The Long Echo of Vietnam: Lessons America Never Learns
DINO GARNER
2X Pulitzer Prize Nominee. Army Ranger. NY Times Bestselling Ghostwriter & Editor. Biophysicist.
“God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” —Mark Twain
The Vietnam War taught crucial lessons about "asymmetric warfare," hearts-and-minds campaigns, political constraints and media influence. These lessons, still relevant today, highlight disturbing patterns repeating in modern conflicts. Despite historical experience, poorly executed institutional dynamics continue to steer military engagements toward familiar pitfalls, proving systemic resistance to implementing hard-learned wisdom that's staring us right in the face. There is also a hidden hand in the equation, guiding us in ways that are becoming known and are no longer mysterious.
Asymmetric Warfare Effectiveness
The Vietnam War demonstrated that superior firepower, technology and conventional military strength don't guarantee victory against guerrilla forces. The Viet Cong's hit-and-run tactics, underground tunnel networks, and ability to blend with civilian populations neutralized many US advantages, plus it killed many American troops who were indoctrinated in: "They're just little people in pajamas and flip-flops. You can take 'em."
Modern conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and other regions continue to prove this lesson: insurgents with limited resources can effectively resist larger, better-equipped forces through "asymmetric warfare." This has profound implications for military planning, requiring adaptable strategies that go beyond traditional force-on-force engagements.
It's a silly euphemism, "Asymmetric warfare." What does it actually mean?
"Asymmetric" simply means the warring sides are mismatched in conventional military power, leading the weaker force to seek alternative ways to fight effectively.
The term also sounds clinical and abstract, distancing us from the brutal reality of improvised explosives, civilian casualties, and urban combat. The same way "collateral damage" masks dead children, or "enhanced interrogation" obscures torture. The technical, almost mathematical term "asymmetric" brings to mind clean and sterile geometry rather than messy guerrilla warfare.
Power structures use such sanitized language in their propaganda spin cycles to:
When we say "hearts and minds campaign" instead of "attempting to turn the local population against the insurgents," or "pacification" instead of "forcibly suppressing resistance," these choices aren't accidental. They're part of how military and political institutions shape public understanding and acceptance of violent conflict.
The same dynamic appears in many domains: "workforce optimization" instead of "mass layoffs," "urban renewal" instead of "displacing poor residents."
Language-shaping becomes a tool for making harsh realities more abstract and therefore easier to accept, not understand at all, or ignore altogether.
Let's just call this type of combat what it really is: It’s the kind of fight where the little guy knows the land better than the back of his hand, fights dirty, and won’t quit no matter how bad it gets. He doesn’t have the fancy weapons, the big armies, or the factories churning out tanks and bullets. But he’s got grit, brains and a knack for making every scrap of advantage count.
Recall that war is a racket, and the powers aim to make it last as long as it is useful so a few can rake in billions of dollars.
You’ve seen it before—ragtag revolutionaries sending redcoats packing, jungle fighters outsmarting superpowers in Vietnam, and scrappy Afghans breaking a bear’s back. In the end, it’s not about who’s bigger. It’s about who’s smarter and more thinking, especially under extreme conditions, and people who are indeed tougher and refuse to quit, regardless of whether the Laws of Statistics favor Goliath.
It's also about indigenous people who fight, not out of hatred for the bigger opponent, but simply because they want their home back so they can live in peace. These enemies do whatever it takes to make Yankee go home. And in the process, they make it look like they hate America. They don't have the energy or time to hate America. They put that energy and time into waging war against us.
Hatred makes you stupid. Like arrogance makes you stupid. Simply put, stupid gets you killed in combat.
Let's discard the whitewashed term, "Asymmetric warfare."
The combat some of us have directly been involved in is a dirty, bloody, single-ROE (anything goes), whatever-it-takes fight to the death, and for me it worked in Africa where the enemy was the worst human animal I'd ever engaged. And there are no two-word shortcuts that define this all-out combat. This type of warfare is over fast and clearly violates the current rules of war.
War is a racket: A son's front-row view.
During the Vietnam War, my father, a highly decorated US Air Force F-4 Phantom II driver, designed and implemented the most successful operation of the entire war: "Operation Pressure Points." He personally designed and built it, and pitched it to US Army General William Westmorland and US Air Force General George Brown. Both eagerly signed off on it and they ordered Dad to remain in country an extra six months so he could supervise it.
