Lewis Sorely presents "Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam," as part of the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center's Perspectives in Military History Lecture Series.
Come on! I was in Vietnam in 1969 and everyone who ever knew Westy knew he was a delusional liar and had no confidence in him whatsoever. He was stupid enough to think that WWII tactics would win a guerilla war. I was a Huey pilot and often listened to various staff pukes discuss how they were going to lie about the events of the day! It was pitiful! Westmoreland and Nixon and LBJ and McNamara and Kissinger constantly lied to the American public and all should have been put in prison.
Just for the amount of American lives needlessly lost, I'd have to agree with you. Too bad that none of those key players were ever fitted for an orange jumpsuit.
Yeah , I never understood why the US had so much difficulty with counter-insurgency but I guess that was from the top . Westmoreland's 'tipping point' was a joke .Such a waste of life . Always admired those slick pilots and the rest . UH1 is THE icon of that war.
I was in the NYU graduating class of 1966 and McNamara gave the address. Half the class walked out on him. We had no idea what lied ahead. Decades later Mac wrote a book stating that it was all a mistake. They overestimate the geopolitical importance of Vietnam.
@@aristopus it wasn't "Johnson's war" or Nixon's or McNamara's or anyone else. if there was a "they" it was everyday Silent Majority Amerikeens who would compunctionally vote for Goldwater or other "commie fighters" and that we thought we were a huge military power that could do what the French could not do. plus many of us were emotionally afraid of communism. "the only good commie is a dead commie" was 100% girlie man talk. but our old ally and friend Ho became "communist" because he had no choice in trying to get his country back. and we had no plan to "win", only secure South Vietnam. but the Vietnamese patriots were both from the North, which we only allowed ourselves to aerial bomb [but are really good at that], as well as had plenty of compatriots in the south. they were not being "invaded" in the large sense at all, and as well, massive bombing didn't work as it did in WW2 because they were not fighting us with big army and navy equipment. we rarely ever engaged in dogfights... nor did John McCain...... nor did they drop bombs on us aerially. so there was only perimeter defense bombing and to secure South Vietnam we would have had to kill so many people.... the rest of the world would never have accepted it. no matter how many solders we sent.
Knowing how LONG the Vietcong were able to persist and resist against the French, and their intimate knowledge of the terrain that was being fought on, is a shocking example of his narcissistic and careerist objectives. In addition, McNamara had the same personality defects! You really went easy on him and the administration.
It was a sad history for all of us! My father was a combat commander under General Vangpao from 1969 to 1972. American left Vietnam and the communist also took over Laos in 1975. The Vietnam War affected everyone of us! Thank to all Americans who served!
I appreciate this in furtherance of my understanding of the circumstances surrounding my father's career. Class of 1950 USMA he served in the Air Force with deployments to Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam for a year at about 1970. Dad retired in 1975. I never ascertained his thoughts about this war. I know that he liked to fly, loved his wife and family, and had an abiding desire to help other people.
The Australian Army could only tolerate the American military for twelve months. American tactics were outright wrong for that war. After a year the Australian Forces formed their own command and control operations and proceeded to conduct counter insurgency warfare. They had developed the necessary skills and tactics fighting in Malaysia with the British Army. They achieved success against the communist forces. It should be noted that after engaging with the Australian army the North Vietnamese and Viet Kong were very wary of engaging the Australians. Suffice to say that it took little time for the Australians to have almost total control over their area of operations. The Australian commitment whilst tiny in comparison to the American effort was highly effective. The other force in country, often overlooked were the South Koreans. They understood the Asian way of war. They were totally ruthless in their hunting and killing the enemy. At one period there were more South Korean troops in country than American. Recall an interview whereby the media agent asked Westmoreland how he intended to prosecute the war. His reply was with firepower. Right there was a red flag. This man was out of his depth.
Thank you Australians, and the rest is so sickening. Patriotic, to the max, but plenty of criticism for the leaders of this country of ours, then, and now.
No matter how good you are you cannot win against a people in their own country because they will never stop fighting you and one day you have to leave.
Westmorland’s focus on technocratic targets such as body counts would have meshed well with McNamara’s approach, based on his history as a business manager.
Absolutely correct! South Carolina culture breeds arrogant incompetence...tin soldiers and politicians who confuse their Neo-Confederacy culture with military competence and arrogant superiority complexes. Look at Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham, Nancy Mace, and of course Strom Thurmond...I rest my case.
It ended up that JFK was decades ahead of so many in high positions including his own vice president. He would have dumped LBJ from the ticket in 1964 had he lived. He also would have insisted J. Edgar Hoover accept mandatory retirement on his 70th birthday on 01/01/65 which was the law at the time. He was conducting back channel negotiations with Krushchev and Fidel Castro. In fact, he had a representative meeting with Castro on 11/22/63.
A CIA report from January 1968 made it clear that North Vietnam had a population of 18 million and adequate manpower reserves to fight a long war. Westmoreland must have known this. So why did he think a war of attrition would work?
A couple points here should be made because few Americans seem to grasp them. The Soviet Union had developed a superior method of close quarter battle with cheap mass produced but highly effective automatic weapons.The Soviets in WW2 had stumbled upon the power of close quarters battle with massive numbers of cheap to produce submachine guns that sprayed out a hailstorm of bullets. The Soviets made 6.5 MILLION submachine guns in WW2, including the Ppsh-41 and the PPS-43. The 1939-40 Finnish Winter war impressed upon the Soviets the need for a submachine gun. The Soviets faced the highly mobile Finnish ski troops with Suomi submachine guns. The Soviet PPD-40 was simplified into the Ppsh-41 for mass production using stamped metal parts, spot welding and a heavy bolt with few pieces along with chrome lined Mosin-Nagant rifle barrels. These submachineguns fired the potent Tokarov 7.62x25mm pistol round to a range behind 120 meters. At the battle of Stalingrad, General Chuikov started organized assault teams of about 80 men mostly armed with submachine guns, grenades, satchel charges, for the assault forces and follow on forces with antitank rifle teams, light and heavy machinegun teams and assortment of sapper troops with demolition charges flamethrowers. A a brief sharp mortar and artillery barrage would precede a antitank gun or an artillery gun would blast a hole in brick wall of the objective building. The Soviet assault teams with submachine guns would clear the room with the blasted hole with submachine guns bursts and grenades. The follow on teams would provide cover fire in overwatch positions upon German Wehrmacht positions for the assault teams then make their way into the objective building to secure the floor and adjacent rooms of the assault team. As the follow on forces made their way into the rooms of the objective held by the assault teams, a methodical clearing process of all German Wehrmacht positions in the building were carried out with grenades, submachine guns, satchel charges and sharpened spades. The Germans hated this close quarters fighting while the Soviets seem to excel at it. The Soviets found it made lots of sense to equip all their infantry rifle companies with at least a platoon of submachine guns and the other platoons had several submachine guns. Whole Soviet rifle battalions were equipped with grenades, submachine guns, and sharpened spades and perhaps a few light machine guns. These tank rider battalions became famous for jumping off on top of German Wehrmacht poaitions clearing trenches, fortified buildings, and pillboxes with close quarters infantry assaults with grenades and submachine guns hosing down down the Germans defenders. The Soviets adopted this style of close quarters assault with the Ppsh-41 hosing down Germans soldiers all across the front. These Soviet submachine gun infantry attacks always had plenty of tank support preceding with pulverizing artillery and mortar barrages. These Soviet close quarters infantry assaults caused heavy German Wehrmcht casualties and attrition forcing them out of Soviet territory and back to Eastern Europe. This Soviet method of close quarters is important to understand because the Soviets also gave their partisan units, parachutist troops, and cavalry soldiers submachine guns. These cavalry troops were used extensively for raids and guerrilla attacks in the German Wehrmacht rear areas. The partisan warfare, reinforced with these cavalry and parachutist soldiers, used classic guerrilla attacks on German supply centers, railways, and road networks. Chuikov's assault teams and follow on units were employed with partisan attacks, ambushes and meeting engagements with German security forces. German locomotives were knocked out by antitank rifles as were German trucks and light armored vehicles. Assault teams with submachine guns waited in ambush to hose down German troops in trucks or columns of march in the forests of Belarus while overwatch units or in road blocks with antitank rifles, light machine guns, and mines or satchel charges attacked targets of opportunity while preventing the Germans from retreating. The partisans then retreated into the forests before German reinforcements and relief columns could aid them. These partisan attacks were pitless and without quarter given on either side. Cavalry units used the same type of dismounted ambush tactics in their sweeps behind German Wehrmacht lines. Cavalry units usually attacked during the night or early morning on isolated German units with the typical overwhelming numbers of submachine guns in close quarters attacks. Then the cavalry road away into the forests in some predetermined hiding spot afterwards. If you have read these couple of paragrapshs, you now have a blue print as to how the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, Viet Minh and later Viet Cong were so successful against the Chinese Nationalists, the South Koreans, the Americans and French. The submachine gun, or burp gun as it was called in Korea, was highly effective in Commmunist small unit infantry assaults, patrols, meeting engagements, ambushes and in partisan warfare. Large numbers of submachine guns and later the superb AK-47 assault rifle were used in close quarters battle with militia soldiers. These groups of militia soldiers stuck close to the Soviet model of 80 to 100 man assault groups. These 80 to 100 man assault groups were armed with support weapons like antitank rifles later on RPG's, light machine guns, and a sappers with satchel charges, grenades or mines and perhaps a sniper rifle or two. But the majority of the communist militia troops were equipped with submachine guns or AK-47 assault rifles. It is the guerrilla tactics, the huge amount of tunnels, careful planning, and political officers that made the communists so effective. The battle of attrition using close quarters ambushes and meeting engagements against Western armies negated superior air, armor, and artillery firepower. Given the Soviet shrewdness in developing mass produced submachine gun/AK-47 bullet hoses, it seems unlikely General Westmoreland or any other American general could have beaten the communist forces against him. Americans have a poor understanding of the asymmetric tactics used by the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, and Viet Cong/NVA. We are still struggling today in Iraq and Afghanistan against asymmetric tacitics against almost invisible foes with only limited success. The corrupt, kleptocratic, and incompetent American backed partner governments have always hurt us in South Korea, South Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan. We are forced into a militqry stalemate. The American public grows weary of the casualties in the stalemated or quagmire war. In a war that lasts for generation, the American cultural "corporate quick profit clock" is extremely ineffective in such long drawn counterinsurgency wars. A shrewd enemy that uses asymmetric tactics is almost guaranteed to cause military stalemate with heavy American losses with political problems at home with erosion for support of the war amongst the American public.
Exemplary narrative, scholarly researched, and commanding presentation of: The general who lost Vietnam. Our nation owes Lewis Sorley a debt of gratitude.
None of us should have ever even been there! ... It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Losing is RIGHT. Westmoreland, and his dick-brain soul - mate, McNamara, steered their silly-putty brained President, to his fatal, career-wrecking end. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Thereat follows leaving MacNamarsin a position of power!Yjrbasticheisevidentlystll expecting grateful nation to build him monument thr National Mallforhisdevoted services euro-errnie defeatism! Pitytheyburnedthat mountain of horsemanuaat Ft. Sill-Arlington'srunningshortof spacer "heroes"like him!
This is great. Mr Sorely conveys the tragedy of Westmoreland. Ultimately LBJ must bear responsibility for the mistake of apppointing Westmoreland to that position.
An old-time (before Westmoreland took command) Special Forces sergeant told me that the war was going well until Westmoreland took command. Interesting perspective.
The war was never going well...it was unwinnable unless you think killing every last Vietnamese was a good idea....I was there.....going well ....are you freaking kidding me.
I think your Sarge was lost in nostalgia. When Harkins handed the reins to Westy the sledgehammer 600 man VC battalions were smashing the ARVN to pieces. They would have won by June 65 if the US had not intervened
@@haroldburrows4770 we should have walked away in 65 ...think of all the lives that would have been saved on both sides...and now we are two friendly countries!!! If you ever get a chance visit Vietnam...I went as a Traveller in 2000...there were vets that had gone back to live there!! Some were a little screwed up still.
Hindsight is 20/20. A great tragedy for all who lost their lives both French-USA-Vietnamese ( who lost the most) FREEDOM IS PRECIOUS VIETNAM PAID THE PRICE IN FULL.
I was in CU CHI Vietnam in 69-70 I'm proud to have served. Westmoreland was already gone when I came in country. I blame The Army and Washington for putting Westmoreland in there in the first place. He wasn't the Man for the job.
If he was so qualified and had all those ribbons on his uniform, why did he lose the war? Westmoreland tried to run the war by stats that he cooked. No wonder we lost.
@donald johnson Westmorelands tactics were not suited for the terrain or the enemy. He failed to see the prize was the people, and wasted our efforts trying to hold worthless, leech-infested, disease-ridden waste land. Westy tried to use fixed fortifications to defeat a highly mobile, decentralized enemy. Maginot Line, anyone? Westmoreland was too arrogant to listen to Marine General Silent Lew Walt in I Corps, who had far more success, because Walt saw the prize was the people and attacked the enemy's plans.
