The Misuse of SOG in Vietnam

THE MISUSE OF THE STUDIES AND OBSERVATION GROUP Pagina 1 di 62
THE MISUSE OF THE STUDIES AND OBSERVATION GROUP AS A NATIONAL ASSET IN VIETNAM
ABSTRACT
THE MISUSE OF THE STUDIES AND OBSERVATION GROUP AS A NATIONAL
ASSET IN VIETNAM, by MAJ Danny M. Kelley II, 85 pages.
The primary question this thesis aims to answer is--did the Studies and Observation
Group (SOG) covert and clandestine operations contribute significantly to the Vietnam
War effort? The scope of research is an examination of SOG operations throughout the
war. To determine SOGs contributions, research will answer the following secondary
and tertiary questions: (1) What were the US strategic, operational, and tactical goals for
Vietnam and how did they develop? (2) Did SOG contribute to the accomplishment of
strategic, operational, and tactical goals in the Vietnam War? and (3) How did SOG
missions affect enemy forces and their operations?
By answering the primary, secondary, and tertiary questions, a conclusion may be drawn
concerning the contributions of SOG in Vietnam as the primary headquarters for carrying
out the unconventional war effort against the North Vietnamese. Lessons learned may
apply to the use of similar unconventional warfare assets in the Global War on Terrorism.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I want to thank my wife Jennifer Kelley for her support in this
endeavor by keeping our kids occupied and by reading various rough drafts. I want to
thank Mike Langley, Dr. Tim Challans, and LTC Mark Wilcox for patiently working
with me throughout the year as members of my MMAS committee. I also want to thank
John Plaster whose books originally inspired me to research this topic and for allowing
me to conduct an interview with him. I want to thank MG John Singlaub for granting me
an interview and patiently answering my questions. I would like to thank Helen Davis for
her expertise and assistance in getting my thesis ready for turn in. Finally, I would like to
thank the helpful staff of the Combined Arms Research Library, without whose
assistance this research effort would not have been possible.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ............. ii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
Research Question ...........................................................................................................2
Qualifications..................................................................................................................2
Background.....................................................................................................................3
Assumptions....................................................................................................................4
Key Terms........................................................................................................................5
Limitations .......................................................................................................................7
Delimitations...................................................................................................................8
Significance.....................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................10
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................................34
CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS.................................................................................................38
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................66
Conclusions....................................................................................................................66
Recommendations..........................................................................................................69
GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................72
REFERENCE LIST ...........................................................................................................74
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ......................................................................................77
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT .................................78
vi
ACRONYMS
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
DOD Department of Defense
GWOT Global War on Terrorism
JACK Joint Advisory Commission, Korea
MACV Military Assistance Command Vietnam
NSAM National Security Action Memorandum
NVA North Vietnamese Army
OPLAN Operations Plan
OSS Office of Strategic Services
SACSA Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities
SEAL Sea Air Land
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
SOAR Special Operations Aviation Regiment
SOG Studies and Observations Group
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
VC Viet Cong
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
To prevent North Vietnams victory, Bui Tin (a retired
NVA Colonel interviewed in 1995) observed, the United States
would have had to "cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail." The human rights
activist queried, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail?" "Yes," he repeated,
"cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail inside of Laos. If Johnson had granted
General Westmorelands request to enter Laos and block the Ho
Chi Minh Trail, Hanoi could not have won the war." He then
explained the strategic importance of the trail for Hanois
escalation and conduct of the war. It was the only way "to bring
sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South.
Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens
of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations,
and communications units." If it had been cut, Hanoi could not
have intensified the fighting with NVA regulars, as it did in 1965.
This did not mean that the United States and its South Vietnamese
client would automatically have won. No, they still had to defeat
the Viet Cong and win support of the people. Nevertheless, cutting
the trail would have made those tasks significantly easier.
It was a telling revelation from one who should know. As
the discussion unfolded, Colonel Bui Tins observations became
more and more convincing--they actually made sense. This raises a
fundamental question. If this made such obvious sense, how is it
that the best and brightest didnt figure it out during the war?
(1999, 205-206)
Richard H. Shultz Jr., The Secret War Against Hanoi
Introduction
The United States lost the Vietnam War for a variety of reasons. Some are
mentioned above. It is not the purpose of this thesis to examine the war in its entirety and
argue the myriad of causes surrounding the failure. However, this thesis will examine in
detail the contribution of the Studies and Observations Group (SOG) in Vietnam and the
decisions of senior leaders involved. As a Joint Special Operations Task Force, SOG
managed the unconventional war effort focused on North Vietnam from 1964 to 1971.
This thesis will show that SOG did not contribute significantly to the Vietnam War effort.
The unconventional war effort outside Vietnam was a failure strategically and
operationally. By answering the following research questions, this conclusion will be
evident.
Research Question
The primary question this thesis aims to answer is--did Studies and Observation
Group (SOG) covert and clandestine operations contribute significantly to the Vietnam
War effort? The scope of research is an examination of SOG operations and senior leader
decisions throughout its existence from 1964 to 1971. To determine the contribution of
SOG to the war effort, research will answer the following secondary and tertiary
questions: (1) What were the US strategic, operational, and tactical goals for Vietnam and
how did they develop? (2) Did SOG contribute to the accomplishment of strategic,
operational, and tactical goals in the Vietnam War? and (3) How did SOG missions affect
enemy forces and their operations? By answering the primary, secondary, and tertiary
questions, a conclusion may be drawn concerning the contribution of SOG in Vietnam.
Qualifications
I am a Major in the US Army who is special operations aviation qualified. Prior to
attending CGSC, I served for three years in the 160th Special Operations Aviation
Regiment (SOAR) (Airborne). The USAF and CIA forerunners to my unit supported
SOG missions in Vietnam. As a participant in several classified task force operations, I
deployed to support Operation Enduring Freedom twice and Operation Iraqi Freedom
once. I have also conducted other classified operations worldwide. While in the 160th
SOAR, I served as Platoon Leader, Detachment Commander, MH-60K Blackhawk Pilotin-
Command, Air Mission Commander, Regimental Training Officer and Special
Operations Liaison Officer. I flew and led multiple combat air assault missions in support
of numerous objectives. I am interested in this topic because I want to examine what the
forerunners of my task forces did in Vietnam. I want to examine their war and see if I can
identify lessons that might apply to the future. I believe I can remain objective regardless
of the results of my research. It is common for those in my former organization to be
extremely self-critical at times in order to improve the unit and our own performance. It
is part of the unit culture to conduct brutal after action reviews. I see this thesis as an
opportunity to conduct a candid assessment of SOGs utility in Vietnam.
Background
The background of this research topic stems from the debate underway
concerning the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Some military officers are convinced
that the nation is effectively waging and winning the war utilizing the traditional
elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic).
However, others claim the US is not winning the war or that the US is not utilizing some
or all elements of national power effectively. The debate concerning the effective use of
the military capabilities of the US is especially divisive. Some officers within the US
military are convinced that the effective use of CIA covert action forces and of DOD
clandestine forces is critical to achieving victory (Grossman 2004, 1). Others prefer a
more conventional military solution with transformed Army Brigade Combat Teams. A
third group favors a tailored combination of both. However, disagreement over the
military option that proves to be most effective in all theaters of operation persists
(MacGregor 2004, 10).
Since 11 September 2001, the US military and their allies have engaged in combat
operations starting in Afghanistan, then extending into Iraq; all the while conducting
military operations in the Philippines and in other regions around the world. Today, the
entire US military (Active, Reserve, and National Guard components), are decisively
engaged fighting an aggressive insurgency in Iraq while hunting elusive terrorists in
Afghanistan and elsewhere around the globe, to include homeland defense operations.
Threats of terrorist strikes against the US and its allies continue.
Determining a more effective use of military resources to meet the strategic goal
of defeating international terrorists and the nations who sponsor them is a difficult
problem. In the past, policy makers faced similar problems in trying to determine how to
defeat a growing communist insurgency in South Vietnam. The US employed a mixture
of DOD clandestine operations, CIA covert action forces, and conventional military units
in the prosecution of the conflict. This research will be focussed on a detailed
examination and evaluation of SOG operations during the Vietnam War. Lessons learned
from their use in Vietnam may apply to operations conducted by their modern-day
equivalents.
Assumptions
Certain key assumptions are critical to this research.
1. The significant contribution of using SOG forces can be measured by
discovering whether or not they accomplished their objectives and assessing how their
actions impacted the enemy.
2. A comparison of the relative worth of achieving stated objectives versus losing
soldiers lives is feasible merely through examination of casualty figures versus mission
success rates.
3. Enough reliable data in the unclassified realm exists upon which to accurately
base findings.
4. Lessons learned or insights gained concerning covert and clandestine
operations from Vietnam may apply to current operations in the GWOT.
Key Terms
The first and foremost key term is "Studies and Observation Group". The Military
Assistance Command Vietnam, Studies and Observation Group (MACV-SOG or just
SOG) was a special operations task force formed officially on 24 January 1964 as part of
Operation Parasol/Switchback under OPLAN 34A. OPLAN 34A was the blueprint for
Department of Defense control of the covert war in Vietnam. Prior to that date, covert
military actions were under the control of Vietnam CIA Station Chief William Colby in
accordance with National Security Memorandum 52 (Plaster 2000, 18). SOG included
elements of Army Special Forces (the Green Berets), Air Force Air Commandos and
Navy SEALs. At times, SOG also had dedicated air forces. Additionally, numerous allied
personnel worked for SOG, such as South Vietnamese, Chinese Nungs, and
Montagnards. These individuals, who were handpicked and trained by SOG operators,
made up the majority of personnel who served on the SOG reconnaissance teams in the
Vietnam War. For chain of command purposes, "SOG answered directly to the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon via special liaison, the special assistant for
counterinsurgency and special activities (SACSA)" (Plaster 2000, 18). SOGs budget was
concealed in US Navy appropriations, and their logistical support came from the
Counterinsurgency Support Office (CISO) headquartered in Okinawa. Additionally, SOG
received logistical support from the CIAs Far East support base at Camp Chinen,
Okinawa (Plaster 2000, 18).
The term "limited war" refers to the theory that military action was less important
than the message it sent to enemies. The theory argued that the "use of force could be
orchestrated in such a way as to communicate precise and specific signals and that an
opponent would back down in the face of such threats and pressure" (Herring 1994, 5).
The theory also takes into consideration morality issues. Observe the following quote.
Intelligent morality is superior to capricious moralism. If intelligence demands the
steady, scrupulous discipline of military force, then it is more creditable to endure
the sacrifices and frustrations of limited war and preparation for limited war than
to reject them merely for the sake of gratifying superficially moral instincts. This
kind of abdication of nerve and reason amounts to an admission that the United
States and its allies lack the material and spiritual resources to better the
Communist powers in a protracted struggle; but every exercise of foresight and
restraint that gives rational direction to military power affirms faith in the
propositions that time can be made to work for the side of freedom. (Osgood
1957, 283-284)
The limited war theory served as the basis for the Kennedy and Johnson administrations
strategy in Vietnam (Herring 1994, 5). This was a change from total war theory espoused
by the Eisenhower administration (Osgood 1957, 212). Further discussion of both
theories will occur in the analysis portion of this thesis.
The definitions of the three levels of war--strategic, operational, and tactical are
also key to this research.
Strategic level of war: - The level of war at which a nation, often as a member of
a group of nations determines national or multinational (alliance or coalition)
security objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to
accomplish these objectives. Activities at this level establish national and
multinational military objectives; sequence initiatives; define limits and assess
risks for the use of military and other instruments of national power; develop
global plans or theater war plans to achieve these objectives; and provide military
forces and other capabilities in accordance with strategic plans. (Joint Publication
1-02 2001, 507)
Operational level of war. The level of war at which campaigns and major
operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic
objectives within theaters or operational areas. Activities at this level link tactics
and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the
strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives,
initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events.
These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they
ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the
means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives.
See also strategic level of war; tactical level of war. (Joint Publication 1-02 2001,
389)
Tactical level of war. The level of war at which battles and engagements are
planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units

