Reassessing the Viet Cong Role after Tet
© 1997 Peter Brush
The
February 1997 issue of Vietnam contained
my article "The War's 'Constructive Component,'" an examination
of counterinsurgency operations during the Vietnam War. In his editorial comments
in that issue, then editor Colonel Summers took exception to my conclusion,
saying it ignored "the last seven years of the war during which guerrillas
played an insignificant part." Vietnam's present editor, Colonel David Zabecki, agreed with Colonel
Summers in the April, 2000 issue: "As
Harry pointed out, the VC ceased to be a major factor on the battlefield after
they were all but annihilated in the 1968 Tet Offensive."
Summers'
conclusion is one of the themes of his important work On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. In that book
Summers quotes former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Fred C. Weyland who claims that
the Viet Cong (VC) were destroyed during Tet 1968; "eliminated" at
the direction of the North Vietnamese Communists. Also noted is that the VC
comprised no more than 20 percent of the Communist fighting forces after 1968.[1]
This article examines the Viet Cong in the post-Tet 1968 period in order
evaluate the significance of their role in the fighting during the years
between the 1968 Tet offensive and the fall of Saigon in 1975.
Army
General Earle Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1964 to 1970,
did not think the Viet Cong had been eliminated. In a cable dated March 1 1968
to General William Westmoreland, commander of US forces in Vietnam, Wheeler
admitted that counterinsurgency programs had been brought to a halt. To a large
extent, the VC now controlled the countryside. The VC were rebuilding their
infrastructure via recruiting and infiltration and overall recovery was "likely
to be rapid."[2] John Paul
Vann, a former Army lieutenant colonel before becoming advisor for
counterinsurgency operations in II Corps, felt Westmoreland had been duped by
army briefers who over-stressed enemy body counts as a measure of success. Vann
wrote in March 1968 that the VC were "being given more freedom to
intimidate the rural population than ever before in the past two-and-a-half
years." Even General William Westmoreland, Commander of US forces in
Vietnam, acknowledged that as of mid-1968, approximately 70 percent of the
soldiers in Viet Cong battalions were southerners; only 30 percent were North
Vietnamese replacements.[3] Further, as will be shown, there are simply
too many references to Viet Cong military actions after Tet to support the conclusion
they had been eliminated.
Does
the claim that the VC comprised no more than twenty percent of Communist
military forces mean they were insignificant? In 1968, the Marine Corps force
in South Vietnam numbered 86,000 men ashore. That year the total number of US
troops in Vietnam was 549,000.[4]
Although the Marines
supplied less than 16 percent of total US forces, no one claims that the Marine
force in Vietnam was insignificant. It takes more than percentages to
demonstrate significance.
Historian
Ngo Ving Long claims that the VC achieved dramatic gains while receiving
relatively light casualties during the first phase of Tet 1968. Long notes that
officials and academics in both the United States and Vietnam claim only the
North Vietnamese played the decisive role in the liberation of the South in the
period after Tet. Officials in North Vietnam have gone so far as to restrict
debate on the conduct of the war in order that the official party line go
unchallenged. Long claims this view is incorrect, that it cannot be supported
by current research, and in reality southern revolutionaries rebuilt their
connections between villagers and soldiers in 1971 and 1972 to a level which
allowed a respite from their Tet losses.[5]
According
to Long, all of the VC forces were not killed in the Tet fighting because many
of them did not participate in the attacks. For example, Saigon, the main
target of Phase 1 of the Tet Offensive, was assigned the largest number of VC
attack forces by the Communist National Liberation Front. These forces were
divided into two commands, Northern and Southern. Long An Province supplied
most of the forces that attacked Saigon from the Southern Command. Eight
Southern Command VC battalions were sent to Saigon. None of them were able to break
through Saigon's defenses to link up with VC sapper units. Consequently, all of
these forces were withdrawn from the city to the surrounding countryside and
their losses were low. In the heaviest fighting the Southern Command
participated in, the equivalent of only one platoon became casualties.[6]
As
allied commanders withdrew their troops from the countryside to defend Saigon
and other urban areas, VC guerrillas were able to defeat government regional
and local militias. This allowed the NLF to expand its control in rural areas.
