What Book Are You Reading at the Moment?

[Smitty-48]

Because Search & Destroy has caused too many casualties.

It was all about logistics.

The LBJ plan used up too many troops too fast.

That broke the will to fight the war.

That needs to be corrected much earlier than 69', by 69's it's too late to fix it.

What really kills me is the fact that the media, and many politicians felt it was unwinnable, but stuck around. Either your goal is to win a war, or you don't fight one in the first place. Six years for no good reason. You can make a case we shouldn't have gotten involved, a good case, but staying in the jungle for six years is a travesty imo.

What Nixon started doing after 68', Linebacker, Phoenix Program, pull the American troops back, was working.

The North Vietnamese say so in their communiques.

LBJ had simply broke the back by then, by using too many troops, in an offensive role.

Search & Destroy, which simply compounded casualties too quickly to be sustainable.

[Smitty-48]

Just imagine if they hadn't have chased the NVA up all them hills for no good reason.

Ia Drang. Dak To. A Shau.

Just don't do it.

No Search & Destroy.

It was not necessary.

But that's where all the American casualties came from.

[Smitty-48]

Don't put the Marines on the DMZ in I Corps.

Route 9. Con Thien. Khe Sanh.

Just don't do it.

It was an artillery kill zone, but it was not necessary.

In the very unlikely event the NVA crossed the DMZ on mass, you stop them cold with Arc Light.

No need for Marines on the DMZ.

Heavy American causalities there, for no good reason.

[Smitty-48]

Don't put the Marines on the DMZ in I Corps.

Route 9. Con Thien. Khe Sanh.

Just don't do it.

It was an artillery kill zone, but it was not necessary.

In the very unlikely event the NVA crossed the DMZ en masse, you stop them cold with Arc Light.

No need for Marines on the DMZ.

Heavy American causalities there, for no good reason.

[heydaralon]

Don't put the Marines on the DMZ in I Corps.

Route 9. Con Thien. Khe Sanh.

Just don't do it.

It was an artillery kill zone, but it was not necessary.

In the very unlikely event the NVA crossed the DMZ on mass, you stop them cold with Arc Light.

No need for Marines on the DMZ.

Heavy American causalities there, for no good reason.

Was the strategic hamlet strategy good overall, or did it create 10 enemies with every one destroyed? The British did that shit against Chin Pong in Malaysia and it worked for them. One of the reasons, I've read they had success is because the locals hated the chink commies which the British were fighting. Kind of like what the Americans did with the Sawha in Iraq. Turned the locals Sunnis against the local jihadists. Did the North and South hate each other? Could America have exploited this mutual hatred to its mutual advantage? Play them off against one another?

[Smitty-48]

Stop worrying about the VC.

It was a bogey man which the chain of command vastly exaggerated in their minds.

Don't worry about the Iron Triangle, they can't take Saigon.

How do we know? They tried to take it in the Tet Offensive.

What happened?

The ARVN stood and fought, the VC were annihilated.

Chasing the VC down the tunnels in Cu Chi.

Just don't do it.

Just more causalities, and it wasn't necessary.

Less is more.

Let them come to you.

[heydaralon]

Stop worrying about the VC.

It was a bogey man which the chain of command vastly exaggerated in their minds.

Don't worry about the Iron Triangle, they can't take Saigon.

How do we know? They tried to take it in the Tet Offensive.

What happened?

The ARVN stood and fought, the VC were annihilated.

Chasing the VC down the tunnels in Cu Chi.

Just don't do it.

Just more causalities, and it wasn't necessary.

Less is more.

Let them come to you.

How do you feel about the US strategy in Afghanistan? If you were a general in charge of strategy and had the resources, how would you have dealt with the Taliban and ISI in that region? What would Smitty's grand strategy for Afghanistan be assuming we had to stay there?

[Smitty-48]

Stop worrying about the VC.

It was a bogey man which the chain of command vastly exaggerated in their minds.

Don't worry about the Iron Triangle, they can't take Saigon.

How do we know? They tried to take it in the Tet Offensive.

What happened?

The ARVN stood and fought, the VC were annihilated.

Chasing the VC down the tunnels in Cu Chi.

Just don't do it.

Just more causalities, and it wasn't necessary.

Less is more.

Let them come to you.

How do you feel about the US strategy in Afghanistan? If you were a general in charge of strategy and had the resources, how would you have dealt with the Taliban and ISI in that region? What would Smitty's grand strategy for Afghanistan be assuming we had to stay there?

Afghanistan is different, there's no commies there. There is no Hanoi in Afghanistan.

Vietnam was not Afghanistan. You got no leverage in Afghanistan, there's nothing to bomb.

In Vietnam, the bombing was working. Because the NVA was everything.

There is no NVA in Afghanistan.

There's nobody in charge of Afghanistan to capitulate to you, even if they wanted to.

[Smitty-48]

Vietnam was civilized, Vietnam was industrialized, Vietnam was centralized.

Afghanistan doesn't have any of that.

Afghanistan is a totally different animal.

It's an empty wasteland of dust and rocks.

There's no there there, hence there is nothing to leverage with military force.

[heydaralon]

Vietnam was civilized, Vietnam was industrialized, Vietnam was centralized.

Afghanistan doesn't have any of that.

Afghanistan is a totally different animal.

the graveyard of empires.

So there is no good way to beat them aside from straight up wanton slaughter? Kill anything that moves?