As a old marine and one who had the honor to fight in Nam. I dont blame Westmoreland. The war for Vietnam was lost in DC not indochina. This is not to mock the NVA or VC who frought against me with courage, But the fact is the war was lost in DC.
You might say the war was lost as soon as the US decided to support an oppressive, colonial regime. Vietnam was a colony fighting for its independence. The US put itself on the wrong side of that conflict.
Thanks for this, as a Brit who has little understanding of the War. I have a very vivid memory of visiting Prestwick Airport, Scotland one night in 1967. There were three hundred coal black US soldiers in transit in the foyer, they were young men who were somewhat bewildered. I doubt many came home. I doubt any ever understood why they were there. So sad.
Info: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country... Both executed Nov. 1963...
I was drafted into the Army in August of 1967. I served in the Republic of Vietnam as a crew chief on OH 6A helicopters 1st Aviation. I earned the rank of Specialist 5 in 5 months. I got to Vietnam about May of 1968 arriving in the middle of Mini-Tet at the Second Battle of Saigon. The Tan Son Nhut Air Base had been overrun so we were delayed on our landing. We were hit with a rocket attack on about May 8, 1968, and my buddy got shrapnel in his face and I got blown out of my bunk. I was given one size shoes too large with flat feet, and the sergeant was rude when he gave me those shoes. At that moment in time, the Army sucked. [1] During the period from 5 May to 30 June 997 B-52 sorties were flown within 40km of downtown Saigon to prevent the VC from massing their troops. [1] U.S. casualties across South Vietnam were 2,070 killed for the entire month of May making it the deadliest month of the entire Vietnam War for U.S. forces, while South Vietnamese losses were 143 killed. VC/PAVN losses exceeded 30,000 killed. The May Offensive was considered much bloodier than the initial phase of the Tet Offensive. [2] Extensive use was made of artillery and airstrikes to dislodge VC who established fighting positions in the stronger concrete buildings within Saigon, with the result that 13,830 homes were destroyed, 599 civilians were killed, 5,657 were wounded and approximately 150,000 were made homeless. The VC had essentially been ordered "to try to do what they had failed to do with far greater numbers three months earlier". VC General Huynh Cong Than later stated "Our troops could not penetrate any deeper than they had during the first offensive, and in places didn't even get as far as they had the first time. As cited in the [3] Spector book on page xvi, "From January to July 1968, the overall rate of men killed in action in Vietnam would reach an all time high and would exceed the rate for the Korean War and the Mediterranean and Pacific theaters during World War II. This was truly the bloodiest phase of the Vietnam War as well as the most neglected one." I spent a fortnight in the 36th Evacuation Hospital during October 1968, which was (Semi-Mobile) Vung Tau 7 March 1966 - 28 November 1969. Terrible conditions with inadequate medical personal. We were fed in styrofoam cups. We were given 5 cups, one was liquid Jell-O, one chicken broth, 1 powdered chocolate milk, and the other 2 - I couldn't even describe. We couldn't get parts for the OH 6A Hughes helicopter. We had to get parts from the bone yard. The Viet Cong rocketed the bone yard. I ordered parts from Sears for our unit helicopter using our own money. I still have the Sears letter today. Too bad you mucky tee mucks don't listen to the troops. I could go into a lot more detail, but my experience is that troops don't matter. I only saw a one-star general once in Vietnam and my commanding major told me NOT to speak to him. I once witnessed former President Nguyen Cao KY crash his airplane right in front of me. He took off with the wind at his back and almost hit my helicopter with me on top inspecting the rotor blades. After the crash as the airplane caught fire, Ky was throwing the girls out of the back of the cargo plane. My opinion of Westmoreland is that he didn't get support from LBJ. He didn't know what was going on under his command with the lack of supplies. My opinion of the officers in leadership was that it was awful. SEATO got us into Vietnam and the pentagon leadership abandoned our USA troops in the field. The number 1 indictment is that all our missions were sent to the UN before we could perform the mission. The Role of the Military Attaché in Diplomacy at the UN was to notify the North Vietnamese Army that we were coming. Look at my credentials. Regards... References: 1. Thompson, A.W. (14 December 1968). The Defense of Saigon. Headquarters Pacific Air Force. p. 20. 2. Tucker Spencer C. (2011). The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 759-60. ISBN 1851099611 3. Ronald H. Spector (1993). After Tet. Free Press. ISBN 0-02-930380-X
@Clem Cornpone As a martial artist I can attest that the capacity to use force is mainly useful in the ability to project deterrence. North Vietnam wouldn't surrender no many how many boots were on the ground in its southern neighbor. Other postulations are irrelevant. Japan landed in Hanoi and curb stomped Vietnam into submission in @ 6 weeks.
If I hated the UN before-- its doubled now. Thank You for your service buddy-- The frustration went down to kids like me- who were in grade school during Nam. It felt like we had a better team-- but NOBODY outside wanted us to win. The treatment you guys got coming home was worst of all. I cant speak to the leadership-- but it sounds like a Govt beauracrat run War-- with us only allowed to fight with one arm.. Im glad you got to share your experience-- God Bless-- love you.
@Clem Cornpone It is true the conflict included a civil war element with the VC, though like the NVA they were both supplied via the North. The North would only relinquish an attack upon a cutting of their supplies and or brutal conquest of their territory. Without such a hardened attitude they would have been assimilated into the Chinese dynastic territory thousands of years ago.
"I must say I find it very sad that a famous officer who rose to the top ranks of his profession found a political event the most memorable in his career" 20:41 Well said!!!
I was in the Tet Offensive and am appalled that Westmoreland refused General Fred Weyand and Lt Col John Paul Vann's advice that Saigon was about to be attacked; because Westmoreland denied what was about to happen, I almost died; in Saigon there were only 300 US troops and us 4 truck drivers, but 7,000 VC had infiltrated the city and the MPs asked me if I had seen any US troops around the city, and I hadn't. He said he was seeing hundreds of new faces, the infiltrators no doubt. Got out of Saigon at 2:30 is what saved me, they couldn't shoot until 3am, the time the offensive was set to begin.
Blake No Stupid!! for the US there was a NORTH & South VN BUT for the VN there was only ONE VN. All the Civilians of the South were of the same mentality. There was no infiltration. They were already there all along!!! The VN only wanted the US to get the fuck OUT of their country so they could govern themselves AFTER they liberated themselves from the FRENCH! But the US refused as it wanted to be the NEXT Subjugator and made up the False Flag attack of Tonkin as an excuse to kick ass!! This is WHY the VN were ONE and the same. except for the sellouts in the "South" VN Military. If You were there, it is amazing that you have NOT known the truth or figured it out..........
@@jesscast5122 yes all dictators the USA props up. pocket as many USA tax dollars as they can. some get out while the getting is good some are too greedy wait too long
Wow! This was an ill advised war for sure. JFK was going to get us out in 1965, but he got killed before he had a chance to do it. Now, Vietnam is still Communist AND a MOST FAVORED NATION TRADING PARTNER. Go figure!
Thank you for your service. I'm glad you made it out of there. American deaths due to incompetent leaders trying to save face makes my blood boil. The fact that he got away with it without going to prison blows my mind.
We did not "lose" Vietnam. We were finally pushed out of a place where we had no ownership, an imperial projection. We were trespassers, as were the French.
When I recall the faces of my classmates who fell, when I think of the media frenzy, when I remember the lies and the long Nixonian disengagement, I understand why we don't have a draftee army today. All credibility was spent defending the Dulles boys' line in the sand.
Kind of silly to praise Westmoreland for his brilliant command of the 101st -- in peacetime. Most likely he would have failed just as spectacularly as a divisional commander in combat as he did as a CINC, just on a smaller scale. He sounds like the classic "paint the rocks" senior officer -- you walk through his areas and everything just looks amazing, every uniform pressed, every weed pulled, every paper sitting contentedly in its document protector. What a joke.
Westie just another victim of those times: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
I'm no expert on military leadership. I only noticed the similarity between how Lewis describes Westmoreland and how some have described Admiral Bill Halsey--that they had been subject to the Peter Principal: promoted beyond their best abilities.
@Dissident Aggressor When and how did the involvement of the US in Viet Nan ever give freedom and a carefree youth to anyone? Use your brain instead of slogans.
I was in the Guard with a colonel who was airborne enlisted during the Korean Wat. He said their unit had been pulled back to Japan and they were just beginning to enjoy themselves. Their commander assembled the troops and announced, "I got us another crack at them. We're going back, Boys!", or something to that effect. I think my friend said it was Westmoreland, and the troops were pissed. They'd been happy to get out of there, and now Westmoreland got them back in.
@@ultimtdisc You're right, "I think" is not completely fair, but I seem to recall he said Westmorland, and the point was the troops were drug back in for someone else's glory. Thanks for pointing that out.
The revelation just past the 47:45 mark is astounding - I had to rewind the video and listen again. How could this man get to be a 4 star general with practically no formal advanced military education?
Westmoreland never attended Command and General Staff School and also never went to the Army War College. How does someone like this get this high in his career without attending these schools?
As a former Vietnam veteran I agree with your assessment of General Westmoreland. He was, as you say, promoted beyond his capacity. Because f that and his insistence of using body counts as a thumb nail, we never took territory that we kept. Plus because positive body count numbers meant promotions and medals for everyone from lieutenants on up, they were routinely misrepresented. I don't believe about that stuff that he cared so much about the troops either. He'd come by a headquarters, I never saw him in a line unit. Hand out a few medals, shake a few hands and inspect the troops there who were made up like something straight out of a stateside post, not a combat unit and then disappear. You are also right about the one year rotation. It was a bad thing. Took you about seven months to get used to everything and by that time you started your countdown so you got slack sometimes. It wouldn't have worked any other way though because the American public would not have stood for a call up situation like WWII. I spent two tours there (nearly) so I was able to get the benefit of longevity. I think that Kissinger should be added to your list, he was just as willing to "abandon the truth" as the rest of them were. The one thing I took away from that place though is that ethnic difference don't mean anything and you've got to work as a team.
Westmoreland didn't help, but I believe the war was already hopeless because Ngo Dihn Diem created a corrupt, repressive kleptocracy instead of a good government the south Vietnamese people would support.
The do not cross red line around the south meant there was no solution to the war, the north had no reason to feed troops and material beyond a level they could handle into the fight. If they knew the north's support would collapse in the 90s as the south's entry in the world economy increases, they might have adapted a possible solution of minimalist involvement and kick the can down the road for 30 years. But they were not psychic, and Washington would never pay for someone else's 30 year war. The best solution would have realized there was no solution either before they sent troops or when they realized what the north's man and material levels were going to be.
What a sad tale! I think if that monument on the mall in Washington, how those young men were served up on the altar of a foolish mans ego. No other officer defended them.
Get the right evil 'foolish man': It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
My father was assigned to Westmorelands staff as Naval Deptuty of Plans for which he received Legion of Merit later. He was gone an entire year. After that he was CO of NAS North Island. Years later in his USNA42 Class of 42 50 year alumni book he mentioned that Westmorelands would micromanage everything which made working for him difficult. From that experience he did not think entering the Iraq War was a good idea.
Westmoreland was probably the typical guy at the office that gets promoted by a combination of luck, looks, politics and some genuine talent, but when they arrive at their top position they are not effective, having said that I think McNamara shares more blame than the General that after all was doing the best he could with the limitations Washington put on him and was in the front lines with the men against a very motivated and tough enemy, while the secretary was in social parties in Columbia university every weekend
So why do we continue to lose ridiculous wars in distant lands where no one likes us??? Excuse me? Our imperial adventures have been a collossal failure.
Tooth to tail ratio in VN was 1 to 8. An army of clerks, lifeguards, mechanics and various staff comprised the 'forces'. Who was out beating the bush? Hardly anyone.
My understanding is that the British Army manages on a ratio of 1 to 3 but then their soldiers don't have to be supplied with ice cream, Coca Cola or Momma's apple pie. The Bitish secret weapon in motivating the troops appears to be "Right you lot, you've got two choices. You go to fight the Boche or attend a Vera Lynn concert." Exit stage left at the double towards the sound of gunfire. :-)
The Main Points: Many here miss the main points of the presentation. The choice among the US generals was whether to fight a war of attrition as Westy pursued, or a counterinsurgency strategy to win over ‘hearts and mind’ and separate the Cong from the civilian population. A war of attrition to kill off as many of the enemy as possible with the hope he will get discouraged and give up is like running on a treadmill that went nowhere. As long as the enemy was willing to absorb terrific loses and replace them, nothing US Forces did could change the outcome. A war of attrition fails to understand how the civilian population was deeply involved in the Cong’s military operations. The baby sans and mama sans were in one capacity or another part of the Cong’s military operations and were left out of, or underestimated in general Westy’s enemy’s order of battle. The behavior of American troops towards the civilians was part of the war of attrition. Their usual practice was to burn the villages down, burn off the crops, kill off the livestock, and remove the villagers from the land scape and make the area into a free fire zone. The assumption was anything moving in a free fire zone was/is Cong, not innocent peasants. Those behaviors only aroused hate and resentment as well as strong support for the Cong. ARVN needed to be reformed, trained and properly equipped because it was corrupt and treated the peasants like dirt. They could have been helpful in a counterinsurgency strategy if reformed to respect the peasants, but Westy apparently never considered it. If ARVN had been made part of the US army chain of command, the reforms it needed could have been affected. The other point of the video is that Westy should have been replaced when it was clear his war of attrition was not working. This was apparent to even Westy’s key subordinates and the army’s Chief of Staff, H.K. Johnson. Unlike Lincoln who found his general in Grant, President Johnson keep an incompetent general in charge for four long years. General Westmoreland was no General Grant. RH
served under Col Moore Air Cav , in the Ira Drang valley campaign, in the middle of the furious battle, Westmoreland wanted Moore to come to Saigon and brief him. Moore basically told Westie to "stick it". After the fight, Westie wanted to court marital Moore. The troops found out and started to go the press, Westie backed down. Westie if he wanted to go near his troops, it had to be carefully staged. The bet was we would get him before the VC. Westie was hated intensely by his troops.