It was this expansion of NLF control that encouraged the Communists to launch
Phase 2 and 3 of the Tet Offensive.
According
to a classified NLF study, Long An was the province where its forces sustained
the highest level of casualties of all provinces in the South during all phases
of Tet. Nevertheless, in late 1968, U.S. officials still regarded Long An as
being largely under NLF control.
After
Tet the allies attempted various counterinsurgency measures to regain control
of the countryside. One manifestation of the acknowledgement by the allies that
the Viet Cong were filling the void caused by the withdrawal of US/ARVN forces
from rural areas of South Vietnam was the Phoenix Program. Implemented from
1968 until 1972, Phoenix had as its objective identification of the Viet Cong,
building support among the local South Vietnamese in combating the Viet Cong
infrastructure (VCI), and eventually reducing and eliminating the Viet Cong as
a military and political force.
Robert
Komer managed the pacification program in 1967 and 1968. Komer set quotas for
all of South Vietnam: He wanted 3,000 Viet Cong neutralized each month. William
Colby, who replaced Komer as head of pacification, testified before a House of
Representatives subcommittee in July, 1971 that "the Phoenix program had
brought about the capture of some 28,978 Communist leaders in the Viet Cong
Infrastructure, that some 17,717 had taken advantage of the amnesty program,
and that some 20,587 had been reported as killed." Had the Viet Cong been
eliminated or reduced to insignificance during Tet 1968, there would have been
no need for the Phoenix Program. The fact that Phoenix could capture almost
30,000 leaders among the Viet Cong in
a three-year period suggests they were still a powerful force and that the
United States military command acknowledged this. It cannot be that these
numbers indicate that the Viet Cong were eliminated during Tet 1968 and simply
replaced their losses. In 1968, Phoenix accounted for 15,776 VCI rallied,
captured, or killed. The following year the number had increased to 19,534 VCI
neutralized. Had the VC ceased to be a major factor on the battlefield in early
1968, the United States would not have given more support for Phoenix in 1971
than it did the preceding year. [7]
Further
evidence of increased VC influence is provided by events in Ben Tre Province
(also known as Kien Hoa). Most of the province was under NLF control at the
beginning of Tet. Long a VC stronghold, Ben Tre had the distinction of being the
most heavily bombed province in the Mekong Delta during Phase 1. Its capital,
with a population of 140,000, was the place an American officer claimed,
"We had to destroy the town to save it." Ben Tre became the scene of
massive allied counterattacks beginning in July 1968. During that year the NLF
expanded its influence in Ben Tre, adding an additional ten percent of the
total provincial population to areas under its control.[8]
In
December 1968, the US Central Intelligence Agency issued a study very critical
of the capabilities and potential of the South Vietnamese military.
President-elect Richard Nixon examined the study soon after its release. After
taking office he ordered all American agencies involved in the war in Vietnam
to review the CIA study and provide comprehensive estimates of the current
military situation in Vietnam. One of the respondents was the US Military
Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV). Even though senior American commanders
painted a brighter picture of South Vietnamese military progress than the CIA,
even MACV presented a pessimistic outlook for the future. "Without
extensive U.S. military support, MACV concluded that the South Vietnamese could
not handle the Viet Cong. . . . Current MACV estimates of enemy strength in
South Vietnam put the Viet Cong in the neighborhood of 150,000 men and North
Vietnamese forces at about 125,000." Not only did the US command consider
the Viet Cong to be a significant threat at the end of 1968, it predicted that
South Vietnamese forces would be unable to deal successfully with the Viet Cong
insurgency before 1972. Even then, American logistic and advisory support
"would be required indefinitely . . ."[9]
In
July 1969 the allied Hamlet Evaluation System (HES) indicated that 74 percent
of the population of South Vietnam was subjected to covert Communist activity
and another five percent was under their convert control. Only 18 percent of
the population was considered free of Communist influence. Later US data
suggest that as late as June 1971 Viet Cong were conducting activities among
two-thirds of the population of South Vietnam.[10]
According
to Long's view, the Viet Cong could have minimized their casualties by breaking
off combat after their Tet Offensive Phase 1 gains. Instead, the Communists
were ordered to mount the second and third phases, which left revolutionary
forces in forward positions until the fall of 1968. The second phase of the Tet
Offensive began on May 4 when over one hundred bases, towns, and cities were
attacked by NLF forces. The third phase, beginning on August 17, saw the
shelling of US installations and another series of coordinated attacks
throughout South Vietnam by NLF forces. Fighting continued for six weeks. In
the first weeks, 700 Americans were killed in the fighting. Here they suffered
severe losses when subjected to allied firepower, trapped in urban areas and
removed from their rural bases of support. Hanoi compounded its errors by
finally ordering VC units to withdraw to border sanctuaries in Laos and
Cambodia, effectively surrendering populated areas to the Army of the Republic
of Vietnam (ARVN) and US forces without a fight.
