Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Vietnam -- Rules of Engagement
There are many reasons given for the fact that the United States lost the war in Vietnam, and that America was basically pushed out of the country by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army even though the U.S. had far more firepower. Among the more credible reasons America lost the war was the failure on the part of the political leaders back in Washington to allow soldiers, marines, Air Force pilots and others to take the fight to the enemy. In short, the rules of engagement (ROE) were misguided. The rules of engagement were those authorized by politicians, and not only were they very difficult to follow, they tied the hands of those men fighting the war. This paper reviews the ROE from the perspective of: a) the soldiers on the ground; b) battalion commanders; c) division commanders; d) General William Westmorland; e) Robert McNamara (secretary of defense); and f) President Lyndon Johnson.
Soldiers on the ground
The rules of engagement for soldiers on the ground in Vietnam were constricting, according to authors John Nichols and Barrett Tillman. "In Vietnam the political leadership adopted rules of engagement that ensured that America could not win the war" (Nichols, et al., 1987). The civilian authority constantly "overruled the unanimous recommendations of the military commanders," Nichols explained.
Douglas Willoughby explains that the infantry (troops on the ground) were "forced to follow" a strategy that was devised in order to "…reduce the risks to the Vietnamese civilians" (Willoughby, 2001). The rules that were handed down were "rigidly enforced" and when there were "perceived" violations, careers were "destroyed," Willoughby writes on page 23 of his book. Often soldiers needed to contact headquarters "to get permission to shoot at the enemy," and sometimes permission was granted but it "…came too late, if at all" (Willoughby, 23). The rules dictated "…when and how troops…could employ their weaponry," and this was supposed to be a strategy that would minimize the "collateral damage" to civilians (Birtle). In fact General...
War Crimes. There was a ROE that soldiers could not fire "…within five hundred yards" of a village and that was a "terrible dilemma" for troops, especially if they were fired on from the village (Nelson). Soldiers going into the jungle to engage the enemy always ask for air and artillery support to soften up the enemy before ground troops arrived. But when there were civilians living in the area near where the fighting was to take place, the ROE came into play so soldiers couldn't get the needed air support. "I begged the Battalion Commander for artillery to get us out of this mess," said Captain Isom with the 3rd Battalion, 8th Infantry (Milam, 2009). "We were refused gunships and artillery…I went in with 23 men and came out with 9," Isom explains (Milam, 108). The soldiers' frustration was not so much with the war itself "…but with the rules of engagement that prohibited firing when civilians were in the general vicinity of American troops" (Milam, 109).
Division Commanders
Major Ricky James Drake writes that the ROEs became "…a weapon for the enemy to use against America," and division air commanders prevented many military targets in North Vietnam from being destroyed (Drake, 1992). The ROEs were so "complicated and changed so often" that pilots didn't know what the rules were from "day-to-day" (Drake, 1). The ROEs issued by division air commanders "…were tremendously restrictive and caused pilots to assume a defensive posture," and no attacks on North Vietnam could be carried out "…without special approval from the White House" (Drake, 6).
General William Westmoreland
Westmoreland followed the rules of engagement by conducting "search and destroy" missions in…
Works Cited
Birtle, A.J., U.S. Congress, Armed Services Committee, and Center of Military History.
U.S. Army counterinsurgency and contingency operations doctrine, 1942-1976.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Dranke, R.J. (1992). The Rules of Defeat: The Impact of Aerial Rules of Engagement on USAF Operations in North Vietnam, 1965-1968. School of Advanced Airpower Studies.
Rules of Engagement During the Vietnam conflict, the Rules of Engagement provided distinct limitations on what military forces could and could not do. It is worth considering how the Rules of Engagement for Vietnam -- and the rationale behind them -- affected the progress of the military action there, and reflected the ideology behind it. An examination of six different points on the military's chain of command -- from the level
South Vietnam, it believed, could be a base for the desired ability to mount military and economic operations throughout the globe and regardless of the insidious presence of communist influence, a premise which stood in direct contrast to Ho Chi Minh's dream. Indeed, as an official policy, leaders in Washington considered that the fall of South Vietnam to communism would be a pathway to the prevalence of communism in other
Vietnam War and the Media The Vietnam War and the United States media engaged in a complex relationship in the 1960s and 1970s, and for the first time, Americans witnessed the influence of the media on the outcomes of an unpopular war. The core of their association was based upon the necessity to keep the general public informed on the events of the war and the devastation experienced by American soldiers,
Conventional Wars The rules of Engagement (ROE) used during war remains were established as recognition to the general or international law in the conduct of war, specifically the protection of civilian (International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2007). Rules of Engagement are composed of procedures, power of decision and limitations which the military forces may employ to achieve goals and objectives during the conduct of war. It is issued by authorities in
rules of engagement established in the war against the Vietnamese by the United States of America. It highlights the way those who engaged in the war on the U.S. side perceived those restrictions starting from the top political leadership to the soldiers in the battlefield. The United States of America's war against Vietnam came at the height of divisive world politics. This was the reason that led to the institution
ROE Vietnam Within the context of war fighting, the idea of limited war and the rules of engagement within that paradigm can often conflict if not counter act each other. The purpose of this essay is to correlate the understanding the rules of engagement (ROE) with limited war ideology as seen through the perspective and experiences of different levels of the chain of command. Individual Soldiers The Vietnam War was mosty a guerilla