Question for viet nam history buffs

[feralmerril]

Now that a lot of us on the question for world war two history buffs thread seem to agree that hitler probley should have left his generals plan the war without trying to call the shots, can we not say the same for President Johnson and Viet Nam?
And after that, can we not say the same for President George Bush 1, in the gulf war when he stopped General Swartzcuff from finishing the job, and thats why we are still their?

 

[feralmerril]

Now that a lot of us on the question for world war two history buffs thread seem to agree that hitler probley should have left his generals plan the war without trying to call the shots, can we not say the same for President Johnson and Viet Nam?
And after that, can we not say the same for President George Bush 1, in the gulf war when he stopped General Swartzcuff from finishing the job, and thats why we are still their?

 

[redlevel]

The difference is that Hitler thought he knew more about fighting a war than did his generals. Johnson, Bush, and to a certain extent, Truman at the end of WWII and Korea, did not labor under that misconception. The reasons they had for over-riding their military men's recommendations were not military, but political.

 

[feralmerril]

I had heard that president Johnson and his croneies would hand pick the targets for the next days bombing.
President Bush stopped General Schwartzkuff from finishing off the jammed up road of the iraq army trying to make it back from Kuwait.
My point really is that once the politicans all agree a war should be declaired that they should step aside and let the military that is schooled in fighting take over and fight it.

 

[29aholic]

Hitler's problem was he tried to wage a two front war with one of them being Russia in the winter.
He lost damn near as many soldiers to the elements as he did to Russians.

 

[feralmerril]

I had a german girl friend whos father was in that action. He was taken prisioner and in the russian gulag untill about 1952.

 

[max]

I believe part of the problem was the constant turnover. During WWII, you were in for the duration. In VietNam it was 12 months. The military was constantly reinventing the wheel. The leaders would be there just long enough to maybe figure things out and then they left and a new guy started the process all over again.

 

[walkinghorse]

And after that, can we not say the same for President George Bush 1, in the gulf war when he stopped General Swartzcuff from finishing the job, and thats why we are still their?

I am of the opinion that Bush did the right thing at that time in Gulf 1! Lots of reasons including the mandate we were working under then, and the situation etc. I know others will disagree, sort of like coulda shoulda discussions on WW II, Korea, etc.

I wholeheartdly agree with you on the Johnson, MCnamera involving themselves in too much minutia regarding Vietnam. That is politics and they cannot separate themselves. Neither Johnson nor MCnamera had any real military experience (actually none) and like the whiz kids of today everything they know is out of book, or some study, and they want to advance themselves first.

"...My point really is that once the politicans all agree a war should be declaired that they should step aside and let the military that is schooled in fighting take over and fight it."
+1000 !!!!

i think that is a problem we face from now on, none of the political leaders have military experience, just business, educational, coporate, POLITICAL

, and do not know what it means to be in a down and dirty situation like a military operation. Make the decison to do it, and then turn it over to the rough and ready people who stand ready to defend us (Orwell?).

Of course many of the Generals are getting very political also, and maybe seeking to protect their career, or talking head possiblities, rather than doing what is right for the troops, get in get it done, get out, and protect the troops first and foremost! Maybe too simplistic?

 

[Amici]

Originally posted by feralmerril:
I had heard that president Johnson and his croneies [sic] would hand pick the targets for the next days bombing.
President Bush stopped General Schwartzkuff [sic] from finishing off the jammed up road of the iraq army trying to make it back from Kuwait.
My point really is that once the politicans all agree a war should be declaired [sic]that they should step aside and let the military that is schooled in fighting take over and fight it.

We did annihilate a retreating column and it was certainly a legitimate - and easy - target. However, it was mere grunts and not the elite Republican Guard, which should have been exterminated because it kept Saddam Hussein in power.

And that's why it wasn't. Bush I kept the coalition together by NOT seeking to remove Hussein, as the neighbors feared what might come after him even more, which speaks volumes. Present events suggest the neighbors' concerns were valid.

War is a means to a political end. That is why this country keeps the military under civilian control.

 

[JayCeeNC]

President Bush had authority granted by Congress to use force only to liberate Kuwait, which he did.

