Vietnam War, 1961-1975 -- Campaigns -- Vietnam -- Khe Sanh
To a lesser degree, there was a controversy over who or what had won
the battle. Proponents of air power and strategic bombing were the most
vocal; they felt that the B-52 had been the most decisive instrument
of defense. While the Stratofortress was a valuable asset and, without
doubt played a major role, any attempt to single out one supporting
arm as the ultimate weapon in the battle would be futile. The B-52 was
but one part of an intricate defensive fire plan. The bombers struck
targets beyond 1,100 meters of the base; tactical air and artillery
took up the slack to within about 250 meters and the organic weaponry
of the defenders provided close-in fires. The system was balanced
and effective but, if any part were eliminated, the defenders would
have paid a much higher price in casualties. Both General Tompkins
and Colonel Lownds were unstinting in their praise of all supporting
arms, as well as the logistical effort; they stressed, and stressed
heavily, that the defense of Khe Sanh was a joint endeavor. The highly
successful results were achieved through the contributions of all U. S.
Services and the South Vietnamese. While the Marines had been unable to
find an infantryman who could carry a 27-ton payload, neither had the
U. S. Air Force come up with a B-52 which could man a foxhole. Both, in
their own way, were essential.(229)
The Khe Sanh story again became news in late June 1968 and the old
controversy over strategy was rekindled. Prior to leaving his post as
ComUSMACV on 11 June, General Westmoreland visited PCV Headquarters in
I Corps and approved the recommendations of Generals Cushman and Rosson
to raze the KSCB and withdraw all Allied forces to the Ca Lu area.
While General Westmoreland made the decision prior to his departure,
he did not close the base at that time, because mopping-up operations
were being conducted around Khe Sanh. In addition, large amounts of
supplies had been stockpiled there and the general deemed it more
economical to maintain the base while these stocks were consumed in
support of the operations rather than backhaul them to Ca Lu. For these
reasons, he left the choice concerning the optimum time to dismantle
the installation up to his successor, General Abrams. When bulldozers
finally began to level the bunkers and structures which had housed the
26th Marines throughout the siege, the American people wondered why
the base had been so tenaciously defended if it was to be eventually
abandoned. Had American blood been shed in vain? Critics of the
hold-out policy argued that, in the final analysis, they had been right
and those who decided to defend the base had been wrong. Such rationale
pinpointed the inability of many Americans to break away from the
techniques employed in past wars and recognize the peculiarities of the
conflict in Vietnam.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account