Chain Of Command In Vietnam War

The Vietnam War had discredited the United States’ stereotype of being the strongest world power for being “undefeatable” in war by trapping the most powerful foreign nations into a merely undefeatable war, and by destroying any hope that the United States had for institutional change in Vietnam. The United States’ involvement in domestic affairs had again proved that the nation felt confident enough to present itself as the “problem solver” in issues regarding foreign policy. The main intention of Americans was to bring forth an established democracy to Vietnam that would overpower

The US has been known to diverge from its once-isolationist state, engaging in international affairs like World War I and several other events alike. It’s therefore no surprise that the US intervened in the Vietnam War during the 1960’s. At the time, President Lyndon B. Johnson put forth new ideas, plans and tactics to help and protect the South Vietnamese and surrounding countries from communist influence. However, the United States’ initial goals and plans didn’t always go the way they had expected. Indeed, Johnson’s Vietnam policies failed because of his unreasonable military strategies and his inefficient political actions.

War is believed to provide little, if any, benefits. One thing is obvious, however; war plays a major role in the creation of new tensions between the nations in the conflict. This was evident during the Mid-twentieth century. Majority of this time, the U.S. was in a war with Vietnam. The Vietnam war started in 1955 after Eisenhower promised the leader of South Vietnam that the U.S. would protect them from Northern takeover. This promised only got stronger under the terms of Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Thousands of soldiers were sent to South Vietnam to fight against North Vietnamese troops. A draft was even created in 1969. The consequences of the Vietnam war reached the American shore and had much effect on the U.S. homefront. The Vietnam

During Eisenhower Presidency he sent U.S troops to go fight in the Vietnam War. Although he was criticized for sending troops he did what was necessary and Vietnam needed our help. America was afraid Vietnam would turn into a Communist country so that’s why he helped to prevent communism and to isolate it, but we failed.

As the Vietnam War continued, the North Vietnamese reported on the public opinion in the United States. Specifically the American public’s reaction to any massacre of innocent civilians. After careful research they saw the Americans showing sympathy. Vietnamese then began to orchestrate a program to denigrate the U.S. military. They showed this by saying that the killing of the innocents was not accidental but a policy deliberately fostered by the U.S. High Command in Vietnam. General William Westmoreland was one such person singled out by the

The inconsistent application of Army standards leads to unethical decisions on a daily basis. Despite an emphasis on Army values at all levels, military leaders open themselves up to make unethical decisions when they don’t adhere to set standards. Despite the Army having clear standards on height/weight, APFT, the tattoo policy, and reporting requirements, leaders often take it upon themselves to ignore the standard or create their own. Leaders have the responsibility to maintain and enforce standards which are driven by regulations. If military leaders

As the media has become more involved in war, they have consistently misinterpreted the reality of war as misconduct by the U.S. military. This has resulted in restrictions placed on the U.S. military that puts many soldiers in unnecessary danger. These restrictions are called Rules of Engagement (ROE). In the

The number of troops had not only increased but also the secrecy among Washington leaders. United States military in South Vietnam was organized and structured under the MACV led by General Westmoreland, a graduate of West Point. He would report to his immediate superior, Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. In addition to its usual operations, the MACV implemented a policy of ‘pacification’ under the Cooperation and Development Support Program (CORDS) led by Robert W. Komer. Pacification is the formula that the United States utilized to imitate what the British had successfully achieved in the communist Malaya. The process involved swaying the majority in not succumbing to Communism and CORDS played the political

There are a lot of reasons for the rank structure and the chain of command. Every reason that I am going to explain in this essay is very important. I am going to separate them into two paragraphs. The first paragraph will be about the importance of the rank structure and why the rank structure is in place. The second paragraph will be about the importance of the chain of command and why the chain of command is set into place.

In the lifestyle of a service member it is so important to follow orders. In the Army following orders can easily become the difference between life and death. On a more serious note, in the battlefield the ability to follow a direct order can be extremely important because the ability to follow an order can not only save a soldier’s but the life of the others in his element as well. Vice versa if a soldier disobeys certain direct order the consequence can be his life, and that of others.

There is thus little chance for participation among the subordinates in the military, in the establishment of the standards of general orders. These can include anything from restrictions on alcohol during wartime to the requirement of avoiding tattoos as a soldier. The military is a fairly formal and strict hierarchical institution and orders are channeled gradually down. Difficulties in the military are generally attributed to the breakdown of this structure by lack of efficiency resulting from the inability of an individual or group of individuals to follow the chain of command. Following orders instills discipline and ensures that everyone in the military is in alignment with others' by providing a cohesive plan of instructions that ties the military together as one unit.

There are many reasons why a soldier should follow the orders they are given and every single one is important. An order is a tasking given to a soldier of something that needs to be done in a timely and efficient manner. The three main reasons why it is important for a soldier to follow the orders they are given is to be combat effective, disciplined, and to just be a good soldier. When a soldier doesn't follow the orders they are given in not only hurts themselfs but it hurts the team and the goals of the mission. When the mission objectives are hurt by not following orders this weakens everything that is necessary to win the war.

Soldiers in the field: For soldiers, the ROE was utilized to determine how they are supposed to respond to a particular situation. This is because their actions would have an effect on the perceptions of the war. Over the course of time, this created confusion in many units about their ability to engage the enemy. This resulted in greater casualties and losses from not taking the fight to the North Vietnamese. Moreover, these policies did not apply to South Vietnamese forces. This was problematic, as they were allowed to use certain practices that were restricted by the ROE. When this happened, there were increasing amounts of confusion and adverse impacts on morale. ("Effects of Restrictive Rules," 1995) (Lewy, 1978) (Moss, 2010)

The Vietnam War (VW) remains arguably the most contentious military conflict the United States of America (US) has ever been involved in. There has often been a tendency amongst historians to attribute the loss of the war to General William Westmoreland, who commanded all US military operations from the beginning of US involvement in 1964 to the Tet Offensive in 1968. Given that ultimately America failed to reach a decisive victory in the VW, numerous historians have attributed blame to Westmoreland for persisting with a failing strategy of search-and-destroy missions, waging a war of defensive attrition, and foolishly neglecting viable alternative strategies. On the contrary, Westmoreland had a comprehensive grasp of the nature of the war in both its political and military aspects, and cannot fairly be described as a ‘poor leader’ who fought the war ‘the wrong way’. This essay will seek to reach this conclusion by investigating three important propositions related to this question. Firstly, whether Westmoreland’s strategy of large unit search-and-destroy missions can be considered the ‘wrong way’ to fight the war will be examined. Secondly, given the circumstances can Westmoreland accurately be described as pursuing the ‘wrong’ strategy, instead of pursuing alternative tactics. Finally, this essay will investigate whether Westmoreland can fairly described as a poor leader for persisting with a flawed strategy of defensive attrition, even in the face of

These new principles involve taking lessons from what we have learned in recent conflicts regarding the relevance of civil-military relationships in leadership and the importance of morality throughout a campaign. Furthermore, they stress the importance of flexibility in combat operations, along with the correct approach for stabilization after the conflict ends.