"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:39:52 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote: On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:32:45 -0800, wrote: On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:37:47 -0800, Charles Hamblin wrote: December 30, 2011|By Tony Perry | Los Angeles Times Reading Lewis Sorley's scalding biography of Army Gen. William Westmoreland, "Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam," is like watching a slow-motion replay of an oncoming train wreck. The result of this collision is known: failure of the U.S. military mission, 58,000-plus dead Americans, the U.S. divided and at political war with itself, a once-proud military left tarnished, exhausted and in disrepute. Sorley, a West Point graduate and retired Army lieutenant colonel, is unsparing in his analysis of Westmoreland, the top U.S. general in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968 and then Army chief of staff in the latter years of the war. In Sorley's view, the general whose rock-like jaw and prominent eyebrows made him look like a Hollywood casting agent's dream of a military leader was arrogant, duplicitous, vain and not altogether smart. When he arrived in Saigon, there were 16,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam; when he left there were 535,000. In between, Westmoreland delivered a litany of speeches and statements asserting that the war against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong was being won. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...orley-20111230 The war, of course, was not being won, was never being won, and most likely never could have been won, but contrary to the view still offered today by apologists for the war, it was not lost due to feckless American politicians or an insufficiently committed public - it was lost because of utter incompetence and arrogance at the top. I especially liked this in the review: When Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the coalition forces in the Gulf War of 1991, in his book "It Doesn't Take a Hero," wrote that the Army had lost its integrity because of inflated counts of enemy bodies in Vietnam, Westmoreland was furious and tried to pressure Schwarzkopf into changing the text. "Nothing came of those efforts and the criticism stood." Westmoreland was lying about the body counts, everyone knew he had lied about them, yet more than 30 years later, he didn't want anyone pointing out the obvious. Of course, either the reviewer or Sorley still makes one big error: For readers of modern military history, Sorley's take on Vietnam precedes his work: Westmoreland's dogged determination to stick with a "search and destroy" policy was disastrous; his successor, Gen. Creighton Abrams, was more successful in building the South Vietnamese forces, but the U.S. lost the war because Washington failed to follow through on promises to support the government in Saigon once U.S. troops left. The regime in the south never had a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Vietnamese, plus their army was worthless - they wouldn't fight. We lost the war because whether we were fighting it, or our proxies were, it was unwinnable. It was not ever a war against communism - it was in the eyes of the Vietnamese, a war against imperialism. One of the biggest problems wiwth the Vietnam debacle was the micro-managing by Johnson and some of the legislators, who knew considerably less about military affairs than those actually doing the fighting. As a crew member on Puff the Magic Dragon (AC-47 for those who know), it was always a source of frustration to us to be told that we couldn't shoot here or there because there were "too many friendlies" in the area, or that we had to stand down to honor some Vietnamese holiday or other. Of course that didn't stop THEM from shooting at us. Politics played a very large part in that mess. Westmorland was just a part of the problem. If the damned politicians, from both parties, would stay out of military operations and let the military loose to take care of business instead of having to "win the hearts and minds" of the enemy, we wouldn't have such messes. Jim The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. A point well taken, Ed. However, once they did send us there, they should have gotten the hell out of the way and let us do our jobs. Jim |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... But I have no problem with your thesis. |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On 2/7/2012 12:43 AM, Max Boot wrote:
On 2/6/2012 8:25 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... Nope. The incompetent Westmoreland waged pretty much the war he wanted to wage. Civilians always set the political goals. Military men who say they can't obtain victory within those political goals are just making excuses. This notion that the politicians prevent the military from achieving victory is crap. But I have no problem with your thesis. Max, you don't know what you are saying. |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On 2/7/2012 9:20 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/7/2012 12:43 AM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/6/2012 8:25 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... Nope. The incompetent Westmoreland waged pretty much the war he wanted to wage. Civilians always set the political goals. Military men who say they can't obtain victory within those political goals are just making excuses. This notion that the politicians prevent the military from achieving victory is crap. But I have no problem with your thesis. Max, you don't know what you are saying. I do know what I'm saying and what I'm talking about. |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On 2/7/2012 3:26 PM, Max Boot wrote:
