|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m certain that you won’t miss the possible edit and re-use of the above Vietnam table for todays Iraq. Perhaps the following will remind you even more:
Regardless of the terms, all three missions contributed to the same objective, that is, a sense of security and confidence for the South Vietnamese people. Since these operations competed for the same resources, senior commanders in Vietnam were required to achieve and constantly adjust a balance between them. The principal variables that influenced the balance were intelligence, weather, terrain, and availability of trained troops and support. Some knowledge of the changes that affected these variables during the different phases of the war is essential to an understanding of the shifting balance.
Four phases of the Vietnam strategy have been described by General Westmoreland. All four phases emphasized strengthening the Republic of Vietnam armed forces. In addition, during the first phase, from mid-1965 to mid-1966, the enemy offensive was blunted.. The second phase, from mid-1966 to the end of 1967, saw the mounting of major offensives that forced the enemy into defensive positions and drove him away from the population centers. In phase three, beginning in early 1968, the Vietnamese armed forces were additionally strengthened, and more of the war effort was turned over to them. (Chart 1) The final phase called for further weakening of the enemy and strengthening of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam as the U.S. role became, in the words of General Westmoreland, “progressively superfluous.”
See REF
Sadly I was there. Even more regrettably we’re all there again. This time I get to complain without pulling sandbag or body bag duty.

You must be logged in to post a comment.