HistoryNet mastheadHistoryNetShop Summer Catalog

Vietnam War: The Individual Rotation Policy

By Mark DePu | Vietnam  | 4 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

The rotation policy eventually spawned a lexicon of its own. One of the most derisive labels of the Vietnam War was the one given to the newest members of a unit — ‘f—in’ new guy’ (FNG for short). The label illustrated the sense of alienation, fear and isolation that a new soldier felt when first arriving to a unit filled with bloodied veterans. For their part, the ‘old timers’ counted the days to their DEROS (Date of Expected Return from Overseas), when they would finally escape the surreal world of combat in Vietnam.

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to Vietnam magazine

Given the corrosive aspects of the policy, why did the Army insist on one-year rotations?

In the tumultuous years following World War II, the United States found itself squaring off against an implacable foe, a powerful and expansive Soviet Union. The American people, for the first time in the nation’s history, accepted a large standing military and, by extension, a peacetime draft required to support it. The Cold War found American troops posted to desolate and isolated hot spots around the world, including Vietnam.

By 1965 the draft was deeply embedded in the fabric of American society. That same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson faced a crucial decision as he grappled with the growing crisis in Vietnam. The Viet Cong, increasingly aided by North Vietnamese regulars infiltrating south, were gradually gaining the upper hand. General William C. Westmoreland needed more troops to win in Vietnam — a lot more troops. That meant expanding the draft. Conscription legislation limited a draftee’s tour of duty to two years. With a soldier’s initial training lasting anywhere from four to six months plus a month or two of transportation time and one month of accrued leave earned for every year in the service, there was little more than a year remaining in a draftee’s tour of duty for service overseas.

Once Johnson made the decision to commit American ground forces into Vietnam, the follow-on questions were inevitable: How many troops were needed, and where would they come from? For the Pentagon brass, the answers were obvious. In order to win the war, they would need more than 1 million additional men, requiring a call-up of the National Guard and Reserve.

Harold K. Johnson, the Army’s chief of staff, was a leading advocate for this approach. In late 1964, he tried to convince President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara that up to four divisions should be used to seal off the border between North and South Vietnam all the way to the Mekong River. This implied that the war would have to be extended into Laos and, according to General Johnson, also necessitated a full-scale mobilization. Calling up the Guard and Reserve, he argued, ‘would show the American people we were serious.’ Conversely, he was convinced that if the reserves were not called up, ‘the quality of the Army is going to erode and we’re going to suffer very badly,’ a conviction he stated to McNamara. By May of 1965, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were united in their conviction that the nation’s reserves must be mobilized in order to find enough troops for the war in Vietnam.

President Johnson was adamantly opposed to their recommendation, and brusquely told the chief of staff: ‘General, you leave the American people to me. I know more about the American people than anyone in this room.’ That hardly settled the matter, for LBJ’s chief advisers continued to debate the issue over the next several months. Most of those in uniform favored calling up the Reserve components, while McNamara and key voices in Congress were opposed. In order to fight a hot war in Vietnam plus a Cold War simultaneously, the latter group argued, the nation’s regular forces would have to be expanded by increasing the draft.

Ultimately, President Johnson elected not to mobilize the Reserve and National Guard. To do otherwise, he feared, would only lead to a fierce debate in Congress about the merits of the war, a debate he very much wanted to avoid for fear it would derail his domestic agenda, especially the war on poverty. Better to fight the Vietnam War with the Regular Army, a force increasingly manned by draftees.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Tags: , ,

HistoryNet.com Subject Locator
  1. 4 Comments to “Vietnam War: The Individual Rotation Policy”

  2. The my grandpa was in the Vietnam War and he tells me storys about it all the time. My grandpa lost a lot of friends in the war, eventhough they died the are still heros and they will always be to me thanx for serveing in the military. God Bless!!!!!

    By Aimee on Sep 17, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  3. Although some individual replacements are useful and necessary to augment operational units, to rely only on such a system is not wise. Replacement Battalions, or “shadow battalions or companies” of troopers who have trained together and are then merged with a decimated unit provide the best solution. The Germans maintained divisional Field Replacement Battalions, which could replace a company or battalion as needed. Each military district had the job to build and train special branch “shadow” units for divisions from their district. The military districts even maintained “shadow divisions” to augment decimated divisions at the front. The unit rotation system used in Iraq and Afghanistan are a wise application of military management principles.

    By A. von Baehr on Jan 2, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  4. I was a Marine lieutenant in Kilo Company, Third Battalion, Ninth Marines. I arrived in Sept 1968 and took over a platoon whose lieutenant had been killed. I no sooner started getting to know my men than they started rotating out, one by one. I had three excellent squad leaders, and suddenly one went home. I got his replacement trained and snapped in and another one left. It was the same with the younger guys. And of course we took casualties who had to be replaced. There was very little unit cohesion, no time to bond, no time to learn to trust the guy on your left and right, FNG’s coming in regularly – the whole process was disastrous. At least today they are rotating units in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    By Gordon Davis on May 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm

  5. War is no fun at all and it continues well after you come back to ‘the world’ as we found out with Vietnam. There should be no rotations out unless wounded or worse. Knowing that you merely have to count the days makes everyone a bit cocky and you end up really not caring about the job, just getting out and going home. Then you fell the guilt and it is overwhelming.

    By Tom Salter on Jun 29, 2009 at 10:03 am

Post a Comment

Please note that HistoryNet Staff cannot respond to requests for research of any type. Please visit our research forum to post research questions. If you have a question about our magazines, please use the contact us form.

Related Articles



SPONSORED SITES







HistoryNet Article Archives Historynet Spacer

OPINION POLL

Which of these World War I aircraft was the best fighter plane?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

See previous polls

STAY CONNECTED WITH US

RSS Feed
 
Get Our Daily HistoryNet Email
 
 


What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

 Get our RSS!
 Newsletter Signup

From Our Magazines

Weider History Group

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer!

Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Contact Us|Advertise With Us|Subscription Help