Vietnam Military Power Today

Stealth & wealth in Moscow: MAKS 2011 up above the world


Vietnam Legacy Shapes Today’s Military Leaders

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2011 – Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War –- a conflict that claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and continues to affect the United States, including its military leaders and current wartime operations.

The fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, marked the dramatic and painful culmination of the Vietnam War. The last of the dominos were laid when then-President Richard M. Nixon announced the end of offensive operations against North Vietnam after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords on Jan. 27, 1973. The accords called for a ceasefire in South Vietnam, but allowed North Vietnamese forces to retain the territory they had captured.

With nearly all U.S. forces gone, and Congress’ passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 that cut off military aid to South Vietnam, North Vietnam became emboldened. Its forces began a steady march southward toward Saigon, the South Vietnamese capital.

As the North Vietnamese closed in on Saigon, Operation Frequent Wind, the largest helicopter evacuation operation in history, commenced, moving tens of thousands of American military and civilian personnel from the city, along with thousands of South Vietnamese civilians.

On April 29, 1975, the North Vietnamese launched a heavy artillery bombardment that would become their final attack on Saigon. The city fell the following afternoon when a North Vietnamese tank crashed the gates of the presidential palace, accepting South Vietnam’s unconditional surrender.

Ho Chi Minh’s dream of a unified, communist Vietnam was fulfilled, and the city once known as Saigon today bears his name. Vietnam now celebrates April 30 as Reunification Day.

The Vietnam War cost millions of lives, including 58,267 Americans, with more than 300,000 U.S. servicemembers wounded in action and 1,711 missing in action.

The Vietnam War had a profound impact on today’s American military leaders, including Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan. And in many ways, the lessons learned during the Vietnam conflict have shaped the way U.S. forces operate today, particularly in conducting counterinsurgency operations like those under way in Afghanistan.

Mullen, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, is among the few people still on active duty who experienced Vietnam firsthand. Fresh from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1968, he reported aboard the destroyer USS Collett for duty as an anti-submarine officer and participated in combat operations off the Vietnam coast.

Mullen speaks frequently about how the Vietnam War affected the nation and shaped him both personally and professionally.

“The Vietnam conflict was a life-defining experience for every American who lived during that era, and it continues to impact us all: the pain, the conflict, the healing,” he said during last year’s Memorial Day observance at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington. “The lessons we learned in Vietnam were bought at a very great price. Acting on them is the best tribute we can pay to honor those who died” — among them, some of Mullen’s own friends and Annapolis classmates.

While he was struck during that first assignment at the intensity of the conflict, Mullen said, he soon began to process just how divisive the war had become.

“What I take away from Vietnam is the detachment of the American people from the U.S. military — the disconnect and the unpopularity of the war,” he told U.S. News and World Report in April 2008.

Mullen frequently tells audiences he addresses that he had concerns during the early days of the war in Afghanistan that it would have the same polarizing effect. To his relief, he said at the Vietnam Memorial, Americans “are so incredibly supportive of our military men and women now.”

The chairman said he attributes the changed attitudes to the lessons learned from Vietnam about supporting troops unconditionally.

“During that time, as a country, we were unable to separate the politics from the people,” he said. “We must never allow America to become disconnected from her military. Never.”

Like most other current military leaders, Petraeus, commander of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, entered a military still healing from the Vietnam experience. Petraeus graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1974, a year before the fall of Saigon.

But Petraeus has studied the Vietnam experience thoroughly, even writing his doctoral dissertation at Princeton University on “The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam.”

That dissertation, published in 1987, recognized the lasting impact the Vietnam experience would have.

“The legacy of Vietnam is unlikely to soon recede as an important influence on America’s senior military,” Petraeus wrote. “The frustrations of Vietnam are too deeply etched in the minds of those who now lead the services and the combatant commanders.

“Vietnam cost the military dearly,” he continued. “It left America’s military leaders confounded, dismayed and discouraged. Even worse, it devastated the armed forces, robbing them of dignity, money and qualified people for a decade.”

This experience, Petraeus wrote, left many military leaders overly cautious. Specifically, he said, many felt “they should advise against involvement in counterinsurgencies unless specific, perhaps unlikely circumstances” ensure domestic public support, the promise of a quick campaign and the freedom to use whatever force is needed to achieve rapid victory.

Later in his career, as he oversaw the revision of the military’s counterinsurgency field manual, Petraeus applied some of the lessons learned through the Vietnam experience.

That manual has become the guide for counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. It emphasizes that military power alone can’t succeed against an insurgency, and the importance of public diplomacy as part of a “comprehensive strategy employing all instruments of national power.”

Informed by the Vietnam experience, the strategy also recognizes that clearing and keeping the enemy from an area alone does not spell success. A critical third tenet, it notes, is the establishment of a legitimate government supported by the people and infrastructure development that empowers them.

After applying those principles — first while commanding U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and now as the top commander in Afghanistan — Petraeus said he is seeing this strategy bear fruit.

Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month the coalition in Afghanistan continues to face tough days against insurgents, but is making steady progress in improving security and helping the Afghan government improve governance, economic development and the provision of basic services.

