Rating: 
Summary: The book that explodes the myth about the Vietnam War.
Review: After reading Jeff Thurston review, I am at a loss. He obviously did not read the same book I did. His review did the usual liberal hatchet job that the Vietnam newsies did from the No Name bar in Saigon.I went back and read the newspapers, Berkeley Barb, L. A. Free Press, U. S. News and World Reports, Time, and Newsweek, of that period. The difference in attitudes is astounding. We lost the propaganda war. Jeff Thurston is still perpetuating the myth the North Vietnam was better. They were better at atrocities on a large scale. In Mr. Jones book, he talks about the North Vietnamese Government admitting the subterfuges they used. When the other side admits to doing, what we have been saying all along, it is not a stab in the back. A must for any Vet or serious student of the Vietnam Struggle.
Rating: 
Summary: A good MILITARY review of the war...
Review: For anyone who still does harbour the received notion that the USA lost the Vietnam War to a tiny 3rd-World nation of peasant farmers, Mark Woodruff's book will come as a surprise. To his credit he does make clear at the outset that this IS a partial review of the war. He's an ex-Marine and is determined to make the point that - taken purely as a military operation between the years 1965-1973 - the US Armed Forces can justifably consider themselves `victors'. However, noble as that undertaking is, he'll also be aware of Von Clausewitz's statement that "war is a continuation of politics by other means". As he points out, the Vietnamese were fighting other foes long before the Americans appeared, and the Northern Vietnamese continued to fight their Southern counterparts for two, ultimately successful, years afterwards. He does a fine job of refuting many of the myths that have been handed down since the end of the war and is clear on exactly what the scope of his book is, and crucially isn't. But the reader seeking a wider view of S.E.Asian history and politics will be entitled to ask about just WHY the USA became as heavily involved as it did (particularly after having supported Ho Chi Minh and Viet nationalists against the Japanese during WW2, and after been so closely involved in financially supporting the abortive French attempts to `hold onto' French Indochina in the 1950s), why it allowed such a corrupt regime as Thieu's to develop, what ultimate effect Nixon and Kissinger's secret bombing of Cambodia had (unleashing the Khmer Rouge?) and why it did ultimately decide to pull out? Having said all of that, within its own narrow parameters `Unheralded Victory' is a welcome addition to the histories of the S.E.Asian conflicts.
Rating: 
Summary: Shoot the messenger
Review: I have never argued that the U.S lost militarily in Vietnam. Some of my best friends are Vietnam vets. My point in my previous review was that WE LOST THE WAR. All of our military might couldn't get us out of our POLITICAL predicament. We lost because we had to pretend we were helping a "democratic" government defend itself from communism. If we had had a free hand to simply occupy Vietnam and had we been able to accept the casualties we could have won handily. But we had to pretend we weren't foreign invaders in someone else's country. We had to pretend we were a warrior race willing to fight indefinitely like the commies. We had to pretend the corrupt, thieving Thieu/Ky government had a chance to prevail over the ruthless, committed North Vietnamese. We had to pretend all these things because our anti-communist foreign policy was based on fantasy. We countered communism around the world with corrupt dictatorships, not "democracy". I would also point out that this anti-communist foreign policy was a "liberal" invention. Mr Woodruff's book, as I said in my previous review, describes a military victory on our part. This makes people now feel good, but it doesn't face the fact that the that the Vietnam War was a Cold War adventure which we lost to the commies. Vietnam was the first (and last) war which the military allowed the press to cover without restriction. If you prefer to believe now a happier, frag and drug-free Vietnam war, and one which we really won militarily, then this book's for you.
Rating:
Summary: Good Overview of Actual Victory and Perceived Defeat
Review: I liked this book. I did not give the book 5 stars because it could have been written in a more organized style which would allow the reader to follow the story of the war in Vietnam better. I also disliked the constant review of small unit actions. One or two would have been enough to get the author's point across. The book does come through with its point, the United States totally defeated North Vietnam and simply slaughtered its armies in the field. The author claims that General Gaip admitted to over 1 million killed in the battles with the United States. As the US lost about 50,000 this translates into not only a US victory, but a tremendous victory on the battlefield. In fact, if the North Vietnamese are admitting to 1 million dead the total is probably closer to 2 million. The author makes it clear that the major reason for the perception of defeat is the American news media. In fact, he basically proves they were (and are) no less than trators. The media was responsible for the perception of defeat, and then the resulting refusal to come to the aid of our ally and defend the Paris peace accords. In my opinion he makes a good case for this point of view and does show that the anti war "fever" which gripped the US was fabricated by the press. This is an excellent time to read Unheralded Victory because of the war in Afganistan launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Once again we see the press being used as our enemies greatest weapon. Every report from the Afganistan rulers is treated as true and beamed into every American home without any censorship by the press. The press has become the pipeline for Taliban propaganda into the minds of every American who looks at TV news or reads the major news publications. American leaders are questioned at every turn and yet the enemies of the US are not only not questioned, but their claims are put forth as facts. Have hospitials been bombed by the US? Have "innocent" people in Afgainistan been killed or hurt by the US? These claims are never questioned. US reporters roam about enemy territory and film the horrors of our bombing campaign (according to our enemies), but none of this is ever questioned by our press. Just like Vietnam. The enemy has a ready audience with our press corps and an audience that accepts thier claims without question. The author has made a valid point. Can we fight any war where the US press is a part of our enemies propaganda machine? A must read to understand what is going on in Afganistan today.
