: One of the main factors contributing to US genocide in Vietnam was the poor US social construction of the "enemy." Given the state of society in that American fiction called "South Vietnam," and American ignorance of Vietnamese culture, it isn't surprising that the US couldn't tell who was friend and who was foe in Vietnam, and that statistics about the state of the "enemy" in that war were fictitious through and through. If you can find it out there in the UK, Gideon, find a copy of Loren Baritz's BACKFIRE, a book which will explain how this came to be.
Well, the history of Vietnam after Dien Bien Phu isn't exactly my speciality, but I'll keep an eye open. I'd say that it was patently obvious, though, that the US was completely wrongfooted by their false assessment of the Vietnamese.
: Given this confusion about the "enemy," it's not surprising that US troops were pawns in an unconscious attempt at genocide, and thus it's not surprising that US troops often were sent on suicide missions to increase "body count" (and thus to increase the prestige of their commanding officers). Or that such troops often reacted to such missions with a practice called "fragging," i.e. killing your commanding officer in the dark of night when nobody was watching, to avoid going on the suicide mission. Try to find Wallace Terry's BLOODS for a good discussion of this practice, if you can, Gideon.
I'm aware that subtle removal of commanding officers went on during the war; again, it's not something I've studied in particular detail. But such a thing has happened repeatedly; it has also been recorded in the British Army in both of the World Wars. It's notable particularly where there is felt to be a gap between the officer and his men and the officer is felt to be incompetent.
Where this has typically occurred in the British Army is where you have had an ineffectual middle-class officer trying to order a bunch of veteran soldiers to go to their near-certain death. There are some things Tommy Atkins has always rebelled against.
: Well, one thing led to another, I'm sure, and thus this Operation Tailwind makes sense to me as a sort of revenge for "fragging." Doesn't it? I'm sure the top brass found out about "fragging" sooner or later, and planned a few countermeasures to secure the "loyalty" of the troops...
I don't know. As I understand it, the subtle removal of your senior officer usually happened to the junior officers who led the attack (typically captains or lieutenants) rather than the slightly-higher-up brasshats who ordered the attack. It might be the case, but you could equally well say that it was a rather paranoid reaction by the Army to try and prevent Americans defecting, providing the Viet Cong with a)information and b) propaganda material.
If these ops had really been to secure the "loyalty" of troops (and spread a little FUD about), you'd have expected them to be a little more publicized ("hunting down Commie spies") and they might have been more restrained about the use of chemical weapons. I think they were just out to terminate these guys; a mixture of fear and vindictiveness.
Of course, the ones who came back to America in body bags were probably better treated on return than the ones who didn't...
Gideon.
