The one key failure of why SEATO lost Vietnam.
This is just my theory but does anything think why SEATO lost in Vietnam is because of General William Childs Westmoreland vision of using attrition warfare? Thoughts?
the SEATO lost Viet Nam war due to allowing infiltration routes thru Lao and Kampuchea. As long as the NVA/VIET CONG unholy alliance existed they were as numerous as ants in an ant hill and provided unlimited weaponry from RED China and USSR not to mention moral support from North Korea. What would you have done in that situation?
sharePolitically I would try to declare war but militarily everything changes. I would focus more trying to cut off choke points rather than waiting for the enemy to make a move and then try to kill as many of them as possible. I cannot remember the battle or operation name but I remember reading about the US marines chasing down 2000 NVA soldiers trying to retreat back to Laos and the US marines were hot on their ass but only manage to kill 100 of them because the NVA commander would deploy rear guards to slow our side down. Things like that always (I believe) looked as a desperate win rather than glorious strategic planning. It bugs me that the enemy (North Vietnam) clearly said you can kill 10 of my men for every 1 of yours and we will still win. It is truly hard to say what I can do as I was not a General and I am on in that situation but if I was a President of the US and one of my Generals told me his glorious plan was to kill as many as possible ergo I need as much manpower and equipment as I can get, I would seriously think about replacing him.
shareUS lost Vietnam because it did not create a workable strategy and clear goal to define winning. Unlike Korean War , UN or International community was not with USA. South Vietnam was corrupt as hell and nothing more than a petty dictatorship which replaced goverment with subsequent military coups. And significant part of country did indeed wish unification with North. Desertions from South Vietnam Army was quite high. Last of all Vietcong or North Vietnamese were not fighting in regular open field warfare with firepower reliance. They were using guerilla tactics , sniping , hit and run attacks and terrorism And since they were conducting this kind of thing since Japanese occupation and French colony goverment USA with its all firepower and shiny toys was nothing but another foreign invader from their perspective. US troops sent Vietnam in 1965 were convinced the whole struggle would be over in six months ! Somebody in Pentegon clearly did not study Vietnamese history !
As long as USA did not invade North Vietnam , Cambodia and Laos which was quite impossible since it would require millions of troops , resources while Russian or Chinese would love US bleed itself to death on South East Asia at cost of a little material assistance from them Vietnam War would a failure and strategic defeat for USA. Not to mention last time US tried to invade a communist neightbor of China in Korean Peninsula Chinese intervened with millions of their own men.
Vietnam was a defeat for US. Admitting failure or defeat is good a healty thing believe me. You would feel much better rather than excusing "If we had done that...." yeah you didn't though. And there were sound reasons for that.
I read in that book Mao the Untold Story, by authors Chang and Halladay(not sure on spelling of names), that had the US pushed into North Vietnam, the Chinese Army was Super ready; having positioned armies along their border with North Vietnam. They WERE going to intervene, had the US pushe9d north. An interesting thing to note, is that the North Vietnamese leadership didn't want any actual military help at all from the Chinese. Inn fact, they planned(according to this book) to treat any active Chinese intervention as just another foreign occupation(probably a wise perspective, given Mao's personality), and planned to actively resist it, just as much as they would, had the Americans pushed into North Vietnam.
Keep in mind, it has been like two years since I've read the overly long and complex book, I could have gotten some facts mixed up. But for the most part, I think I've transcribed it pretty well.