Why could the United States not win the Vietnam War?

Answer 1

ok, this is a biggy...

Firstly from a military point of view, the US Army wasn't up to the task.

Ho Chi Minh said 'You will kill 10 of us, and we will kill one of you, and in the end you yourselves will tire of it'. Over the course of the war, very few units even came close to achieving this... notably the 39th Batt/4th Division 'Hardcore' battalion under the command of Lt. Col. David Hackworth (who achieved 100:1 using proper anti-guerrila tactics), the 1/7 Battalion of the 1st Air Cavalry under the command of Hal Moore and the (2nd Battalion, 502nd Regiment of the 101st Airborne under Hank Emerson (who developed his own 'checkerboard' tactics while at War College), among very few others.

The major problem with the US Army in the 1960's was that Eisenhower had gutted the army's ability to wage flexible conventional war in the 1950's with his austerity drive... this led to a culture of 'ticket-punching' among the officer corps, which basically meant you had officers at all levels cycling through units every few months without getting to know their area, their enemy, or their men.

Also, US forces, unlike the Australian units in theatre who understood counter-insurgency, came to rely too much on their ferocious firepower (artillery and Tac Air) to hold back and defeat the enemy - this despite the fact that early in the US involvement, the Vietnamese learnt to ''hug the belt. of the US units to neutralise that firepower. This is what happened at the first major battle the Screaming Eagles fought against the 95th Batt. 2nd VC Regiment (operation Gibralter at An Khe), while over 250 enemy troops were killed, in truth the airborne lost there and the enemy 'saved the day by walking away' as one Amerrican officer put it. Unfortunately this battle was described by Gen. Westmoreland, theatre commander (MACV) in the US as a historic victory, continuing the lie to the American People that would never be admitted.

The reliance of the US Army on tac-air and fixed artillery in turn led to the artillery and airborne artillery sections of the army being in charge. And from there it was a small step to those huge unweildy fire-support bases all over the theatre, which destroyed American manouvrabilty, mobility and flexibility on the battlefield.

And that's just the start... in a war where some 25% of casulaties were caused by booby traps and anti-personel mines, you would think that warning the troops would be an important part of their basic training. No, in the entire course, they were given about an hour, on the WWW Anti-Tank mine.

This is all part of the problem the US army had, they were still getting ready for the big tank battle in Europe against the Soviet Union, never mind they were getting their clocks cleaned and bleeding their nations youth away in SE Asia. It all comes down to a lack of focus politically, and militarilty that contributed to the tragedy of the American involvement in Vietnam.

Now, also consider the fact is that the North were fighting a political or civil war which they believed in completely, wheras the US thought it was fighting a police action ... this led to a fundamental failure of policy both in the Defence department and in the exective branch.

So, despite $100 Million of illegal bombing in North Vietnam(enough to give every man, woman, and child in SE Asia the highest standard of lving in the world), despite the liberal use of defoliants like Agent Orange destroying their environment, despite napalm, secret bombing and invasions in Cambodia and Laos (still the most heavily bombed country on the planet - and they weren't even in the war) - it all came to nothing but pain and tragedy for the American people.

The only way America could have won in Vietnam without totally eradicating everyone in the North and all the VC was by keeping the South Vietnamese people safe, by making them appreciate that life is better for them under the South Vietnamese government. It's about Hearts and Minds, and this was the true failure of the US in South East Asia. Unfortunately propping up a completely corrupt regime did little to endear the USA to the South Vietnamese.

And I haven't even got to the problem of it being unpopular on the home front...with senior military officers lying about incidents such as the Mai Lai massacre March 1968 and condoning lies about body-counts it is no surprise that the American People lost faith and stopped supporting the military effort.

Politically there were serious failings too, Lyndon Johnson micormanaged the war (in a famous incident he was accused of giving orders directly to a unit in a battle situation)...not to mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident which he used to escalate the US involvement in the war.

I hope that helps, and I apologise for any factual mistakes I've made.

I urge anyone to read the books below, if you want to find out more about the problems America faced, and why they were hamstrung politically and militarilly.

Answer 2

enano is inane. A couple thousand people were killed and the americans retreated? Americans entered vietnam in the 1950's and didn't leave until the early 1970's.

The reason our efforts to win this police action (Vietnam was never recognized as a war by any sitting politician of the time)
was because neither the Vietnamese people nor the American people supported that war. Sound familiar?

And, by the way, for those who were not around at the time, a major manufacture of materials that fueled our war machine, DuPont (makers of agent orange?) had far too powerful a lobby to allow the withdrawal of troops or a declared end to the police action. The Vietnam war was a money making machine for almost every corporation in this country and others. The fortunes made off the Vietnam war are still being spent by the celebutantes you see on the cover of the tabloids today.

Follow the money, every war needs money, makes money and money is the bottom line in this world.

Gee, any money to be made by any US corporations should our war on terror and our effort to democratize Iraz prevail? Or, is there more money being made while this action is going on?

Hmmmm.

