And, apparently, post almost simultaneously.
Actually, there’s a fairly strong case to be made for that argument. Aside from the effect that public protest had on troop effectiveness, public opinion was a huge factor in some of the really terrible policies put in effect that restricted what our military could do, i.e. officially sanctioned bombing sites, not being able to drop bombs more than 600 meters from the Ho Chi Minh trail, ect., otherwise known at Restricted Rules of Engagement.
Both I and my husband were active duty at the time of the Gulf War, and my husband “went over”. I thank your for your support of your friend, and I have no doubt that he did his duty, but the fact is if he had really believed in what he was doing, his performance would have been better, in both measurable and unmeasurable ways.
I’m quite aware that our military are professionals. I’ve been a member of the military community for 18 years. While I can appreciate the fact that you wish to ensure that our military is used properly, be aware that soldiers are human like anyone else, and when they feel the public does not support their mission, morale suffers, regardless of the motives of those who protest.
As a student of military history and effectiveness, I’d have to disagree with your estimates, Coldfire.
In any military operation, morale is hugely significant. There have been many instances in history where forces overcame what should have been overwhelming factors, based mostly on leadership and morale. The reason the Confederacy held on so very long in the American Civil War with vastly inferior equipment and manpower was the fact that the majority of soldiers truly, passionately believed in their cause.
Low morale in Vietnam led to drug use, desertion, lack of unit cohesion, failure to press the mission, and an unwillingness to follow orders.
While there was underestimation of the enemy, if the full might of the U.S. military had been applied properly, the U.S. should have won handily, in short order. The fact that it was not was due to, in large part, to political attempts to appease public opinion.
Part of the issue is that almost any movement is defined in the media by its zealots. I was born after Vietnam, for me the nobility of the peace movement was tarnished by the subsequent despicable treatment of soldiers who were drafted into service. I have similar feelings about the mentality which would lead people to trash a 9/11 memorial in California.
I am thoroughly disgusted by both political parties in the United States. Seems to me that many who profess to have sincere and reasoned opinions are nonetheless primarily motivated by whether the president has an ® or a (D) next to their name.
Not passing judgment on anyone here (as if anyone would care), just a general observation.
To the extent that low morale had deleterious effects on the performance of US armed forces in Vietnam, I’d have to suggest that it was because the troops themselves didn’t believe in the “cause” they were fighting for, and not because of anti-war protests back home. The US lost Vietnam because it was a hopelessly stupid and misguided project from the get go, not because of a bunch of dope-smoking college students waving peace signs.
Maybe it’s just me, but I were in this neighbourhood, I’d get both signs and put them in my lawn. Really confuse the heck out of people.
Well, the drug use might have been in part due to the fact that pot grows wild in Vietnam. It was literally there for the taking.
Secondly, conditions for the men in Vietnam were horrible. It’s a strange, foreign land, hot, and muggy, with dense vegetation. You could never fully relax for an instant, not being able to see clearly enough through the foilage to ascertain whether you were safe from ambush. Booby-traps, snipers, surprise attacks-- Jesus, it’s enough to make anyone have “low morale.”
Fear, incredible discomfort, and the fact that a lot of them were there against their will probably significantly contributed to why the soldiers were not keen on obeying orders.
Today, our army is volunteer. You signed up willingly. Our soliders are better equipped and better trained to deal with inhospitible conditions, and attacks are better co-ordinated.
Interesting. I was just thinking that the peace-niks are the simplistic morons. I was thinking that our credibility (and the UN’s) was at stake (cease fire agrement, anyone?). And, that the best way to avoid actually having to fight is having the reputation of backing up your words with action. Seems to me that all the hand-wringing over Iraq and some piss-ant dictator has given North Korea courage. But hey, maybe I’M wrong.
Jim
Lack of commitment to the cause was certianly a contributer to low morale in Vietnam, and probably a major one at that. However, support from the home front is also vitally important, at least at the level that personal commitment is, and probably more so. McPherson, in “For Cause & Comrades, Why men fought in the Civil War”, writes about this very thing.
