Tet and Iraq: Parallels and Differences

Politics International Politics
1

I have extended the offer to a couple of posters to start a thread on the current "Iraq = Viet Nam/Tet Offensive " comment in the recent news.
This hit my email box this morning and I thought it might be a good background opener for the thread.
Don Oberdorfer, an expert on Asian affairs who wrote a major book on the Tet Offensive and its political aftermath in the United States, Tet! The Turning Point in the Vietnam War, says even though support for the Iraq war is ebbing in the United States, the current mood lacks “the domestic passion” the Tet offensive produced against the Vietnam War in 1968 that led President Lyndon B. Johnson not to seek reelection.

[quote]Oberdorfer: Tet and Iraq: Parallels and Differences
Interviewer:Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
Interviewee:Don Oberdorfer, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
October 23, 2006

In recent days there’s been comparisons in the press—and, in fact, President Bush referred to it himself—between the situation today in Iraq and the situation in 1968 following the major offensive in Vietnam by Communist forces during the Tet holiday period which led eventually to President Lyndon B. Johnson announcing two months later that he would not run for reelection that year. Since you’re the author of Tet!, a major book on that period, can you describe for us what the mood was like then and what the results of Tet actually were?

It’s an interesting comparison, but of course historical comparisons are never precise and sometimes they’re misleading. In the case of Vietnam, there had been an extensive drop in American support for the war beginning the previous summer, when President Johnson asked for a 10 percent additional tax on everyone’s income to pay for the war. With that the support for the war began diminishing fairly rapidly.

Johnson’s response to that, which turned out to be very misguided, was to claim that the war was very nearly won, and among other things he brought back General William Westmoreland, the U.S. commander in Vietnam, to speak at the National Press Club in Washington and give interviews saying how encouraged he was and that the end of the war was beginning to come into view. There was actually a lull in the fighting then, but what the Americans did not know was that the lull was because the Communist side was husbanding its resources to put on the Tet offensive.

The Tet Offensive was a huge shock to a country which had been told the war was nearly over. The Communist forces, both the North Vietnamese forces and the southern Viet Cong as they were called, initiated a surprise attack almost simultaneously on every provincial capital, every city, nearly every military base, and in Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam. The so-called Tet Offensive started on January 30 and January 31 of 1968.
(article at link)
cfr.org/publication/11782/[/quote]
I hope this thread can discuss this hypothetical comparison, and in a civil manner.

2

The same traitors crawl out of the woodwork. That’s sure looks familiar.

3

Well for one, in Tet 1968 the South Vietnamese government institutions, economy, utilities, almost anything you care to mention were in arguably far better shape than comparables in Iraq at this point.

I’m still for sticking it out, though. In fact I may even consider voting against Australia’s Labor party for the first time ever in the next elections. And that means voting for John Howard (Fuck! Don’t make me do this!) Labor are threatening to pull Australia’s albeit limited number of troops out of Iraq if the party wins the next election.

HG

4

I hope you could actually say something yourself on the topic rather then just quoting articles and telling others to discuss, as you do so often.

So, what’s your opinion on the subject?

5

Why? Don’t want to familiarize yourself with what’s being discussed before spouting off?

6

Are you saying that TC needs to familiarize himself with the topic, hence he hasn’t offered his opinion yet? Ok, that could explain it …

7

The main parallel I see is the overselling of what U.S. forces could, would or had achieved in both conflicts by their administration back at home. Which in turn set them up for failure in the sense that they underperformed. Not because the troops had been doing a crappy job, but because what they had been hyped up to in advance by the political leadership back at home was just plain out of reach.

With Vietnam it was the claims that “the war was won”, “the end was in view” “we are winning hearts and minds” “this war is super-clean” etc. etc. as the article outlines. When the NVA impaled itself on U.S. forces during the Tet offensive they suffered a military defeat, but at the same time scored a huge political victory by exposing said claims (“the war is won, all is swell etc. etc.”) as mere wishful thinking. With a ‘leadership’ like that, who seriously wants to follow?

Taking a look at Iraq, what wasn’t projected? A strong blow against WMDs, finding tons of them and destroy them in Iraq. Striking a strong blow against terrorism, Saddam being closely linked to it. A great victory for democracy, Iraq becoming peaceful in the process of democratization. A great leap for stability of the region, Iraq becoming a beacon of prosperity and the poster-child of progress. A huge gain for America’s reception, the U.S. Army welcomed with flowers. All this with less boots on the ground rather than more and of course not costing a whole deal much more than projected. And the hype went on and on until what the troops could achieve was so hopelessly oversold already by the outset of the Iraq war that they stood no chance anymore to achieve what was proclaimed they could do. For good measure the mission later then was accomplished some weeks after hostilities started and if not that then the insurgency in its last throes of course. With so much hype by ‘visionaries’, how were U.S. troops EVER assumed to perform up to what was projected politically?

