Talk:Operation Delaware

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Tet and Khe Sanh were NVA defeats?[edit]

I originally reverted but an editor has re-inserted the following text into the article: "the PAVN had just suffered two of their most significant defeats of the war: the Tet Offensive and at Khe Sanh," That is a baldly-worded statement that is misleading and should be nuanced. Neither battle was a US and South Vietnamese victory. The Wikipedia info box summary for Khe Sanh describes it as "both sides claimed victory" and describes Tet as an allied tactical victory but a strategic, propaganda, and political victory by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Those opinions reflect the large majority of scholarly opinion.

Instead I propose the text read something like the following. "the PAVN had just suffered more than 40,000 casualties in two large campaigns: the Tet Offensive and Khe Sanh." That wording is accurate for all readers of whatever persuasion, consistent with what Wikpedia says elsewhere, and does not make the POV judgement that the PAVN had suffered defeats in those two battles.Smallchief (talk 09:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tet Offensive was a clear military victory for the US/RVN and defeat for the PAVN/VC, there is nothing misleading about that. As the Tet Offensive infobox notes the PAVN/VC lost an estimated 17,000 killed and 20,000 wounded. The Tet Offensive largely destroyed the VC as a fighting force. Khe Sanh is more arguable, because its still unclear what the PAVN were really trying to acheive there and given the nature of the battle it was impossible to accurately assess the extent of PAVN losses. I therefore don't agree with your suggested wording and propose that it should instead read "the PAVN had recently suffered more than 40,000 casualties during their defeat in the Tet Offensive and at the Battle of Khe Sanh".Mztourist (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't agree -- nor can most scholars -- that Tet was a victory for US/RVN -- and saying that it was impacts the credibility of this article. People who read this article are going to be shocked (or delighted) if they see the bald-faced assertion that Tet was a US/RVN victory. If you believe Tet was a US/RVN victory, the proper place to argue that is on the talk page of the Tet Offensive article, rather than inserting it into an article that is not about Tet.

You can't be serious, name some of these "most scholars" who say that Tet was a military defeat for the US/ARVN. The Tet Offensive page clearly states that it was a tactical US/ARVN victory. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources that support the view that Tet was a military victory for the US/RVN: [1], [2] (by Don Oberdorfer who wrote the first definitive account), [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] to give just a few. Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not harm this article to leave out any mention about who won and who lost in the Tet offensive and the Battle of Khe Sanh other than to note that the communist forces had recently suffered heavy casualties in those two battles. To say in this article without qualification that Tet and Khe Sahn were US/RVN victories is simplistic, unnecessary, and controversial. Smallchief (talk 11:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read what I wrote above, you will see that I don't say that Khe Sanh was a US/ARVN victory, while stating Tet was a victory is consistent with the Tet Offensive page. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tet Offensive page says it was a "tactical victory" for the US/RVN -- but a strategic victory for the NVA/VC. The strategic defeat the US/RVN suffered at Tet was far more important than the illusory "tactical victory" we gained. I don't think any competent authority will disagree with that statement. The consequences of Tet were enormous and adverse for the US. A President retired early; a commanding general was kicked upstairs; the American people lost faith in the war effort; the intellectual elite of the US became anti-Vietnam War. After Tet. the thrust of US policy was "how do we get out of here?"

War is about destroying the will of your enemy to resist and gaining your political and/or economic objectives. With Tet the communists came closer to achieving all of those things. That's a huge victory for them -- a strategic victory which mattered.

The unnuanced statement I deleted which said the US/RVN won the battles of Tet and Khe Sahn was highly misleading. I appropriately deleted it to mention only that communist forces had recently suffered heavy casualties. Taking sides in the debate about who won Tet and Khe Sahn doesn't belong on the Operation Delaware page.Smallchief (talk 09:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical=military, Tet was a clear military defeat for the PAVN/VC and my proposed statement is perfectly accurate. The strategic effect (which I have never commented on) is completely irrelevant here, the strategic propaganda victory which the North Vietnamese acheived didn't change the fact that they had suffered military defeat.Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portraying Tet as a US/RVN victory is like a surgeon saying "the operation was a success but the patient died." There's a place to discuss the nuances of the consequences of Tet. This article is not the place to insert your POV. Smallchief (talk 12:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your oversimplification of equating a military defeat with a strategic/propaganda victory is the issue here. I am not inserting any POV, the Tet Offensive page clearly states that this was a tactical US/RVN victory (supported by numerous sources I have cited above, when you have failed to provide a single source stating that this was not a US/RVN military victory) and this is what is accurately reflected in my wording. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote our old buddy, Clausewitz, "War is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." Whose will was fulfilled after Tet and Khe Sahn? Whose President retired? Whose Secretary of Defense quit? Whose commanding general was relieved? Whose public and elite turned against the war? Which side pleaded for negotiations? Which side said enough is enough, declined to introduce more soldiers into the war, and set as its goal "peace with honor" rather than a military victory?

You are confusing war with battles. No-one disputes that the North Vietnamese won the war, but that is not what we are talking about here.Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Tet and Khe Sahn do not meet the criteria for declaring victory -- no matter how many communists we killed. The body count is irrelevant if you don't gain some advantage. And we didn't. We lost advantage. Big time. Nobody can disagree with that.

Tet was a clear military victory for the US/RVN, however the media portrayal made it appear as a defeat leading to the propaganda victory for North Vietnam. I am surprised that you are unable to see the difference between the two which are clearly set out in the Tet Offensive infobox and the body of that page. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, my main point is simply that it is not a NPOV nor necessary to claim in this article that the US/RVN won the battles of Tet and Khe Sahn. It sets off an alarm clock in readers' minds: "What? Tet was a US/RVN victory? Since when? You've got to be kidding." -- and diminishes the credibility of this article. Argue who won Tet in the Tet article -- not here.

I don't need to argue it on the Tet Offensive article it is already concisely summarised there: "US and South Vietnamese tactical victory North Vietnamese propaganda, political, and strategic victory" Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sources go I can dig up thousands that say Tet was a disaster for the US. Revisionist historians who claim otherwise can't deny that, in the minds of US leaders and the US public, Tet was a defeat.Smallchief (talk 12:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for RS that say that it was not a military victory for the US/RVN, not whether or not it was a "disaster for the US". You continue to obfuscate the issue by mixing up the military outcome with the strategic outcome. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can argue till the cows come home about Tet -- but the fact remains that it is neither necessary nor desirable to introduce a controversial statement about Tet into an article about a different operation and battle. Smallchief (talk 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing controversial about the statement regarding Tet, it is clearly set out on the Tet Offensive page and supported by numerous WP:RS cited above. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]