The Vietnam War was an especially heinous war in which approximately 56,000 good men and women were killed in action and hundreds of others were taken prisoner. Due to the dynamic nature of the war, many soldiers were sent into battle without having the proper leadership skills necessary to protect both themselves and their soldiers.
The solders being sent to defend our country were ill-prepared for what awaited them. They were trained in traditional fighting techniques, not the guerilla warfare techniques that were being used by the Viet Cong in the jungles of Southeast Asia.In the book Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts by Colonel David Hackworth, he speaks of his experiences as a colonel in Vietnam. He notes not only significant battles that his group was involved in, but also he states what he felt the biggest problem was in the leadership structure, and that was the idea of “green lieutenants (419).
” His thesis is that the lack of trained leaders contributed to the losses that the United States military incurred. This was displayed as a lack of training in terms of battle skills, leadership skills, and administrative skills.Additionally, he saw the commanding officers’ desire for promotion and awards as a detriment to the men in the field. Hackworth makes several arguments in defense of his thesis. When he first gets to the Fourth Battalion, 39th Infantry, it is in disarray (1).
There is no effective leadership, and what leadership is there is simply there for its own self-aggrandizement (12). Morale was at an all time low, and discipline was almost nonexistent (12, 9). He promotes several officers to leadership roles who are either killed or demoted because of their incompetence.Hackworth drives his officers hard, giving them ample on the job training. He makes several allusions to what he calls “shake and bakes” which are infantry noncommissioned officers.
Many, he feels, are not prepared for what happens in Vietnam. Vietnam, he claims, is not the place for “grease pencil battles (228). ” It needed crack officers who would be able to jump into battle right away and required little more than to know where his rack was. Hackworth also looks at the incompetence of the officers that he commands and that commanded him.He talks extensively about General Hunt, who uses men as nothing more than living chess pieces, risking their lives in the pursuit of promotions and medals for himself.
In one instance, he almost destroys the battalion in a useless battle for nothing more than a good photo opportunity and some positive press (173-187). Battles like the one at Co Co Canal shook the confidence of the battalion and only served to gain Hunt positive press and a few medals. Some of his men paid with their lives. Hackworth was livid, making a point to give Hunt what-for on interfering in the battle operations.Hackworth also talks about a Bumstead, who was much like Hunt, but had better intentions.
Bumstead was left in charge so Hackworth could attend an awards ceremony (228), but managed to get the battalion involved in a major battle where several people died and were seriously injured. While the troops were pinned down in a dangerous position, Hackworth came in and did his best to extract his men, especially the injured ones (247-248). This clearly shows that he cared for his men, and really “put his money where his mouth was. ” He was not afraid to put himself in danger to protect his men.As just about anyone will tell you, a leader who is willing to place himself in harm’s way to defend his men does much to engender himself to his men.
Additionally, in the battle in Kien Phong Province, Hackworth takes full responsibility, stating that “between 1200 and 1600 hours, we had an incompetent Bumstead, an incapacitated Winston, an inexperienced Turner, and an AWOL Hackworth. And the results were tragic (pg 260). ” He falls on his sword, whether rightly or wrongly, and that, indeed would engender himself to his men.To understand Hackworth’s thinking, we must go back to incidents earlier in his tenure with the 4/39th. No one wanted him. Under Ewell, the men could pretty much do as they pleased, and they got hot meals daily.
When Hackworth showed up, things changed. The men were basically expected to display a bit more discipline and lost their regular hot meals. They were expected to train daily and expected to make the encampment safe, as there had been a large number of wounded and killed by mines just in the camp area (13).Hackworth did wonders for himself when he got his men out of that dangerous situation by having the men look actively for mines and having them on patrol to keep the Viet Cong from setting more mines.
He also did wonders for his popularity by finding one man a pair of boots. Hackworth relates the story of a small, young soldier whose feet were killing him because his boots were too big. Hackworth chewed everyone out until they found a pair of women’s boots that would fit the man. This showed that Hackworth cared for his men and would do what it took to make them comfortable (41).
He may have made them work, but he cared for his men in a way that other company commanders did not. Hackworth then tells the story of when he was wounded. His men, who by now respected him, had to wonder what would happen to them. Hackworth did not let them down.
Once he was well enough, he would commute from the hospital to the field to lead his troops (280). He was so dedicated to his troops, and the doctor was so dedicated to his health that the doctor performed a bed check each night to make sure that Hackworth did not go AWOL. He also took care of his men by making sure the best men were in leadership positions.He fired Bumstead for what he viewed as incompetence in the March twenty-fifth battle and for his inability to accomplish even simple tasks thereafter. Hackworth did not think the man was totally incompetent, only battle worn, like Winston (284).
Winston eventually came back and commanded a brigade, but Bumstead never again commanded any people or lead any more troops into battle (285-286). What can we learn from Hackworth’s many experiences? What we can take away from what he writes is the fact that men need to be well-prepared for battle.Additionally, leaders need to be well selected and well-trained in order to handle the varied and sundried events that happen on the battlefield. Vietnam was a gigantic political and military mess that we got involved in and we did our best to help the South Vietnamese people.
However, while taking care of the people of South Vietnam, we did little to take care of the people of our military. From assuring the basic creature comforts like boots were made available to having competent leadership available, little was done to assure the success of the troops in the field, which probably contributed to our lack of military success overall.Hackworth was indeed correct. Having green lieutenants made an already bad leadership situation worse, and made an already difficult war almost impossible. What can be taken away from what Hackworth has to say is that better training and preparation of leaders and soldiers alike may have made a difference in the situation and may have mad our objectives in Vietnam clearer and more easily achievable.
