The legacy of General Westmoreland (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

Hey fellas:

Alright, I post this thread with some reservation as I think we all know General Westmoreland certainly has his detractors.

I've been watching a lot of Nam documentaries over the past month or so and have seen some interviews Westy has given. Just curious what peoples opinions are here on the boards of the man?? Was he a competent officer who was simply put in an absolute no win situation no matter what he did? Could he have campaigned differently? Could he have fought the political fight in Washington stronger or with more savvy?

The Nam vets I served with were really of the opinion that the man was in a hopeless position. Then some other Nam vets really beat up the guy (won't repeat it verbatim here {sm4}).

So, just interested to hear what everyone thinks? Did he do anything right?? Any campaigns or efforts that we can look back and say- wow, that was a good move?

Cheers
CC

 

[jazzeum]

All I have to say is "light at the end of the tunnel" and you know my opinion.

In retrospect, he was in an impossible position.

 

[pugio]

There's a deleted, extra scene on the dvd, "We Were Soldiers", that says it all... Col. Moore tells it to Westmoreland and McNamara.

 

[Currahee Chris]

There's a deleted, extra scene on the dvd, "We Were Soldiers", that says it all... Col. Moore tells it to Westmoreland and McNamara.

Wow!! 2 posts and this threads rocking a 5 star rating- thanks fellas!! {bravo}}

Yeah, I saw that one.

I also saw a documentary like in 2006 (I think) which delved pretty deeply into McNamara and his approach to Viet Nam. I have often seen Westy's command hampered by McNamara's policy decisions/ influences.

BTW- I read a few years ago that Westy was a Lt. Colonel at the Bulge and did a very effective job in his sector (I think it was in Citizen Soldiers).

 

[Louis Badolato]

I can't speak to Westmoreland specifically, but the combination of poor military leadership and political interference placed our troops in a nearly impossible situation in Vietnam. I would probably place equal blame on the military leaders, whose poor tactics, like put men in firebases where they were basically sitting targets for human wave attacks played to the strengths of our opponents, and the politicians, who put us into the position of trying to clean up a French colonial mess, while tying the hands of the troops with untenable rules of engagement.

 

[trooper]

The policy of positioning firebases in forward areas is very reminiscent of putting forts in Indian Territory during the Indian Wars. But IMO the main problem of the Vietnam War was that there was no clear cut end aim. To commit troops to take a position only to retire from it immediately without occupation seems to me the height of folly. Whether this policy was the fault of the military commanders or the politicians directing them is hard to say, but the loss of life resulting from it is obscene. Trooper

 

[Jay]

Read a "Bright Shining Lie" about John Paul Vann, a military advisor in Viet Nam. (There was a film done maybe 10 years ago. Don't bother to watch it, but the book is excellent.) He was colonel who became a 'civilian general' and died when his plane (helo? I don't recall now) was shot down.
Westmoreland. was not the brightest bulb, and he was put in a terrible situation to begin with. I don't know, given the political direction, that there was much more anyone else could have done better, but I'm not sure that many could have done worse.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Hello Jay-

I had to read it my first semester in College for a Poli Sci class. Excellent read (also read From Beirut to Jersusalem). Agree that the movie wasn't nearly as good.

 

[h.hammer]

When the General visited West Point during the Nam War, he insisted on a tennis match with one of the cadets. The cadet was told "informally" NOT to win the match. Of course he didn't even though he was a much better player than Gen. W.
I was there so I drew my own conclusions. What would any of us conclude about that arrangement?
(one of many stories about "chesty westy" , both when he was Superintendent of the Academy and of his visit during the Nam War)
Harvey

 

[jazzeum]

Harvey,

I would conclude that you don't want to tick off your boss. I've seen that happen before in corporate America. I'm not sure I can draw much from that.

Brad

 

[Terp152]

Read a "Bright Shining Lie" about John Paul Vann, a military advisor in Viet Nam. (There was a film done maybe 10 years ago. Don't bother to watch it, but the book is excellent.) He was colonel who became a 'civilian general' and died when his plane (helo? I don't recall now) was shot down.
Westmoreland. was not the brightest bulb, and he was put in a terrible situation to begin with. I don't know, given the political direction, that there was much more anyone else could have done better, but I'm not sure that many could have done worse.

