Your The Man In '68, A New Poll

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Ok, its 1968, Robert Macnamara has just been fired and you have just been approved by the House and Senate Commities as the New Secretary of Defense. The President is sick of the bad press we are getting on the homefront and the unwillingness of the North Vietnamese to begin Peace Talks in Paris.

You have been given your orders - "You have free reign to do as you see fit. You have full command of the Navy, Airforce, Army and Marine ground forces in country, plus a substantial increase in ground troops to follow any plan of your choosing."

The question is........what would you do?

[KG_Soldier]

I call for a U.N. sanctioned vote on unification of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh know that we will support his new government. I call a press conference and blame J.F.K. for arming U.S. advisors and assassinating Diem. I tell the press we now realize Vietnam is nothing like Korea and is more a civil war than a Communism vs Capitalism war. I get the troops home as soon as possible.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

I call for a U.N. sanctioned vote on unification of Vietnam and let Ho Chi Minh know that we will support his new government. I call a press conference and blame J.F.K. for arming U.S. advisors and assassinating Diem. I tell the press we now realize Vietnam is nothing like Korea and is more a civil war than a Communism vs Capitalism war. I get the troops home as soon as possible.

Aaaah, the problem with that argument is that you were not hired to be Secretary of State or the USA's Ambassador to the U.N.

You were hired to find a "Military Answer" to winning the war in Vietnam due to your amazing grasp of tactics and the ways of war. So please tells us your "Hawkish" answer.

[KG_RCT_Hasty]

I voted others. In the first year or two years(depends on how things go) i would increase the guerilla training and deploiment of special troops and the training of the south Vietnamese army. In those two years, i would try to ensure my forces the cooperation of native tribes, and of vietnamese. With these guerilleros, i would drop more and more special troops with choppers or river boats, depending the location and situation. I'd begin with South Vietnam territory, then toward the Ho Chi Min trail, then North Vietnam. The goal being to create havoc and confusion in Vietcong controlled territory and North Vietnam territory. I'll feed them with the kind of war they feed us.

After that 1st step, i would gradually increase military pressure. 1st on the Vietcong hideout in the South, then crossing the North border. I'd bring all the manpower possible. I'd built the mightiest logistic organisation possible. Because our troops would need loads of stuff. By increasing the military pressure, i mean the we push them Viet before us. After each week of advance, a massive camp would be built to support the push. By massive i mean with an airfield capable of supporting our choppers and even supply planes. After our advance, the South Vietnam would keep our rear secure. Note that above i mention South Vietnam troops training. I would also give them fire experience by incorporating some units within our OOB, all that depending of the opinion of my officers in charge of the training.

Once the south have been "cleared", we'll massivly invade North Vietnam. If all goes well, the North is already "soften" by our guerilla tactics. Note that before going north, we'll be sure the HoChiMin trail isnt funtional at all. I wouldnt make massive bombardement on the North, but maybe once or twice devastating drop to make an "exemple".

At first i wouldnt send troops in Cambodia or Laos. I'd fight there with special troops only. If no other option available i would enter these countries with my forces.

There's lots of stuff i'm thinking of, but you have the picture.:bigun2:

ps. sorry bout the typo

[KG_Jag]

This time is still very real to me, as I became a high school junior in the fall of 1968.

With 20-20 hindsight, I would recognize that Ho was much more a nationalist than a piece of the communist monolith--or more accurately bipolar communism, as it had spit into Soviet Union and China parts by 1968. With that recognition, I would withdraw all US forces and allow Vietnam to work out its own destiny--more or less similar to following Star Trek's Prime Directive.

An additional bonus may be that Pol Pot would not have taken over in Cambodia, or at least his horrific deeds would not have reached the same proportions as they did.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Mine the harbors and bomb every railroad track, road, goat path, etc. that led from China to North Vietnam and keep them that way. Use the additional troops to take and hold ground rather then chasing the VC/NVA off for them to return later. Start securing villages in the interior and work my way towards the borders. This would deny the VC recruits and places to hide/gather intelligence/resupply. Seal off the borders or at least make it costly as hell to move from Laos or Cambodia into Vietnam. At some point if this hadn't gotten the job done then you start bombing North Vietnam until their isn't two rocks standing on top of each other.