Later,
NLF forces paid a high price when they returned to the villages to rebuild
their infrastructure. Additionally, North Vietnamese Army (NVA) troops sent
south in the 1969-1970 period operated ineffectively and suffered increased
casualties due to this lack of infrastructure. According to southern
revolutionary leaders, 1969 and 1970 were the most difficult years of the war.
The difficulties of this period were caused by decisions the Communists made
themselves, and not directly by actions of the US or South Vietnam. Local
revolutionary forces were able to reclaim the initiative in 1971 and 1972,
aided in part by the redeployment of allied forces for the invasions of Laos
and Cambodia. Simultaneous with these invasions was an increase in NLF urban
operations.[11]
"VCI"
was an umbrella term that included members of the Communist People's
Revolutionary Party (PRP); the PRP's political arm, the National Liberation
Front (NLF); and a variety of organizations for groups such as farmers, women,
workers, students, and youth. Communist armed forces, consisting of the NVA and
South Vietnamese Liberation Army (VC main force and local force units and
guerrillas) operated under the leadership of the VCI. Allied reports of VCI
strength varied greatly, depending on who was being counted. In order to
standardize reporting procedures, by 1970 the US and GVN refined the definition
of VCI to members of the PRP and leaders of the NLF and other Front groups
(Category A) plus individuals in enemy organizations trained in leadership
roles (Category B).
At
this time, allied intelligence had identified approximately 7,600 Category A
and B members in the single province of Quang Nam. Most of these leaders were
born and raised in the province and could not be considered North Vietnamese
fillers or replacements. Although the Marines had inflicted serious losses on
Viet Cong forces in Quang Nam province, the VCI remained "ubiquitous and
threatening." According to a Marine regimental intelligence officer as of
1971, after six years of battle with the Marines, ". . . every political
entity in Quang Nam province -- from the province level down to the lowest
hamlet -- shared with the GVN or at least had right along-side GVN a . . . VC
government of its own . . . they were powerful." Besides undermining the
GVN, the local Viet Cong "contributed directly to the ability of enemy
forces to inflict losses on allied military forces.[12]
Were
Viet Cong activities militarily significant during the period between the
withdrawal of US forces and the fall of Saigon? This significance can be gauged
by references to them in military histories of the period. One account is
provided by General Van Tien Dung, Chief of Staff of the (North) Vietnam
People's Army.
According
to Dung, Hanoi's Party Central Committee recognized the significance of the
southern revolutionary forces. Its 1974 Twenty-First Conference Resolution
stated as one of its goals the need to raise the will to struggle and step up
organizational discipline in order to guarantee victory for all three kinds of
troops: main-force units, regional-force troops, and local guerrilla militia.[13]
After
building up its forces during the 1973-1974 period, Hanoi decided to test its
strength against Saigon forces. Remote Phuoc Long province was chosen as its
first target. In 20 days of fighting, a combination of main-force (i.e., NVA)
and regional forces (i.e., VC) liberated both Phuoc Long town and province from
ARVN control. This was the first province lost to the Communists by the South
Vietnamese government.[14]
Saigon's
next loss was Ban Me Thuot. Dung notes that people from the local revolutionary
apparatus gave advice to NVA forces as they prepared their attack plans.
Further south, in Tay Ninh province in 1974, local forces from Phu Yen were
ordered to block Route 7 to prevent the escape of ARVN troops toward Tuy Hoa.[15]
In
the northern provinces, Dung notes that seven regional force battalions, along
with 100 armed special assignment squads and local armed forces, mounted a
series of attacks in Mai Linh district. The district town as knocked out,
eleven other installations were destroyed, and the Communists were able to
propagandize a large area which included 53 villages with a population of over
20,000. On March 24 and 25, the NVA 2d Division, in coordination with local
forces, destroyed the ARVN 4th and 5th regiments while liberating Tam Ky and
Tuan Duong. In Quang Ngai it was regional forces who liberated the northern
part of the province. When Danang fell, it was "members of our
revolutionary infrastructure" who raised the Communist flag over city
hall.[16]
In
March and April 1974, Communist forces launched a series of attacks in the
central coastal plain. Dung credits regional armed forces, along with the
people, for the liberation of Qui Nhon town as well as Phuoc Ly and Phuoc Hai
peninsulas.[17]
In
early April the Communists began preparations for the final attack against
Saigon. An official from Communist Zones 8 and 9 noted that while previously
this area only had two regional force battalions, by April it had increased its
forces to five battalions. In one day Rach Gia had mobilized 200 recruits to
form an additional provisional battalion, and "every village had a company
of guerrillas." Weapons and munitions for these forces were sent down from
the regional level as well as taken from the enemy, providing equipment for
these new units. Their continuous activities tied down a number of ARVN main-force
units in IV Corps, and diverted some activities of Saigon's air and naval
forces.
The
revolutionary infrastructure inside Saigon was kept busy when the fighting
began. The party committee spread propaganda leaflets by the hundred of
thousands. Members of the Saigon municipal party committee, members of special
ward committees, hundreds of party members, thousands of members of various
mass organizations, and tens of thousands of people could be mobilized to
support the attack forces. A political infrastructure existed in every section
of town. Hundreds of loudspeaker cars were readied and thousands of meters of
cloth were delivered to tailor shops to be sewn into flags.[18]
Far
from being eliminated or insignificant, according to Dung, regional forces were
bigger and stronger than ever before. The revolutionary forces in the final
attack included sappers, special action units, armed security forces,
self-defense units, and mass political forces. Their role was to capture
bridges, guide main-force units into the city, neutralize traitors, and
mobilize the masses for an urban uprising. Plans for participation were passed
all the way down to the neighborhood level.[19]
It
was a combination of main force, regional force, and militia of Ba Ria that
liberated a large section of that province. Regional and guerrilla forces
liberated Cu Lao Cham Island on March 30. Party members liberated Cung Son
Island and turned it over to regular soldiers for administration. Local forces
also assisted in the liberation of Cu Lao Xanh and Hon Tre Islands.[20]
Regional forces and guerrilla militia, in coordination with main force units,
surrounded My Tho and Can Tho in the Mekong Delta and interdicted movement of
ARVN forces along Route 4.[21]
Dung's
book was written for a Vietnamese audience. It is based on a series of articles
that appeared in Nhan Dan, the
newspaper of the Communist Party of Vietnam. As Long notes, the Communists have
sought to minimize the role of local forces in the conquest of South Vietnam.
Nevertheless, however much minimized, Dung's version of the final offensive
indicates the Communists assigned a significant role to local revolutionary
forces.
Truong
Nhu Tang, the Viet Cong Minister of Defense during the war, notes it was the
NLF's 9th Division that provided security for the founding congress of the
Provisional Revolutionary Government in 1969. The following year saw large-
scale combat as the VC 5th, 7th, and 9th Divisions fought ARVN and Cambodian
army units during the withdrawal of NLF headquarters elements into Cambodia. By
1972, according to Tung, the Viet Cong were better placed than ever before to
exploit the weaknesses of the South Vietnamese government and their American
supporters.[22]
On
May 21 1972, Communist forces occupied Loc Ninh. It was the NLF flag that was
raised over the captured city after it had fallen to regiments of the VC 5th
Division. As survivors of the Loc Ninh attacks fled, the VC 9th Division was
probing An Loc and the VC 7th Division blocked Route 13, resulting in a siege
of five ARVN regiments that would last until June 18.[23]
On December 2, men of the 10th VC Sapper Regiment blew up the Nha Be tank farm,
the largest oil storage facility in South Vietnam. Tung notes the participation
of the VC 3d, 7th, and 9th Divisions in the capture of Phuoc Long province in
January 1973.[24]
Not
only Communist writers ascribe a role to the Viet Cong in post-Tet events in
Vietnam. Colonel William E. Le Gro, author of Vietnam from Cease-Fire to
Capitulation (published by the U.S. Army Center for Military History), notes
that intelligence sources revealed the Communists force deployments in early
1973: NVA main forces would contain the ARVN in its bases while NLF forces
would invest the hamlets and villages. That month saw NLF flags raised in
hamlets of western Hieu Duc district, southern and western Dai Loc, Dien Ban,
northeastern Duc Duc, western Duy Xugen, and parts of the Que Son District of
Quang Nam Province. On January 28, local forces attacked along Route 1 between
Danang and the Bong Son pass to the south, cutting the highway in several
places. In MR2, local forces interdicted Route 20 in Lam Dong Province in late
January. Le Gro notes that VC units up to regimental size were still considered
to be predominantly Viet Cong and not North Vietnamese.[25]
Viet
Cong units during this period were not confined to propagandizing the hamlets
and villages. In October 1973 an inferior VC unit drove elements of the 11th
ARVN Ranger group from their dug-in positions on Hill 252 near Quang Ngai City.
Two months later the VC 95th Sapper Company infiltrated the command post of the
68th Ranger Battalion and inflicted over 50 casualties, including the battalion
commander and his deputy. On occasion, VC units filled in for NVA units,
maximizing the flexibility of Communist forces on the battlefield. In the
Northern Provinces, at the time of the second anniversary of the cease-fire,
local units relieved the NVA 325th Division on the My Chanh line, allowing the
325th to move toward Hue.[26]
Le
Gro places significant VC units in MR3 during this period. During February 1974
the NVA 6th Regiment of its 5th Division was given the assignment of cutting
roads around Tay Ninh. This force was assisted by a VC regiment and at least
three local battalions. VC forces launched rocket attacks in the Central
Highlands in early 1975 as Saigon forces began their final crumble. And so it
went throughout the country during March 1975: Local forces assisted the NVA in
overrunning the 102nd PF Battalion in Hau Duc, local forces participated in the
NVA onslaught against the ARVN at the An Khe Pass, and local forces inflicted
heavy casualties on Saigon territorials in Long An Province near the capital.[27]
A
Rand Corporation report prepared for the Secretary of Defense in 1978 provides
additional evidence of Viet Cong military activity after Tet 1968. A battle
near Hue in March 1974 between Saigon and Communist forces reportedly cost the
NVA and VC over 1,000 killed. Later, as ARVN troops evacuated Hue and withdrew
southward, the city of Danang was moving toward chaos. The ARVN 3rd Division
commander reported that VC sapper units in the city contributed to the
confusion.[28]
The
South Vietnamese government (Government of Vietnam, or GVN) sought to
consolidate its forces in Military Regions 3 and 4 after the loss of the
northern regions. Units withdrawn from MR1 (formerly I Corps) were added to the
six ARVN divisions, two armored brigades, various Ranger groups, and
Regional/Popular Forces organic to MR3 and MR4 in order to provide for the
continued defense of South Vietnam. The Rand study notes that most of the GVN
indigenous units were themselves already hard pressed and tied down by local
Communist forces and could not be disengaged to form reserves to meet fresh
enemy units moving into South Vietnam from the north. Examples include the ARVN
25th Division near Tay Ninh, and the ARVN 7th, 9th, and 21st Divisions in the
Mekong Delta: all tied down by local Communist forces. According to the
Commander of the Capital Military District, this was a lesson the Communists learned
from the failed 1972 Easter Offensive. Additionally, local units seized
captured ARVN vehicles for transportation to Long An Province where they
threatened to cut a major communications link between Saigon and the Delta. The
South Vietnamese Joint General Staff deployed its 22nd Division from Binh Dinh
Province to counter this threat.[29]
Historian
John M. Gates indicates the importance of Viet Cong forces at the time of the
1973 cease-fire, particularly outside of MR1. Although throughout South Vietnam
local units provided only 16.9 percent of total Communist strength, they
provided over 50 percent of the administrative and service personnel. In MR3,
the area around Saigon, local forces provided 20 percent of the combat troops
and almost 70 percent of support troops. In MR4 (the Mekong Delta), the
percentages were over 40 percent of the combat troops and over 90 percent of
the service and administrative personnel. The ARVN Chief of Staff for MR2
estimated that in 1975, Communist regular units made up less than fifty percent
of the forces in this area.[30]
At
the time of the 1973 cease-fire, Communist forces in South Vietnam consisted of
about 148,000 combat troops, 16,000 men assigned to antiaircraft regiments, and
71,000 support troops. Of this number, 30,000 were NLF main force regulars and
50,000 were guerrillas. Opposing them was an ARVN force with an assigned
strength of 450,000, a Navy of 42,000, an Air Force of 54,000, Popular and
Regional Forces totaling 525,000, and a Women's Armed Forces Corps with 4,000
members. As Army historian Le Gro notes, these gross figures of 235,000
Communists verses 1,075,000 South Vietnamese troops tell little about relative
combat power.[31] Communist
strength in the South was devoted almost exclusively to offensive operations,
while GVN forces were assigned to fixed defensive missions.
It
is difficult to accurately determine the Viet Cong contribution to total
Communist strength. North Vietnamese who infiltrated south in 1964 and 1965
were often assigned as replacements to Viet Cong units. Many of these people
were originally from the South and had moved North at the time of the Geneva
partition in 1954. In later years, many VC were added to the ranks of existing
regular NVA units. Compounding the problem is that some VC units had their Tet
1968 casualties replaced by North Vietnamese while maintaining their Viet Cong
unit designations. One study claimed that by mid-1968, one-third of the men in
VC units were North Vietnamese.[32]
Besides
providing manpower for direct combat operations, the Viet Cong functioned as an
interface that facilitated the operation of North Vietnamese main-force units
in the South. The intimate NLF knowledge of conditions in the South allowed
North Vietnamese forces to operate with a minimum ratio of combat to support
units. An example of this is provided by the rice war in the Mekong Delta.
Nearly 90 percent of Communist rice requirements were filled from South Vietnam
sources. The Viet Cong, often recruited locally, were able to exert control over
rice-producing hamlets, protect the activities of rice- requisitioning parties,
secure the lines of communication for movement of food supplies, and prevent
the intrusion of Saigon forces into the rice-producing areas (primarily in the
Mekong Delta).[33] It was this
"fifth column" function that enabled the Communists to deploy a
greater number of units for offensive operations than the ARVN despite the
Communists' 4.5:1 overall disparity in total force levels.
In
the April 2000 issue of Vietnam, retired
Army Colonel Rod Paschall describes the
final fall of South Vietnam in 1975 ("Victor's Final Strategy"). He
ends his description with the observation that "From its inception [in the
1930s], the Communist doctrine entailed the fielding, employment and triumph of
a regular armed force supported by guerrillas and local forces." This is
clear evidence that not only were the Viet Cong not eliminated during 1968,
they were an important component of Communist strategy right to the very end of
the war.
