Talk:Military Assistance Command, Vietnam

Article Tags

I redid the tags on this article. It doesn't use primary sources (so that tag was incorrect), but it does have citation issues and needs a few more sources. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Evacuation of Saigon?

Since MACV folded down in 1972, do we want to break the DAO stuff off into another article? It seems somewhat awkward to have that bit "bolted on" to the end of the MACV article, but I'm also ok with leaving it there if others think it's needed. It would be easy, by the way, to expand MACV quite a bit, which could lead to article bloat. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DAO was the successor to MACV so it should either stay there or form its own article, though there isn't much information about DAO at present. I wrote the DAO and Evacuation of Saigon sections, ideally the whole MACV article should be expanded and so the DAO and evacuation sections won't seem so large or misplaced.Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm working my way through the FFV and XXIV Corps articles and hope to get to MACV as well. I know DAO was its successor, but wasn't sure if it didn't deserve an article of its own. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes/Improvements?

I did some reshuffling of section heads and added one or two things, but there's still more to be done. Do we need Sorley as a source, since he's not cited anywhere in the existing article? Personally I think Stanton's a better NPOV source for some of this stuff, but it wouldn't hurt to have broad coverage. I also toyed with shifting the naval stuff to a stub, since all the other MACV elements have their own linked articles, but decided to leave it here until it can be discussed. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that you are workong on this article as it has needed extensive attention for quite a while. It was one of those things on my list of things to do when I got the time...and you know how that goes. Sorley has written a couple of books on the management of the Vietnam war critical of the way Westmoreland handled the situation some of the background information he cites could be useful if handled in an NPOV way. Stanton is okay, but I have found holes in his coverage, particularly where the Navy is concerned. Stanton's Vietnam Order of Battle is the best resource of its kind, but I have found some errors. I suppose that happens even with the best of intentions. My interest is in the Naval aspects of the Vietnam War, even though I served in the Army in Vietnam. A separate stub for Naval Forces Vietnam (NAVFORV) would be a welcome project as far as I am concerned as it would tie in with several articles that I regularly edit. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Stanton does have his limits, but he pays better attention to the organizational/lineage questions than Sorley, IMO. A stub for NAVFORV would be welcome to me, too. It certainly deserves one, especially given the coordination that went on the Delta region with the 9th ID (among other units). I'm slowly working through MACV, the Field Force Vietnam articles, and some other related articles, so MACV will be a slow but steady thing for me. Any help is more than welcome! Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fall of Saigon and Operation Frequent Wind

This series of events happened long after MACV was disestablished. Why is it in this article? I would remove it but I don't want to trash someone's work without some guidance on this. In my opinion, it doesn't belong here because it is not a part of the history of MACV. Any advice? Cuprum17 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The DAO was the successor to MACV and it makes sense to keep them together rather than have two short articles. The DAO Compound was one of the two key sites of Operation Frequent WindMztourist (talk)

DAO Saigon

Why is this section even in here? If it was a "rump" version of the MACV, then a couple of sentences with a link to a separate DAO article should suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStiv (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The DAO was the successor to MACV after the Paris Peace Accords came into effect. There is no separate DAO article and it is in the correct place. I have added an explanatory sentence to the intro.Mztourist (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Move of DAO section to Embassy of the United States, Saigon

