Jay Ambadkar April 2021

To what extent did the USA fail to contain communism in Vietnam because of poor military
planning and inadequate strategy?

Before the peak of the Vietnam War, the US government was confident that it could prevent a
reunification of the country under communism and that its superior military technology could
overwhelm the North Vietnamese forces. These presumptions were proven wrong over the next
decade when several different tactics had been tried but were unsuccessful. This essay will discuss
the extent to which the USA’s failure to contain communism in Vietnam was caused by poor
planning and inadequate strategy, taking into account the planning and strategy of the US military,
the tactics employed by the Vietnamese military, the changing attitudes of the American and
Vietnamese people, and the role of the media in the war. This essay will also debate the relative
importance of each of these factors in the decision to withdraw from Vietnam.

One of the most important factors that contributed to the US failure to contain communism in
Vietnam was its own military planning and tactics. Towards the start of the war, the US appointed a
highly unpopular and corrupt leader in the South, Ngo Dinh Diem, because they ‘knew of no one
better1’, and supported his regime with $1.6 billion in the 1950s. Diem belonged to the higher
Catholic social class and treated the Buddhist majority with contempt, pushing more people to
sympathise with Minh and his Viet Cong, which undermined the American involvement in the war.
By 1962, Kennedy’s increases in US involvement had resulted in over 11,000 military ‘advisers’ being
sent to aid the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and this continued under his (more firmly
anti-communist) successor Lyndon B. Johnson, who escalated the situation dramatically so that
nearly 400,000 US military personnel were in Vietnam by 1966 2. However, this perhaps hurt the war
effort more than it helped, since more soldiers ended up being inexperienced conscripts, who were
low on morale and made the American presence less effective overall.

On the other hand, ‘Operation Rolling Thunder’ was the US bombing campaign of military, industrial
and civilian targets in North Vietnam that took place between 1965 and 1972. This campaign was
quite successful, damaging Viet Cong supply routes and war efforts and forcing them to negotiate for
peace; more explosives were used than in the entirety of WWII 3. However, air power alone was
insufficient and despite the intense bombing, major assaults, such as the Tet Offensive, were still
carried out. The heavy casualties and substantial damage to the Vietnamese economy also turned
the Vietnamese civilians against the Americans, and the bombing of neighbouring countries
1
John Foster Dulles, US Sec. Of State at the time. Quoted in Walsh B. Cambridge IGCSE History Option B: The
20th Century (second edition) (2018) P. 117.
2
Dept. Of Defense Manpower Data Center. Quoted: https://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm
3
New AQA Textbook: Aldred, J. and Mamara, A. ‘The Cold War’ (2015) P. 107.

2
Jay Ambadkar April 2021

(including Laos and Cambodia) aided communist revolutions there as well; this was precisely the
‘domino effect’ that the USA had tried to avoid but instigated it itself, which was a complete failure
in containing communism in Asia. Chemical weapons, including Napalm, were used to expose Viet
Cong hiding in the jungles, but destroyed many ecosystems and the low accuracy of their use caused
substantial civilian losses (over 100,000 tonnes of Napalm were used by the Air Force alone by
March 19684). The destruction of agricultural industry and further casualties rooted anti-American
sentiments in the Vietnamese peasants and made them far more reluctant to engage with the
American search and destroy missions, making the task for US troops of finding Viet Cong guerrillas
much harder.

Another important factor in the American defeat was the tactics of the North Vietnamese military
and the methods that they used to combat the USA. The Viet Cong started the war with significantly
fewer troops than the US and were far more willing to sacrifice as many as needed to win individual
battles. This is indicative of their commitment to their passionate desire for reunification and Ho Chi
Minh was unfazed by the huge casualties (one million Viet Cong dead by 1975 5 compared to US
casualties numbering 58,000 6) provided he brought the Vietnamese people on side and won key
battles. Another reason that the Viet Cong managed such a strong war effort was their strong supply
line using the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia and Laos. Despite its bombing, 40,000 workers kept it
open both day and night7 so as to ensure supplies to the South kept flowing and insurgents were
able to start uprisings and join offensives with all the necessary resources. Additionally, the Viet
Cong were able to dictate the nature of many fights, rendering the Americans’ training pointless in
many circumstances, by forcing the latter to fight ‘hand to hand 8’ in the thick jungles (for example, at
the battle of La Drang). But perhaps the most effective Viet Cong tactic was the use of guerrilla
warfare. These were hit-and-run raids on the US military by soldiers without uniform nor formal
bases before disappearing again. These attacks were successful because the Americans did not use
air power with their own troops in the firing line and the guerrillas lowered American morale by
causing them to be in constant fear; 51% of American casualties related to ambushes and close-
quarters combat. The success of these attacks raised the Viet Cong’s (and their sympathisers’)
confidence in their tactics, despite the retaliation they faced.