Vietnam and Iraq are only two examples of this “oversold by politics” trap. History is littered with them. The American Civil War, WW I, Barbarossa, Market Garden … all ‘over by Christmas’ or so it was said.

I view the claim it is always and exclusively the specter of the “liberul media” who stabs troops in the back as merely a distraction from this regular occurring phenomenon. Politicians first bigmouth at home what they are all able to do (and then some) with ‘their’ army, paint rosy pictures of how this will all work out so swell, pay mere lip-service to due diligence, ignore inconvenient warnings … but when their best-case scenarios come tumbling down it is of course anyone to blame BUT themselves.

A similar argument that the main problem besetting the Iraq War right from its outset has been overselling can be read here.

All left wing drivel of course as the source clearly indicates. The ‘same traitors’ as Dr. Evil would probably put it.

8

games -
Interesting points. I’ve seen them quite a few times on here and in other places as the war in Iraq has moved along.
I hope that these are addressed one a point-by-point basis as the thread progresses.
(No, I’m not going to dissect the post now, its Friday afternoon and dinner olans are being made as I type :wink: )
I will say that have actually been around and involved in the VN experience at the time of TET, (I came in country almost a year to the day later) some, if not most of the things you mention…[quote]With Vietnam it was the claims that “the war was won”, “the end was in view” “we are winning hearts and minds” “this war is super-clean” etc. etc. as the article outlines."[/quote] were not being said as far as I was aware. And I was very aware of what was happening there. It is really hard to imagine, looking back now how incredibly torn apart the USA was at that time.
Of course now, we have documentation that a very large per-centage of that discord was the result of very serious intel efforts by the USSR and it operatives in the USA and other nations.
This was a factor suspected, but not really provable at the time - circa 1967- 1975 or so.
Amazing what history turns up.
Anyway games, good lead-off.

9

“there” That’s the keyword. In Vietnam. On the ground.

And? Back home? The place where the support for these conflicts has to come from? Money, gear, troops, will … the whole package. What was sold there? Check the source you quoted yourself.

[quote]Oberdorfer: Tet and Iraq: Parallels and Differences
Interviewer:Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
Interviewee:Don Oberdorfer, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
October 23, 2006

Johnson’s response to [the drop in support for the Vietnam War], which turned out to be very misguided, was to claim that the war was very nearly won, and among other things he brought back General William Westmoreland, the U.S. commander in Vietnam, to speak at the National Press Club in Washington and give interviews saying how encouraged he was and that the end of the war was beginning to come into view.[/quote]

As I said: empty promises by politicians snug back at home - turning out to be incompatible with reality on the ground.

Sure. It may have been to a ‘large percentage’ all due to commie spies. Based on the assumption that a predominantly stupid American population is always prone to fall for something like that, right?

Yeah … a likely story. :unamused:

How about an alternative view though? Commie agitiation ammounted to diddly squat as so often … except of course when their opposition offers them blunders of such a proportion that anyone, even communists (or these days even Islamists) are able to make some hay. If that. Seems that the money the communists spent brought if anyone then themselves foremost to their knees.

You noticed how communism only succeeded in places which had even worse systems to offer to begin with. And even then it was a dicey affair and involves a Red Army one way or another? I.e. Russia with a Tzar AND WWI combined. China under Warlord/KMT fiefdoms AND after Japanese occupation combined. Eastern Europe after Nazi occupation (Nazis always count double, so no need for a killer-combo here). Vietnam during decolinization and under its corrupt leadership combined. North Koera after Japanese occupation and under Soviet ‘administration’ combined.

Can you name any decently run place where Communism ever stood a chance to gain a proper foothold?

If not then what do you think about the idea that the real problem in '68 lay in people losing faith in their own leadership due to unbridgable gaps between that leadership’s claim and reality? I.e. failures (overselling being the one I focus on here) of American domestic leadership being responsible for dropping support at home rather than mainly (‘a large percentage?’) commie subversion.

10

A question for the “Stabbed in the Back by the Traitors on the Home Front” supporters.

By the end of 1967 a slim majority of Americans opposed the War. As noted in the opening article, LBJ’s government was selling the idea that the recent lull in fighting was a sign that the enemy were being worn down, and the War was being won.

Suppose that, as the smoke and shock cleared, Walter Cronkite and the other influential members of the media (who had generally been supporters of the War to start with) had come out and affirmed the Pentagon’s view.

"Yes, the government was mistaken that the enemy were on the verge of defeat- they were instead gathering their forces for a last desperate attempt to alter the course of events in one swoop. This has been their 1918 Spring Offensive; their Battle of the Bulge- and it has failed miserably.

The Viet Cong have been totally shattered, the NVA has failed to take Khe Sanh, and the people of South Vietnam rejected the opportunity to rise up in support of the Communists. This has been an overwhelming victory for the United States.

And that’s the way it is…"

A boost in support in the US- enough to re-elect Johnson?- but what would have changed in Vietnam?

Do you think Ho and Giap would have shrugged their shoulders and said “Well, that didn’t work- Americans still support the War-I guess we’d better give up”?

11

[quote=“MikeN”]A boost in support in the US- enough to re-elect Johnson?- but what would have changed in Vietnam?[/quote]MikeN -
Pardon my posting and running. Having visitors today from out of country - Good theoretical question.
1st - LBJ had already declared that he would not run again. He was starting to suffer ill health and he was just tired of politics. So, from this stand-point he would not have remained in office anyway. Nixon campaigned on ending the war. Yes, I know, there was a build-up in progress and the largest # of US KIA’s was in '68/'69, but also it was the beginning of “Vietnamization(sp?)” of the war. The draw-down of US forces was underway.[quote=“MikeN”]Do you think Ho and Giap would have shrugged their shoulders and said “Well, that didn’t work- Americans still support the War-I guess we’d better give up”?[/quote]No, I do not think General Giap and Premiere Minh would have said those words…exactly.
I do however think they would have re-assessed their positions at the Paris talks. As was shown, the only thing that spurred any co-operation on their part was aggressive military action, i.e. the bombing od Hanoi, etc.

One thing you may not be aware of, the ace trump card in the US hand [b]was never played.[b]
This was the bombing of the dikes in the north. This alone would have been the weapon that would have brought the Communist govt to its knees.
But we never did it. Amazing the restraint that was in place.
Gotta go.

12

[quote=“TainanCowboy”] . . . One thing you may not be aware of, the ace trump card in the US hand [b]was never played.[b]
This was the bombing of the dikes in the north. This alone would have been the weapon that would have brought the Communist govt to its knees.
But we never did it. Amazing the restraint that was in place.
Gotta go.[/quote]

Imagine if you will that NVA agents had bombed a major dam in the U.S. killing tens or hundreds of thousands of American civilians and you can understand why Nixon hesitated to take that step. It was more effective as a threat but in reality it probably would have been regarded as a war crime and heightened the odds of bringing the PRC into the war in the same way it had entered the Korean War in the early 1950’s when the U.S. had North Korea on the ropes.

And all that death and destruction for what? To avoid the situation today?:

"HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam - Ties between Vietnam and the United States have come far and will strengthen further as the Southeast Asian nation reforms its economy and seeks foreign investment, Sen. John McCain said Thursday.

“When you look at our relationship 15 years ago, it’s like night and day,” said the former prisoner of war at the end of weeklong vacation that was his first visit to Vietnam in two years.

“That’s partially a maturation process on the part of the Vietnamese leadership. They recognize their future lies in a strong, vibrant free market economy. The United States can be extremely helpful in that,” said McCain, R-Ariz., who is an advocate of reconciliation between the former enemies.

McCain arrived last Friday with his family and has visited Hanoi, Danang, the Central Highlands capital of Buon Ma Thuot, and Ho Chi Minh City. He was scheduled to go back to the United States later Thursday.

McCain, who was held as a POW here for six years, was previously in Vietnam in 2000 for the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. On Thursday, McCain said Vietnam’s strong desire to integrate with the world means its economic reforms will continue. . . . "

13

No,to avoid the situation of the 70s and 80s when hundreds of thousands fled Vietnam and more hundreds of thousands were murdered in Cambodia while the two countries plus Laos underwent decades of stagnation.

I’d guess that a surviving Republic of South Vietnam would be closer to Taiwan or South Korea , or at least Malaysia in terms of development, plus the knock-on effects that would have for the rest of SE Asia.

14

[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“spook”]
And all that death and destruction for what? To avoid the situation today?:

[/quote]

No,to avoid the situation of the 70s and 80s when hundreds of thousands fled Vietnam and more hundreds of thousands were murdered in Cambodia while the two countries plus Laos underwent decades of stagnation.

I’d guess that a surviving Republic of South Vietnam would be closer to Taiwan or South Korea , or at least Malaysia in terms of development, plus the knock-on effects that would have for the rest of SE Asia.[/quote]

If the Red River Delta dikes had been destroyed, hundreds of thousands would have died of drowning and starvation and hundreds of thousands more would have become refugees – boat refugees.

Did you ever wonder how the Khmer Rouge fell? The North Vietnamese drove them from power in the late 70’s.

I’m no fan of Vietnamese Communism – it’s a totalitarian dictatorship with a record of atrocities and terrorism – but I’m no fan of indiscriminant killing and destruction either.