How I began to teach about the Vietnam War

[Commodore]

This is interesting.

I remember reading somewhere that WWI conscripted officers were generally thought to be better than their professional counterparts since they were only interested in "getting the job done" rather than their own careers.

They may have been thought to have been better, but the results of that war would seem to fly in the face of that notion.

EDIT: Plus, if you look at the entire history of warfare overall, the "win count" in professional armies vs. conscript armies heavily favors professional armies. Conscript armies are only really effective against other conscript armies.

 

[Ajidica]

This is interesting.

I remember reading somewhere that WWI conscripted officers were generally thought to be better than their professional counterparts since they were only interested in "getting the job done" rather than their own careers.

I was under the impression that Kitchener's "New Army" performed rather poorly at Loos and the Somme and it was only after a year of experience in the trenches and some rather brutal -even by WWI standards- battles was the New Army equal in capacity to the trained soldiers that initially comprised the BEF.

no freedom of speech

Heh, reminds me of one of my favorite Soviet Union jokes.
"In the Soviet Union, you have same freedom of speech as in America. In America, you can stand in front of the White House and shout "Down with Reagan". In the Soviet Union, you can stand in front of the Kremlin and should "Down with Reagan"."

 

[daft]

Vietnam War was about defeating the Evil Empire, don't you know?

Ah, yes! The Evil Empire of the Evil Communists!, I remember their free/no tuition school system (including Universities), their free medical care/hospitals for all citizens, the free daycare, no strikes allowed at workplace, no joblessness allowed within the populace, no guns for the public, no porn and prostitution allowed, that kind of stuff.

(although there were some major drawbacks as well, like: no free election, no freedom of speech, and quite a few others ...)

 

[FriendlyFire]

Obama wasn't interested in keeping troops there:As per the article, there was plenty of leverage with the reconstruction projects:

So Let me get this straight
G.W.Bush sign for COMPLETE withdrawal of all US Troops in Iraq
Obama Tried to negotiate leaving behind 10k US combat troops in Iraq

But its Obama Fault for not trying HARD enough.

Why is it that G.W.Bush can do no Wrong
While Obama gets blamed for everything including Bush own Mistakes ?

Condoleezza Rice, who served as Bush’s secretary of state But she said Maliki soon “reneged” and insisted on “the withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of 2011.” She said Bush “swallowed hard” and agreed to what she called “suitable language” to do just that.

So, President Bush reluctantly agreed to a withdrawal deadline without leaving behind a residual force because of Maliki’s strong objections

Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.

But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/bush-clinton-play-blame-game-in-iraq/

So so the Myth of Obama signing the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq is peddled by those seeking to Rewrite the Iraq war

Obama wasn't interested in keeping troops there:As per the article, there was plenty of leverage with the reconstruction projects:

 

[Agent327]

No, I didn't ignore Dachs http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14170400&postcount=57

Korea doesn't compare with Vietnam. That was the first mistake. It's sad that you cannot even see the difference between the two: Vietnam was a French colony: the French pulled out and the US took over their role. That doesn't even remotely compare with Korea.

Secondly, NVA troops only invaded South Vietnam as the US stepped up its military operations. This was deliberate US policy, as the staged Tonkin incident showed. In short, the US waged an undeclared war against North Vietnam, ultimately extending that war to Laos and Cambodja. But I'm sure all this was quite 'honorable'.

As for Dachs, what are Dach's creds compared to K.W.Taylor's that I linked to earlier http://lrc.cornell.edu/asian/faculty/bios/kwtaylor cv

Taylor served in Vietnam, speaks Vietnamese, has written and lectured on the history of Vietnam in Vietnam.

Argument from authority. Interestingly, you still fail to address any point made. Which, given the first, isn't really surprising.

And finally, we had a choice, support South Vietnam when the NVA invaded as we had promised them when they agreed to the untenable truce conditions, or sit by and watch them collapse under the NVA onslaught.

One was honorable, the other wasn't ... we chose the other.

And lost. Now what does that tell you? South Vietnamese losses were massive, the regime itself decrepit. Since when are military operations governed by what is 'honorable'? Your argument only showed the Nixon administration wasn't honorable at all. That's hardly a surprise now, is it?

Lastly, how does 'doing the honorable thing' relate to 'the Vietnam War could have been won'? (Hint: what they have in common is that they are both myths.)

The basic premise of 'we could have won the Vietnam War' is: the US did not do enough. Considering the fact that North Vietnam became the most heavily bombed country in history, that's somewhat untenable. Despite continual increase of US involvement in Vietnam, South Vietnamese losses kept mounting (ending up being tenfold US losses).

Secondly, the basic premise of Vietnam was to contain (and possibly roll back) Communism in Vietnam. This, however, is a political guideline, not a military one. De facto the US declared war on North Vietnam, short of invading it. There were sound reasons for the latter, because (as in Korea) China would not have kept idle while a friendly neighbour was being steamrolled by US dominated forces. That would be the link with Korea and a lesson that was well learned. Given this promise, there is some foundation for the idea that the US were fighting 'with one arm tied on their back'. Not a big one, but still. It still doesn't amount to anything close to 'the Viet Nam war could have been won'. That, ultimately, was a mirage which even the Nixon administration realized with its 'peace with honor' slogan. If things would have been left to the military, the war could have escalated beyond control. But thank God, the military don't rule the US - yet. (Another lesson from Korea.)

