You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
US Combat Advisers in Vietnam Knew the Score and Got Ignored
2018-02-03
[Daily Beast] While attending the Armed Forces Staff College in late 1964, just as the U.S. Army was gearing up to deploy its own combat forces to Vietnam, Col. Volney F. Warner attended a speech by the Marine commandant, Gen. Wallace Greene. Before he began his talk, Gen. Greene asked his audience of a hundred 100 majors and colonels a pointed question: "How many of you think that U.S. forces should be sent to fight in Vietnam and draw the line against communism there?"

Virtually everyone in the audience raised their hands enthusiastically. Then Greene, a decidedly hawkish member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked a second question: "How many think we should stay out of Vietnam?" Six officers raised their hands ... hesitantly. Warner was among them.

"There are a few cowards in every bunch," quipped the commandant.

But those six officers weren’t cowards. They were soldiers and Marines who had recently returned stateside from tours of duty as advisers to South Vietnamese Army (ARVN) combat units. They knew from firsthand experience what the senior leadership of the American armed forces did not: That the ARVN officer corps, like the government it served, was riven by nepotism, corruption, and indifferent to the plight of the peasantry it was supposed to protect. Moreover, the ARVN was fighting a decidedly unconventional, "people’s war" against small units of guerrillas with tactics and doctrine developed by the U.S. Army for conventional conflicts between regular armies. Not surprisingly, it was losing.

And finally, the advisers had come to understand, much to their dismay, that the top generals and admirals in Saigon and Washington clung tenaciously to this conventional way of war, despite paying lip service to the counterinsurgency training and doctrine that the war in Vietnam seemed to require. This, coupled with the fecklessness of the ARVN, did not bode well for American prospects in Southeast Asia.

In Vietnam, U.S. ground forces would be facing off against a superbly organized and highly motivated insurgency that enjoyed widespread support among South Vietnam’s 14 million peasants. The communist-led National Liberation Front in the South was largely an indigenous movement, but it was supplied with weapons and well-trained military and political warfare specialists from the People’s Army of Vietnam‐the formal name for the North Vietnamese regular army.

The more Warner and the best of his fellow advisers learned about the political and social forces that fueled the civil war in South, the more skeptical they became about the efficacy of using conventionally trained American combat forces to defeat the insurgency in the South. Part of the problem was cultural. The commanding generals in the early ’60s in Vietnam‐men such as John O’Daniel, Samuel T. Williams, Paul Harkins, and finally, William Westmoreland, had come of age as junior officers in World War II. To a man, they were deeply imbued with "victory disease" that blinded them to the extraordinary political and organizational strengths of their Vietnamese adversaries. Under no circumstances could they imagine how a largely guerrilla army with no air force or tanks could possibly defeat the ARVN, let alone the most technologically advanced army on the face of the planet.
Posted by:Besoeker

#8  Brits figured out that most of the problem was from the Chinese community. They could tell the difference between someone who looked Chinese and one who looked Malaysian. Didn't work as well in Northern Ireland where the 'natives' looked the same.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2018-02-03 18:54  

#7  British knew how to win, they fought a very similar war in Malaya not long before. Their experience was ignored as well because it required massive political control. They were ignored.

Marines knew how to win, they wrote the SMALL WARS manual about how to win these things using experience of their many combats in Latin America. They were ignored and an artillery expert was put in command.

The whole thing is sad.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2018-02-03 18:39  

#6  I'm not saying there weren't fuckups then.

If we discussed every fuckup we did in Ww2 in the same context at the time I guarantee you the outcome would have been a lot worse.

The US and the UK combined lost about 800,000 people in WW2. I guarantee you a lot of those deaths were due to stupidity and corruption.

The Soviets didn't lose ~ 12 million military dead and ~ 17 million civilian dead because Stalin was an Angelic Genius.

We can point this out without reaching the context that Naziism Was Right because we eventually won WW2. But we eventually gave up South Vietnam and every discussion, every history book has to justify that sale.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain with his beloved B-Wing "Brad" in the basement of the castle   2018-02-03 13:25  

#5   Heard through the grapevine a story about the Tet offensive, probably relevant here. A USA officer told me his intelligence unit got a pile of documents from a dead NVA officer. They were translated & seemed to have a detailed outline of a massive coordinated NVA operation coming up for the next Tet holiday in a week or so. He personally was concerned enough that he called senior commanders & got an appointment to bring this to Gen. Westmoreland's face to face, personal attention. Shortly after this, he presented his documents along with a short summary. Westermoreland glanced at the top, waved the back of his hand towards it, and dismissed the officer with, "They can't do this!"
He went back to near front lines with the sure knowledge of the exact hour the attack would start, and he learned they could do it.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2018-02-03 12:13  

#4  Under no circumstances could they imagine how a largely guerrilla army with no air force or tanks could possibly defeat the ARVN, let alone the most technologically advanced army on the face of the planet.

Except, it wasn't. When South Vietnam was finally conquered, it was by a tank invasion from the North.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2018-02-03 10:51  

#3  Read Bernard B. Fall's Street Without Joy sometime. One of the anecdotes was the author watching two French officers too busy with their tennis game to pause for the colors being lowered at the same time a senior Cambodian NCO nearby was standing at rigid attention. How to lose a war in imperceptible steps...
Posted by: magpie   2018-02-03 10:08  

#2  fellow advisers learned about the political and social forces that fueled the civil war in South

Corruption and power mongering - seems to be very present much mush closer to home these days. That and one side believing there can be only one political agency in their world.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2018-02-03 08:35  

#1  Strange isn't it, how some things never change ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2018-02-03 08:23  

00:00