On 2/7/2012 9:20 AM, Richard wrote: On 2/7/2012 12:43 AM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/6/2012 8:25 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... Nope. The incompetent Westmoreland waged pretty much the war he wanted to wage. Civilians always set the political goals. Military men who say they can't obtain victory within those political goals are just making excuses. This notion that the politicians prevent the military from achieving victory is crap. But I have no problem with your thesis. Max, you don't know what you are saying. I do know what I'm saying and what I'm talking about. I'm curious about where you got your opinon. Because it's 180 out from what happened. |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On 2/7/2012 6:19 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/7/2012 3:26 PM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/7/2012 9:20 AM, Richard wrote: On 2/7/2012 12:43 AM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/6/2012 8:25 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... Nope. The incompetent Westmoreland waged pretty much the war he wanted to wage. Civilians always set the political goals. Military men who say they can't obtain victory within those political goals are just making excuses. This notion that the politicians prevent the military from achieving victory is crap. But I have no problem with your thesis. Max, you don't know what you are saying. I do know what I'm saying and what I'm talking about. I'm curious about where you got your opinon. Because it's 180 out from what happened. Baloney. You're the one who doesn't know what happened. What happened was, the US got involved in an unwinnable civil war. It was never about communism. We didn't lose the war because of civilian meddling in the war effort. |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:00:29 -0800, Max Boot
wrote: On 2/7/2012 6:19 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/7/2012 3:26 PM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/7/2012 9:20 AM, Richard wrote: On 2/7/2012 12:43 AM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/6/2012 8:25 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... Nope. The incompetent Westmoreland waged pretty much the war he wanted to wage. Civilians always set the political goals. Military men who say they can't obtain victory within those political goals are just making excuses. This notion that the politicians prevent the military from achieving victory is crap. But I have no problem with your thesis. Max, you don't know what you are saying. I do know what I'm saying and what I'm talking about. I'm curious about where you got your opinon. Because it's 180 out from what happened. Baloney. You're the one who doesn't know what happened. What happened was, the US got involved in an unwinnable civil war. It was never about communism. We didn't lose the war because of civilian meddling in the war effort. It wasn't a civil war. What really happened was that: 1954, the Geneva Conference (The Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and the People's Republic of China were participants) produced the Geneva Agreements; supporting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Indochina, granting it independence from France, declaring the cessation of hostilities and foreign involvement in internal Indochina affairs, delineating northern and southern zones into which opposing troops were to withdraw, they mandated unification on the basis of internationally supervised free elections to be held in July 1956. The U.S. replaced the French as a political backup for Ngo Dinh Diem, then Prime Minister of the State of Vietnam and he asserted his power in the south. A referendum rigged by his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu saw Diem gain 98% of the vote, with 133% in Saigon.( American advisors had suggested that he win by a lesser margin since it was felt that he would be able to win any fair poll against Emperor Báo Dai). With the backing of the United States, Diem refused to hold the national elections, noting that the State of Vietnam never signed the Geneva Accords and went about attempting to crush communist opposition. So, it wasn't really a civil war as both sides were essentially independent countries. And, by the way, it wasn't a war. In fact use of the words "war zone" was forbidden to be used in official US reports. Cheers John B. |
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
|
"Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam"
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:59:24 -0800, Max Boot
wrote: On 2/8/2012 3:54 AM, wrote: On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:00:29 -0800, Max wrote: On 2/7/2012 6:19 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/7/2012 3:26 PM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/7/2012 9:20 AM, Richard wrote: On 2/7/2012 12:43 AM, Max Boot wrote: On 2/6/2012 8:25 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/4/2012 9:39 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: The problem in Vietnam was not politicians getting in the way of the military. It was letting the military loose to fight in a place where the politicians should not have sent them. And then getting in the way... Nope. The incompetent Westmoreland waged pretty much the war he wanted to wage. Civilians always set the political goals. Military men who say they can't obtain victory within those political goals are just making excuses. This notion that the politicians prevent the military from achieving victory is crap. But I have no problem with your thesis. Max, you don't know what you are saying. I do know what I'm saying and what I'm talking about. I'm curious about where you got your opinon. Because it's 180 out from what happened. Baloney. You're the one who doesn't know what happened. What happened was, the US got involved in an unwinnable civil war. It was never about communism. We didn't lose the war because of civilian meddling in the war effort. It wasn't a civil war. What really happened was that: It was a civil war. You had a communist faction and an anti-communist faction. The communist faction were better organized, had more committed adherents, and for a variety of reasons were able to don the mantle of anti-colonialism better than the anti-communist faction. Like it or not, they had legitimacy; the anti-communist faction never had it. Do try to be a bit more accurate. A Civil War is defines as "a war between factions in the same country". Since North and South Vietnam were two separate nations it couldn't have been a civil war. At the cost of over $800 billion in 1975 dollars - close to $5 *trillion* in 2008 dollars - and some 58,000 lost American lives, all the US did was delay the inevitable. The domino theory was wrong - astonishing that it ever had any believers - and Vietnam "going red" had no impact whatever on US security. The domino theory wasn't universally believed. there were people crying in the wilderness that the Viet's wouldn't be a subsidiary of the Chinese. The Viet's even proved it 1979. It was a waste. 58,000 American military men and women died in vain. Just say it, and let go of the anger: they died in vain. What anger? Cheers John B. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter