Why Us Lost the War Against Vietnam

Why US Lost The War Against Vietnam?

During the 1900’s, Vietnam was one of the various countries across the world which fought for independence in order to decolonize from the European super powers. This steady process of decolonization was mooted by nationalism and encouraged by the actions of a resistance group of native leaders; all fighting for independence like Ho Chi Minh. This fight for independence caused a split of the nation into two different parts; North and South Vietnam. The communist north was controlled by Ho Chi Minh, while the anti-communist south was under French rule. The separation was largely due to the fact that China and USSR wanted Vietnam to be communist since Loas and Cambodia had already turned anti-communist. However, the US got involved since it supported the development of an independent South Vietnam and wanted to resist the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. (Willner, Hero, and Wiener, 478-8) Despite being more equipped in terms of military and the favoured force, US lost the war against North Vietnam because of three main reasons. First of all, the US underestimated the strength and resourcefulness of the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN) and Viet Cong, both armies fighting for North Vietnam. Secondly, the unfamiliar setting in a foreign country made combat conditions very hostile and due to this, there was a long casualty list. Lastly, the US “peace movement” in 1970 voiced by all parts of society, drastically decreased the overall support.

The US had two enemies in particular, which restricted them from defeating North Vietnam. PAVN along with the Vietcong were strong and resourceful. One of the main difficulties in fighting the PAVN was that their soldiers were conventional military units with proper training. Likewise, Vietcong were also full time soldiers with conventional formations such as battalions and divisions in order to launch more damaging attacks over a wide area. One of the many ways in which they kept the soldiers motivated was through the use of political instruction during combat training. Surprisingly, the US faced a tough test by early spring 1965, when approximately 12 Vietcong main force regiments were in place consisting of 1200-1500 men. (Westheider, 117) The Vietcong had strategies for hostile situations. For example, when the enemy pressure became too great, they broke down into smaller units and scattered in familiar conditions. In addition, both the major forces oppressing US forces maximized the utilities provided by China and the Soviet Union. For instance, most soldiers of the PAVN used Russian designed DP light machine guns and they also often used Chinese and Soviet mines. Along with this, both North Vietnamese forces had effective rocket-propelled grenades and recoilless rifles which destroyed multiple armoured vehicles and bunkers. Besides this array of weaponry, they regularly employed many booby traps. A common trap was the bamboo mace, which swung down onto soldiers; triggering trip wires and boards studded with nails. These devices were mainly created to serve the purpose of wounding the US troops and decreasing their morale. Due to these elements of warfare used by the Vietcong and PVNA, they were often regarded as brave, daring, resourceful and dedicated.

The hostile environment in Vietnam played an equal role to the organization of the North Vietnamese in their quest to gain South Vietnam. Most of Vietnam is situated in the tropic zone with variations in climate and topography. South Vietnam was regarded as one of the toughest battlefields to fight on by the US troops. (Westheider, 110) This is probably because fighting during the monsoon season was very difficult, worsened by an average of six feet of rain, resulting in overflowing rivers and flooding. Furthermore, they had to handle scorching hot days and humidity during daytime. Even natured favoured the North Vietnamese, as the troops were abused by all sorts of animal life from leeches and snakes in the rivers to mosquitoes, monkeys and scorpions on land. (Westheider, 109) Additionally, the terrain varied just like the climate from lowland paddies along the coast to mountains in the west. The terrain and climate made combat difficult with restricted movement. Since, the US and North Vietnamese forces fought each other under triple-canopy jungle conditions, a step in the wrong direction spelled disaster. As time progressed, the US realized that transportation of reinforcements, aid and air support was easier in comparison to operating on ground with minimal mobility. Soon, covering 100 metres an hour was considered making good time in the bush. (Westheider, 110) In contrast, the North Vietnamese maximized the home advantage by placing booby traps and using guerrilla warfare to add a new element to their strategy to conquer South Vietnam. All in all, the US doubted their abilities, even though they had never lost any previous wars as these external forces of climate, terrain and modern warfare played a major role in decreasing their overall morale.

