MACV The Joint Command in The Years of Withdrawal 1968–1973

MACV: The Years of Withdrawal, 1968–1973

A War Lost in the Mind by Graham A. Cosmas Army.mil

In 1912, a British military observer of the Balkan Wars wrote:

In large-scale modern battles there must often be a period when the confusion is so great that none of the actors really know which side is winning or which side has lost. . . . If that is so, then there must often be a period when the result hangs in the balance, when those who can be made to think that they are winning will win; and those that think that they are losing will be lost—whatever be the real state of affairs as a whole.86

The British observer referred to the large-scale conventional battles of the pre-World War I era, but his words apply with even more force to the events of early 1968 in the unconventional conflict in Vietnam. Militarily, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong General Offensive– General Uprising was a major defeat for their side, one that, as MACV early perceived, inflicted severe and possibly crippling damage on Communist forces. Nevertheless, the enemy in February 1968 won the battle where it counted most: in the American news media, among influential elements of the general public, and in the minds and emotions of key government officials, including the president of the United States. The Johnson administration, frustrated by years of unproduc- tive effort, distressed by growing dissent and disunity at home, and shocked by the Tet offensive, in effect decided that its war in Vietnam had been a failure or at best had become too expensive to be worth pursuing and turned to a search for a way out.87

Without intending to, the American military leadership contributed to this perceptual defeat. The Military Assistance Command’s optimistic reporting—although encouraged, even demanded, by its civilian masters—recoiled upon it when the supposedly beaten enemy attacked. Then General Westmoreland, after attempting to reassure the American government and public that the enemy offensive had failed and that he had the situation well in hand, was drawn by General Wheeler into requesting a huge troop reinforcement, which the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman presented to the president and his advisers as necessary to stave off disaster. The troop request all but nullified General Westmoreland’s claims of victory. More important, the military leaders by making the request confronted the administration with an apparent choice between further escalation at unacceptable domestic political and economic cost, with no guarantee of victory, and a major scaling down of objectives. In fact, there was, of course, a third alternative: continuation of the existing strategy, which it could be argued plausi- bly, was only coming into full effect when the Tet offensive broke; but the military leaders gave the impression that this alternative was no longer available.88

Thus, Generals Wheeler and Westmoreland, by trying to use the Tet crisis to secure enlarged forces and expanded military action, managed to push their civilian superiors in just the opposite direction. MACV would have to live with the results. Under a new commander and soon a new administration, MACV would soldier on, attempting to execute a new American war strategy as it gradually emerged.

General Abrams Takes Charge

On 31 March 1968, the United States entered a prolonged period of transition in its conduct of the Vietnam War. The Johnson administration devoted its last months to negotiating with the North Vietnamese and ultimately also with its South Vietnamese ally about the terms under which substantive peace talks could begin. At the same time, the administration avoided new decisions on the conduct of the war in South Vietnam. The Military Assistance Command, under General Creighton W. Abrams, Westmoreland’s successor, thus was left to reformulate its own operational concepts, guided only by the real- ization that no more American reinforcements were coming and that the administration wanted movement toward turning the war over to the South Vietnamese.

General Westmoreland Departs

At a press conference on 22 March, President Johnson made an important announcement concerning high-level military commands. He declared that General Wheeler, whose regular tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was soon to end, would remain at his post for another year, an arrangement that would permit the next president to select his own chairman for a full term. At the same time, in accordance with plans made late in the previous year, Johnson announced that General Westmoreland would leave MACV in mid-summer to replace the retiring General Harold K. Johnson as chief of staff of the Army.1

General Wheeler informed Westmoreland of the decision by secure telephone call on 23 March (simultaneously with the announcement in Washington) while the MACV commander was at Clark Air Base in the Philippines for his annual physical examination and a brief visit with his family. In the same call, Wheeler set up his meeting with Westmoreland on the reinforcement question. Westmoreland at once flew back to Saigon, where he informed Ambassador Bunker, President Thieu, and General Vien of his impending departure, then returned the next day to Clark Air Base to talk with Wheeler. In a message to the president and in a brief press statement at Tan Son Nhut Airport, Westmoreland expressed appreciation of his new assignment along with “reluctance to leave the battlefield before the battle is over.” Privately, he confided to General Chaisson that he would have preferred to become CINCPAC (a possibility the administration had briefly considered) and stay “in the main stream of the war.”2