It takes about a half-century before the old Back-Room Clubs of a military establishment accept and openly acknowledge the follies and failures of its icons. That's exactly what's happening here.
As son of a Officer who came up thru the ranks and as a Veteran (64-71) I found most Senior Officer's during the Vietnam War were not very good, few were combat vet's, most were still fighting with WW2 doctrine. Only the fact there were so many ROTC and 90 day wonders kept the Army from complete disaster.
What strikes me the most is how truly brilliant men--ten times smarter than I will ever be--can be totally wrong. That's not just Westmoreland but also McNamara, Johnson and Wheeler.
As a Vietnam veteran I can only say that I blame Johnson. In August of 1963 JFK traveled to NYC to talk to General MacArthur who lived at Waldorf Astoria. The old man told him that it was not the terrain or the place to fight a war. JFK was too smart to fall into that trap.
JFK was going to get out of Vietnam. Probably why he was assassinated. LBJ's "guns and butter" program (run a full scale war and build "The Great Society" on the same dollar) doomed both.
@@llarzelere No he was not. There is absolutely no evidence that he was going to leave Vietnam. In fact, he was the one who initiated Operation Farmgate in 1961, the first major escalation of over 16,000 combat troops to South Vietnam. As for the assassination, he was killed because he and his brother double crossed Sam Giancana and the Chicago mafia for not backing off on anti-mob activities when the Chicago Outfit delivered the city (and therefore Illinois) to JFK in 1960. At the time, this was closest election in American history. The mob felt betrayed when RFK continued his investigations and pressure on them. Therefore, they killed JFK. Note that Jack Ruby was not linked to the Pentagon or CIA or whatever, he was connected to the mafia. Ruby killed the "patsy" to shut him up, and obeyed the rule of omerta, or mob code of silence, for the rest of his life in prison.
"The instrument of our betrayal of South Vietnam was the Congress of the United States"... bottom line that isn't even mentioned anymore because it's our greatest disgrace.
In '71, more U.S. Troops dying from drug abuse than from enemy action... fact... It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country... Both executed Nov. 1963... too bad not sooner...
Westmoreland was a D-day hero. Vietnam was a completely different kind of war, and it destroyed him and the countries involved, especially Laos, Cambodia, and the southern part of Vietnam.
Thank you for this.....a superb and accurate analysis of the thoughts,actions and fiber of a man who was out of his depth in a position of near total command and without any vestige of the premier prerequisite of any commander,namely integrity.
All I needed to know about Vietnam was in the words of the great warrior poet Animal Mother. "If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word's 'POONTANG'."
"THE MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous." THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr. Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971
This quotation is one of those many reasons why i strongly opposite the perspective Sorley is giving in his book. I have red it. Interesting but some how denying hard facts: American military forces were in really bad morale shape after 1968 dilemma. Sorley has sold his ideas and now American forces time after time are repeating their fantasies of "winning the war". They haven't really learned their lessons. Pretty common attitude among imperial forces.
Way before all that: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Thank you Sir, for setting the record straight on the performance of the Marine Corps in Viet Nam which was, in my opinion exemplary! Westmoreland was another Custer and the damned Army has along record of people like this who went thru West Point! West Point is way overrated as an institution and in my opine VMI is a much better college preparatory to military service!
The politicians caused everything to fail just like in the Bush Jr/Obama regimes pushed us into fatal flawed wars and the mainstream media pushes Trump hard to go into ridiculous 'wars' like in Syria...which we are losing the same way as the Vietnam war. Hearts and minds!!!
Don;t forget us OCS officer that lots of enlisted time. I once was the only OCS officer in the midst of some 30 West Pointers. I could match all of them for more than enough competence and trust from the EM. No officer should serve without 2 years enlisted time.
The Army was promoting men to its highest levels who had cut their teeth fighting the German's in big mechanized Infantry/Armored clashes in western Europe and North Africa, and who later continued fighting largely mechanized and light Infantry forces in Korea. When faced with the demands and political restrictions of the Vietnam War, the Army tried to fight it like was back in France in 1944. The Army ignored promoting to the top command in Vietnam, guys who had cut their teeth against the Japanese in the Philippines and Burma in jungle warfare. They didn't find the guys who ran Ranger Battalions and the Devil's Brigade in Europe or the Mauraders and Sixth Ranger Battalion in the Pacific. They should have elevated a Special Forces Colonel to General or at least took an Airborne Officer from the 82nd or 101st. The Army had guys steeped in mechanized warfare from the ETO of WW2, running a jungle war and that was insane. The Marine Corps had decades of jungle/irregular warfare experience from Latin America to Guadalcanal, yet none of those guys (either still on active duty or retired) were being consulted on how to deal with a jungle guerilla war. The Australians were with us and were excellent jungle fighters and the British had lots of experience too. But the US Army wanted to fight the Battle of The Bulge.
General Creighton Abrams , when he took over, was appalled at the problems of just shoving more soldiers over there with the hasty sloppy training they had gotten. He then started doing the task of Vietnamization of the ARVN, that should have been done earlier
Westmoreland was an artillery man with a Masters degree,, Trying to win a guerrilla, jungle infantry war,,, He wasn't qualified ,,he should have never taken the job..And he never succeeded in cutting off the Ho Chi Minh Trail...dah
The war should not have ever happened... It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
The Ho Chi Minh Trail wasn't a defined thing. As soon as it was destroyed, they moved it somewhere else, and as soon as it was destroyed, they moved it again and so on and so on. What he never did was cross the DMZ and march into Hanoi......but he wasn't allowed to do that, was he?
Just curious. How should the war have been fought from an American perspective, if indeed, it was deemed that we were saving a democracy on good faith.
In Korea and ww2 the enemy had no sanctuaries or secure lines of supplies we sank Japanese fleet /see how Far East was lost/Chinese had unlimited manpower but were vulnerable see John Tolands mortal combat about Korea best Jimmy Mack
Great comment. While I was at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, as a cadet, I met Gen W. I later wrote a book and mentioned in this the same remark you have just made.
48:00 - To me the most telling comment, from the perspective of this presenter's "go it alone" assessment of the general's career. His insular nature and apparently gracious veneer was not exposed to assessment by peers or instructors at those institutions. 5:01 - A lesson in instilling confidence in a young man, one any of our sons may benefit from.
Lyndon Johnson is known mainly for two things: his disastrous Great Society, and his equally disastrous handling of the Vietnam War. The damage he did to America while president is astonishing.
Vietnam was lost as soon as USA joined the war. France had already lost, despite major materia-l and training superiority. China (and in the background Soviet) whould not allow a US base on the Chinese border. Vietnam was given major help and whould have been given more, as happend in Kora, need be. Unless USA was ok to fight China directly this war was doomed.
I agree with your last point but not with any parallels between French and US military capabilities. The French were severely outnumbered and undersupplied.
Of course... because it was all WRONG! It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
I couldn't agree with you more. The US involvement in Vietnam, like many other proxy wars, was motivated by irrational fear of the Communists. It was never in the interest of US (or the Vietnamese). What dismays me is that we can't seem to learn from the failure in Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan were similarly ill-conceived and we're about to get involved in Syria for no clear reason.
Repressive ? Compared to what followed: genocide....mass murder...boat people....slave labor camps....re-education camps ??? We never should have helped assasinate Diem. That was mistake #1. Mistake #2 was not taking the war to North Vietnam and taking out Haiphong and Hanoi.
It s all started with the French ! US should have forced France to give Vietnam freedom and democracy right after ww2 , like they forced Britain to do so .
tom tru The US did not do so because the US did not see it in their interest to do so. The US wanted the British empire to fall when the Atlantic Charter was signed, so it can take it over to a point and trade with it. They did not feel the same towards the French empire.
tom tru Good chance that is partly why. Plus many in the US at the time were very, to extremely anglophobic. Which may seem strange with the US and UK having such a good relationship now, while France is now the nation belittled and hated by the US.
Peorhum I'm Uk and you are like the big brother to beat up a bully at school if you get any hassle. I like americans but detest their politicians.I detest politicians anyway. The people I've met in the Uk have been polite and genuine people and you can't help but think they are very like us and like them. Stay cool guys.
tim truo Getting the French out was US policy, the OSS armed the communists and actively helped them to power. At one point they actually locked up the French colonial administrators. This link is a good start www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwjHp73rs7zHAhVL2hoKHQPnBUg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArchimedes_Patti&ei=pUTYVYfBAsu0a4POl8AE&usg=AFQjCNFsd8IQEUjLhoLl353ppagK4x4O5w&sig2=pNYsQ5FvDV42UKYEyAzwKA
Harold Johnson was a remarkable officer. He was captured in the Philippines in 1942 and overcame three years in captivity to continue in the Army, provided excellent service in Korea, and rose to USACOS
Pacification and Long-Term Development of South Vietnam (PROVN) apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0377743.pdf This is the complete 510 page document sourced directly from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
Mr. Sorely, I read your book as an undergrad trying to answer the reason why Rolling Thunder failed. My conclusion was largely based on your own on Westy's performance, though it was wider: Rolling Thunder failed because, early on, it was wrongly based on the assumption that the North was the main supplier of Communist armament (Bob Pape), it failed because the US political situation was easy to exploit (cables between Beijing, Hanoi, and the Viet Cong), and mostly because General Westmoreland failed to exploit US successes against Communist forces to adequately pressure the Southern government form itself into a viable and potent power. Without a viable Southern government, no military victory could have ever amounted into a stable South Vietnam.
FACT: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country... It never should have happened...
Nobody knows what JFK would have done there had he remained in office. He is responsible for the assassination of Diem. Some would argue that that was the tipping point for the entire tragedy. I don’t think the deification of the martyred young president is helpful. But it’s hard to imagine him being as incompetent and cynical as Johnson. That’s for sure.
@@gmeliberty - I suspect the Pentagon executed EvilDiem without EvilJFK's knowledge... and when EvilJFK started complaining, he had to be taken out, as well...
BuzzLOLOL / Well, I stand by the statement that JFK could not have been worse than LBJ. Here is an interesting look back at these events: nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
I WAS IN THE RESERVES DEC 1963 TO OCT 67. WHEN I WAS IN BASIC , WE OFTEN HEARD THE LITANY! ".IF YOU DONT MAKE IT IN HERE YOU WILL NEVER MAKE IT IN CIVILIAN LIFE! AND NOW WE HAVE WESTMORELAND WHO MADE IT BIG IN THE ARMY, BUT FAILED JUST THE SAME! THANK GOD I WENT THE RESERVES ROUTE RATHER THAN THE DRAFT,ONLY TO BECOME A BULLET MAGNET!! ALSO I THANK GOD I GOT OUT ON A MEDICAL TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR UNIT ACTIVATION IN NOV 1967 FOR THE ACTIVATION IN MAY 68!! IN AUGUST 1967 JUST BEFORE SUMMER CAMP A REGULAR ARMY OFFICER WAS ASSIGNED TO OUR UNIT AS A ATTENDANCE OFFICER, MORALE OFFICER, AND REENLISTMENT OFFICER AND TRIED HIS DAMDEST TO MAKE A BETTER SOLDIER OUT OF ME! HE TRIED HARD TO GET ME TO QUIT MY RAILROAD JOB AND BECOME A CARREER , EVEN LYING TO ME OF THINGS I KNEW ABOUT RR CARREERS AND HE DIDNT!! I DID HAVE A GREAT 30yr 3 month GO AT IT!!! AND ALL THIS AFTER BEING AN ARMY "FAILURE"!! LOL
One thing that is really overlooked is how Westmoreland and several other senior leaders in Vietnam had all been young officers thrown into the horrible, unproductive disaster known today as the Battle of Huertgen Forest. The Vietnam War looks a lot like the Battle of Huertgen Forest all over again, but larger. How much of a disaster was Huertgen Forest? In his memoirs, Eisenhower wrote only one sentence about this battle which dragged on for 6 months, and typically ground down units to 50% or even as low as 10% strength in less than 2 weeks, and which the troops called, "The Death Factory." Eisenhower's only comment on Huertgen was to say "it was a mistake." This was a battle which produced more dead on a daily basis than the Normandy landings did.
