Leadership Lessons from the Vietnam War: Reflecting 50 Years Later on Memorial Day
Memorial Day weekend in 2025 holds an even deeper significance as the nation commemorates the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. This sacred holiday, dedicated to honoring those who gave their lives in service to their country, aligns poignantly with this historic milestone. Across the United States, communities will come together to honor the fallen from all of America's wars. It will also serve as a moment to reflect on the enduring impact of the Vietnam War—on veterans, their families, and the trajectory of American history.
To guide this reflection, two exceptional books offer unique perspectives on how the war unfolded and why it ended as it did.
Lewis Sorley’s "A Better War" presents a revisionist take, arguing that the war could have been won with sustained U.S. support. Meanwhile, Neil Sheehan's Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie" tells the human story of John Paul Vann, using his life to highlight the cultural misunderstandings and systemic failures that plagued America's involvement in Vietnam. Together, these works give us a well-rounded look at the strategies, decisions, and cultural dynamics that shaped how the Vietnam War came to an end.
A Shift in Strategy Under General Abrams
As detailed in A Better War book, the appointment of General Creighton Abrams in 1968 marked a significant turning point. Abrams replaced General William Westmoreland and shifted U.S. strategy from Westmoreland’s attrition-focused approach to a "clear and hold" counterinsurgency strategy. Instead of seeking to overwhelm the enemy with sheer firepower and body counts, Abrams aimed to secure local territories and strengthen South Vietnamese forces under a policy later coined as Vietnamization.
Sorley credits this shift in strategy with dramatically improving conditions on the ground by the early 1970s. The U.S. and South Vietnam began to stabilize key regions, weakening both the Viet Cong insurgency and North Vietnamese forces. Abrams focused on working closely with South Vietnamese troops, and Sorley argues that this strategy could have led to victory if it had gotten full support from U.S. political leaders.
Vietnamization in Action
Vietnamization gave the South Vietnamese military more responsibility for defending its territory while U.S. forces gradually withdrew. Sorley argues that, contrary to common narratives, South Vietnamese forces performed very well under this strategy when adequately supplied and trained. However, broader geopolitical events and waning U.S. domestic support began to put significant pressure on this fragile progress.
Approaching Success Amid Political Constraints
By 1972, according to Sorley, the war was close to reaching a sustainable balance. The Easter Offensive launched by North Vietnam that year tested the resilience of South Vietnamese forces, and with the help of U.S. airpower, they held their ground. Sorley portrays this period as a near-success, with a workable strategy in place that could have maintained South Vietnam's independence if consistently supported by the United States.
However, the political landscape in the U.S. shifted dramatically during these years. President Nixon, facing growing anti-war movements and the infamous Watergate scandal, was under immense pressure to bring American troops home. The true turning point lies in this crucial insight: Congressional resistance to additional military funding significantly limited U.S. involvement. These political decisions ultimately undermined the progress made under Abrams' leadership, leaving the South Vietnamese demoralized.
(because I like naming names) Prominent Senators on both sides of the aisle played key roles in shaping antiwar efforts:
Frank Church (D-ID): A leading antiwar voice, Church's 1970 and 1972 amendments were instrumental in limiting funding and curbing the war’s expansion, showcasing his strong stance against executive overreach.
George McGovern (D-SD): Known for co-sponsoring the McGovern-Hatfield amendment, McGovern became a prominent public figure in the antiwar movement, influencing key debates during the 1972 elections.
Mark Hatfield (R-OR): A bipartisan advocate of nonintervention, Hatfield’s efforts to cut war funding brought moral authority to the debate, echoing critiques of missed opportunities and the war’s futility.
John Sherman Cooper (R-KY): A moderate Republican, Cooper’s support for the Church-Cooper amendment added essential bipartisan backing, helping to pass difficult measures.
Mike Mansfield (D-MT): As Senate Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield's 1971 amendment—though ultimately diluted—along with his subsequent efforts to limit the war, reflected his deepening disillusionment after visiting Vietnam. His defeat in this effort dealt a significant blow to future funding, serving as a pivotal moment in the trajectory of the conflict.
Other Republican Senators (who need!) to be named: Clifford Case, George Aiken, and Jacob Javits played key roles in supporting Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield’s antiwar efforts during the Vietnam War. Case co-sponsored the 1972 Church-Case Amendment to cut war funding, Aiken backed measures like the Mansfield Amendment for troop withdrawal, and Javits opposed Nixon’s policies, supporting funding restrictions. Their bipartisan collaboration helped strengthen efforts to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
As a side note, Joe Biden, as a young senator, cast early votes against Vietnam War funding, reflecting the era's sentiment. Decades later, he played key roles in both starting and ending the Afghanistan War, facing criticism for the chaotic aftermath in both cases. More on this irony will follow in future articles.
The Paris Peace Accords
Ultimately, the 1973 Paris Peace Accords formalized the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. While promising a ceasefire and mutual respect for territorial sovereignty, the Accords effectively left South Vietnam to fend for itself. Sorley argues that this was a critical and horrific failure. Without continued U.S. military aid, South Vietnam could not sustain the fight against an aggressive and well-supplied North Vietnamese army.
The Collapse of South Vietnam
Following the U.S. withdrawal, South Vietnam faced mounting challenges. By 1975, funding for the South Vietnamese Army had been slashed, leaving them ill-equipped to handle North Vietnam's final offensives. Sorley claims that the war, despite its complexities, could have been "winnable" if the U.S. had maintained its support through financial aid and strategic military intervention.
From this perspective, the fall of Saigon in April 1975 was not inevitable but--very important point--rather a result of political abandonment. Sorley’s position challenges the common narrative that the war was always doomed to fail, instead highlighting the consequences of inconsistent policymaking failed congressional leadership.