A succession of Washington visits preceded the naming of Westmoreland’s replacement. After Westmoreland returned to Saigon from his 24 March conference with Wheeler, General Abrams, viewed by all as his probable successor, flew to Clark Air Base and returned with the chairman to Washington for two days of briefings and conferences with President Johnson and his senior advisers. With Abrams back in Saigon, General Westmoreland made a trip of his own to Washington on 6 and 7 April. He made a final report to the president and coordi- nated plans for his confirmation hearings as Army chief of staff. During this visit, Westmoreland recommended Abrams to succeed him at MACV—something of a formality under the circumstances. President Johnson then, on 11 April, announced Abrams’ forthcoming elevation and named Lt. Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster, who was to receive a fourth star, as the new deputy MACV commander.3

General Westmoreland remained in command in Saigon through late May, with Abrams continuing as his deputy but asserting his own views more positively on many issues. The transition period was at times awkward. General Chaisson observed in mid-April: “Our little circle here is very interesting. Abe now is officially in. Westy isn’t about to let go. I am in the middle.” On 29 May, after a final commanders’ conference and a round of ceremonial and social farewells, General Westmoreland left for the United States to attend his Senate confirma- tion hearing. Carefully orchestrated by the administration, the hearing went smoothly. He returned to Saigon on 7 June for another round of farewells and departed for the United States with his family on the 11th. For practical purposes, General Abrams assumed command when Westmoreland left Saigon on 29 May. He served as acting COMUSMACV until 3 July, when Westmoreland was sworn in as Army chief of staff.4

General Westmoreland could claim some significant achievements during his four and one-half years in Vietnam. He built up a modern combat force and logistical base in an undeveloped country and man- aged MACV’s transition from an advisory and assistance headquarters to an operational command. He instituted a system of cooperation with South Vietnamese and allied forces that provided for at least minimal unity of action while respecting Asian political sensitivities. His combat operations prevented the enemy from finishing off the Saigon regime through large-unit warfare and heavily damaged the enemy’s forces and base areas. Westmoreland contributed substantially to the reestablishment of stable, constitutional government in South Vietnam and to the development of an effective American organization for supporting a revival of pacification. Although Westmoreland, like most American officials, failed to anticipate the nature and scale of the enemy’s Tet offensive, his countermoves before and during the attack were sufficient to deny the Communists major success and to preempt a possible overrunning of northern I Corps. By the time Westmoreland left MACV, the allied forces were in position for a broad-front attack on a weakened enemy.5

Unfortunately, Westmoreland’s accomplishments, impressive as they were, did not produce a military decision or break Hanoi’s will to continue the struggle. Westmoreland, along with the rest of the U.S. mission, could find no immediate remedy for Saigon’s endemic weak leadership, corruption, and inefficiency. His participation in President Johnson’s optimism campaign undermined the credibility of his reports and estimates; the Tet offensive thoroughly discredited the views of both the general and his command. Having made himself a symbol of the war in the eyes of the American people, Westmoreland inevitably came in for bitter criticism as Americans became disillu- sioned with the costly, prolonged, and inconclusive conflict. Thus, while it could be argued with some validity that Westmoreland by mid-1968 was winning the military war, it could be argued with equal force that he was losing, or had already lost, the psychological and political one.

It must be noted finally that in all that Westmoreland did, he faith- fully carried out the wishes of his president and subordinated himself to the restraints placed on him by civilian authority. An inveterate team player, he tailored his actions to the desires of the administration he served. He retained to the end the confidence of President Johnson and Defense Secretaries McNamara and Clifford. Johnson declared after Tet: “Westy did everything he was expected to do, and more. I will not.

Continuing the Fight

President Johnson’s curtailment of roLLing Thunder had little effect on the Military Assistance Command’s air operations since the restriction did not apply to the southernmost route package in North Vietnam and to the infiltration trails in Laos. If anything, the bombing halt simplified air command relations by effectively terminating the CINCPAC-controlled part of the air war; and it freed more sorties for MACV’s use in the south, the Demilitarized Zone area, and along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The command became involved in the diplomacy of the pause. At Secretary Clifford’s direction, General Westmoreland in April dissuaded General Ky from employing the Vietnamese Air Force’s new F–5 jet squadron in raids north of the Demilitarized Zone, an action the administration feared would upset its negotiations with North Vietnam. Late in May, General Westmoreland advocated bomb- ing North Vietnamese cities in retaliation for the Communists’ urban attacks in South Vietnam; but the administration ignored this proposal, as it did Admiral Sharp’s repeated demands for a full resumption ofroLLing Thunder.7