Answer 3

There were plenty of things that went wrong. One was that too many of the military did not understand what kind of war we were fighting, or much care. Too many officers were there "to get their ticket punched" for advancement so they'd be in a better position when the "real war" in Europe occurred. President Johnson's micromanagement was horrible, and the liberal thinkers in Washington believed they could induce North Vietnam to negotiate in good faith. (Communist doctrine used the negotiating table as another tool in war, showing a more sophisticated outlook on negotiations than we have here in the US.) But primarily, the people of the US did not understand then and still do not understand the primarily political nature of 4th generation war, and that makes us susceptible to giving away the war. Once Walter Cronkite, the most trusted news announcer in the US when we had only the 3 major networks, announced the war was lost after the Tet battles of early 1968, it was lost, and this is in spite of the fact that he had completely misread the situation. Militarily, that was one of several times when the NVA had miscalculated and gave us a chance to win. But it wasn't about the situation on the ground in Vietnam, it was about the political process in the US, and Giap just plain beat us here at home.

Answer 4

Because China and russia were giving those against us weapons and the fact that the vietnam war was going on long before the US was involved. As far back as World War II there were problems and the US became involved and then the on set of the cold war gave the US even more reasons to go into Vietnam.

Though if you take to people who were there, most say the US was to kind. We did not bomb or kill enough to make a diffrence. I guess that is chalked up to war.

Answer 5

Because like Iraq, it was a police action, not a war of conquest. The US was in the middle of a civil war and South Vietnam was never able to develop a viable government or strong enough military to adequately defend itself. Also it's entire economy was based on the presence of the US.
It is also signifigant that the north vietnamese were never going to give in, ever, without being utterly eradicated. The french realized this in the 50's the US finally accepted it in the 70's.
At the time there were other considerations, the US did not want the Soviets or China to get involved. As had happened in Korea.
Frankly there are a lot of lessons that should now be applied to Iraq, but aren't .

Answer 6

Well, my friend ,you pretty much answered your own question. No, we didn't win the war. As you said, N.Vietnam took over the whole country, as was their plan, and we hightailed it out of there, leaving the S.Vietnamese who fought along with us to face the music. What we did do was lose approximately 58,000 young men's lives for nothing, and that's not counting the maimed, blinded, psychologically damaged and soon to be cancer- stricken victims, many of whom are still paying the price today. It also polarized this nation and cost a President his job, as well it should have. On top of all that, it cost us billions upon billions of dollars-as wasted as if we had flushed it down the toilet. And you know what? It wasn't the fault of one single American soldier that caused this mess.It was those arrogant, know-it-all, self-serving politicians back home who made all the wrong decisions that lost this war. Nobody else.So, yes ,we lost, but hopefully, we learned a valuable lesson to be used in the future. Hopefully.

Answer 7

in order to win a war like Nam lots of things had to happen that did not. 1. no war can be won if it is being run by cheap politicians with their own welfare in mind 2. jungle warfare in the true guerrilla style is difficult to win unless you are willing to kill everybody and let whatever god you happen to believe in sort them out later. 3 when the locals are being terrorized by both side to support each side they soon realize that they can not win so they try to support those who torture and kill them the least or no side at all. 4. the entire nation has to see the specific reason for the conflict in the first place no just yet another quest for cheap oil ad all the billions that are to be stuffed into a few pockets by it garnering, that time Philippine oil reserves.5. all sections of the military would have to work together seamlessly to get it done and with the ego level for most officers that is impossible, medals, promotions and body counts overruled common sense and practicality.6. The death toll for us was in access of 56,000 kia and mia. For the Vietnamese it was reported to be 2 million. When you look at those numbers it is hard to talk about anyone "winning" regardless of how one would look at it. Welcome to Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Lybia, North Korea, etc etc etc anyone bush can pick a fight with so his pathetic ratings go up to cover up the fact that he dodged his own military service and then just switched from being a coke whore to an oil whore.... as that is what it is all about and has been since day one. hope this version of reality stirs some thoughts in your mind.

Answer 8

The United States did not properly assess the situation in Viet Nam. It was initially escalated to help Lyndon Johnson win the 1964 election (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). Johnson spent his remaining years in office slowly escalating because he was afraid to send too many troops in at one time, but he didn't have the nerve to pull out completely. The U.S. was also fighting for people who would not fight for themselves (sound familiar?) and underestimated the will of the North Vietnamese to keep fighting.
For the two sides, victory was different. For the North Vietnamese, victory was not an all out defeat of American forces, rather outlasting the American will to keep fighting. For America, victory was never clearly defined as I believe the idea was to protect the South from the North and communism.

Answer 9

First of all this was a centuries old conflict with new names new philosophies. We stepped into something that would only be resolved by the people in Viet Nam.

Second, our philosophy was skewed. We went in with the belief that our fighting there would prevent us from having to fight communism here (sound familiar)? The truth was the people of Viet Nam were fighting for contol of a unified Viet Nam not for the idea of global communism.

Third, while the North Vietnamese were supported by a Soviet government which enabled them to continue their struggle, the French and then the US were never able to get the South Vietnamese to the point of being able to fight without foreign troops.

Lastly, the very South Vietnamese government never had teh support of the South Vietnamese people. We found ourselves propping up a corrupt and sometimes brutal government.

Answer 10

The NVA would never give up and china was supplying them with weapons. It was a civil war. Did any foreign countries try to intervene with the war between the states? It had to be resolved on it's own course. BTW can we change things in Iraq?

Answer 11

Idiotic politicians tried to micromanage the war. They didn't know what they were doing, and refused to ALLOW the military to do its job. And there was no oil in Vietnam. That one was about uranium.