My blog post today on Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972 will focus on Vietnamization. Vietnamization
was a strategy that President Richard Nixon pursued in the Vietnam
War. Its goal was for the South Vietnamese to take on more of the
responsibility for fighting the Vietnam War, as American troops would
take on less responsibility and would withdraw over time.
I first read about Vietnamization in an Opposing Viewpoints book about the Vietnam War. The way that Opposing Viewpoints
books are set up, you have an article that defends a particular point,
and that's followed by an article that argues the opposite. For the
article that defended Vietnamization, the book presented a speech by
President Nixon explaining the strategy. For the article that
criticized it, the book had a speech (I think that's what it was) by
Senator George McGovern, who would run against Nixon in the 1972
Presidential election.
I was just a kid when I read this book, so
there was much that I did not know about the Vietnam War. Consequently,
when I read Nixon's speech explaining Vietnamization, it made a lot of
sense to me. Sure, let's get South Vietnam to the place where it can
defend itself, and then we won't have to have American troops defending
it! Makes sense! Then I read the article by Senator McGovern, and
McGovern essentially argued that General Thieu of South Vietnam did not
want us to leave, and so it would be futile for us to expect for South
Vietnam to take up the slack in fighting the war. I didn't entirely
understand McGovern's argument at the time. Now, years later, I
understand it a little better, especially after reading Ambrose. Of
course, General Thieu would want the powerful Americans to protect his
country, and his government!
Nixon talks about Vietnamization in
volume 1 of his memoirs, on pages 617-618. Nixon narrates that war
supplies were coming to the Communists in Vietnam through the country of
Laos. Nixon, therefore, planned to attack the enemy in Laos. But the
Americans would not be the main ones attacking, under this plan.
Rather, the South Vietnameze ARVN would do the attacking, while the U.S.
role would include such things as providing air cover and support for
artillery, using helicopters to transport troops and supplies, giving
"gunship support", and raiding with B-52s.
5,000 ARVN troops
entered into Laos, and the Communists resisted fiercely. Meanwhile,
caught off guard by the intensity of the combat, the U.S. military
failed to augment its air cover for the ARVN. There were thus many
casualties for the ARVN, but Nixon narrates that "they continued to
fight courageously." Nixon goes on to say that the ARVN proceeded to
make significant gains:
"The South Vietnamese forces quickly
recovered from these initial setbacks, and most of the military purposes
of Lam Son [(the name of the operation)] were achieved within the first
few weeks as the Communists were deprived of the capacity to launch an
offensive against our forces in South Vietnam in 1971."
But then
Nixon narrates that the ARVN chose to leave early. One reason was that
it assumed that the operation had been a success, which (according to
Nixon) it was. Another reason was that it had reason to think that the
Communists were planning "a major counteroffensive" (page 618). The
ARVN was withdrawing, but, again, U.S. air cover was not adequate, and
so the enemy was really pounding ARVN soldiers, causing a panic. On
page 618, Nixon says: "It took only a few televised films of ARVN
soldiers clinging to the skids of our evacuation helicopters to
reinforce the widespread misconception of the ARVN forces as incompetent
and cowardly." Nixon's overall point, I think, is that
Vietnamization was a good idea and actually was successful, for the
South Vietnamese fought bravely and accomplished the goal of the
operation. And yet, Nixon acknowledges that the operation was a public
relations disaster for Vietnamization.
Jerry Voorhis, who
ran against Nixon for the U.S. Congress in 1946, criticizes Nixon's
application of Vietnamization to the invasion of Cambodia in his
(meaning Voorhis') book, The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon. I talk about that in my post here.
Essentially, Voorhis argues that using South Vietnamese forces to
attack Cambodia (in this case, alongside American troops) was a bad
idea. For one, there was a history of hostility between Cambodia and
Vietnam. And, second, the South Vietnamese committed atrocities against
Cambodian civilians.
But let's turn now to what Ambrose says
about Vietnamization! Ambrose discusses this topic on pages 324-325
(and he may discuss it elsewhere, but here I'll focus on those two
pages). Ambrose says that Nixon had the Korean War in mind when
he was pursuing Vietnamization. During the Korean War, the South
Korean army was quite strong and formidable, and that allowed President
Dwight Eisenhower to threaten the Chinese and thus bring about an
armistice. Nixon as President hoped that the South Vietnamese ARVN
could be an effective force like the South Korean army in the 1950's.
But, according to Ambrose, the ARVN had problems, notwithstanding
Nixon's public relations campaign about its alleged progress: "The ARVN
officer corps was rife with corruption, the GVN [which was the
government of South Vietnam] had no real interest either in reform or in
ending the war, and South Vietnam was not remotely ready to defend
itself."
Ambrose goes on to narrate that American
soldiers coming back from Vietnam did not speak all that highly of the
ARVN. Many of these veterans said that the Vietnamese were not able to
fight, but then they would turn right around and express admiration for
the Vietnamese Communists' fighting abilities. Ambrose asks,
"How come the NVA fought so well and the ARVN so badly?" Ambrose's
answer was that the problem was the GVN, the government of South
Vietnam, and that it needed to be changed. But, Ambrose appears to
lament, Nixon had no plan for that, since the war was being fought to
"preserve the GVN" (Ambrose's words).
The Vietcong and North
Vietnamese forces were probably superior in terms of their fighting on
account of their passion: their commitment to Communism, their desire
for Americans to leave, and their discipline. The same situation has
arguably existed over the past decade, with radical Islam: radical Islam
is passionate. But the question many have asked is whether the U.S.
can train Iraqis and Afghans to be effective fighters who can keep
radical Islam in check, perhaps even defeat it.