Introduction
Today, many historians, scholars, and media pundits are still fascinated as to whether the US could have won Vietnam and the Korean wars had it adopted different military strategies. The debates over these two bloody 20th-century wars have remained relevant and controversial. Although the US had deployed huge military personnel, its inability to win any raised a question as to whether conventional warfare techniques were enough. The hit-and-run warfare that the Vietnamese adopted raised a question as to whether the traditional military might technique for winning wars was sufficient (Barceló 6).
On the other hand, the Korean War showed the importance of understanding a region before going to war there. Although there was no clear winner in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, policymakers and other stakeholders in the US and elsewhere can draw various contemporary warfare lessons from these events. Stakeholders have learned that understanding the nature of the adversary, having public support, cooperating with the enemy civilians, and leveraging technology, airpower, and human intelligence are critical elements in modern warfare.
The Nature of Adversary
The Korean and Vietnam wars showed that it is of utmost importance to know who the rival is during times of war. The Koreans and the Vietnamese understood the nature of the US military from their previous historical wars, cultures, and motivations (Chung 37). On the other side, despite having advanced weaponry and larger warfare, the US military did not understand the nature of its rival’s warfare.
For instance, the US military did not know if the Vietnamese would engage them directly or employ the gorilla warfare tactic of hit-and-run. The lesson learned from these unexpected resisting tactics was that it is essential to understand the adversary to counter their tactics. Additionally, the war revealed the importance of military flexibility, a tool that the United States forces did not possess at the time.
Role of Public Support in Wars
After the two wars, it became clear that it was important to consider the level of public support both at home and for the enemy. When the US presidents Nixon and Truman ordered the military into Korea and Vietnam, the goal was not to start wars but to reduce conflicts in the regions. However, the public at home did not have the same expectations, imagining that their military was in for a war to be won quickly and brutally.
These expectation differences were observed in the scuffles that President Truman and the military general Douglas MacArthur had over the tactics used (Matray 13). The more aggressive approach favored by MacArthur was more publicly supported than the gentle approach of President Truman. Moreover, the US government ignored the Vietnamese support for their military.
Role of Civilians in Military Cooperation
The war in Korea revealed the importance of cooperating with local citizens to counter insurgent resistance movements. In Vietnam, however, this tactic would prove futile, and the fear of using brutal force and airstrikes made the war last longer than it should have been (Ban 12). From the two wars, the military learned that cooperating with the local communities was important but also disadvantageous, and an analysis of the situation should be done before adopting the tactic.
To ensure cooperation from the local communities, it was discovered that military personnel should be able to understand the cultures and the local languages of the civilians with whom they cooperate during the war. Thus, preparations and language training should be done alongside other war preparation efforts.
Technology and Airpower
The Korean War revealed that it was always important to have teams in the air to support the ground groups. On the other hand, the Vietnam War revealed that military air superiority should be leveraged despite negatively affecting the local communities. The fear of the military leaders resulted in many casualties of the US military personnel, an issue that could have been prevented with airstrikes (Lake 65). Additionally, the two wars revealed that despite technology being a critical contemporary strategy in warfare, it needed to be balanced with human intelligence for the best outcomes.
Political Challenges
Conflicts and disagreements between the Congress, the executive, and the military leadership marked the Korean War. All three parties had varying support from the public, with the military leader MacArthur’s strategy of brutal force being more supported. These political tensions resulted in the President freeing the military general from his duties and the power of Congress in making war-related decisions diminishing (Schake 35). The wars resulted in a change where the President was given more authority concerning war decisions since some grey areas in the Constitution about war decisions were identified.
Conclusion
The lessons learned from the Korean and Vietnam wars reveal the multifaceted nature of wars and have shaped the military strategies and principles in the US and outside. The US military has come to understand the nature of warfare, from the enemy’s culture to motivations and geographical factors where the war will happen. Additionally, the military learned that it is crucial to consider the expectations of the local citizens before going to war.
Additionally, the public should be interviewed, and the strategy they wish to be adopted, as failure could result in a lack of support for the war. A critical lesson of having the safety of the civilians in the regions where war will be fought considered as they could counter the war was identified to be important. Finally, the military learned the importance of leveraging human intelligence, technology, and airpower during the wars.
Works Cited
Ban, Kil Joo. “The Power of Cultural Weapons in Counterinsurgency: South Korea’s Jeong Culture and Its Effectiveness in Vietnam.” Small Wars & Insurgencies, 2021, pp. 1–26. Web.
Barceló, Joan. “The Long-Term Effects of the Vietnam War on Civic Engagement.” 2020.
Chung, Patrick. “From Korea to Vietnam.” Radical History Review, vol. 2019, no. 133. 2019, pp. 31–55. Web.
Lake, Daniel R. “The Pursuit of Technological Superiority.” The Pursuit of Technological Superiority and the Shrinking American Military, edited by Daniel Lake, 2019, pp. 63–99.
Matray, James I. “US Entry into the Korean War: Origins, Impact, and Lessons.” Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, vol. 5, sup1. 2022, pp. 1–18. Web.
Schake, Kori. “The Military and the Constitution under Trump.” Survival, vol. 62, no. 4, 2020, pp. 31–38. Web.