On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War
Contents:
About the Author Harry G. Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War Paperback: Presidio Press; Reissue edition June 1, Language: Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video. In , the brown water Navy fought battles along narrow canals and rivers in the Mekong Delta. A Memoir of My Ye A year-old woman joins the Army to pay for nursing school, only to find herself in a combat hospital during the Vietnam War. Huey helicopter pilot, Bob Ford, shares untold stories in this inspirational account of his time in Vietnam honoring the men he served alongside. The heartfelt story of one Vietnam Veteran's journey to, through, and home again from Vietnam in Share your thoughts with other customers.
Write a customer review. Read reviews that mention summers military american clausewitz political principles strategic army north forces failure col required iraq support force effort vietnamese america government. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. Written originally as a study of the war for the US Army War College Colonel Summers' work was an instant success in the military as well as with the general public.
First published in this book makes clear that the outcome of the war had nothing to do with the fighting ability of the US military. In engagement after engagement the forces of the Viet Cong and of the North Vietnamese Army were thrown back with terrible losses. Yet, in the end, it was North Vietnam, not the United States, that emerged victorious. How could we have succeeded so well, yet failed so miserably? That disturbing question was the reason for this book. As a framework for the critical analysis of the war Colonel Summers uses the principles of war set down by Carl von Clausewitz.
Colonel Summers also examines those principles as set down in the US Army field manuals, the texts used by the Army to craft strategy and tactics. The clock would run out in To support this Colonel Summers notes that after Tet the Viet Cong insurgency was all but destroyed yet the war continued. He also notes that of the three occasions when the North Vietnamese decided the time was ripe to finish the South Vietnamese Army and Government they relied on NVA formations.
Of course only one of those efforts was successful, the one in This is a very brief overview of what Colonel Summers has to say about the war. He has much more to offer and it is all extremely compelling and very readable. Anyone interested in what the hell happened in Vietnam should read this book. Although it is not necessary I think the reader would get the most form this book if the reader has a working knowledge of the War.
One person found this helpful 2 people found this helpful. Kindle Edition Verified Purchase.
I'm not sure we have learned the important lessons from Vietnam. Especially when it comes to counter insurgency. Most recently Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't think we have the patience to deal with the mess that I believe we help to create and to a degree we prepetuate. We went into those countries without doing the necessary homework to be successful over the long term.
I don't think we coordinated internally very well. To much bickering and turf battles. I had purchased a hard bound first edition while I was at OBC. I thought less of it then as I was immersed in the tactical back then. As my perspective has grown wider, my appreciation for the book now a paperback has improved.
On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War
Unfortunately, I don't see much appreciation for the lessons learned. About the only one that seems to ring true is the importance of keeping the home front involved and supportive of the war. Our approach to this has been to deny the public almost all knowledge about the conflicts we are involved in. I'm not sure that's an improvement. But the importance of unity of effort and a truly clear and militarily achievable objective seem to be lost on my peers who are now the divisional and brigade leaders. The lessons will be hard to re-learn.
The following are quotes from the book which should give you some idea how fair and objective Colonel Summers was. So, if you're trying to understand the Vietnam War as I am , buying this book is an absolute requirement. And, ironically, it does not matter whether you were for or against this war. It's not one of those books where the ideology driven people will get all bent out of shape trying to defend the positions they took 30 or so years ago.
Read the quotes; I think you'll agree that Summers was fair. It was a strategy that was based on the attrition of the enemy through a prolonged defense and made no allowance for decisive offensove action. It was a different. All of America's previous wars were fought in the heat of passion. Vietnam was fought in cold blood, and that was intolerable to the American people. See all 58 reviews. Most recent customer reviews. Published 22 days ago. Published 27 days ago.
Published 4 months ago.
Harry G. Summers was an infantry squad leader in the Korean War and a battalion and corps operations officer in the Vietnam War. He later served on the . Editorial Reviews. Review. “On Stategy is just about the best thing I have read on Vietnam.”—Drew Middleton, The New York Times “Perhaps the most trenchant.
Published 6 months ago. A critical analysis of a critical analysis. The American people were not comprehensively mobilized, but it's hard to think of a strategic US interest at issue in Indochina, both in terms of contemporary superpower politics and with the benefit of historical hindsight. Finally, for the "well if you're so smart, you do it" question, Summers' suggestion for how to fight the war involves a cordon of US troops stretching across Laos from the Vietnamese DMZ through to the border with Thailand, and heavy ongoing air strikes against Hanoi and Haiphong.
I can't see this being easy, or avoiding a massive escalation of the Cold War. My final assessment is that Summers wants to have his cake and eat it to. If Vietnam is a limited war, then the relatively paucity of American interests in the region against the absolute interests of the North Vietnamese leadership to reunify their country must be accepted. Either way, Summers isn't wrong but he isn't yet right.
This is an important book on the Vietnam War, but one that must be read carefully and in context. Apr 18, Mike Hankins rated it it was ok Shelves: This book, like many war books, is more interesting as an artifact of historiography than it is as actual history. It's important to read it, only because so many other people have read it and it exerts a large influence on the literature. That said, its not a particularly good book.
Its analysis is simplistic and seems a bit under-researched. Calling it a work of history is a bit misleading. If you're new to studying the conflict, you might want to start with a more generic book to give you the context and chronology that Summers explores here.
The book is divided into two sections, the first dealing with issues relating to the American people, morale, protest, etc. The second deals directly with military operational questions. Through both of these sections, Summers analyses the war in the context of Clausewitz's famous work, 'On War. Summers points to several problems, the two main ones he identifies as a failure to galvanize public support for the war, and a failure to recognize the true nature of the conflict. By this, he means that the insurgency in the south, the guerilla-style war which is so synonymous with the Vietnam, was essentially a smoke-screen, blinding us from the true nature of the conflict, which was a traditional military engagement.
