How effective were the tactics used by the US during the Vietnam War?

How effective were the tactics used by the US during the Vietnam War?
The US used many tactics during the war with Vietnam and the tactics used were usually for one of two purposes: to destroy the Vietcong or win over the peasantry, which was what the population of Vietnam generally consisted of. However, some tactics proved to be more effective than others, and they were inter-related as one often wouldn’t work without the other. The US Army, alongside the South Vietnamese Army (the ARVN) found it difficult to beat the Vietcong tactics.
It was important for the USA to gain support from the peasants living in Vietnam as it was necessary to convince them that the US army were doing the right thing for their country by defeating the Vietcong, thus preventing the spread of communism, which was the main reason for America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The series of tactics were designed to ‘win hearts and minds’, these tactics were very important to America in order to gain popularity amongst the Vietnamese population as the then president of the USA, Lyndon Baines Johnson used the phrase frequently and in May 1965 he said that: "So we must be ready to fight in Viet-Nam, but the ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there”, which suggests that this was a key tactic during the War. The ‘winning hearts and minds’ programme consisted of three main tactics: strategic hamlets, pacification and democratisation.
Due to the US and ARVN’s concern on Vietcong influence on the peasantry, the Strategic Hamlet programme was introduced in 1962. These were fortified villages, designed to protect peasants from the Vietcong and preventing the Vietcong from spreading communism among them. It consisted of moving peasants from various villages into the local strategic hamlet, where they were under control of the South Vietnamese army. Kevin Ruane said that the strategic hamlets were “designed to relocate the peasantry in areas where the army could protect them from Viet Cong terror and propaganda”. These were made because when the Americans first got involved in the Vietnam War, they established that the countryside needed to be controlled because the Vietcong only operated in the countryside in order to get support from the peasants also, after an attack, they could easily disappear into the jungle. However, the programme was very unsuccessful and counter-productive. In the hope that the villagers would be in favour of the ARVN and US’ actions, the peasants instead sympathized with Vietcong activity and resented the South’s regime. The strategic hamlets proved to be very ineffective as the peasants resented the idea from moving away from their homes, which had greatly affected their livelihoods and lifestyle. Also, as they were forced to move, this increased enmity towards the Ngo Dinh Bien government. Labour politician Denis Healey, after visiting a strategic hamlet in 1954, said that “It was a disaster. Peasants should never be taken more than five miles from the land where they farm”. Furthermore, peasants were promised money in exchange for building new villages and hamlets but their money was never given to them, which was a nuisance. The Spartacus website says that ‘one pointed out that: “Peasants resented working without pay to dig moats, implant bamboo stakes”.’ Also, as large stockades were built around the village, this led to the peasants feeling imprisoned and restricted in their own villages. As there was an increase in sympathy towards the Vietcong and communism, this linked to how there was a 300% increase over 2 years in NLF membership, which links to how the Strategic Hamlet programme failed and created the opposite result intended.
Pacification was a counterinsurgency program launched by the USA and South Vietnamese government. It was another way the US tried to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of the South Vietnamese people and strengthen the hold of the South’s government on the peasantry. CORDS (Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support) were the pacification program which thought up different strategies and programmes in order to pacify South Vietnam; it was significant as it integrated the US military with the Vietnamese civilians. The program identified that in order for pacification to be successful; certain measures had to be implemented so that the people sympathize with the South Vietnamese government and that the rural population needed to feel safe from the enemy’s forces, which could only be done by destroying the insurgents’ infrastructure. Some pacification programs were more effective than others, such as the Phoenix Program, despite the fact that it was controversial, it was very effective in achieving its’ goal, which was to find Vietcong infrastructure and capture, or kill its members. This operation amongst others helped prevent insurgency in South Vietnam. Another quite successful program was the Combined Action Program (CAP) which involved US Marine squads and the South Vietnamese militia working together as a CAP platoon, in order to provide security for the local villages and strategic hamlets and to get rid of local guerrillas. This was very effective and Lewis Walt said in 1970: “Of all our innovations in Vietnam none was as successful, as lasting in effect, or as useful for the future as the Combined Action Program.” The villagers often warmed to the platoons and began to sympathize with the US’ pacification effort, as villagers felt more safe as the purposes intended were achieved (i.e. local guerrillas stopped fighting) however, it was hard to apply this tactic on a large scale and was only used on a small scale. As the Vietcong mainly consisted of poor, uneducated peasants, the US used this to their advantage and this links to why they came up with the Chieu Hoi (‘Open Arms’) Programme. This program encouraged defection from the Vietcong through propaganda, education and teaching those who chose to switch sides from the VC new skills and could join the allied forces. They link together as the US used the fact that they are poor and uneducated by offering incentives and teaching them new skills which persuade them to join their side, this initiative was quite effective as the former Vietcong soldiers made great contributions to the US army and “by 1967, approximately 75,000 defections had been recorded”, which shows its’ success. Overall, pacification was quite effective, as economic development began in rural areas; it improved relations between the government and the peasantry; and “by the end of 1969, thanks to active American and Vietnamese pacification programs, 92% of the population and 90% of the villages and hamlets were pronounced secure or relatively secure.” – From ‘Popular Misconceptions about Vietnam. It was described as “too little, too late” by Komer, who thought of CORDS, suggesting that if more effort and time was put into these programmes then they would have been successful.