Rating:
Summary: Thank god for FACTS rather than progaganda!!
Review: It is so welcome to finaly read an account of this war that doesn't constantly refer to battles lost with american body counts rising, along with the poor morale of our troops who were unfairly drafted from ethnic-minorities. After years of hearing all the typical portrayals of this war I was amazed to learn of just how completely our combined ground and air forces dominated the battlefield. My own father-who may be one of those vets too close to look at the overall picture-remembers only of small unit action where casualties were high within his platoon or company. Its important to understand that in many instances, although a company of our was taking high casualties an entire battalion or regiment of theirs was being wiped out. That is a much different view than the one popularly portrayed.
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for Military Historians
Review: The only thing that stops this gettig five stars is as the reviwer said below the slightly disorganised and faintly "rushed" feel to the books organisation. Having said that this is still a very well researched book. His arguments are compelling and highlight a number of disjoint themes to a single compelling argument- the US won the war militarily and was only defeated at home. There is ample evidence and the evidence is presented in a reasonably non biased way. His conclusion is quite compelling. As an aside it is good to see the New Zealanders and Australians mentioned in some detail- this is the first US book ( that I am aware of) that mentiones the ANZAC contribution.
Rating:
Summary: Myth shattering!
Review: This book dispels all the myths that have now seemingly become synonymous with the Vietnam War. The drug abuse, the fragging, civian deaths etc. were no more disproportionate in Vietnam than in any other war. It literally pains me to think that we have had to wait this long for an acknowledgement that the combat troops acquited themselves with distinction in the Vietman war.
I was recently shouted down at a dinner party when I tried to raise some of the statisitcs and observations in this book. This shows how ingrained the "Unwinnable War" myth is when it comes to this particular war.
If you're still not convinced, ask yourself a question. When has a Third World army ever beaten a highly trained and well-equipped force? The answer as this book illustrates is.. never!!
The press and the middle-class draft dodgers should hang their heads in shame when they read this book. A myth-shattering read.
Rating:
Summary: A potted performance
Review: Unlike the other review authors I have to admit that I found this book profoundly dissapointing. It is certainly true that Woodruff has carried out a significant amount of research but this does not make for a truly academic book. He returns to the traditional whipping boy of the Vietnam war (the press) put forward originally by Westmoreland and draws little new in that area. While Tet was the turning point this was not entirely due to the press and it is worth consideration that come Tet America had been fighting for the same period as up to VE day in the Second World War and that after this length of combat time the Korean War had become deeply unpopular.
The book draws some startling conclusions from certain facts such as the assertion that while reported combat refusals increased, discipline and unity were higher as fewer acts of insubordination were being overlooked. This is totally unfounded and is one of the many statistics that seems to be wilfully misinterpreted. Fianlly the author has not considered in enough detail whether the war was 'winnable' at all. There is little enough evidence to suggest that the North were ever prepared to give up their struggle for the South and in their tenacity possessed something that the Americans could not emulate. Also it is impossible to ignore the weaknesses of the South Vietnamese Government. The system was incredibly corrupt and inefficient and never looked capable of maintaining the secure state the Americans were looking for. Surely the support of such a regime was a failure within itself? Overall if one wants an 'upbeat' version of American successes in the War I would point towards Lewis Sorley's book "A Better War" while in terms of military analysis James Gibson's "The Perfect War" is almost unparalleled. For more general studies I would suggest that Col. Summers, Stanley Karnow and even Gabriel Kolko still show this book the way to go.
Rating: 
Summary: a Join the Dots History Of The Vietnam War
Review: what a dissapointment this book turned about to be,woodruff claims he wanted to write a balanced book about americas military an political intervention in south east asia,yet i could barely carry on after reading the preface,it smacked of right wing bias and his endoresment of the assistant secretary of defence John T.McNoughton that america had emerged as the Good Doctor in south east asia was risible,however if you can turn a blind eye to the political leanings of the author this is a pretty good account of the proffesionalism an military know how of the united states army in that conflict, the indepth accounts of the battles are really informative you can almost picture the battles them selves, he name checks individual grunts who fought the battles an officers an such an gives excellent descriptions of the tactics involved plus good battlefield diagrams an statistics, the book is let down buy its one sided agenda, although there is welcome austarlian an new zealnader input, which most americans are oblivious too. neither are there accounts of the battles from the NVA or PLAF(viet cong) veterans. The tunnels of cu chi this aint!
Rating:
Summary: A MUCH-NEEDED INFUSION OF BALANCE IN THE VIETNAM WRITINGS
Review: Woodruff gives a perspective on the war which whilst belated, is welcome. It is especially so to veterans like myself who believed that we were there for the right reasons, albeit under difficult conditions. It is significant that the majority of positive reviews of this work are themselves penned by Vietnam Veterans. As the author observes, no-one can claim to have "expert knowledge of the Vietnam war because they had 'been there themselves'"(p.278), as all our individual experiences are personal anecdotes & therefore ultimately subjective. It is thus something of a surprise to see reactions to Unheralded Victory which include the claim, for example, that it fails to qualify as a truly academic book, when it is clearly intended as a reader for those seeking a more balanced work than many of the agonized analyses of the last 25 years. I accept the minor criticisms that the book comes over as a series of sometimes unconnected essays, rather than as an integrated work. Nonetheless it obtains appropriate impact and credibility. Further, I think the summaries of numerous battles, both large & small-scale, are entirely apposite to the main arguments Woodruff puts forward. Overall, an excellent effort.
| 