In South Vietnam, there was no diminution of the allied effort. On 31 March, at a conference of senior U.S., South Vietnamese, and allied commanders, General Westmoreland called for an all-out offen- sive against Communist forces exposed and weakened by their Tet repulse. Westmoreland declared that the allies must use the “means at hand” to destroy the enemy “across the spectrum,” including political cadres, hamlet and village guerrillas, Viet Cong local and main forces, and North Vietnamese units. He emphasized as well mobilization and modernization of Saigon’s forces so that the South Vietnamese could demonstrate to the world that they were “fighting their own battles to the extent they can.” Westmoreland directed new attention to military support of pacification. He declared that “all our efforts in RVN have a pacification victory as the ultimate objective.”8

After announcement of the bombing cutback, Westmoreland told U.S. commanders to reaffirm to their Vietnamese counterparts that the offensive in the south would continue and that the allies must prevent the enemy from gaining politically exploitable battlefield successes. President Thieu and his corps commanders echoed this theme in meetings with their own subordinates. The practical effect of these injunctions on the fighting is difficult to measure, given the regionally variegated nature of the war. Nevertheless, in these direc- tives, the MACV commander confirmed his adherence to the new American policy that had been evolving gradually since late 1966 and culminated in the March 1968 reinforcement cutoff: MACV could and would fight with what it had; it would work to expand the South Vietnamese effort; and it would wage a balanced military and pacifi- cation campaign.9

While MACV, with full administration support, pressed the offen- sive in South Vietnam, it also, at administration urging, tried to describe these activities in less bellicose terms so as to deflect charges by American war opponents that the president was talking peace but esca- lating the fighting. Accordingly, in April General Westmoreland, with the approval of General Wheeler and Admiral Sharp, stopped using the term “search and destroy” to denote offensive operations against enemy units and base areas. Noting that the phrase was “over-used and often misunderstood particularly in lay circles,” Westmoreland instructed his commanders to substitute in their communications such standard military terms as “spoiling attack” and “reconnaissance in force.” At the same time, the MACV commander, at administration direction, attempted to keep at low key public affairs presentations of new large offensives, such as Operation PegaSuS to relieve Khe Sanh and the 90-battalion Operation Toan Thang (“Total Victory”) aimed at clearing the environs of Saigon. He instructed General Cushman, for example, to describe PegaSuS “as being merely the usual run of offen- sive operations . . . and nothing colossal.” In sum, the administration wanted to fight while talking but did not want its field commander to talk too loudly about fighting.10

The Military Assistance Command pushed forward its own offen- sive partly to disrupt Communist preparations for another nationwide attack. General Westmoreland and his intelligence officers estimated that the enemy, if only to gain psychological and propaganda successes and to strengthen their negotiating position, would try to continue the offensive it had begun at Tet. While doubting that the enemy had the capability or the intention to launch assaults and take casualties on the scale of Tet, the command expected the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong to renew ground and artillery harassment of the cities, espe- cially Saigon, and to maintain as much pressure as they could on the South Vietnamese and American forces in hopes of undermining the South Vietnamese government and stimulating antiwar sentiment in the United States. The command’s estimates were on the mark. On 24 April, the Politburo in Hanoi, after reviewing results of the Tet “activ- ity cycle,” called for continuous attack and encirclement of South Vietnam’s cities, liberation of the rural areas, and relentless offensives against the “puppet” army and administration and U.S. troops.11

The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong launched their second nation- wide offensive on 5 May, just before the opening of peace talks in Paris. This offensive, less ambitious in objectives than its Tet predecessor, was aimed at inflicting casualties on American and South Vietnamese forces, disrupting urban life, and maintaining at least the appearance of the military initiative. In contrast to Tet, the allies expected the attack and had learned much of the enemy’s plan from defectors and other sources. American and South Vietnamese operations preempted entirely some Communist assaults; other enemy units were intercepted and broken up before they reached their objectives. Such was the fate of the enemy’s major effort, a multi-battalion drive on Saigon. Nevertheless, small North Vietnamese and Viet Cong elements got into parts of the capital, and the fight to eliminate them caused more destruction and created more refugees in Saigon than had the Tet offensive.12