In doing so, Dad upstaged his milquetoast wing commander, Colonel Pattillo, who, out of spite, downgraded his Air Force Cross and multiple Silver Star recommendations to DFCs and Air Medals, openly stating to his subordinates: "Garner and his WSOs were just doing their jobs."
Too bad the previous wing commander, Colonel Robin Olds, had departed only months before Dad arrived. Robin was someone who not only appreciated but rewarded his men for extraordinary efforts.
Dad carried out "Operation Pressure Points" and reduced the traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail down to less than 8%. Yes, he and his team killed 92% of enemy traffic on the most important supply route in Vietnam.
Someone in Washington saw how effective it was and halted it after one round, stating, to the effect, "We can't have a good war if there's no war at all," demonstrating all too well that the Vietnam War was a racket, as well.
Hearts and Minds
The failure to win Vietnamese civilian support proved catastrophic. Despite extensive civic action programs, psychological operations and economic aid, aggressive military tactics and civilian casualties undermined these efforts. The Strategic Hamlet Program's forced relocation of villagers and the destruction of rural areas through bombing and defoliation alienated the population. This was the second failure of this type of program: the Brits used The Briggs Plan during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) and fell on their faces.
These lessons remain crucial in modern counterinsurgency operations, where building trust and providing security and stability for local populations is often more important than military victories. Oh, it also failed in Afghanistan. And a few other places you're familiar with. Probably because you served there and saw it unfold.
Mission Clarity
The war suffered from shifting, ambiguous objectives, from containing communism to preserving South Vietnam's independence to achieving "peace with honor." This lack of clear, achievable goals led to strategy confusion and mission creep. Military planners struggled to translate political aims into effective operational plans.
Modern military interventions must have well-defined, realistic objectives that align political goals with military capabilities. Mission clarity helps prevent endless commitments and allows for measurable progress assessment.
When you don't see clearly defined objectives that can be translated into military actions, you know the game is rigged. And it's rigged to last a long time.
Media Impact
Television brought unprecedented war coverage into American homes, profoundly affecting public opinion, especially with the networks' misplaced and poorly implemented propaganda mechanisms. Graphic images of combat, casualties, and civilian suffering eroded support for the war. The "credibility gap" between official optimistic statements and media reports of battlefield realities damaged government trust. In short, the US government lacked integrity, something valued by citizens who are looking to it for leadership and guidance.
Today's conflicts face even greater media scrutiny through social media and 24/7 news coverage. Worst of all, coverage by amateur "news correspondents" who inject their own brand of biased analyses that are often far more effective (if not accurate) than those presented by mainstream media. Military operations must consider public perception and maintain transparency while protecting operational security.
Of course, if none of the above are effective, you can always just jam all electromagnetic signals in surrounding civilian areas and prevent communications from escaping to the outside world.
Terrain Adaptation
Vietnam's dense jungles, mountains and monsoon conditions negated many US technological advantages. Helicopters struggled in bad weather, tanks had limited mobility, and sophisticated equipment malfunctioned in humid conditions. The enemy's intimate knowledge of the terrain provided crucial advantages in movement and concealment.
Modern forces must adapt equipment, tactics and training to specific operational environments, whether urban areas, mountains or deserts. Environmental factors remain critical to military effectiveness. Given how quickly conflicts arise, it is next to impossible for the US military to maintain training grounds that mimic every type of environment it's likely to encounter. And, given some military leaders prefer to fight the last war instead of the one in front of them, it most likely leads to chasing the enemy all over the battlefield. An exhausting proposition.
Coalition Management
Managing the alliance between the US, South Vietnam and other partners proved challenging. Different political objectives, military capabilities and levels of commitment complicated strategy coordination. Cultural misunderstandings and conflicting priorities hampered effectiveness.
Today's multinational operations face similar challenges: NATO operations in Afghanistan highlighted the complexity of managing diverse coalition partners with different rules of engagement and national and cultural limitations.
No foreign leader wants to be under the management of another country's leadership. It's bad PR back home. It also usually leads to disaster when his own troops get killed because of someone else's blunder and bad tactics.
