Does Size really matter?

[MastanKhan]

Size matters usually if the opponents are evenly matched technologically. Otherwise the inferior in numbers but superior in quality would generally win. But things are a bit more complicated than that. USA was the technologically superior power during Vietnam War. How come they lost it? Sound strategy and good leadership/tactics count as much as technological superiority. Numbers are really not so important.

No that is not it---the u s got tired of killing---once the mindset changed---the american attacks and advances became selective thus making american troops more vulnerable.

The north vietnamese thought that they were really something so they walked out of the paris peace talks---the u s just to prove a point started the bombing of hanoi---the north vietnamese came running and started begging for peace----but the u s continued to send the message across for a few more days till the point was firmly made----.

The vietnam war--the iraq war--the afghan war is an eigma---why the u s fought those wars the way it did--only those in the inner circles know best.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Exactly,great reply from mastan khan.
Conventionally the us army inflicted far more amount of losses[tet offensive],but politically failed in their objectives[protect south vietnam where they wanted a pro us regime to counter the communist regime in north vietnam].Us politicians disallowed direct land attacks into north vietnam to avoid bringing china or russia into the war.Only aerial bombing was allowed.

 

[foxbat]

No that is not it---the u s got tired of killing---once the mindset changed---the american attacks and advances became selective thus making american troops more vulnerable.

The north vietnamese thought that they were really something so they walked out of the paris peace talks---the u s just to prove a point started the bombing of hanoi---the north vietnamese came running and started begging for peace----but the u s continued to send the message across for a few more days till the point was firmly made----.

The vietnam war--the iraq war--the afghan war is an eigma---why the u s fought those wars the way it did--only those in the inner circles know best.

Great post.. Another common theme in these wars.. After each of these wars, the speculations about USA ceasing to exist as a super power were abundant..Only after Vietnam and 1st gulf war, USA came back stronger than ever.. Lets see what happens now

 

[alphamale]

Does size matter???

if the war is short then size does not matter but if war is stretched then it does matter.

 

[meghdut]

No that is not it---the u s got tired of killing---once the mindset changed---the american attacks and advances became selective thus making american troops more vulnerable.

The north vietnamese thought that they were really something so they walked out of the paris peace talks---the u s just to prove a point started the bombing of hanoi---the north vietnamese came running and started begging for peace----but the u s continued to send the message across for a few more days till the point was firmly made----.

The vietnam war--the iraq war--the afghan war is an eigma---why the u s fought those wars the way it did--only those in the inner circles know best.

Well Khan sahib, I would maintain that Vietnam was a strategic(political) defeat for US. US tactical conduct of the war was good.But their political vision was limited.They achieved tactical dominance over battlefield most of the time; but it failed to materialize into a final victory.US never went full on to attack the NVA.Even their bombing campaign was limited. US warplanes were forbidden to bomb Viet capital.They were initially forbidden to attack airbases. US strategy was reactionary in Vietnam, how could a reactionary strategy garner victory? Tet offensive is a nice example. US broke the Vietcong's back during Tet, but victory in battlefield was seen by US public as failure of US strategy in Vietnam. That's what I stated in my post. Vietnam was a strategic blunder for US.

 

[anonymus]

All the famous battles in history tells a story of underdog defeating more stronger contender.

Only these stories are told because it happens so rarely.

 

[gambit]

Well Khan sahib, I would maintain that Vietnam was a strategic(political) defeat for US. US tactical conduct of the war was good.But their political vision was limited.They achieved tactical dominance over battlefield most of the time; but it failed to materialize into a final victory.US never went full on to attack the NVA.Even their bombing campaign was limited. US warplanes were forbidden to bomb Viet capital.They were initially forbidden to attack airbases. US strategy was reactionary in Vietnam, how could a reactionary strategy garner victory? Tet offensive is a nice example. US broke the Vietcong's back during Tet, but victory in battlefield was seen by US public as failure of US strategy in Vietnam. That's what I stated in my post. Vietnam was a strategic blunder for US.

What you said is reflective of the fact that: Political goals determine military objectives.

Military objectives are:

- Take that city.
- Surround that hill.
- Blockade that sea access.
- Sever that supply line.
- And so on...

Military objectives are short term, tangible, and quantifiable.

Not so for a singular political goal or many political goals. They are 'visionary' or long term, often lacking in details but emotionally satisfying.

North Viet Nam's political goal was unification of Viet Nam under one rule: communism.

South Viet Nam's political goal was division of Viet Nam under disparate regimes. Although it did harbored the greater 'vision' of a non-communist Viet Nam in the future.