In central I Corps, a North Vietnamese division attacked Kham Duc, a Special Forces camp southwest of Da Nang near the Laotian border. On the evening of 10 May, the enemy overran one of the camp’s outposts and brought the base under mortar and machine-gun fire. After con- sultation with Generals Abrams and Cushman, Westmoreland ordered evacuation of the camp rather than face another Khe Sanh–type siege. He explained to Admiral Sharp, “At this time forces and resources that would be required for defense of Kham Duc can be much more profit- ably utilized in other areas.” Aware of the public relations implications of this apparent retreat, Westmoreland and his chief of public affairs, General Sidle, carefully planned the presentation of the decision to the press, seeking to keep the story at “low key” while explaining the action to newsmen in background briefings. Under cover of round-the- clock B–52 and tactical air strikes, the air extraction of the beleaguered garrison under fire was successful but cost the allies heavily in lost men, aircraft, and equipment.13

Overall, however, the Communists had little to show for the 30,000 casualties MACV estimated they suffered in a month of heavy fighting. The May offensive diverted few South Vietnamese security forces from the villages to the towns and cities and thus had almost no effect on rural pac- ification. By late May, enemy main force units, under aggressive allied air and ground pursuit, were withdrawing to their base areas and cross-border sanctuaries to rest and refit. Nevertheless, small Communist units hung on around Saigon. Until late June, they kept up an intermittent rocket and mortar bombardment of the capital. Their indiscriminate strikes at military installations and civilian districts inflicted relatively minor casu- alties and damage but created the impression of a city still under siege.14

The Military Assistance Command and the South Vietnamese gov- ernment redeployed forces and created a new headquarters to counter the enemy’s persistent pressure on Saigon. On 3 June, after prolonged American urging, President Thieu finally unified command of all his forces protecting the capital and its immediate environs under a military governor of Saigon and Gia Dinh Province. Simultaneously, General Westmoreland, in one of his last acts as COMUSMACV, estab- lished a Capital Military Assistance Command under Maj. Gen. John H. Hay, deputy commander of II Field Force, who exercised operational control over all U.S. units and advisory teams in Saigon–Gia Dinh and acted as senior adviser to the new military governor. To counter the rocket bombardment, General Abrams established surveillance zones surrounding Saigon, each with Army helicopter or Air Force fixed-wing gunships assigned for rapid response to firings. This system, combined with constant infantry sweeps around the city and the capture of many rocket caches, prevented the Communists from fulfilling their promise to hit Saigon with “100 rockets for 100 days.”15

With the enemy’s shift to attacking South Vietnam’s cities, their protection—especially that of Saigon, the nation’s political center— inevitably became one of COMUSMACV’s top priorities, on a par with the continuing battle for northern I Corps. General Abrams declared in mid-June: “The enemy has made Saigon/Gia Dinh his number one effort at this time; I have made it mine.” By late June, twenty-seven U.S. and South Vietnamese maneuver battalions were concentrated in Gia Dinh Province. Counting additional troops interdicting infiltration routes and attacking enemy base areas farther from the capital, General Abrams estimated that “over 50 percent of allied maneuver battalion

assets are involved in the defense of Saigon/Cholon,” a deployment that “degrades our flexibility and our potential to accomplish other missions” but nevertheless was a political necessity.16

The Military Assistance Command led the way in efforts to repair the damage caused by the May fighting in the capital, which left almost 20,000 homes in ruins and over 130,000 people in need of emer- gency assistance and new shelter. Fortunately, the Central Recovery Committee set up after Tet remained in operation and quickly insti- tuted emergency relief efforts. To speed the reconstruction of housing in the worst-hit districts, the Americans and South Vietnamese, under a plan developed by General Westmoreland and Ambassador Komer and approved by President Thieu, deployed military engineer units to clear rubble, lay concrete foundations for houses, and set up thousands of prefabricated dwellings manufactured in a U.S. Army factory. This operation, code-named dong TaM (“United Hearts and Minds”), was intended both to accelerate the restoration of shelter and enhance the prestige of President Thieu’s government and its U.S. allies. By the end of June, the rebuilding projects were well under way.17

Besides assisting civilian war victims, MACV and the Joint General Staff (JGS) tried to ensure that future urban fighting would produce fewer of them. Generals Westmoreland and Abrams and Ambassadors Bunker and Komer all recognized that allied firepower had caused most of the devastation in Saigon in the course of rooting out small enemy units that had infiltrated commercial and residential areas. Accordingly, on 13 May, Westmoreland, after consultation with the Mission Council, instituted a combined MACV and JGS review of urban combat tactics, aimed at finding ways to eliminate the enemy while minimizing col- lateral damage. When he took acting command, General Abrams con- fined to only the most senior commanders the authority to use heli- copter gunships, tactical air support, and indirect fire artillery in urban areas. On 2 June, a stray rocket from an American helicopter supporting South Vietnamese Rangers in street fighting in Cholon—on a mission authorized by the III Corps commander, General Khang—killed the chief of the Saigon Military Police and five other high-ranking South Vietnamese officers and wounded three. This incident further drama- tized the problem. In response to it, and to embassy and news media reports of the extensive destruction in Saigon, Secretary Clifford added his authority to the demand for a review of MACV’s urban tactics.18

