Vietnam, The Forgotten War?
Before the Vietnam War, Korea was dubbed the “forgotten war.” That terminology has also been applied to Vietnam by some pundits and historians. But is it appropriate?
Ask any vet, I think not. That war still haunts many who suffered wounds, both physically and mentally, and suffered from PTSD and drug abuse. Others who returned home to shameful treatment, disrespect, and scorn still harbor resentment. Memories of Vietnam are something you cannot put away in the attic and forget. You can compartmentalize the experience, tuck it away for a while and move on with your life, but something always pops up that triggers a flashback or a simple disturbing recall of an event, or some traumatic occurrence.
Over 25 % of the Vietnam vets have passed on, and recollections by the public have faded, but I guarantee you, the remaining surviving vets have not forgotten their SE Asia experience, especially those combat troops in the jungles and rice paddies. Nor have they forgotten the shabby reception upon returning home. Much anger persists at the failure of government leadership and mismanagement of the war, as well as the public’s lack of gratitude and respect.
But, the term “Forgotten War” still persists within some media as we revisit the 50th anniversary of the North Vietnamese Tet offensive, which is defined as the invasion of all major cities and villages in South Vietnam on the Chinese New Year. Why is that?
Look at the history in the context of the “Cold War” mindset. The global fight to thwart the expansion of communism in Indochina, particularly Vietnam, became in a sense a proxy for the Cold War with Russia and concerns with Mao’s China. That geopolitical concept and a capsule summary of the history might help your understanding of how America became involved in a war with North Vietnamese Viet Minh descendants who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. A lot of Monday morning quarterbacking is involved. Hindsight is 20/20. I’ll try to keep my summation simple and objective.
Arguably, the 1968 Tet offensive became the pivotal year in the war, but not in the sense you might think if you were among the half of the population not even born in the ’60s while that war waged on for over a decade. Tracing the lead-up to that momentous event will put it in context.
- In 1961, America introduced military advisors to South Vietnam’s ARVN under JFK’s pretext to prevent the “Domino Theory,” the toppling of other SE Asia countries, falling into communist control if Vietnam fell. That strategy did not go well for a variety of reasons too complex to explain in a blog, but is addressed in detail in my historical narrative, RECALL.
- In 1965, LBJ introduced combat troops in response to attacks on U.S. military installations. LBJ’s administration’s micromanagement instituted self-imposed restrictions on the military rules of engagement leading to a war of attrition. No way to fight a war in the minds of most those directly involved in Vietnam. Failure to “pacify” and “win the hearts and minds” of the South Vietnamese countryside where 80% of the population lived further complicated a winning war effort. The strategy for fighting a guerrilla war was seriously flawed.
- By 1968, the U.S. had 550 thousand troops in Vietnam when TET, the Chinese New Year attack, occurred. The fighting was fierce, door to door in Hue, but no major city or village fell to the NVN invaders and VC throughout the year’s battles . The enemy suffered 58,000 losses at a conservative estimate, as many as the U.S. military lost in over a decade of war. We lost over 4,000 troops in that year. To most, those stats would indicate a military victory, but not to the anti-war protesters and the left-wing biased media. Walter Cronkite, the famous war correspondent, deemed the war, “Unwinnable.” In a political sense, it was, but that is the subject addressed in detail in my historical narrative, RECALL. The Vietnam war was a divisive and controversial period in our history.
Getting into all of the detail is too complicated to explain in a blog, so I wrote a book about it after five years of research and reviewing my personal notes and opinions of friends who served over there with me.
I’ve attached some conclusive observations from my epilogue to give you additional insight. If you like what you see, be sure to read my novel RECALL to get the full story of Vietnam as my characters experienced the contentious war that divided a nation and birthed a political polarization that has persisted to present day.
Excerpt from the Epilogue of RECALL, by R. Lawson
By the early ’70s, public opinion dictated it was time to end the war. Nixon did so without telegraphing the targets like LBJ’s administration did. To his credit, he forced the “unwinnable war” to wind down in a short period of time.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but it’s never too late to assess our decision- making process in matters of vital national concern. Societies disinclined to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the same mistakes over generations … almost as if their leaders suffered some sort of learning disability, a historical blind spot. Experience often proves to be the best teacher. Why not learn from it?
Declassified CIA intelligence reports regarding Vietnam reveal an elemental understanding of this observation that has been around for some time. Santayana pointed out this tragic pitfall of human nature in the Spanish philosopher’s Life of Reason in 1905. Seems this common sense logic didn’t sink in during the Vietnam strategy sessions. Our leaders failed the nation and our military, who paid the ultimate price of misguided policy.
False assumptions and nebulous reasoning lead to poor outcomes in both war and peace. Case in point, Vietnam is a classic study of teachable moments and unintended consequences resulting from inept action or inaction. History has established some basic fundamentals. Those lacking appreciation of history’s axioms will not heed them and will eventually pay a price for ignoring their empirical value. Leaders incapable of rational deliberation of the inherent value of past experience will suffer the consequences of poor judgment, as will the nation.
Good judgment comes from experience, but much of it is derived from bad experience. Unfortunately, that is rarely the optimum way to learn and achieve positive outcomes. You could argue Vietnam was a bad experience. Did we learn anything of value? Does Iraq or Afghanistan come to mind?
We fought the VN war with a WWII, strategic, frontal- war mentality, with many generals fighting the last war, not the next. General Westmorland and others suffered that mindset. VN was an asymmetrical conflict, a guerrilla war. General Abrams realized that, but arrived too late to alter the course. The die was cast, the Rubicon crossed, no going back.
Case in point, it’s tempting to see Vietnam as a parallel with our wars in the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They share similarities. When will we learn that wars require a well- defined cause, not a pretext to become involved? Maintain a strong national interest and will to prevail? Employ precise strategies to attain a swift and lasting victory?
America has proven it has no patience for protracted wars of attrition. The enemy is well aware of that fact. They are not stupid, they are willing to wait us out. They think in terms of decades and centuries. That’s why our objectives must be clear. Victory must be defined in terms everyone can understand. Why can’t we seem to comprehend these fundamental tenets? Learn from them? And, put them to judicious and productive use?
The public malaise following the Vietnam War resulted in a severe ideological polarization that has smoldered for generations up to the present in some respects. Take a look at the political fabric of America today. We are a country seriously divided, civility in tatters, longing for proper leadership to define us as a nation.
The passion following Vietnam never entirely flamed out. It continues to simmer. The war’s aftermath seemed to scar America’s psyche, resulting in a national PTSD of sorts. We still suffer a psychological condition characterized by recurrent antagonistic themes, obviously difficult for the nation to resolve, get over, and move on. Vietnam was not a proud or sanguine period in our history. Few positives came out of the conflict. Two nations were damaged. The era still remains controversial, still ignites arguments and triggers resentments. Have we lost sight of our guiding principles?
What happened to our moral compass? Our leadership? America was betrayed by non- productive rhetoric and ill- conceived ideas.
In the real world, policy counts more than ideas, actions speak louder than words, and results matter more than intentions.
“Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.” A JFK quote following the “Bay of Pigs” fiasco in Cuba, 1961.
War is a weapon, use it wisely. Historian Bernard Lewis observed a decade ago regarding the Middle East conflicts, “In 1940, we knew who we were, we knew who the enemy was, we knew the dangers and the issues … It is different today. We don’t know who we are, we don’t know the issues, and we still do not understand the nature of the enemy.”
That well- spoken statement could be relevant and appropriate to our Vietnam involvement more than a half a century ago.
Leave a Reply