Why was the Vietnam War such a tragic failure?

Answer 1

It wasn't really a failure. The outcome was very predictable. It was just a sad waste of lives in terms of both U.S. and Vietnamese. When President Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell speech in 1961 he had a hidden message in it. As he warned the people of the U.S. about the influence of the military industrial complex on U.S. ideology, you could actually see the nervousness in his eyes and facial expressions.

When Kennedy took office he sent a military adviser to Vietnam to evaluate and assess the situation and give recommendations. He was Lt. Col. John Paul Vann. After studying the problems there he found a simple answer to getting support from the South Vietnamese peasant (farmer) population. Give them control of their food. In this case.......rice. The South Vietnamese Govt. was forcing the peasants to give up their rice. The communist North Vietnamese were promising the South Vietnamese they would be allowed to keep their rice if they took power.

LC Vann reported this to military staffers. But the message got lost in political and industrial lobbying, foreign relations, and worrying about upsetting the South Vietnamese President by interfering with his policy of taking the food off of the peasants tables. After President Kennedy was assassinated U.S. policy shifted to one of trying to control the attempt by the North to take over the South by sending American troops in, where the French had already been forced out in 1956.

When Vann saw the corruption of the South Vietnamese Govt. and reported it to U.S. Pentagon officials, his reports were censored. He tried going to the press to get the message out, but all it did was cost him his career. After the false report that was given about the Gulf of Tonkin incident leading to the U.S. mining North Vietnamese harbors, the war quickly escalated.

Here in the U.S. the official press releases by the govt. was that the majority of the South Vietnamese wanted us there. As more and more U.S. soldiers went there and came back home the truth about the way the majority of the South Vietnamese felt about our presence began to leak out to the American public. Along with the fact the body counts of NVA and Vietcong (charlie) killed were being falsified. We were being told that we were winning the war, when in fact all we were doing was going around in circles killing and being killed. There was no clear objective. They enemy was among our troops. They smiled and waved at you in the daytime and mortared you in the night. The U.S. public began to become aware of the fact that we were being lied to by our government.

When the 1967-68 Tet offensive was mounted by the NVA, the U.S. Government couldn't cover up the truth any longer. Too many targets were attacked and too many U.S and ARVIN troops were killed in the fighting to hide it any more. Our own U.S. embassy was overrun and captured in Saigon the Capitol City of the South. U.S. Marines were surrounded and pinned down for weeks at Kasahn.

That was really the turning point as far as the U.S. support for the war went. The majority of U.S. citizens were angered at the prospect of being misled and lied to. Young people in Universities across the U.S. began protesting the war, even at the risk of death ( Kent State ). There was added turmoil here at home with the Civil Rights movement and it's producing spin off militant groups like the Black Panthers who were killing and burning cities. (Watts CA, Detroit MI. Harlem etc.) Then you had the rise of extreme leftist organizations such as the Underground Weatherman and the SLA. These groups caused martial law to be declared in U.S. cities more than once. It led to all out war between police, national guard troops, and at time even the U.S. military and U.S. citizens.

As the body count for U.S. soldiers continued to climb so did the unrest here at home. Drugs became common place in all of the major U.S. cities. The youth were becoming part of what is known as the "drug culture". With the election of President Richard M. Nixon, the Republican administration promised to pull out of Vietnam to get the voter support they needed to win the 1968 election. It didn't happen. What did happen was the same promise was repeated in the 1972 election with Nixon again being elected. Then the Watergate scandal and cover-up caused the U.S. public to have even more disrespect for the government. The pardon of Nixon by Gerald Ford who was never elected by the people of the U.S. in an election, only added to the dissatisfaction of U.S. citizens, by setting double standards of justice. A rebellious attitude expressed by the general public became the death throes for our involvement in Vietnam. Troops shot (fragged) their own officers, refused to go out on missions, and explored "their minds".

The end finally arrived when Gerald Ford pulled the last U.S. troops out leaving the outcome to the South Vietnamese under the same commander (Though at this time he was a civilian) that had tried to get them to let the peasants keep their rice many years and many human lives ago. John Paul Vann. He was killed when his helicopter went down in a storm.

The real tragedy of Vietnam was the fact that during WWII Ho Chi Mehn had fought against the Japanese and helped downed U.S. flyer's escape capture. After the war he wanted to consolidate Vietnam by joining North to South ( the south being a French colony) and submitted a written constitution based on the one that our forefathers put together in the late 1700's. We had the chance to make them a friendly nation in the 1950's but reason went out the window in favor of personal gains and profit.

