Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:715Hits:20297129Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
ANDRADE, DALE (3) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   002126


Ashes to ashes: the phoenix program and the Vietnam war / Andrade, Dale 1990  Book
Andrade, Dale Book
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication Lexington, D C Heath and Co, 1990.
Description xiv, 330p.
Standard Number 066920014X
        Export Export
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
Accession#Call#Current LocationStatusPolicyLocation
033556355.0218409597/AND 033556MainOn ShelfGeneral 
2
ID:   047191


Spies and commandos: how America lost the secret war in North Vietnam / Conboy, Kenneth; Andrade, Dale 2000  Book
Conboy, Kenneth Book
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Description x, 347p.hbk
Series Modern War Studies
Standard Number 0700610022
        Export Export
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
Accession#Call#Current LocationStatusPolicyLocation
044711959.70438/CON 044711MainOn ShelfGeneral 
3
ID:   082143


Westmoreland was right: learning the wrong lessons from the Vietnam War / Andrade, Dale   Journal Article
Andrade, Dale Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2008.
Summary/Abstract More than thirty years after the fall of Saigon, historians still argue about the lessons of the Vietnam War. Most fall into two schools of thought: those who believe that the United States failed to apply enough pressure - military and political - to the Communist government in Hanoi, and those who argue that the Americans failed to use an appropriate counterinsurgency strategy in South Vietnam. Both arguments have merit, but both ignore the Communist strategy, and the result is a skewed picture of what sort of enemy the United States actually faced in Vietnam. The reality is that the United States rarely held the initiative in Vietnam. Hanoi began a conventional troop build up in South Vietnam beginning in the early 1960s, and by the time of the US ground force intervention in 1965 the allies already faced a large and potent conventional Communist army in the South. Simply employing a 'classic' counterinsurgency strategy would have been fatal from the beginning. Despite this fact, the US military has tended to embrace flawed historical analysis to explain our failure, often concluding that there was a 'strategic choice' in Vietnam - a right way to fight and a wrong way. Most blame General William C. Westmoreland as choosing the wrong way and argue that if he had eschewed a big unit 'search and destroy' strategy, the war might have turned out differently. However, this article argues that this is untrue. Westmoreland could not have done much differently than he actually did given the realities on the ground. The flawed interpretations of the Vietnam War are not only bad history, but they also lead military and political policymakers to bad decisions in current counterinsurgency strategy. As the US military finds itself embroiled in unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it needs clear lessons from America's longest counterinsurgency campaign - the Vietnam War.
Key Words Vietnam War  Westmoreland  Abrams  Strategy 
        Export Export