Destroying the existing government in hopes that a "better" one can take its place is the basic premise of a civil war. The whole "the people will rise up and welcome us as saviors" premise was rooted in the idea that they were having a civil war, but the rebels were incapable of any military action without our "help".

Civil war in Iraq followed US invasion. In essence, the US destroyed a stable regime and got a big mess in return. Now who could have predicted that?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Civil war in Iraq followed US invasion. In essence, the US destroyed a stable regime and got a big mess in return. Now who could have predicted that?

Well, me. Undoubtedly you. But I suspect we are far from an exclusive club.

As I have said repeatedly, never get your military involved in someone else's civil war.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed, you have said so repeatedly. Unfortunately, it doesn't really relate to either Iraq (as I just pointed out) or Vietnam.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indeed, you have said so repeatedly. Unfortunately, it doesn't really relate to either Iraq (as I just pointed out) or Vietnam.

As you said, knock over the government, civil war ensues was predictable. So how does it "not relate", other than you just wanting to disagree with me on some private principle?

As for Viet Nam, that was a civil war plain and simple. One nation split into two through the wisdom of a colonial power. Two governments, each supported by citizens intermixed throughout both nominal countries. Again, there is no way it "doesn't relate," you are just on some sort of committed path, apparently.

So, tell us, what is the issue here?

 

[Borachio]

I was under the impression that Kitchener's "New Army" performed rather poorly at Loos and the Somme and it was only after a year of experience in the trenches and some rather brutal -even by WWI standards- battles was the New Army equal in capacity to the trained soldiers that initially comprised the BEF.

Well, true.

But my point was (although not really my point, but a point of view that I remember reading) that your professional officer is more interested in protecting his career prospects than he is in prosecuting a war to a successful conclusion. (If nothing else, the professional officer has some interest in a war continuing, since his status relies on it.)

In contrast the conscripted officer just wants to get the thing over with and go back home to an interrupted career.

Now, I don't claim you can't argue with this point of view on any number of counts. And certainly the BEF was composed of professional soldiers who knew how to shoot a rifle.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

First bus to Canada for me, no question. In fact I'd probably have taken that option even if there wasn't a war on.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well, true.

But my point was (although not really my point, but a point of view that I remember reading) that your professional officer is more interested in protecting his career prospects than he is in prosecuting a war to a successful conclusion. (If nothing else, the professional officer has some interest in a war continuing, since his status relies on it.)

In contrast the conscripted officer just wants to get the thing over with and go back home to an interrupted career.

Now, I don't claim you can't argue with this point of view on any number of counts. And certainly the BEF was composed of professional soldiers who knew how to shoot a rifle.

Regular officers are also usually keen not to spend longer being shot at than necessary. Nor do most of them look forward to six months away from the wife and kids, with no beer, central heating, or the nice things we take for granted living in a place that isn't a warzone. Also, you don't stop being an officer in peacetime.

 

[Agent327]

As you said, knock over the government, civil war ensues was predictable. So how does it "not relate", other than you just wanting to disagree with me on some private principle?

As for Viet Nam, that was a civil war plain and simple. One nation split into two through the wisdom of a colonial power. Two governments, each supported by citizens intermixed throughout both nominal countries. Again, there is no way it "doesn't relate," you are just on some sort of committed path, apparently.

So, tell us, what is the issue here?

I guess you missed the fact that independence was promised to Vietnam. Originally South Vietnam, which was effectively a puppet regime (no offense intended to genuine democrats hoping for a democratic Vietnam) was backed by France (1949), but as the French pulled out, their role was taken over by the US.

You will note that at this point there was no civil war. There was no need for that as the division was supposed to be temporary pending the established of a single Vietnamese state following general elections (Geneva Accords, 1954). This, of course, never happened.

In short, US policy preceded any civil war. Just as in Iraq. In fact, one might easily argue that US policy precipitated civil war. In both cases.

Which is something very different from 'never interfere in another country's civil war'.

 

[Flying Pig]

They may have been thought to have been better, but the results of that war would seem to fly in the face of that notion.

EDIT: Plus, if you look at the entire history of warfare overall, the "win count" in professional armies vs. conscript armies heavily favors professional armies. Conscript armies are only really effective against other conscript armies.

Is there something to be said for the idea that you don't call up a general conscription if you don't think there's a real danger of losing the war?

EDIT: Also, that sometimes size matters. For example, the BEF in 1914 was probably the best army, man for man, in Europe - 100,000 professional soldiers, highly trained and motivated. The problem was that they were facing German armies which outnumbered them by several times, and it doesn't really matter in that context how good you are: Britain needed to adopt a conscript army - or at least a volunteer army drawn from large sections of society and thrust into combat with relatively little training, which in practical terms wasn't much different from the conscript army it eventually ended up with - in order to compete.

 

[Borachio]

EDIT: Plus, if you look at the entire history of warfare overall, the "win count" in professional armies vs. conscript armies heavily favors professional armies. Conscript armies are only really effective against other conscript armies.

I think this may well be true.

After all, conscripts are really only militia.

And the Romans (and Spartans) were notoriously good at being professional, while militias just wanted to get the war over and go home to bring in the harvest.

Still, the line between professional and militia gets a bit confused when it comes to the Swiss, for example.