or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and
maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to
achieve combat objectives. See also operational level of war; strategic level of
war. (Joint Publication 1-02 2001, 522)
Understanding what delineates operational goals from strategic or tactical goals is
crucial to answering the primary research question. Other key terms are included in the
glossary.
Limitations
Limitations on this study derive from the amount of available declassified
research data. It is impossible to know whether or not the declassified data accessible for
research portrays the most accurate description of the bulk of SOG activities. The records
of failures or successes might be classified, undocumented, or lost. Nonetheless, it is
possible to conduct thorough research and provide an analysis of the lessons learned from
covert operations. The research may lead to conclusions that are applicable to ongoing
military operations in the Global War on Terrorism.
Delimitations
The delimitations to this study are of both scope and content. The scope is limited
to the study of SOG operations in the Vietnam War from 1963 to 1971. The content is
limited to SOG operations only and does not include a detailed analysis of other special
operations units conducting similar missions. Other unit operations are only discussed
when SOG supported them directly or vice versa.
Significance
The study is significant because it focuses on a specific DOD military task force
and supporting assets that are analogous to forces that exist today. Detailed discussion of
the ongoing use of these forces or even their composition is not possible due to their
classified nature. However, the study of a similar unit in Vietnam will facilitate the
identification of lessons learned that have application to present day operations. The
proper strategic and operational use of current forces can be evaluated based on a critical
analysis of the conduct of past operations. The tactics, techniques, and procedures
developed and refined by SOG have relevance today as well as in the future.
There are other works that have discussed the research topic. However, their
scope seemed focused on either the heroism of individuals and units or on the brutality of
forces operating seemingly without remorse towards the enemy. There is little research
material available that examines whether or not the creation of SOG was useful to the
Vietnam War effort. By addressing the utility of SOG in Vietnam, this thesis should add
to the body of material concerning the use of covert military operations in Vietnam.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is no shortage of literature concerning the overall thesis topic. Numerous
books, articles, and documentaries examine the strategy of the United States in Vietnam.
There is also a great deal of literature concerning the use of covert operations during the
Vietnam War. Some of these books are specifically written about the thesis topic. What
are difficult and limiting to the research are the lack of sources available from the North
Vietnamese point of view and a general lack of discussion of operational warfare in
detail.
The first grouping of books and articles in the review are those specifically
concerning SOG. These works describe SOG in detail and delve into the tactical and
operational goals of the unit as well as the results of operations. They are the core books
of the research. The second grouping relates to strategy. Multiple sources link strategic
guidance with the tactical efforts of SOG. Conclusions drawn concerning the guidance
given to SOG commanders by the National Command Authorities (NCA) at the time are
critical to answering the primary research question. The third grouping relates to the
enemy perspectives. This grouping of books is useful to examine the effects of SOG
operations on the enemy. In addition, the works are useful to determine whether or not
the NCA chose the most effective strategy based on the enemy situation in Vietnam.
The first book to be reviewed was written by one of SOGs veterans, Major
(Retired) John L. Plaster, U.S. Army. Many military officers in the special operations
forces community regard Major Plaster as an expert in the field. In his book, SOG The
11
Secret Wars of Americas Commandos in Vietnam, he describes the formation of the unit
and covers its tactical missions from unit formation through December 1971 when the
last reconnaissance team operated in the Ashau Valley. The book examines SOGs
operational roots in the CIA under station chief William Colby and describes the change
in American policy that shifted responsibility for paramilitary operations against North
Vietnam from the CIA to the United States military under OPLAN-34A issued 15
December 1963. Plaster details CIA elements that were retained under the units control
and describes the individuals involved and their respective contributions to the formation
of the unit. For the most part, this book is useful for its account of how the unit was
formed and organized and for its description of the tactical missions of the unit. In
addition, the descriptions of the individual heroism of members of SOG and those who
supported them shed light on the quality of men who served in the organization. The
primary contribution of this source is to understand and appreciate the tactical challenges
of SOG missions and the outstanding service of the men involved.
A second book by Major (Retired) John L. Plaster in the review is SOG: A Photo
History of the Secret Wars. In this book, he discusses the formation of the unit and some
of the units early missions in much the same manner as in SOG The Secret Wars of
Americas Commandos in Vietnam. However, the multiple photos used throughout the
book add to the description of the organization and their tactics. Additionally, there is
more discussion of support elements such as the aviation units that supported SOG. The
two books complement each other and paint an illuminating picture of the tactics of SOG,
the type of men who served in the unit, and the individual tactics, techniques and
procedures used during their various missions. One argument effectively made by both
12
books is that "SOGs all-volunteer Special Forces elements suffered casualties not
comparable with those of any other U.S. units of the Vietnam War" (Plaster 2000, 466).
The second argument was that SOGs "investment of less than a company-sized U.S.
force tied down the equivalent of four-plus divisions in Laos and Cambodia, an economy
of force unparalleled in U.S. history, perhaps without precedent in world military history"
(2000, 466).
The third book by Major (Retired) John L. Plaster is Secret Commandos. This
book discusses in vivid detail the personal story of the authors experience in SOG. It is a
soldiers story that gives insight into the mind of one of SOGs former operators. In his
two previous books discussed above, the author describes the tactical operations of SOG
from a reporters point of view. This book is a first person account, which contributes to
the thesis by showing how the authors credentials and experience relate to his previous
works. The story describes his entry in the Army, selection and training as a Special
Forces soldier and his eventual assignment to SOG in Vietnam where he served three
tours of duty.
The interview with MAJ (Ret) John Plaster took place on 7 January 2005.
Questions concerned issues discussed in his books as well as other topics discovered in
the research. One question concerned Colonel Russels (the first Commander of SOG)
early dilemma. Under OPLAN 34A, two of SOGs objectives were to weaken North
Vietnamese internal security and to disrupt the re-supply network through Laos called the
Ho Chi Minh Trail. However, President Johnson would not approve of starting a
resistance network in North Vietnam or commit to cross border incursions against the Ho
Chi Minh Trail in Laos. The only targets they approved had little military value and did
13
not make sense (Shultz 1999, 45). At that point, how did Colonel Russel decide what
operations to do?
He was told not to consider, not to wait, not to analyze. He was told to execute.
These were operations dictated by Washington, which were approved individually
at White House, State Department and DOD Secretary of Defense level. It was
further complicated by the fact that because these were individually weighed and
approved and often modified, he would send forth this list of targets saying well,
we could be prepared to execute this mission by the first of July. It would take so
long to teletype it back to Washington by secure means. By the time it was hand
carried through the White House and the State Department and the Department of
Defense, and meanwhile perhaps there was an objection of some kind where a
need to modify placed a requirement placed on top of it, well then it had to be
resubmitted. If there ever was an opportunity, quite frankly it passed. It was too
late but they were still compelled to execute. (Plaster 2005)
Another question concerned the shift in SOG operational goals after the Tet
offensive in 1968. President Johnson suspended the bombing campaign in North Vietnam
after the Tet offensive. This decision freed US air power assets for targets located in
Laos. The North Vietnamese responded by moving additional air defense assets to Laos
to protect their logistics network. Despite this, SOG Reconnaissance teams performed a
higher percentage of deliberate targeting missions after the Tet offensive compared with
operations prior to Tet in 1968 (Plaster 2005).
Other questions shed light on the integration of air, maritime, and ground
operations at the tactical level, involvement of the US Ambassador to Laos in the
decision making process, and the use of SOG-generated intelligence by the conventional
forces in South Vietnam. Plasters answers proved useful and were consistent with other
sources beyond Plasters books used in the research.
Hazardous Duty, written by Major General John K. Singlaub is an
autobiographical account of his almost 40 years of active service to the nation.
Throughout his career, Major General Singlaub served in a wide variety of covert and
14
conventional assignments to include his assignment as the third Commander of SOG in
Vietnam from 1966 to 1968. He describes his job performance as the Commander of
SOG and provides his unique insight concerning the strategic, operational and tactical
challenges of commanding the unit. He discusses the impact of his unit's operations
against the enemy and his views on the success of his operations. Overall, he places the
impact of his unit in the context of the overall impact of other units in Vietnam.
Additionally, he describes some of the intrigue within the intelligence and military
community at the time. This is relevant because it relates to the challenges SOG faced
when CIA officers were placed under the control of the military after President Johnson
implemented OPLAN 34A.
In Hazardous Duty, Major General Singlaub writes that the mission of SOG was
"similar to that of the OSS or British SOE during World War II: strategic and tactical
intelligence, resistance operations, guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and covert black
psychological operations" (Singlaub 1991, 295). He describes how the unit was
organized by operational function. "The units functional arm, the Operations Staff
Directorate, was divided into five numbered divisions; Op-31 through Op-35" (1991,
295).
Op-31 was the staff division that supervised our maritime operations, conducted
by the Naval Advisory Detachment (NAD) at Danang. This group ran a variety of
seaborne operations, including the training and support for the Vietnamese
Coastal Survey Service, which was actually a raiding, sabotage, and intelligence
force. NAD had a small fleet of high speed, low-slung Norwegian-built wooden
torpedo boats, hard to detect on radar. (Singlaub 1991, 295)
This research and other works imply that SOG naval forces contributed to the Gulf of
Tonkin incident. Several naval raids were conducted within North Vietnam territory by
15
the Vietnamese Coastal Survey force just prior to the North Vietnamese attack on the US
destroyer USS Maddox on 2 August 1964.
Op-32 was the division that supervised the SOG air force, which was based at
Nhatrang in South Vietnam and at two airfields in Thailand. They also had their own
separate airfield at Bienhoa, northeast of Saigon. Their forces consisted of modified C-
130s and C-123s for agent and supply drops. All aircraft were flown without identifying
markings linking them to the US. Additionally, these aircraft "were flown by Chinese air
force pilots from Taiwan, who rotated regularly in and out of Vietnam" (1991, 295). SOG
also had a sizable helicopter force that consisted of UH-1 Huey troop carriers and
gunships, along with a squadron of Vietnamese Air Force CH-34s also without
identifying markings (1991, 295).
Op-33 supervised the psychological operations conducted by SOG. The division
specialized in ingenious deceptions that ranged from counterfeit North
Vietnamese currency to the construction of an elaborate "notional" sham
resistance movement known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriot. The primary
mission of Op-33 was to foster and exploit discontent among the North
Vietnamese military and civilians. (Singlaub 1991, 296)
Op-34 supervised the resistance and intelligence operations division located at
Long Thanh, South Vietnam. They operated the primary agent-training site for preparing
agents to organize "anti-Communist partisans in the North" (1991, 297). In his book,
Singlaub discusses this divisions challenges and setbacks during the war.
The final division of SOG was Op-35. Singlaub writes, "perhaps our biggest and
most interesting activity was the cross-border Reconnaissance Teams, supervised by Op-
35" (1991, 297). This division of SOG is the best known and written about. Their
activities were directed at enemy lines of communication during the war. Overall, Major
16
General Singlaubs book proves invaluable to the research due to his unique position as
the SOG commander. Additionally, his book enhances the operational and tactical
discussion of goals achieved by SOG in Vietnam and describes enemy responses to SOG
activities.
On 4 March 2005, I conducted an interview with Major General Singlaub at the
Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The interview proved
especially useful and covered four primary questions. The first question was--what was
the most important contribution of SOG to the Vietnam War effort?
I believe that our operations along the Ho Chi Minh trail were very important for
several reasons. We learned enough about the operation of the trail (and it was a
maze, a meshwork of trails and roads) that we better understood how to attack it.
You just couldnt cut one road and expect it to slow down any. We had gained
that knowledge not only by on the ground observation and attacking trucks to
capture POWs, but also [by capturing] a lot of documents. That tailwind operation
that CNN accused us of committing war crimes on in fact policed up all the
documents in a transportation battalion headquarters. And from that, the J2 told us
later, [they were able to] figure out how they scheduled, how they did this, what
steps they would take under certain circumstances. It was just a major haul and
enabled us to better disrupt the trail, because it was such an essential part of the
operations in the south. If we had just simply cut the trail by moving forces into
that part of Laos, the war would have had to stop. They needed that trail.
(Singlaub 2005)
In the same context, Singlaub added that he placed company-size American-led
multinational forces in Laos to interdict enemy operations using US air support. The most
important fire support assets used by his "Hatchet Teams" were the A-1 Skyraiders,
because of their lengthy loiter time and higher payloads. These forces were typically able
to defeat reinforced company size units of NVA on the trail (Singlaub 2005).
He also stated that moving larger forces into Laos or keeping them on station for
longer periods of time would have been difficult because of State Department
restrictions.
17
If we had pushed a force over there, it would have caused great heartache and
pain to the few State Department people who considered it their mission in life to
preserve the fiction of the neutrality of Laos. That was primarily Ambassador Bill
Sullivan. Sullivan had been the spear holder of Harriman when the Geneva
accords were established, so he felt it was his personal responsibility. That is why
he reacted so whenever we went over there and did something. He would accuse
us of having violated his instructions by going in too deep. (Singlaub 2005)
The second question to Singlaub was--could SOG have caused the North
Vietnamese to stop their war in South Vietnam if you had "free reign" and no restrictions
on your operations from Washington?
There were other ways of stopping the flow of supplies that were essential to
stopping the flow of supplies to South Vietnam. The best way would have been to
close the port of Haiphong--mine it. It was well into the Nixon administration
before they considered that and finally mined it. We were belligerents and the
people who were supplying our enemy were using that port. We had an
international right to close that port. It was fuzzy minded people in the State
Department who advised Johnson that he should not do this--that it was the wrong
thing to do. But it would have stopped the flow of supplies. These were being
brought in by ships provided by the eastern block. The weapons came from
Czechoslovakia and Poland along with ammunition. If we had put those mines in
there and one of these ships hit a mine and sank, the insurance would have been
so high on the rest of them that they could not have afforded it. It would have
ended the war much sooner. So thats clear. Its just pathetic that we allowed that
sanctuary to exist. We had a lot of Americans killed because of a fantasy of
restriction of use of our force in that area. We should have not given them
sanctuary in that area. (Singlaub 2005)
Other comments in answer to the second question concerned the possibility of
starting an actual resistance movement in North Vietnam. He did not think it was
possible. He related it to a similar experience in North Korea in 1950 where the US sent
people who wanted to be free and non-Communist to South Korea. "This meant that we
did the work of the North Korean Security Forces. All of their possible insurgents we
took out. And you would think we would have learned from that, but we didnt"
(Singlaub 2005). Many of the Catholic North Vietnamese who might have supported a
resistance against the Communists in the North moved South with US assistance while
18
the Communists who lived in the South stayed in place. This was in accordance with Ho
Chi Minhs wishes and later proved crucial to Viet Cong guerrilla operations in South
Vietnam (Singlaub 2005).
By the time he took command, all the agent teams that were put in place by the
CIA and his SOG predecessors were compromised.
[They were] being run by North Vietnamese intelligence, just exactly the kind of
thing we had in Korea. Well it was my immediate reaction that we would close
those teams out, we would terminate them. They had been in long enough that the
North Vietnamese intelligence service would realize that they hadnt produced
any worthwhile intelligence. We would ordinarily turn them off, but the SACSA,
the organization in Washington in the office of the chairman, told us that we were
not only to not close them out, but [we were] to increase them. (Singlaub 2005)
In response, he orchestrated a deception effort utilizing the doubled teams to
support the false resistance movement and to make the North Vietnamese intelligence
service believe that numerous additional teams were inserted. He also attempted to seal
various intelligence leaks in the agent insertion program. When he turned over his
command to Colonel Steve Cavanaugh in 1968, he recommended that the agent team
operation be closed whenever approval was granted (Singlaub 2005).
The third question to Singlaub was--would the assignment of a General officer as
the Chief of SOG made a difference in the unconventional and conventional warfare
integration?
It was true that I was attending meetings where I was the only non General
officer. As long as General Westmoreland was there, he made sure I went to these
Southeast Asia Planning Conferences with all the ambassadors from Laos and
Cambodia and South Vietnam. Every Saturday morning all the Generals with high
clearances and Singlaub got a highly classified briefing and that was very helpful
to me. I saved a lot of guys during the Tet offensive because of that. I made some
assumptions, and on my own put my unit on alert. And we didnt lose any during
that Tet offensive. Actually that is not quite true, we lost a Philipino. . . .
. . . Theres no question that a General officer would have had more
impact and would have been able to get more information and more
19
responsiveness of support from the Divisions. If I had been a General officer, they
would feel better about asking for my help. (Singlaub 2005)
The final question to Singlaub was--how did he decide what missions to conduct?
We would get targets of opportunity that would be developed as a result of one
mission. The mission would be sent in on one thing, to search a specific area,
getting there, they found some evidence of a headquarters nearby and generally
speaking, I was able to operate without getting Washington approval on it. Now I
learned the hard way from the Korean War, to put a tap on a telephone wire, I had
to get permission. (Singlaub 2005)
In summary, the interview confirmed information from other sources and shed
light on some of the decisions made at the time. Additionally, Singlaub offered
information about covert operations conducted by the joint advisory commission Korea
(JACK) in the Korean War (a topic for further research).
The book War in the Shadows: Covert Operations in Vietnam by the editors of
Boston Publishing Company is useful because it assists in trying to determine whether
the covert operations in Vietnam were orchestrated as a combined effort to achieve
synergy against the efforts of the North Vietnamese government. Analysis of this book
highlights operational warfare issues vital to determining whether or not SOG
accomplished identified operational goals.
The Phoenix Program, by Douglas Valentine (a professional writer), discusses the
CIAs operations in Vietnam from a morally critical standpoint. In addition to discussing
specific tactics used by CIA covert action forces, his book illuminates Federal
investigations over the legality of CIA-run operations. His book addresses SOG
operations in a limited fashion where CIA and SOG operations overlapped in Vietnam.
The book is useful because it illustrates that CIA and SOG operations were not
orchestrated from an operational warfare point of view. Additionally, the book paints
20
covert operations in a negative, sinister light. This is important to the research because it
offers a counterpoint to the preponderance of sources that are somewhat positive
concerning US military covert operations.
The article "A Special Naval Unit of the Republic of Vietnam The Coastal
Security Service" by Tran Do Cam, translated from Vietnamese by Donald C. Brewster,
is an excellent source on SOG naval operations, especially covert operations at the
tactical level. The article also discusses the tactical contribution of SOGs SEALs and
patrol boats that conducted numerous raids. Some of these operations had strategic
implications. During the month of July 1964 for example, SOG conducted numerous
naval raids against key military and defensive installations in North Vietnam. In addition,
they engaged multiple enemy positions and some North Vietnamese naval craft during
the conduct of the raids. On 22 July 1964, four SOG patrol boats conducted a raid against
selected military outposts and a coastal radar facility near Vinh, North Vietnam. Later on
2 August 1964, the Destroyer Maddox was attacked in the Tonkin Gulf by North
Vietnamese torpedo boats. The North Vietnamese claimed their attack was in retaliation
for raids against their own military facilities (Cam 2000, 23-25).
One of the most useful sources that apply to this thesis topic is The Secret War
Against Hanoi by Richard H. Shultz Jr. His book describes the thesis topic in detail and
serves as a primary source. In 1995, he received access to formerly classified data from
the Commander of the US Army Special Operations Command, Lieutenant General Terry
Scott who "realized that SOGs lessons were being kept secret even from those charged
with conducting similar operations today" (Shultz 2000, x). He began his comprehensive
investigation of SOG in 1995, drawing almost exclusively on primary sources, which
21
included interviews with more than sixty officers who ran SOGs operations within each
of the four major sub-divisions. He also conducted interviews with four of the five
commanders of SOG and senior officials of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
Shultz also used declassified documents to complement and support his
interviews. The Defense Department and CIA declassified 5,000 - 4,500 pages of
MACV-SOG records for the author. "These records provided a detailed and intimate
view of MACV-SOGs plans, programs, and operations. They also contained numerous
studies, reports, and assessments of SOGs four operations divisions" (Shultz 2000, xi).
Shultz describes how SOG was organized in greater detail than any other source
reviewed. He further describes the four principle missions of SOG and evaluates the
effectiveness of each. Additionally, he discusses the level of involvement of senior US
policy makers at the time (Shultz, 2000, xii).
This book effectively makes the case that officers in SOGs chain of command
within each of the four divisions were responsible for four principal missions:
1. Inserting and running agent teams (spies) and creating a complex deception
operation that included the manipulation of North Vietnamese POWs.
2. Psychological warfare (psywar) establishing a fabricated resistance (guerrilla)
movement in North Vietnam, kidnapping and indoctrinating North Vietnamese
citizens, operating several falsely attributed "black" radio stations, distributing
propaganda materials, forging letters and documents, and initiating other dirty
tricks.
3. Covert maritime interdiction, capture, and destruction of North Vietnamese
naval craft and fishing boats: bombardment of coastal targets; cross-beach
commando sabotage raids against military and civilian coastal installations; and
the insertion of psywar materials.
4. Cross-border covert reconnaissance operations against the Ho Chi Minh Trail
by U.S.-led indigenous teams (Montagnards and Chinese Nungs) to disrupt the
movement of North Vietnamese Army supplies and troops by identifying targets
22
for air strikes, snatching or capturing enemy soldiers, wiretapping lines of
communication, and distributing psywar materials. (Shultz 1999, x-xi)
In contrast with Major General Singlaubs Hazardous Duty, he excludes the aviation
division from his discussion, most likely because integrated aviation was not consistent
throughout SOGs existence. However, despite this discrepancy, the analysis and
examination of SOGs performance within each of these mission areas is critical to
answering the primary thesis question.
The next book in the review is A Soldier Reports by General William C.
Westmoreland. In his book, General Westmoreland describes his role in Vietnam as a
theater commander and highlights his efforts to achieve national strategy objectives and
to win the war. He discusses SOG as a unit he supported logistically and highlights the
fact that they were not under his authority directly. He further states "every [SOG] action
had to be approved in advance by the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and the
White House" (Westmoreland 1976, 107). This view agrees with other sources that
discussed the SOG chain of command. General Westmoreland also discusses the
formulation of overall strategy in Vietnam and how certain decisions were made by the
Johnson administration in particular. The book is helpful to the thesis topic because it
provides the theater commanders side of the story and highlights his conduct of
operational-level warfare in Vietnam. Although SOG did not fall directly under his chain
of command, it may be possible to determine whether SOG activities supported his
operational goals for the Vietnam War.
John M. Carlands article Winning the Vietnam War: Westmorelands Approach
in Two Documents describes two documents that shed further light on General
Westmorelands guidance to subordinate commanders as an operational commander. The
23
first document, a concept plan, was written by Westmorelands MACV staff and dated 17
September 1965.
It laid out the necessary conditions for achieving victory and provided to senior
American commanders and units practical steps and guidance, presented in a
methodical and logical way, to achieve the necessary tactical, operational, and
strategic objectives to defeat their Communist adversaries. Moreover, it made
clear that when military victories were won, their significance lay in the degree to
which they advanced and supported South Vietnams pacification/nationbuilding
program. (Carland 2004, 553)
General Westmorelands staff issued the second document on 10 December 1965.
This document critiqued US military actions at the time and recommended areas for
improvement. Of note is the statement "through intelligence developed in operations and
from other sources, American commanders had to find better ways to take the fight to the
enemy" (Carland 2004, 553). This statement alluding to other sources likely refers to a
potential contribution to Westmorelands operations by SOG. Overall, the article assists
the research by detailing Westmorelands operational guidance during the war.
George C. Herring, in his book LBJ and Vietnam: A Different Kind of War,
discusses in detail strategic, operational, and tactical guidance from the President is
discussed in detail. This book describes the inner workings of the Johnson administration
and explains how military decisions were made. Herring effectively argues "Johnson did
not provide clear strategic direction to his military leaders" (Herring 1994, 25). He
further makes the case that the Johnson administration built US strategy in Vietnam on
the limited war theory that was popular in academic circles at the time. The key personnel
in the Johnson administration were veterans of the Cuban missile crisis while serving
under President Kennedy. They feared a nuclear exchange if the war in Vietnam was not
24
limited in scope. With that said, the author describes the micro-management of the
Vietnam War by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Johnson.
The book discusses the absence of operational and strategic guidance for the war.
Closely related to and to some extent deriving from the absence of strategy was
the lack of coordination of the numerous elements of what had become by 1966 a
sprawling, multifarious war effort.
The most glaring deficiency is that in an extraordinarily complex war
there was no real strategy. (Herring 1994, 178-179)
Hering writes that there was no change of strategy "or even a systematic
discussion of strategy" until after the shock of the Tet offensive in 1968 (1994, 179). This
book also offers a glimpse of Johnson as an individual and sheds light on his personal
convictions as the Commander in Chief (CINC). Johnson as the CINC was an emotional
man who cried over casualty figures. His fault was "not from want of trying. He can be
more readily faulted for getting too involved in the day-to-day detail of the war, for
letting the trees obscure his view of the forest" (1994, 20). The book adds to the thesis by
describing the lack of strategic guidance. Previous sources described the chain of
command of SOG and the level of involvement of SACSA, Secretary of Defense
McNamara, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and others in the White House in the tactical
decision making of SOG operations. Based on Herrings book, it is likely that SOG
commanders lacked strategic and operational guidance.
Vietnam and American Foreign Policy, edited by John R. Boettiger, is a
compilation of writings concerning the Vietnam War. It offers alternative views of
effective strategy proposals and insight into the history behind the communist struggle in
Vietnam. This book also offers some limited insight from the enemys point of view.
General Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnamese Minister of Defense, stated, "South
25
Vietnam is the model of the national liberation movement in our time. If the special
warfare that the United States imperialists are testing in South Vietnam is overcome, this
means that it can be defeated everywhere in the world" (Boettiger 1968, 123).
In his book On Strategy, COL Harry G. Summers Jr. effectively argues why the
North Vietnamese won the war and why the US lost. His position is best illustrated from
the following passages from his work.
But instead of orienting on North Vietnam the source of the war we turned our
attention to the symptom the guerrilla war in the south. Our new "strategy" of
counterinsurgency blinded us to the fact that the guerrilla war was tactical and not
strategic.
How could we have done so well in tactics but failed so miserably in strategy?
The answer we postulated then a failure in strategic military doctrine
manifested itself on the battlefield. Because it did not focus on the political aim to
be achieved containment of North Vietnamese expansion our so-called
strategy was never a strategy at all. At best it could be called a kind of grand
tactics.
Our failure as military professionals to judge the true nature of the
Vietnam War had a profound effect. It resulted in confusion throughout the
national security establishment over tactics, grand tactics and strategy, a
confusion that continues to this day. As author and strategist Herbert Y. Schandler
commented, "The President had one view, the JCS another, and the field
commander had another. (1982, 88-90)
Summers argues that the US failed because they did not direct the war at the correct
enemy strategic center of gravity. Furthermore, he lays the blame on the conduct of the
war on the political as well as military leadership at the time. His analysis is useful in
evaluating strategic and operational goals that the Johnson administration may or may not
have communicated to the leadership of SOG because he also argues that the US did not
practice operational art. The implications of this work are that the goals of the Johnson
and Nixon administrations may have been merely tactical goals with no overall strategic
or even operational relevance.
26
The Pentagon Papers were originally taken from a Pentagon study commissioned
by Secretary of Defense McNamara as "a major study to determine how and why the US
became so deeply involved in Vietnam" (Sheehan 1971, xviii). The copy obtained by The
New York Times combined with the investigative reporting of Neil Sheehan reveals the
inner workings of the Executive branch in making policy decisions concerning Vietnam.
This work is useful to the research because it highlights the overall strategy for Vietnam
from the Truman administration to Nixons administration. There is also some analysis of
the utility of the covert war in Vietnam, although the authors lacked much of the
classified portions of the Pentagon study concerning covert operations at the time.
In Retrospect--The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam by Robert S. McNamara is
useful to this thesis because it discusses the strategy formulated by the Department of
Defense (read by the Secretary of Defense) for waging the fight in Vietnam. In his book,
Secretary McNamara argues that the war in Vietnam was without a solution. He also
reinforces various assessments of his strategic mindset made by other sources. They
argue that he was a believer in limited war theory. This is evident in the following
quotation.
Certainly Vietnam taught us how immensely difficult it is to fight limited wars
leading to U.S. casualties over long periods of time. But circumstances will arise
where limited war is far preferable to unlimited war. Before engaging in such
conflicts, the American people must understand the difficulties we will face; the
American military must know and accept the constraints under which they will
operate; and our leaders and our people must be prepared to cut our losses and
withdraw if it appears our limited objectives cannot be achieved at acceptable
risks or costs. (1995, 331)
Additionally, he concedes numerous failures such as poor management of the war by his
staff and the Johnson administration as a whole. He describes inconsistencies in guidance
resulting from his poor staff organization. He offers multiple solutions throughout his
27
book in hindsight to the problems he identified. Other concessions allude to the error of
his strategic thinking. Note the following quotation.
I concede with painful candor and a heavy heart that the adage applies to me and
to my generation of American leadership regarding Vietnam. Although we sought
to do the right thing--and believed we were doing the right thing--in my judgment,
hindsight proves us wrong. We both overestimated the effect of South Vietnams
loss on the security of the West and failed to adhere to the fundamental principle
that, in the final analysis, if the South Vietnamese were to be saved, they had to
win the war themselves. Straying from this central truth, we built a progressively
more massive effort on an inherently unstable foundation. External military force
cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be forged by a
people for themselves. (1995, 333)
Although the author tries to lay the blame on the South Vietnamese, he is also at
fault. His comments above imply that he gave SOG Commanders inconsistent guidance
during Johnsons administration. The preponderance of other sources agrees that all SOG
operations had to be approved by the Secretary of Defense and with the Presidents
knowledge.
The article McNamaras War Reconsidered by W. W. Rostow is a critical
literature review of Robert McNamaras book In Retrospect--The Tragedy and Lessons of

