Thursday 24 June 2021

The Vietnam War: a case study on the difference between strategy and tactics

Despite their claim that they were never defeated on the battlefield, the USA lost the Vietnam War. They had superior firepower and the budgetary & industrial might of a superpower. Ultimately, their huge resources proved ineffective against an enemy with a comparatively modest agrarian and village-oriented economy. While clearly a tragic period in history, the Vietnam War is a case study in the difference between a strategic & creative approach vs. a tactical & resource-intensive one.

Ahead of hostilities, Vietcong officers extensively studied Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" with many able to recite entire passages from memory. General Võ, since described as one of the greatest military strategists of the 20th century, was an avid student of Sun Tzu's teachings. In the years following the war, the US Marine Corps Professional Reading Program has listed “The Art of War” on its reading list. It's now also recommended reading for all United States Military Intelligence personnel.

The book advises that “a wise general can achieve greatness through foreknowledge” and “know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a thousand battles without disaster”. In other words, take the time to conduct situational analysis before formalising your objective, developing your strategy and your tactical plan to achieve it. The Vietcong drew on this inspiration and sought to understand their enemy. For example, they placed spies outside brothels and at taxi ranks near US bases in the south.

In contrast, the US skipped the diagnosis and jumped straight into deploying the same tactics which had ultimately proved successful in the South Pacific and Europe during WW2. They sought to take the fight to the enemy. Their objective was to subdue the North Vietnamese into submission using the full force of the world’s best equipped superpower.

However, the troops expected to take the fighting to the enemy deep in the jungle were largely of conscripts. In stark contrast, the North Vietnamese soldiers were dedicated to the cause - fighting for independence, for communism and as an expression of their fierce loyally to their leadership. Many of these committed volunteers had had themselves tattooed with the words “born in the North to die in the South”. Therefore, the opportunity for the Vietcong and their strategic focus was on breaking the will of the American troops and, in turn, their relatives at home.

Gradually, the Vietcong became even more knowledgeable about American tactics. They learned that carpet bombing was clear indication of where and when US ground troops would arrive at a particular location. They sought to remove their enemy’s greatest strength (air cover) by placing themselves amongst the US forces. Drawing on another of Sun Zhu’s mantras (“All warfare is deception”), they frequently distracted their opponents before commencing the real offensive. They knew the American troops respected and enjoyed national holidays, so used the TET lunar new year to launch a surprise offensive and coordinate their logistics with simultaneous attacks on South Vietnamese bases.

Ultimately, the strategic approach trumped the US' tactical one. In a final symbolic episode, as the Americans were negotiating their withdraw, US General Frederick C. Weyand told his North Vietnamese counterpart “you know, you never beat us on the battlefield”. To which the response was “that may be so, but it is also irrelevant”. In a strategic sense, he was absolutely right.

No comments:

Post a Comment