Vietnam, American Military Victory or Defeat?
May 2, 2009 | Written by Daniel Lagan | 18 Comments
There is often much discussion made on how the United States was supposedly bested in the Vietnam War by a group of “jungle fighters.” Many pundits will look at the American involvement in that war and scoff at the inability of the American soldiers who were sent there to achieve any sort of victory against a foe who is supposed to have been grossly incapable of handling the Americans in any real way. To most who look back on the Vietnam conflict, it is little more than a byword for the mishandling of American resources and a source of mockery of American military prowess. It seems to me that this is far from the truth however, and at least deserves a second look. When I research the Vietnam conflict, I see a valiant group of soldiers, fighting without the support of their people or their politicians, a war in which they were not given any real objectives or way to win. The American soldiers fought for years in a grisly war of attrition which they won in a landslide. The North Vietnamese certainly won the political Vietnam War, but the American soldiers won the military one.
The naysayers will certainly suggest that the Americans had to pull out of Vietnam in the end, but that has little to do with whether or not the American soldiers proved themselves capable of defeating the North Vietnamese. It has much more to do with the fact that Americans decided they didn’t want to do what it would take to fight the kind of war which was required to win against the North Vietnamese, so they pulled their soldiers out. Contrary to popular opinion, the US was not trying to win the Vietnam War at any cost, if that was the case, the Americans would have just used nuclear bombs and turned North Vietnam into a lake. The inability of the American soldiers to achieve victory is not a discredit to them or their military capability, but rather to the ignorance of American policy makers who thought they could waltz through a highly prepared and capable enemy. I believe that given the circumstances the US military was placed in, it was able to wage a cruelly effective war against its North Vietnamese adversaries. One must look no further than the casualty numbers of the North Vietnamese to see the facts supporting this conclusion. The United States lost around 60,000 soldiers in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese released a statement in 1995 suggesting that 1.5 million North Vietnamese combatants were killed in the Vietnam War. It is very likely that this number is far less than accurate. So why are “experts” so quick to discredit the American military for its efforts in Vietnam? The answers are less than conclusive.
The biggest attempt by the Vietnamese to make a legitimate military effort against the Americans was the Tet Offensive of 1968. This campaign by the Vietnamese made a lot of noise, but was overwhelmingly defeated by the American and South Vietnamese forces. To say that the Vietnamese took a sound beating would be a massive understatement. What is so sad about the Vietnam conflict is not that the American military was bested (it wasn’t), but how handicapped the American military was by its leadership. I wonder how things would have been different in Vietnam if the Americans had decided to stop handcuffing their soldiers by forcing them to fight a half hearted war.
It seems to me that in the Vietnam War the American soldiers were fighting a numerically superior enemy, on its home turf, with one hand tied behind their backs as a result of the political wrangling going on at home. The Vietnamese had decades of experience in the warfare that was about to ensue, and had also spent years making elaborate defenses and procedures for carrying out their unique method of warfare. They had miles of supply lines crawling all over neighboring countries the US soldiers were unable to touch, and the North Vietnamese also had the distinct advantage of being able to blend into their surroundings with an ease impossible to the Caucasian Americans. American soldiers went into Vietnam and from the get go were essentially fighting a body count war. That was the mission they were basically assigned, and they accomplished it with an ease which is somewhat unbelievable given the circumstances. America lost 60,000 soldiers in Vietnam, but helped killed over a million North Vietnamese. The Americans lost only six percent of the soldiers the Vietnamese lost. To me that sounds like not just a victory, but a major one.
Some defeats are greater than victories as the Vietnam war illustrates but that still points out the irrefutable fact America withdrew meaning they lost. Also are you sure it was 1.5 million combatants not civilians and combatants, because 1.5 million combatants is a huge number of soldiers. Many deaths (probably more than half were caused by napalm, agent orange and air raids anyway).