Vietnam. This review is useful to this research because Mr. Rostow was a colleague of
Secretary of Defense McNamara in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. From
1966 to 1969, he also served as a special assistant to the President. His insight on the
veracity of the book is useful. He criticizes McNamara for not addressing such issues as
allowing the South Vietnamese guerrillas a sanctuary to train and equip their forces
(Rostow 1998, 81).
In the book Argument Without End coauthored by Robert S. McNamara, James G.
Blight, and Robert K. Brigham, the authors discuss lessons learned from Vietnam.
Secretary McNamara responds to criticism of his previous book, In Retrospect. In
28
addition, the authors discus the formulation of US strategy and analyze incorrect
assumptions made during the war. In addition, they discuss in detail enemy courses of
action during the Vietnam War drawing in large part on information and comments from
high level North Vietnamese officials from the Vietnam War era.
Overall, this is an incredibly useful document, since it includes the answers to
numerous questions by former North Vietnamese strategists. Some of their analysis is
useful to determine SOGs impact on the enemy during the war. It is also striking that the
theme of this book is that the war in Vietnam for the US was not winnable and that
political leaders on both sides should have negotiated a peaceful conclusion in 1964.
McNamaras conclusion that a favorable peace negotiation was possible in 1964 is well
supported by his evidence. However, the idea that the US could not win the war at the
time is not. Other writers credibly argue the opposite in other works examined. An
example of this is in the next source reviewed.
In his book Dereliction of Duty, Major H.R. McMaster takes a critical look at the
performance of the strategic leadership of the United States during the Vietnam War. He
specifically focuses on the actions of President Lyndon Johnson, Secretary of Defense
Robert S. McNamara, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Major McMaster refutes many
of the claims made in Robert S. McNamaras book, In Retrospect. He discusses the
haphazard method of formulating and then providing strategic guidance to the military
commanders for the conduct of operations in theater. His work also sheds light on the
possible lack of firm guidance to SOG during the Vietnam War. He further notes the
importance of limited war theory in the formulation of national strategy by Secretary of
29
Defense McNamara. The following quote highlights his critique of Johnson and
McNamara in the book.