General Westmoreland is unfairly blamed in this Series. The United States backed multiple failed South Vietnamese governments that failed on their own. Diem was deposed in 1963 under curious circumstances. Thieu failed his people. Minh surrendered to the Communists as others surrendered their Posts. Failure in Vietnam can more accurately be shifted from one man and put on a policy that was totally ignorant of a population of millions with a proud history of resisting invading forces.
Best comment, hands down. Anyone interested in why the U.S. didn't prevail during the Vietnam War should read Hal Moore's "We Are Soldiers Still", paying special attention to his interaction after the war with Gen. Giap.
Sean Frisbie There was never a chance that the US could "win" in Vietnam. To the enemy, it was just another anti-colonial campaign in their decades long drive that they would win by outlasting us. Like in others of our wars since, we set-up puppets whom, by their very establishment, lacked credibility with the populace and by their behavior invited disdain by those they should have been courting. The two commanders in George W. Bush's Iraq war understood that the essential premise of the invasion--that we could "teach" the invaded people to be like us down the barrell of a gun, was erroneous. They struggled to somehow extract us from that disastrous policy. I won't even mention Afghanistan's "government" established by us and the annual rotation of commanders into that war. What's wrong with America the keep making the same mistake over and over at the expense of our young servicemen's lives? It is hubris and ignorance; the belief that we are the masters of history, rather than just the latest sleepwalkers through it. God but that our leaders were worthy of the devotion of our young.
Sean Frisbie Completely agree with you. Tragic how 50 years later scapegoats are needed to cover for failed US foreign policy. And naturally it's a soldier because it was a war and politicians have nothing to do with wars apart from starting them in the first place. I wonder who will be blamed for Iraq and Afghanistan 50 years from now...
uegvdczuVF Well, Westmoreland is the only failed general to have it proven in court that he lied about enemy kills in order to sustain a policy that might otherwise have been abandoned--which is to say, but for his lying the politicians MIGHT have changed policy. That is a pretty shitty legacy. However, you are right: the war wasn't "lost" by him. It was never winnable by a national leadership that didn't care to understand the conflict. The failure was the leader....and the American people who believe in a John Wayne punch every problem in the mouth approach to foreign affairs. 40,000 of the 62,000 Americans killed in Vietnam died in a time when the Sec. Defense didn't believe the war winnable. On II/1/67 McNamara so informed the president in writing. He was followed in office by Clifford and Laird who shared his view--62 months more of fighting and dying in a cause known to be lost--undertaken for domestic political reasons. It is easy to say Bush-Cheney are responsible for Iraq, and in fifty years they will still be understood to be primarily responsible. But also responsible were the senators who ignored Sen. Bob Graham's (chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) warning that the intelligence to support going to war wasn't there and they should review it--at the White House where it was kept, before they voted and failed to do so before voting to authorize the invasion. The senior commanders in Iraq always understood the premises of the war--that American guns could teach our way of life in the Middle East, was flawed. One tried to reduce the death and friction of the occupation and the other worked with the ostensive enemy--even employing them, so manage escape before the collapse we brought on. How come they could know and it mattered not in Washington DC or in America as a whole? Ultimately the American people are at fault. Allowing a flawed political process to grind up lives by the tens of thousands on the assumption that we have the biggest dicks in the world and we can make anybody do anything we decide to try. Congressional democracy as an experiment in America has failed. The sooner we replace it, the better. If we don't fix the system eventual republicanism and democracy themselves will be discredited in addition to being irrelevant.
Sean Frisbie it wasn't for westmoreland to sort out the national and geo-politics of vietnam, but to run proper militiary campaign. at that task he failed miserably, as fine & well-informed speaker rightly points out.
I served 6 months under 'Westy' and 6 months under his XO, in the second 6 months we knew we were going home, and that it was all over, it just took time....
I was told that the US marines in Vietnam didn't get alcohol coupons unlike everyone else. It was suggested that Westmoreland said marines were here to fight not drink. Can anyone enlighten me if this is true?
Blaming Westmoreland for the strategy of attrition when nobody in the political leadership wanted to risk an invasion of North Vietnam seems fairly disingenuous, as does emphasizing ARVN advisory deficiencies when the political leadership of South Vietnam struggled to retain legitimacy and was rife with nepotism and corruption for most of the conflict. It's especially grating in light of similar failures experienced during the Afghanistan war decades later.
@@randbarrett8706 That's kind of my point though. Vietnam wasn't a war that was lost by one incompetent general, it's a war that was a bad idea, from concept alone, based on fundamental misunderstandings of geopolitics and the Vietnamese people, and one that several presidents doubled-down on. *All because Lyndon Johnson didn't tell the French to go it alone if they wanted to keep French Indochina so badly* . It was an unnecessary war, the U.S. defeat didn't lead to South East Asia turning communist, and Vietnam abandoned communism by 1986. The Vietnamese weren't fighting to spread worldwide Marxist revolution, they simply wanted an end to colonial rule. If anything, NOT having the war might have prevented the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the destabilization of the region that followed.
Very true: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country... At least we executed both of them in Nov. 1963... but too late...
Mark sounds like you have a awesome family history too. My ancestors came to America as Prussian mercenary he was a teenager, who was a bugler in the army 1776, American Revolutionary War. 1861-1865, GW Fleeger was a Capt. In the Union Army involved in many Civil War battles, and was captured twice. Then ran as a republican for the house of representatives and won from Butler, Pennsylvania. My great grandpa was with Teddy Roosevelt during the battle of San Juan Hill, in Puerto Rico. My family loves our country. And are willing to shed their blood if necessary to protect and save her at all times throughout history. God Bless. My wife family from Oklahoma her father WWll fought against the Japanese. Her dads brother had 2 Sherman tanks shot out from hIm by Germans WWII. I couId never shame my family for not standing up for what's RIGHT.
I once met Westmoreland when I was a first year cadet at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in Australia. It was in 1969. My young impression was that he was a cool and aloof man. His wife, however, seemed a much more realistic and down-to-earth person.
*_When you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, which was the situation of the North Vietnamese, loses don't factor into the equation. Besides, they new at some stage the Americans would have to go home... To the North Vietnamese the outcome was inevitable, all they had to do was to keep supplying U.S personal with cannabis, opium and heroin to weaken their resolve... General Westmoreland never lost the war, American public opinion did._* 👀
@@Ronbo710 I know: It really is a shame, as the Vietnamese people have proven that they are well capable of participating in a '1st world' standard of living.
Westmoreland didn't have a plan to win the war. Fighting for a draw ends up with a loss. Go to war, capture Hanoi, and force the Commies to surrender. The US should never have got involved in SE Asia.
@@Wafflepudding Capturing the Capital would have not only been bad for moral, everything went through Hanoi. It was within reach in 1967 but I doubt Westmoreland wanted the casualties of American troops and I doubt the Joint Chiefs would have gone along with it. One thing for sure, Westmoreland's strategy didn't get the job done. It would have been better to stay out of Vietnam. The puppet government in Saigon was worthless.
But he wasn't allowed to invade the North. The people in Washington were fearful that doing so would provoke a Chinese intervention. An unreasonable fear as we now know (the Vietnamese feared the Chinese even more than they did the West; Ho Chi Minh is quoted as saying, "I'd rather sniff French crap for ten years than eat Chinese crap for the rest of my life."), but the U.S. government wasn't aware of that then. I personally think an invasion was unnecessary; aerial bombing would have sufficed to force the communists to back off and allow the South the exist. See Linebacker II. Rolling Thunder was frequently interrupted and there were a lot of restrictions on what could be hit. Simultaneously, make a serious effort to improve the ARVN, which would take time. At Xuan Loc, the ARVN proved, with proper leadership and equipment, they could beat the NVA. Four NVA divisions (IV Corps) couldn't overwhelm a solitary ARVN division (the 18th).
@@patriciogonzaga3101 That could be, all I'm saying is that the "battle plan" was not a plan US forces used could ever work. A guy I know that served two tours of Duty in Vietnam (has two bronze stars to show for his effort) told me that the American forces "could" have very well attacked and captured Hanoi in 1967. At that time there were over 350,000 infantry troops in the country, along with supporting forces. More than enough Navy ships off shore to bomb the crap out of the territory between the northern most US forces and Hanoi. Plenty of air and naval support. In my buddy's opinion the US would not have wanted to sustain the US casualties and an offensive like that would create. The North Vietnamese would have fought to the death to protect their capital. Westmoreland's "Search and destroy" tactic with an emphasis on "body count" was stupid. Of course, the guy I know was in the Air Force and thought Westmoreland was a Lame Commander.
Why fight a war when 1 or 2 nukes would've done the job ?? We knew long afterwards that there was growing tension between N. Vietnam & China, that Russia wasn't as itchy for nuclear war as we thought in Cuba, and Cambodia didn't know or knew little that NVA/US forces were in their country fighting
I now remember after my meeting with Westmoreland in 1969 later writing in one of my books that he reminded me more of a ramrod stiff British infantry regimental sergeant-major than a 4 star general.
WTF, everybody failed to mention Henry Kissinger, he was more influentially that any General or president, the president looked to him for advice on what to do, and Kissinger becoming more popular the the president and more so with the Hollywood girls, Kissinger made sure that the war continue by his on going secret negotiations behind the scenes with the vietcong, and the fact that we had to play by different rules than the vietcong, we could bomb only on certain days, and certain areas.
Westmoreland was in Vietnam in the 60s, before Nixon became President. Kissinger had no political power at all before Nixon came into office. And to think that the US lost the war because of Kissinger is just silly.
Come on! I was in Vietnam in 1969 and everyone who ever knew Westy knew he was a delusional liar and had no confidence in him whatsoever. He was stupid enough to think that WWII tactics would win a guerilla war. I was a Huey pilot and often listened to various staff pukes discuss how they were going to lie about the events of the day! It was pitiful! Westmoreland and Nixon and LBJ and McNamara and Kissinger constantly lied to the American public and all should have been put in prison.
Just for the amount of American lives needlessly lost, I'd have to agree with you. Too bad that none of those key players were ever fitted for an orange jumpsuit.
Yeah , I never understood why the US had so much difficulty with counter-insurgency but I guess that was from the top . Westmoreland's 'tipping point' was a joke .Such a waste of life . Always admired those slick pilots and the rest . UH1 is THE icon of that war.
@@DrTWG The US difficulty with counter-insurgency continues to this day in Afghanistan. The Taliban has won in all the villages.
I was in the NYU graduating class of 1966 and McNamara gave the address. Half the class walked out on him. We had no idea what lied ahead. Decades later Mac wrote a book stating that it was all a mistake. They overestimate the geopolitical importance of Vietnam.
@@aristopus it wasn't "Johnson's war" or Nixon's or McNamara's or anyone else. if there was a "they" it was everyday Silent Majority Amerikeens who would compunctionally vote for Goldwater or other "commie fighters" and that we thought we were a huge military power that could do what the French could not do. plus many of us were emotionally afraid of communism. "the only good commie is a dead commie" was 100% girlie man talk. but our old ally and friend Ho became "communist" because he had no choice in trying to get his country back. and we had no plan to "win", only secure South Vietnam. but the Vietnamese patriots were both from the North, which we only allowed ourselves to aerial bomb [but are really good at that], as well as had plenty of compatriots in the south. they were not being "invaded" in the large sense at all, and as well, massive bombing didn't work as it did in WW2 because they were not fighting us with big army and navy equipment. we rarely ever engaged in dogfights... nor did John McCain...... nor did they drop bombs on us aerially. so there was only perimeter defense bombing and to secure South Vietnam we would have had to kill so many people.... the rest of the world would never have accepted it. no matter how many solders we sent.
Knowing how LONG the Vietcong were able to persist and resist against the French, and their intimate knowledge of the terrain that was being fought on, is a shocking example of his narcissistic and careerist objectives. In addition, McNamara had the same personality defects!
You really went easy on him and the administration.
My father was in the foreign legion and told me later he was stunned, and not in a good way, when the US decided to roll in with the tactics we used.
It was a sad history for all of us! My father was a combat commander under General Vangpao from 1969 to 1972. American left Vietnam and the communist also took over Laos in 1975. The Vietnam War affected everyone of us! Thank to all Americans who served!
I appreciate this in furtherance of my understanding of the circumstances surrounding my father's career. Class of 1950 USMA he served in the Air Force with deployments to Korea and Vietnam. Vietnam for a year at about 1970. Dad retired in 1975. I never ascertained his thoughts about this war. I know that he liked to fly, loved his wife and family, and had an abiding desire to help other people.
He sounds like a good man.
The Australian Army could only tolerate the American military for twelve months. American tactics were outright wrong for that war.
After a year the Australian Forces formed their own command and control operations and proceeded to conduct counter insurgency warfare. They had developed the necessary skills and tactics fighting in Malaysia with the British Army. They achieved success against the communist forces.