Their respective allies shared their political goals, although the Soviet Union at one time actually proposed BOTH Vietnams to be admitted to the UN with full membership standing.

When you have such divergent political goals that dictated their military objectives, you will have a war that will not end until the cessation of existence of one side. That was why the US/SVN alliance never breached the 17th parallel but North Viet Nam continually did and even to the point of violating the territorial integrity of two neighbors -- Laos and Cambodia -- to support an insurgency in the south.

The US never ceded the battlefields in Viet Nam and utterly dominated the air over the entire country. But if successful military objectives are necessary at the negotiating table for the diplomats to resolve differences, those same successful military objectives can be discarded when they are deemed useless for other political goals.

That was what happened in Viet Nam.

 

[meghdut]

What you said is reflective of the fact that: Political goals determine military objectives.

Military objectives are:

- Take that city.
- Surround that hill.
- Blockade that sea access.
- Sever that supply line.
- And so on...

Military objectives are short term, tangible, and quantifiable.

Not so for a singular political goal or many political goals. They are 'visionary' or long term, often lacking in details but emotionally satisfying.

North Viet Nam's political goal was unification of Viet Nam under one rule: communism.

South Viet Nam's political goal was division of Viet Nam under disparate regimes. Although it did harbored the greater 'vision' of a non-communist Viet Nam in the future.

Their respective allies shared their political goals, although the Soviet Union at one time actually proposed BOTH Vietnams to be admitted to the UN with full membership standing.

When you have such divergent political goals that dictated their military objectives, you will have a war that will not end until the cessation of existence of one side. That was why the US/SVN alliance never breached the 17th parallel but North Viet Nam continually did and even to the point of violating the territorial integrity of two neighbors -- Laos and Cambodia -- to support an insurgency in the south.

The US never ceded the battlefields in Viet Nam and utterly dominated the air over the entire country. But if successful military objectives are necessary at the negotiating table for the diplomats to resolve differences, those same successful military objectives can be discarded when they are deemed useless for other political goals.

That was what happened in Viet Nam.

Thanks Gambit for the explanation. I believe what has happened in Vietnam has been good for the country;maybe I'm wrong,but that's how I feel. And US did not initially anticipate the outcome of her involvement in Vietnam. They really lacked the Grand Strategic vision in Vietnam. If they had they should have secured the future of South Vietnam when they had the upper hand their. They failed to sell their plan to the American populace. And its American people who forced USA to withdraw. That was one fruitless war for USA, she gained nothing, lost the cream of her youth and traumatized the military. I think Vietnam is a lesson which shows that wining a war foremost requires strategic/political vision which is attainable by means available to the nation; otherwise whatever superiority in tactics and/or technology you hold,you would lose in the long run.

 

[gambit]

Thanks Gambit for the explanation. I believe what has happened in Vietnam has been good for the country;maybe I'm wrong,but that's how I feel. And US did not initially anticipate the outcome of her involvement in Vietnam. They really lacked the Grand Strategic vision in Vietnam. If they had they should have secured the future of South Vietnam when they had the upper hand their. They failed to sell their plan to the American populace. And its American people who forced USA to withdraw. That was one fruitless war for USA, she gained nothing, lost the cream of her youth and traumatized the military. I think Vietnam is a lesson which shows that wining a war foremost requires strategic/political vision which is attainable by means available to the nation; otherwise whatever superiority in tactics and/or technology you hold,you would lose in the long run.

Not really. The final and greater goal was communist containment which according to Lee Kuan Yew many Asian countries were glad the US got involved in Viet Nam. The 'Vietnam quagmire' for the US also meant a delay or even cancellation of any communist expansion thru military force by China and/or the Soviet Union. US involvement in Viet Nam allowed them to consolidate their rule over their own countries, strengthened their economies and militaries, and form political alliances that no matter how tenuous those alliances appeared back then, at least it was better than nothing and presented to the communists a unified military front.

What the US/SVN alliance erred back then was NOT to match North Viet Nam's political goal: a unified Viet Nam under one administration. In fact, by 1972 under the policy 'Vietnamization of the war', the majority of US ground forces were already out of the country, leaving only the USAF and US Army Special Forces as active participants in the war. The South Vietnamese did suffered some military set backs but also had matching successes, notably the 1972 Easter Offensive where the ARVN handed the famous North Vietnamese general and supposedly military 'genius' Võ Nguyên Giáp his defeat. If the US had continued to support SVN, the South Vietnamese probably would have gained enough strength to beat the NVA beyond the 17th and took the whole country.