He says “…without a firm base of support in the homes and communities from which these citizen soldiers came, their morale would have crumbled. Even the solidarity with comrades-in-arms was insufficient to sustain their commitment if it lacked sustenance on the home front. In the Vietnam War the erosion of that sustenance was one reason for a decline in the motivation and fighting power of the American army.”
The bunches of dope-smoking college students, along with many others, did contribute substantially to the U.S. loss in Vietnam, and by extension, the number of U.S. soldiers that came home in body bags.
While that may have been true, if the discipline that morale helps to sustain had exsisted in the ranks, the officers would have been much more able to enforce the proscriptions against drug use.
The conditions in Vietnam were not worse than they have been for many U.S. forces in many other conflicts in history. The soldiers in Valley Forge were dying of cold and hunger daily, and yet managed to attack and achieve a victory, because of the high morale that superior leadership brings. The jungles of Burma in WWII were hardly more hospitable than the ones in Vietnam, and the enemy used “booby-traps, snipers, and surprise attacks”, and was not inclined to take many prisoners. Yet U.S. forces were overwhelmingly victorious in this theatre.
You are absolutely right, all those factors lead to greater soldier morale, and therefore confidence and fighting ability. The fact that we will win this war is testament to how far our military has come since those days. However, the point I’m making is that percieved lack of support at home does have a deleterious effect on any force, no matter how well trained and equipped. Massive protests at home could very well lead to more American soldiers dying. The people who claim to “Support our troops but not the war” would do well to remember that.
I vehemently disagree. The notion that American citizens must suspend their critical faculties for zombielike argeement with the government is nonsense, even in times of war. Especially in times of war, IMO. Blaming the huge numbers of Americans, and others, who thought that filthy, stupid war was a mistake just shifts just blame from where it belongs.
I lived through ‘Nam. I had family over there, and friends, and some of them came home in body bags. My father, a rabid conservative and proud WWII vet, was vocally opposed to the war, on the basis it was so badly handled and conceived it was just squandering soldiers’ lives. So were some of my other folks in the service, quietly and privately, when out of uniform. In fact they were the most bitter, having seen the bungling, waste and death close up and for far too long. It was The Emperor’s New Clothes all over again. Where was the civic duty in ignoring what was all too painfully obvious?
I didn’t then and won’t now tolerate anyone blaming folks in uniform for doing their duty. They deserve all the respect there is. But I’d hope they could also respect their fellow citizens for watch-dogging the government that’s putting them in harm’s way, in all our names.
Veb
Yes, you can be against war but for the men and women of our armed forces. In fact, it’s why I’m against war-I don’t want to see our troops getting killed over something like this, which I don’t support.
I was at the gigantic antiwar rally and march in Washington DC yesterday. Over 100,000 patriotic US citizens uniting their voices to keep America out of an insanely tragic error. One of the speakers represented a group founded specifically to support the troops while opposing the war. She got huge applause and cheers from the antiwar audience for urging support for the troops. The group’s name is S.N.A.F.U.—Support Network for the Armed Forces.
Check out
http://www.join-snafu.org/
One of the issues they are pushing is to get justice for the women Air Force cadets who were sexually harassed and abused, although the brass at first tried to cover it up and protect the abusers. This issue brought a tumultous response of vocal support from the crowd. There are some instances like this where “support for the troops” implies helping the enlisted women and men against mistreatment from their superiors.
Yeah, that’s right, blame the “dope-smoking college students” for the failures of foreign policy, military intelligence, and military strategy that plagued the US during the Vietnam era. Blame them for drafting a bunch of kids who had never picked up a gun in their lives. Blame them for sending poorly trained troops into fierce combat situations with little hope of survival. Blame the students for the tensions within the military that led to the “fragging” of officers who were more concerned with their own survival than that of their troops.
I also take issue with your claim that the US "lost’ the Viet Nam war. While US troops might have been driven out of the region, and the northern armies occupied Saigon and the communists took over the country, in many ways the US gained a victory.
While you and others discuss the US men who “came home in body bags” (about 50,000), you don’t bother to mention the Vietnamese who were killed - anywhere from 500,000 to 2 million, depending on whether you’re counting fighting troops, or troops plus civilians, or troops plus civilians plus those who died of starvation, agaent orange poisoning etc.