The joint study, completed on 14 June, recommended maximum reliance on direct-fire weapons and riot gas in street fighting. It called for improved urban combat training of South Vietnamese units and the immediate issue to them of 90-mm. and 106-mm. recoilless rifles. It emphasized the need for unified planning and action by all South Vietnamese military and police organizations involved in city defense and called for creation of people’s civil defense groups to provide intelligence on enemy infiltration and help with post-battle disaster relief.The study urged that the authority to call for artillery, helicopter gunships, and tactical air in urban areas continue to be limited to corps and field force commanders. General Abrams promptly endorsed these recommendations and put them into effect insofar as they applied to his forces. In particular, he maintained tight control on airpower and artillery. On 22 June, Abrams rejected a request from General Weyand that authority for use of these weapons in designated built-up areas of Saigon be delegated to division commanders. He declared that “our military forces must find the way to save Saigon without destroying it.” Worthy though these sentiments were, the MACV-JGS study acknowledged, as did General Abrams, that if the enemy got into the cities in great enough force, massive destruction inevitably would result. Hence, the “key objective” in city defense continued to be “to intercept and engage the enemy prior to his reaching major urban areas.”19

The enemy’s third try at a nationwide offensive, which began on 17 August, scarcely tested the allies’ new city fighting tactics. Forewarned, as in May, of the enemy’s plans, American and South Vietnamese forces completely preempted major Communist assaults on Saigon and Da Nang. The offensive quickly tailed off into ineffectual ground and fire attacks on lesser positions. As in May, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong suffered heavy casualties for little gain.20

The three offensives of 1968, each weaker than the last, left Communist forces in South Vietnam depleted and in many cases demoralized. According to defector reports and captured documents, enemy field commanders complained openly that the general offen- sive had been planned on the basis of unrealistic information, clumsily executed, and barren of results commensurate with its cost in men and materiel. The commanders considered the May and August attacks, made without the advantage of surprise, to have been especially ill- advised and disastrous. By drawing local force units in to keep up pres- sure on the cities, the continuing offensives attenuated revolutionary control in the villages and hamlets. A North Vietnamese official history later acknowledged:

Because the enemy’s situation and our situation had changed we had to fight continuallyand to concentrate on the cities. In the rural areas we were vulnerable and were strongly counterattacked by the enemy, so our forces were depleted and in some places the liberated area was reduced. The revolutionary movement in the Nam Bo lowlands encounteredmany difficulties and our offensive posture weakened. When the enemy launched a fierce counteroffensive our weaknesses and deficiencies caused the situation to undergocomplicated changes.21

Between the May and August offensives, the Military Assistance Command carried out the tactically complex and politically delicate task of disengaging from Khe Sanh. Such disengagement was under con- sideration well before units of the 1st Cavalry and 3d Marine Divisions reestablished ground contact with the base early in April in OperationPegaSuS. By that time, Generals Abrams, Cushman, and Momyer all had gone on record in favor of abandoning the fixed position at Khe Sanh at some point after the lifting of the siege. They advocated instead defending the northwestern corner of Quang Tri Province by airmobile operations from bases farther to the east and less vulnerable to North Vietnamese ground and artillery attack, a course of action made pos- sible by the presence in northern I Corps of the 1st Cavalry and 101st Airborne Divisions and by the expansion of the logistical base in the region.22

General Westmoreland, however, remained reluctant to give up Khe Sanh if only because the enemy (and U.S. war critics) would pro- claim such a withdrawal as an American defeat. At a senior I Corps commanders’ meeting at Provisional Corps headquarters on 14 April, Westmoreland angrily rejected a proposal by Generals Cushman and Rosson to dismantle Khe Sanh by the end of the month to regroup forces for a major assault on the enemy’s important A Shau Valley base area west of Hue and for other operations. Nevertheless, the MACV commander agreed in principle to a gradual reduction of the position in the context of continued search-and-destroy operations around it, with a view to closing Khe Sanh by early September. By that time, of course, General Abrams would be in command and make the final deci- sion. The mid-May evacuation of Kham Duc, in which Westmoreland, Abrams, Cushman, and Momyer all concurred, clearly signaled MACV’s determination to avoid another siege in a remote place of limited value.23