It should be noted that after engaging with the Australian army the North Vietnamese and Viet Kong were very wary of engaging the Australians.
Suffice to say that it took little time for the Australians to have almost total control over their area of operations.
The Australian commitment whilst tiny in comparison to the American effort was highly effective. The other force in country, often overlooked were the South Koreans. They understood the Asian way of war. They were totally ruthless in their hunting and killing the enemy. At one period there were more South Korean troops in country than American.
Recall an interview whereby the media agent asked Westmoreland how he intended to prosecute the war. His reply was with firepower. Right there was a red flag. This man was out of his depth.
Thank you Australians, and the rest is so sickening. Patriotic, to the max, but plenty of criticism for the leaders of this country of ours, then, and now.
No matter how good you are you cannot win against a people in their own country because they will never stop fighting you and one day you have to leave.
i'm a Vietnamese living in Hanoi, and even today we still hear about how effective Australian army was
Westmorland’s focus on technocratic targets such as body counts would have meshed well with McNamara’s approach, based on his history as a business manager.
A classic example of "THE PETER PRINCIPLE"
Absolutely correct! South Carolina culture breeds arrogant incompetence...tin soldiers and politicians who confuse their Neo-Confederacy culture with military competence and arrogant superiority complexes. Look at Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham, Nancy Mace, and of course Strom Thurmond...I rest my case.
It ended up that JFK was decades ahead of so many in high positions including his own vice president. He would have dumped LBJ from the ticket in 1964 had he lived. He also would have insisted J. Edgar Hoover accept mandatory retirement on his 70th birthday on 01/01/65 which was the law at the time. He was conducting back channel negotiations with Krushchev and Fidel Castro. In fact, he had a representative meeting with Castro on 11/22/63.
I listened to this at fast speed and it was still slow
This is incredibly fascinating stuff and explains a lot of why the actions of the US military in Vietnam seemed so pointless and ridiculous.
It has been truly said that attrition is the strategy of no strategy.
A CIA report from January 1968 made it clear that North Vietnam had a population of 18 million and adequate manpower reserves to fight a long war. Westmoreland must have known this. So why did he think a war of attrition would work?
A couple points here should be made because few Americans seem to grasp them. The Soviet Union had developed a superior method of close quarter battle with cheap mass produced but highly effective automatic weapons.The Soviets in WW2 had stumbled upon the power of close quarters battle with massive numbers of cheap to produce submachine guns that sprayed out a hailstorm of bullets. The Soviets made 6.5 MILLION submachine guns in WW2, including the Ppsh-41 and the PPS-43. The 1939-40 Finnish Winter war impressed upon the Soviets the need for a submachine gun. The Soviets faced the highly mobile Finnish ski troops with Suomi submachine guns. The Soviet PPD-40 was simplified into the Ppsh-41 for mass production using stamped metal parts, spot welding and a heavy bolt with few pieces along with chrome lined Mosin-Nagant rifle barrels. These submachineguns fired the potent Tokarov 7.62x25mm pistol round to a range behind 120 meters. At the battle of Stalingrad, General Chuikov started organized assault teams of about 80 men mostly armed with submachine guns, grenades, satchel charges, for the assault forces and follow on forces with antitank rifle teams, light and heavy machinegun teams and assortment of sapper troops with demolition charges flamethrowers. A a brief sharp mortar and artillery barrage would precede a antitank gun or an artillery gun would blast a hole in brick wall of the objective building. The Soviet assault teams with submachine guns would clear the room with the blasted hole with submachine guns bursts and grenades. The follow on teams would provide cover fire in overwatch positions upon German Wehrmacht positions for the assault teams then make their way into the objective building to secure the floor and adjacent rooms of the assault team. As the follow on forces made their way into the rooms of the objective held by the assault teams, a methodical clearing process of all German Wehrmacht positions in the building were carried out with grenades, submachine guns, satchel charges and sharpened spades. The Germans hated this close quarters fighting while the Soviets seem to excel at it.
The Soviets found it made lots of sense to equip all their infantry rifle companies with at least a platoon of submachine guns and the other platoons had several submachine guns. Whole Soviet rifle battalions were equipped with grenades, submachine guns, and sharpened spades and perhaps a few light machine guns. These tank rider battalions became famous for jumping off on top of German Wehrmacht poaitions clearing trenches, fortified buildings, and pillboxes with close quarters infantry assaults with grenades and submachine guns hosing down down the Germans defenders. The Soviets adopted this style of close quarters assault with the Ppsh-41 hosing down Germans soldiers all across the front. These Soviet submachine gun infantry attacks always had plenty of tank support preceding with pulverizing artillery and mortar barrages. These Soviet close quarters infantry assaults caused heavy German Wehrmcht casualties and attrition forcing them out of Soviet territory and back to Eastern Europe.
This Soviet method of close quarters is important to understand because the Soviets also gave their partisan units, parachutist troops, and cavalry soldiers submachine guns. These cavalry troops were used extensively for raids and guerrilla attacks in the German Wehrmacht rear areas. The partisan warfare, reinforced with these cavalry and parachutist soldiers, used classic guerrilla attacks on German supply centers, railways, and road networks. Chuikov's assault teams and follow on units were employed with partisan attacks, ambushes and meeting engagements with German security forces. German locomotives were knocked out by antitank rifles as were German trucks and light armored vehicles. Assault teams with submachine guns waited in ambush to hose down German troops in trucks or columns of march in the forests of Belarus while overwatch units or in road blocks with antitank rifles, light machine guns, and mines or satchel charges attacked targets of opportunity while preventing the Germans from retreating. The partisans then retreated into the forests before German reinforcements and relief columns could aid them. These partisan attacks were pitless and without quarter given on either side. Cavalry units used the same type of dismounted ambush tactics in their sweeps behind German Wehrmacht lines. Cavalry units usually attacked during the night or early morning on isolated German units with the typical overwhelming numbers of submachine guns in close quarters attacks. Then the cavalry road away into the forests in some predetermined hiding spot afterwards.
If you have read these couple of paragrapshs, you now have a blue print as to how the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, Viet Minh and later Viet Cong were so successful against the Chinese Nationalists, the South Koreans, the Americans and French. The submachine gun, or burp gun as it was called in Korea, was highly effective in Commmunist small unit infantry assaults, patrols, meeting engagements, ambushes and in partisan warfare. Large numbers of submachine guns and later the superb AK-47 assault rifle were used in close quarters battle with militia soldiers. These groups of militia soldiers stuck close to the Soviet model of 80 to 100 man assault groups. These 80 to 100 man assault groups were armed with support weapons like antitank rifles later on RPG's, light machine guns, and a sappers with satchel charges, grenades or mines and perhaps a sniper rifle or two. But the majority of the communist militia troops were equipped with submachine guns or AK-47 assault rifles. It is the guerrilla tactics, the huge amount of tunnels, careful planning, and political officers that made the communists so effective. The battle of attrition using close quarters ambushes and meeting engagements against Western armies negated superior air, armor, and artillery firepower.
Given the Soviet shrewdness in developing mass produced submachine gun/AK-47 bullet hoses, it seems unlikely General Westmoreland or any other American general could have beaten the communist forces against him. Americans have a poor understanding of the asymmetric tactics used by the Soviets, Chinese, North Koreans, and Viet Cong/NVA. We are still struggling today in Iraq and Afghanistan against asymmetric tacitics against almost invisible foes with only limited success. The corrupt, kleptocratic, and incompetent American backed partner governments have always hurt us in South Korea, South Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan. We are forced into a militqry stalemate. The American public grows weary of the casualties in the stalemated or quagmire war. In a war that lasts for generation, the American cultural "corporate quick profit clock" is extremely ineffective in such long drawn counterinsurgency wars. A shrewd enemy that uses asymmetric tactics is almost guaranteed to cause military stalemate with heavy American losses with political problems at home with erosion for support of the war amongst the American public.
Exemplary narrative, scholarly researched, and commanding presentation of: The general who lost Vietnam.
Our nation owes Lewis Sorley a debt of gratitude.
Except it's all BS: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Not a fan of the general, but have to say, He had a lot of help in all the losing going on.
None of us should have ever even been there! ... It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Losing is RIGHT. Westmoreland, and his dick-brain soul - mate, McNamara, steered their silly-putty brained President, to his fatal, career-wrecking end. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Thereat follows leaving MacNamarsin a position of power!Yjrbasticheisevidentlystll expecting grateful nation to build him monument thr National Mallforhisdevoted services euro-errnie defeatism! Pitytheyburnedthat mountain of horsemanuaat Ft. Sill-Arlington'srunningshortof spacer "heroes"like him!
Giap called the tune, Westmoreland danced, American boys died. Them’s the facts!
This is great. Mr Sorely conveys the tragedy of Westmoreland. Ultimately LBJ must bear responsibility for the mistake of apppointing Westmoreland to that position.
An old-time (before Westmoreland took command) Special Forces sergeant told me that the war was going well until Westmoreland took command. Interesting perspective.
The war was never going well...it was unwinnable unless you think killing every last Vietnamese was a good idea....I was there.....going well ....are you freaking kidding me.
Nope. I'm not kidding you. That's what the old timer told me.
I think your Sarge was lost in nostalgia. When Harkins handed the reins to Westy the sledgehammer 600 man VC battalions were smashing the ARVN to pieces. They would have won by June 65 if the US had not intervened
@@haroldburrows4770 nostalgia! Excellent!!!!
@@haroldburrows4770 we should have walked away in 65 ...think of all the lives that would have been saved on both sides...and now we are two friendly countries!!! If you ever get a chance visit Vietnam...I went as a Traveller in 2000...there were vets that had gone back to live there!! Some were a little screwed up still.
Hindsight is 20/20. A great tragedy for all who lost their lives both French-USA-Vietnamese ( who lost the most)
FREEDOM IS PRECIOUS VIETNAM PAID THE PRICE IN FULL.
"...Iraq will be about 6 weeks; as we are welcomed as liberators..." It has been 5408 days since Mission Accomplished...
EvilBushJr. and EvilJFK both got our troops killed in unneeded personal wars...
Partly moving the goalposts. The war is clearly completed.
@@baigandinel7956 - Rocket fired this week into the Iraq Green Zone!
Where are the WMDs? Anybody found some yet, 15yrs of looking...
@@prof_kaos9341 - Iraq was a personal feud between the EvilBush family and EvilHussein family...
I was in CU CHI Vietnam in 69-70 I'm proud to have served. Westmoreland was already gone when I came in country. I blame The Army and Washington for putting Westmoreland in there in the first place. He wasn't the Man for the job.
Proud of killing civilians? Think about nazies praising what they did in eastern front during ww2.
bandwagon22 You know nothing.
bandwagon22 Very ignorant and rude. This guy was probably drafted and served his country honorably like the vast majority of vets.
Sean A I was Drafted. So Far I've found 4 of my Brothers in Arms thanks to You-Tube
+bandwagon22 show some respect
If he was so qualified and had all those ribbons on his uniform, why did he lose the war?
Westmoreland tried to run the war by stats that he cooked. No wonder we lost.
@donald johnson Westmorelands tactics were not suited for the terrain or the enemy.
He failed to see the prize was the people, and wasted our efforts trying to hold worthless, leech-infested, disease-ridden waste land. Westy tried to use fixed fortifications to defeat a highly mobile, decentralized enemy.
Maginot Line, anyone?
Westmoreland was too arrogant to listen to Marine General Silent Lew Walt in I Corps, who had far more success, because Walt saw the prize was the people and attacked the enemy's plans.
US were the villains and deserved to lose. Look up Nick Turse.
As a old marine and one who had the honor to fight in Nam. I dont blame Westmoreland. The war for Vietnam was lost in DC not indochina. This is not to mock the NVA or VC who frought against me with courage, But the fact is the war was lost in DC.
You might say the war was lost as soon as the US decided to support an oppressive, colonial regime.
Vietnam was a colony fighting for its independence. The US put itself on the wrong side of that conflict.
@@randbarrett8706
Ho was a life long commie ..With every intention of setting up commie state. let the people google it and they can decide.
Thanks for this, as a Brit who has little understanding of the War.
I have a very vivid memory of visiting Prestwick Airport, Scotland one night in 1967.
There were three hundred coal black US soldiers in transit in the foyer, they were young men who were somewhat bewildered. I doubt many came home. I doubt any ever understood why they were there. So sad.
Info: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Both executed Nov. 1963...
I was drafted into the Army in August of 1967. I served in the Republic of Vietnam as a crew chief on OH 6A helicopters 1st Aviation. I earned the rank of Specialist 5 in 5 months. I got to Vietnam about May of 1968 arriving in the middle of Mini-Tet at the Second Battle of Saigon. The Tan Son Nhut Air Base had been overrun so we were delayed on our landing. We were hit with a rocket attack on about May 8, 1968, and my buddy got shrapnel in his face and I got blown out of my bunk. I was given one size shoes too large with flat feet, and the sergeant was rude when he gave me those shoes. At that moment in time, the Army sucked.
[1] During the period from 5 May to 30 June 997 B-52 sorties were flown within 40km of downtown Saigon to prevent the VC from massing their troops.
