A funny idea, but not always. Some of the "ruling class" are genuinely racist.

It's a logical continuation of them being on top. Some people are better than others, in their opinion. They are better than those not of their group and set of opinions, their country (sometimes of residence and not where they rule) is better than other countries, their ethnicity is better than other ethnicities, and their race is better than other races. The reason they want to impress these hierarchical divisions is they want to impress their worldview, not to create division.

So, again about USA. You guys have that crap in everything. That's why motivational letters by American students to European universities are a comedy genre. You don't even see it, but your official tone (and even much of the political discussions and social one) is half bullshit, half markers of identity (that kind of neighborhood, that kind of ancestry, that kind of some other tribal classification, all clear cut and exclusive). Well, there are also markers of connections thrown here and there. And your discussions are usually not discussions, they are like playing cards with those markers instead, where one marker beats another, there can be no discussion after that.

Sigh. I have relatives in the USA who moved there long enough ago to be carriers of that and other things too, so when my uncle was helping me with writing a CV, for the initial variant I just followed his advice and I'm not ever showing that pretentious crap to anyone. Despite him being a tremendous help with my executive dysfunction (and unfortunately impediment where he conditioned one project on me finishing uni, I still haven't finished uni, it's indefinitely paused).

That's the second Indochina war, and American bombing was mostly done against Vietnamese targets in the jungle in the neighboring countries, so mostly it was still Vietnam. But yes, they regularly hit civilian targets in the neighboring countries.

The first Indochina war was France testing its contemporary new and shiny western military doctrines in the wild and finding them lacking.

In general this seems to be a pattern, western nations indeed value lives of their soldiers very much. I doubt it's because of humanism (they don't value enemy civilian population's), rather because of inherent racism. But it shows in the doctrines, they are always looking for a way to create a situation where they can hit their enemy, but their enemy can't hit them, and where they are moving so much faster than their enemy, that their enemy could as well be a sitting duck. To create a baby beating disposition. That's harmful for military's experience and esprit de corps, but appeals to the western nations' feel of superiority. Long term harm, short term impressions.

So - it didn't work. They were using air logistics and supply depots in a system all over the place and small expert mobile forces and all that stuff the western public still considers proper way of fighting a war. In other words, they tried to cheat. And Viet Minh just did their work honestly, in many small steps, over long enough time.

Of course the French logistics were conditioned by fighting on the other side of the globe from metropoly, and Viet Minh fought at home. But honestly it seems to be a pattern in all wars for any European nation, ideas of superiority and quick spectacular solution are always replaced for more classical understanding once actually tried. It's a cliche that USSR's approach was mass assault with no regard for lives, but, ahem, Tukhachevsky is one of the creators of the ideas that became Wehrmacht's doctrine in the beginning.

While the USA in Vietnam decided to show another thing - that they are not France and can just burn all of the fucking jungle with their power. And they burned much of that, except their population wasn't ready even for the pretty moderate losses there (like 4x what USSR lost in Afghanistan).