DECEIT (OR THE LACK THEREOF) AND FAILURE: JOHNSON AND THE VIETNAM WAR Nicholas Reichert. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” (Winston Churchill) While the Vietnam War remains a poignant time in our nation’s history, it has also allowed for reflection and education. When you hear “Vietnam War” or “Lyndon B. Johnson,” your mind usually strays to a negative thought: horror, failure, and deceit, to characterize a few potential thoughts. Contrary to popular belief that Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) purposefully deceived the public and made a fundamentally flawed decision to escalate the Vietnam War, a thorough analysis of historical evidence reveals that LBJ did not attempt to conceal his intentions from the public …show more content…
. . . Whatever his motives, he refused to admit that he was going to war.” John Gaddis echoes similar thoughts, concluding that LBJ, “publicly discounted the prospect of a direct American role in the war prior to the 1964 election, despite the fact that his advisors expected it.” Similar comments can be found in the works of Brian VandeMark, Gabriel Kolko, and Doris Kearns. (Citations omitted) There is a clearly depicted view that Johnson purposefully concealed his plans to escalate the war and lied to the public for political gain. However, as we examine Johnson's public statements before escalation, we can see that he continuously displayed a commitment to the struggle in South Vietnam. “We of the United States have not forgotten [North Vietnam’s actions]. That is why we have answered this aggression with action. . . President Eisenhower sought – and President Kennedy sought – the same objectives that I still seek. . . But there can be no peace by aggression and no immunity from reply.” President Johnson clearly intends to continue supporting Vietnam. This quote, from August 1964, showcases that Johnson supported this policy even before the 1984 election. 1. What is the “1”? America keeps her word. . . 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? The issue is the future of
The aftermath — No More Vietnams — is well-covered in Appy’s work. The No More Vietnam mantra is usually presented as avoiding quagmires, focusing on quick, sharp wins. Instead, Appy shows politicians have manipulated No More Vietnams into meaning greater secrecy (think Central America in the 1980’s), more over-the-top justifications (“You don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”) and an emphasis on keeping American deaths inside the acceptable limits of the day to tamp down any public anti-war sentiment.
The Vietnam War: A Concise International History is a strong book that portrays a vivid picture of both sides of the war. By getting access to new information and using valid sources, Lawrence’s study deserves credibility. After reading this book, a new light and understanding of the Vietnam war exists.
The regrets of the many lives lost in Vietnam. The former secretary of defense Robert McNamara published a memoir, two decades after the war ended. In the memoir he admitted that the policy he helped create was “terribly wrong”. He stated that the ignorance of the history, the culture of Vietnam, and the misguided belief that every communist movement in the world was led by Moscow, had led the United States into a war that was unwinnable and regrettable. (Foner, 4th edition, pg.1030) The students of The Port Huron Statement were right by being against the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was a military, political, and social disaster. Which only brought casualties in the lives of American people. It was an unforgivable mistake caused by Presidents that feared that the public would not forgive them for “losing” the Vietnam War.
The Vietnam War brought many tears and casualties to both the United States and Vietnam. Millions of soldiers lost their lives in the time consuming battle. On February 8, 1967 President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote a letter to Ho Chi Minh, Dictator of Vietnam at the time. President Johnson’s letter expresses his hopes of ending this conflict that has gone on so long in Vietnam. President Ho Chi Minh replied back on February 15, 1967 stating that it had been the United States that prolonged the wicked war. President Ho Chi Minh’s reply to President Johnson was the more persuasive of the two letters, because he appealed more to pathos, used stronger and bolder diction, and asked an important rhetorical question.
This unfortunate legacy of failure in Vietnam carried far past the end of his service as Secretary of Defense. For years after, there have been ongoing debates as to what factors led the outcome of the Vietnam War. It wasn’t until 1995 that Robert McNamara contributed his own viewpoint on where the responsibility for the result of the war fell. McNamara’s memoir, “In Retrospect”, chronicles his perspective on the role he played as Secretary of Defense. It is apparent in his memoir that the public image associated with McNamara is vastly different from the McNamara he presents. Ironically, this infamous war he was so commonly know for may have been a war that privately he did not support.[1] This raises the question—was this hawk actually a
JOHN F. KENNEDY IN VIETNAM There are many critical questions surrounding United States involvement in Vietnam. American entry to Vietnam was a series of many choices made by five successive presidents during these years of 1945-1975. The policies of John F. Kennedy during the years of 1961-1963 were ones of military action, diplomacy, and liberalism. Each of his decision was on its merits at the time the decision was made. The belief that Vietnam was a test of the Americas ability to defeat communists in Vietnam lay at the center of Kennedy¡¦s policy. Kennedy promised in his inaugural address, Let every nation know...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty. From the 1880s until World War II, France governed Vietnam as part of French Indochina, which also included Cambodia and Laos. The country was under the formal control of an emperor, Bao Dai. From 1946 until 1954, the Vietnamese struggled for their independence from France during the first Indochina War. At the end of this war, the country was temporarily divided into North and South Vietnam. North Vietnam came under the control of the Vietnamese Communists who had opposed France and aimed for a unified Vietnam under Communist rule. Vietnamese who had collaborated with the French controlled the South. For this reason the United States became involved in Vietnam because it believed that if all of the country fell under a Communist government, Communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia and further. This belief was known as the domino theory. The decision to enter Vietnam reflected America¡¦s idea of its global role-U.S. could not recoil from world leadership. The U.S. government supported the South Vietnamese government. The U.S. government wanted to establish the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), which extended protection to South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in case of Communist subversion. SEATO, which came into force in 1955, became the way which Washington justified its support for South Vietnam; this support eventually became direct involvement of U.S. troops. In 1955, the United States picked Ngo Dinh Diem to replace Bao Dai as head of the anti-Communist regime in South Vietnam. Eisenhower chose to support Ngo Dinh Diem. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born in Brookline, Mass., on May 29, 1917. Kennedy graduated from Harvard University in 1940 and joined the Navy the next year.
