Thursday, December 29, 2016

The Biggest Mistakes of the Vietnam War - Part 3 of a Series - Still Popular in the Liberal Democrat Playbook

Via Mike

 
NAGO on the far left. 
Enlarged 


********************************


President Kennedy’s failure to challenge North Vietnam’s glaring and extensive violation of the 1962 Geneva Treaty on the neutrality of Laos, President Johnson’s compounding of this error by allowing Laos and Cambodia to become sanctuaries for North Vietnamese troops and supplies, and Kennedy’s regime change call that encouraged a South Vietnamese military junta to replace elected South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem.

The junta unfortunately murdered Diem and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu. This threw South Vietnamese civil government and military leadership into chaos for over two years, which the Communists exploited to the fullest, forcing a huge expansion of American commitment and troops. This regime change was the greatest mistake of the war.  President Carter’s failure to support the Shah of Iran, long-time U.S. ally, in the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, and the Obama/Hillary Clinton backed Arab Spring involving Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria in 2011 were repeats of this media-pleasing liberal ideological error.

The fourth major error in Vietnam was the Johnson-McNamara theory of warfare—variously called “graded escalation,” “gradual escalation,” “the doctrine of gradualism,” or sometimes just “the slow squeeze.” It was the brainchild of Harvard academics, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was its foremost ranking advocate. Lyndon Johnson became its most faithful and powerful executive disciple. However bright the strategy of graded escalation might have seemed to Harvard whiz kids and game theorists, it went against the accumulated military wisdom of centuries.

The Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff ( JCS),  Pacific Area Commander Admiral Grant Sharp, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department Intelligence Agency, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk all strongly opposed it   The JCS and the intelligence agencies consistently advocated quick and decisive action against North Vietnam, including bombing critical military, air, naval, transportation, industrial, and fuel storage targets in all parts of North Vietnam, especially those near Hanoi and Haiphong. The Navy advocated aerial mining of Haiphong’s strategic port.  Conventional military wisdom is to hit an enemy as hard and fast as you can to maximize his costs and minimize your own risks and costs. A Marine Gunnery Sergeant once gave the advice: “Hit ‘em as hard as you can, when they ain’t looking.”

More @ The Tribune

12 comments:

  1. Mr. Townsend

    Your thinking is very close to mine in this regard. I think the three biggest mistakes the United States made in Indochina were.

    1. Pretending that Laos and Cambodia were neutral states. President Kennedy stated it but it continued for the entire war. It also allowed the Communists to keep the initiative for most of the war because they could decide how many troops they wanted operating in South Vietnam at any one time. I totally agree with you here.

    2. "graded escalation" was as you state something that went against all the accumulated wisdom of past wars. It also created the quagmire that the US Government said it didn't want by allowing the Communists to escalate slowly to match US troop strength. Again I totally agree.

    3. The failure to link the higher strategy of "Containment" with the strategy being used in South Vietnam. In reality there was no strategy for dealing with North Vietnam, it was whatever seemed like a good idea at the time. An example is the numerous bombing halts that took place, seemingly at random. A case of push through and hope for the best.

    Good analysis here.

    Mark Moncrieff
    Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks and I agree. It was Mike who wrote the piece,one of the few to bail out of a burning propeller-driven A-26 attack bomber at night over enemy territory and live to tell about it. https://freenorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2013/07/mike-scruggs-appointed-to-north.html

      Delete
    2. I'll add Mikes book to my to buy list!

      Delete
    3. :) Thanks and his other one is great also if you're interested in The Late Unpleasantness.

      https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7566715115931065803#allposts/postNum=0

      Delete
  2. Even back in my teen years I didn't understand the reasoning behind the way the war was being fought. Conventional wisdom during warfare had always been peace through superior firepower. Whether we should have been there or not, we were committed once our troops were sent in. As the military wanted we should have bombed the North back into the Stone Age. Hanoi could have been leveled in short order. Also any country that harbored enemy combatants should have been declared hostile and subject to invasion. Politicians are the worst people to determine the rules of engagement. Let the warriors fight the war and put an end to it as quickly as possible. That's their job..........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the military wanted we should have bombed the North back into the Stone Age. Hanoi could have been leveled in short order.

      Absolutely.

      I asked her if our bombers ever hit a civilian site around Hanoi. She stated no, and that they used to go out to watch as it was like "Tet!" (Tet is the Vietnamese New Year and fireworks are plentiful, except, that now in the Communist's good judgment, they are deemed improper and therefore illegal. Sound familiar?)

      http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=18&highlight=saigon+travel+bureau

      Delete
  3. Anyone interested in this subject should read: Spies & Commandos by Kenneth Conboy & Dale Andrade'. Published by University Press of Kansas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After decades of political incompetence and outright corruption the political elite still don't understand or accept Trump. Small wonder that their world blew up under their feet. indyjonesouthere

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After decades of political incompetence and outright corruption the political elite still don't understand or accept Trump. Small wonder that their world blew up under their feet.

      They thought they were infallible. How sweet it is.

      Delete
  5. I have some information that is mostly buried. If one recalls, the then Soviet Union was helping re-supply the North. They Soviets used ships that were a result of the WWii Lend/Lease. So, basically, those ships that the Soviets were using were STILL U.S. Property. At anytime, as with any Lease, the U.S. could of said, "we want our ships back." Regarding the port of Haiphong, the river is carrying as much if not more sediment than the Mississippi, which require 24/7 dredging. If the dredging is stopped, the channel will fill up and cut off the port. Guess which country the dredge came from? Coughhint_a_US_company) Two Air Force officers proposed sinking the dredge, war over. Walked the idea up the chain of command, Henry Kissassenger nixed it. The two officers told flat out that they would themselves do it. At the time that these flight officers said that they would do it, the U.S. ordered anything in the air, friend or foe, shot down. This was so that those two rogue officers couldn't pull it off. Want more? One of the reason (one of several goals of TPTB) for the Vietnam war was to create drug addicted vets who would return to the U.S. and share those drugs with friends and family. Think golden triangle CIA Bush boy. No and not maryjane, were are talking the white stuff here folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two Air Force officers proposed sinking the dredge, war over. Walked the idea up the chain of command, Henry Kissassenger nixed it.

      Insane and thanks for the info. We went to the PI first on evacuation and some of the AF wives were there to help the Vietnamese families. Two of their husbands were B52 pilots and were raring to go back upon command. Nixon would have sent them.

      Delete