Statesmen versus Warlords
Perhaps no event in recent history has so profoundly affected the political, sociological, and philosophical outlook of the American people as the Vietnam War. George Bell, Undersecretary of State from 1961 through 1966, called Vietnam the “greatest single error that America has made in its national history” (Legacies). As the first war the United States had ever lost, Vietnam shattered American confidence in its military supremacy and engendered a new wave of isolationist sentiment in the country. Mistrusting their government and retreating into a state of general disillusionment, the public demanded to know what went wrong. The people needed a scapegoat. Some groups blamed the military commanders for failing to adapt to Vietnam’s unique circumstances; some condemned politicians for not fully supporting the military effort; while still others upheld that victory was never possible in the first place.
Now, years after the last Marine left Vietnamese soil, the debate continues, but evidence places the majority of the blame at the feet of America’s foreign policy makers. Because, as Paul Elliott writes in his book Vietnam: Conflict and Controversy, “Everything in Vietnam was being viewed through the distorting lens of the Cold War, and against the fear of atomic holocaust” (92), Congress and the President refused to make a total commitment to victory in Indochina. That lack of commitment led directly to American defeat.
But, considering the social and political situation of the late 1960s and early 1970s, was such commitment feasible? Total victory would have required a complete mobilization of American armed forces, an invasion of North Vietnam, and the possible utilization of nuclear weaponry...
... middle of paper ...
...d. Without Honor: Defeat in Vietnam and Cambodia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1983. 488-506.
Legacies. Part 13 of Vietnam: A Television History. Richard Ellison, Producer. WGBH Educational Foundation.
Millis, Walter, ed. American Military Thought. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. 480- 95.
Schloming, Gordon. American Foreign policy and the Nuclear Dilemma. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1987. 14-16.
Sharp, Ulysses. Strategy For Defeat: Vietnam in Retrospect. San Rafael: Presidio, 1978. 267-71.
Schechter, Danny. “Introduction: The Fall of Washington.” How We Won the War. Vo Nguyen Giap. Philadelphia: RECON, 1976. 13-14.
Summers, Harold, G. On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. Novato: Presidio, 1982. 63-9.
“Vietnam War.” Microsoft Encarta 1999 Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft Corporation, 1998.
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
Tim O’Brien’s book, The Things They Carried, portrays stories of the Vietnam War. Though not one hundred percent accurate, the stories portray important historical events. The Things They Carried recovers Vietnam War history and portrays situations the American soldiers faced. The United States government represents a political power effect during the Vietnam War. The U. S. enters the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. The U.S. government felt if communism spreads to South Vietnam, then it will spread elsewhere. Many Americans disapproved of their country’s involvement. Men traveled across the border to avoid the draft. The powerful United States government made the decision to enter the war, despite many Americans’ opposition. O’Brien’s The Things They Carried applies New Historicism elements, including Vietnam history recovery and the political power of the United States that affected history.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view then in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period. During this time period it would be the fourth time Americans went to war in that century which made it tough for Americans to give their supportS (Schlesinger 8). Most Americans did not know why the country was getting involved in Vietnam as well as what the United States’ agenda was. This dilemma ties into the short story, “On the Rainy River” which is a passage from Tim O’Brien’s book The Things They Carried.
In his speech, Eugene McCarthy describes why fighting the Vietnam War was a poor decision to make. First, he mentions how John F. Kennedy gave hope and courage to America and its people in 1963; on the other hand, in 1967, America was in a period of frustration and distrust due to the escalation of the Vietnam War. McCarthy states that America is not the world police and should not be giving promises that they could not follow through with. Moreover, the United States was fighting a pointless war where there are no changes being seen. “I see little evidence that the administration has set any limits on the price which it will pay for a military victory which becomes less and less sure and more hollow and empty in promise” (McCarthy). Throughout the duration of the war, the United States made very little progress, even though they had p...
Source G: "The Vietnam War and Its Aftermath." American Voices. Glenview: Scott Foresman, 1995. 821-47. Print.
