Vietnam Air Power...and Afghanistan?
Thread Starter
Vietnam Air Power...and Afghanistan?
I was visiting a US Base a few days ago and was luckily put up in DV quarters which meant I had the luxury (?) of a TV and access to the US Armed Forces Network. Apart from the usual community service notices reminding me to clean my teeth, report foreign looking people and not to pig out too much in the DFAC line, there was a documentary, played without introduction, on US Marines Air Power in Vietnam. The narrative of the documentary, made in 1966, could have been written about Southern Afghanistan now: Air supremacy; insurgents can't move without being detected; fire power at instant readiness to help troops on the ground; civl aid projects to help villagers tired after decades of conflict, an unswerving assumption of 'victory' over the insurgents, with the promise of a bright and democratic future for all...
There was excellent footage of C130s, A4s and F4s in action, FACs calling in air strikes, heli-borne assaults, you name it.
Although I have resisted comparing Afghanistan with the Long War in Vietnam, this documentary starkly showed many similarities. Air power gave the US an unparalleled edge against the Viet Cong and NVA; Billions of dollars were poured into military and civil aid to support South Vietnam; the South Vietnamese Government propped up/was propped up by corruption and drug money; villages and provinces constantly fell in and out of government control; 'attrocities' claimed by both sides deepening the resentment. I could go on. Why is it likely that it will all end in tears?
There was excellent footage of C130s, A4s and F4s in action, FACs calling in air strikes, heli-borne assaults, you name it.
Although I have resisted comparing Afghanistan with the Long War in Vietnam, this documentary starkly showed many similarities. Air power gave the US an unparalleled edge against the Viet Cong and NVA; Billions of dollars were poured into military and civil aid to support South Vietnam; the South Vietnamese Government propped up/was propped up by corruption and drug money; villages and provinces constantly fell in and out of government control; 'attrocities' claimed by both sides deepening the resentment. I could go on. Why is it likely that it will all end in tears?
You've missed one essential ingredient...
The biggest enemy the US Armed Forces had to face in the Vietnam war was the micro-managing SecDef buffoon Robert McNamara, who forced them to fight with one arm tied behind their backs and thus ensured that the US lost the war....
The biggest enemy the US Armed Forces had to face in the Vietnam war was the micro-managing SecDef buffoon Robert McNamara, who forced them to fight with one arm tied behind their backs and thus ensured that the US lost the war....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Barnsley
Age: 64
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. Forces peaked in Vietnam on or about 540,000 in 1968 after the Tet offensive by the NVA/Viet Cong. As we all know it was a tactical victory for the US/ARVN but a strategic defeat as the US knew the game was up after Tet.
Most US ground forces had left the Nam byearly 1971 leaving a US Air war in most parts. The Me lie incident happened in early 1968 but covered up until 1969, most of the collapse in moral, Fragging of Officers, Drug taking on a large scale happen after it was known the US ground forces were pulling out, and nobody wanted to be the last grunt to die in the Nam.
There are now tell-tale signs of similarity’s with Vietnam in Afghanistan in a much smaller scale, but it is there. The pissing on the Taliban dead, burning of the Quran, the recent case of shooting of Afghan civilians and the holding up of arms and legs Taliban Bombers by members of the US Airborne are only the incident we know about. It is now known that ground forces will be out by 2014 not a long time, but a similar time scale from the end of 1969 to 1971.
I have also read about the moral of some US units is collapsing which now should come as no surprise with the burden that some of these poor souls have been putting up with, and it does not take a Mystique Meg to see that other incident are just round the corner and possibly much worse. The only thing now is will we leave with dignity or with our tails between our legs and the pull out becomes a torrid few months. If I am wrong about the above I would be a very happy person knowing it will all end well.
The loss of the Vietnam conflict can be talked about all day, but the colapse in US moral after 1969 is plain to see in the history books
Most US ground forces had left the Nam byearly 1971 leaving a US Air war in most parts. The Me lie incident happened in early 1968 but covered up until 1969, most of the collapse in moral, Fragging of Officers, Drug taking on a large scale happen after it was known the US ground forces were pulling out, and nobody wanted to be the last grunt to die in the Nam.
There are now tell-tale signs of similarity’s with Vietnam in Afghanistan in a much smaller scale, but it is there. The pissing on the Taliban dead, burning of the Quran, the recent case of shooting of Afghan civilians and the holding up of arms and legs Taliban Bombers by members of the US Airborne are only the incident we know about. It is now known that ground forces will be out by 2014 not a long time, but a similar time scale from the end of 1969 to 1971.