Jay, I had A Bright Shinning Lie in an earlier draft post as a recommended read but deleted it. The crash was a helicopter that hit some trees.

Westmoreland was the Cadet Captain at West Point and the youngest major general in the army. So I don't think he was a dummy but caught in a war that could not be won by convenitonal means as you state. Chris

 

[h.hammer]

Brad,
I think you have to extrapolate the tennis match to other command decisions which were made more in the spirit of General Joffre at Verdun or Gort at the Somme.
Perhaps I go to far, but having been privy to some of Westmoreland's arbitrary decisions and accountability I think not Too far. I vividly recall his statement about the meaning of "body bags", and I don't mean Viet Cong body bags. Enough said on my part.
Harvey

 

[Jay]

Jay, I had A Bright Shinning Lie in an earlier draft post as a recommended read but deleted it. The crash was a helicopter that hit some trees.

Westmoreland was the Cadet Captain at West Point and the youngest major general in the army. So I don't think he was a dummy but caught in a war that could not be won by convenitonal means as you state. Chris

The problem with reaching upper levels in military is that it is not always the best and brightest, but the best brass polisher. And often one is going to move up because he agrees with the guy above him.
One of the problems Westermoreland had, which certainly wasn't unique to him, was that he was trying to fight the last war. He may indeed have been a sharp guy, may even an intelligent one, but that didn't make him the right guy for this war. Abrams, who also fought another war, was a much better fit. Remember, the military wasn't then, and probably isn't now, one for thinking outside the box.

 

[Terp152]

The problem with reaching upper levels in military is that it is not always the best and brightest, but the best brass polisher. And often one is going to move up because he agrees with the guy above him.
One of the problems Westermoreland had, which certainly wasn't unique to him, was that he was trying to fight the last war. He may indeed have been a sharp guy, may even an intelligent one, but that didn't make him the right guy for this war. Abrams, who also fought another war, was a much better fit. Remember, the military wasn't then, and probably isn't now, one for thinking outside the box.

There has been mention of an army LtCol who has written a 30 page paper about the failure to train (and why they cannot be trained) the Afghan army. The US army commander in Afghanistan has publicly disparaged the paper. I told my wife when I heard of this that I hope the author planned on an early retirement. Chris

 

[jazzeum]

There has been mention of an army LtCol who has written a 30 page paper about the failure to train (and why they cannot be trained) the Afghan army. The US army commander in Afghanistan has publicly disparaged the paper. I told my wife when I heard of this that I hope the author planned on an early retirement. Chris

That is often true. No one wants to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Isn't that what happened to Vann originally? Also, wasn't there a British officer who warned the brass before Arnhem that the Germans had tanks, etc. and he was shunted to the side. This is not exactly the same but reporters who saw the reality of what was happening in Viet Nam were accused of being disloyal and told to get with the program.

 

[Phil]

I've been watching a few Vietnam Doc's recently aswell, the latest is currently viewing here on pay TV.....nearly all the recently made ones clearly out line the military successes made by the US in Vietnam and while we can all argue on the acuracy or validity of the body count system i dont think there is any doubt that the VC and NVA were getting a real beating especially after Tet.

The problem for Westmoreland and the military in general was the lack of Politcal will and self interest of the politicains of the day expecially LBJ.

I dont see Westmorelands postion as being any different to that of Schwarztcopf's in the First Iraq war......had there been the politcal win to do the job properly there wouldnt have been a second Iraq war......had the politians not placed restrictions on the military during Vietnam ie, not allowing the infantry to "officially" operate in Loas and other neighboring countries it may not have been a 10 year war and may have had a different conclusion.

Military leaders at the highest level and in command in the field are always going to be the scape goats of the politians who send them to war in the first place. Westmoreland was in a no win situation and paid the price a I think the real questions is what sort of commander in chief was LBJ and Nixon.

 

[blaster]

Hi All,

Didn't Westmoreland come up with his ridiculous body count ratio as a measure of victory? But don't blame Westmoreland too much. I believe that the success rate for conventional troops facing guerillas is not very high.