Copied over from User talk:Mztourist: Have you reviewed the structural place of a defense/military attache as part of a diplomatic corps lately? Also Defense Attache System. Ambassador is the lead for all U.S. personnel in country, in the absence of a military command.. eg, at United States Embassy, Saigon, during the evacuation, the DA was overruled by the Ambassador on evacuation details.. check the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The modern version - page from the Embassy website: https://vn.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulate/embassy/sections-offices/dao/ Buckshot06 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Surely you don't seriously think that the modern version of the US defense attache to Vietnam is in any way comparable to the role played by the DAO in 1973-5? The DAO was a massive organization overseeing military intelligence, aid and thousands of contractors who kept the South Vietnamese military equipment operational. See this [1] pages 397-400 and 407-8. The DAO was a Department of Defense organisation and largely functioned separately from the US Embassy. See this: [2] pages 18-19 and in particular this statement: "Because DAO Saigon was subordinate to USSAG [United States Support Activities Group] in operational and intelligence fields, the normal flow of tasking and reporting was through USSAG to CINCPAC and the JCS in Washington." Also: page 144 "They were given detailed briefings by the Embassy and DAO"; page 145 "fact sheets prepared by DAO, the JGS, and the American Embassy". So you need to provide WP:RS that the DAO Saigon was part of the US Embassy, Saigon before making your edits again. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Defense attache offices are invariably DOD- they represent DOD, they can't be not-DOD. But if you are trying to tell me that a Defense Attache - with whatever staffing assisting him - is not part of an Embassy, and not responsible to the Ambassador, you simply don't understand how these things work. This is the normal arrangement. If you wish to go find sources to demonstrate that the Defense Attache in Saigon after the departure of MACV was not responsible to the Ambassador, differing from the normal way embassies work, you're perfectly at liberty to do so. But until then, in line with the function of a defense attache within an Embassy, this page should definitely stay the way it is. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is the statement: "Because DAO Saigon was subordinate to USSAG [United States Support Activities Group] in operational and intelligence fields, the normal flow of tasking and reporting was through USSAG to CINCPAC and the JCS in Washington." You say that I "simply don't understand how these things work" without providing any WP:RS that that is the case generally or making any specific reference to the DAO Saigon. You just asserting that something "is the normal arrangment" doesn't make it true. You are the one who wants to make the change and so you need to provide WP:RS that supports your assertion that DAO Saigon was part of the Embassy and responsible to the US Ambassador , which I have shown is not the case by the quotes above which clearly indicate that DAO functioned separately from the Embassy. Mztourist (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

General: Defence Attache, Defense Attache System, as noted above. Specific: the page showing the DAO in the U.S. Embassy, Hanoi, today, above. That is the way the system works. Your quote about the 'normal flow of tasking and reporting' emphasizes this: it is marking the difference from the formal chain of command and where the organization fitted into the U.S. Government - in the State Department's Embassy to Saigon - to the informal day to day activities, which were mostly with the Defense Department. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I am asking you for WP:RS about DAO Saigon, details of the DAO Hanoi are completely irrelevant. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Extract from 1973 CINCPAC Command History

• "The DAO, Saigon, was a jointly staffed activity that assumed all DOD responsibilities in the RVN following the disestablishment of MACV on 29 March 1973. The Defense Attache (DATT) was assisted by a Attache Element consisting of Service attaches and assistant Service attaches who performed traditional attache functions. This Attache Element was under the supervision of the DATT and the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission to the extent provided by law and in accordance with Executive Orders and such other instructions as the President might promulgate. The Army Attache was designated as Assistant DATT. The DATT was also responsible to the Director of the DIA for all military and political-military intelligence functions. The DATT and his assistants had direct access to the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission on all attache matters and were to keep the Mission chief fully informed. Unresolved differences on attache matters between the Mission chief and the DATT were to be referred to the DIA Director."
• "Under CINCPAC's responsibility, however, were the DATT's security assistance functions. The DATT was the representative of SecDef (and CINCPAC) with respect to the U.S. security assistance program in the RVN.. ..The DATT was CINCPAC's Single Senior Military Representative in the RVN.."
• "For matters pertaining to the coordination of security assistance planning, the DATT reported directly to CINCPAC but he was to keep the COMUSSAG/7th Air Force informed until that organization was disestablished. The DATT was to keep the Chief of the U.S. Diplomatic Mission fully informed concerning existing and prospective security assistance and other plans, programs, and activities." (https://nautilus.org/foia-document/cincpac-command-history-1973-volume-i/, pages 51-52, 77/818, 78/818) Buckshot06 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)