General William Westmoreland's impact on the Vietnam conflict was one of gigantic proportion, for four years during the height of the war he was the top commander stationed in Vietnam. From June of 1964 when he succeeded General Paul Harkins as leading officer until sometime after the Tet Offensive in January of 1968 when he was sent back to America General Westmoreland ruled the fight however he best saw fit.
This meant that the majority of the fighting in Vietnam would be a war of attrition, one of the main reasons he valued enemy body counts so highly. A war of attrition is fought by constantly wearing down the enemy and making them sustain more losses of men and materials so they eventually give up as they no longer have the resources necessary to fight. William Westmoreland believed he could win the war in Vietnam this way due to the United States' larger and more readily available supply of recourses. He thought the American forces would have no problem outlasting the North Vietnamese forces with their advanced weaponry and technology.
However as the Conflict continued and the fighting escalated the Generals strategy proved to be not only largely ineffective but also unrealistic for it was costing the U.S. millions of dollars. As the enemy were experts in guerrilla warfare, and fighting in their own familiar country the American strategy of search and destroy missions were largely unsuccessful in reaching the desired enemy body counts. This lead Westmoreland to regularly goof on his "enemy order of battle assessments" and give lower numbers on suspected enemy troops so the losses would appear relatively high, as if the U.S. were actually winning. What this tactic did however was allow for continued support from the American people back home as well as Congress, and by the time Westmoreland left Vietnam he had increased the number of American troops from 16,000 in 1964 to well over 500,000 in 1968.
I understand why he thought that he could win the war of attrition, but at the same time he failed to realize that the Viet Cong were fighting on their own soil, and resources were always readily available. I also do not think it is right to basically report false statistics back to the U.S. just to gain more support. I think this shows a major loophole in our Government and how they connect with the media. It showed that we cannot trust everything the Government says.
ReplyDeleteEven though I understand how General Westmoreland came to the conclusion that a war of attrition was a winning strategy, I think it was foolish to decide to apply that philosophy to this war in particular. While the U.S. had more resources available to them, they still had to mobilize these resources overseas and get them to the troops on the ground. Also, the U.S. only had a sizeable army because of the draft, meaning the soldiers didn't want to be there in the first place. Couple that with the fact that the Vietminh knew the territory and were fighting for their homes, and you get a recipe for disaster both in domestic relations as well as combat effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the Americans quickly realized that the North Vietnamese were nearly experts at guerilla warfare. I am curious to see what the Americans could have done differently in terms of military tactics and how the outcome would have been different if they would have used a different method after they realized attrition warfare would not work in their favor.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have thought something like this would happen during war. I think it shows us more of the things that were occurring during the war. I think it shows that America is flawed.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting moment of history repeating itself, in terms of General William's strategy for the Vietnam War, as he believed that a war of attrition can create a decisive victory even though it didn't work in WW1, with the same reasoning also.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting moment of history repeating itself, in terms of General William's strategy for the Vietnam War, as he believed that a war of attrition can create a decisive victory even though it didn't work in WW1, with the same reasoning also.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if General Westmorland was charged with anything for lying? Or was he just publicly shamed? Lying about by counts seems like a big deal.
ReplyDelete