When he took acting command of MACV in late May, General Abrams decided to move the Khe Sanh evacuation forward to counter threatening new maneuvers by enemy divisions in northern I Corps and to maintain strong American forces on the western approaches to Hue. Abrams realized, however, that he must avoid the appear- ance of a retreat forced by the enemy. After 3d Marine Division units had mauled a North Vietnamese division south of Khe Sanh, giving MACV a victory to cover the withdrawal, Abrams on 21 June, with Ambassador Bunker’s concurrence and administration approval, authorized Generals Cushman and Rosson to begin demolishing the base’s airstrip and defenses and removing men and equipment. The Saigon and Washington authorities carefully crafted the public presen- tation of the withdrawal, attempting to portray it as a redeployment of forces brought about by changing circumstances. They kept General Westmoreland informed about the operation and secured his public and private endorsement of it. This public relations effort fell short of success. Inevitably, the press, annoyed by Abrams’ attempt to delay the filing of stories on the pullout until it was well under way, interpreted the redeployment as a tacit admission that MACV had been wrong to defend Khe Sanh in the first place. On the ground, however, the opera- tion went smoothly. By 5 July, allied forces had vacated the plateau, leaving behind only small reconnaissance elements.24

In November 1968, the Thieu administration, at the urging and with the assistance of MACV and the U.S. mission, undertook an ambi- tious new pacification campaign, to exploit what American officials believed was the vacuum in the countryside created by the enemy’s concentration on the cities. Circumstances late in the year favored the endeavor. Pacification had been making a slow but steady recov- ery since Tet. The government’s Regional and Popular Forces were increasing in size and improving in quality under MACV and CORDS programs instituted in late 1967, and the government’s post-Tet effort to create a mass People’s Self-Defense Force (PSDF) showed promise in both cities and countryside. Political considerations also came into play. MACV, the U.S. mission, and the Johnson administration all saw indications that the enemy, after the failure of its three offensives, was trying to establish political and military control over as much of the countryside as possible, in preparation for confronting the next U.S. president with a call for a cease-fire and a coalition government or ter- ritorial partition of South Vietnam. A successful pacification campaign would counter this ploy, and it also would demonstrate to the U.S. home front that the allies were making real progress and that the war was not stalemated.25

Taking these factors into account, MACV and the U.S. mission during September and early October persuaded President Thieu to launch an Accelerated Pacification Campaign. Initially, Thieu favored a primary emphasis on consolidating Saigon’s control over already rela- tively secure areas. Komer, however, convinced Thieu and the American mission to concentrate instead on rapid if superficial expansion into contested parts of the countryside. The deputy for CORDS reasoned that the allies could “achieve greater results more quickly by seeking to expand a diluted form of government control while destroying enemy forces and infrastructure than by seeking a high degree of security and efficient administration” in regions currently dominated by Saigon. Komer argued that his approach would be more effective than Thieu’s as a counter to the enemy “if he plans any ceasefire/partition/coalition gambit.”26

As finally worked out, the campaign was to run from 1 November 1968 through 31 January 1969, the end date coinciding conveniently with the Vietnamese Tet holiday and with the inauguration of the new U.S. president. It consisted of six subcampaigns, each, at Komer’s insis- tence, focused on simple, specific goals. The centerpiece was a drive to raise between 1,000 and 1,100 hamlets from contested or Viet Cong– controlled status (D and E in the CORDS Hamlet Evaluation System) to partially government-controlled (C) status by occupying them with Regional and Popular Force units, setting up village and hamlet admin- istrations, and organizing PSDF groups. An “intensive military spoiling campaign” was to keep enemy units away from the areas being paci- fied, and other campaigns were aimed at bringing in enemy defectors and killing or capturing political cadres. A vigorous new information program was to convince the people that the allies had the initiative and were moving rapidly to win the war. While Vietnamese civilian ministries and military forces were to carry out the campaign, the MACV and CORDS staffs drafted the plans and directives for it and closely monitored its progress.27

President Thieu and his administration pushed the campaign with what was, by Saigon government standards, great vigor. Thieu cre- ated a new Central Pacification and Development Council under his prime minister, Tran Van Huong, to give unified direction to this and subsequent pacification campaigns. The president visited each corps to encourage activity and make sure that the regional authorities correctly understood the plan. At MACV’s direction, U.S. forces worked with the South Vietnamese Army and the Regional and Popular Forces in cordon and search and other security operations.