4
Dept. Of Defense. Quoted in Neilands, J. B. “Vietnam: Progress of the Chemical War.” Asian Survey, vol. 10,
no. 3, 1970, pp. 209–229. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2642575 P. 6
5
Walsh B. Cambridge IGCSE History Option B: The 20 th Century (second edition) (2018) P. 120.
6
Dept. Of Defence. https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics
7
Interview: Do Cong Ty, Ho Chi Minh Trail driver. Quoted: CNN Cold War – Vietnam
87
Interview: Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, commander, North Vietnamese Forces. Quoted: CNN Cold War – Vietnam

2
Jay Ambadkar April 2021

The attitude of the Vietnamese was another vital factor that contributed to Ho Chi Minh’s success.
The reason that the war took place to begin with was the American blockage of elections in 1954
because they feared that ‘possibly 80 percent 9’ of the population would have voted for unification
under communist rule; this indicated that most citizens in both North and South Vietnam were
already in favour of communism before the devastation of the war. The Viet Cong mainly evoked
sympathy from the South Vietnamese, especially peasants, by helping them on farmland and doing
helpful tasks, but also carrying out a campaign of terror against those who sympathised with the
ARVN. In contrast, the US was brutal in its search for the Viet Cong supplies and soldiers, often
burning down, bombing, and defoliating villages and acting harshly towards innocent civilians. This
only increased local hatred of America’s role in the war, which included playing a large part in
funding it, to the tune of $738bn 10 (in today’s money) and supplying it with arms. It can also be
argued that even if America had reunited Vietnam under non-communist leadership, this republic
may have collapsed within a matter of years anyway due to a lack of enthusiasm from the people.
Were America to have behaved with more decency towards the Vietnamese people, Viet Cong
support may have decreased in the South and the US may have had a chance of containing
communism in a similar way to Korea.

At the start of the war, the typical American attitude was that their superior military power could
easily overwhelm the Viet Cong; two-thirds of the American people said ‘they paid little or no
attention to developments in South Vietnam 11’ despite a heavy military presence that was already
established. This meant that Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) could continue to escalate involvement
without a large public backlash as it was widely considered that the US would win regardless.
However, by October 1969, 68% of Americans believed that it was a mistake to send troops to
Vietnam12 leading the public to move away from a generalised acceptance of the administration’s
policies and sparking widespread protests against the war. Many of these were based on the
premises of the cost of the war (‘$500,000 to kill every Viet Cong soldier … only $53 for every person
in poverty in the US’13), inequality (a disproportionate number of black US soldiers died in Vietnam),
and the purpose of the war. The protests were predominantly led by students in the late 1960s,
using chants such as ‘Hey, hey LBJ; how many kids did you kill today? 14’ and symbols of their
9
President Eisenhower. Quoted: Walsh B. Cambridge IGCSE History Option B: The 20 th Century (second edition)
(2018) p. 116.
10
Congressional Research Service, 2010. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf. P. 5.
11
Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs of Americans (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968), P. 59.
12
Hazel Erskine, "The Polls: Is War A Mistake?" Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (Spring 1970): 141-42, and Gallup
Opinion Index, numbers 56, 59, 61, 69, and 73.
13
Martin Luther King, April 1968. Quoted: Walsh B. Cambridge IGCSE History Option B: The 20 th Century
(second edition) (2018) P. 123.
14
American students, 1960s. Quoted: Issacs, J. and Downing, T. ‘Cold War’ (2008), P. 255.

2
Jay Ambadkar April 2021

rejection of American values, including the burning of flags and draft cards. Support for withdrawal
from Vietnam reached as high as 70% in 1969 15, with the largest protest in US history happening in
November, attended by over 700,000 people. The My Lai massacre was another atrocity that
shocked the American people, causing a peak in anti-war support as it reached the media. Without
doubt, this was a precursor to LBJ’s decision to not stand for re-election and to Nixon’s presidential
success, on the grounds of ‘new leadership in Vietnam’. This led to the ‘Peace With Honour’ and US
withdrawal in 1973, only for Viet Cong tanks to enter Saigon by 1975.

Finally, the role of the media was significant because it strongly influenced public opinion concerning
American involvement in the war. By 1966, over 93% of American households had a television 16,
which increased the scope of live visual reporting from Vietnam to cover almost the entire populace.
The news anchors in Vietnam were very widely trusted and had enormous influence over people’s
perception of the war, deciding what events to show and in what light to paint them. However, in
1968, the Tet Offensive was a turning point as the live images of US-held cities being overrun by Viet
Cong shook families watching at home from their presumptions of American superiority; CBS
journalist Walter Cronkite, who was regarded as the ‘most trusted man in America’, famously said
‘What the hell is going on? I thought we were winning this war 17 ’, despite the offensive being
thoroughly defeated in the end. With this considered, the media shaped public perception of the
war, leading to the protests, but were not directly responsible for the failure to contain communism.

In conclusion, it can be argued that the American failure to contain communism in the Indochinese
Peninsula (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos all fell to communism) was a result of the tactical failures of
military and political policies as well as the strengths of the Viet Cong. It cannot be said that other
factors, such as public opinion and Vietnamese civilian attitudes, did not contribute to the American
withdrawal, but these were not vital to Ho Chi Minh’s victory. They merely accelerated it in the short
term as it was unlikely that Minh, and his Viet Cong, would have ever given up, and the war was
quickly becoming unsustainable from a US funding point of view. If there were a single most
important cause, it would be the sheer determination of the Viet Cong soldiers that led the US
military to employ more brutal tactics that quickly soured US public opinion leading to the so-called
‘Peace With Honour’ negotiated by Nixon. Additionally, most public angst came after the tactics of

15
Lunch, William L., and Peter W. Sperlich. “American Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam.” The Western
Political Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 1, 1979, pp. 21–44. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/447561. P. 7.
16
Grant Cokeley. https://omeka.wlu.edu/americancentury/exhibits/show/the-rise-of-the-nfl/item/136
17
Walter Cronkite. Quoted: Walsh B. Cambridge IGCSE History Option B: The 20 th Century (second edition)
(2018) P. 122.

2
Jay Ambadkar April 2021

the US Army were brought to public attention, triggering the end of any sustainable war effort.
Therefore, I agree that the title statement is true to a large extent.