Johnson thought that he would be able to control the US involvement in Vietnam.
That belief, based on the strategy of graduated pressure and McNamaras
confident assurances, proved in dramatic fashion to be false. If the president was
surprised by the consequences of his decisions between November 1963 to July
1965, he should not have been so. He had disregarded the advice he did not want
to hear in favor of a policy based on the pursuit of his own political fortunes and
his beloved domestic programs. (McMaster 1997, 333)
He further criticizes the actions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the Theater
Commander, General William Westmoreland. This theme is evident in the following
quotation.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff became accomplices in the Presidents deception and
focused on a tactical task, killing the enemy. General Westmorelands "strategy"
of attrition in South Vietnam, was, in essence, the absence of strategy. The result
was military activity (bombing North Vietnam and killing the enemy in South
Vietnam) that did not aim to achieve a clearly defined objective. (1997, 333)
Overall, Dereliction of Duty presents an effective argument that there was poor US
strategic guidance and planning in Vietnam by senior officials. This theme is also found
in other sources reviewed. McMaster also argues that General Westmoreland did not
fight the war as an operational commander.
The book Limited War by Robert E. Osgood is an argument for the use of Limited
War theory during the Cold War. In the following quote, Osgood explains the basic tenets
of limited war theory.
The rational use of military power requires a strategy capable of achieving two
primary objectives: (a) the deterrence of such major aggression as would cause
total war; (b) the deterrence or defeat of lesser aggressions, which could not
appropriately be met except by means short of total war. To deter total war, the
United States must convince potential aggressors of two things: first, that it can
subject them to destruction so massive that they could not possibly gain any
worthwhile objective from a total war; second, that it will employ this kind of
retaliation against aggressions so threatening as to be equivalent to an attack upon
30
the United States itself. To deter or defeat lesser aggressions the United States
must convince potential aggressors--and demonstrate if necessary--that it is
willing and able to conduct effective limited warfare. (1957, 1)
It is important to understand this theory and how it related to the decision making of the
Kennedy and Johnson administrations in order to appreciate their use of covert operations
in Vietnam. Proponents of this theory arguably value covert, deniable missions such as
those conducted by SOG as an important component of limited warfare. Many sources
cite Secretary McNamaras desire to apply increasing military pressure on the North
Vietnamese in an effort to bring them to a political settlement favorable to US interests.
The article Presidential Decisionmaking and Vietnam: Lessons for Strategists, by
Joseph R. Cerami examines the use of military force by the president to achieve specific
policy objectives in Vietnam. In the article, Cerami looks at the examination of ends,
ways, and means with regards to national policy in the pursuit of attaining strategic
objectives. "The cases selected occurred at major decision points during the war:
Operation Rolling Thunder in 1965, the Cambodian invasion in 1970, and the Easter
Offensive and Operation Linebacker in 1972" (Cerami 1996, 66). Each of these cases
illustrated the utility of combined arms in trying to achieve political objectives in a
challenging political environment. This is useful to an examination of SOG in Vietnam
because the article fails to address incorporating unconventional warfare into the
combined arms effort.
The next source in the literature is a study by the BDM Corporation titled, A Study
of Strategic Lessons Learned in Vietnam, Volume III U.S. Foreign Policy and Vietnam,
1945-1975. The study first illustrates global policy and relates it to US policy in
Southeast Asia. Then, the study discusses the "historical precedents and perceptions
31
expressed as catchwords such as the loss of China or appeasement at Munich, which
served to justify or constrain US policy making for Vietnam" (The BDM Corporation
1980, viii). The study also provides various case studies used to describe the policy
making process of the Presidential administrations involved. The work adds value
because it illuminates the formulation of strategy during the time period. Determining the
strategy during Vietnam is crucial to answering the primary research question.
The book Strategy and Tactics by Colonel Hoang Ngoc Lung discusses the
strategic and operational view of warfare from a South Vietnamese officers point of
view. COL Lung provides his personal analysis of the North Vietnamese and of the South
Vietnamese strategies during the war. He states that the "twofold strategic goal of the
North would be (1) to carry on the building of socialism in the North and (2) to start the
revolutionary war of liberation in the South" (Lung 1980, 3). He further describes the
three stages of North Vietnamese strategy as contention, equilibrium, and
counteroffensive. The phases would be accomplished with a five-step plan for execution.
The first step was increased propaganda activity in South Vietnam. The second step was
to organize guerrilla forces and establish base areas inside of South Vietnam. The third
step was to have guerilla units begin local attacks. The fourth step was to conduct more
offensive attacks and organize regular military forces. The fifth and final step was to
conduct a large-scale offensive to seize control of South Vietnam. In Colonel Lungs
estimate, the North Vietnamese were transitioning from step two to step three in 1964
when SOG was formed (Lung 1980, 3-4). The large-scale offensives were conducted in
1968 (Tet), again in 1972, and finally successfully in 1975. Colonel Lungs work is
useful because it describes the enemys strategy in detail. Examination of the enemys
32
strategy will aid in discussing the effects of SOG operations from 1964 to 1971 on enemy
activities. His work agrees with other US and North Vietnamese sources in this effort
regarding North Vietnamese strategy.
In the Rand Corporation Study titled: 1971 and Beyond: The View from Hanoi,
the author Konrad Kellen conducts a detailed analysis of the North Vietnamese
government and military strengths and weaknesses. The analysis is useful to the research
because it provides an understanding of the nature of the North Vietnamese. The study
also discusses the point of view of the common North Vietnamese soldier. The primary
argument made by this source is that the greatest asset of the North Vietnamese was the
incredibly resilient morale fiber of their forces. This source is valuable because it
intimates that North Vietnamese soldiers and civilians in general were not as susceptible
as some of the USs prior adversaries to efforts to undermine their morale. Since
undermining North Vietnamese morale was the focus of the SOG psychological
operations division, this source and the timeframe in which it was written is useful to
determine SOGs effectiveness in this area.
In his book From Enemy to Friend, the author Bui Tin provides an interesting
point of view to the research. Bui Tin was a former NVA Colonel who accepted the final
surrender of the South Vietnamese President in Saigon on 30 April 1975. In his work, he
answers some pointed questions, such as "what were some other glaring mistakes made
by the American side in the management of the war" (Tin 2002, 38). In addition, Colonel
Tin suggests strategies that may have been more successful if the South Vietnamese and
US governments had followed them. His work also describes indirectly certain enemy
responses to some of SOGs operations. Of note, at the time of his books publication,
33
Colonel Tin was not welcome in North Vietnam due to the controversial nature of his
work and because of his critical statements concerning the North Vietnamese
government. Nonetheless, since his work is cited in many of the sources previously
reviewed, it deserves consideration.
The sources reviewed in this Chapter are representative of the information
available concerning the thesis topic. I purposely chose not to review many other sources
because they did not add value to the topic or answer one of the primary, secondary, or
tertiary research questions. However, based on the research materials discussed in this
chapter, and certain trends noted in the various works, it is possible to organize a
methodology to conduct a detailed analysis of the topic.
34
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The thesis topic is examined using the six step historical approach to research.
The approach is defined below.
1. The recognition of a historical problem or the identification of a need for
certain historical knowledge
2. The gathering of as much relevant information about the problem or topic as
possible
3. If appropriate, the forming of hypothesis that tentatively explains relationships
between historical factors
4. The rigorous collection and organization of evidence, and the verification of the
authenticity and veracity of information and its sources
5. The selection, organization, and analysis of the most pertinent collected
evidence, and the drawing of conclusions
6. The recording of conclusions in a meaningful narrative (Busha 1980, 91)
The first step in this research methodology is to identify a need for certain
historical knowledge. This thesis examines the contributions of SOG operations in
Vietnam in an effort to draw conclusions concerning the use of a similar military unit in
the Global War on Terrorism. As discussed in chapter 1, determining which military
resources to use to meet the strategic goal of defeating international terrorists and the
nations who sponsor them is a difficult problem. In the past, policy makers faced similar
problems in trying to determine how to defeat the communist insurgency in South
Vietnam. The US employed a mixture of military units in the prosecution of the conflict.
This research will focus on a detailed examination and evaluation of SOG operations
35
during the Vietnam War. Lessons learned from their use in Vietnam may apply to
operations conducted by their modern-day equivalents.
The second step in the historical approach to research is to gather as much
relevant information about the problem or topic as possible. Sources concerning the
utility of SOG include numerous books, articles, government studies, declassified
military documents, and personal interviews. The relevant information for the thesis can
be placed in one or more of three broad categories. The first category is US strategy in
Vietnam. Twenty-two of the sources cited in the research fit in this category. Of these,
two are from personal interviews with former SOG veterans and authors of books used in
the research. Three are from government documents in microfiche format. Three are from
articles, thirteen are from books, and one is from a government study concerning strategy.
The second category of research material is enemy strategy and responses to US
efforts during the war. One study, one article, ten books and two interviews contain
information that fits into this category. The third category is SOG specific information.
The research includes one article, nine books and two interviews that discuss SOG
operations in various levels of detail.
The third step in the historical method of research involves forming a hypothesis
that tentatively explains relationships between historical factors. In this case, the
hypothesis is that SOG did not contribute significantly to the Vietnam War effort. The
four assumptions made for this effort are:
(1) The significant contribution of using SOG forces can be measured by
discovering whether or not they accomplished their objectives and assessing how their
actions impacted the enemy.
36
(2) A comparison of the relative worth of achieving stated objectives versus
losing soldiers lives is feasible merely through examination of casualty figures versus
mission success rates.
(3) Enough reliable data in the unclassified realm exists upon which to accurately
base findings.
(4) Lessons learned or insights gained concerning covert and clandestine
operations from Vietnam may apply to current operations in the GWOT.
The fourth step in the historical method of research is the rigorous collection and
organization of evidence, and the verification of the authenticity and veracity of the
information and its sources. As previously discussed, the research is organized into the
three broad categories of US strategy, enemy strategy, and SOG specific information. Of
the sources utilized, thirteen are from persons who had first-hand knowledge of the
events detailed in their works. This increases the likelihood that the information is
authentic, though perhaps biased. Additionally, many sources report the same historical
events, but from different viewpoints. Douglas Valentine's The Phoenix Program
reported SOG tactics in Vietnam from a morally critical viewpoint. On the other hand,
authors John Plaster and John Singlaub discussed SOG activities from a professional
viewpoint, although their points of view are perhaps biased by their loyalty to their
former unit. Different viewpoints in the research contribute to the determination of
veracity as well as research objectivity.
The fifth step is the selection, organization, and analysis of the most pertinent
evidence, and the drawing of conclusions. The analysis will confirm or deny the
hypothesis. The primary question this thesis aims to answer is--did Studies and
37
Observation Group (SOG) covert and clandestine operations contribute significantly to
the Vietnam War effort? The analysis will focus first on the US strategic goals in
Vietnam and whether or not SOG contributed to achieving those strategic goals.
Discussion will span the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations, with particular
focus on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations due to their relevance to SOG.
The analysis will also attempt to show MACV's operational goals during the war
and discuss the impact of their operations on the enemy. An attempt will be made to
demonstrate SOG's linkage to the MACV operational goals. An analysis of the success or
failure of SOG's four major operational divisions will answer the question of tactical
success or failure. At this point, it will be possible to draw conclusions (the final step in
the historical approach to research) concerning the significance of SOGs contribution as
a military force in the Vietnam War.
Of additional note, three principles guided the conduct of this historical research.
First, consider the biases of the sources of information. Second, multiple factors can
contribute to historical events. Third, examine the topic from multiple viewpoints when
possible (Busha 1980, 99). In most cases, multiple sources of information about the same
events helped form a more objective picture.
38
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
This chapter will present the evidence gathered from the research and provide
analysis. As stated earlier, SOG did not contribute significantly to the Vietnam War
effort. In order to substantiate this claim, it is necessary to describe the development of
US strategy in Vietnam along with the evolution and purpose of SOG. A discussion of
North Vietnamese strategy will contrast the opposing viewpoint and highlight some of
the overall miscalculations by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations concerning
enemy intentions. Evidence will show that these miscalculations led to strategic blunders
and debilitating limitations to SOG activities. Analysis of the lack of US operational
warfare by the military leadership and its impact on SOG proves critical to determining
whether or not SOG could even accomplish their goals. An examination of the tactical
results of the SOG divisions will further illuminate the units record of success and
failure. At this point, the analysis will answer the question of whether or not SOG covert
and clandestine operations accomplished strategic, operational, and tactical goals in the
Vietnam War. Finally, the thesis will consider evidence that describes the impact of SOG
missions on enemy forces and their operations as another criterion to determine the utility
of SOG in Vietnam.
The US strategy in Vietnam for purposes of this thesis starts with the Kennedy
administration. On 28 January 1961 President Kennedy convened his first National
Security Council meeting to discuss the Vietnam situation. He received a briefing from
Air Force Brigadier General Edward Lansdale who was an "experienced clandestine
39
operator for the Central Intelligence Agency" (Shultz 1999, 1). This individual, an Office
of Strategic Services (OSS) veteran from World War II, ran a highly successful
counterinsurgency operation against the communist Huks in the Phillipines in the early
1950s (1999, 2). From 1954 to 1956, he was assigned to Vietnam after the French defeat
by the Eisenhower administration "to plan and execute a campaign of covert warfare
against the new communist regime in Hanoi" (1999, 2). This effort later proved a dismal
failure. In January 1961, he returned to Vietnam to conduct a fact-finding visit
concerning the situation in Vietnam prior to Kennedys first National Security Council
briefing.
General Landsdale briefed the President that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong
would defeat South Vietnam unless the South Vietnamese government changed tactics.
He stated that "counterguerrilla forces and civic reform programs were needed to defeat
the VC [Viet Cong] and win the support and loyalty of the peasants" (1999, 2). His
recommendation endorsed the counterinsurgency plan crafted by the US embassy in
Saigon. However, the plan did not include actions to be taken against North Vietnam to
discourage their support for the Viet Cong. An adherent to limited war theory, President
Kennedy stated that he "wanted guerrillas to operate in the North" in order to pressure the
North Vietnamese government to stop fomenting the war in the South (1999, 3). With
this statement, Kennedy started the US covert action campaign in Vietnam (1999, 3).
In order to analyze the Kennedy administrations policy on Vietnam it is
important to understand the differences between limited war theory and the theory of
massive retaliation. President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense McNamara, and President
Johnson were all proponents of the limited war theory. This theory was an academic
40
response by Robert Osgood to the Eisenhower administrations policy of massive
retaliation or total war. Total war involved using the full use of Americas conventional
and nuclear arsenal for any war-like act by a belligerent state. The policy of the
Eisenhower administration is best summed up by the following quote from Osgoods
book.
Summing up the import of Dulles [Eisenhowers Secretary of State] address of
January 12, 1954, we may reasonably conclude that the administration intended to
rely primarily upon the implicit threat of massive nuclear retaliation against
strategic targets in the Soviet Union in order to deter aggression in Europe but that
it would rely upon clear advance warnings of conventional or nuclear air
retaliation against selected military targets not necessarily within the area of
attack in order to deter direct Chinese Communist aggression in Asia. (1957, 212)
In the minds of the younger generation, the academics at the time, and more
importantly the key players in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, this policy was
not flexible enough for US foreign policy (Herring 1994, 5). They believed Eisenhowers
policy had already allowed North Vietnam to fall to the Communists in 1954 since using
massive air strikes or nuclear weapons against North Vietnam or their Communist allies
was out of the question (Osgood 1957, 225). Limited war theory offered an alternative for
some of the weaknesses inherent in massive retaliation. Limited war theory proposed that
using military force to achieve limited political objectives would induce belligerent
nations to negotiate settlements favorable to US interests. "Limited war must be directed
by the civilian leadership. The special needs of the military should not affect its conduct,
and indeed the military must be a controllable instrument of national policy" (Herring
1994, 4).
The debate over whether limited war is more favorable than total war continues
and is a topic for further research regarding its modern day applications in the Global
41
War on Terrorism. Some authors in the research, such as Harry Summers in On Strategy,
seem to argue for the total war theory in Vietnam despite his not advocating the use of
nuclear weapons (Summers 1982, 16). His hypothesis is that the US government and
military, enamoured with the counterinsurgency, failed to fight an operational level war
in Vietnam against the conventional army of North Vietnam. On the other hand, other
sources in this effort convincingly argue that limited war theory was and still is an
effective alternative (Osgood 1957, 139). These sources imply that the government must
control the type and scope of military operations in order to avoid a larger, more costly
war. Unconventional warfare units such as SOG seem peculiarly suited to conducting
selected limited war missions due to their flexibility and covert nature. The problem in
applying the limited war theory to Vietnam is that the policy makers never truly
understood their enemy. It was not possible to apply the correct amount of military
pressure to the North Vietnamese because they never knew what pressure was required.
In the early stages of the covert operations campaign from 1961 to 1963, the CIA
took the lead. CIA efforts included operations conducted inside South Vietnam and those
directed against North Vietnam. Research concerning CIA covert action operations at the
time shows that the emphasis of the Agency was placed on operations within the borders
of South Vietnam, despite President Kennedys earlier guidance concerning fomenting a
guerilla movement in North Vietnam. In the south, covert action operations fell into the
categories of political action, paramilitary, and counterterror (Valentine 1990, 45).
In North Vietnam, the CIA programs consisted of infiltrating agent teams and
individual agents by aircraft or by boat to collect intelligence. They also conducted
psychological warfare utilizing radio broadcasts, leaflet drops, gift-kit airdrops, and
42
maritime assault operations against North Vietnamese coastal targets. Additionally, they
created a "notional resistance movement" (Shultz 1999, 18). However, there was no
actual resistance movement and the CIA station chief was reluctant to start one. The
following quote describes the CIAs early lack of progress.
William Colby, CIAs chief of station in South Vietnam at the time, was
instrumental in constraining covert action against the North because he believed a
large effort there would consume CIA resources needed for the operations inside
South Vietnam. (Shultz 1999, 44)
At the time, North Vietnam was considered an extremely difficult target due to
the "paranoid" nature of the regime (1999, 14). Significant resources would have been
necessary to get a resistance movement started. A majority of the dissatisfied personnel