[KG_Cloghaun]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, as I only have a cursory knowledge of the Vietnam war-
From a strategic viewpoint, it seems the logical military solution would be a carpet bombing campaign in conjunction with a continual naval bombardment. Vietnam's curving "S" shaped coastline varies in width from just 30 miles at its center to 370 miles along the northern border. I really don't see the problem. A great many of our battleships from WW2 were still in service. Start with a firebombing/deforestation campaign & burn down North Vietnam first. It takes longer than a nuke, but you basically get the same desired result. Why fight in the jungle if you don't have to? They could've dropped or indirect fired ordinance in an air campaign for a couple years before firing up the first tank engines. Which of course would drive north down roads constructed from North Vietnamese labor camps.

Ofcourse, we could've also forced the Japanese as part of WW2 reparations to raise a few divisions & fight the Vietcong along side us. I'll bet they would've loved that.

[KG_SSpoom]

My response is a carbon copy of Jags
Let the vietnamese work it out on their own and
get Americans the hell out in a hurry

[KG_ThorsHammer]

by this time with support so low for the war, I would leave out an all out invasion of the north, as much as I would love to do it. I would stick with unrestricted bombing of all relevant military targets until they came to the peace table and agreed to stay out of the south.

[KG_Cloghaun]

Why would any of you want to abandon Vietnam? Didn't the U.S. have an obligation to stop the spread & oppression of Communism in the world?

[KG_Swampfox]

I'd stopping trying to win guerrilla warfare with conventional tactics.

I would use the same tactics that the VC were using, only I would have used American technology and fire power to augment the ambushes and tactics.
The American soldier is the best trained, best equipted fighting man in the world, he just needs the right training, the right tools and the right leadership to do the job. Scrap the WWII tactics along with the piece of crap M-16 which should have never went into production, instead give the troops the highly sucessful M-14 in 30-06 or 308

Win the support of the people:
I think the average Vietnamse farmer, and most of them were farmers, could have cared less who won, they just wanted not to be fucked with contstantly by both sides and a corrupt puppet goverment that was stealing them blind.

For further reading on these highly sucessful tactics read the book:
"Reluctant Warrior" by Michael C. Hodgins USMC ret.
ISBN 0-8041-1120-0
1st class reading

[KG_AGCent]

Tactical nuke the north until China joined the fray then tactical nuke the Chinese as they pour into Vietnam, Posleen style. Once N. Vietnam looked like a moonscape, make a left hook through Cambodia and Laos to knock out any VC camps, pull back and set up concertina wire 13 miles thick laced with bouncing betties along the border. Not even the ARVN could screw that up. That's how you stop the spread of communism. That and not electing Democrats. Politically unsavory but effective.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

At the risk of upsetting a few people, which is not my intention, when i started this poll, i asked a simple question, "What would you do......" Not what are you personal feelings about the real war, not what are your political feelings about the real war. I asked a Hypotetical question about a Hypothetical situation. I dont know why some of you guys always insist on reading between the lines and not answering the questions i ask. Im just a little frustrated is all im trying to say.

[KG_SSpoom]

@Frank,
In my opinion, No the U.S. does not nor have they ever had the obligation to stop the spread of communism or any other type of government.
@ Kent, when you ask questions that are as complex as what to do in Vietnam in 68 and leave a "open other option"we are going to get pretty deep into almost every angle possible. No need to be frustrated just roll with it and enjoy the debate.

[KG_Cooper]

I recall reading that very early Ho Chi Minh was open to the West and we could have brought him into the fold vs. following the French...

Please do not forget the amount of $$ we spent on the war effort diverted our resources from out NUKE programs allowing Russia to catch up.

Read a Bright Shining Lie - good read - not anti-war IMHO but outlines various mistakes that cost us...

On the other hand for those of you whom elected BOMBING THEM TO HELL that might of worked as well :)

[KG_Panzerschreck]

@ Kent, when you ask questions that are as complex as what to do in Vietnam in 68 and leave a "open other option"we are going to get pretty deep into almost every angle possible. No need to be frustrated just roll with it and enjoy the debate.

The "Other Option" you speak of was for another military plan that was not listed above. As i told Mark in an earlier post in this thread, you were not hired to be the Secretary of State or the Embassador to the U.N. Further more i dont remember asking anyone for their personal opinions/political views either. All i wanted was your answer to my hypothetical question about a hypothetical what if military situation, thats all. You were hired to find a military answer to winning the war. Thats what i wrote and thats what i assumed to be anwsered, go figure, silly me.