[1] U.S. casualties across South Vietnam were 2,070 killed for the entire month of May making it the deadliest month of the entire Vietnam War for U.S. forces, while South Vietnamese losses were 143 killed. VC/PAVN losses exceeded 30,000 killed.
The May Offensive was considered much bloodier than the initial phase of the Tet Offensive. [2] Extensive use was made of artillery and airstrikes to dislodge VC who established fighting positions in the stronger concrete buildings within Saigon, with the result that 13,830 homes were destroyed, 599 civilians were killed, 5,657 were wounded and approximately 150,000 were made homeless. The VC had essentially been ordered "to try to do what they had failed to do with far greater numbers three months earlier". VC General Huynh Cong Than later stated "Our troops could not penetrate any deeper than they had during the first offensive, and in places didn't even get as far as they had the first time.
As cited in the [3] Spector book on page xvi, "From January to July 1968, the overall rate of men killed in action in Vietnam would reach an all time high and would exceed the rate for the Korean War and the Mediterranean and Pacific theaters during World War II. This was truly the bloodiest phase of the Vietnam War as well as the most neglected one."
I spent a fortnight in the 36th Evacuation Hospital during October 1968, which was (Semi-Mobile) Vung Tau 7 March 1966 - 28 November 1969. Terrible conditions with inadequate medical personal. We were fed in styrofoam cups. We were given 5 cups, one was liquid Jell-O, one chicken broth, 1 powdered chocolate milk, and the other 2 - I couldn't even describe.
We couldn't get parts for the OH 6A Hughes helicopter. We had to get parts from the bone yard. The Viet Cong rocketed the bone yard. I ordered parts from Sears for our unit helicopter using our own money. I still have the Sears letter today.
Too bad you mucky tee mucks don't listen to the troops. I could go into a lot more detail, but my experience is that troops don't matter. I only saw a one-star general once in Vietnam and my commanding major told me NOT to speak to him.
I once witnessed former President Nguyen Cao KY crash his airplane right in front of me. He took off with the wind at his back and almost hit my helicopter with me on top inspecting the rotor blades. After the crash as the airplane caught fire, Ky was throwing the girls out of the back of the cargo plane.
My opinion of Westmoreland is that he didn't get support from LBJ. He didn't know what was going on under his command with the lack of supplies. My opinion of the officers in leadership was that it was awful. SEATO got us into Vietnam and the pentagon leadership abandoned our USA troops in the field. The number 1 indictment is that all our missions were sent to the UN before we could perform the mission. The Role of the Military Attaché in Diplomacy at the UN was to notify the North Vietnamese Army that we were coming. Look at my credentials. Regards...
References:
1. Thompson, A.W. (14 December 1968). The Defense of Saigon. Headquarters Pacific Air Force. p. 20.
2. Tucker Spencer C. (2011). The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 759-60. ISBN 1851099611
3. Ronald H. Spector (1993). After Tet. Free Press. ISBN 0-02-930380-X
Thank you for your service
and thank you for your detailed post entailing such.
Sorry you had to go to EviJFK's wrongful war...
@Clem Cornpone As a martial artist I can attest that the capacity to use force is mainly useful in the ability to project deterrence.
North Vietnam wouldn't surrender no many how many boots were on the ground in its southern neighbor. Other postulations are irrelevant.
Japan landed in Hanoi and curb stomped Vietnam into submission in @ 6 weeks.
If I hated the UN before-- its doubled now. Thank You for your service buddy-- The frustration went down to kids like me- who were in grade school during Nam. It felt like we had a better team-- but NOBODY outside wanted us to win. The treatment you guys got coming home was worst of all. I cant speak to the leadership-- but it sounds like a Govt beauracrat run War-- with us only allowed to fight with one arm.. Im glad you got to share your experience-- God Bless-- love you.
@Clem Cornpone It is true the conflict included a civil war element with the VC, though like the NVA they were both supplied via the North.
The North would only relinquish an attack upon a cutting of their supplies and or brutal conquest of their territory. Without such a hardened attitude they would have been assimilated into the Chinese dynastic territory thousands of years ago.
"I must say I find it very sad that a famous officer who rose to the top ranks of his profession found a political event the most memorable in his career" 20:41
Well said!!!
I was in the Tet Offensive and am appalled that Westmoreland refused General Fred Weyand and Lt Col John Paul Vann's advice that Saigon was about to be attacked; because Westmoreland denied what was about to happen, I almost died; in Saigon there were only 300 US troops and us 4 truck drivers, but 7,000 VC had infiltrated the city and the MPs asked me if I had seen any US troops around the city, and I hadn't. He said he was seeing hundreds of new faces, the infiltrators no doubt. Got out of Saigon at 2:30 is what saved me, they couldn't shoot until 3am, the time the offensive was set to begin.
Yeah brother. I was with the Navy Detachment in Hue. There as a lot of" Check this shit out"... & Holy fuck! Did you see that?"😎
Blake
No Stupid!! for the US there was a NORTH & South VN
BUT for the VN there was only ONE VN. All the Civilians of the South were of the same mentality. There was no infiltration. They were already there all along!!!
The VN only wanted the US to get the fuck OUT of their country so they could govern themselves AFTER they liberated themselves from the FRENCH! But the US refused as it wanted to be the NEXT Subjugator and made up the False Flag attack of Tonkin as an excuse
to kick ass!! This is WHY the VN were ONE and the same. except for the sellouts in the "South" VN Military.
If You were there, it is amazing that you have NOT known the truth or figured it out..........
@@jesscast5122 yes all dictators the USA props up. pocket as many USA tax dollars as they can. some get out while the getting is good some are too greedy wait too long
Wow! This was an ill advised war for sure. JFK was going to get us out in 1965, but he got killed before he had a chance to do it. Now, Vietnam is still Communist AND a MOST FAVORED NATION TRADING PARTNER. Go figure!
Thank you for your service. I'm glad you made it out of there. American deaths due to incompetent leaders trying to save face makes my blood boil. The fact that he got away with it without going to prison blows my mind.
We did not "lose" Vietnam. We were finally pushed out of a place where we had no ownership, an imperial projection. We were trespassers, as were the French.
I love this channel. I am learning so much. Thank you.
Great lecture. Thanks for sharing it!
When I recall the faces of my classmates who fell, when I think of the media frenzy, when I remember the lies and the long Nixonian disengagement, I understand why we don't have a draftee army today. All credibility was spent defending the Dulles boys' line in the sand.
Kind of silly to praise Westmoreland for his brilliant command of the 101st -- in peacetime. Most likely he would have failed just as spectacularly as a divisional commander in combat as he did as a CINC, just on a smaller scale. He sounds like the classic "paint the rocks" senior officer -- you walk through his areas and everything just looks amazing, every uniform pressed, every weed pulled, every paper sitting contentedly in its document protector. What a joke.
Greg Shane Kind of like Genl McClellan in our Civil War?
Westie just another victim of those times: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
I'm no expert on military leadership. I only noticed the similarity between how Lewis describes Westmoreland and how some have described Admiral Bill Halsey--that they had been subject to the Peter Principal: promoted beyond their best abilities.
He tried to please the media and
TIME had a reporter who was VC. They knew his every move.
Vietnam Vet 1968-69...Westmoreland had blood on his hands....
@Dissident Aggressor When and how did the involvement of the US in Viet Nan ever give freedom and a carefree youth to anyone?
Use your brain instead of slogans.
I was in the Guard with a colonel who was airborne enlisted during the Korean Wat. He said their unit had been pulled back to Japan and they were just beginning to enjoy themselves. Their commander assembled the troops and announced, "I got us another crack at them. We're going back, Boys!", or something to that effect. I think my friend said it was Westmoreland, and the troops were pissed. They'd been happy to get out of there, and now Westmoreland got them back in.
Condemning the man on an "I think"? That's fair. rme
@@ultimtdisc You're right, "I think" is not completely fair, but I seem to recall he said Westmorland, and the point was the troops were drug back in for someone else's glory. Thanks for pointing that out.
The revelation just past the 47:45 mark is astounding - I had to rewind the video and listen again. How could this man get to be a 4 star general with practically no formal advanced military education?
Westmoreland never attended Command and General Staff School and also never went to the Army War College. How does someone like this get this high in his career without attending these schools?
As a former Vietnam veteran I agree with your assessment of General Westmoreland. He was, as you say, promoted beyond his capacity. Because f that and his insistence of using body counts as a thumb nail, we never took territory that we kept. Plus because positive body count numbers meant promotions and medals for everyone from lieutenants on up, they were routinely misrepresented. I don't believe about that stuff that he cared so much about the troops either. He'd come by a headquarters, I never saw him in a line unit. Hand out a few medals, shake a few hands and inspect the troops there who were made up like something straight out of a stateside post, not a combat unit and then disappear. You are also right about the one year rotation. It was a bad thing. Took you about seven months to get used to everything and by that time you started your countdown so you got slack sometimes. It wouldn't have worked any other way though because the American public would not have stood for a call up situation like WWII. I spent two tours there (nearly) so I was able to get the benefit of longevity. I think that Kissinger should be added to your list, he was just as willing to "abandon the truth" as the rest of them were. The one thing I took away from that place though is that ethnic difference don't mean anything and you've got to work as a team.
Westmoreland didn't help, but I believe the war was already hopeless because Ngo Dihn Diem created a corrupt, repressive kleptocracy instead of a good government the south Vietnamese people would support.
dems lose every war after we win
The do not cross red line around the south meant there was no solution to the war, the north had no reason to feed troops and material beyond a level they could handle into the fight. If they knew the north's support would collapse in the 90s as the south's entry in the world economy increases, they might have adapted a possible solution of minimalist involvement and kick the can down the road for 30 years. But they were not psychic, and Washington would never pay for someone else's 30 year war. The best solution would have realized there was no solution either before they sent troops or when they realized what the north's man and material levels were going to be.
DoubleMrE help.apple.com/ipad/11/3
johnny llooddte What
johnny llooddte n
What a sad tale! I think if that monument on the mall in Washington, how those young men were served up on the altar of a foolish mans ego. No other officer defended them.
Get the right evil 'foolish man': It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Whenever someone tells me “ Thanks for your service”. I say “ It wasn’t service it was SERVITUDE”.
My father was assigned to Westmorelands staff as Naval Deptuty of Plans for which he received Legion of Merit later.
He was gone an entire year. After that he was CO of NAS
North Island. Years later in his USNA42 Class of 42 50 year
alumni book he mentioned that Westmorelands would micromanage everything which made working for him
difficult. From that experience he did not think entering the Iraq War was a good idea.
Westmoreland was probably the typical guy at the office that gets promoted by a combination of luck, looks, politics and some genuine talent, but when they arrive at their top position they are not effective, having said that I think McNamara shares more blame than the General that after all was doing the best he could with the limitations Washington put on him and was in the front lines with the men against a very motivated and tough enemy, while the secretary was in social parties in Columbia university every weekend
2000Betelgeuse and
2000Betelgeuse "on the front lines"? Ha!
So why do we continue to lose ridiculous wars in distant lands where no one likes us??? Excuse me? Our imperial adventures have been a collossal failure.
Yep. The Peter Principle in action. A classic example.
Lying to the Congress and the American People should never be allowed about military matters.
Tooth to tail ratio in VN was 1 to 8. An army of clerks, lifeguards, mechanics and various staff comprised the 'forces'. Who was out beating the bush? Hardly anyone.
My understanding is that the British Army manages on a ratio of 1 to 3 but then their soldiers don't have to be supplied with ice cream, Coca Cola or Momma's apple pie.
The Bitish secret weapon in motivating the troops appears to be "Right you lot, you've got two choices. You go to fight the Boche or attend a Vera Lynn concert." Exit stage left at the double towards the sound of gunfire. :-)
Westmoreland was a complete dope!!
The Main Points:
Many here miss the main points of the presentation. The choice among the US generals was whether to fight a war of attrition as Westy pursued, or a counterinsurgency strategy to win over ‘hearts and mind’ and separate the Cong from the civilian population.
A war of attrition to kill off as many of the enemy as possible with the hope he will get discouraged and give up is like running on a treadmill that went nowhere. As long as the enemy was willing to absorb terrific loses and replace them, nothing US Forces did could change the outcome.
A war of attrition fails to understand how the civilian population was deeply involved in the Cong’s military operations. The baby sans and mama sans were in one capacity or another part of the Cong’s military operations and were left out of, or underestimated in general Westy’s enemy’s order of battle.
The behavior of American troops towards the civilians was part of the war of attrition. Their usual practice was to burn the villages down, burn off the crops, kill off the livestock, and remove the villagers from the land scape and make the area into a free fire zone. The assumption was anything moving in a free fire zone was/is Cong, not innocent peasants. Those behaviors only aroused hate and resentment as well as strong support for the Cong.
ARVN needed to be reformed, trained and properly equipped because it was corrupt and treated the peasants like dirt. They could have been helpful in a counterinsurgency strategy if reformed to respect the peasants, but Westy apparently never considered it. If ARVN had been made part of the US army chain of command, the reforms it needed could have been affected.