And while Ho ended up taking over in Vietnam, the US presence there for so long did exactly what US policy-makers wanted - it helped prevent the spread of communism through other parts of the continent.
The war also managed to bomb a developing country back almost to the stone age, ruining towns and cities, turning thousands of acres of valuable crop-land into unproductive wastes, and leaving a legacy of hunger, malnutrition, birth defects, injuries from landmines, etc., etc. Seems to me like the US did a lot better out of that war than did the Vietnamese.
No. The price you’re asking is too high. And self-defeating.
Volunteer military men and women in the service of democratic nation deserve honor and respect for doing hard, difficult, often dangerous jobs that requires sacrifices for themselves and their families.
Their fellow citizens have the right, duty and obligation to be informed and make independent decisions, based on conscience and concern for the country, on the actions of the government we share. Abandoning that for passive agreement is close to totaliarianism.
A concerned, alert citizenry can and should act as watchdogs on behalf of their citizen soldiers.
I’m not trying to belittle your beliefs or viewpoint, Lucretia. On the side of fairness, during 'Nam I remember vividly the small but vocal factions that blamed military folks for serving at all. Their nutjar idea was that if people would just refuse to fight, even if drafted, that’d solve the whole problem, so they blamed anybody who did serve. They got far more press coverage than their numbers warranted, but they were there. And they were despicable, beneath contempt. To this day, Jane Fonda is one of the very few public figures I actively hate. But a few dope-smoking hippies and college students couldn’t have turned the tide. Many were housewives, accountants, etc.; ordinary people who slowly but surely got fed up with the slaughter and futility.
I do understand that it makes things much tougher when you’re putting literally everything on the line, under tremendously hard conditions, while other people are asking whether it’s worth doing. But it still needs to be examined, hard and critically, for the sake of everyone. The machinery of war, once set in motion, can take on a self-fuelling life of its own, far beyond memory of the politics and purposes of the start. I never want to see another 'Nam, which just grew and grew, seemingly endlessly, tossing away the lives of our military people like used kleenex.
I’m sorry, sincerely and from the heart sorry, that questioning and maybe even disagreement makes things harder for our military. Things are tough enough for all of you as it is. I just believe it fills a crucial role that ultimately serves the country too.
Veb
There was a very interesting feature in today’s Chicago Tribune about the mother of a Marine Sergeant stationed in Kuwait who is an active member of the anti-war movement. Her point is that the best way that she can support the troops (including her son) is to try her best to convince the American government NOT to send them off to die in a foolish an ill-conceived war. So, yes, I believe you can support our troops and still passionately oppose this pre-emptive war, even after it begins.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. The Confederate Army suffered almost non-stop desertions, as did the Union Army. The same men would desert and be re-recruited a half dozen times.
Virtually every examination of the behaviour of men in combat has shown that soldiers in combat fight primarily for the safety of themselves and their comrades. The “cause” to be fought for is often, if not usually, irrelevant.
I would say Coldfire’s estimate of 2% is ten times too HIGH. Low morale in Vietnam was caused primarily by the draft and by the stupidity of the endeavour, neither of which were caused by peace protesters. Indeed, the peace movement went into full swing LATE in the war, by which time the discipline problems you mention had already started. It is not coincidental that morale problems in Vietnam can be shown to be directly proportional to the prevalance of conscripted soldiers, nor is it mere coincidence that after Vietnam the army suddenly decided to abandon the draft.
But quite frankly, it’s a stupid point. Vietnam was not lost due to a lack of discipline or morale. The American armed forces was superior to the Vietnamese opposition in every way, morale problems or no. They beat the snot out of them at every turn.
The United States could not have won that war no matter how much military might was applied, because there was no winnable objective. I don’t think you really understand why the war was lost. The USA won every major battle, and enjoyed a massive, massive tactical advantage on almost every front. The war was lost simply because there was, in effect, nothing to win. The Vietnamese were fighting, more than anything else, to expel foreign invaders from their country. The USA quite literally could not have stopped them from wanting this, or fighting for it, without killing everyone in Vietnam. No conventional military victories would have brought about victory for the Americans. And frankly, the results of a greater effort would have meant MORE Americans killed and maimed, not fewer. Getting out in 1973 might have been a loss on paper, but it saved thousands and thousands of American boys from dying in Vietnam.
