Vietnam’s Secret War Plan Reveals Deep Suspicion of US Intentions

A recently surfaced internal Vietnamese military paper titled “The 2nd U.S. Invasion Plan” has reignited debate over the contrast between Hanoi’s expanding partnership with the United States and the deep security anxieties within its defence establishment. Published and analysed by The 88 Project, the document reportedly prepared by Vietnam’s Ministry of Defence in August 2024 portrays Washington as a “belligerent” power capable of using unconventional warfare and political tools to destabilise Vietnam’s socialist system. While the paper notes the risk of open conflict remains low, it stresses vigilance against foreign influence that could weaken Communist Party control .

Vietnam’s strategic thinkers ground this suspicion in several overlapping concerns. First is the historical memory of the war that ended in 1975, which continues to shape military doctrine and institutional culture. Second is a pronounced fear of “colour revolutions” mass protest movements seen elsewhere which planners believe could be encouraged through external promotion of democracy, human rights, and civil society initiatives. The document reflects a belief that such ideas, even when presented as development cooperation, could gradually erode regime stability. Analysts cited in international reporting say this view is not fringe but shared across conservative and security-focused factions within the leadership.

A third driver is geopolitical hedging. Vietnam benefits economically from U.S. trade and investment, yet officials remain cautious about Washington’s broader Indo-Pacific strategy, which they see as aimed at building coalitions to counter China. Hanoi worries that alignment pressures or political conditionality could emerge in crisis scenarios. Policy unpredictability in Washington, including past aid disruptions, has reinforced perceptions that strategic cooperation may be fragile. Together, these factors create a mindset in which the U.S. is simultaneously a key economic partner and a long-term political risk .

Despite the dramatic title, experts emphasise the document reads more as a worst-case planning exercise than evidence of imminent military preparations. Its recommendations focus on strengthening political resilience , tightening oversight of foreign-linked organisations, and enhancing internal security coordination rather than mobilising forces for large-scale combat. In that sense, the primary threat envisioned is not a conventional invasion but regime destabilisation through influence operations or social unrest.