Given our hindsight, what strategy and tactics would have won the Vietnam war for the US?

Question

Looking back at the conflict, the US had overwhelming military superiority and failed to win the war. How could the US have employed different military strategy and tactics to have changed the result? Let's ignore the motivation of each side, militarily, what changes could have won the war for the US?

Answer 1

It's because we didn't address the idea of fighting an unconventional war.

The Generals didn't think it was sexy to fight a war unless you had massive amounts of troops and firepower to destroy your enemy. They were stuck in the WWII model of warfare. They refused to embrace the fact that if you won hearts and minds, the people would aid your cause. Instead, carpet bombing and intimidation was the answer.

After the war, we ignored those lessons and we're relearning them, today.

A professional military must constantly learn and adapt. An institution of our size does not change quickly. The mind set of the American people does not change quickly. When you see our firepower, you expect us to win and win quickly. That's just not feasible.

We would have won the war if we had fought a counterinsurgent war instead of a war based on massive firepower.

Answer 2

A G.W. Bush didn't ask that question before he attacked Iraq.

They had many strategies including the hearts and minds that had some success. The key would have been better intelligence on the the tactics and movement of the Vietcong.

The US were trying to defend 'towns/cities' and villages from an enemy that basically lived in the jungle in secret bases often underground. Without understanding the tactic that the Vietcong were trying to undermine the US, literally in some cases, and being able to develop a credible strategy then no different outcome would have been achieved through military tactics.
This was a war fought in the mind more than on the ground and the Viets were a lot smarter than they were given credit for. The pace of the pressure exerted meant there was little time to adjust to this 'new' type of war. Guerrilla tactics using conventional forces.

The only idea I can suggest on the basis that the analysis of the Viets tactics had been better understood that the US developed a secret underground fall back position, many miles behind their lines, then did a sudden withdrawal of forces from the centre. Drawing the enemy out from their bunkers to take the ground and then create a killing zone.

Of course today's 'bunker bomb' has been developed to help with these problems.

Answer 3

Very simple. One: never support corrupt regimes. Diem was the worst possible choice. Everybody agreed on that, except cardinal Spellman, because Diem was a "catholic".
Two: do not increase corruption, but fight it. The US took corruption in South Vietnam to an unseen level. Corruption cost probably more than the real warfaring. Three: make sure you wage war in the interest of the majority of the country where you are fighting. The US have litteraly done everything to make the population hostile towards them. Just like the French they favorised the catholics and did nothing to protect the rural population (except in a few meagre experiments).
Four: never think you can win once you have set up 85% of the population against you, unless you are ready and able to use weapons of mass destruction. The US had manoeuvred itself into a position where the use of WMD would have cost them dearly.
Five: do not see war as a type of doing business. The US are in Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war in order to give big profits to the US undustry which is a war industry. The US taxpayer will be the biggest loser. They just cooked up a reason for the war and did not even bother to find a good one.
The US under administrations like the actual one will keep making the same mistake. If need be, they will attack Alaska by mistake. They are addicted to war.

It is a technically correct remark that in Vietnam they had an outdated military model in mind. They still have and that is why they will lose in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
The model is something like: the more we spend the better. The Vietnamese have taught them a good lesson there. It is sad and remarkable that with corruption in Vietnam at its height, the VS try to mend the ties with Vietnam, to sell Coca Cola I guess.

Answer 4

Militarily, the US didn't lose the war. Politically it lost it. The Vietnamese had better public relations everywhere, specially in the US, and forced the peace settlement in their favour. When looking at war, there is a confusion resulting in comparing pre-WWII conflicts with those that came after. Wars ended with the unconditional surrender of the losers. No more. Now wars end without a clear resolution. If the US wanted to win the Vietnam War in all aspects the North should have been invaded and occupied, its government disbanded and its leaders imprisoned. The resources were there to do so. Politically it was thought unwise to invade. The war with Iraq could have been over if the US had acted like others up to WWII. Declare war, invade, occupy and set your own rules. The allow Iraqis to keep AK47s for "self defence" at their homes, was lunatic. No British, French or German general of the past would have allowed such idiocy.

Answer 5

An overwhelming force invading the North in a short time, winning the war in a very short time, showing to the communists (especially the Soviets & the Chineses) that America was strong & decided.

But the politicians wanted a war of "police action"...and more than 50000 young American soldiers have been killed.


Rest in peace Brothers, your sacrifice was not vain & will be never forgotten. May God bless you all.

Answer 6

America didn't actually loose the Vietnam war!.. Public opinion at home and abroad turned against the USA and so they left vietnam undefeated! in battle!.

Most people seeing news coverage and reading about the Vietnam war tend to think that it was all out war , (unrestrained) - it wasn't! - it was a limited war! ,,strategy and tactic were limited to fighting the yellow peril in the jungles / vills / towns and cities of south Vietnam along with restrained bombing of Hanoi / Haiphong harbour.

To win a war you have to be prepared to fight to the very last man (North Vietnamese were willing ) America wasn't!. - Also you have to blind yourself to suffering of others while continuing to attack and win by attrition. (North Vietnam was prepared to) America wasn't!.

Americans lacked that will! fight once they saw the body bags laying on the ground and the will to win vanished.. (very similar to what's happening in Iraq now).

If the Americans had shown the same level of venom towards the Vietnamese that they had shown towards the Japanese and the Germans during the second world war then the Vietnam war would have been over in weeks because the Americans would have used nuclear weapons to obliterate the north!

Answer 7

you have to study this piece of history very very closely. If you buy a good history book and read it. You will realize that #1 it was more than just one country Vietnam held off. Nor was the USA the first to try what others have failed to do. Technology never saved the romans. And in this Vietnam case, it didn't matter how much napalm the us dropped, they were hard core trained defenders. The viets were hardened by many years and years of French resistance. They saw everything by then. The troops of the usa could never endure what the viet congs were used to their whole lives.

Answer 8

Much smaller numbers of highly trained, well motivated ground troops would have had more of a chance. If you look at VC accounts they feared fighting Australians much more than Americans. The reason was because when the Australians came under attack they didn't call in massive air strikes but stayed in contact with the VC and as a result had much higher kill ratio figures. Generally speaking professional dedicated troops will defeat conscripted troops even if the conscripts have a majority.
That said I don't think the war was winnable for the US, whats often forgotten is the bravery, ruthlessness and sheer will of the North Vietnamese. It is often assumed that the War was lost because of American mistakes, in fact Vietnamese strengths were every bit as important as American weaknesses.

Answer 9

Initially they set out to finish the campaign in a very short time. Because of this, their infrastructure (bases, supply chains general logistics and number of troops/units) was low and set up for a short war. When the war lasted too long, they were stretched thinner than planned, but called for reinforcements far too late to be effective.

If it could be re-fought, then they should have planned for a lengthy fight, and their infrastructure would have reflected that.

Answer 10

We did not lose the war militarily,we lost it politically.A lot of the younger people do not realize this,but the fact is we fought a limited war.Our hands were tied due to the rules of engagement.Later on,this changed,but by then it was too late.The protesters put so much pressure on the politicians that they had one agenda " to save their political careers"No,we,the fighting men and women did not lose the Vietnam war.The politicians lost it.