I have also read about the moral of some US units is collapsing which now should come as no surprise with the burden that some of these poor souls have been putting up with, and it does not take a Mystique Meg to see that other incident are just round the corner and possibly much worse. The only thing now is will we leave with dignity or with our tails between our legs and the pull out becomes a torrid few months. If I am wrong about the above I would be a very happy person knowing it will all end well.
The loss of the Vietnam conflict can be talked about all day, but the colapse in US moral after 1969 is plain to see in the history books
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hampton, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I'm not going to compare the actual events in each "campaign", what I will reflect on is the impact Vietnam had on the US forces for the next 40 years and what they may mean for us now.
As a result of the lessons learnt in Vietnam, US air power moved from being based on 1950s concepts so that by the early 1980s it was a modern fighting force again. For example, the rapid development of air to ground missiles, the advancements of laser guided technology and perhaps most visible the creation of Red Flag, Top Gun and the Aggressor squadrons. The focus moved from bombers to fighters for the next 40 years of the USAF's heritage. There's an excellent book about this which essentially said the allies won Desert Storm because of lessons learnt from Vietnam.
My point is, in the last 10 years the Middle East activities have already caused a significant change in defence spending compared to the previous 10 years. We have a lot more UAVs and light aircraft designed to find and follow specific people, we have munitions targeting capabilities which mean a man on the ground can have something dropped on a specific group of people he can see with the naked eye.
Without realising it, we've probably put the Cold War concept to bed? Or shown that it needs to be in areas where it hasn't already. Strategic deterrence is another story, but like Vietnam I suspect this will be a turning point in military capabilities for the next few decades.
As a result of the lessons learnt in Vietnam, US air power moved from being based on 1950s concepts so that by the early 1980s it was a modern fighting force again. For example, the rapid development of air to ground missiles, the advancements of laser guided technology and perhaps most visible the creation of Red Flag, Top Gun and the Aggressor squadrons. The focus moved from bombers to fighters for the next 40 years of the USAF's heritage. There's an excellent book about this which essentially said the allies won Desert Storm because of lessons learnt from Vietnam.
My point is, in the last 10 years the Middle East activities have already caused a significant change in defence spending compared to the previous 10 years. We have a lot more UAVs and light aircraft designed to find and follow specific people, we have munitions targeting capabilities which mean a man on the ground can have something dropped on a specific group of people he can see with the naked eye.
Without realising it, we've probably put the Cold War concept to bed? Or shown that it needs to be in areas where it hasn't already. Strategic deterrence is another story, but like Vietnam I suspect this will be a turning point in military capabilities for the next few decades.
Fiasco, by Thomas Ricks about Iraq is a good read. Essentially, the problem isn't over when you've won a few battles, yet idiot politicians who start these things think it will be. Furthermore, you can't 'save' a population who don't think they need saving in the first place.
Not enough of them want foreigners interfering in their stuff. Simple. They'll only change when they want to, not before and if that means never so be it. We can't force people to be 'us'. If they don't want to be part of the international community then we have to learn to say 'OK - you're on your own.' And that means not pouring in money or security advice or arms or advisers or buying sh1t off them.
And a change to our daft drug laws would starve them of the cash they need to wage war too.
And a change to our daft drug laws would starve them of the cash they need to wage war too.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Some people are for it, many against. One has to ask why some are adamantly for the change. Is it because they will become big fish in a small pool and other, against, because they don't want to become small fish in a bigger pool?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I often thought that in Vietnam the idea of having superior aviation assets armed with missiles, then told they had to close to visual range and identify the baddies before engaging was a fools errant, wasn't it about the time they then had to quickly re-invent the gun for the Phantom due to the rules of engagement foisted upon them?, something that nearly re-ran years later with the Typhoon coming into service and the planned move to remove the gun to save money...
Thread Starter
The technological and doctrinal arguments are compelling, however the trajectory of both campaigns might indicate similar outcomes - tactival success, Strategic level failure. There was not question in the Minds of the US DOD and State Department in 1966 when the film was made (seen my original post) that the US would be victorious in Vietnam...but we are getting similar messages out of Kabul, Washington, and dare I say it, London.
As I sit here with a new Morning Sun shining into the room....coffee cup steaming away....i am considering what has been written in this thread. Having been tangentially involved in the goings on in Vietnam all those years ago but only being a very remote spectator on the current War in Afghanistan....I feel obliged to make a comment or two.
