What Book Are You Reading at the Moment?

[Smitty-48]

so now that Monte is Griffo Chi Minh, I would say Smitty is either Smitthard Nixon or Smitty Le May. Two patriots who wanted to bomb commies back into the early Cretaceous period. Were I president, I would either promote him to Secretary of defense or national security advisor on how to deal with commie fuckery. I consider LeMay to be a fucking national treasure. If I were an airman, I would love to serve under LeMay.

Vietnam was a noble cause and the war had to be fought in the context of the brink of thermonuclear war, America had to show resolve to fight in order to maintain the credibility of the Balance of Terror.

The issue in Vietnam was execution, it was winnable within the context of an economy of force blocking action, LBJ and Westmoreland just botched it, they simply made the wrong calls from the sidelines.

They got baited into Search & Destroy, if the war had been better run, it could have been more economic in terms of blood and treasure, which would have rendered it a non issue in terms of waiting the commies out.

Seems like the ARVN was our Achilles' Heel though. Those guys sucked.

No, see, that's one of the myths propagated by the established narrative.

The ARVN knew the score : don't chase the VC into the jungle.

The ARVN fought hard whenever the NVA massed to attack the cities, they beat the NVA head to head

They just knew not to wander around the boonies where you just end up stepping on mines and booby traps

If the US Army had adopted the ARVN strategy, America would have been able to just wait the commies out

In 1972 the Chinese sold the North Vietnamese down the river in order to make peace with America

If the US Army had followed the ARVN strategy ?

They'd have suffered vastly fewer casualties and so would have been able to sustain the war effort indefinitely

Robert McNamara's Search & Destroy offensive operations in the rural areas, was their undoing

At the strategic level general concept of operations;

LBJ and Westmoreland were offensive; wrong strategy

Nixon and Abrams were defensive economy of force; right strategy

Problem simply being that by the time Nixon and Abrams were able to take over, LBJ had already lost the war

If they started with the Abrams defensive posture and ruthless Nixonian bombing, they would have won by default

LBJ and Westmoreland wanted too win the war quickly, but that was not feasible

The strategic win is to just wait the commies out, they will collapse on their own

[Hastur]

That's the correct way to view that conflict
I blame the French the most. A bit more humility would have served them well when they came back.
The American phase suffered from wanting to win to soon. No patience. Having defeated Japan and Germany this had to be a piece of cake. Failure to communicate.

[Smitty-48]

That's the correct way to view that conflict
I blame the French the most. A bit more humility would have served them well when they came back.
The American phase suffered from wanting to win to soon. No patience. Having defeated Japan and Germany this had to be a piece of cake. Failure to communicate.

Also important to understand that it was two very different North Vietnamese enemies.

The French fought Soviet backed Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap.

America was fighting Maoist Chinese backed Le Duan, the Stalin of Indochina

The French cause of of reimposing French colonial rule was unjust.

The defense of South Vietnam, particularly the coastal urban population, against Le Duan, was a just cause

The problem, as usual, was the Democrats.

Their slowly escalating half measures while wandering around the jungle to no good purpose.

If you just stick to defending the coastal cities, you can just wait the commies out

When the NVA masses for their offensives, you bomb them, Arc Light with the B-52's

When they are not attacking, you just hunker down in a defensive posture, only to defend the cities

[SuburbanFarmer]

What would the NVA strategy have been in that case? They certainly were no dummies, and wouldn’t have run human wave attacks all year.

I’d imagine you wind up with an identical situation as Afghanistan. The populace never really conquered, troop casualties any time they step off base, and forever urban patrols to find ‘insurgents’. An equally un-winnable war.

Invading a nation will never work, without a full nuke and pave approach to conquest. America’s half-ass ‘police actions’ merely feed the MIC for no real benefit to any other purpose.