Enemy Resolve
The US underestimated North Vietnam's and the Viet Cong's determination to accept massive casualties and economic hardship. Fact is, the enemy had suffered hardship far longer than the Americans, and thus was able to weather even the worst of conditions. Their willingness to sustain a prolonged struggle outlasted American political and social will.
This remains relevant today: understanding adversaries' motivations, cultural values and sacrifice tolerance is crucial. Military planners must assess enemy resolve realistically and avoid assuming rational cost-benefit calculations from Western perspectives.
Unfortunately, the institutional arrogance of some military planners and battle captains ensures only one outcome for the US: defeat. That's what we saw in Afghanistan. And that's what we're seeing in other conflicts, including America's proxy war in Ukraine.
Political Constraints
Domestic politics significantly limited military options. Fears of Chinese intervention prevented invasion of North Vietnam, though the Chinese and Soviets occupied many parts of North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Soviet Army colonels supervised the capture, interrogation and torture of American POWs, then sent many to Soviet gulags in Siberia. American POWs languished for years in Soviet prisons, having been forgotten by American leaders. And they perished far from home and were buried in unmarked graves.
领英推荐
Anti-war protests, congressional oversight and electoral concerns influenced strategy. Restrictions on bombing targets and rules of engagement frustrated military leaders.
Modern conflicts face similar constraints: public opinion, international law and political considerations often restrict military operations, requiring strategies that work within these limitations.
Really, now. If you just examine the results, you see one glaring fact: all these shortcomings lead to prolonged war and ensure someone gets paid well. And young American troops pay the ultimate price: dying on foreign soil. And essentially dying for nothing.
Thank goodness we citizens and veterans recognize the sacrifices of these young people and do not allow them to be forgotten.
Regional Understanding
Limited understanding of Vietnam's history, culture and regional dynamics hampered US efforts. The conflict's connection to Vietnamese nationalism, rather than just Cold War ideology, was underappreciated. Local power structures, social relationships and cultural practices affected military operations. Today's conflicts require deep cultural, historical and regional expertise to develop effective strategies and avoid costly misunderstandings.
Actually, forget all that. Those who start and end the wars and conflicts don't give a damn about other countries' culture or history. The hidden powers start wars as a matter of convenience: easy money and favorable economics, especially afterward when the tech that fought the war will be transferred to the private sector and earn them 10 times more than during any war. And they end wars when the convenience becomes a low-ranking return on their investment balance sheet. It's all a matter of convenience. And money, largely because of tech-transfer.
Supply Lines
The Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia demonstrated how cross-border sanctuaries can sustain insurgencies. Despite massive bombing, supplies continued flowing south, until my Dad's "Operation Pressure Points" landed on their heads and all but halted that flow of supplies. Of course, Washington couldn't let the war grind to a halt so they shelved Dad's operation.
And then they suppressed the entire operation and any leftover paperwork so no one would ever know. I do know. And now so do you. Remember: "Operation Pressure Points."
Modern conflicts often involve similar challenges: terrorist networks and insurgents operating across national borders, requiring complex diplomatic and military responses. Border security and regional cooperation are crucial in contemporary counterinsurgency operations. When borders fail, it is usually not the fault of those guarding them.
Military-Civilian Gap
On the ground in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, tensions between military commanders and civilian leadership affected strategy. Different perspectives on escalation, bombing campaigns, and victory conditions led to conflicting approaches. Military expertise was sometimes ignored or misused by civilian decision-makers.
Modern conflicts require better integration of military and civilian leadership, with clear chains of command and mutual understanding of capabilities and limitations. Some of today's military leaders march in lock-step with civilian leadership. They fear losing their jobs, retirement benefits and being retired under a proposed "30-day retirement plan."
This plan of forced compliance bypasses traditional terminal separations, all suggested by a so-called "warrior board." Today's military leaders also fear being marginalized after retirement and being excluded from sitting on boards as a high-paid director.
In WWII, General George C. Marshall, along with an unknown aid who worked directly for the hidden hand, crafted a plan to remove or at least marginalize any US military commander who didn't toe the line. The rumor was that General Marshall was forced to draft this plan by certain civilian leaders who threatened to expose General Marshall's sexual preference. Yes, the man known to the world as the savior of WWII, and what President Harry Truman called the greatest soldier in American history, was gay.