Begun on schedule on 1 November, the Accelerated Pacification Campaign essentially had achieved its objectives by its 31 January 1969 cutoff date. Overcoming light and scattered Viet Cong resistance, the government more than met its quota of 1,100 hamlets occupied. Its programs for increasing Viet Cong and North Vietnamese defections and uprooting the enemy’s clandestine administration respectively exceeded and came close to their numerical targets. Organization and training of new PSDF units went well, although arming of the militia lagged in most areas. American officials recognized that in the newly occupied hamlets pacification in the full social and political sense had hardly begun and that the campaign owed much of its success to the absence of systematic enemy opposition. Nevertheless, they believed that they had at least raised the government flag over much of the countryside and had significantly damaged the enemy’s rural appara- tus. Perhaps most important, the South Vietnamese had gained from the campaign new confidence in their own capacities. The Accelerated Pacification Campaign thus laid the foundation for more thorough follow-up efforts during 1969.28

As the military and pacification campaigns went forward, MACV during the last half of 1968 carried out and partially modified reinforce- ment Program Six. One of the two Army brigades involved, the 3d of the 82d Airborne Division, part of the February “emergency” reinforcement, was already in I Corps. The other, the 1st Brigade, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized), arrived in July, replacing the 27th Marine Regimental Landing Team, and began operations in northern Quang Tri. Two tac- tical fighter squadrons had deployed in May; and a stream of Army combat and combat service support units, including some reserve field artillery and engineer battalions, entered Vietnam during September and October. In September, at General Abrams’ recommendation, the Defense Department deleted from Program Six a reserve armored cavalry squadron and an evacuation hospital so that MACV could use the more than 1,400 personnel spaces thus saved for purposes Abrams deemed more urgent, such as provision of more advisers and helicopter door gunners. The equipment of the deleted armored cavalry squadron went to outfit a new South Vietnamese squadron. Throughout the year, Abrams cam- paigned for reduction of the Program Five requirement to replace 12,545 military personnel with locally hired civilian workers, contending that its implementation would reduce the efficiency and mobility of many support units. The Defense Department, however, kept the program in effect, since it was needed to bring MACV’s total strength down to the Program Six ceiling of 549,500. By the end of 1968, all the services were well on the way to civilianizing the required billets.29

Building Up the RVNAF

General Abrams’ rejection of a U.S. armored cavalry squadron in Program Six in favor of equipment for a South Vietnamese one reflected MACV’s increased emphasis, dictated from Washington, on expanding and improving Saigon’s armed forces. The South Vietnamese govern- ment showed promising signs of strength after Tet. Its soldiers fought creditably during the offensive and in subsequent engagements. President Thieu took advantage of the Tet crisis to replace several of his weaker commanders and province chiefs, in the process strengthening his military faction at the expense of that of Vice President Ky. Thieu also seized the occasion to implement, and secure National Assembly assent to, a mobilization decree prepared earlier that extended the draft to 18- and 19-year-olds and recalled some 20,000 reservists to the colors. With volunteers and draftees flowing into its induction centers, the RVNAF rather rapidly replaced its Tet losses and seemed able to secure men for further expansion.30

In response to the Tet offensive, the Military Assistance Command accelerated its previously planned rearmament of the South Vietnamese with M16 rifles and secured as well additional M60 machine guns, mortars, and other weapons for the regular and territorial forces. The command made large new requests for trucks, helicopters, and armored personnel carriers. Encouraged by the comparative success of South Vietnam’s post-Tet manpower mobilization, MACV on 9 March com- pleted a two-year plan for expanding Saigon’s armed forces to nearly 780,000 men in 1969 and 801,000 by 1970—substantially higher goals than those of the command’s pre-Tet plans—and for adding combat and support units to make the South Vietnamese forces more nearly self-sufficient operationally and logistically. About half the strength increase would be in the Regional and Popular Forces, and the plan provided for formation of Regional Force battalions.31

Defense Secretary Clifford promptly approved MACV’s March plan but soon set more ambitious goals. Committed to the most rapid pos- sible U.S. disengagement from the war, Clifford pressed strongly for transfer of the combat burden to the South Vietnamese. The bombing cutback of 31 March and the opening of negotiations, which raised the prospect of an early cease-fire and mutual U.S. and North Vietnamese troop withdrawals, increased the administration’s sense of urgency about preparing the South Vietnamese to stand alone, at least against a residual Viet Cong threat. Accordingly, on 16 April, Clifford directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a “comprehensive, feasible action plan” with time-phased goals to make the RVNAF self-sufficient as soon as possible in logistics and air and artillery support. He declared: “We have embarked on a course of gradually shifting the burden of the war to GVN forces.” Hence, “There is an urgency to accomplishing these objectives.”32