[KG_SSpoom]

Packing up and leaving IS a military option

[KG_AGCent]

No, that would be a political option. Military options are only that when in the context of conflict.

[KG_SSpoom]

No Rob withdrawl is a Military option, you just chose to see it only as political.
And since we are talking about a war to stop the spread of a "political system"(communism)
and one in which most if not all "military descisions" came from the White House how is it possible
to consider anything about Vietnam non-political?

[KG_Koz]

Like Frank, I don't know much about Vietnam. Certainly not enough to have an opinion regarding military strategy. However, of the options provided bombing them into ruin would be my gut reaction. I just don't know if N. Vietnam was sufficiently industrialized to get good payback from the huge investment.

To be honest, most of what I do know is from the audio book "Up Country" (by Nelson Demille) that I listened to a few years ago. A very good book, but probably lacking in historical authenticity.

[KG_Soldier]

Advocating the use of "Tactical Nukes" on China or North Vietnam is crazy. I personally think the most telling thing about your mindset yet seen in this forum. KILL THEM ALL. ALL WHO ARE NOT LIKE US. The Muslims are like the North Vietnames and the Chinese, NOT LIKE US. KILL THEM ALL. NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!! NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!! WE'LL WIN. You so remind me of George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove, Col. Buck Turgelson, I Think. Let us not forget the Soviet Union. Ho had more allies than just China. I can honestly say I've never met anyone so ready for Armageddon. You'd make a good suicide bomber.

[KG_Swampfox]

At the risk of upsetting a few people, which is not my intention, when i started this poll, i asked a simple question, "What would you do......" Not what are you personal feelings about the real war, not what are your political feelings about the real war. I asked a Hypotetical question about a Hypothetical situation. I dont know why some of you guys always insist on reading between the lines and not answering the questions i ask. Im just a little frustrated is all im trying to say.

Well then just tell me the answer you want to hear and I'll just whip up a few lines

I'm done responding to this type of poll

[KG_AGCent]

Interesting... from all the history I have read, victory rarely comes after a brilliant and dashing... withdrawl. Maybe I ought to read more French versions of history to gain this insight.

[KG_AGCent]

blah blah blah

I knew I could get a rise out of you. You're too easy.

[KG_SSpoom]

Victory was NOT specifically mentioned in the question to start this thread.
If achieving a Military victory on the field of battle was mentioned in the opening statement we would have a very different thread going here.
Sometimes cutting your losses and living to fight another day instead of flailing away in a possibly unwinnable war IS the best alternative.
I do like the French comment however =) Rob =)

[KG_AGCent]

Ah! So right you are. The terms of victory were never established.

[KG_RCT_Hasty]

I thought the question was what you'd do if you're top military commander, the one who have no political or withdrawal option ... A question about military options is alot more fun than one about politics *cough* like a joke bout routing french*cough*

[KG_Jag]

Anyone who believes that a "political" answer about Vietnam is off point was either not around at the time or smoking more than his comic books for the entire 60's.

Vietnam was in all things political. It is the most political war we ever fought. It started out with the US providing military advisers to South Vietnam. The political objective and the military strategy was to stop the spread of the Communism of the North to the South. It was viewed by many as a replay of Korea albeit by somewhat different method of attack and conquest. By the time frame posed in the initial question, Johnson had been personally picking bombing and mining targets in the North. He had directed strategy and placed limitations on what our troops/air power could and could not do. He additionally determined when and where they could operate (at least officially). No one under Johnson had any significant power about any of these things in 1968. On that basis alone, I have a major problem with the premise of the question as originally posed.

Further, if you as are decision maker and determine that your basic premise for being in the "conflict"--in this case to stop the spread of Communism, is wrong--then you should initiate an orderly withdrawal of you forces or resign. That is especially true in 1968, when the country was so polarized over Viet Nam. Remember (or if you were not yet born or were too young to be aware--have you read about) the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention and all the political events of that time? In 1968 Johnson announced that he would not seek the nomination of his party or seek reelection as President. This was because of Viet Nam and the splintering of his own party over it. By 1968 no major escalation of that war was politically possible (especially for someone in that Democratic administration), and no long term continuation of the war at or near the then current ground force levels or higher was an option. Massive bombing of the North was probably off the table too. The basis of the discussion by 1968 was how we would lower of our troop levels, and over what period of time. It was the "Vietnamization" phase of the war.