US Failure In Vietnam
12 November (continued 15
November) 2004 (Lecture #33)
o
Outrages
the US public (“US attacked”) – Johnson gets a mandate from Congress
o
ífinalíParallels modern conflict in
Iraq and WMD
o
Does
not work because North Vietnam, China, and Soviet support increase to match
o
Draft
a small minority
§
Most
sent are volunteers
§
National
Guard was a cop-out at this time
o
Personal
commitment decreased as the US men saw the ARVN were not dedicated to their
country or its gov.
o
Huge
number of support troops to the number actually fighting (10:1 = low “tooth to
tail ratio”)
o
Units
had 12-month tours – they became unwilling to risk their lives as the end
neared
o
“Mr.
Charles” – good light infantry force (more formal than the Viet Cong, called
Charlie)
o
50,000
VC/NVA die (small US losses)
o
Devastates
the VC – never again an effective fighting force; mostly just NVA now
o
Public
demonstrations
o
Draft
card burning – respectable because they were willing to go to jail
o
Draft
evasion – unrespectable
o
Treason? Fonda …
o
A
vocal minority – never more than 10% of the population (support never less than
40%)
o
Provided
a different interpretation and discussion of the war
o
Undermined
US moral basis in Vietnam
o
Increased
Vietnamese resolve, decreased US resolve
o
Limited
Nixon’s options
o
Further
polarized an already fragmented US society
o
Try
to convince NV to give SV a “decent interval” before taking it
o
This
would allow the US to leave and not appear to have lost the war
§
Did
not ask for this explicitly and publicly to NV, but as the US pulled out, if NV
attacked US airpower was called in to crush them (Linebacker, etc.)
o
US
puts pressure on the Soviets and Chinese to get NV to agree (both start to pull
out and tell NV to give the US what they want or force a complete loss of their
support)
Conclusions