Hybrid Warfare in Vietnam: The U.S. And South Vietnamese Success Against The Viet Cong Insurgency

Ismaël Fournier
{"title":"Hybrid Warfare in Vietnam: The U.S. And South Vietnamese Success Against The Viet Cong Insurgency","authors":"Ismaël Fournier","doi":"10.35318/mch.2021070104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In the past decades, most conformist studies dedicated to the Vietnam War were overly critical of the U.S. military's so-called reliance on conventional warfare in a country deemed to be plagued by an insurgency. Counterinsurgency programs were labeled weak and powerless to shift the Americans' momentum against the Viet Cong, which outsmarted the U.S. military. This article opposes these theories and suggests that by 1969, the U.S. force's reliance on conventional warfare against the guerrillas progressively morphed into a strategy that fully supported the military's counterinsurgency initiatives. Vietnam was a hybrid warfare theater, which required the Americans to fight both the Viet Cong guerrillas and Hanoi's conventional forces. Through the analysis of U.S. and Communist documents, this study suggests that the Americans succeeded in offsetting the Communists' tactical approach to hybrid warfare. As they skillfully synchronized regular warfare with counterinsurgency, the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces succeeded in defeating the Viet Cong insurgency by the spring of 1972.","PeriodicalId":161827,"journal":{"name":"Marine Corps History","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Corps History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35318/mch.2021070104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:In the past decades, most conformist studies dedicated to the Vietnam War were overly critical of the U.S. military's so-called reliance on conventional warfare in a country deemed to be plagued by an insurgency. Counterinsurgency programs were labeled weak and powerless to shift the Americans' momentum against the Viet Cong, which outsmarted the U.S. military. This article opposes these theories and suggests that by 1969, the U.S. force's reliance on conventional warfare against the guerrillas progressively morphed into a strategy that fully supported the military's counterinsurgency initiatives. Vietnam was a hybrid warfare theater, which required the Americans to fight both the Viet Cong guerrillas and Hanoi's conventional forces. Through the analysis of U.S. and Communist documents, this study suggests that the Americans succeeded in offsetting the Communists' tactical approach to hybrid warfare. As they skillfully synchronized regular warfare with counterinsurgency, the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces succeeded in defeating the Viet Cong insurgency by the spring of 1972.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
越南的混合战争:美国和南越成功对抗越共叛乱
摘要:在过去的几十年里,大多数关于越南战争的墨守成规的研究都过度批评了美军在一个被认为受到叛乱困扰的国家依赖所谓的常规战争。反叛乱计划被贴上了软弱无力的标签,无法改变美国人对抗越共的势头,而越共比美军更聪明。本文反对这些理论,并提出,到1969年,美军对游击队的常规战争的依赖逐渐演变为一种完全支持军方反叛乱行动的战略。越南是一个混合战区,这要求美国人既要与越共游击队作战,也要与河内的常规部队作战。通过对美国和共产党文件的分析,本研究表明,美国人成功地抵消了共产党人的混合战争战术方法。由于他们巧妙地将常规战争与平叛战争同步进行,美国和南越军队在1972年春天成功地击败了越共叛乱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cuban Missile Crisis at 60: Where Do We Stand? The 4th Tank Battalion in the Pacific: A Case Study in Field-Inspired Ingenuity The Siege of Enniskillen Castle, 1594: An Object Lesson in Combat Across the Land-Water Interface Marine Hawk Missiles in Guantánamo Bay during the Cuban Missile Crisis "To Take Some of That Fear Away": Task Cohesion and Combat Effectiveness Among Combined Action Platoons in Vietnam, 1965–71
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1