Answer 2

First, it was not fought in the traditional sense of battle lines and army movements. The Viet Cong was a new kind of enemy, not following the "customary" rules of war. US forces weren't sure how to go up against such an enemy, that could pop up any where, any time. There was no clear definition of who they were fighting. In past wars and conflicts, you looked for the uniforms, to put it simplisticly.

Also, the media played a huge role, as it is doing now. The "living room war" as it was called, showed the grisly details of war, civilian casualties, etc. that had not been so gruesomely exposed in the past (although it happened just as much). The media turned it into a political free for all. People watching the horrors on tv quickly turned against the efforts being made, and I don't care how elite your forces are, its difficult to win anything without the support of your politicians and citizens. The media didn't give the whole story to the public, and the result? Our service personnel never recieved a heroes welcome. They were treated as the enemy, and took the heat for everything that had been blared on the 6:00 news. The Vietnam conflict was as much a tragedy within our own country as it was in Vietnam.

And, to any vets reading this, I recognize your efforts, and I thank you.

Answer 3

Many good answers already. I just want to add a couple.


They understood more of how to fight us than we understood how to fight them. The US didnt know for quite awhile that there was a tunnel system under the jungle giving them full access to ambush sleeping troops (we've gone into many battles not understanding the geography and losing men because of it-look at the D-Day invasion and the lack of armor on the underside of tanks).

The destruction of the American military platoon system before the war did not help. Instead of going to war with a few guys who were like your brothers that you tended to stick with for awhile, in the Vietnam war people were shuffled around too much and had less training and experience on working together.

Of course, a draft doesnt help an unpopular war. Sending people to fight that dont want to be there is not a viable way to win a war.

Answer 4

If you like to read non-electronic sources, you might want to check out Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly"
http://www.amazon.com/March-Folly-Troy-Vietnam/dp/0345308239

She defines folly in terms of doing something against self-interest and knowing that's what you're doing. For example, bringing the Trojan Horse inside the walls of Troy where there were warnings by seers that the Trojans would suffer if the horse was brought inside the city.

For Vietnam, I believe her reasoning was that a mixture of hubris, paranoia, and lack of knowledge were the main reasons why the US lost in Vietnam. Hubris in that the US was a super power, a big winner in WWII, and controlled the world's economy, so beating a bunch of people in some little country in Asia should be a piece of cake. Paranoia was rampant in the "Domino Theory" - since China had fallen to the Communists, then if Laos and/or Vietnam fall, the whole of Asia would be lost. That's not withstanding local religious, economic, and social structures that may well have prevented that... Lack of knowledge was not just on the military side (as many previous posters had stated), but on the cultural side: Vietnam had been fighting with China off and on for 2000 years (see http://www.asia.msu.edu/seasia/Vietnam/History/chinesecolonization ) and then the French and Japanese, so they were used to standing up against foreign invasions, fighting the big guys and winning.

Also, there were language and cultural barriers - not a lot of people in the U.S. spoke the language or were Buddhists which a majority of the Vietnamese were. In fact, the U.S. could have chosen the other path - Initially, Ho Chi Minh, leader of the N. Vietnamese, asked the US for help fighting the French after WWII. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
But, the US turned him down to support our French ally. After the French lost control of Vietnam, the US stepped in, knowing the fate of the French to prevent Communism in Vietnam. Gradually, the US got sucked in to committing more troops and money, all the time knowing that they probably couldn't win since they didn't have "the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese.

I think the Vietnamese really won by striking at the will of the US to fight. The Tet Offensive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_offensive) was the turning point - the N. Vietnamese lost the battles but won the war by convincing the ordinary US citizen watching at home on TV that Vietnam would only lead to death and destruction + the US wasn't wanted there. Again, as other posters have said, the US was clearly superior militarily But, the US believed that they should leave, leading to LBJ's decision not to run again for US president in 1968, and eventually to the peace treaty in 1973 and the subsequent conquest of S. Vietnam in 1975.

The tragedy was this: the US knew better to fight this battle at this place but kept at it. A lot of good people on both sides died and were hurt, a lot of money was wasted, and fight ensued, all for no lasting effect against the Communists.