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 than in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period.
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...
Neil Sheehan has used this novel to tell the story of the Vietnam conflict utilizing the perspective of one of its most respected characters. This is the story of John P. Vann who first came to Vietnam as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army and later returned as a civilian official. It is the story of his life from the beginning to the end. It is also Vietnam's story; it offers clear reasons for the conflict, and why it was such a disaster for all those involved.
As part of his campaign, Linden B. Johnson directed his efforts toward the improvement of life of those in poverty, focusing little attention to the Vietnam War. Yet once elected, he brought upon “the escalation of the Vietnam war to an intensity that few Americans expected when they cast their ballots for him” (Walsh). Johnson’s increased interest and support for the war created a major issue of misrepresentation, his election came from his ideas aimed at the “Great Society,” yet he authorized the increase of the original “20,000 U.S. troops to more than a half million” to serve in Vietnam (Walsh). The policies that the former president was elected under was what the general public hoped would come from his stay in office, yet his legacy would go on to be almost entirely regarding his involvement in the war. Not only did he bring the United States deeper into the war, he also failed “to honestly discuss how badly the war was going and to reveal the true costs of the conflict” (Walsh). This duplicity on the part of the former president, forged for a severe difference in preference and policy between him and the majority of United States public that had elected him into office for his first official presidential term in
The initial policy decision made by President Lyndon B. Johnson was to “Americanize” the Vietnam War (Tindall and Shi, p. 1341). This meant that American troops would be sent to Vietnam in large numbers to fight. The goal was to keep South Vietnam from falling to Communism, and
So many things influenced our involvement in the Vietnam War, and Lawrence examines the decisions we made in a greater context than just our own. He argues that international pressures controlled the attitudes and ideas of the United States, for the most part.
He was also a Gulf War veteran who commanded an armored cavalry. His desire in writing this book was to examine, through the recently declassified documents, manuscript collections, and the Joint Chief of Staff official histories, where the responsibility for the Vietnam foreign policy disaster lay, but also examine the decisions made that involved the United States in a war they could not win. 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.
“In July 1965, Lyndon Johnson chose to Americanize the war in Vietnam.” Although Johnson chose to enter America into the war, there were events previous that caused America to enter and take over the war. The South Vietnamese were losing the war against Communism – giving Johnson all the more reason to enter the war, and allowing strong American forces to help stop communism. There were other contributing factors leading up to the entrance of the war; America helped assist the French in the war, Johnson’s politics, the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and the 1954 Geneva Conference. President Johnson stated, “For 10 years three American Presidents-President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and your present President--and the American people have been actively concerned with threats to the peace and security of the peoples of southeast Asia from the Communist government of North Viet-Nam.”
The conflict in Vietnam for the United States started when President Dwight D. Eisenhower went along with the domino theory and sent in military advisors in South Vietnam to stop the communist movement from taking place in South Vietnam. The Vietnam conflict was between the communist’s and the United States. North Vietnam was led by Ho Chi Minh, and Ho Chi Minh led the Viet Cong, a guerilla group to help spread communism. The United States were supporters of the South Vietnam because they wanted them to maintain their government rather than falling to the domino theory of communism. After Eisenhower’s term ended John F. Kennedy became president and took control of the situation of Vietnam but on November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated. Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded presidency and the problems of Vietnam were left to himself. In 1963, the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred where, the U.S.S Maddox was attacked by North Vietnamese naval ships on august 2 1964. Two days later an even more controversial attack happened where it was reported another ship was attacked again but has later been proven false. Johnson used these events to gain congressional approval to enter into Vietnam. However the Tonkin Gulf Incident was questioned to have even happened which makes the war undoubtedly questionable Immediately after the incident . Many troops were killed in Vietnam and the United States eventually lost the war and does not achieve their goal to stop communism. Despite the large amount of conflict in Vietnam that needed to be resolved, escalating the war was the wrong idea by Johnson, as the many consequences of the war for the United States outweighed the potential spread of communism.