Going all out
             The United States learned many lessons from Vietnam. Of those defined, none is more proven that "avoiding graduated escalation." If one is going to war, they need to go all out. Gradually increasing forces prolongs the war as well as gives the enemy more time to prepare and learn your tactics. Unfortunately, we learned this the hard way. But, as long as we adhere to the phrase, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well," then we should not have any more Vietnams.
             Graduated escalation is just a way of delaying the inevitable. First, Johnson decided to bomb the North Vietnamese. He made the illusion that bombing the North Vietnamese was not going to war, that it was a way of putting pressure on them. For almost the first half of the "war" the United States thought that bombing the north would be enough to stop the invasion of the south. This theory came from bombing Germany during World War II. Although the bombing of Germany was to some degree effective, it was not to the effect that they perceived it to be. And the same effect happened in Vietnam; it did slow down some weapons building, but the north was still able to continue fighting freely. Lyndon Johnson was under the impression that as long as there was military action present, then the war was going alright. Thus the graduated escalation. But while bombing the north, troops were losing ground daily. Johnson then decided to amass more troops and ship them over. But this did not make the job easier. By then the Viet Cong were dispersed throughout the countryside, as well as in villages. And with the Viet Cong not fighting in standard military uniform, it was almost impossible for United States troops to distinguish between civilian and military personnel.
             The graduated escalation policy was in part due to having no clear objective in Vietnam. Without a set military objective, it hard for military offici...