I hate to point this out, and it might draw angry protests, but the United States was WRONG to be involved in that war. You were the aggressors, and the Vietnamese were defending themselves. The tragedy of Vietnam was not that the U.S. lost; there’s no tragedy in that. Why would it have been better for all those people to die with the U.S. edging out on top? It’s just as good that Vietnam won as it would have been if the U.S. had won. It’s their country, ya know, and they were entitled to defend it. (Not that I’m a fan of Communism - it’s a dreadful thing - but the war, really, was not about Communism, from their perspective.) The tragedy is that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon sent American kids there to die in the first place. The peace movement knew this, and they were not going to sit by and allow people to be killed for the sake of a war of open and naked aggression. That’s not the fault of the common soldier, though. However, in a democracy like the USA, the idea is that the people are supposed to say they’re pissed off at the government when they get pissed off at the government. That’s one of the checks and balances that keeps the government from getting into idiotic wars. The logical extent of your position is that a patriot could never oppose the government for wanting to start a war. Bush wants to invade Canada? Can’t oppose that, you’d be opposing the troops!
Indeed, if you wanna know why the U.S. lost Vietnam, ask yourself why Great Britain lost the American Revolution. There are significant similarities; an imperialist power, capable of projecting its power overseas, waging a complicated and running battle against both regular and irregular troops in a hostile environment, against an enemy with inferior military capabilities but helped by rough terrain and the intervention of foreign powers. In both cases the empire won most of the open battles, but still could not control the populace.
Had the United States not acted so stupidly as to get involved in Vietnam, 58,000 Americans would not have died needlessly. That’s what the anti-war crowd was trying to stop. And they did succeed in keeping it to 58,000, rather than more.
(I’d also point out that the peace movement in those years was a hell of a lot more than “Dope-smoking college students.”)
dragongirl your friends might not be idiots. They might just be opinionated, ill-informed and incapable of comperhending any concept more complex than simple black and white issues of right and wrong.
Just to add my $.02 you can be against the war. You can even protest the war. You may even be against the concept of “military”.
You still need to respect men and women who are willing to risk their lives and even take another persons life for their beliefs while your friends hang around the coffee shop debating and playing PS2. I wonder if push comes to shove, how many of your friends would be willing to die/kill for what they believe in?
Well, that’s not exactly true.
That year, Valley Forge area had a relatively mild winter with little snow. The soldiers had heated cabins. Not one soldier died of cold, though some did get frostbitten while on patrol. No one starved, though some foodstuffs were difficult to get.
Many did die of typhus and dysentery. But they were not isolated from outside medical care. The ill, dead or dying were transferred to the various outlying hospitals. (Records show that about twenty-six percent of the Army was ill/in hospitals in August.)
So where do we get the idea they were naked, freezing and starving? From George Washington.
The rations Washington’s men received would consist of beef, pork or salt fish; bread (or flour); peas, beans or vegetables; milk, rice, Indian [corn] meal; beer or cider; molasses; candles; soft and hard soap. (Rum and whiskey were also authorized, however rarely issued for scarcity.) The problem at Valley Forge was that the men had run out of * meat, * though they had their other foodstuffs.
Washington didn’t think that soldiers could be at their best on a meatless diet, and told Congress so in a pitiful, begging letter that greatly exaggerated the situation in order to get priority for supplies. “A part of the army has been a week without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days,” he wrote, but added that their current supplies would last for another month. ** No soldier at Valley Forge died of hunger. **
Nor were they “naked.” In the 18th century, “naked” meant not being fully dressed, such as missing your jacket or hat, or other part of your clothing. Washington’s army was clothed, but not in full military garb. While there were shortages of some clothing, the image of “bloody footprints in the snow” is a false one.
One more vote for: your friends are wrong. I just talked to my friend who has been an officer in the Army now for 12 years, and he’s not for the war.
And I am not keen on the prospect of war either, but I send letters and care packages to a guy who deployed to Kuwait. I support the men and women who are doing their jobs 100%. Even though I may not like what their CIC ends up telling them to do.