The US's military strategy concentrated on a few different areas. Some of these were successful and others weren't.
1) Bombing of the North. Late in the war the US airforce embarked on a campaign of bombing targets in North Vietnam and using precision bombing of targets in hot zones.
2) Search and Destroy. As many civilian Vietmanese were seen to be providing the VC with food/materiale the US forces typically burned villages and stores that were found to have links to the NVA/VC.
3) Aircav. The US relied very healivy on helicopter transport for military landings, med evacs and firepower. This strategy allowed the US to get troops in and out of remote areas in Vietnam, keep them supplied and extract wounding quickly.
4) Mekong River patrols. The US used riverboats in the Mekong Delta to help deny that waterways use as a transport link (Ho Chi Minh Trail) for the NVA/VC. The US also provided directed firepower from these boat platforms for nearby shore actions.
5) Training of South Vietnam's military. This was probably the most unsuccessful of the US strategies. The US relied more heavily on ARVN troops as the Vietnam war progressed. Typically the US would place advisors as trainers and directors and fight alongside the ARVN troops. However, the quality of the South Vietmanese soldiers was dubious at best and their military achievements were few and far between.
I want to bring across to all readers that the United States won the Vietnam Conflict militarily. Every battle that the US forces initiated or participated in was won. The Conflict was lost at home.
2007-02-02 00:37:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Blitzhund 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
DO NOT BLAME THE PRESS.
We entered the Vietnam war with the best of intentions: we wanted freedom and democracy for Vietnam and we wanted to make a statement with a show of force that communism would not be allowed to take over a country.
We were confronted with some very difficult obstacles: A corrupt government led by a Catholic leading a Buddhist country. Diem had no respect for the Buddhists and that was a losing pony to back. He was followed by a succession of corrupt and inept South Vietnames leaders. We were carrying the majority of the load in fighting the Viet Cong and the NVA. While individual RSVN units were good, they were poorly led and were fighting a tenacious, disciplined army. We could not count on the South.
The fluidity of the battlefield also worked against our strategy. There was no front line, the farmer in the day was a terrorist at night. The NVA could retreat into Cambodia or Laos to safe havens.
The country wearied of the war. 58,000 deaths and many more wounded seemed like a huge waste for a country on the other side of the world. True, we were concerned about the 'domino effect' where the rest of Southeast Asia would fall. But it didn't in the way we thought - Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge, a truly scary bunch who were later ousted by the Communists from Vietnam. Laos, poor, rural Laos, was communist and is still today, but it was never a threat and is even today an oddly Buddhist communist state. It's more corrupt than communist. Thailand fought Thai communists and was never threatened.
So, with the best of intentions, we went to war.
2007-02-02 00:46:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The strategies were to destroy the Vietkong (vietnam communist military) which they did, and the supposed horrible Tet Offensive wasn't much, it was repelled and was a major lost for the Vietkong, but made to sound like a victory by the media, so look into why we lost, because the media reporting made public support go down the toilet.
2007-02-02 04:18:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by fla5232 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
One strategy used early in the conflict was "Search and Destroy." S and D used highly mobile troops using helicopters to patrol guerrilla infested regions. When the Vietcong were spotted the helicopters were land the troops and engage and destroy the enemy. This was done in conjunction with artillery, and ground attack aircraft.
The tactic was highly controversial as the US soldiers or Marines would burn the village to prevent its further use by the enemy. The international press accused the US and South Vietnamese forces of engaging in wanton destruction.
The next strategy was the creation of "Free-fire" zones. The US and South Vietnamese forces would evacuate Vietnamese civilians from enemy infested regions. The region was then assumed to be free of innocent civilians and inhabited by the enemy only and subject to attack by air or ground forces without warning. The free-fire zones were dotted with strategically located US Army, Marine and South Vietnamese fire bases which had pre-sighted the regions around these bases for rapid fire. Additionally, ground patrols were sent out from these bases to gather intelligence and harass the enemy.
2007-02-02 01:04:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We went in to win but Walter and the boys with their cameras and microphones decided different so we had to leave with our tails between our legs. Just like Iraq, Kick the press out for a month and we will win and there will not be any Iran running back and forth.
2007-02-02 00:32:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Boomrat 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
If you're doing a report, then this will help...
Read, "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife" by LTC John Nagl.
2007-02-02 00:27:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
win
2007-02-02 00:26:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