“These are essential elements of the effort to shift delivery of basic services from provincial reconstruction teams and international organizations to Afghan government elements,” he told the panel.

As the transition approaches for Afghan forces to begin taking security responsibility for their country, Petraeus emphasized that actions being taken now in Afghanistan will have consequences for years to come –- just as those in Vietnam more than three decades ago.

“We’ll get one shot at transition, and we need to get it right,” he said.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus

Laos History from Vietnam:

Laotian Kingdoms In 1353, after Laos had first been ruled by Khmers from Angkor, then by Thais from Sukhothai, Prince Fa Ngoum founded the Kingdom of Laos or “Lane Xang”, as it was called at the time, as a sovereign state.

It extended over present-day Laos as well parts of what is now North Thailand. The first capital of Laos was Luang Prabang. King Fa Ngoum made Buddhism the national religion.
In the 15th century the Vietnamese temporarily occupied the Laotian Kingdom and Luang Prabang.
In the 16th century Vieng Chan (Vientiane) developed into a parallel capital of the Laotian Kingdom. Burma, the dominant power in Southeast Asia in the16th century, gaining strong influence over Vieng Chan. Nevertheless, in 1563 King Setthathirat made Vieng Chan the official capital of Laos.
In 1575, the Burmese occupied Vieng Chan and stayed for seven years.
After two parallel Laotian kingdoms had developed in Luang Prabang and Vieng Chan, they were reunited in 1591 under King Nokeo Koumane.
In 1700 Laos broke up into three kingdoms: Luang Prabang, Vieng Chan and Champassak to the South.
After the Siamese capital Ayutthaya had been conquered and sacked by Burmese armies, Laos, in 1767, again fell under full Burmese rule. But after only a few years the Siamese kingdom, with its new capital Bangkok, grew stronger and Laos again had to obey Siamese overlords.
In 1827 the Laotians under King Anou rebelled against the Siamese but were soon defeated. The Laotian state disintegrateed.

Colonial Times
In 1868, after having annexed South Vietnam as a colony and having turned Cambodia into a French protectorate, the French sent an initial expedition to Laos to investigate the Mekong trade route to China.
In 1886 France received permission from Siam largely ruling Laos to install a vice consulate in Luang Prabang. In 1887, Siam, anticipating French expansion, vacateds large parts of Laos.
In 1893 France declared the Mekong the official border between Laos and Siam. Might is right; Siam accepts the unilateral decision of big-gun France. Laos officially became a French protectorate.
However, France had only limited interest in her new possession. Paris sent Vietnamese officials to Laos to set up an administration but did little to develop the Laotian economy.
In September 1940, after France was invaded by Germany, Japanese troops occupied Indochina without meeting any resistance.
Officially the word was that the French colonial power left all military installation for the Japanese troops to use; in exchange the French colonial administration remained in office. Therefore the years of World War II brought less destruction to Laos than, for instance, to the fiercely contested Southeast Asian states of Burma and the Philippines.
In East Asia, World War II ended August 14, 1945, with the capitulation of Japan. Subsequently, France tried to re-establish herself as a colonial power in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos.
On September 1, 1945, Laos declared its independence. France refused to accept this, and retaliated by sending troops into Laos. A guerilla war against the French colonial power started.

On July 19, 1949, France formally granted Laos independence. For almost three decades, from 1949 to 1975, the political situation in Laos was highly confusing. Three factions struggled for power:

1. Conservatives, commanding, among other forces, a 30,000-men army of the Hmong (Meo) hill tribe; 2. Neutralists, organized by Prince Souvanna Phouma; 3. Communists, lead by a feudal prince, Souphanouvang (a contradiction Marx had not anticipated).
The civil war among the three rival factions was, however, not fought as fiercely as the civil wars in Vietnam or Cambodia. Several times in three decades coalition governments were formed, including all three factions. The neutralists usually led the coalitions.
From 1964 to 1973 the US fought a secret war in Laos against Laotian communists as well as North Vietnamese troops channeling war material to the Vietcong in South Vietnam via the Ho Chi Min Trail through Laos.
After the US forces began their retreat from Indochina in 1973, the right-wing government in Vientiane was replaced by a coalition government of neutralists and the communist Pathet Lao.
In 1975, after communist troops conquered the capitals of Vietnam and Cambodia, the communist Pathet Lao gained sole power in Laos. While in Laos, too, parts of the population were detained in re-education camps, there wasn’t the kind of revenge as in Cambodia. Former neutralist Premier Minister Souvanna is not even arrested, just demoted in rank to government advisor.
In the following decades Laos cultivateed a close relationship with Vietnam. The most powerful man in communist Laos, General Secretary of the Revolutionary Party of the People, Kaysone Phomvihan, is half Laotian and half Vietnamese.
In March 1991, at the fifth congress of the Revolutionary People’s Party, far-reaching changes of the economic structure of the country were decided. As in China and Vietnam, private business, free-market competition and foreign investment are permitted in order to accelerate the economic development of the country. However, as in China and Vietnam, political leaders are not inclined to share power in a multi-party system.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: