Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 4067374" data-attributes="member: 25619">Not sure if you're saying or actually asking if there were . . . since I'll like the topic, I'll answer it as a question.There were many un-uniformed irregulars on Communist side in Vietnam.&nbsp; The military term was local force Viet Cong, basic.&nbsp; Viet Cong were Communist guerrillas, originally mostly from South Vietnam (the non-Communist &quot;Republic of Vietnam&quot;).&nbsp; The mostly did not wear uniforms, but the &quot;main force&quot; Viet Cong were organized military units.&nbsp; The Communists also employed terrorists and spies, who did act as civilians.&nbsp; And the Viet Cong and NVA (North Vietnamese regular army) were assisted by civilian sympathizers.&nbsp; There was also a civilian Communist shadow government (the US called it the Viet Cong Infrastructure) of village cadres and so on. &quot;We had to destroy the village in order to save it.&quot;&nbsp; That's the quote everyone loves, from a Major during the campaign to repulse the Tet Offensive, in Mekong Delta south of Saigon.&nbsp; He didn't actually mean we had to kill the villagers, he meant we had to destroy the physical village with artillery to destroy the Viet Cong unit that was fighting from there.&nbsp; The villagers had likely fled long ago, since this was 2-3 weeks after the offensive began.People try to connect it to the war crime at My Lai (it's completely unrelated) and to the general policy of &quot;Search and Destroy&quot; (a little closer).There is a large difference between burning a village (a common tactic in Vietnam to destroy VC sanctuaries and the rice they needed) and killing civilians (a rare war crime and never official policy), a point which I'm not sure is clear to people who just remember photos of troops using Zippo lighters on thatch roof huts and the quote.In general, though, I think burning villages, and to a greater extent killing civilians (that is, non-combatants, like the women and children slaughtered in the war crime at My Lai) is counter-effective in counterinsurgency warfare.&nbsp; It makes the local population feel occupied and feel you are the enemy, which makes it more likely, not less, that the guerrillas can get support -- not from the villagers you killed, no, but from others who heard about it.&nbsp; In D&amp;D terms, call it a failed Intimidate attempt, that drives the population from Indifferent to Unfriendly or Hostile.Plus, as one Vietnam vet said in the &quot;Letters Home&quot; documentary, burning villages made him feel like HE was a Red Coat in the American Revolution.&nbsp; Bad for burner's morale and good for the enemy's morale = bad policy, in my estimation.Dang -- is there a good strategic level war game of Vietnam?&nbsp; That'd be pretty awesome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="haakon1, post: 4067374, member: 25619"] Not sure if you're saying or actually asking if there were . . . since I'll like the topic, I'll answer it as a question. There were many un-uniformed irregulars on Communist side in Vietnam. The military term was local force Viet Cong, basic. Viet Cong were Communist guerrillas, originally mostly from South Vietnam (the non-Communist "Republic of Vietnam"). The mostly did not wear uniforms, but the "main force" Viet Cong were organized military units. The Communists also employed terrorists and spies, who did act as civilians. And the Viet Cong and NVA (North Vietnamese regular army) were assisted by civilian sympathizers. There was also a civilian Communist shadow government (the US called it the Viet Cong Infrastructure) of village cadres and so on. "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." That's the quote everyone loves, from a Major during the campaign to repulse the Tet Offensive, in Mekong Delta south of Saigon. He didn't actually mean we had to kill the villagers, he meant we had to destroy the physical village with artillery to destroy the Viet Cong unit that was fighting from there. The villagers had likely fled long ago, since this was 2-3 weeks after the offensive began. People try to connect it to the war crime at My Lai (it's completely unrelated) and to the general policy of "Search and Destroy" (a little closer). There is a large difference between burning a village (a common tactic in Vietnam to destroy VC sanctuaries and the rice they needed) and killing civilians (a rare war crime and never official policy), a point which I'm not sure is clear to people who just remember photos of troops using Zippo lighters on thatch roof huts and the quote. In general, though, I think burning villages, and to a greater extent killing civilians (that is, non-combatants, like the women and children slaughtered in the war crime at My Lai) is counter-effective in counterinsurgency warfare. It makes the local population feel occupied and feel you are the enemy, which makes it more likely, not less, that the guerrillas can get support -- not from the villagers you killed, no, but from others who heard about it. In D&D terms, call it a failed Intimidate attempt, that drives the population from Indifferent to Unfriendly or Hostile. Plus, as one Vietnam vet said in the "Letters Home" documentary, burning villages made him feel like HE was a Red Coat in the American Revolution. Bad for burner's morale and good for the enemy's morale = bad policy, in my estimation. Dang -- is there a good strategic level war game of Vietnam? That'd be pretty awesome. [/QUOTE]

Verification