US Armed forces won every significant battle of the Vietnam War ? Firepower piled up mounds of enemy dead ? Close to 1 million PLAF and PAVN (communist) fighters killed during war o 50,000 American soldiers killed ? US never forced to retreat or abandon fixed position ? These tactical victories never produced 2 outcomes that mattered most o Never destroyed enemy?s power o Never gained peasantry control for Saigon government (controlled countryside) Westmorland?s plan was to attack and destroy enemy main units whenever and wherever they could be found ? Identify large contingents of enemy soldiers, cut off their escapes, attack them from all sides with artillery and air power, send in ground troops to mop up what is left ? By doing so, he hoped to achieve 1 or both of 2 things that would allow Saigon to establish control over the country o Reach ?cross over? point where enemy deaths exceeded recruitment ? 1965-68, communist forces in the South increased despite huge losses they suffered ? Communists getting troops down the HCM trail quicker than US could kill them ? VC stepped up recruitment in the South ? Inflict such crushing losses that the enemy?s will to continue would be broken. o Communists had much better intelligence, therefore were always initiate the battles and could thusly control the pace of the war o They were willing to suffer huge losses o Only 2% of American probes sent out to find enemy actually made any contact o Little possibility of a quick victory given the Vietnamese were willing to suffer huge losses when they did confront the US Other options open to US ? Bomb HCM Trail o Not realistic, as it was a system of trails and not just one route o Only 8% of troops coming down trail were killed o Little supplies went down trail ? Pacify countryside o Shift demographic balance from communists to Saigon o Dry up communist recruitment o Saigon pacification teams were supposed to identify and eliminate VC officials and sympathizers, provide security, and build infrastructure in areas that had just been cleared after battle o Westmorland didn?t care for pacification ? Looking at WW2 and Korean War, didn?t see this as a significant undertaking ? Only 7% of money spent of bombs was spent of pacification o Pacification teams often caused more problems ? Peasants couldn?t identify with them as they were middle class ? Often stole from peasants o Saigon couldn?t appeal to countryside the way communists could ? Easier to identify with other Vietnamese than Americans ? US tried to curb indiscriminate violence against civilians, but it was difficult to distinguish between friend and foe in South Vietnam ? Me Lai Incident ? American soldiers killed/raped civilians in a hamlet ? Civilian casualties not outrageous compared to other wars (28-60% depending on source) ? Still, this alienated people from Saigon and their American backers o From 1965-67, large-scale operations became the ends, whereas they needed to be the means toward the larger goal ? The real battles needed to be in the countryside against the social revolution taking place ? Still, not fair to say US ignored countryside ? Realizing that they couldn?t compete of social level, US sought to depopulate communist areas, thus turning communists into refugees (random bombing, military fire, poising rice fields, forced deportations) o This was essentially pacifism, which made other pacifism efforts unnecessary o 25% of communist population became refugees and escaped to urban coast o By forcing people to move, US and Saigon could more easily control population because urban resistance was easier to crush than resistance in the countryside o This was of limited value ? Most refugees were women, men stayed in countryside ? Urban refugees were often bitter and hostile toward Saigon ? Like a public admission that US and Saigon could not compete with NLF for control in villages and countryside ? Build wall across HCM trail by invading Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to cut off Vietnamese battlefield in the South o Cambodia likely would have switched to openly communist position had US invaded o Terrible terrain in Cambodia o Taking US further from supply lines, taking communists closer o May have crippled US position in Europe by committing so many more troops ? More internal approach of real pacification o Westmorland still more interested in large-scale warfare o Would not have provided quick victory, required more American troops, wouldn?t yield many enemy deaths o Not clear that Americans were qualified for pacification ? Couldn?t speak the language ? Flooding the patriotic country with foreigners ? Couldn?t compete with NLF in countryside since it wasn?t involved in radical land redistribution o May indeed have been wiser to stick to Search-and- Destroy missions and create refugees ? Mrugesh Patel Microsoft Word - The Limits of Attrition and Pacification - March 7, 2008.doc
STUDYBLUE makes things that make you better at school.
Things like
online flashcards with photos and audio.
Things like personalized quizzes and friendly reminders about when (and what) to study next.
Think of it as a digital backpack™: access to all of your study materials online and on your phone.
STUDYBLUE exists to make studying efficient and effective for every student, for free.
Join us.
“I have been getting MUCH better grades on all my tests for school. Flash cards, notes, and quizzes are great on here. Thanks!”
Kathy