The Vietnam War to this day is thought of as a grim, long-lasting battle that took place between 1955 and 1975. The American people were never fond of this war, as they polled and constantly spoke out against the idea of being involved in Vietnam throughout the entire duration it took place. This war was fought between North Vietnam (with their Soviet, Chinese and other communist allies) and South Vietnam whose main supporter and ally was the United States. This paper will validate what this war was like for the American troops and all the diversity they were able to overcome. Ranging from the lack of American support, to the physical combat and hardships the soldiers had to face while on the battleground.
No one could have realized that what seemed as an insignificant gesture to partake in training South Vietnamese armies and America’s involvement in Southeast Asia would one day have the impact it did on America. Although at the time when Eisenhower was trying to stop of the spread of communism it seemed the right thing to do, the repercussions of that decision and the war it eventually led to was devastating to America politically, socially, and culturally.
The Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war in American History. The toll we paid wasn't just financial, it cost the people involved greatly, physically and mentally. This war caused great distress and sadness, as well as national confusion. Everyone had that one burning question being why? Why were we even there? The other question being why did America withdrawal from Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to answer these two burning questions, and perhaps add some clarity to the confusion American was experiencing.
President Dwight Eisenhower conditionally pledged to support South Vietnam’s new nation in 1955. In the time period between 1955-1961 the United States pumped seven billion dollars in aid so that Vietnam would not “go over quickly” like a “row of dominoes” (McNamara 31). In the next 6 years Vietnam would cost America billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and the disaffection of much of the United States public. Yet in the end, South Vietnam would fall to the North less than 2 years after the United States military involvement ceased.
Roark, James L. "Vietnam and the Limits of Power 1961-1975." The American Promise: A History of the United States. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 1,062- 1,100. Print.
It is understandable that some Americans strongly opposed the United States getting involved in the Vietnam War. It had not been a long time since the end of World War II and simply put, most Americans were tired of fighting. Mark Atwood Lawrence is one of the people who opposed our involvement in the Vietnam War. In his essay, “Vietnam: A Mistake of Western Alliance”, Lawrence argues that the Vietnam War was unnecessary and that it went against our democratic policies, but that there were a lot of things that influenced our involvement.
This book details the discussion of government policy in the stages of the Vietnam crisis from 1961-July 1965. It examines the main characters of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert McNamara, in addition to the military, which included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It began in the Kennedy era amidst the Bay of Pigs incident and how that led to mistrust of the military planning by advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It continues with Johnson and his administration making decisions over and over that continued to commit more and more involve...
The Vietnam War was a war that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1st 1955 to the fall of Saigon on April 30th 1975. This war was fought between the North Vietnamese Viet Cong and the government of South Vietnam. The criticism of the war in Vietnam started out as a reaction to President Johnson’s policy of fighting for a limited purpose and a negotiated peace in Vietnam. Criticism is valuable because it helps to correct communal procedures. That is a great advantage of exposed societies. But criticism works only if those in control have a sufficient intellect in order to recognize when a policy has gone wrong. The Vietnam War and its leaders is a "monument to the failure of that necessary wisdom" (Lewis). The supporters were known as “hawks.” As the President escalated the war effort, and became a hawk himself, his chief critics who disagreed with the war became known as “doves,” which included college students, faculty, and several other people who felt that the war was corrupt, was promoting no advantage for the US, and was increasing the number of casualties. But the Doves’ access to this goal is restricted: the war drags on. Many disaffected doves adapt to this situation by rebellion. They reject societal goals and means
Chris Appy’s s American Reckoning is a book-length essay on the Vietnam War and how it changed the way Americans think of ourselves and our foreign policy. This is required reading for anyone interested in foreign policy and America’s place in the world, showing how events influence attitudes, which turn to influence events.
Contending versions of the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement began to develop even before the war ended. The hawks' version, then and now, holds that the war was winnable, but the press, micromanaging civilian game theorists in the Pentagon, and antiwar hippies lost it. . . . The doves' version, contrarily, remains that the war was unwise and unwinnable no matter what strategy was employed or how much firepower was used. . . Both of these versions of the war and the antiwar movement as they have come down to us are better termed myths than versions of history because they function less as explanations of reality than as new justifications of old positions and the emotional investments that attended them (Garfinkle, 7).