It has often been
said that history repeats itself. It has also been said that those who deny the
past are doomed to repeat it. Nowhere are these comments better demonstrated
than in Vietnam.
For every lesson remembered from America’s
previous small wars, another was forgotten. In Vietnam,
elements of America’s
previous conflicts were played out for the world to see.
How did Vietnam
start? It all began in 1954 with the defeat of the French at Dien
Bien Phu. The French had colonized Vietnam
since the mid 19th century and in 1954, the French government was
fighting to keep it. To make a long story short, the French failed and were
forced to split Vietnam
into two pieces under the terms of the Geneva Conference, which also stated
that “general elections shall be held in July 1956.” (Wikipedia) The newly
created governments of North and South Vietnam
had different goals, with the North Vietnamese government attempting to unify
the country. The South Vietnamese government, which was unpopular for several
reasons, was only interested in holding onto its power.
The United
States entered into Vietnamese affairs out
of self-interest. America
had been fighting its own war against communism throughout the world since the
ending of World War II. The leader of the North Vietnamese government, Ho Chi
Minh, was known to have Communist sympathies, which worried the American
government. Hoping to contain communism in North
Vietnam, America
supported the South Vietnamese leader, Ngo Dinh Diem in his attempt to stop the
general elections. By 1957, North Vietnam
had begun sending guerrilla units to attack South
Vietnam. In the beginning, the South
Vietnamese government was able to defeat the guerrillas with the help of US
“advisors.”
Everything
changed in 1963 with the overthrow of Diem and the assassination of US
President John F. Kennedy. Due to Kennedy’s assassination, Lyndon Baines
Johnson became President; due to the overthrow of Diem and his subsequent
death, Johnson raised the amount of troops in Vietnam
significantly. On August 7, 1964,
the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution was passed by Congress which gave the President permission to
escalate the amount of troops in Vietnam,
“as the President shall determine.” (Wikipedia) By 1965, the United
States was committed to fighting in Vietnam.
The main general
in charge of ground troops, William Westmoreland, was a veteran of World War II
and familiar with large-scale warfare. Vietnam’s
jungles did not lend itself to that kind of warfare and Westmoreland’s attempts
to use conventional strategies led to disaster for American soldiers. Another
problem of Westmoreland’s was the fact that the guerrillas looked exactly like
the people that the US
soldiers were supposed to defend. Finally, while there was a move to get
support from South Vietnamese citizens by helping to rebuild villages, among
other things, it was not as publicized or as widespread as in other wars.
Vietnam
has one coast and was bordered by countries that either favored the North
Vietnamese cause or remained unflinchingly neutral. Both the Indian Wars and
the US-Filipino War can be offered in comparison. During the Indian Wars, some
territories shared borders with Mexico
and Canada. Mexico,
while still aggrieved at the loss of some of their land to the United
States, usually allowed the US
to pursue Native Americans who attempted to escape across the borders. Canada,
on the other hand, would not allow the US
to capture Indians who took refuge on their soil. Because of this problem, it
was illogical for US troops to use large-scale warfare to attack and pursue
Indians. Instead, the US
used faster, smaller cavalry units to contain them, isolating rebelling Indians
and forcing them to surrender. The Philippines
are filled with the same type of vegetation that Vietnam
is covered in. Unlike Vietnam,
however, the Philippines
are islands and therefore are surrounded by coastline. Because of the terrain,
US troops were forced to divide into smaller units in order to effectively
maneuver though the jungles. If we look at these two situations, it becomes
obvious that Westmoreland should have organized his troops into smaller units
and used them to surround Viet Cong troops. In fact, Westmoreland should have
attempted to become familiar with the land itself. If he had, perhaps some
battalions would not have been decimated. One perfect example of this was the 1st
Battalion of South Vietnamese soldiers in the 5th Regiment. Because
of unfamiliarity with the land, on December
8, 1965, the battalion was ripped to shreds by the Viet Cong in
less than 15 minutes. (Sheldon, 41)
Westmoreland’s
troops also had a problem with identifying friend from foe. This has been a
universal problem in any small wars that occurred with people in other
countries, and of course, America’s
own Indian Wars. In the Indian Wars, the US
troops used one Indian tribe to identify another. Once the rebel Indians were
identified and put away on reservations, the US
troops placed the helpful Indians on the reservations as well. According to
today’s standards, the capture and imprisonment of both the rebelling and
obliging Indians was not ethical, but it was effective. This strategy was also repeated
in the US-Filipino War in order to stop support of the guerrillas. Westmoreland
did not imprison Vietnamese civilians, which gave the guerrillas South
Vietnamese supporters who could help supply them. Another incident that may
have been prevented by imprisoning, or at the very least isolating, Vietnamese
civilians, was the My Lai Massacre.
Finally,
publicity for the US troops’ humanitarian deeds was severely lacking in Vietnam,
especially with the Combined Action Program. The Combined Action Program was a
marine initiative modeled on the constabularies in Haiti,
the Dominican Republic,
and Nicaragua.
(Boot, 304) Chesty Puller, a Marine who had fought in the Caribbean,
became an instructor at a Basic School
for Marines in the 1930’s and taught a soldier named Lewis Walt. Thirty years
later, Lewis Walt remembered Puller’s lessons and with fellow Marines, he
attempted to apply them in Vietnam
with CAP. CAP worked with local South Vietnamese forces, helping to secure
villages from the Viet Cong. In addition, they lived with the Vietnamese and
helped to train them to fight the Viet Cong.
Westmoreland
later claimed that he didn’t have enough troops in Vietnam
to implement CAP in every village (Boot, 308); whether or not he had enough
soldiers, he should have attempted it. Not only was it effective in garnering
support from the local populace, but if accounts of CAP’s
actions had been publicized better in South Vietnam, perhaps the Viet Cong
would have had less support, forced or voluntary.
In conclusion, Vietnam
was a montage of America’s
previous small wars. Unfortunately for Vietnam
and America,
the lessons learned from those previous conflicts were, for the most part,
ignored. If they had not been, perhaps US troops would have been pulled out
sooner. Instead, America
let previous conflicts repeat themselves for the whole world to see.
Bibliography
Boot, Max. The
Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Basic Books, 2003.
Sheldon, Shelby L. The Rise And Fall
Of An American Army: U.S. Ground Troops In Vietnam, 1965-1973. Random House Publishing Group, 1985.
“Vietnam
War.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War (10 Dec 2005).