Answer 5

americans were promised a quick, easy, and low casualty-rate victory in Vietnam. it was also the first war where reporters with cameras came a long with the troops. they recorded the horrors of the american soldier faced, and it evoked strong feelings that it was a hopeless cause. The generals and leaders kept promising that the war was soon to be won, but as the casualties mounted, the politicians requesting more troops, the institution of the draft, and the civil rights movement, nixon resigned after watergate. americans looked more to internally to themselves. the politicians insisted that the war is almlost won, but the tet offensive proved that wrong, so america demanded they pull out, and they won.

Answer 6

"Perception" Perspective the "judgment of history", that now forty years after the middle of that war, the consensus is that it was:

ill advised, ill managed, insidious and slow to be viewed in the scope of events. That so many lives were lost with no gains as to any political resolution of the conflict. It was a war for "wars sake", intervention into a civil war on one side; that was itself factionalized to the point of never being united.

Battles and campaigns were as meaningless as what was "gained" in World War I, granted America won all but
it was not a sports match and "he with the most points' received no honors (honours) no triumph.

We (USA) sowed no seeds of democracy, defended no great principle and brought ruin and havoc to a very proud and nationalistic people.

It was the tragedy of a nations "denial' as a psychologist the entire war played out in dysfunctional events and interpretations
that became a scar on the American psyche.

Senator Webb recalled yesterday that we forget we had "300,000" American casualties, "investing" another few hundred thousand was not an option.

Answer 7

Its tragic that very few bother to learn the facts!!!

the fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 then there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam. [1996 Information Please Almanac]

In spite of this Case – Church 1973 Congressional guarantee, the North Vietnamese were very leery of President Nixon. They viewed him as an incredibly tough leader who was also dangerously unpredictable. He had, in 1972, for the first time in the War, mined Hai Phong Harbor and sent the B-52 bombers against the North to force them into signing the Paris Peace Agreements. Previously the B-52s had been used only against Communist troop concentrations in remote regions of Vietnam and occasionally against carefully selected sanctuaries in Cambodia, plus against both sanctuaries and supply lines in Laos.


August 1974; Nixon resigns.


September 1974; North Vietnamese communists hold special meeting to evaluate Nixon’s resignation and decide to test implications.


December 1974; North Vietnamese invade South Vietnamese province of Phouc Binh located north of Saigon on Cambodian border.


January 1975: North Vietnamese capture Phouc Long, provincial capitol of Phouc Binh. Sit and wait for US reaction. No reaction.


March 1975; North Vietnam mounts full scale invasion. Seventeen North Vietnamese conventional divisions (more divisions than the US Army has had on active duty since WW II) were formed into four conventional army corps (This was the entire North Vietnamese army. Because the US Congress had unconditionally guaranteed no military action against North Vietnam, there was no need for them to keep forces in reserve to protect their home bases, flanks or supply lines), and launched a wholly conventional cross-border, frontal-attack. This attack was spearheaded by 700 Russian tanks, that were burning Soviet fuel and firing Soviet ammunition. Then, using the age old tactics of mass and maneuver, they defeated the South Vietnamese army in detail.

Answer 8

yes it certainly got to be, in turns of life lost fighting for a worthless cause when vietnam still fell into the hands of the communists. i am not too sure if it is more towards political agenda than for strategic course.

Answer 9

the military never lost 1 battle in that war... the reason it failed is because of political people... every time elected officals get involved in a war.... we will lose...

the US military had its hands tied.. the political idiots said they could not chase the enemy into certain citys.. we could not chase them across lines.. and then they gave them some screwed up about when they could attack or fire back at the enemy.... kinda like today... our military was given some screwed up rules they have to check off before they can fire back at the enemy.... with the current politicans we could never win WW2 again.. we would get our tails kicked... not becuase the enemy was better.,.. but because we have produced a nation of cry babies. it isnt about winning any more its about the way you feel... and our enemy is all about killing us.

Answer 10

I think it was because the politicians got too involved with the bad PR the war was getting. Would have won that war if it weren't for that.

Answer 11

Because the liberals wouldn't let us win it. Just as today, they are speaking in our own country for THE ENEMY!
And look what happened to the people over there after we surrendered - the genocide of millions and life under a totalitarian communist government.

It's time we started fighting wars like we did in WWII. No mercy, control of any domestic population with possible sympathies to the enemy, and utter destruction of anything standing (military or civilian) until complete surrender and total submission by all enemy populations.