The US Peace Movement in 1970’s was the final piece of the puzzle indicating their loss of South Vietnam, after they were undone by the resourcefulness of the North Vietnamese and the hostile environment. After announcing the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, President Nixon broke the trust with the public and he instead deployed troops to Cambodia. This led to the shooting of four students in the state of Kent, who were challenging the president’s decision. (Barringer and Wells, online) These shootings caused an increase in protests from several anti-war demonstrators which further ended in a student strike. The magnitude of the strike was high as up to 500 colleges were completely shut down. Not only this, but up to 100,000 people protested Nixon’s decision in Washington on a weekly basis. (Barringer and Wells, online) Later, a public poll showed that the majority of the participants believed that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake. The continued growing tension among the public made the Congress threaten Nixon’s presidency. Finally, the antiwar cause had been institutionalized and by 1973, Nixon announced the effective end of US involvement in Indo-china. The US had effectively lost war in Vietnam already, though Nixon’s decision to deploy troops into Cambodia led to public dissatisfaction which made Nixon repeal his decision, thus indicating that the US officially lost the war in Vietnam.

The US lost the war against Vietnam comprehensively which deeply affected them. The Vietcong and PVNA were one of the few major forces which managed to rival the US troop in terms of strategy, tenacity and organization. The climate and terrain created a very hostile environment which played a major role in decreasing the morale of the US troops, seeing as even nature favoured a North Vietnamese takeover. Finally, the peace movement was the concluding piece when Nixon announced the withdrawal of US troops after serious public unrest. The war was almost like a box of chocolates for the US, they never knew the enemy’s next move. All in all, the US did not expect this surprise outcome and ultimately failed in the process of stopping the spread of communism. Next, Johnson and Nixon were accused of abusing their power followed by the signing of the War Powers Acts in 1973. (Giles, online) Then, the US was reluctant to get directly involved in future wars knowing that they could be defeated with their previous experiences in South Vietnam. Nonetheless, the Vietnam War not only impacted Vietnam and US, but it also impacted the world as guerilla warfare was bettered, propaganda was more thoroughly understood and people learned to protest poor decisions taken by a government.

Word Count: 1250
Works Cited
Barringer, Mark, and Tom Wells. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." Welcome to English « Department of English, College of LAS, University of Illinois. 12 Nov. 2011 <http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html>.
Giles, D. "What was the impact of the Vietnam war on both the USA and Vietnam? - USA Divided Union: 1941-80 - Interactive diagram - www.SchoolHistory.co.uk." SchoolHistory.co.uk - online history lessons, revision, games, worksheets, quizzes and links. 24 Nov. 2011 <http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa194180/impact_vietnam.shtml>.
Lewis, Geoff. "HSC Online - Indochina 1954 - 1979 - Reasons for the Communist Victory." NSW HSC Online. 24 Nov. 2011 <http://hsc.csu.edu.au/modern_history/international_studies/indochina/3214/page34.htm>.
Westheider, James E. The Vietnam War. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 2007.
Willner, Mark, George Hero, and Jerry Wiener. Global History. Vol. 2. Hauppauge, NY: Barron 's Educational Series, 2008.

Cited: Barringer, Mark, and Tom Wells. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." Welcome to English « Department of English, College of LAS, University of Illinois. 12 Nov. 2011 &lt;http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/antiwar.html&gt;. Giles, D. "What was the impact of the Vietnam war on both the USA and Vietnam? - USA Divided Union: 1941-80 - Interactive diagram - www.SchoolHistory.co.uk." SchoolHistory.co.uk - online history lessons, revision, games, worksheets, quizzes and links. 24 Nov. 2011 &lt;http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa194180/impact_vietnam.shtml&gt;. Lewis, Geoff. "HSC Online - Indochina 1954 - 1979 - Reasons for the Communist Victory." NSW HSC Online. 24 Nov. 2011 &lt;http://hsc.csu.edu.au/modern_history/international_studies/indochina/3214/page34.htm&gt;. Westheider, James E. The Vietnam War. Westport, CT: Greenwood P, 2007. Willner, Mark, George Hero, and Jerry Wiener. Global History. Vol. 2. Hauppauge, NY: Barron 's Educational Series, 2008.