The Military Assistance Command, to which the Joint Chiefs delegated the planning task, in May produced a detailed RVNAF Improvement and Modernization Plan. The planners assumed that after any mutual withdrawal of North Vietnamese and U.S. combat forces, five years would be needed to develop a RVNAF able to hold its own against the Viet Cong, who were expected to continue receiving North Vietnamese manpower and logistical support. In the interim, an American “residual force” would remain to assist the South Vietnamese. The plan called for a force buildup along the lines proposed in March, with the South Vietnamese reaching their peak combat strength in 1970. Thereafter, gradual reductions in regular and territorial infantry would release manpower for new fixed-wing and helicopter air units and an enlarged seagoing and riverine navy. To support the plan, MACV prepared delivery schedules for large quantities of equipment ranging from M16s to M48 tanks. Assuming negotiated withdrawals began on 1 July 1968, the plan’s U.S. residual force would decline from 61,500 men in June 1969 to 20,000 by June 1973 and remain at a level of about 16,600 indefinitely thereafter to perform tasks still beyond RVNAF capabilities. In late June, the Defense Department approved those parts of the May plan that covered re-equipping the existing South Vietnamese forces and activating the additional combat units called for in 1969 and 1970.33

The administration then moved the goal posts again. As the Paris talks immediately deadlocked and the prospect faded of an early nego- tiated withdrawal, President Johnson, to defuse domestic antiwar senti- ment, shifted his emphasis to securing a prompt, conspicuous increase in the South Vietnamese forces’ combat role. To facilitate this, Secretary Clifford, during a July visit to Saigon, instructed General Abrams to expand South Vietnamese ground combat elements at the expense of creating support units for self-sufficiency, on the assumption that U.S. participation in the war would continue for some time. MACV responded with a two-phase revised improvement and modernization plan. Phase I provided for maximum RVNAF combat forces based on an indefinite American presence at Program Six strength. Phase II incor- porated the additions required for a force able to deal on its own with the Viet Cong. MACV and the administration rejected out of hand, as unrealistic and too expensive, the Joint General Staff’s independently prepared Plan Six, which envisioned a much more nearly self-sustain- ing establishment heavy in modern aircraft, armor, and artillery. Later in the year, as South Vietnam’s mobilization pushed RVNAF strength toward 800,000 well ahead of schedule, General Abrams proposed merging Phases I and II back together again into a single plan calling for a self-sufficient force of 877,000, to be achieved two years ahead of the previous target date. On 18 December, Clifford accepted this revi- sion, which became known as the Accelerated Phase II Improvement and Modernization Plan.34

The improvement and modernization plans gave concrete form to ideas that had been in the air since late 1967, but they still left vital questions unanswered. For one, the exact relationship between RVNAF improvement and the pace of American withdrawal remained to be worked out. General Abrams and the Joint Chiefs realized that a too- rapid U.S. departure could impose burdens that the South Vietnamese were not yet ready to assume. Then there was the question of what type self-sufficient force was being built. MACV’s plans simply added units and materiel to the existing RVNAF structure without much analysis of its suitability. Some officials, notably Deputy Secretary of Defense Nitze, claimed that the projected force was oriented too much toward conventional warfare rather than toward defeating the insur- gency likely to remain after a U.S.–North Vietnamese withdrawal. On the other hand, the Joint General Staff, as indicated in their Plan Six, believed they needed if anything a more conventional force.35

Finally, could the RVNAF ever be expected to go it alone? In a December study, the CIA answered no, citing the familiar, endemic South Vietnamese failings: inadequate leadership, high desertion rates, rampant corruption, and overdependence on U.S. air and artillery support. Responding to the CIA study, General Abrams cited MACV’s continuing efforts to remedy RVNAF deficiencies. He also reiterated that the planned force was designed to “go it alone” only against the “internal threat.” It would not be able, he acknowledged, to defeat North Vietnamese divisions remaining in cross-border sanctuaries; and “it obviously could not cope, without external assistance, with an inva- sion by the forces of NVN.” MACV would continue to wrestle with these questions as it tried to prepare the South Vietnamese to fight their own war.36

The BOOK can be found HERE