Also something confuses me you say “…blend into their surroundings with an ease impossible to the Caucasian Americans”
Ive been to Hanoi and Ho Chi Min and their very typical S.E.A people they’re as white as sheets they stand out in jungle more than a western white will.
I m not saying that the US soldiers weren’t brave or dedicated or the defeat they achieved wasn’t a great defeat killing alot more Vietnamese than the other way but you’ve still got to concede that they withdrew from a enemy whose main form of weapon was a crossbow with a bomb on the front. At the end of the war the Vietcong just dug themselves into tunnels and then their attacks resulted in almost complete loses for American groups and almost no loses for the Vietnamese troops if you had stayed longer they would have leveled the numbers
I think this article is very well written, and I would agree with you. To the other people who posted on your article I would say that his point wasn’t to say that we won the war in terms of victory but in terms of military power and strength we were the victory (he even states this as his thesis in the very last sentence of the first paragraph). And throught the article he proved his point on this issue. I believe this was very well thought out and I applaud you for writing something that could definitely be controversial.
I would also like to point out how similar things are now in the Iraq war to what happened in vietnam. When you talked about the soldiers having their hands tied behind their backs and being asked to fight Iraq is the first thing that came into mind. I’ve had several friends who are US Marines, and many of them have fought over in Iraq and they all say the same thing; they could win this war quickly but there is too much red tape that they have to worry about and they can’t fight war the way it should be. I guess my question is when will our politicians learn that war is war and you can’t hold back your resources and expect them to work, if you start a conflict you need to finish it, and you should do everything in your power to win it.
Michael is right. The post reminded me of some things I have heard my military friends say about the Iraq war as well. A friend of mine who is a Marine told me there are all these crazy rules. Rules like:
1. You can’t fire until fired upon first
2. If there are a crowd of Iraqi’s and a shot is fired from the Iraqi’s towards you, or your fellow troops you must identify the Iraqi that fired at you and you can only fire back at him, no one else.
3. In #2 the Marine is supposed to go into the crowd of Iraqi’s, identify the shooter, arrest them, and bring them back into custody.
I wish I could remember everything else he said. There were some far worse ones. I couldn’t believe it though. And this was all during the inital attack’s on Iraq, not recent stuff. No wonder we lose so many troops.
That is all very sensible regular laws, wlse its murder. What I understand is that your saying that if there is a group of say 30 inocent Iraqis and a terrorist fires at youy from somewhere in them that soldiers should have th right to kill all those innocents to kill one terrorist. well thats murder, no its not murder its mass murder and a crime against humanity. And you cant fired until fired upon is regular practice, unless the suspects are heavily armed and threatening you you have no right to shoot them unless thay attack you. else its murder.
In response to that last post, I would suggest that it cannot always be murder to shoot someone who has not shot at you first. Did United States President Barack Obama order the “murder” of the Somalian pirates because they were shot by snipers who were neither being aimed at nor shot at?
The pirates were armed and threatining people.
From what I understand the same rule goes even if the group of Iraqi’s were all armed and yelling and threatening people. You were still to only identify and retailiate against the one that fired at you. If you shot the wrong one you would get in some kind of “trouble”. I think perhaps you are picturing one guy with a gun around a bunch of guys hanging out and kicking around a soccer ball. Yea, in that case I agree, it would be murder to mow them all down.
if someone aims a gun at you at you and threatens you then you are alowd to fire youre not going to get courtmartialed over that or in any trouble. In fact im pretty sure there are laws saying youre not allowed to have large congregations of people with weapons (including in the USA) as it would be seen as a security risk.
It is a sad indictment to have to record, but the above article demonstrates the inability of some, but not all Americans, to accept that they were ignominiously defeated on the field of battle by an ill-equipped enemy lacking almost all of the high tech weaponry possessed by the US, including the USs mighty bomber force. It is to be hoped that those in the US High Command don’t share the view that America ‘won’ the war, for otherwise no lessons will have been learned.