He notes that South Vietnam was not defeated by an insurgency, but by a division, highly organized, highly mechanized military force. Thus, America was fighting the wrong war in the wrong place. This analysis has some truth to it to be sure, but using Clausewitz in this way is problematic. One could probably easily use other Clausewitz quotes to disprove some of Summers' points. More problematic is the sense that 'On Strategy' as a whole seems to be an attempt to save face, showing that there were a few simple steps that could have been taken for America to win the war.
Summers thus saves, or atleast excuses, the reputation of the American military.
,445,291,400,400,arial,12,4,0,0,5_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
However, it's easy to say that we could have won the war by taking an all-out military approach. But what would have been the consequences of that? How would the North Vietnamese have responded? How would the Soviets have responded? Where would China be in all of this? If America increased its resources and commitment in the area, the game would have changed completely, in a way thats impossible to predict.
The book is still a good read, and worth the time. It's also short and goes quick--it's engaging and very readable. It's also such a cornerstone for literature on the Vietnam conflict that it should probably be read by anyone interested in studying the conflict. This is a book that everyone read at the time, and had a large influence on writers that came after.
However, it should be taken with a handful of salt. Something as messy as war doesn't always fit into the box that Summers makes for it. Nov 19, Richard Quis rated it it was amazing. A strategic examination based on the classic principals of war that provides insight into how a superpower with overwhelming conventional superiority can exhaust itself against a militarily sophisticated third world country. Clausewitz's theory and Summers explanation of "friction"in war Summers makes clear there is no such thing as a "sple A strategic examination based on the classic principals of war that provides insight into how a superpower with overwhelming conventional superiority can exhaust itself against a militarily sophisticated third world country.
Document Preview
Summers makes clear there is no such thing as a "splendid little war," "a war fought on the cheap," or "a slam dunk war. The enemy always has havens, political sanctuaries and brutal responses in every war: Apache Indians skillfully used Mexican territory to avoid capture, the North Viennese used tunnels and neutral countries to move troops and supplies, the Taliban hides in remote mountain caves, Al Qaeda rules from the lawless tribal regions of Pakistan and Iraqi insurgents use IED's and suicide bombers.
Arrogance, superpower status and wishful thinking don't win wars If you want to know how to use an army wisely and understand the need to manage political expectations, On Strategy will get you started. May 07, Fred rated it liked it Shelves: Started out so strong and interesting and after a while I felt a little like the author was repeating the same thoughts over and over and just changing up how he presented them in each new chapter.
It's still worth reading, but this will never be considered a comprehensive history of the war, or a comprehensive anything for that matter. Make this an auxiliary compendium to go along with some other books on the subject. Apr 14, Theodore rated it really liked it. Colonel Summers offers a critical analysis on the pursuit of the war in Vietnam, strictly from a military strategy standpoint he stays out of the "ideological" arena. It's focus is on what went wrong, what went right, as well as what needed to improve.
Product details
In his analysis, he uses the standards of Clausewitz as stated in "On War". Nov 13, Dustin rated it really liked it Recommends it for: This is better than anything I've ever read about the Vietnam War. He shines in communicating what the theater looked like and how politics shaped the actions of the players.
Feb 09, Ben B rated it it was amazing Shelves: The best analysis of the Vietnam War I have read. Harry Summers, who was there, takes a birds-eye view of the overall strategic situation, and explains exactly what the USA did wrong.
Sep 19, Harry rated it it was amazing. The single most impressive account of Vietnam from the strategic, not political, standpoint. A must read if you are a student of military history. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Quotes from people like Lieutnant General James F. Hollingsworth "Any damned fool can write a plan. It's the execution that gets you all screwed up", p.
Summer also works on making the reader understanding the complicated nature of the topic "They aim at fixed values; but in war everything is uncertain, and calculations have to be made with variable quantities. They direct the inquiry exclusively toward physical quantities, whereas all military actio Quotes from people like Lieutnant General James F. They direct the inquiry exclusively toward physical quantities, whereas all military action is intertwined with psychological forces and effects. They consider only the unilateral action, whereas war consists of a continuous interaction of opposites.
While my view of the Vietnam war was biased by the media, Summers offers with his account a complementing viewpoint what helped me in getting a more balanced understanding of this issue. Quotes from Clausewitz together with his analysis "The North Vietnamese were on the tactical defensive as part of a strategic offensive to conquer South Vietnam", p. Jul 25, David rated it really liked it. Essential reading on Vietnam. I don't agree with all of COL Summers' assertions or conclusions, but it is absolutely key towards understanding the perspectives on the War.
Read paired with Krepinevich's The Army in Vietnam for a countervailing perspective. Very relevant to today This book has many principles and examples from Vietnam that are both insightful and relevant to today for political and military strategists and practicians. It is well worth reading and spending time in reflection. Jun 16, Allen Martin rated it really liked it. An excellent overview that explains how a disconnect between political and military objectives can lead to problems on the battlefield and at home. Jul 03, William K. Interesting perspectives on a how wars have been fought in the past few years.
Feb 25, Becca rated it it was ok. So far i have a few issues with this work. I'm going to list them in order of their importance to me rather than order they appear with the most important last. It's a little right wing for my taste. I'm a liberal socialist. It's a book about war and the military, i wasn't expecting it to be anything but right wing but i thought i'd mention it anyway.