even Saigon was in Peril, including the US Embassy of all things which was a hairsbreadth from being overrun. This is where people rightfully lost confidence in Westmoteland. The tet offensive was really where are the American people lost faith in the government. Johnson announced he would not run for reelection, McNamara and Westmoreland were kicked upstairs. In the same year there were the murders of Dr. King and RFK, and the riots at the Democratic convention. The North Vietnamese achieved what they intended with the Tet offensive, i.e. to turn public sentiment against the war-because anyone could see the leaders, including Westmoreland, were clueless about what was really happening in Vietnam. And he was there, boots on the ground. There was no excuse for bragging about his accomplishments only weeks before the largest communist offensive of the war. Then, of course, there was McNamara. But that’s another story of deceit/cluelessness.
Westmoreland wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Neo conservative maniac, you can be good on the battlefield. But you have political autism, only think tactically, not strategically then it ends in disaster. The Vietnam war radicalized the youth, that the US dollar was no longer tied to gold. America has an unbeatable ability to destroy its brand and economy, by absolutist goals.@@Cohen.the.Worrier
Westmorland did NOT lose he Vietnam War. It was lost in Washington, NOT Vietnam by cowardly leftists (not all of them Democrats) who excoriated anyone who even breathed the word "Victory." We started losing in Korea and we have been losing ever since. Don't blame Westmorland.
Typical government b.s. blame some one whos not around to defend himself.I met General Westmorland late 70's ,i told him a thousand years from now history will remember him not liberals bas$%$
I really think this analysis is nonsense. ultimately it doesn't matter how well equipped the south was, was look at the afghan government vs the taliban. the west are alway going to back the corrupt, and you can pour men, money and time down that hole but it isn't going to win, blaming the soldiers, equipment and strategy is superficial and easy. winning hearts and minds sounds glib and fluffy, but ultimately if it can't be done then don't bother sending people to fight.
Incoherent with poor English to the point of near illiteracy. I was going to say something about the ANA and ARVN not being comparable forces at all and South Vietnam having deeply rooted reasons to fight such as not being murdered for being Catholic but your lack of comprehension of the English language makes whatever point you're trying to get across impossible to sift out.
Born in 1956, I, for the most part, missed Vietnam. On May 14, 1975, I went to USAF basic training, exactly one week after the Vietnam era officially ended (May 7, 1975). I am not ashamed to say that every day, I thank my personal God for missing Vietnam. As a boy, I grew up watching the price of this brutal war every day and saw William Westmoreland on TV quite a bit, especially when he addressed the Congress. After a 30-year military and civil service career with the USAF and Army, my sympathies remain, not with him, but with the men on the ground -- the grunt who paid the price for WW's strategic fantasies. Again, not with the generals, and certainly not with the politicians in power, but with them. God bless them.
Lost opportunity for a short war. In early 1965 the Joint Chiefs presented Johnson with what could have been a war-winning strategy, but was contrary to the way the war was then being directed by Johnson and McNamara.
The Chiefs proposed an immediate and massive air bombing campaign code named LINEBACKER against Hanoi, and Haiphong, the North’s principal port. A fierce, intense, short campaign, they believed, would bring the North to discussion of terms for peace.
At the time, the North’s air defenses were weak; chances of operational success were high. In four stages over thirteen weeks the US would deploy waves of B- 52s and fighter bombers to destroy the North’s air forces, mine its rivers and harbors, destroy its civil support infrastructure and power grid, isolate it from China, and annihilate as much of its political leadership as possible.
The first waves of B-52s were actually inbound to targets in Vietnam when the operation was cancelled on recommendation of Secretary of Defense McNamara, who advocated a ‘gradualist’ escalation of bombing against selected and tightly-controlled targets in the North. Ironically Nixon’s decision to unleash B-52s against Hanoi in 1972, which was instrumental in finally driving the North to negotiate, was code named LiNEBACKER II.
good thing the plan was cancelled. it would have killed a lot of innocent people who had nothing to do with the war.
I didn’t know that. So McNamara was a “gradualist.” And in hindsight that seems condemning. But for those of us who lived through those times we have to remember that Americans we’re extremely concerned not to trigger a nuclear war.It’s very hard for us to put ourselves in decision-makers places.
NO DOUBT: Over 58,000 Americans would have NOT lost their lives if McNamara's "Gradualist" policy was "sh-t canned" in 1964 and the LINEBACKER approach was used instead.
Thank you for bringing this sickening truth to the forefront. So sad.
This is a wonderful lecture that filled a hole in my knowledge. Thank you Dr Sorley and TheUSAHEC.
The man once said that he did not study the battle of Dien Bien Phu. Shocking. In South Africa we studied this battle in grade 10.
Thank you for bringing this story to afront. 😀
Excellent
WestmorelandBros... its over
Westmoreland didn't lose the Vietnam War because it was unwinnable in the first place. The North had all its weaponry and other supplies provided by China which bordered them. We were unable to cut the supply trails by which the North maintained the VC. So long as the North maintained the VC, they were almost impossible to uproot. They could hide and pick the time and place for ambushes. Mostly, it was a war of booby traps and sniping. To win the war in Vietnam, we would have had to greatly expand operations, including sealing off the Chinese border with the North. Such action risked conflict with China and the Soviet Union. No U.S. politician dared such a move because an uproar would have followed and intense scrutiny as to why we were there the first place.
