Talk:Operation Attleboro

Close paraphrasing / COPYVIO removed
An IP has added the following wording with this (and other) edits :
 * "However, U.S. body counts was problematic at best, fraught with intentional incurracies at worst (double counting, exaggerations, and diffcult terrain all made body counting an imprecise technique for measuaring progress). The Vietcong simply refused to fight, and Attleboro did not break the NLF's political hold in Tay Ninh province, a point that few U.S commanders realized at the time. Once U.S combat units left, NLF quietly returned. Reducing the NLF fighting power had not diminished their political influence within the local hamets and villages."

This is taken very closely from the source provided (Daddis "No Sure Victory", p. 7) which includes (see link: ):
 * "''Relying on body counts in Vietnam, however, was problematic at best, fraught with intentional inaccuracies at worst. Possible kills, double-counting, estimations, exaggerations, and difficult terrain all made body counting an imprecise technique for measuring progress... While General Du DePuy though Attleboro had crippled the 9th PLAF Division, after the first week of November the Viet Cong simply refused to fight... Reducing the Viet Cong's fighting power had not diminished their political influence within the local hamlets and villages."

Consequently I have removed this information. There are other issues with these edits though, for one adding flags to the infobox contrary to WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and the addition of "Strategic U.S failure" which is cited to Daddis but after I checked (per the edit summary of another IP who previously reverted the addition as well - strangely also an IP 101?) I don't see this wording supported by the source. The source no doubt questions the lasting political effect of the operation but doesn't anywhere say write that it was a "Strategic U.S failure". Anotherclown (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)