Misunderstandings and Missteps
Our first author, Lewis Sorley, dives into the strategic shifts and missed opportunities in Vietnam. On the other hand, Neil Sheehan’s "A Bright Shining Lie" takes a step back and looks at the bigger picture of the systemic failures that held the U.S. back. At the heart of his story is John Paul Vann, a U.S. military advisor who didn’t hold back in criticizing American strategy. Vann’s life and experiences really capture the bigger struggles the U.S. faced, like cultural misunderstandings and political overconfidence.
On a personal note, I first encountered this book during my senior year of high school, even writing a paper on it at the time. To be honest, I only managed to read about a quarter—maybe half—of it (apologies to Mrs. Thielen) and leaned heavily on my dad to help fill in the gaps. Years later, as an adult, I finally grasped its core ideas by listening to it on Audible. Thankfully, the audiobook spans nearly 35 hours, giving me plenty of time to absorb its depth.
The Role of John Paul Vann
Returning to the book, John Paul Vann soon recognized that the U.S. relied too heavily on conventional warfare tactics—an approach ill-suited to the guerrilla-style conflict unfolding in Vietnam. He wasn’t afraid to call out the corruption in the South Vietnamese government or the U.S. leadership’s overconfidence in thinking they could mold Vietnam to fit their vision. Vann pushed hard for smarter counterinsurgency strategies, but his advice often went ignored, highlighting a pattern of missed chances during the war.
Cultural and Political Misjudgments
Sheehan’s work highlights the United States’ failure to grasp the complexities of Vietnam’s culture and political landscape. This misunderstanding, combined with overreliance on flawed South Vietnamese allies, contributed to faulty strategies and poor execution. Ultimately, Sheehan paints a picture of a war that was as much a product of self-deception as it was of external challenges.
Lessons from the Vietnam War
Reflecting on the 50th anniversary, both Sorley’s and Sheehan’s works bring valuable lessons to light:
Leadership Matters: General Abrams’ strategic approach showed that leadership and adaptability can make significant differences in complex situations. However, his efforts needed sustained political support to succeed.
Political Commitment is Key: The collapse of South Vietnam underscores the importance of aligning military strategies with long-term political will. Wars cannot be won on the battlefield alone; they require unwavering commitment from policymakers.
Understand Cultural Context: Sheehan’s exploration of cultural misunderstandings reminds us that success in foreign conflicts requires deep knowledge of the local environment and the people involved. This crucial point was often overlooked in subsequent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Cost of Abandonment: The U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam and the subsequent reduction in aid reveal the devastating consequences of half-measures and disengagement not in Vietnam but throughout the broader region.
The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam: The withdrawal had profound consequences over the next twenty years until 1995.
The sharp reduction in military and economic aid crippled South Vietnam, leading to its collapse and contributing to political repression, mass exodus, and economic hardship under communist rule. Post-war Vietnam faced isolation, Soviet dependence, and severe economic challenges, exacerbated by legacies like Agent Orange and unexploded ordnance. In 1986, the Doi Moi reforms transitioned Vietnam to a market-oriented economy, spurring rapid economic growth and poverty reduction. By 1995, Vietnam normalized relations with the U.S., joined ASEAN, and began addressing war legacies, marking a shift from isolation to recovery and global integration.
Cambodia: From 1975 to 1995, Cambodia experienced immense turmoil. The Khmer Rouge regime (1975–1979) led to the genocide of 1.7–2 million people through executions, forced labor, and starvation. U.S. withdrawal and reduced support destabilized the region, contributing to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Vietnam invaded in 1979, ousting the regime and triggering a decade-long civil war, with Cambodia becoming a Cold War battleground. Refugee crises and prolonged conflict marked this period. The 1991 Paris Peace Accords brought UN-led peacekeeping and elections, leading to slow recovery by 1995 under Hun Sen, though challenges like poverty, landmines, and limited democracy persisted.
Laos: In 1975, the Pathet Lao seized power in Laos, ending the monarchy and establishing a communist one-party state aligned with Vietnam and the Soviet Union. This followed the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and the end of CIA support for anti-communist forces, leaving Laos vulnerable. The takeover led to widespread persecution of Hmong allies, with over 100,000 fleeing by 1995. Laos remained isolated and reliant on Soviet aid until reforms in 1986 opened the economy, spurring growth but leaving the country among the poorest globally. The U.S. began reengaging in the 1990s, focusing on bomb clearance and normalization efforts, though lingering challenges like unexploded ordnance and the Hmong diaspora continued to affect development.
Agent Orange: Agent Orange, used by the U.S. during the Vietnam War, caused widespread devastation, leading to cancers, birth defects, and environmental destruction across Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and among U.S. troops. Cleanup and victim support were delayed until after U.S.-Vietnam relations normalized in 1995, leaving many Vietnamese victims without aid. The "In Memory" plaque at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, dedicated in 2004, pays tribute to veterans who lost their lives due to service-related causes, including exposure to Agent Orange.
Estimates indicate that Agent Orange has been linked to between 700,000 and 1 million deaths in the combat theater. This includes 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. veterans, 400,000 Vietnamese, and countless others affected in Laos and Cambodia.
Honoring Lessons of Vietnam’s 50th Anniversary
The 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War’s end offers an opportunity to reflect on both its tragedies and insights. Sorley’s optimism about a "winnable" conflict contrasts with Sheehan’s cautions about systemic flaws and hubris, providing a balanced framework for evaluating this complex chapter of history.
By considering these perspectives, we can better understand the Vietnam War’s legacy and apply its lessons to modern challenges. Leadership, cultural awareness, and a commitment to long-term strategies are as vital today as they were 50 years ago.
This Memorial Day weekend, let us honor and remember all those who have served and made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. May their bravery and dedication never be forgotten, but always cherished. We will always remember.