The other point of the video is that Westy should have been replaced when it was clear his war of attrition was not working. This was apparent to even Westy’s key subordinates and the army’s Chief of Staff, H.K. Johnson. Unlike Lincoln who found his general in Grant, President Johnson keep an incompetent general in charge for four long years. General Westmoreland was no General Grant. RH
served under Col Moore Air Cav , in the Ira Drang valley campaign, in the middle of the furious battle, Westmoreland wanted Moore to come to Saigon and brief him. Moore basically told Westie to "stick it". After the fight, Westie wanted to court marital Moore. The troops found out and started to go the press, Westie backed down. Westie if he wanted to go near his troops, it had to be carefully staged. The bet was we would get him before the VC. Westie was hated intensely by his troops.
It takes about a half-century before the old Back-Room Clubs of a military establishment accept and openly acknowledge the follies and failures of its icons. That's exactly what's happening here.
I'm beginning to see why to date NO military hardware has been named after General Westmoreland. It's a sad thing to see happen.
As son of a Officer who came up thru the ranks and as a Veteran (64-71) I found most Senior Officer's during the Vietnam War were not very good, few were combat vet's, most were still fighting with WW2 doctrine. Only the fact there were so many ROTC and 90 day wonders kept the Army from complete disaster.
What strikes me the most is how truly brilliant men--ten times smarter than I will ever be--can be totally wrong. That's not just Westmoreland but also McNamara, Johnson and Wheeler.
As a Vietnam veteran I can only say that I blame Johnson. In August of 1963 JFK traveled to NYC to talk to General MacArthur who lived at Waldorf Astoria.
The old man told him that it was not the terrain or the place to fight a war. JFK was too smart to fall into that trap.
JFK basically started the war, LBJ just continued JFK's legacy.
1961 - Operation Farmgate: JFK started the commitment of troops to Vietnam.
@JON ADAMS Perhaps, but not about Vietnam. For him, it was on.
JFK was going to get out of Vietnam. Probably why he was assassinated. LBJ's "guns and butter" program (run a full scale war and build "The Great Society" on the same dollar) doomed both.
@@llarzelere No he was not. There is absolutely no evidence that he was going to leave Vietnam. In fact, he was the one who initiated Operation Farmgate in 1961, the first major escalation of over 16,000 combat troops to South Vietnam.
As for the assassination, he was killed because he and his brother double crossed Sam Giancana and the Chicago mafia for not backing off on anti-mob activities when the Chicago Outfit delivered the city (and therefore Illinois) to JFK in 1960. At the time, this was closest election in American history. The mob felt betrayed when RFK continued his investigations and pressure on them. Therefore, they killed JFK. Note that Jack Ruby was not linked to the Pentagon or CIA or whatever, he was connected to the mafia. Ruby killed the "patsy" to shut him up, and obeyed the rule of omerta, or mob code of silence, for the rest of his life in prison.
"The instrument of our betrayal of South Vietnam was the Congress of the United States"... bottom line that isn't even mentioned anymore because it's our greatest disgrace.
Creating the situation in the first place is just one factor why so many hold France in total contempt.
o7, sir.
Thanks for the presentation.
In 1971, the Army estimated that half their deployed troops were in active resistance. Fragging was common. No one wanted to fight this war.
In '71, more U.S. Troops dying from drug abuse than from enemy action... fact...
It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Both executed Nov. 1963... too bad not sooner...
Westmoreland was a D-day hero. Vietnam was a completely different kind of war, and it destroyed him and the countries involved, especially Laos, Cambodia, and the southern part of Vietnam.
Yessir... It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
So what about the North, more bombs dropped on it per year than all of WW2.
@@BuzzLOLOL how many fucking times are you going to make this comment in this video ? We get it Catholics bad , now shut up already.
No general has ever been a war hero. Real heros die in the front fields.
Thank you for this.....a superb and accurate analysis of the thoughts,actions and fiber of a man who was out of his depth in a position of near total command and without any vestige of the premier prerequisite of any commander,namely integrity.
All I needed to know about Vietnam was in the words of the great warrior poet Animal Mother. "If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word, my word's 'POONTANG'."
"THE MORALE, DISCIPLINE and battleworthiness of the U.S. Armed Forces are, with a few salient exceptions, lower and worse than at anytime in this century and possibly in the history of the United States.By every conceivable indicator, our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous." THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARMED FORCES By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Jr. Armed Forces Journal, 7 June, 1971
This quotation is one of those many reasons why i strongly opposite the perspective Sorley is giving in his book. I have red it. Interesting but some how denying hard facts: American military forces were in really bad morale shape after 1968 dilemma. Sorley has sold his ideas and now American forces time after time are repeating their fantasies of "winning the war". They haven't really learned their lessons. Pretty common attitude among imperial forces.
Way before all that: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Thank you Sir, for setting the record straight on the performance of the Marine Corps in Viet Nam which was, in my opinion exemplary! Westmoreland was another Custer and the damned Army has along record of people like this who went thru West Point! West Point is way overrated as an institution and in my opine VMI is a much better college preparatory to military service!
The politicians caused everything to fail just like in the Bush Jr/Obama regimes pushed us into fatal flawed wars and the mainstream media pushes Trump hard to go into ridiculous 'wars' like in Syria...which we are losing the same way as the Vietnam war. Hearts and minds!!!
Sam Kadiddlehopper West.oreland and West Point = Garrett Troopers
If not mistaken, Patton attended VMI. The Point shouldn't be underrated. Produced Eisenhower, Bradley and McArthur.
Don;t forget us OCS officer that lots of enlisted time. I once was the only OCS officer in the midst of some 30 West Pointers. I could match all of them for more than enough competence and trust from the EM. No officer should serve without 2 years enlisted time.
The Army was promoting men to its highest levels who had cut their teeth fighting the German's in big mechanized Infantry/Armored clashes
in western Europe and North Africa, and who later continued fighting largely mechanized and light Infantry forces in Korea.
When faced with the demands and political restrictions of the Vietnam War, the Army tried to fight it like was back in France in 1944.
The Army ignored promoting to the top command in Vietnam, guys who had cut their teeth against the Japanese in the Philippines
and Burma in jungle warfare. They didn't find the guys who ran Ranger Battalions and the Devil's Brigade in Europe or the Mauraders
and Sixth Ranger Battalion in the Pacific. They should have elevated a Special Forces Colonel to General or at least took an Airborne
Officer from the 82nd or 101st.
The Army had guys steeped in mechanized warfare from the ETO of WW2, running a jungle war and that was insane.
The Marine Corps had decades of jungle/irregular warfare experience from Latin America to Guadalcanal, yet none of those guys
(either still on active duty or retired) were being consulted on how to deal with a jungle guerilla war.
The Australians were with us and were excellent jungle fighters and the British had lots of experience too. But the US Army wanted to
fight the Battle of The Bulge.
General Creighton Abrams , when he took over, was appalled at the problems of just shoving more soldiers over there with the hasty sloppy training they had gotten. He then started doing the task of Vietnamization of the ARVN, that should have been done earlier
That was riveting!
Westmoreland was an artillery man with a Masters degree,, Trying to win a guerrilla, jungle infantry war,,, He wasn't qualified ,,he should have never taken the job..And he never succeeded in cutting off the Ho Chi Minh Trail...dah
The war should not have ever happened... It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
@@BuzzLOLOL And Ike had noooooothing to do with it, did he?
The Ho Chi Minh Trail wasn't a defined thing. As soon as it was destroyed, they moved it somewhere else, and as soon as it was destroyed, they moved it again and so on and so on. What he never did was cross the DMZ and march into Hanoi......but he wasn't allowed to do that, was he?
Just curious. How should the war have been fought from an American perspective, if indeed, it was deemed that we were saving a democracy on good faith.
In Korea and ww2 the enemy had no sanctuaries or secure lines of supplies we sank Japanese fleet /see how Far East was lost/Chinese had unlimited manpower but were vulnerable see John Tolands mortal combat about Korea best Jimmy Mack
Gen. Westmorland should have been tried as a war criminal.
TRUTH, Sir. Thank you.
Great comment. While I was at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, as a cadet, I met Gen W. I later wrote a book and mentioned in this the same remark you have just made.
You wrote a book?
48:00 - To me the most telling comment, from the perspective of this presenter's "go it alone" assessment of the general's career. His insular nature and apparently gracious veneer was not exposed to assessment by peers or instructors at those institutions.
5:01 - A lesson in instilling confidence in a young man, one any of our sons may benefit from.
The whole thing was just for Brown and Root to make a profit. I heard this from someone that served in the military.
Lyndon Johnson is known mainly for two things: his disastrous Great Society, and his equally disastrous handling of the Vietnam War. The damage he did to America while president is astonishing.
Don't forget Immigration...In my view, LBJ was the worst damn President in the last 75 years. Hands down.
Vietnam was lost as soon as USA joined the war.
France had already lost, despite major materia-l and training superiority. China (and in the background Soviet) whould not allow a US base on the Chinese border. Vietnam was given major help and whould have been given more, as happend in Kora, need be.
Unless USA was ok to fight China directly this war was doomed.
I agree with your last point but not with any parallels between French and US military capabilities. The French were severely outnumbered and undersupplied.
Of course... because it was all WRONG! It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
Smedley Butler looks more and more right every day.
I couldn't agree with you more. The US involvement in Vietnam, like many other proxy wars, was motivated by irrational fear of the Communists. It was never in the interest of US (or the Vietnamese). What dismays me is that we can't seem to learn from the failure in Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan were similarly ill-conceived and we're about to get involved in Syria for no clear reason.
Repressive ? Compared to what followed: genocide....mass murder...boat people....slave labor camps....re-education camps ???
We never should have helped assasinate Diem. That was mistake #1. Mistake #2 was not taking the war to North Vietnam and taking out Haiphong and Hanoi.
It s all started with the French ! US should have forced France to give Vietnam freedom and democracy right after ww2 , like they forced Britain to do so .
tom tru
The US did not do so because the US did not see it in their interest to do so. The US wanted the British empire to fall when the Atlantic Charter was signed, so it can take it over to a point and trade with it. They did not feel the same towards the French empire.
Peorhum lol , probably because they speak French , not English ?
tom tru
Good chance that is partly why. Plus many in the US at the time were very, to extremely anglophobic. Which may seem strange with the US and UK having such a good relationship now, while France is now the nation belittled and hated by the US.
Peorhum I'm Uk and you are like the big brother to beat up a bully at school if you get any hassle.
I like americans but detest their politicians.I detest politicians anyway.
The people I've met in the Uk have been polite and genuine people and you can't help but think they are very like us and like them.
Stay cool guys.
tim truo Getting the French out was US policy, the OSS armed the communists and actively helped them to power. At one point they actually locked up the French colonial administrators. This link is a good start
www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwjHp73rs7zHAhVL2hoKHQPnBUg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FArchimedes_Patti&ei=pUTYVYfBAsu0a4POl8AE&usg=AFQjCNFsd8IQEUjLhoLl353ppagK4x4O5w&sig2=pNYsQ5FvDV42UKYEyAzwKA
Westmoreland might be the only person who deserves to sit and watch this guy read an essay for an hour and a half.
Who were those civilians on lbj s. Board advising him on what targets to hit in nam?
Were they the same “people” advising him on the uss liberty?
No formal military education; no command and staff college! Good lord.
So was the Vietnamese solders! But they were resolute.
Harold Johnson was a remarkable officer. He was captured in the Philippines in 1942 and overcame three years in captivity to continue in the Army, provided excellent service in Korea, and rose to USACOS
What is the name of the study referred to at 1:21:39?
Pacification and Long-Term Development of South Vietnam (PROVN)
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0377743.pdf
This is the complete 510 page document sourced directly from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
I say ol boy. If you play the same game 5 times and lose 5 times.... what what?
Mr. Sorely, I read your book as an undergrad trying to answer the reason why Rolling Thunder failed. My conclusion was largely based on your own on Westy's performance, though it was wider: Rolling Thunder failed because, early on, it was wrongly based on the assumption that the North was the main supplier of Communist armament (Bob Pape), it failed because the US political situation was easy to exploit (cables between Beijing, Hanoi, and the Viet Cong), and mostly because General Westmoreland failed to exploit US successes against Communist forces to adequately pressure the Southern government form itself into a viable and potent power. Without a viable Southern government, no military victory could have ever amounted into a stable South Vietnam.
Were there any Lessons that could have been of use in Vietnam?
www.nam.ac.uk/explore/malayan-emergency
Champions of war behind the desk .
JFK didn't think the war could be won.
LBJ: 'Get me elected and you can have your war'!
McNamara has much to answer for!
FACT: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
It never should have happened...
@@BuzzLOLOL youre an idiot
Nobody knows what JFK would have done there had he remained in office. He is responsible for the assassination of Diem. Some would argue that that was the tipping point for the entire tragedy. I don’t think the deification of the martyred young president is helpful. But it’s hard to imagine him being as incompetent and cynical as Johnson. That’s for sure.