The scenes of Americans flocking onto helicopters while leaving the South Vietnamese to their fate was a shocking sight for the world to see, and was equalled only by US troops running away from German forces in the Battle of the Bulge - America’s biggest defeat on Europe’s battlefields, when over 10,000 were captured.
Americans must accept that, despite being the richest and most powerful nation on Earth, it does not necessarily equate with having the capacity to defeat its enemies. Vietnam proved that truth.
I have rarely read such claptrap as Daniel Lagan presents in his article. He states that the troops didn’t have the support of either the people or their politicians. So tell me, who sent them to war in the first place? Support was only lost when it became clear the US couldn’t defeat the North Vietnamese and the hundreds of body bags started arriving back home. A conributory factor may also have been the stories coming out about the massacres of civilians by US troops, such as that at My Lai for which Calley was prosecuted, although he was the fall guy for the higher ups.
Lagan also uses the ridiculous argument that the much higher body count of the ‘enemy’ was a sign that the US ‘won’ the war.
A further twist in his story is that the North Vietnamese had “decades of experience in the warfare that was about to ensue”. So, he is saying they were quite accustomed to being bombed by massed armadas of B52 bombers, sprayed with agent orange, plastered with napalm and strafed by fighter/bombers. But one needs to ask who was doing all this damage before the US arrived on the scene with its weapons of mass destruction.
As for the Army commanders not being up to the job is something beyond my knowledge, but it is a not infrequent criticism one reads about given all the conflicts of the 20th century in which the US has been involved.
When one reads that Eisenhower, a five-star general, had never heard a shot fired in anger, then it demonstrates a certain lack of knowledge in the art of War.
Politics and war are two sides of the same coin. “War is politics by other means.” Von Clausewitz wrote. No war is ever fought just to demonstrate military prowess. Wars are fought to acheive political goals. The Vietnamese acheived theirs (reunification of the country and the removal of foreign troops), the Americans acheived nothing.
PS. Using the bodycount argument is like saying that Stalin was more successful than the US in fighting against Hitler because he was more willing to sacrifice his troops.
In war like in almost every human endeavour it’s the result that counts. North Vietnam won. Period.
PPS I mean of course that Stalin killed more Germans than the Americans because he was less restrained in sacrificing his own soldiers. He placed secret police batallions behind the lines and had them shoot everyone who retreated and he made an executive order that all Russian troops who got captured by the Germans would be considered traitors. As a result they fought fiercely against the Germans in a way that the US Army with its human rights considerations could not hope to emulate.
Sir how about the Battle of Ap Bac when the North Vietnamese had downed five chinook choppers? Inspite they lack equipment they repulse the ARVN which has a back up of armor personnel carrier, superior numbers, and US choppers. That three US advisors were killed.
American soldiers fleeing onto helicopters - The war was over when this happened. The war ended in 1973 with a treaty between the US, N. Vietnamese, and an umbrella group representing the S. Vietnamese and partisans. After the war was over, there were no fewer than four attempts by the N. Vietnamese to sneak back across the border and follow through on their plan to seize S. Vietnam the way they had wanted in 1965. Each time the US bombed them back across the border. The 1975 fall of Saigon, the N. Vietnamese moved back into Hue and waited for about two weeks. When Ford did nothing, they began their attack. The residual force that the US still had (about 1,000) withdrew back to the embassy. Now, the whole scrambling aboard choppers and pushing them off the carriers. All US personnel were out in about two hours. They were pushing choppers off the ship because there were so many S. Viets trying to flee, that they were jumping on the choppers, overloading them, and choppers were landing on the carriers with no fuel, they couldn’t be moved, and space had to be made or else the next choppers was not going to have room, and would crash either into the water or onto the flight deck, killing the pilots and refugess, thus the men were ordered to push the choppers into the ocean to make room for these refugee flights. Also, many, many S. Viets were overloading boats, trying to get to the US Navy. In other words, the war had been over almost two years when this happened.