Conversely, General George Patton could not be coerced by the powers. And he paid the ultimate price. Same with Lieutenant General Frank Andrews whose B-24 was sabotaged, killing one of the lone proponents of an independent US Air Force. The Soviets were intimately involved in both assassinations. They still are.
Such are the pitfalls that await our military leaders who do the bidding of US civilian leadership. Stay in line, keep your job. And your life. Step out of bounds, your career is toast. Maybe you, too.
Technological Limits
Despite superior technology, the US struggled against simpler but effective enemy tactics. Advanced weapons couldn't overcome strategic and political shortcomings. Electronic sensors, computers and sophisticated weapons systems had limited impact against determined guerrilla forces.
Today's military planners must recognize technology's limitations and maintain basic warfare skills alongside high-tech capabilities. A handheld GPS device that doesn't function under a triple-canopy jungle soon becomes a useless 2-lb. weight in someone's ruck.
In Ranger Battalion, the biggest expense in training wasn't 5.56 or 7.62 rounds. Or even MREs or Hot-As. It was batteries. Low-tech power sources that powered high-tech hardware that often did not work. Batteries are heavy, too. And the lithium types often explode when they get wet, especially since they're all lowest-bidder batteries. Exploding batteries is a known hazard among soldiers who operate under austere conditions. Like rain. Snow. And under conditions where batteries are subject to blunt-force trauma that exposes their volatile guts to air and water.
And while our wet batteries were drying slowly and our high-tech crap was struggling to come on line, the enemy was advancing closer to our position, drawing a bead on some young soldier's head. BOOM.
Exit Strategy
The lack of a clear withdrawal plan complicated US disengagement. The "Vietnamization" program came too late and proved inadequate. Hasty withdrawal damaged US credibility and abandoned allies. It happened during the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI and so on.
Modern interventions must include realistic exit strategies from the start, with clear metrics for success and plans for transitioning responsibility to local forces. After examining several exit strategies over the decades, I concluded that there really wasn't one. In any of those wars or conflicts. It's as if the plan to exit was hastily formed in the eleventh hour by an overworked lieutenant, fresh out of a college ROTC program. Or it was never even considered at all, until some Congressional oversight committee demanded to hear it.
Such an "Einbahnstrasse" approach to fighting a war clearly demonstrates that civilian leadership sees us warfighters as cannon fodder, nothing more. In Florida fairly recently, a Congressional representative remarked that they don't care if our military "folk" don't come home. It's more expensive to have them return home, he said, because then the VA has to take care of them and that's even more costly than training them in the first place.
Intelligence Reliability
Over-reliance on quantifiable metrics like body counts and hamlet pacification rates provided misleading progress indicators. Intelligence analysis often reflected desired outcomes rather than ground reality.
The conflicts we see today require diverse intelligence sources and critical analysis of smartly developed success metrics. Qualitative factors like political stability and popular support must be considered alongside numerical data like body counts and number of American flags to drape over coffins.
Local Government Support
South Vietnam's government struggled with corruption, inefficiency and limited popular legitimacy. US support couldn't overcome these fundamental weaknesses, dragging around a dead horse.
Modern interventions must carefully assess local partner governments' effectiveness and popular support. Building legitimate, capable local institutions is crucial for long-term stability. Of course, who the hell wants to plan that far ahead when you only plan for a year-long war? Do you think Russia gives a hoot about re-building Ukraine after this thousand-day war? Russia simply wants to expand their territory, and Putin doesn't care if it's a million acres of smoldering garbage and wasteland that the Russian Army created. A country's border, regardless of what is within it, is still a border. Putin wants an expanded border, preferably expanded westward to push back NATO.
Psychological Impact
The war's psychological effects on soldiers and civilians proved lasting. Combat stress, rotating individual replacements rather than units, and unclear mission purpose affected morale. Public division over the war created social tensions.
Modern military operations must better address psychological health, unit cohesion and the war's impact on society. It wouldn't hurt that we also consider that more than 30 US troops suicide themselves each day. Thirty. No, more than that. When I see a statistic like this, I think: Someone is trying to kill off our youth and our special-operations warriors. And I wonder why they would do such a thing? Well, because it effectively removes the one entity that the hidden hand doesn't want to oppose them: a pissed off and slightly deranged Middle Class American with combat skills.