The Vietcong were spreading communism from North to South Vietnam this lead to America attempting to democratise Vietnam, they are therefore linked as America wouldn’t have needed to democratize Vietnam if it wasn’t under the threat of becoming communist. Democratisation is the transition to a more democratic political system. Elections for officials were introduced in villages, this had some success on a local degree but the South Vietnamese government feared the consequences of rural politicisation, the quote from ‘America since World War II’ by Chafe supports this: “The South Vietnamese were the Army’s puppets” and VC influence was increasing in these areas. This tactic didn’t work because the peasants knew what the government was like and knew that the government was unlikely to change. The same source as the previous reference also suggests this as “the same government rigged elections in favour of its own candidates”. When the war ended, the North and South united to form a communist, one party state Vietnam, which shows that democratisation wasn’t successful because a democracy wasn’t formed and South Vietnam fell to communism.
Pacification and democratisation are linked because these tactics were introduced after the failure of the strategic hamlets programme, when the Americans realised that it wouldn’t work in winning over hearts and minds the programmes related to pacification and democratisation were introduced, which proved to have more success.
Other tactics used by the US in the Vietnam War were to destroy the Vietcong (also known as the NLF) because if they weren’t, then Vietnam would become communist and the Domino Theory was under threat of becoming right, as more and more countries would soon follow and become communist, which was extremely worrying for America. The US military found the Vietcong guerrilla warfare difficult to cope with as they were only used to conventional fighting, therefore, they reacted using a series of tactics: search and destroy, bombing and chemical warfare. These are all inter-related because in order for America to win the war, the tactics used to win over the peasantry wouldn’t be enough alone and therefore, these tactics would need to be used alongside the others.
Search and destroy was a military operation where the US Army hunted down the Vietcong and NLF units instead of letting them control the countryside and when hunted down, they would often kill the VC/ destroy the villages by burning them. The key to the operation was American supremacy in equipment and technology; they were supplied from their large supply bases, by the coast. All sorts of reinforcements, like guns and ammunition were then sent inland to smaller fire support bases. Helicopters played a significant role in the search and destroy missions as they transported all the supplies because there was no need for the landing strip and the fewer invited ambush as they were surrounded by jungles. The helicopters would be dropped in areas which had been cleared of jungle cover this links to America’s use of defoliants as the jungles were cleared by napalm. When they found the VC/ NLF units, they destroyed their bases and stock of supplies. This strategy was very ineffective because it often resulted in many innocent civilians dying, due to America mistakenly carrying out ‘search and destroy’ operations on villages which often weren’t infiltrated by the VC. An example of a search and destroy mission going wrong is the My Lai Massacre of 1968 where three American platoons ruthlessly killed a whole village of people in the thought that they were Vietcong sympathizers, when actually, all the real VC’s had escaped. This caused a lot of controversy. A Vietnam veteran said;”The only thing they told us about the VC was […] they’re the enemy. Kill, kill, kill.” This suggests that the My Lai Massacre wasn’t an isolated situation. Furthermore, this links to how it was hard to distinguish the difference between a Vietcong soldier and an ordinary citizen which therefore, led to the killing of many innocent lives. This quote from ‘The History of the Vietnam War’ supports this: “Without uniforms, it is difficult to tell a Vietcong fighter from a loyal South Vietnamese”. As the Americans had a more conventional approach to the Vietnam War, this tactic could have been more effective if the war was not fought in a guerrilla way as it did inflict heavy losses on the Vietcong.
