Comments on: Reviews - Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam http://www.historynet.com/review-westmoreland-the-general-who-lost-vietnam.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 22 May 2013 02:58:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Carl Ames http://www.historynet.com/review-westmoreland-the-general-who-lost-vietnam.htm#comment-820510 Carl Ames Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:49:44 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685333#comment-820510 I would like to find out the name of General Westmoreland's Aid de Camp around 1965 to 1968? I would like to find out the name of General Westmoreland's Aid de Camp around 1965 to 1968?

]]> By: Luke http://www.historynet.com/review-westmoreland-the-general-who-lost-vietnam.htm#comment-808790 Luke Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:41:54 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685333#comment-808790 It is a common thing to be critical of a general. The truth is how could a general of any military competence understand that war. In fact if the american definition of korea was a police action, then under what classification is vietnam anything else. In fact korea was more a conventional war the vietnam with formal armies fighting over the country. In fact perhaps one definition of vietnam is that it is like Iraq except the US did not go into the captial of their enemey in force and capture the country, destroying its central leadership. instead they fought an insurgency and an enemy in the form of a regular army without putting two army groups on the ground and launching a full scale invasion of the north there was no real chance for victory except the possibility of winning through attrician. So if the book is just a critical document of Westmoreland it is misguided as the whole war was. It is a common thing to be critical of a general. The truth is how could a general of any military competence understand that war. In fact if the american definition of korea was a police action, then under what classification is vietnam anything else. In fact korea was more a conventional war the vietnam with formal armies fighting over the country.

In fact perhaps one definition of vietnam is that it is like Iraq except the US did not go into the captial of their enemey in force and capture the country, destroying its central leadership. instead they fought an insurgency and an enemy in the form of a regular army without putting two army groups on the ground and launching a full scale invasion of the north there was no real chance for victory except the possibility of winning through attrician.

So if the book is just a critical document of Westmoreland it is misguided as the whole war was.

]]> By: Mike H. http://www.historynet.com/review-westmoreland-the-general-who-lost-vietnam.htm#comment-796733 Mike H. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:29:18 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13685333#comment-796733 LTC Antony Herbert (ret.) in his book, "Soldier", exposed the systemic failures of the US Army senior leadership in the 1960's and 1970's, from the top down. Sadly, while we had arguably the finest troops ever fielded in combat by any army, ever; we had all the WWII "also-ran" officers and second-stringers that had stayed in while the good officers got out in the early 1950's. Add Robert S. MacNamara and Lyndon Baines Johnson to this hell-broth, and it isn't too hard to see what went terribly wrong in that sad place, Vietnam. LTC Antony Herbert (ret.) in his book, "Soldier", exposed the systemic failures of the US Army senior leadership in the 1960's and 1970's, from the top down. Sadly, while we had arguably the finest troops ever fielded in combat by any army, ever; we had all the WWII "also-ran" officers and second-stringers that had stayed in while the good officers got out in the early 1950's. Add Robert S. MacNamara and Lyndon Baines Johnson to this hell-broth, and it isn't too hard to see what went terribly wrong in that sad place, Vietnam.

]]>