How effective were the US tactics of 'Search and Destroy' and 'Defoliation' in the Vietnam War?
The tactics of search and destroy and defoliation were very ineffective in the Vietnam War. There was some element of success to the US tactics, but not enough for them to win the war overall. They were the wrong tactics to use against a guerrilla force, which is what caused them to be ineffective.
Search and Destroy was a tactic used by the USA during the Vietnam War. It was a response to the Viet Cong's tunnels, which caused the USA to have an 'Unseen enemy' that they couldn't fight (Source 1). The USA would go into villages that were rumored to have Viet Cong in them, and attack the villagers to look for any hidden weapons, and then evacuate villagers and burn down the village (Source 1). They usually resulted in American and Vietnamese casualties, so it was ineffective. There are very little advantages to Search and Destroy missions, for example the USA actually did find Viet Cong weapons hidden in villages (Source 1), so there was a very small success rate. That success rate is so small it is overlooked due to the large amount of casualties and the far larger amount of disadvantages. Another advantage would be that in relation to one of the USA's aims (Remove Viet Cong from villages) it was partially successful (Source 1).
There are far more disadvantages to search and destroy than advantages, which is the reason for its ineffectiveness. For example, search and destroy brought bad publicity to the USA. One example of this is the My Lai massacre in 1968, in which 2 platoons from Charlie Company were sent to a rumored Viet Cong village (with no VIET CONG there) (Source 1) and raped and killed over 400 civilians (Source 4) even though none were 'of fighting age' that could have been Viet Cong. When the US media found out about the massacre, there were many strikes and riots because Americans were used to their soldiers being heroes, not being murderous and killing innocent civilians. This made the tactic ineffective because US leaders couldn't do anything without civilian support, so this could have seriously hindered their ability to fight in the war. Another disadvantage is that the Viet Cong weren't affected by the tactic. After the USA burned down the village, the Viet Cong moved back in and re-build the village with the support of South Vietnamese civilians. Also, the South Vietnamese support didn't decrease, if anything, it increased due to the hatred of Americans (Source 1). Another way it was ineffective was that the information given was usually false (as shown by the My Lai massacre) and all the inexperienced US 'cherries' were susceptible to walk into traps which increased US deaths (Source 2). Also, the hatred for the USA increased due to these missions because the villagers would be forced to re-locate from their homes at their own expense, so Viet Cong support increased (Source 2). Civilian casualties were also very high compared to the number of Viet Cong weapons found, for every weapon found there were six civilian deaths (Source 2). In relation to the US aims (Protect South Vietnam and build support) this tactic was very unsuccessful because the South Vietnamese hated them a lot more and no support was gained. Overall, this tactic failed completely because it didn't do anything to affect the Viet Cong's ability to fight because they gained more support due to the wrong information given to US soldiers (Source 6) and they still moved into the burned down villages.
