3 Stars = It’s OK
I think what’s bad in this book cancels what’s good so the result is a bit of a mess but, I'm being generous here, overall it is OK. I did have trouble getting through the book because of what, I think, is bad in this book. The problem is Sorley has an ax to grind. For Sorley the most important aspect of the war was the pacification program. Basically he maintains that pacification was totally ignored by Westmoreland and that resulted in a complete lack of progress and wasted opportunity. Then, this is the important part, Abrams did emphasize pacification and that resulted in dramatic progress. According to Sorley: If only the US could have stayed committed to the defense of SVN, pacification would have resulted in a secure communist free nation. Actually, Sorley maintains that the war was won in 1970 but no one noticed…so the war continued. If that sounds ludicrous that is because it is!
For Sorley the most important period of the war came after Tet in 1968. In the prolog he bemoans the fact that many histories focus on the period prior to and including Tet 1968 and virtually ignore the period of Abrams’ command. After Westmoreland left and Abrams took command he focused on Vietnamization and pacification and, along with William Colby as director of CORDS and Ellsworth Bunker as US Ambassador to South Vietnam, “…came very close to achieving the elusive goal of a viable nation and a lasting peace.”
To demonstrate that near success Sorley examines the successes of the CORDS program and a few of the battles Americans fought to secure strategically important areas from Communist incursion. The author even titled one of the chapters Victory. That chapter opens with, “There came a time when the war was won. The fighting wasn’t over, but the war was won. This achievement can probably best be dated in late 1970.” He then gives examples of how formerly enemy controlled areas around Saigon were now almost entirely free of Communist forces of any kind. He quotes Colby saying, “…by 1971 I could go down the canals in the Delta in the middle of the night.” But I am trying to understand how a win can be declared when the “fighting wasn’t over.” So people were still dying. So SV was not secure, just certain areas were secure. And the author, of course, focuses on these areas. While interesting and of historical importance, Sorley fails to convince me he has done nothing more than present cherry-picked events to support his conclusion of some kind of victory.
The numbers do not support a victory for US and SVN forces. Prior to Tet 1968 RVNAF deaths were less than 13,000 per year. After Tet 1968 RVNAF deaths exceeded 20,000 for every year until the fall of Saigon. So no significant improvement can be found for the years 1970 and 1971. I use Vietnamese military numbers because US forces were on their way home during those years.
But Sorley makes other claims to demonstrate that the war was being won. I think the most extravagant claim is that from 1969 until 1971 or 1972 the US had driven VC and PAVN forces from the A Shau Valley and it was held against the Communist forces until the US removed its ground forces in 1973.
Rising above the western side of the A Shau Valley is the hill that became known as Hamburger Hill. In May of 1969 a battle was fought there. Sorley says, “After driving out the 29th NVA, the 3rd Brigade [of the 101st Airborne Division] stayed in the A Shau for months, then passed the mission to other units.” Really, stayed for months? So name the combat base or fire base. If a brigade is staying in the bush they would set up a base. Sorley then quotes the 3rd Brigade commander: “We and our successors controlled the area until ordered out of Vietnam three years later.” So the 101st Airborne or its “successors” controlled the valley from 1969 to 1972? History shows that the 101st was out of Vietnam by March 1972. Sorley’s and the 3rd Brigade commander’s statements are so provocative I was impelled to check it further. But, I did already know that for about 23 days in 1970 the Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord was fought in the mountains above the eastern side of the A Shau, again involving 101st Airborne’s 3rd Brigade. After 75 dead and 463 wounded it was determined the base was not defensible and US forces withdrew. I also knew that was the last major engagement between US and Communist ground forces. That was just one year after Hamburger Hill, not three. I have not found any other mention in the history of other “successor” units that controlled the A Shau Valley. The US never had control.
Although this book does have a lot to recommend it this is mostly an example of bad history. Sorley, of course, does not mention Fire Support Base Ripcord. This is not a history I would recommend to the uninitiated to the Vietnam War. But, in reality, Sorley is attempting to persuade and not inform. His bias is obvious in his long section on Westmoreland. Yes, Westmoreland did ignore pacification but Sorley’s critique is lacking and does not explore what Westmoreland did right. Yes, Abrams did a fine job with pacification but it had its limits and Sorley does not explore those limits. Sorley does not like that the US Congress was no longer in the mood to continue financial and military support after Tet 1968. The US was going to leave and not even provide that minimal support that existed prior to 1965. That was a Johnson / McNamara blunder and not a Westmoreland fault. Nixon could not gin up any kind of continued support for the war with congress or the public. So, Sorley wants to persuade the reader that Abrams could have done a better job than Westmoreland and it was Westmoreland who ultimately lost the war even though it was won, for a time, under Abrams. I know, the pieces don’t fit.
This complex war needs a wider lens than Sorley provides. It is too obviously focused on what happened in country and ignores the restrictions placed on Westmoreland by Johnson and McNamara. This book is an incomplete examination of the war after Tet 1968. It suffers from cherry-picking and confirmation bias. We do need a better examination of the war after 1968 but this book falls short.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
Frequently bought together
- +
- +
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar books based on genre
Page 1 of 1Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Products related to this item
Page 1 of 1Start overPage 1 of 1
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on October 10, 2016
... combat tours in Vietnam and until I read "A Better War" I never fully grasped the ironic tragedy of ...
Reviewed in the United States on February 1, 2017Top reviews from other countries
Mr. Ds Phillips
First class - a brilliant read
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on March 25, 2019PHILIPPOS VOIDOMATIS
item arrived in excellent condition
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 16, 2020