Vietnam was a war of Re-unification for the Vietnamese and seen as a fight against Communism by the Americans in general. What the true reasons for our support of the French then later our direct involvement in Vietnam escape me. Despite serving two Combat Tours there and much reflection over the years enhanced by multiple visits back to that country and its people....I still have no clear understanding of why my government sent me there to fight a War.
I am now of the view we should have assisted Ho Chi Minh and his countrymen in ridding the place of the French. I also firmly believe if FDR had lived or his policies had been carried on....we would have done exactly that. FDR as you recall intended for the Second World War to be the end of Colonial Europe and be the catalyst for freeing the Colonies of the European powers. What motive that drove his thinking remains unclear. As we had already determined to end our colonial rule of the Philippines I assume it was not to take on other Colonies at the expense of the European Powers.
The Vietnam War was grossly mis-managed.
We had a tremendous failure of Military Leadership at the highest levels, our Political Leadership under LBJ was the major cause for our defeat. We fought the War on the Maintenance budget of the Military, pissed away lives and equipment, and used exactly the wrong tactics and strategy to fight the War.
Westmoreland adopted a "War of Attrition" strategy where he traded American Lives for Vietnamese Lives and took on an enemy that had something to die for....while we on the other hand were the outsiders.
We had "Air Supremeacy" down South....but not up North. We limited ourselves to tactical targets rather than Strategic Targets. We did not mine the harbors or attack shipping until very late in the War and then only did so after warning the foreign powers that were supporting the North Vietnamese and then never attacked ships transporting goods to North Vietnam. We had excellent intelligence capabilities we are told yet when we went into Cambodia we never found the COSVN Headquarters but did uncover huge logistical bases which had not been reported ever.
TeT was an abject failure for the North Vietnamese and VietCong. They were soundly beaten militarily and psychologically. Their plan was calculated to generate a general uprising by the South Vietnamese who did not rise up. If we had taken the War north....mined the harbors, sent ground forces into North Vietnam, we would have been able to win the War militarily. Our National Leadership did not have the courage or inclination to do so.
We hear of My Lai, where 300-500 Vietnamese civilians were murdered by US Army Troops from one Infantry Company....a massacre that was stopped by other American troops yet we hear nothing about the slaughter of over 5,000 Vietnamese by North Vietnamese Communist Cadre in Hue during Tet? There were War Crimes done by both sides....and if one considers the North Vietnamese were murdering their own people....then perhaps there is some blame needs be affixed to them as well as the Americans.
Afghanistan has gone on way too long. The American People are tired of the War, the loss of lives, the expense of treasury. Much as in South Vietnam, we see a corrupt government, a minority that refuses to surrender, that has a will to remain unchanged no matter the force applied to it. We are foreigners there and the goals we have change with the administrations back in Washington.
The Obama Administration recently announced the end of the "War on Terrorism". If that is the case....then the War in Afghanistan is over. The reason we went there was to rid the place of Al Qaeda and other Islamic Terrorist groups and end Afghanistan being a Sanctuary for them. The Taliban were in charge there and were facilitating the Terrorists. It is time for us to remove our Troops, end our financial support for the Afghani government. They have called upon us to leave....time to do so....immediately.
Last thoughts....pissing on dead enemies, posing for photographs with corpses of Suicide Bombers, even the murder of seventeen Afghans by a single US Army Soldier does not in any way suggest the American Military is coming apart at the seams. The Troops still get up every day and take the fight to the enemy, take their losses, and keep on doing their duty. War is a nasty business and bad things happen. The vast majority.....for all intents and purposes...all of our Troops conduct themselves with dignity, honor, and valor. The myths of Vietnam....seem to live on in the minds of some despite being disproved by multiple research studies. Did we not just a couple of weeks ago hear about an American Soldier who was killed saving a young Afghan Child from being run over by a tracked vehicle?
All of the Troops that have served in Afghanistan deserve our unlimited appreciation and admiration as they have done and are doing an outstanding job. I saw my generation's service be denigrated and care not to see this generation of War Fighter be treated the same way. There are bad Apples in every barrel...no matter which Army, which Country, no matter which War but they are the exception. Don't impugn the Honor and Service of all by painting them with the same brush as you do the few.
Vietnam was a war of Re-unification for the Vietnamese and seen as a fight against Communism by the Americans in general. What the true reasons for our support of the French then later our direct involvement in Vietnam escape me. Despite serving two Combat Tours there and much reflection over the years enhanced by multiple visits back to that country and its people....I still have no clear understanding of why my government sent me there to fight a War.