[Hastur]

Max Hastings' Das Reich is a good book. I read it a long time ago and last year I visited Oradour sur Glane. Spooky place.

https://www.maxhastings.com/products/das-reich/

After Vietnam, my next big reading project is WW2. I have Anthony Beevor's history of it, but I also bought Hastings' overview as well. He is a good writer. Das Reich looks good. Hastings also has some books on Falklands and Korea which look interesting.

Nearly finished it. It's excellent. Her he is discussing it in some detail.

[Smitty-48]

What would the NVA strategy have been in that case? They certainly were no dummies, and wouldn’t have run human wave attacks all year. .

Well it would have been a stalemate, the NLF/NVA would have controlled the countryside, but that wasn't actually America's problem. America never controlled the countryside, but never needed to. The casualties didn't come from terrorist attacks, the casualties came from being lured over booby traps and big battles in the jungle, which were unnecessary.

The North Vietnamese don't have forever to get the job done, by 1972 the Soviets and Chinese are ready to throw them under the bus in order to have Detente with America, the key to American victory conditions is avoiding casualties in order to wait them out.

Who controls Hill 937 at Dong Ap Bia, wasn't actually relevant to America, the Democrats just couldn't see the forest through the trees, because Johnson wanted a quick and decisive victory below the strategic level

Johnson chose a war of attrition, but that was not the only choice. The body count was political not strategic. Vietnam as a result escalated into a main event when it could have and should have remained an economy of force place holding operation.

You're not actually there because of the North Vietnamese, the whole point is to block the Chinese and Soviets, the North Vietnamese controlling Dak To or Ia Drang, is not actually relevant to the larger war, so long as you hold the coastal cities, that's enough to waylay the Warsaw Pact.

[Smitty-48]

I’d imagine you wind up with an identical situation as Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a similar situation, America never needed to control it, it was just an outpost from which Osama Bin Laden could be struck once he was located in Pakistan

Rumsfeld didn't want to stay there, the whole nation building operation was not America's plan, that was all done to appease NATO, when NATO even being there in the first place was not needed.

When dealing with asymmetrical warfare, you have to gear down into economy of force, if you try to force the issue decisively, that's when you start stepping on the booby traps.

[Smitty-48]

See, in the 90's, America had Iraq contained.

You bomb them periodically, but you don't chase them into the urban jungle in Ramadi.

Vietnam could have been the same, Operation Coastal Watch

You bomb them once in awhile, but otherwise just hang out in Indochinese Kuwait.

In both cases, the mistake was escalating from containment to pursuit.

America does not have to get out of the boat, because America runs shit from the sea.

Vietnam was the same, what the Soviets were after was a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay, Dak To was of no use to them.

It's like Putin is not going to try to take Kiev, because the prize is not on land, the prize is the Black Sea, so Crimea is enough.

[heydaralon]

See, in the 90's, America had Iraq contained.

You bomb them periodically, but you don't chase them into the urban jungle in Ramadi.

Vietnam could have been the same, Operation Coastal Watch

You bomb them once in awhile, but otherwise just hang out in Indochinese Kuwait.

In both cases, the mistake was escalating from containment to pursuit.

America does not have to get out of the boat, because America runs shit from the sea.

Vietnam was the same, what the Soviets were after was a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay, Dak To was of no use to them.

It's like Putin is not going to try to take Kiev, because the prize is not on land, the prize is the Black Sea, so Crimea is enough.

Are most of the people in the annexed territory pro Russia/Putin? Might be a dumb question, but do you think most of them like the ethnic Russians there rather be a part of Russia than Ukraine?

[Smitty-48]

Are most of the people in the annexed territory pro Russia/Putin? Might be a dumb question, but do you think most of them like the ethnic Russians there rather be a part of Russia than Ukraine?

It's 65% Russian, 15% Ukrainian, 12% Tatar, so I'd say the Kremlin has a decent base of support

But they've also moved tactical nuclear weapons into position to defend it, Nuclear Deescalation.