necessary to start a movement had already fled to South Vietnam in a massive exodus in
1954 when the Communists took control of North Vietnam after the signing of the
Geneva accords. North Vietnamese internal security cadre proved highly effective with
regards to eliminating internal threats. During his covert operations against North
Vietnam in 1954, General Landsdale sent a small number of paramilitary guerillas north,
but all were eliminated. Compared to Ho Chi Minhs 50,000 Viet Minh who remained in
South Vietnam to form the Viet Cong, US efforts in the North were miniscule (Lung
1980, 2).
By 1963, the CIAs performance was not of the scale that President Kennedy
envisioned. He saw counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare as an important
foreign policy tool and he wanted to be able to conduct operations on a scale not seen
since the days of the OSS in World War II. National Security Action Memorandums
"(NSAMs) 55, 56, and 57 illustrated Kennedys dissatisfaction with the CIA and his
determination to use DOD assets to develop the operational means to conduct
43
unconventional warfare against North Vietnam and other denied areas" (Shultz 1999, 21).
NSAM 55 "eliminated exclusive CIA authority over planning and executing covert
paramilitary operations" (Shultz 1999, 19). NSAM 56 amounted to conducting an
exhaustive inventory of the covert paramilitary units in the US military and CIA
inventory in order to determine deficiencies that would be rectified by additional DOD
assets (1999, 20). "NSAM 57 stated that any large paramilitary operation wholly or
partially covert which requires significant numbers of military trained personnel, [and]
amounts of military equipment" will be the responsibility of the DOD (1999, 21). The
debate over whether or not the CIA or DOD should control paramilitary operations
continues today.
The Pentagons response to the Presidents desire for DOD to have a greater role
in conducting paramilitary operations was to form the office of the Special Assistant for
Counterinsurgency and Special Activities (SACSA) to provide oversight of
unconventional warfare operations. Unfortunately, few among the Pentagon leadership
were proponents of unconventional warfare (1999, 338). Most had no experience with it
and saw it as a passing fancy. This applied as well to the Military Assistance Command,
Vietnam (MACV), which was formed by Secretary of Defense McNamara on 8 February
1962 to coordinate operational level missions as a sub-unified command under the
Commander in Chief, Pacific (1999, 23). The lack of senior officer experience and/or
enthusiasm for conducting unconventional warfare missions hampered SOG efforts

throughout the units existence. Additionally, numerous tactical failures within SOG
resulted from the inexperience of leaders assigned to the unit.
44
The DOD formulated OPLAN 34A, also called Operation Switchback, in 1963 to
take control of paramilitary operations in Vietnam (1999, 31). The plans goals, reflecting
the national strategy were "to inflict increasing punishment upon North Vietnam and to
create pressures, which may convince the North Vietnamese leadership, in its own self
interest, to desist from its aggressive policies" (1999, 38). Initial CIA and MACV
planners proposed five broad categories of operations to accomplish these goals over a
one-year period. The first was intelligence collection. The second concerned
psychological operations aimed at harassing the North Vietnamese population and
leadership while supporting the formation of a resistance movement. The third involved
sabotage of critical North Vietnamese facilities to increase political pressure on North
Vietnam. The fourth involved creating a resistance movement in North Vietnam. The
fifth category included maritime raids, reconnaissance with coordinated aerial attacks,
and airborne raids directed against North Vietnamese critical targets (1999, 38). Under
the original plan, the utility of a large paramilitary unit like SOG conducting
unconventional warfare operations against North Vietnam seemed incredibly useful in the
context of fighting a limited war.
After President Kennedys assassination, President Johnson ordered OPLAN 34A
reviewed by the chief of SACSA to "select from it those actions of least risk" (1999, 39).
This change in presidential leadership was crucial to the US covert operations strategy in
Vietnam. Of the 72 types of operations recommended by OPLAN34A, only 33 were
approved by the Johnson administration (1999, 40). President Kennedy was a strong
proponent of unconventional warfare who wanted to aggressively pursue actions against
the North Vietnamese to change their policy of supporting the South Vietnamese
45
insurgency. The lack of results and inability to mount large-scale operations was the
reason the CIA lost control of paramilitary operations in Vietnam. When President
Johnson took over, his first appraisal of the plan demonstrated trepidation instead of
boldness of action, although his foreign policy objective of pressuring the North
Vietnamese was the same as President Kennedys. Furthermore, his overall strategic
objective for what covert operations should achieve did not change until after the Tet
offensive in 1968.
SOG formed under OPLAN34A on 24 January 1964 to conduct unconventional

warfare operations against North Vietnam with the strategic goal of influencing North
Vietnam to stop fomenting the Viet Cong resistance in South Vietnam (1999, 39).
Unfortunately for SOG, President Johnsons trepidation hampered the units ability to
accomplish the strategic goals President Kennedy had envisioned. In the next few
paragraphs, it is important to the research to discuss North Vietnamese strategy to better
analyze the decisions of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that ultimately
affected SOG operations. As implied earlier, certain invalid assumptions concerning the
enemy and the intentions of their Soviet and Chinese allies are at the root of the US
failure in Vietnam.
On 20 July 1954, the Geneva Accords divided North and South Vietnam at the
17th parallel. The North adopted Communism and the South adopted a nationalist
government in which pluralism and free enterprise were encouraged. A general election
was scheduled in 1956 to reunify the country. When the South Vietnamese rejected the
1956 general election, the North Vietnamese protested diplomatically (Lung 1980, 2).
They were able to do little else since they were recovering economically and militarily
46
from their war with the French, which was fought mostly on North Vietnamese soil. In
the two years after the war, North Vietnams primary focus was on rebuilding their
country and consolidating power.
In South Vietnam, the 50,000 communist cadre personnel left behind in 1954
were expected to solidify their communist base and wait for North Vietnamese orders.
During the Tet New Year celebration of 1957, Ho Chi Minh explained his strategy to his
southern political cadres.
To build a long-lasting building, we must lay a solid foundation. The North is the
foundation, the taproot of the struggle to liberate and re-unify our country.
Therefore, what we are doing in the North is for the purpose of strengthening both
North and South. Thus, our work here is like the struggle in the South, for the
South, and for all Vietnam. (Lung 1980, 2)
In 1959, only 10,000 Communist cadre in South Vietnam were as the result of South
Vietnamese counterinsurgency efforts and disenchantment with the Communist cause. At
that time, the Central Executive Committee of the Workers Communist Party of North
Vietnam met and decided to liberate South Vietnam (1980, 2). One critical component of
their strategy was to secure an infiltration route to move additional Communist cadre
personnel and supplies south. The North Vietnamese Army established Group 559 "with
the mission of directing and supporting the infiltration of men, weapons, ammunition and
explosives into the South" (1980, 2). This route later became known as the Ho Chi Minh
Trail.
The "twofold strategic goal of the North would be (1) to carry on the building of
socialism in the North and (2) to start the revolutionary war of liberation in the South"
(Lung 1980, 3). The three stages of North Vietnamese strategy were ones of contention,
equilibrium, and counteroffensive. The contention stage is largely defensive where
47
guerrilla warfare against government installations is the dominating tactic. During
equilibrium, the guerillas are as powerful as the government forces, but chose to remain
on the strategic defensive, preparing for the counteroffensive by continuing harassing
attacks. The counteroffensive stage is a conventional mobile assault with guerrilla forces
in a supporting role (Lung 1980, 3).
The phases would be accomplished through a five-step plan for execution. The
first step was increased propaganda activity in South Vietnam. The second step was to
organize guerrilla forces and establish base areas inside of South Vietnam. The third step
was to have guerilla units begin local attacks. The fourth step was to conduct more
offensive attacks and organize regular military forces. The fifth and final step was to
conduct a large-scale offensive to seize control of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese
were transitioning from step two to step three in 1964 (Lung 1980, 3-4). The large-scale
offensives in step five were conducted first in 1968 (Tet), again in 1972, and finally
successfully in 1975.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations apparently assumed that the North
Vietnamese would stop with step three. This is evident in the US national strategy
already discussed, which only addresses the guerrilla insurgency issue. On the other
hand, there were some advisors who apparently did understand the nature of the war. If
their advice had been followed, perhaps strategic guidance would have countered the
North Vietnamese strategy more effectively. One advisor who correctly surmised the
nature of the war was Walt W. Rostow, chairman of the State Departments Policy
Planning Council for Secretary of State Rusk. In The Pentagon Papers, Rostow described
a compelling strategy in his memorandum Victory and Defeat in Guerrilla Wars, dated
48
20 May 1965. He stated that in order for the communist guerrillas to win in Vietnam,
they needed to succeed in one of four routes to victory.
Mao Stage Three: going to all-out conventional war and winning as in China in
1947-49.
Political collapse and takeover: North Vietnam;
Political collapse and a coalition government in which the Communists get
control over the security machinery; army and/or police. This has been an evident
Viet Cong objective in this [war].
Converting the bargaining pressure generated by the guerrilla forces into a partial
victory by splitting the country: Laos. Also, in a sense, North Vietnam in 1954
and the Irish Rebellion after the First World War. (Sheehan 1971, 447)
He said that in order for the US and South Vietnamese to succeed, they should block all
four routes to victory and impress on the North Vietnamese through increasing military
force that they would not be able to succeed and that time would not better their situation.
The actual North Vietnamese strategy shows that their strategic emphasis was on
preparing for Mao Stage Three. Therefore, it follows that if the US had blocked all the
steps listed above, they could have achieved their objectives in Vietnam.
Two of the enemys centers of gravity mentioned in the North Vietnamese
strategy were North Vietnams internal security and their infiltration route to move
personnel and supplies south (Lung 1980, 2). Other centers of gravity in the theater could
arguably be the NVA conventional forces and the Viet Cong guerrillas. Summers work
On Strategy argues convincingly that destroying the conventional warfare capabilities of
the North Vietnamese instead of just focusing on the Viet Cong would have made
conducting a large-scale offensive in the Mao Stage Three impossible (Summers 1982,
85). In SOGs case, their four main divisions eventually focused their tactical efforts on
49
the first two centers of gravity mentioned (Shultz 1999, xiv). Other divisions in SOG
provided tactical support for those divisions.
Strategically, the overriding goal of SOG under OPLAN34A mirrored the US
strategic goal, which was to cause North Vietnam to stop fomenting the war in South
Vietnam. To accomplish this goal, the US should have targeted all four of the enemy
centers of gravity mentioned above and achieved effects that would have caused the
North Vietnamese to reconsider their strategy. Operationally, there were never identified
goals for SOG. However, SOG indirectly focused their unconventional warfare efforts on
denying the enemy the use of the Ho Chi Minh Trail and destabilizing North Vietnams
internal security. These should have been the stated operational goals that were indirectly
alluded to in OPLAN 34A. Although it never happened, SOGs operational goals should
have been tied to the conventional force operational goals in 1965 when large US
conventional units deployed to Vietnam.