I am now of the view we should have assisted Ho Chi Minh and his countrymen in ridding the place of the French. I also firmly believe if FDR had lived or his policies had been carried on....we would have done exactly that. FDR as you recall intended for the Second World War to be the end of Colonial Europe and be the catalyst for freeing the Colonies of the European powers. What motive that drove his thinking remains unclear. As we had already determined to end our colonial rule of the Philippines I assume it was not to take on other Colonies at the expense of the European Powers.
The Vietnam War was grossly mis-managed.
We had a tremendous failure of Military Leadership at the highest levels, our Political Leadership under LBJ was the major cause for our defeat. We fought the War on the Maintenance budget of the Military, pissed away lives and equipment, and used exactly the wrong tactics and strategy to fight the War.
Westmoreland adopted a "War of Attrition" strategy where he traded American Lives for Vietnamese Lives and took on an enemy that had something to die for....while we on the other hand were the outsiders.
We had "Air Supremeacy" down South....but not up North. We limited ourselves to tactical targets rather than Strategic Targets. We did not mine the harbors or attack shipping until very late in the War and then only did so after warning the foreign powers that were supporting the North Vietnamese and then never attacked ships transporting goods to North Vietnam. We had excellent intelligence capabilities we are told yet when we went into Cambodia we never found the COSVN Headquarters but did uncover huge logistical bases which had not been reported ever.
TeT was an abject failure for the North Vietnamese and VietCong. They were soundly beaten militarily and psychologically. Their plan was calculated to generate a general uprising by the South Vietnamese who did not rise up. If we had taken the War north....mined the harbors, sent ground forces into North Vietnam, we would have been able to win the War militarily. Our National Leadership did not have the courage or inclination to do so.
We hear of My Lai, where 300-500 Vietnamese civilians were murdered by US Army Troops from one Infantry Company....a massacre that was stopped by other American troops yet we hear nothing about the slaughter of over 5,000 Vietnamese by North Vietnamese Communist Cadre in Hue during Tet? There were War Crimes done by both sides....and if one considers the North Vietnamese were murdering their own people....then perhaps there is some blame needs be affixed to them as well as the Americans.
Afghanistan has gone on way too long. The American People are tired of the War, the loss of lives, the expense of treasury. Much as in South Vietnam, we see a corrupt government, a minority that refuses to surrender, that has a will to remain unchanged no matter the force applied to it. We are foreigners there and the goals we have change with the administrations back in Washington.
The Obama Administration recently announced the end of the "War on Terrorism". If that is the case....then the War in Afghanistan is over. The reason we went there was to rid the place of Al Qaeda and other Islamic Terrorist groups and end Afghanistan being a Sanctuary for them. The Taliban were in charge there and were facilitating the Terrorists. It is time for us to remove our Troops, end our financial support for the Afghani government. They have called upon us to leave....time to do so....immediately.
Last thoughts....pissing on dead enemies, posing for photographs with corpses of Suicide Bombers, even the murder of seventeen Afghans by a single US Army Soldier does not in any way suggest the American Military is coming apart at the seams. The Troops still get up every day and take the fight to the enemy, take their losses, and keep on doing their duty. War is a nasty business and bad things happen. The vast majority.....for all intents and purposes...all of our Troops conduct themselves with dignity, honor, and valor. The myths of Vietnam....seem to live on in the minds of some despite being disproved by multiple research studies. Did we not just a couple of weeks ago hear about an American Soldier who was killed saving a young Afghan Child from being run over by a tracked vehicle?
All of the Troops that have served in Afghanistan deserve our unlimited appreciation and admiration as they have done and are doing an outstanding job. I saw my generation's service be denigrated and care not to see this generation of War Fighter be treated the same way. There are bad Apples in every barrel...no matter which Army, which Country, no matter which War but they are the exception. Don't impugn the Honor and Service of all by painting them with the same brush as you do the few.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Doghouse
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, very very well said. After the last troops, leave within a few months (weeks even) everything will be back to as we found it. All those allied lives lost for nothing. I could weep.....
> Pontius
Whilst we might get a bit knarcked off with a political change we don't appreciate or a boundary change that seems pointless or dumb - we tend to simply discuss it, get annoyed but then get on with getting on. Mostly we don't take the issue to stupid, vile, callous, criminal violence. But these that do - I don't see that it is worth one more soldiers life; the purpose was to get Osama, he's dead, they don't want us there...fine - ta tar.