 

[walkinghorse]

War is a means to a political end. That is why this country keeps the military under civilian control.

No arguement there, but once the political has decided there is to be war or a military action, then do whatever it takes to get the troops in, get in done, get out, and protect the troops!

The US cannot be the world's policeman! We should protect our interests, but not be the direct police intervention! sometimes if we did it right, get in, get it done, and get out, just the threat of that coUld change minds. But no bluffs, no second guessing once it has to be done, and above all, PROTECT THE TROOPS!

 

[dennis40x]

Originally posted by max:
I believe part of the problem was the constant turnover. During WWII, you were in for the duration. In VietNam it was 12 months. The military was constantly reinventing the wheel. The leaders would be there just long enough to maybe figure things out and then they left and a new guy started the process all over again.

Tours were 13 months unless severe wounds or death came first. The Army and Marine Corps had different philosophies on how the war should be fought. The majority of those United States ground forces in Europe fought from June 1944 to early 1945. I had 26 months overseas service. End of story.

 

[InolaOK]

Our politicans have never cared one bit about the Troops. We're a totally different animal and the congress critters have never understood us. Never have, never will.

 

[dlstewart01]

My tour in Vietnam was 11 months and one week. Thats all I had left when I went over.

 

[CH47gunner]

dlstewart01 -

My tour in Vietnam was 11 months and one week.

Guess I did some of yours.

I somehow got lost in the shuffle. Due to the overflow at Long Binh, I (a bunch of us) was flown out of Ton Son Nhut, to Cam Rahn Bay, to DEROS.
Before I finally got out of there, I wound up with a total of 12 months and two days in RVN, 12/2/69 - 12/4/70.
I wasn't amused.

Bruce

 

[Bassamatic]

It's Schwarzkopf. And I remember when Bush sr. stopped him and any further advancement to Baghdad. The reason Bush gave at the time had nothing to do with congressional authority, but he said that it was not worth the loss of any further life. Who's sons would die to get Hussein? That kind of thing.

20/20 huh?

 

[Thunderhawk88]

I had heard that president Johnson and his croneies would hand pick the targets for the next days bombing.

LBJ tried to walk too fine a line. He wanted to convince Hanoi to throw in the towel, but didn't want to hurt them so bad that Red China or the Soviets would intervene.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The 12 month tour started in Korea, in that case the higher ups decided that one winter in Korea was enough. One reason why Vietnam was the bloody fiasco it became was careerism. One Army general said:
"Too many brigade and battlaion commanders were simply trying to punch their tickets instead of actually lead."
The Pentagon set the tour of duty for the critical position of Battalion Commander in the Army at 6 months, there was an unwritten policy that an officer would spend 6 months in the field, 6 months in the rear while an EM spent the whole 12 months in the field.
Also there was a great deal of micromanaging-I read that approval for special operations had to go through TEN levels for approval.
One of the best books on Vietnam is "The War Managers-American Generals reflect on Vietnam."
by Douglas Kinnard, BG, USA, Retired. he notes even the generals weren't sure what their mission was.

 

[yashua-p]

Bush I operated under a UN mandate that kept him from going any farther.

yashua

 

[dlstewart01]

Originally posted by BLACKHAWKNJ:
The 12 month tour started in Korea, in that case the higher ups decided that one winter in Korea was enough. One reason why Vietnam was the bloody fiasco it became was careerism. One Army general said:
"Too many brigade and battlaion commanders were simply trying to punch their tickets instead of actually lead."
The Pentagon set the tour of duty for the critical position of Battalion Commander in the Army at 6 months, there was an unwritten policy that an officer would spend 6 months in the field, 6 months in the rear while an EM spent the whole 12 months in the field.
Also there was a great deal of micromanaging-I read that approval for special operations had to go through TEN levels for approval.
One of the best books on Vietnam is "The War Managers-American Generals reflect on Vietnam."
by Douglas Kinnard, BG, USA, Retired. he notes even the generals weren't sure what their mission was.

The 3/5 Cav was a combat unit. There was no rear for us. We spent 90% of the time at firebases or the boonies. Thats officers and every body, even the cooks. They cooked from a duce and a half. We got one hot meal a day. We oppereted from the Ashau valley to the DMZ.