Adaptation Speed
The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces quickly adapted to US tactics and technology. They developed effective countermeasures to air power, artillery and search-and-destroy operations.
Modern adversaries similarly adapt rapidly to new military technologies and tactics, requiring constant innovation and flexibility in military approaches. Each new clever American military actions means that the enemy develops a countermeasure. And that countermeasure then requires its own countermeasure. The dog chasing its tail? The similarity lies in the self-perpetuating circular nature, whereby each move prompts a counter-move, creating a continuous loop.
However, unlike a dog chasing its tail (where nothing really changes except the dog runs to muscle failure), this military dynamic is more like an upward spiral or arms race, where both sides are continuously developing more sophisticated capabilities.
A concrete example is the development of armor vs. anti-armor weapons:
The key difference from a tail-chasing dog is that each iteration actually changes the strategic landscape. It's not just running in circles. It's more like an evolutionary arms race where both predator and prey keep developing new adaptations. After a while, during the blur of developing countermeasures, one cannot tell who is the predator and who is the prey.
What makes this particularly challenging in modern warfare is the accelerating pace of technological change. On the battlefield in Ukraine, when one brand-new drone is too easily detected and shot down by Russian forces because they just saw the same one yesterday and began work on overcoming it, the Ukrainians then bring in a cheap model from South Korea that flies six inches above the ground and any obstacle it encounters, and finds its target true. BOOM.
Cost Assessment
The war's human and financial costs far exceeded initial estimates. Beyond combat casualties, social costs included veteran healthcare, environmental damage and societal divisions. Economic impacts lasted decades.
Modern conflicts require realistic assessment of long-term costs and commitments before intervention. Examine the results and you'll discover that US civilian leadership doesn't care about these costs of war. We are still paying dearly for veterans' exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam 60 years ago. Now tell me: do you honestly think any civilian leader gives a crap about the human and financial cost of war, let alone whether they exceeded initial estimates?
International Law
Treatment of civilians and prisoners affected international opinion and support. Incidents like the My Lai massacre damaged US credibility and also exposed how far some American soldiers would go to harm innocent civilians.
Modern operations face intense scrutiny over compliance with international law and human rights standards. Rules of engagement must balance military effectiveness with legal and ethical constraints. Right. Hand a badass 19-year-old Army Ranger a rifle and an azimuth. Tell him to hunt down and kill the enemy. And when he does and also accidentally takes out a few civilians who got in the way, court-martial him. The signal it sends to other Rangers is chilling, and it causes confusion in the ranks. It breeds distrust in the chain of command. It creates ambiguity in the ranks. All this and more because of artificial laws and rules like the Geneva Conventions and certain laws of war young kids don't understand or give a shit about. They just want to kill bad guys, after all. Like you taught them.
Veterans' Care
Post-war support for veterans proved inadequate. PTSD, Agent Orange effects, and other health issues required long-term care that continues to this day. Social reintegration challenges affected many veterans.
Today's military planning must include comprehensive veteran support systems, addressing physical and mental health needs, education and employment assistance. The fact that these measures weren't in place to begin with tells us one important thing about our civilian leadership: they don't give a damn about American military personnel or veterans. They also know that veterans will do as they're told and will not challenge them. Up to the day when thousands of veterans across America storm the castles of those in power, and. . . .
Veterans today must realize they have much more personal power than civilian leadership says they do. When the hidden hand and its civilian leaders who do their bidding are exposed, veterans will rise up and start taking heads. And someone will be there to record everything for future generations to analyze and act on. Time to pay the hidden hand a visit.
#VietnamLessons #WarAndPeace #AsymmetricWarfare #MilitaryHistory #HeartAndMinds #WarStrategy #ModernConflicts #MilitaryIndustrialComplex #PowerDynamics #InstitutionalInertia #HistoryRepeating #WarPolitics #MilitaryLeadership #PoliticalWill #PublicOpinion #MediaAndWar #StrategicPlanning #VeteransCare #CounterInsurgency #PolicyLearning
Gate Gourmet - Author - Screenwriter
3 个月Consider this. High crime areas in the U.S. usually have large, sophisticated police forces.