Sources: See footnotes
Suggestions
for further reading:
Truong
Nhu Tang, A Vietcong Memoir, (NY:
Vintage Books), 1985
William
E. Le Gro, Vietnam from Cease-Fire to
Capitulation, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center for Military History),
1981
[1] Harry
G. Summers, On strategy : a Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (Novato,
CA : Presidio Press, 1982, pp. 96-97.
[2] Robert Buzzanco, "The Myth of Tet," in Marc Jason Gilbert and William Head (eds.), The Tet Offensive, (Westport, CN: Praeger), 1996, p. 239.
[3] Ibid., p. 244. William C. Westmoreland, Report on the war in Vietnam, as of 30 June
1968, (Washington, U.S. Government.
Printing Office), 1969, p. 194.
[4] George R. Dunham and David A. Quinlan, U.S. Marines in Vietnam : The Bitter End, 1973-1975, (Washington,
D.C.: Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps), 1990, p. 266; William C. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday), 1976, p. 359.
[5] Ngo Vinh Long, "The Tet Offensive and Its Aftermath," in Gilbert and Head, Ibid., pp. 90-91.
[6] Long, "The Tet Offensive," pp. 106-107.
[7] Neil Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie, (NY: Random House), 1988, pp. 732-733. William Colby, Lost Victory, (Chicago, Contemporary Books), 1989, p. 331. Dale Andrade, Ashes to Ashes, (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books), 1990, p. 287.
[8] Long, "The Tet Offensive," p. 108.
[9] Jeffrey J. Clarke, Advice and Support : the Final Years, 1965-1973, (Washington, D.C. : Center of Military History, U.S. Army), 1988, pp. 341-342, 345.
[10] Thomas C. Thayer, War Without Fronts (Boulder, CO: Westview), 1985, p. 206.
[11] Long, "The Tet Offensive," pp. 89-90. Also, Ngo Vinh Long, "Vietnam," in Douglas Allen and Ngo Vinh Long (eds.), Coming to Terms, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 1991, pp. 39-40.
[12] Graham A. Cosmas and Terrence P. Murray, U.S. Marines in Vietnam : Vietnamization and
Redeployment, 1970-1971 (Washington, D.C. : History and Museums Division,
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps), 1986, p. 166.
[13] Van Tien Dung, Our Great Spring Victory : An Account of the Liberation of South Vietnam (N.Y.: Monthly Review Press), 1977, p. 11.
[14] Ibid., p. 22.
[15] Ibid., p. 46, 95.
[16] Ibid., p. 101, 105, 109.
[17] Ibid., p. 113.
[18] Ibid., p. 151, 164, 172-73.
[19] Ibid., p. 182, 187, 188.
[20] Ibid., p. 218, 221
[21] Ibid., p. 249.
[22] Truong Nhu Tang, A Vietcong Memoir, (NY: Vintage Books), 1985, p. 147, 179-181, 204.
[23] Ibid., 205. William S. Turley, The Second Indochina War, (NY: Westview Press, 1986, p. 145.
[24] Tung, p. 232, 250.
[25] William E. Le Gro, Vietnam from Cease-Fire to Capitulation, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center for Military History), 1981, p. 23, 24, 25, 15.
[26] Ibid., p. 63, 139.
[27] Ibid., p. 143, 153, 156, 161, 167.
[28] Stephen T. Hosmer, Konrad Kellen, and Brian M. Jenkins, The Fall of South Vietnam: Statements by Vietnamese Military and Civilian Leaders, (Santa Monica, CA: Rand), 1978, p. 103, 110 n33.
[29] Ibid., p. 116.
[30] John M. Gates, "Revisionism and the Vietnam War" in William Head and Lawrence E. Grinter, Looking Back on the Vietnam War, (Westport, CN: Praeger), 1993, p. 180; see also the Appendix.
[31] Le Gro, p. 30. William S. Turley, The Second Indochina War, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 1986, p. 163.
[32] Michael Lee Lanning and Dan Cragg, Inside the VC and the NVA, (NY: Ivy Books), 1992, p. 52.
[33] Le Gro, p. 65.