If it turns to rat **** it is their rat **** & they can sort it out or not. If living in the dark ages is what they want - OK - they might not like it but if enough of them don't like it they'll sort it out themselves.
Some people are for it, many against. One has to ask why some are adamantly for the change. Is it because they will become big fish in a small pool and other, against, because they don't want to become small fish in a bigger pool?
If it turns to rat **** it is their rat **** & they can sort it out or not. If living in the dark ages is what they want - OK - they might not like it but if enough of them don't like it they'll sort it out themselves.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LT quite right, of course we had the enlightenment 300 odd years ago now . . .
and a law to prohibit carrying guns.
and a law to prohibit carrying guns.
LT quite right, of course we had the enlightenment 300 odd years ago now . . . and a law to prohibit carrying guns.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, I did draft a longer response but it vaporised.
Why there? because the Vietnam war was just an extension of all the other Asian conflicts post 1942. The Dutch in the East Indies, Korea, the communists in Malaya, Indonesians in Malaysia, the Taiwan issue and so on. SEATO was the 3rd treaty in an attempt to contain the spread of communism and it is probable that communism spread on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend.
The area was divided between UK and US with the dividing line at 105 deg East (I am not forgetting the active participation by ANZAC forces). Some of our targets were in the north of Vietnam practically on that 105 deg boundary.
Why there? because the Vietnam war was just an extension of all the other Asian conflicts post 1942. The Dutch in the East Indies, Korea, the communists in Malaya, Indonesians in Malaysia, the Taiwan issue and so on. SEATO was the 3rd treaty in an attempt to contain the spread of communism and it is probable that communism spread on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend.
The area was divided between UK and US with the dividing line at 105 deg East (I am not forgetting the active participation by ANZAC forces). Some of our targets were in the north of Vietnam practically on that 105 deg boundary.
PN,
Perhaps the only consolation for those of us who were involved in those Wars from Korea onwards is we did stop the spread of Communism and perhaps hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by doing so.
That is scant reward when I stand at the Vietnam Memorial and contemplate all those names especially the ones I knew personally....some of whom I served beside.
I understand only too well what the current generation is going to experience as they look back on their service and sacrifice.....and my heart goes out to them.
We owe all of them for what they have done under some very difficult circumstances....and will have to do in the future.
Obama has decreed the War on Terrorism over.....sad thing is the other side did not get the message.....they will be at us again no matter what our politicians say.
Perhaps the only consolation for those of us who were involved in those Wars from Korea onwards is we did stop the spread of Communism and perhaps hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by doing so.
That is scant reward when I stand at the Vietnam Memorial and contemplate all those names especially the ones I knew personally....some of whom I served beside.
I understand only too well what the current generation is going to experience as they look back on their service and sacrifice.....and my heart goes out to them.
We owe all of them for what they have done under some very difficult circumstances....and will have to do in the future.
Obama has decreed the War on Terrorism over.....sad thing is the other side did not get the message.....they will be at us again no matter what our politicians say.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In general fighting in someone else's country should be in and out as fast as possible
whatever your motives the locals will grow to resent you and you NEVER really understand their culture
Vietnam was avoidable and why we stayed in Afghanistan after kicking the Taleban out of Kabul is beyond any reason
whatever your motives the locals will grow to resent you and you NEVER really understand their culture
Vietnam was avoidable and why we stayed in Afghanistan after kicking the Taleban out of Kabul is beyond any reason
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be way off cue here but the rumours I hear it that the West is in Afghanistan, not to fight the Taliban as they have been essentially worn down to a manageable level.
The troops are still there to combat the worst of the external drug organisations and the impressive profits they derive from selling their muck to the West.
A check on the past 40 years or so of Afghanistan's income would no doubt highlight how this has shifted from a war on terror to the war on drugs.
The troops are still there to combat the worst of the external drug organisations and the impressive profits they derive from selling their muck to the West.
A check on the past 40 years or so of Afghanistan's income would no doubt highlight how this has shifted from a war on terror to the war on drugs.
Harry, we do understand their culture. And it is almost completely at odds with ours. Hence we should be out of there. The Taliban were doing a pretty good job of suppressing the drug trade; much better than we're doing anyway.
All we need is for the Taliban to agree not to sponsor international terrorism and we're laughing. They'd probably agree to that tomorrow.That is, after all, why we went in in the first place.
All we need is for the Taliban to agree not to sponsor international terrorism and we're laughing. They'd probably agree to that tomorrow.That is, after all, why we went in in the first place.