One of General Westmorelands Headquarters MACV directives dated 17
September 1965 discusses his operational strategy for winning in Vietnam. It
demonstrates that his sole focus was on the Viet Cong and not on all four of the enemy
centers of gravity mentioned.
The strategy to be followed by the GVN (South Vietnamese Government) and US
forces in defeating the VG (VC) and facilitating GVN control over the country
consists of three successive steps:
1. First, to halt the VG (VC) offensive-to stem the tide.
2. Second, to resume the offensive-to destroy VG (VC) and pacify selected high
priority areas.
3. Third, to restore progressively the entire country to the control of the GVN.
(Carland 2004, 24)
50
Mission analysis of SOGs requirements to achieve their two indirect operational
goals leads one to conclude that SOG did not have the assets to accomplish either of their
goals well. This will become more evident in the tactical discussion of each division.
Later analysis will also show the challenges SOG faced when trying to form their
organization and start unconventional warfare operations. Further analysis will show that
certain limitations placed on SOG tactics should have changed in order to achieve the
desired effects. The restriction of not being able to foment a real insurgency in North
Vietnam was a common theme in multiple works in the research concerning SOG.
Equally debilitating were limitations placed on SOG by the State Department concerning
cross border operations directed against the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos and Cambodia.
Several decisions by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations blocked SOGs
early efforts to effectively target the enemys two centers of gravity. The Kennedy
administrations policy of allowing the US ambassadors of each country the ability to
approve, modify, or disapprove of paramilitary operations in their countries proved to be
a bureaucratic impediment that sabotaged the unconventional warfare unity of effort
throughout the war (Shultz 1999, 214). This problem was never rectified by subsequent
presidential administrations and is still being debated today, a topic for further research
due to its implications on the Global War on Terrorism.
As an example, SOG led forces could not penetrate Laos until the fall of 1965,
almost fifteen months after the unit was formed. Furthermore, after these operations were
finally approved, US Ambassador to Laos Sullivan limited SOG operations to within a
few kilometers over the border and restricted the use of US aircraft. Throughout SOGs
existence, Ambassador Sullivan hampered SOGs efforts against the Ho Chi Minh Trail
51
(1999, 215). Later in 1967 SOG was allowed to operate against the trail in Cambodia.
However, operations in Cambodia were even more limited than those in Laos were
(1999, 237). What is evident is that the goals of the State Department were never linked
with the goals of the other players in the region. Presidential leadership should have
provided unity of effort in the region. Unfortunately, nothing in the research shows this
happened.
The second debilitating restriction was imposed by the Johnson administration.
This was the decision not to start a resistance movement in North Vietnam. The OPLAN
34A planners saw this as a critical component of creating instability in the North
Vietnamese rear area (Shultz 1999, 57). According to numerous sources in the research,
the Johnson administration believed the assumption that if the US had started an
insurgency in North Vietnam with the goal of overthrowing the government, it would
have caused either the Chinese or Russians to enter the war on behalf of their Communist
allies (1999, 98). This assumption seems invalid. The Eisenhower administration tried it
in 1954 with General Landsdale. The Chinese or Russians did not intervene then. What
strategic conditions changed that would have caused them to intervene seven years later?
Full analysis of the invalid assumptions about the Russians and Chinese is a topic for
further research. Suffice it to say that the decision made it incredibly difficult to
destabilize the North Vietnamese rear area and thus accomplish SOGs operational goals
outlined in OPLAN 34A.
Numerous authors used in the research argue that the US never waged an
operational level warfare campaign in Vietnam. In order to frame this statement in the
proper context, it is important to review the definition used in this effort.
52
Operational level of war. The level of war at which campaigns and major
operations are planned, conducted, and sustained to accomplish strategic
objectives within theaters or operational areas. Activities at this level link tactics
and strategy by establishing operational objectives needed to accomplish the
strategic objectives, sequencing events to achieve the operational objectives,
initiating actions, and applying resources to bring about and sustain these events.
These activities imply a broader dimension of time or space than do tactics; they
ensure the logistic and administrative support of tactical forces, and provide the
means by which tactical successes are exploited to achieve strategic objectives.

(Joint Publication 1-02 2001, 389)
From this definition and earlier statements made in the research, SOG was given the job
of leading the unconventional warfare campaign against North Vietnam by the President
when he approved OPLAN34A. Johnsons restrictions on operations did not lessen the
responsibility of the military organization for the conduct of the unconventional warfare
campaign. He only made it more difficult to achieve their objectives by the tactical
constraints he imposed.
However, it is not the purpose of this effort to focus on the lack of an overall
operational warfare plan in Vietnam. It is readily apparent that the goals of the State
Department, other government agencies, conventional military, and unconventional
military were never linked. They did not support each other in a unified effort. Every
source reviewed concerning Vietnam agrees on this point. On the other hand, it is
important to judge whether or not SOG accomplished their implied operational goals
even if these goals were never formally stated. The answer is they did not. They never cut
off the Ho Chi Minh Trail and they never caused significant instability in the North
Vietnamese rear area.
The remainder of the analysis will focus on the tactical performance of each main
SOG division. Analysis will further highlight some of the tactical challenges the unit
faced. One of the challenges already mentioned was the lack of enthusiasm for
53
unconventional warfare in the senior military leadership at the time. The following quote
is illustrative of this.
General Lemnitzer, chairman of the JCS from 1960 to 1962, stated that the new
administration was oversold on the importance of guerrilla warfare. Likewise,
General George Decker, Army chief of staff from 1960 to 1962, countered a
presidential lecture to the JCS on counterinsurgency with the reply, Any good
soldier can handle guerrillas. Their attitude toward unconventional warfare was
similar. (Shultz 1999, 51)
This attitude led to a lack of support during the units formation, which hampered initial
tactical operations. The first mistake by the DOD and SACSA was to assign a Colonel as
the Chief of SOG. This rank discrepancy seems unusual given the sensitivity, scope and
importance of the unconventional warfare campaign to President Kennedy.
For example, the commander of the conventional forces ground campaign
(MACV) was a US Army General. His Corps Commanders were Lieutenant Generals
and his Division Commanders were Major Generals. SOGs unconventional warfare
forces were the size of an Army Division and combined joint and multinational forces
(Singlaub 1991, 292). This rank structure ensured that SOG considerations would not be
integrated into the overall conventional plan to any great degree. It was evident that the
senior leadership was comfortable relegating the entire unconventional warfare campaign
to a Colonel, as if the unit was of no more importance than a Brigade (Shultz 1999, 51).
Since the war was not fought operationally, early commanders found themselves
focusing on tactics and trying to get approval for missions through a convoluted
bureaucratic process. This process virtually eliminated the ability of the unit to conduct
flexible operations. The following quote from an interview with John Plaster illustrates
Colonel Russels early dilemma in trying to decide what operations to do despite his
numerous restrictions (Colonel Russel was the first Commander of SOG).
54
He [Col Russel] was told not to consider, not to wait, not to analyze. He was told
to execute. These were operations dictated by Washington, which were approved
individually at White House, State Department and DOD Secretary of Defense
level. It was further complicated by the fact that because these were individually
weighed and approved and often modified, he would send forth this list of targets
saying well, we could be prepared to execute this mission by the first of July. It
would take so long to teletype it back to Washington by secure means. By the
time it was hand carried through the White House and the State Department and
the Department of Defense, and meanwhile perhaps there was an objection of
some kind where a need to modify placed a requirement placed on top of it, well
then it had to be resubmitted. If there ever was an opportunity, quite frankly it
passed. It was too late but they were still compelled to execute. (Plaster 2005)
Despite the process, SOG operations strove for success in each of their
compartmentalized divisions. However, some were more successful than others.
Major General Singlaub, the third Commander of SOG, describes the organization
of his unit aligned by operational function. "The units functional arm, the Operations
Staff Directorate, was divided into five numbered divisions; Op-31 through Op-35"
(1991, 295). In the next few pages, the research will discuss the covert maritime division,
the aviation division, the psychological operations division, the agent insertion and
deception division, and the cross border reconnaissance division.
Op-31 was the staff division that supervised our maritime operations, conducted
by the Naval Advisory Detachment (NAD) at Danang. This group ran a variety of
seaborne operations, including the training and support for the Vietnamese
Coastal Survey Service, which was actually a raiding, sabotage, and intelligence
force. NAD had a small fleet of high speed, low-slung Norwegian-built wooden
torpedo boats, hard to detect on radar. (Singlaub 1991, 295)
From 1964 to 1969, the covert maritime division conducted numerous covert
operations, the most famous of which contributed to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in
August 1964. After SOGs initial formation in January 1964, Secretary of Defense
McNamara was eager to strike North Vietnamese targets and increase pressure on the
Communists to stop fomenting the insurgency. Colonel Russel, with guidance from
55
McNamara, selected the maritime division as the first SOG unit to strike targets in North
Vietnam. The division had five Norwegian Nasty class gunboats purchased by the DOD.
Unfortunately, in order to preserve deniability, no US personnel were allowed on the
missions. This decision hampered the units ability to operate successfully on numerous
occasions.
Furthermore, the level of training and leadership capabilities of the South
Vietnamese mercenaries who carried out the maritime missions were not at the level
needed to conduct covert operations in hostile territory. To counter this deficiency, the
CIA hired Norwegian boat captains for SOG to lead the newly trained Vietnamese
Coastal Survey force. The US trainers for the mercenary force were from the Naval
Advisory Detachment (NAD). US personnel included personnel from Detachment Echo,
SEAL Team One, Boat Support Unit One, and USMC Force Reconnaissance advisors
(Plaster 2000, 19).
The first attack on 16 February 1964 used the Nasty boats in conjunction with the
South Vietnamese Sea Commandos to target a North Vietnamese bridge. The attack
failed when they came under heavy fire. Later, they attacked the bridge again with
demolition swimmers and lost eight men. After that, they trained for an additional three
months before their next attack. On 12 June 1964, they successfully damaged a storage
area and barracks 100 miles north of the demilitarized zone (2000, 20). During the next
two months, they raided numerous targets in North Vietnam with success. On 30 July
1964, they used all five boats to strike radar sites on Hon Me and Hon Ngu. Two days
later, North Vietnamese boats attacked the US destroyer Maddox near Hon Me. On 3
August 1964, the SOG boats attacked another radar site and base facility which
56
precipitated a second enemy counterattack on the US warships Maddox and Turner Joy
(2000, 21). In response to the counterattacks by the North Vietnamese, the US issued the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Johnson the ability to broaden the US
military effort in Vietnam.
In subsequent years, the division accomplished numerous tactical missions in
North Vietnamese waters using its South Vietnamese mercenaries. In 1965 "MACV
opined that the marops program was the most productive of all 34A programs ... and the
most lucrative from the viewpoint of accomplishments" (Shultz 1999, 192). However,
none of the sabotage missions had a significant impact on the enemys strategy for the
war. They merely caused the North Vietnamese to beef up their coastal defenses and
move critical assets farther north. After the Tet offensive in 1968, the boats were
prohibited by the Johnson administration from going into North Vietnamese waters. This
ended their usefulness in meeting SOGs OPLAN 34A objectives. As a side note, after
1968 they continued to contribute tactically to the overall war effort by conducting US
led raids on enemy forces in South Vietnam (1999, 201).
Other missions conducted by the maritime division supported the efforts of the
psychological operations division and the resistance and intelligence operations division.
In this capacity, they conducted numerous missions to drop off packages and seize North
Vietnamese fisherman to support the deception operations of Op 33 and 34. These
support operations contributed to the SOG operational mission of creating instability in
the North Vietnamese rear area. During 1968, Hanoi showed its concern by launching a
major counterespionage campaign to counter SOG operations. In summary, the maritime
57
divisions support of the deception and psychological operations was arguably their
greatest tactical achievement during the unconventional war effort (1999, 193).
Op 32 was the division that supervised the SOG air force. SOG aircraft were
based at Nha Trang in South Vietnam and at two airfields in Thailand. They also had
their own separate airfield at Bienhoa, northeast of Saigon. Their forces were modified as
SOG tactics evolved during SOGs seven-year existence. In 1964, SOG had six modified
C-123s known as the First Flight Detachment for agent and supply drops in support of Op
33 and 34. (Plaster 2000, 71). All aircraft were flown without any identifying markings
linking them to the US. Additionally, these aircraft "were flown by Chinese air force
pilots from Taiwan, who rotated regularly in and out of Vietnam" (Plaster 1991, 295).
In 1968, SOG received six specially modified C-130s that were co-located with
the C-123s in Nha Trang, South Vietnam. They were known as the 15th Air Commando
Squadron in 1968 and later as the 90th SOS in 1970. Their tactical use of the new
forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system enabled them to see enemy forces surrounding
compromised agent teams during re-supply drops which confirmed Op 33 suspicions
(Plaster 2000, 74). Only one of the C-123s or C-130s was lost over North Vietnam
despite hundreds of missions penetrating enemy territory. On 28 December 1967, one C-
130 (Blackbird Crew S-01) was lost about a dozen miles south of the Yunnan Province,
China. The eleven USAF personnel on the mission are still listed as Missing in Action
(2000, 85).
SOG also had a sizable helicopter force throughout SOGs existence. Organically,
they had the 219th South Vietnamese Helicopter Squadron with fifteen H-34s known as
the Kingbees and the 20th Special Operations Squadron (SOS), USAF. The 20th SOS,
58
nick-named The Green Hornets was equipped with numerous CH-3s and later UH-1s in
1967. These helicopter units pioneered many of the insertion, extraction, air assault, and
aerial gunnery operations which special operations aviators use today. From 1966 to
1968, part of the 20th Squadron moved to Nakkon Phanom Air Base in Thailand and was
known as the 21st SOS. This element flew CH-3s in support of SOG operations as well
as CIA operations in Laos (2000, 104). Additional helicopter assets were assigned by
order of General Westmoreland on a case by case basis. However, this method proved
inefficient due to the demanding flight profiles of the missions. By 1970, attached Army
and Marine helicopter units were tasked to support SOG operations long enough to learn
the proper tactics, techniques, and procedures to improve their survival rates (2000, 87).
For fixed wing fire support, Colonel Singlaub "cemented" a special arrangement
with the Seventh Air Force in early 1967 (2000, 111). Whenever a SOG reconnaissance
team called "Prairie Fire! Prairie Fire!" on the radio, they would have priority for all the
fighter-bombers over Laos and North Vietnam (2000, 111). Once the fighters arrived, Air
Force Forward Air Controllers (FACs) controlled them. These FACs who supported SOG
during daylight hours flew with former SOG Reconnaissance leaders on board. The
combination of combat experienced aviators and experienced SOG reconnaissance men
resulted in excellent air support for teams in trouble (2000, 112). For other support
missions, an airborne C-130 command and control bird flying above southern Laos
would divert bombing assets to SOG teams whenever they found targets of opportunity
along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos and Cambodia (2000, 111).
The final air element that supported SOG was the S.P.A.F (Sneaky Pete Air
Force) or 4th Platoon, 219th Army Aviation Company. They flew OV-1 single engine
59
spotter planes on leaders reconnaissance missions for SOG. Overall, for the most part,
the aviation forces demonstrated the necessity for organic aviation units assigned to a unit
like SOG. Furthermore, the higher training level requirement for aviators to conduct
unconventional warfare operations for SOG was critical to mission success rates. During
the war, SOG aviation units developed tactics and many new techniques that were later
refined over the years and are used now by special operations aviation units today.
Op 33 supervised the psychological operations conducted by SOG. This division
specialized in ingenious deceptions that ranged from counterfeit North
Vietnamese currency to the construction of an elaborate "notional" sham
resistance movement known as the Sacred Sword of the Patriot. The primary
mission of Op-33 was to foster and exploit discontent among the North
Vietnamese military and civilians. (Singlaub 1991, 296)
This division encountered numerous hurdles during its initial formation. First, Colonel
Russell had trouble getting the number and type of personnel assigned to the unit. He
originally requested 150 military personnel and 31 CIA officers. He received only 110
military personnel and 13 CIA officers. Later in 1966, the CIA reduced its cadre to nine.
Despite pushing the issue through SACSA, he was never able rectify this situation. The
second issue was the lack of psychological warfare training of the personnel assigned.
Few military personnel had any training or experience conducting the type of complex
psychological warfare operation they were being asked to conduct. Most had to learn on
the job if at all (Shultz 1999, 132-133).
As the division evolved, the psychological operations group was organized into
four subdivisions: "research and analysis, printed media, forgeries, and black mail;
radios; and special projects" (1999, 135). The first three are self-explanatory. Black mail
consisted of fake letters attributed to loyal North Vietnamese personnel in order to bring
60
suspicion on them from the North Vietnamese counterintelligence personnel. The special
projects subdivision included the fake resistance movement, the Sacred Sword of the
Patriot League (SSPL). This subdivision maintained an island below the 17th parallel that
was purportedly in North Vietnam territory by its inhabitants. The inhabitants were all
actors living in a fake coastal village in South Vietnamese waters called Paradise Island.
North Vietnamese fishermen were abducted during SOG maritime operations and then
indoctrinated at the SSPL village on Paradise Island by the actors. Then, they were
returned home with a radio (tuned to the SSPL channel), leaflets and gift kits and told to
spread the word about the SSPL (1999, 137).
Other special projects included booby-trapped items and counterfeit currency.