The VC were never destroyed. At the beginning of Tet, they possessed a field force of 240,000. Casualties from Tet phase one were 48,000. Tet phase two cost 24,000 and Tet three 20,000. The first statistic comes from "The Pentagon Papers", P. 617. The other two from Wiki. So out of a starting force of 240,000 VC, 148,000 survived. The North would later replace one-third of the losses, sending in some 30,000 PAVN regulars. Hence, by the middle of 1968 the VC still possessed 180,000 troops, with the PAVN component being better armed. Tet failed to accomplish its goal of seizing the major cities. But as consolation, since the urban fighting drew in most of the U.S. and ARVN forces, it left a vacuum in the countryside the VC filled., setting back the pacification program. This is not exactly total destruction. The Kit Carson program later whittled the VC down further, but not enough to put them out of action.
Yes, the bombing of Hanoi at the end of 1972 to 1973 forced the North to the negotiation table. But the truce which followed wasn't much of a victory. The VC retained control of the countryside they held in the South.. American ground forces were almost entirely gone.. Nixon knew the war was lost the day he took office. His solution, "Vietnamization" was to transfer the burden of war to the South Vietnamese. As a teenager, I knew from returning vets the ARVN was no match for the North. So Nixon got us out of the war, but by abandoning the South.
As for Congress, they were simply sick of the whole affair. They were lied to. South Vietnam was a dictatorship, not a democracy. Much of the aid we sent ended up on the black market, especially gasoline. The idea of risking American lives to prop up such a rotten regime was anathema at that point.
The lesson to be learned from Vietnam is that we were maneuvered into it by the CIA, specifically by way of its 34A plans which led to the Gulf of Tonkin. We can conclude the agency operates outside the law and civilian control, and represents an ongoing threat to undermine U.S.foreign policy in the pursuit of its own goals.
Delusional, unhinged and quite frankly borderline mentally ill opinion so heavily rooted in ancient orthodox historiography and outright myths that your version of reality is totally separate from that of any real person.
You always send in an army to overwhelmingly win, never to sit back and contain. Queasiness back home at the horrors of war should never sit, and should never be permitted to sit, on an
army's conscience.
He actually makes a case for Westmoreland being a great General.
Some mistakes and misunderstood about Vietnam War! General Westmoreland DO his best and He Win after all by and with Korea US Alliance!
Do you not agree with me ? That's OK! I don't mind ~~
because of American.
General Westmorland was a great Military Officer it was not his fault that Politicans in Washington DC gave up on Vietnam after they started the War.
This is what you got from the lecture? 🤷♂
I have a different view. In 1967 Westmorland made repeated statements about how well the war was going, giving people the impression that it was just a matter of months.
In January 1968 there was the Tet Offensive in which it was clearly shown that the Americans had no control whatsoever of the situation. Every major city and town and all the state capitals in South Vietnam were invaded by the north whose operatives murdered local leaders and intelligencia, as communists do.
Even Saigon was in Peril, including the US Embassy of all things which was a hairsbreadth from being overrun.
This is where people rightfully lost confidence in Westmoteland.
The tet offensive was really where are the American people lost faith in the government. Johnson announced he would not run for reelection, McNamara and Westmoreland were kicked upstairs. In the same year there were the murders of Dr. King and RFK, and the riots at the Democratic convention.
The North Vietnamese achieved what they intended with the Tet offensive, i.e. to turn public sentiment against the war-because anyone could see the leaders, including Westmoreland, were clueless about what was really happening in Vietnam. And he was there, boots on the ground. There was no excuse for bragging about his accomplishments only weeks before the largest communist offensive of the war.
Then, of course, there was McNamara. But that’s another story of deceit/cluelessness.
Westmoreland wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Neo conservative maniac, you can be good on the battlefield. But you have political autism, only think tactically, not strategically then it ends in disaster. The Vietnam war radicalized the youth, that the US dollar was no longer tied to gold. America has an unbeatable ability to destroy its brand and economy, by absolutist goals.@@Cohen.the.Worrier
Westmorland did NOT lose he Vietnam War. It was lost in Washington, NOT Vietnam by cowardly leftists (not all of them Democrats) who excoriated anyone who even breathed the word "Victory." We started losing in Korea and we have been losing ever since. Don't blame Westmorland.
You didn’t watch the lecture or read the book, did you?
Typical government b.s. blame some one whos not around to defend himself.I met General Westmorland late 70's ,i told him a thousand years from now history will remember him not liberals bas$%$
What a terrible epithet... & what a terrible "gig" for a general.
I really think this analysis is nonsense. ultimately it doesn't matter how well equipped the south was, was look at the afghan government vs the taliban. the west are alway going to back the corrupt, and you can pour men, money and time down that hole but it isn't going to win, blaming the soldiers, equipment and strategy is superficial and easy. winning hearts and minds sounds glib and fluffy, but ultimately if it can't be done then don't bother sending people to fight.
Incoherent with poor English to the point of near illiteracy. I was going to say something about the ANA and ARVN not being comparable forces at all and South Vietnam having deeply rooted reasons to fight such as not being murdered for being Catholic but your lack of comprehension of the English language makes whatever point you're trying to get across impossible to sift out.
Had you listened to the lecture, you would have understood this is part of what was said.
Vietnam was never gonna be won.
The idea some think that… is unhinged.