In order to cut off the Vietcong’s supplies, the Americans relied on bombing to persuade North Vietnam to stop supplying the NLF. As time went on, the US relied more and more on bombing. Operation Rolling Thunder (1965-1968) was the name given to America’s constant bombing on North Vietnam during the war. Its’ purposes were to reduce VC activity, demoralize the North Vietnamese and improve South Vietnamese morale as well as reduce VC infiltration. By 1967, 226,000 tonnes of bombs had been dropped on the North which is more than all the bombs dropped in WWII. Nevertheless, this strategy proved to be ineffective as it was extremely expensive for America, morale increased in North Vietnam and “the bombing only increased the determination of the people to carry on the War” – From ‘Vietnam’ by Neil Demarco. Also, infiltration actually increased and North Vietnam was able to recover from the damage of the bombing. However, sources suggest that it was always deemed to be a failure, John Correll said that; “Rolling Thunder had not been built to succeed, and it didn’t.” Operation Commando Hunt’s (1968-1972) main objective was to destroy the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which was a complex network of bike, truck and railway routes from North to South Vietnam through neighbouring countries and the VC and NLF used it for logistical support and to secretly carry war supplies. This also proved to be a failure as in spite of the fact that America had dropped 3 million tonnes of bombs during this operation, extensive aerial bombing didn’t stop the North from moving hundreds of tons of supplies per day down the trail to the South, it slowed the transition but did not stop it. Also, America was unable to use ground forces on neutral, neighbouring countries, which were main bombing targets.
As the Vietcong were very skilled at disappearing into the jungle, this links to the use of defoliants so that the VC could no longer hide as the chemicals were used to strip away the foliage. Furthermore, the Americans were not used to fighting in the climate and geography of Vietnam, whereas, the Vietnamese had an intimate knowledge so used this to their advantage. Napalm (jellied petrol) was the most controversial weapon because it stuck to its victim, which led to disfigurements and extremely severe burns. Agent Orange, which contained dioxin, highly toxic chemical, was a weedkiller which was systematically sprayed on the forests which was extremely dangerous for the environment. However, it also had another severe side effect of chromosomal damage in people as well as other serious illnesses. Also, Agent Blue was sprayed on agricultural land to deprive the NLF of food; this caused rice paddies to dry out and greatly affected the civilian population’s livelihood and poor rice harvest. By the end of the war, 25000 square kilometres of rainforest and cropland had been destroyed by defoliants. Its’ use was eventually in the 1970 after many scientists protested about the use of chemical warfare due to its long term effects on humans. According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects”. It was successful in achieving its’ purposes but it had drastic side effects which caused a lot of controversy and trauma for Vietnam.
In conclusion, the problems the US needed to overcome in order to win the Vietnam War such as identifying the enemy and limited knowledge of the war zone were extremely difficult to get over. Even though the US did have some successes during the War, it was their conventional approach to the War which was quite an issue as they underestimated the skills of the Vietcong. The VC used guerrilla warfare and as they tended to stay away from open combat, the Americans were forced to go out and look for them which led to the ‘search and destroy’ operation, which didn’t prove to be too effective. All the tactics designed to ‘win hearts and minds’ were not effective enough to win the War, they are all closely linked as their main reason for failure were that the Vietnamese did not want any help from ‘outsiders’ as they had been fighting outsiders for a very long time, even though the pacification programmes had the potential to be successful, not enough was inputted enough and it needed to be carried out on a larger scale. The tactics designed to defeat the Vietcong were often unsuccessful as they increased morale of the North Vietnamese and caused people to be more determined in defeating America in the War, due to the effects of most of their tactics. Chemical warfare, bombing and search and destroy are all closely linked together because the search and destroy missions were fuelled by the bombing as the bombing stopped the VC from getting their supplies through the Trail and chemical warfare was used so that the Vietcong could not hide from the Americans, their inter-relations show that one couldn’t be used without the other. The strategies which were designed to defeat the VC were effective to an extent in fulfilling their purposes but it cancelled out all the work they put in for the ‘winning hearts and minds’ programme. Despite that America did have successes during the War, such as the Tet Offensive, it was necessary that these tactics were successful because having the people’s support was essential in order to win the War because then this would mean that they would not side with the Vietcong, and if the Vietcong had lost its popularity then, they would not be able to overthrow the government and eventually win the war. The quote from ’America since World II’ by Chafe supports this: “It’s no good winning the military side of a war, if you can’t win the support of the people.”