Actual battlefield dead statistics from the N. Vietnamese. In 1966 they took over 90,000 dead. During Tet ‘68 they took over 40,000 confirmed casualties in less than 24 hours. In 1966, The US had toe-holds in Da Nang and Longh Binh and Saigon. In 1967-68, the control had expanded and there was now fierce fighting in cities and towns. By 1969-70, GI’s could travel freely throughout the Mekong during the day hours without weapons. Also, by this time the VC (even according to Giap) had been annihilated. By 1971-73, the US had to go out into the mountains looking for the N. Viets. In 1973, the treaty was signed, the war was over, S. Vietnam remained soveriegn (the US’s ultimate goal), and the US went home, leaving behind a residual force of about 2,000, who were gradually rotating home. By 1975 there were about 1,000 left who were slated to go home that year. 18 months later, the N. Viets broke the treaty for the fifth time and took Saigon.
In response to Ap Bac, I would ask about the special forces fighting in the A Shau, when 13 Americans and about 100 Montagnards destroyed over ten Russian tanks, and collected a confirmed count of 1,000+ dead N. Viets before evacuating. Or Longh Binh when the VC were destroyed. Operation Hastings.
Based on minutes we have from meetings between Ho, Giap, and other top brass, in 1967 there was a large conference. All of them acknowledged they were losing the war. There were two plans put forth. Fall back and fight guerilla. But Giap said no to that. He decided that there must be a sweeping offensive across the country that could push the Americans back and cause a political firestrom in the US. The funny thing is, Westmoreland had them played. He knew a large offensive was coming. The first three hours caught the American forces off-guard. The “invasion of Saigon” which was actually twelve sappers who killed two Marines, and Cronkite’s idiotic broadcast were so premature. By the end of the day the N. Viets had been slapped…hard. Again, in minutes from meetings after the fact, they top Viet brass admits this, conceeding that Hue would also be lost soon. And Khe Sanh.
But what Giap hoped would be a great victory was the most decisive, crushing defeat that is possible in military matters. But because of premature and self-righteous broadcasts, it sparked a firestorm in the US. The Viets were systematically driven back from the very edges of the Da Nang perimeter to hiding in the A Shau valley. At no one year in the war did the Viets ever make gains against the US.
And last but not least…the US “pulled out” because a peace treaty was signed. The images of Saigon happened two years later.
On 15 January 1973, Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords on “Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam” were signed on 27 January 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. A cease-fire was declared across North and South Vietnam. U.S. POWs were released. The agreement guaranteed the territorial integrity of Vietnam and, like the Geneva Conference of 1954, called for national elections in the North and South. The Paris Peace Accords stipulated a sixty-day period for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces. “This article,” noted Peter Church, “proved… to be the only one of the Paris Agreements which was fully carried out.”
How then, could the enitre American military have been defeated in 1975? They weren’t, because they weren’t there.
so you admit america lost in the same way germany signed the armistice the USA signed the peace deal. Germany didnt surrender or lose the war in 1918 (common mistake) they arranged for peace talks but the allies had found out how badly the German forces were at that point. I t was the same in vietnam America couldnt continue the war because they hadnt the stomach so they met with the north and signed a peace deal so they could run with their tail between their legs.
Ps as for the norths “fith violation of the treaty” may i point something out for you people the south broke the first treaty. During the indo chinese war between that area and france the viet mihn won but instead of uniting indo china under one rule what they had partially fought to do or their other idea to unite vietnam with the whole country behind them the french had one more trick up their sleave to get a kindof revenge they used their influence in the League of nations to make sure indo china was broken into 4 parts with vietnam split down the middle (despite a majority of the country wanting communism).
Something you might find interesting is America gave its support to the north because they saw them as fighting against imperialism until the chinese started funding them then they went to the fascist dictatorship of the south.
The south broke agreements left right and center Ngo Diem Dien denied the vote because the north would have won for reunification, the usa couldnt win the war even if they had destroyed everylast inch of land in the north because literally no one in Vietnam supported them outside the southern government the people hated you foreign countries hated you no one was on your side outside australia and britain.