Most of the expertise for these projects came from the CIAs Far East logistics office in
Okinawa (1999, 137). Many AK-47 rounds and mortar rounds were booby trapped and
left along the Ho Chi Minh Trail by SOG reconnaissance patrols for the NVA to find.
There was evidence of casualties incurred by enemy personnel due to these devices
(1999, 158). The idea that Chinese ammunition was no good added to the psywar effort
to make the North Vietnamese distrust their Communist allies. "Intercepted NVA
communications revealed that the doctored ammunition was a concern to NVA soldiers"
(1999, 158). MACV put out a policy that no captured weapons should be used due to the
faulty ammunition problem. Unfortunately, a US warrant officer was injured anyway
when an AK-47 blew up in his face. SOG capitalized on this accident by publicizing the
incident on the Armed Forces network to further discredit the Chinese ammunition (1999,
159).
Overall, the goal of the psywar program was to convince Hanoi that it had real
61
internal security problems. It failed in this respect because the primary resistance
operation for example was notional. In 1966, Colonel Blackburn (SOGs second
Commander) "observed that it [Op 33] became more than a nuisance to the North
Vietnamese, and beyond that wasnt accomplishing anything" (1999, 162). He further
noted that the enemy "followed their propaganda up by doing something more" (1999,
162). As alluded to earlier in the research, the decision by the Johnson administration not
to foment a real insurgency in North Vietnam undercut the effects of the psychological
operations division. The first three SOG commanders all proposed that an actual
insurgency in North Vietnam was crucial to causing instability in North Vietnam (1999,
163).
Op-34 supervised the agent insertion and deception division located at Long
Thanh, South Vietnam. Prior to 1968, the mission of this division was to insert and run
agent teams (spies) in North Vietnam. Since starting a resistance movement was out of
the question, these agents were expected to provide intelligence and conduct sabotage
missions. In 1964 when SOG took over, there were only four active agent teams
consisting of about 30 individuals in North Vietnam and one singleton or solitary agent.
This was all that was left out of the approximately 250 agents the CIA inserted into North
Vietnam. SOG also inherited the Camp Long Thanh training facility that had 169 agents
in training and several safe houses in Saigon (Shultz 1999, 82-83).
The division experienced numerous difficulties and only limited success
accomplishing the OPLAN 34A goals. The small margin of success was apparent only
after they shifted their emphasis to deception operations in 1968. The first difficulty was
the overall operating environment of North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese had an
62
extremely effective counterintelligence apparatus. Of the 500 agents inserted by the CIA
and SOG from 1961 to 1968, only fifteen percent made it in and kept in contact. The rest
were assumed captured or killed. In 1968, a comprehensive review by the CIA and DIA
counterintelligence specialists revealed that the teams still in contact were all under the
control of the North Vietnamese. It took the CIA and SOG seven years to figure out the
doublecross (Shultz 1999, 83). This revelation would not have happened without Colonel
Singlaubs decision to hire an experienced officer to review the performance of the
division. The lack of experience in agent operations of some of the divisions early
commanders prevented them from discovering the North Vietnamese deception earlier.
After the debacle, the division spent the next year exploiting the doubled teams in
a triple-cross deception campaign, this time with more experienced leadership in
command of the division. The focus of the deception operation was the North Vietnamese
counterintelligence personnel. They were led to believe numerous agents had
successfully been inserted and were operating in North Vietnam. After a year, multiple
deception efforts by this division were underway. However, President Johnson cancelled
SOG operations that crossed the border of North Vietnam in November 1968 as part of
the Paris peace negotiation (1999 125). This effectively ended the utility of this divisions
effort in the war. A later report by a North Vietnamese security officer dated March 1997
revealed that the North Vietnamese estimated the total number of agents inserted "was
between 1,000 and 2,000, rather than the 500 that SOG and the CIA actually infiltrated"
(1999, 127). Thus the deception operation was the sole successful tactical contribution of
this division.
63
General Singlaub states in his book "perhaps our biggest and most interesting
activity was the cross-border Reconnaissance Teams, supervised by Op-35" (Singlaub
1991, 297). The reconnaissance activities were directed at the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos
and Cambodia during the war. They were carried out by three regional subdivisions of
Op-35: Command and Control North, Command and Control Central, and Command and
Control South. Of all SOG activities, this division experienced the greatest degree of
tactical success against enemy targets that mattered to the North Vietnamese war effort
(Singlaub 2005). As stated previously, bureaucratic approval difficulties and State
Department restrictions hampered this divisions efforts. Despite this, the reconnaissance
teams provided the US government valuable intelligence from 1965 until 1971
concerning the amount and type of supplies and personnel being moved along the Ho Chi
Minh Trail. Analysis of this reconnaissance should have illuminated the importance of
this line of communication to the North Vietnamese war effort, thus revealing previously
invalid assumptions concerning the intentions of the North Vietnamese. The decision of
the North Vietnamese to build it in 1959 and expand it in 1963 "was of strategic
magnitude" (Shultz 1999, 206). Cutting off this route, as outlined in OPLAN 34A should
have been a top priority.
Instead, policy makers merely increased the air support for SOG reconnaissance
units and attempted to destroy what they could with air strikes. Restrictions on how far
SOG units were able to penetrate across the borders were kept in place. This decision
only aided the enemys efforts to counter SOG reconnaissance tactics and further protect
their supplies. As early as 1965, General Westmoreland argued for permission to conduct
cross border conventional ground operations against enemy forces. Due to State
64
Department concerns and international law, those requests were denied. Therefore, as an
operational commander who could not fight the war operationally, he was never able to
capitalize on SOG reconnaissance to any great degree.
Strategically and operationally, the human intelligence provided was invaluable,
although under-appreciated by policy makers at the time. For example, intelligence
garnered by SOG operatives surrounding the use of the Ho Chi Minh trail should have
revealed the strategic importance of the trail to the North Vietnamese war effort. Perhaps
the divisions greatest tactical contribution was in terms of economy of force. By 1971,
the North Vietnamese Army devoted almost 4 divisions worth of troops and 10,000 air
defense weapons to protect the Ho Chi Minh trail against no more than 50 US led SOG
personnel at any one time (Plaster 2000, 466). The Divisions final contribution
concerned the North Vietnamese 1972 spring offensive. Unfortunately, the SOG
generated intelligence was largely ignored by MACV and the attack was a surprise to
most (Shultz 1999, 265). The "offensive, which was spearheaded by Soviet tanks,
initially consisted of 120,000 NVA troops attacking across the DMZ, in the central
highlands, and over the Cambodian border northwest of Saigon" (1999, 265). On 30
April 1972 SOG stood down and was disbanded.
In the final analysis, from 1964 to 1968, all SOG divisions contributed in a
fashion toward achieving the goals of OPLAN 34A. However, from 1968 to 1972, only
the aviation, psyops, and reconnaissance divisions contributed due to Johnsons decision
to halt SOGs activities in North Vietnam. After his election, President Nixon never
significantly altered the objectives of SOG or made full use of their capabilities during
his presidency. In summary, SOG did not contribute to the strategic goal of causing North
65
Vietnam to stop fomenting the war in South Vietnam. Furthermore, they did not cause the
level of instability in the North Vietnamese rear area or restrict the North Vietnamese use
of the Ho Chi Minh Trail envisioned in OPLAN 34A. Therefore, they did not achieve
their implied operational goals. With the assistance of conventional forces, a large-scale
guerrilla movement in North Vietnam, or perhaps a greatly expanded unconventional war
capability, things might have been different. As quoted in the beginning of this effort,
NVA Colonel Bui Tin said that "to prevent North Vietnams victory, the United States
would have had to "cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail" (Shultz 1999, 206).
66
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
Despite the tactical successes, SOG was neither strategically nor operationally
useful in Vietnam. The ability to maneuver and conduct battles by the North Vietnamese
was not impacted to any great degree by SOGs activities other than what was already
mentioned in the research. The unconventional war effort was more or less a nuisance to
the North Vietnamese. History shows that they continued to maintain control of their rear
area and move supplies and personnel to fight the war in South Vietnam. They were still
strong enough to mount a major offensive in 1972 and again successfully in 1975. Thus,
SOG did not contribute significantly to the Vietnam War effort. Had SOG operations
been linked to the conventional fight and restrictions lessened or dropped, the
unconventional war effort might have been more effective.
The significance of the conclusion to the field of study and related problems is
that future presidents should ensure they know their enemy before committing military
forces against it. Knowing the enemy will help ensure the correct forces are used and in
the right manner. Furthermore, they must know the true capabilities and limitations of
their military and paramilitary forces. There are advantages to using SOG type forces in
limited wars. They have a low visibility signature, can be disavowed, and are by their
nature extremely flexible. Furthermore, if applied to the correct targets, they can be
extremely successful. Deciding what the force can actually accomplish is critical,
although quite possible if planners conduct competent mission analysis. Restrictions

67
should be carefully weighed during mission analysis to ensure the courses of action
proposed will still meet the commanders intent. Whether or not the military or CIA is the
paramilitary force of choice seems irrelevant. The advisors to the President need to
ensure he or she has the correct information in order to make command decisions
regarding the use of force. This applies today in the GWOT as well.
The difference in presidential approaches to conducting limited war proved
critical to an organization like SOG. Conducting large scale paramilitary operations that
the US government would potentially have to acknowledge, explain, deny or disavow
caused the President great risk at home as well as on the global stage. The presidential
advisors should have known just how much could have been done covertly without
causing a war that expanded beyond the scope of what was acceptable. Both Kennedy
and Johnson shared many of the same key advisors, such as Secretary of Defense
McNamara and Secretary of State Rusk. These individuals made numerous
miscalculations and failed to provide their Presidents with the information they needed to
properly execute covert operations in the context of a limited war strategy. Ineffectual
advisors and Johnson as a cautious, almost timid Commander in Chief proved devastating
to SOGs paramilitary efforts. Note Secretary of Defense McNamaras thinly veiled
excuse for his failure in Vietnam.
I concede with painful candor and a heavy heart that the adage applies to me and
to my generation of American leadership regarding Vietnam. Although we sought
to do the right thing--and believed we were doing the right thing--in my judgment,
hindsight proves us wrong. We both overestimated the effect of South Vietnams
loss on the security of the West and failed to adhere to the fundamental principle
that, in the final analysis, if the South Vietnamese were to be saved, they had to
win the war themselves. Straying from this central truth, we built a progressively
more massive effort on an inherently unstable foundation. External military force
68
cannot substitute for the political order and stability that must be forged by a
people for themselves. (1995, 333)
Research does not support McNamaras conclusions. Numerous actions
reasonably could have altered the fate of South Vietnam. Among those was the effect of a
unconventional war effort unconstrained by bureaucratic mismanagement from 1961-
1968.
Though SOG operations were not truly useful in Vietnam as originally intended
under OPLAN 34A, their tactical contributions were important. Many modern special
operations units trace their origins and many of their tactics back to SOG. In particular,
special operations aviation units routinely conduct selected SOG-type operations in the
GWOT. From personal experience, the aviation close air support, assault, and extraction
techniques developed by SOG have not changed much in almost thirty years. The
primary difference is that modern equipment now makes it easier. SOG operators also
pioneered the high altitude low opening (HALO) airborne insertion techniques still in use
by Special Operations Forces today. Further contributions involved weapons handling
and break contact battle drills still taught today to reconnaissance personnel at various
schools. In addition, the criticality of having forward air controllers with ground
experience supporting troops is still as true now as it was then. Further study of SOG
tactics, techniques, and procedures proves useful to operators faced with similar mission
profiles. Furthermore, unconventional warfare unit commanders should also study SOG
to understand and hopefully avert the strategic and operational blunders that might be
repeated by senior policy makers unfamiliar with unconventional warfare operations.
69
Recommendations
One recommendation involves revisiting a SOG tactic used by their psychological
operations division. Booby trapping enemy ammunition seems incredibly useful in Iraq
where insurgents are ambushing US troops using ammunition locally acquired. Since the
Iraqi insurgents do not have a foreign resupply network developed, they should be
extremely vulnerable to attacks of this sort. If it worked in Vietnam, why not use it today
with greater success? The US could always deny that they did it. Modern psychological
warfare assets could further exploit the efforts and make the insurgents fear using their
available ammunition. If it saves lives, it seems worthy of consideration (Plaster 2005).
This effort also produced numerous recommendations for further study. The
debate over whether limited war is more favorable than total war continues today and is a
topic for further research regarding its modern day applications in the Global War on
Terrorism. Another topic involves the CIAs efforts in South Vietnam. In particular, the
utility of the infamous Phoenix Program has a special relevance today since the target of
Phoenix was the Viet Cong insurgency. Perhaps lessons learned from that study still
apply to the counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Another topic involves whether or not the CIA or DOD should control
paramilitary operations in the GWOT. As stated previously, this was also an issue during
the Kennedy administration. The NASAM 55, 56 and 57 memorandums from the
Kennedy administration mentioned earlier in this work highlight an important point
concerning current operations. Note the following quotation from a recent New York
Times article by Douglas Jehl.
The recommendation by the Sept 11 panel on paramilitary forces was one of the
farthest reaching. Its report called on the Defense Department to take charge of
70
"directing and executing paramilitary operations, whether clandestine or covert,"
tasks that have routinely fallen within the intelligence agencys domain.
In the years before Sept 11, the intelligence agency "did not invest in developing
a robust capability" in this area but relied on proxy forces organized by agency
officers, the report said, with unsatisfactory results. Rather than invest money and
personnel in the intelligence agency and the military for paramilitary
counterterrorist operations, the report said, "the United States should concentrate
responsibility and necessary legal authorities in one entity."
Under current directives, the militarys Special Operations Command already has
the authority to organize, train and equip the elite commando force and to plan
and execute its missions against terrorists. (2004, 2)
Apparently, the same issues that Kennedy grappled with still have relevance today
concerning DODs role in conducting paramilitary operations.
Tragically, SOGs cost of conducting the unconventional war against North
Vietnam was incredibly high. SOG forces "suffered casualties not comparable with those
of any other US units of the Vietnam War" (Plaster 2000, 466). In Op 35 alone, 163 SOG
Green Berets were killed in action and 80 were reported missing in action (MIA) (2000,
466). Only one of the soldiers missing in action was released after years of torment as a
prisoner of war. The rest of the MIAs remain unaccounted for to this day. Casualties in
the aviation units that supported SOG were also high, though not recorded in detail. In
addition to the USAF C130 crew lost over North Vietnam, numerous USAF, USMC, US
Army and allied aviators lost their lives in support of SOG operations. Finally, though no
precise records exist, research shows numerous allied casualties among the Chinese
Nungs, South Vietnamese, and Montagnards as well.
In summary, the development of SOG was not an entirely new thing, but it was
revolutionary in the history of American warfare. Although small in size, it provided the
Operational commander (GEN William Westmoreland) with the capability to conduct
71
operations, if so directed and correctly resourced, that could have had significant
operational impact on the enemys efforts. Due to decisions from higher levels of
command (the NCA) these operations for the most part were never conducted, and
therefore never realized their true potential. It is a credit to the heroic sacrifices of men in
SOG that they accomplished as much as they did.
72
GLOSSARY
Clandestine operation. "An operation sponsored or conducted by governmental
departments or agencies in such a way as to assure secrecy or concealment. A
clandestine operation differs from a covert operation in that emphasis is placed on
concealment of the operation rather than on concealment of identity of sponsor. In
special operations, an activity may be both covert and clandestine and may focus
equally on operational considerations and intelligence-related activities" (JP 1-02
2001, 89).
Counterinsurgency. "Those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological,
and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency" (JP 1-02 2001,
158).
Direct action (DA). "Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions by
special operations forces or special operations capable units to seize, destroy,
capture, recover, or inflict damage on designated personnel or materiel. In the
conduct of these operations, special operations forces or special operations
capable units may employ raid, ambush, or direct assault tactics; emplace mines
and other munitions; conduct standoff attacks by fire from air, ground, or
maritime platforms; provide terminal guidance for precision-guided munitions;
conduct independent sabotage; and conduct anti-ship operations. Also called DA"
(JP 1-02 2001, 158).
Foreign internal defense (FID). "Participation by civilian and military agencies of a
government in any of the action programs taken by another government to free
and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency. Also called
FID" (JP 1-02 2001, 212).
Guerrilla warfare. "Military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or
hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces" (JP 1-02 2001,
229).
Grand tactics. A failure of strategic military doctrine that fails to focus on the political
aim to be achieved (Summers 1982, 89).
Insurgency. "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted

government through use of subversion and armed conflict" (JP 1-02 2001, 262).
Low visibility operations. "Sensitive operations wherein the political-military restrictions
inherent in covert and clandestine operations are either not necessary or not
feasible; actions are taken as required to limit exposure of those involved and/or
their activities. Execution of these operations is undertaken with the knowledge
that the action and/or sponsorship of the operation may preclude plausible denial
by the initiating power" (JP 1-02 2001, 313).
73
Psychological operations. "Planned operations to convey selected information and
indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective
reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations,
groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or
reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originators objectives.
Also called PSYOP" (JP 1-02 2001, 430).
Raid. "An operation, usually small scale, involving a swift penetration of hostile territory
to secure information, confuse the enemy, or to destroy installations. It ends with
a planned withdrawal upon completion of the assigned mission" (JP 1-02 2001,
440).
Terrorism. "The calculated use of violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate
fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of
goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological" (JP 1-02 2001, 534).
74
REFERENCE LIST
Boettiger, John R. 1968. Vietnam and American Foreign Policy. Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath and Company.
Busha, Charles, and Stephen P. Harter. 1980. Research Methods in Librarianship:
Techniques and Interpretations. New York: Academic Press.
Cam, Tran Do. n.d. A Special Naval Unit of the Republic of Vietnam: The Coastal
Security Service. Document on-line. Available from http://www.ptfnasty.com/
coastalraiders.html. Internet. Accessed October 2004.
Carland, John M. 2004. Winning the Vietnam War: Westmorelands Approach in Two
Documents. The Journal of Military History Lexington 68, no. 2 (April): 553-574.
Cerami, Joseph R. 1996-1997. Presidential decision making and Vietnam: Lessons for
strategists. Parameters (Carlisle Barracks) 4 (winter): 51-65.
Department of Defense. 2001. Joint Publication 1-02, DOD Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms. Washington, DC; Government Printing Office. 12 April.
Grossman, Elaine M. 2004. Officers in Iraq: War Tactics Offer Little Prospect of
Success. Inside the Pentagon (30 September): 1.
Herring, George C. 1994. LBJ and Vietnam A Different Kind of War. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Jehl, Douglas. 2004. Bush Wants Plan For Covert Pentagon Role. New York Times, 23
November, 1-3.
Joint Publication 1-02, 2001. See Department of Defense. 2001.
Kellen, Konrad. 1971. 1971 and Beyond: The View from Hanoi. Santa Monica, CA: The
Rand Corporation.
Lung, Hoang N. 1980. Strategy and Tactics. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Center of
Military History.
MacGregor, Douglas. 2004. Army Transformation: Implications for the Future.
Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (15 July): 1-13.
McMaster, H. R. 1997. Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. New York: Harper Collins.
McNamara, Robert S. 1995. In retrospect: The tragedy and lessons of Vietnam. New
York: Times Books.
75
McNamara, Robert S., James G. Blight, and Robet K. Brigham. 1999. Argument Without
End: In Search of Answers to the Vietnam Tragedy. New York: Public Affairs.
Osgood, Robert E. 1957. Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Plaster, John L. Interview by author, 7 January 2005, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Tape
recording. Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
Plaster, John L. 2004. Secret Commandos. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Plaster, John L. 2000. SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars. Boulder, CO: Paladin
Press.
Plaster, John L. 1997. SOG: The Secret Wars of Americas Commandos in Vietnam. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Manning, Robert, Paul Dreyfus, Samuel Lipsman, Gordon Hardy, and Wendy Johnson.
1995. The Vietnam Experience: War in the Shadows. Boston: Boston Publishing
Company.
Rostow, W. W. 1998. McNamaras Vietnam War Reconsidered. Society New Brunswich
35, no. 6 (September-October): 78-83.

Sheehan, Neil, Hedrick R. Smith, E. W. Kenworth, and Fox Butterfield. 1971. The
Pentagon Papers. New York: The New York Times.
Shultz, Richard H., Jr. 1999. The Secret War Against Hanoi. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Singluab, John K., and Malcolm McConnell. 1991. Hazardous Duty: An American
Soldier in the Twentieth Century. New York: Summit Books.
Singlaub, John K. Interview by author, 4 March 2005, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Tape
recording, Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
Summers, Harry G., Jr. 1995. On Strategy: A Critical Analiysis of the Vietnam War.
Novato, CA: Presidio Press.
The BDM Corporation. 1980. A Study of Strategic Lessons Learned in Vietnam. Vol. 3,
U.S. Policy and Vietnam, 1945-1975. McLean, VA: The BDM Corporation.
Tin, Bui. 2002. From Enemy to Friend: a North Vietnamese Perspective on the War.
Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
76
Valentine, Douglas. 1990. The Phoenix Program. New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc.
Westmoreland, William C. 1976. A Soldier Reports. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.
77
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
250 Gibbon Ave.
Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2314
Defense Technical Information Center/OCA
825 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 944
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218
Michael L. Langley
SOF
USACGSC
1 Reynolds Ave.
Dr. Timothy L. Challans
SAMS
USACGSC
1 Reynolds Ave.
LTC Mark R. Wilcox
DJMO
USACGSC
1 Reynolds Ave.
John L. Plaster
PO Box 100
Iron River, WI 54847
MG John K. Singlaub
PO Box 2603
Arlington, VA 22202
Office of the President
Joint Special Operations University
357 Tully Street
Hurlburt Field, FL 32544-5872
CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
1. Certification Date: 17 June 2005
2. Thesis Author: MAJ Danny M. Kelley II
3. Thesis Title: The Utility of Studies and Observation Group in Vietnam
4. Thesis Committee Members:
Signatures:
5. Distribution Statement: See distribution statements A-X on reverse, then circle appropriate
distribution statement letter code below:
A B C D E F X SEE EXPLANATION OF CODES ON REVERSE
If your thesis does not fit into any of the above categories or is classified, you must coordinate
with the classified section at CARL.
6. Justification: Justification is required for any distribution other than described in Distribution
Statement A. All or part of a thesis may justify distribution limitation. See limitation justification
statements 1-10 on reverse, then list, below, the statement(s) that applies (apply) to your thesis
and corresponding chapters/sections and pages. Follow sample format shown below:
EXAMPLE
Limitation Justification Statement / Chapter/Section / Page(s)
Direct Military Support (10) / Chapter 3 / 12

Critical Technology (3) / Section 4 / 31
Administrative Operational Use (7) / Chapter 2 / 13-32
Fill in limitation justification for your thesis below:
Limitation Justification Statement / Chapter/Section / Page(s)
//
//
//
//
//
7. MMAS Thesis Author's Signature:
78
79
STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. (Documents with this statement
may be made available or sold to the general public and foreign nationals).
STATEMENT B: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies only (insert reason and date ON
REVERSE OF THIS FORM). Currently used reasons for imposing this statement include the following:
1. Foreign Government Information. Protection of foreign information.
2. Proprietary Information. Protection of proprietary information not owned by the U.S.
Government.
3. Critical Technology. Protection and control of critical technology including technical data with
potential military application.
4. Test and Evaluation. Protection of test and evaluation of commercial production or military
hardware.
5. Contractor Performance Evaluation. Protection of information involving contractor performance
evaluation.
6. Premature Dissemination. Protection of information involving systems or hardware from
premature dissemination.
7. Administrative/Operational Use. Protection of information restricted to official use or for
administrative or operational purposes.
8. Software Documentation. Protection of software documentation - release only in accordance
with the provisions of DoD Instruction 7930.2.
9. Specific Authority. Protection of information required by a specific authority.
10. Direct Military Support. To protect export-controlled technical data of such military
significance that release for purposes other than direct support of DoD-approved activities may jeopardize a
U.S. military advantage.

STATEMENT C: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors: (REASON
AND DATE). Currently most used reasons are 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 above.
STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to DoD and U.S. DoD contractors only; (REASON AND
DATE). Currently most reasons are 1, 3, 7, 8, and 9 above.
STATEMENT E: Distribution authorized to DoD only; (REASON AND DATE). Currently most used
reasons are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
STATEMENT F: Further dissemination only as directed by (controlling DoD office and date), or higher
DoD authority. Used when the DoD originator determines that information is subject to special
dissemination limitation specified by paragraph 4-505, DoD 5200.1-R.
STATEMENT X: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government agencies and private individuals of
enterprises eligible to obtain export-controlled technical data in accordance with DoD Directive 5230.25;
(date). Controlling DoD office is (insert).

The Misuse of SOG in Vietnam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Misuse of SOG in Vietnam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Misuse of SOG in Vietnam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE MISUSE OF THE STUDIES AND OBSERVATION GROUP Pagina 1 di 62

THE MISUSE OF THE STUDIES AND OBSERVATION GROUP AS A NATIONAL

ASSET IN VIETNAM, by MAJ Danny M. Kelley II, 85 pages.

missions affect enemy forces and their operations?

assistance this research effort would not have been possible.

MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ............. ii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1

Research Question ...........................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................10

CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................................34

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................66

REFERENCE LIST ...........................................................................................................74

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ......................................................................................77

CERTIFICATION FOR MMAS DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT .................................78

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DOD Department of Defense

GWOT Global War on Terrorism

JACK Joint Advisory Commission, Korea

MACV Military Assistance Command Vietnam

NSAM National Security Action Memorandum

NVA North Vietnamese Army

OPLAN Operations Plan

OSS Office of Strategic Services

SACSA Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities

SEAL Sea Air Land

SECDEF Secretary of Defense

SOAR Special Operations Aviation Regiment

SOG Studies and Observations Group

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

To prevent North Vietnams victory, Bui Tin (a retired

NVA Colonel interviewed in 1995) observed, the United States

activist queried, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail?" "Yes," he repeated,

General Westmorelands request to enter Laos and block the Ho

explained the strategic importance of the trail for Hanois

sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South.

of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations,

and communications units." If it had been cut, Hanoi could not

have intensified the fighting with NVA regulars, as it did in 1965.

the trail would have made those tasks significantly easier.

It was a telling revelation from one who should know. As

the discussion unfolded, Colonel Bui Tins observations became

more and more convincing--they actually made sense. This raises a

fundamental question. If this made such obvious sense, how is it

Richard H. Shultz Jr., The Secret War Against Hanoi

operationally. By answering the following research questions, this conclusion will be

questions, a conclusion may be drawn concerning the contribution of SOG in Vietnam.

I am a Major in the US Army who is special operations aviation qualified. Prior to

SOG missions in Vietnam. As a participant in several classified task force operations, I

SOAR, I served as Platoon Leader, Detachment Commander, MH-60K Blackhawk Pilotin-

Command, Air Mission Commander, Regimental Training Officer and Special

of the results of my research. It is common for those in my former organization to be

opportunity to conduct a candid assessment of SOGs utility in Vietnam.

elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic).

(MacGregor 2004, 10).

engaged fighting an aggressive insurgency in Iraq while hunting elusive terrorists in

Threats of terrorist strikes against the US and its allies continue.

defeat a growing communist insurgency in South Vietnam. The US employed a mixture

in the prosecution of the conflict. This research will be focussed on a detailed

Certain key assumptions are critical to this research.