@@gmeliberty - I suspect the Pentagon executed EvilDiem without EvilJFK's knowledge... and when EvilJFK started complaining, he had to be taken out, as well...
BuzzLOLOL / Well, I stand by the statement that JFK could not have been worse than LBJ. Here is an interesting look back at these events: nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
I WAS IN THE RESERVES DEC 1963 TO OCT 67.
WHEN I WAS IN BASIC , WE OFTEN HEARD THE LITANY!
".IF YOU DONT MAKE IT IN HERE YOU WILL NEVER MAKE IT IN CIVILIAN LIFE!
AND NOW WE HAVE WESTMORELAND WHO MADE IT BIG IN THE ARMY, BUT FAILED JUST THE SAME!
THANK GOD I WENT THE RESERVES ROUTE RATHER THAN THE DRAFT,ONLY TO BECOME A BULLET MAGNET!!
ALSO I THANK GOD I GOT OUT ON A MEDICAL TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR UNIT ACTIVATION IN NOV 1967 FOR THE ACTIVATION IN MAY 68!!
IN AUGUST 1967 JUST BEFORE
SUMMER CAMP A REGULAR ARMY OFFICER WAS ASSIGNED TO OUR
UNIT AS A ATTENDANCE OFFICER, MORALE OFFICER, AND REENLISTMENT OFFICER AND TRIED HIS DAMDEST TO MAKE A BETTER SOLDIER OUT OF ME!
HE TRIED HARD TO GET ME TO
QUIT MY RAILROAD JOB AND BECOME A CARREER , EVEN LYING TO ME OF THINGS I KNEW ABOUT RR CARREERS AND HE DIDNT!!
I DID HAVE A GREAT 30yr 3 month
GO AT IT!!!
AND ALL THIS AFTER BEING AN ARMY "FAILURE"!! LOL
One thing that is really overlooked is how Westmoreland and several other senior leaders in Vietnam had all been young officers thrown into the horrible, unproductive disaster known today as the Battle of Huertgen Forest.
The Vietnam War looks a lot like the Battle of Huertgen Forest all over again, but larger.
How much of a disaster was Huertgen Forest? In his memoirs, Eisenhower wrote only one sentence about this battle which dragged on for 6 months, and typically ground down units to 50% or even as low as 10% strength in less than 2 weeks, and which the troops called, "The Death Factory." Eisenhower's only comment on Huertgen was to say "it was a mistake." This was a battle which produced more dead on a daily basis than the Normandy landings did.
General Westmoreland is unfairly blamed in this Series. The United States backed multiple failed South Vietnamese governments that failed on their own. Diem was deposed in 1963 under curious circumstances. Thieu failed his people. Minh surrendered to the Communists as others surrendered their Posts. Failure in Vietnam can more accurately be shifted from one man and put on a policy that was totally ignorant of a population of millions with a proud history of resisting invading forces.
Best comment, hands down. Anyone interested in why the U.S. didn't prevail during the Vietnam War should read Hal Moore's "We Are Soldiers Still", paying special attention to his interaction after the war with Gen. Giap.
Sean Frisbie There was never a chance that the US could "win" in Vietnam. To the enemy, it was just another anti-colonial campaign in their decades long drive that they would win by outlasting us.
Like in others of our wars since, we set-up puppets whom, by their very establishment, lacked credibility with the populace and by their behavior invited disdain by those they should have been courting.
The two commanders in George W. Bush's Iraq war understood that the essential premise of the invasion--that we could "teach" the invaded people to be like us down the barrell of a gun, was erroneous. They struggled to somehow extract us from that disastrous policy. I won't even mention Afghanistan's "government" established by us and the annual rotation of commanders into that war.
What's wrong with America the keep making the same mistake over and over at the expense of our young servicemen's lives? It is hubris and ignorance; the belief that we are the masters of history, rather than just the latest sleepwalkers through it.
God but that our leaders were worthy of the devotion of our young.
Sean Frisbie Completely agree with you. Tragic how 50 years later scapegoats are needed to cover for failed US foreign policy. And naturally it's a soldier because it was a war and politicians have nothing to do with wars apart from starting them in the first place. I wonder who will be blamed for Iraq and Afghanistan 50 years from now...
uegvdczuVF Well, Westmoreland is the only failed general to have it proven in court that he lied about enemy kills in order to sustain a policy that might otherwise have been abandoned--which is to say, but for his lying the politicians MIGHT have changed policy. That is a pretty shitty legacy.
However, you are right: the war wasn't "lost" by him. It was never winnable by a national leadership that didn't care to understand the conflict. The failure was the leader....and the American people who believe in a John Wayne punch every problem in the mouth approach to foreign affairs.
40,000 of the 62,000 Americans killed in Vietnam died in a time when the Sec. Defense didn't believe the war winnable. On II/1/67 McNamara so informed the president in writing. He was followed in office by Clifford and Laird who shared his view--62 months more of fighting and dying in a cause known to be lost--undertaken for domestic political reasons.
It is easy to say Bush-Cheney are responsible for Iraq, and in fifty years they will still be understood to be primarily responsible. But also responsible were the senators who ignored Sen. Bob Graham's (chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) warning that the intelligence to support going to war wasn't there and they should review it--at the White House where it was kept, before they voted and failed to do so before voting to authorize the invasion.
The senior commanders in Iraq always understood the premises of the war--that American guns could teach our way of life in the Middle East, was flawed. One tried to reduce the death and friction of the occupation and the other worked with the ostensive enemy--even employing them, so manage escape before the collapse we brought on. How come they could know and it mattered not in Washington DC or in America as a whole?
Ultimately the American people are at fault. Allowing a flawed political process to grind up lives by the tens of thousands on the assumption that we have the biggest dicks in the world and we can make anybody do anything we decide to try.
Congressional democracy as an experiment in America has failed. The sooner we replace it, the better. If we don't fix the system eventual republicanism and democracy themselves will be discredited in addition to being irrelevant.
Sean Frisbie it wasn't for westmoreland to sort out the national and geo-politics of vietnam, but to run proper militiary campaign. at that task he failed miserably, as fine & well-informed speaker rightly points out.
sounds like westie needed some good training toting rifles and dead bodies for a few months
I served 6 months under 'Westy' and 6 months under his XO, in the second 6 months we knew we were going home, and that it was all over, it just took time....
What did a Danish youngster do in Vietnam war?
I was told that the US marines in Vietnam didn't get alcohol coupons unlike everyone else. It was suggested that Westmoreland said marines were here to fight not drink. Can anyone enlighten me if this is true?
In my opinion Westmoreland rose to his level of incompetence.
The Peter principle.
Blaming Westmoreland for the strategy of attrition when nobody in the political leadership wanted to risk an invasion of North Vietnam seems fairly disingenuous, as does emphasizing ARVN advisory deficiencies when the political leadership of South Vietnam struggled to retain legitimacy and was rife with nepotism and corruption for most of the conflict.
It's especially grating in light of similar failures experienced during the Afghanistan war decades later.
Westmoreland supported that approach, no? At the very least that means he misunderstood the situation at least as much as they did in DC
@@randbarrett8706 That's kind of my point though. Vietnam wasn't a war that was lost by one incompetent general, it's a war that was a bad idea, from concept alone, based on fundamental misunderstandings of geopolitics and the Vietnamese people, and one that several presidents doubled-down on. *All because Lyndon Johnson didn't tell the French to go it alone if they wanted to keep French Indochina so badly* .
It was an unnecessary war, the U.S. defeat didn't lead to South East Asia turning communist, and Vietnam abandoned communism by 1986. The Vietnamese weren't fighting to spread worldwide Marxist revolution, they simply wanted an end to colonial rule. If anything, NOT having the war might have prevented the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the destabilization of the region that followed.
Very true: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
At least we executed both of them in Nov. 1963... but too late...
Mark sounds like you have a awesome family history too. My ancestors came to America as Prussian mercenary he was a teenager, who was a bugler in the army 1776, American Revolutionary War. 1861-1865, GW Fleeger was a Capt. In the Union Army involved in many Civil War battles, and was captured twice. Then ran as a republican for the house of representatives and won from Butler, Pennsylvania. My great grandpa was with Teddy Roosevelt during the battle of San Juan Hill, in Puerto Rico. My family loves our country. And are willing to shed their blood if necessary to protect and save her at all times throughout history. God Bless. My wife family from Oklahoma her father WWll fought against the Japanese. Her dads brother had 2 Sherman tanks shot out from hIm by Germans WWII.
I couId never shame my family for not standing up for what's RIGHT.
I once met Westmoreland when I was a first year cadet at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in Australia. It was in 1969. My young impression was that he was a cool and aloof man. His wife, however, seemed a much more realistic and down-to-earth person.
It could be said that he was promoted to his level of incompetence!
The Peter Principle, in ACTION, Sir.
*_When you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, which was the situation of the North Vietnamese, loses don't factor into the equation. Besides, they new at some stage the Americans would have to go home... To the North Vietnamese the outcome was inevitable, all they had to do was to keep supplying U.S personal with cannabis, opium and heroin to weaken their resolve... General Westmoreland never lost the war, American public opinion did._* 👀
This guy is a boss. Dry and somber for this epic tragedy.
Is the number one military talent the ability to learn from your defeats and adapt or change your tactics?
PEACE was lost by empty suits *NOT* by uniforms.
We have the finest military in the world:
It' s a shame politicians undermine their prime objective, of
Projecting Deterrence.
FACT: It was Catholic EvilJFK helping his buddy Catholic EvilDiem be the foreign-supported 'president'/dictator of a Buddhist country...
@@BuzzLOLOL There's something there, but I'd put it behind loyalty to France and the general domino theory.
@@christopherkhill3213 Had Truman not backed France ( The Michelin Man) after the War to take back Vietnam this would not have happened.
@@Ronbo710 I know: It really is a shame, as the Vietnamese people have proven that they are well capable of participating in a '1st world' standard of living.
Westmoreland didn't have a plan to win the war. Fighting for a draw ends up with a loss. Go to war, capture Hanoi, and force the Commies to surrender. The US should never have got involved in SE Asia.
Why would the north surrender after losing Hanoi though?
@@Wafflepudding
Capturing the Capital would have not only been bad for moral, everything went through Hanoi. It was within reach in 1967 but I doubt Westmoreland wanted the casualties of American troops and I doubt the Joint Chiefs would have gone along with it.
One thing for sure, Westmoreland's strategy didn't get the job done. It would have been better to stay out of Vietnam. The puppet government in Saigon was worthless.
But he wasn't allowed to invade the North. The people in Washington were fearful that doing so would provoke a Chinese intervention. An unreasonable fear as we now know (the Vietnamese feared the Chinese even more than they did the West; Ho Chi Minh is quoted as saying, "I'd rather sniff French crap for ten years than eat Chinese crap for the rest of my life."), but the U.S. government wasn't aware of that then. I personally think an invasion was unnecessary; aerial bombing would have sufficed to force the communists to back off and allow the South the exist. See Linebacker II. Rolling Thunder was frequently interrupted and there were a lot of restrictions on what could be hit. Simultaneously, make a serious effort to improve the ARVN, which would take time. At Xuan Loc, the ARVN proved, with proper leadership and equipment, they could beat the NVA. Four NVA divisions (IV Corps) couldn't overwhelm a solitary ARVN division (the 18th).
@@patriciogonzaga3101
That could be, all I'm saying is that the "battle plan" was not a plan US forces used could ever work. A guy I know that served two tours of Duty in Vietnam (has two bronze stars to show for his effort) told me that the American forces "could" have very well attacked and captured Hanoi in 1967. At that time there were over 350,000 infantry troops in the country, along with supporting forces. More than enough Navy ships off shore to bomb the crap out of the territory between the northern most US forces and Hanoi. Plenty of air and naval support. In my buddy's opinion the US would not have wanted to sustain the US casualties and an offensive like that would create. The North Vietnamese would have fought to the death to protect their capital. Westmoreland's "Search and destroy" tactic with an emphasis on "body count" was stupid. Of course, the guy I know was in the Air Force and thought Westmoreland was a Lame Commander.
Why fight a war when 1 or 2 nukes would've done the job ?? We knew long afterwards that there was growing tension between N. Vietnam & China, that Russia wasn't as itchy for nuclear war as we thought in Cuba, and Cambodia didn't know or knew little that NVA/US forces were in their country fighting
I now remember after my meeting with Westmoreland in 1969 later writing in one of my books that he reminded me more of a ramrod stiff British infantry regimental sergeant-major than a 4 star general.
Good to see u too.
WTF, everybody failed to mention Henry Kissinger, he was more influentially that any General or president, the president looked to him for advice on what to do, and Kissinger becoming more popular the the president and more so with the Hollywood girls, Kissinger made sure that the war continue by his on going secret negotiations behind the scenes with the vietcong, and the fact that we had to play by different rules than the vietcong, we could bomb only on certain days, and certain areas.
Westmoreland was in Vietnam in the 60s, before Nixon became President. Kissinger had no political power at all before Nixon came into office. And to think that the US lost the war because of Kissinger is just silly.