Do Any Foreign Policy Models Help to Explain American Failure in Vietnam - Essay Example

?Do any foreign policy models (e.g the bureaucratic politics model, group thinking etc) help to explain American failure in Vietnam The US has since a long time tried to implement a bureaucratic model in many countries, especially in Middle and Vietnam. In this paper, attempts have been made to understand the bureaucratic model first in Middle East and then Vietnam. Before oil was discovered in Middle East, this region had become a major target for a myriad of religious conflicts and wars, which were fought over the rich resources found there and the amount of land. When the Ottoman Empire faced a downfall, it provided a path for the European colonial and imperial powers to take matters in their own vested interests and gain access to various parts of Asia, which gradually also enabled them to secure these regions in their own favor. The biggest asset of Middle East is the amount of oil that is concentrated in the region, which has simultaneously also emerged as one of the biggest problems. Therefore the Western population is highly accustomed to the propaganda of the Middle Eastern regions, and this has also brought Islam in the middle. It was especially prominent during the European colonial times, which was also exacerbated by Edward Said in his famous book, “Orientalism”. The way it has been negatively stereotyped has provided tremendous justification for involvement and also in ensuring a certain level of stability for the interests of powers that are present in the region (Shah, 2). Another issue, which is also pivotal to Middle East, is racism and cultural stereotyping that has become very concentrated. There are certain war films that depict an Islamic or Arab group as bad, which clearly show the current conflicts etc. A bad guy is very often an Arab from one of the rogue states and because of the 9/11 attacks perpetrated against the United States and also the War on Terror; it’s very likely that this description will continue. Another huge problem is that to maintain their dominance and supremacy in the Middle Eastern, the West has also put a lot of power, money and influence in the hands of corrupt Arab leaders, and consequently collaborated in the overthrow of those people who were seen as a threat to their interests. Furthermore, it has contributed a great deal in keeping the populations at bay, for the wealth, power and militarization of the elite class. It is also said to be done for combating the phenomena of communism. The major underlying factor has however been the effort to secure access to imperative resources such as oil (Bard, 1). Middle East is one of the most militarized regions in the world, and there are a lot of arms present. Majority of the people who have been oppressed see the influence of the United States in their region as the biggest cause of all the problems, which has also led to a rise in several acts of terrorism, Islamic militancy and anti-west sentiments. Although, there have been several declarations by the United States department that most of the American interests are vested in supporting the foundation of governments based on a democratic edifice, there have been some instances when the U.S has supported the suppressed regimes in the Middle East. When the U.S were having a Cold War with the Soviet Union, there were a few policymakers who saw a very stable ally in the Middle East, whether it was tyrannical or not, which would be more preferred rather than an unstable regime that would side with the Soviets. Even when the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a whole lot of financial assistance and U.S dollars that kept flowing in to the regions, which were supposedly known as the centers for the regulation of human rights, or the evident lack of democracy. This also included Saudi Arabia (where a Wahhabi administration puts restrictions on the rights of women), Israel (which doesn’t promote the concept of equal rights for all its citizens), and the Egyptian government where an Egyptian cum American was imprisoned for supporting voter participation. In addition, the United States has also greatly encouraged the military coups in Tunisia, and very recently the reassigning of power in Syria from Hafez-al-Asad to his son, in spite of the fact that the Syrian Government is built on a republican ideal. The reasons for the American influence in the region isn’t solely due to fossil fuels, the complicated relations of United States with Iraq, Iran and other Gulf states are attributed mainly due to oil, which results in a sufficient amount at a very affordable price. Ever since there have been a large amount of oil deposits which have been discovered in Saudi Arabia, getting access to the region’s oil has been fundamental on America’s foreign policy agenda. The oil boycott and particularly the Kuwait Invasion were extreme examples of how there have been regional forces, which have hindered United State’s access to fuel. Especially, the 1973 boycott was very important because the Arab nations began to supply 37 percent of the oil, which was taken in by the non-communist regions of the world. Keeping this in account, it’s very likely that the Middle East is going to continue being on the foreign policy of the United States. The influence of European politics contributed to a lot of havoc and instability in Middle East, similar to what Africa had experienced sometime back ago and is still coming to terms with. There was especial influence of the British in this region. When the World War 1 was held in 1916, the Arabs were persuaded to fight against the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, the British administration would also encourage the creation of an autonomous Arab state in the region, which also included Palestine. However, contradicting this notion, the British Foreign Minister, Lord Arthur Balfour announced a declaration known as the Balfour Declaration. This publicly proclaimed the British’s support for the creation of a Jewish home in Palestine (Aberman, 1). The Middle East has been a major source of conflict and hostility between the Europe and United States. During this war, there were a number of issues that also emerged, which included the Palestine-Israel Conflict, the Suez Canal, and also the rise of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. However, because of the harmony due to the Soviet threat in Europe, this did not generate a lot of conflict, nor did it hamper relations. But with the downfall of the Soviet Union, there were certain tasks in Europe, which no longer served to eliminate differences in the region. And therefore, the Middle East has risen at the top of the transatlantic agenda. The significant differences over the Middle Eastern policy have become all the more conspicuous and contributed a great deal in the deterioration of the friendship, which was established during the post-cold war era. In addition, different approaches have been adopted for Middle East. The Atlantic Community has faced several challenges, the maturation of the European Union, strategic differences and the erosion of a moderate brand of internationalism in U.S.A and also the retirement of certain leaders in both United States and Europe. There have been some major policy differences, which have come out as well, such as over the International Criminal Court, the desirability of European harmony and the Kyoto Protocol on global climatic change. However, the transatlantic gap has generated more disagreement than any other issue. There are a lot of differences in Europe and America’s approach to Middle East, which have severed their ties. This includes the concentration of European colonialism in the region, also very different levels of support for the democratic power in the Islamic world, and a very varying pressure and force from the Palestine-Israel conflict. These factors have manifested themselves in the form of sharp and prominent differences between the foreign policy elites. Currently, the influence of the European Union is very evident. The amalgamation of several European Union member states has led to negotiate the end of the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, and has also led to United Nations sending its forces to Lebanon to keep the peace Therefore the European Union has been very proactive on the Palestine-Israel front, and has used its influence and finances to incorporate and strengthen more voices within the Palestinian community. The European troops make up a very important portion of the forces, who are trying to instill peace in Afghanistan (Primor, 1). The most visible involvement of Europe in the region is due to the product developments which are very vital to the European Union. They have appointed foreign policy czar which has led to strengthened cooperation amongst the member states. It was the vision of European Union constitution to have a single foreign minister for the union. Since the constitution was rejected in Netherlands and France, this was put on hold. But notwithstanding, the European Union has stressed more lately on the geo-political goals of the union, which will also take them beyond Europe. The rise of the European Union in the Middle East is a result of America’s anguish in the region. When the United States bogged down in Iraq, Washington did not have much choice and therefore it had to turn to Europe to take on more responsibilities in the region. During the 2nd term of the Bush administration, the pros of having Europe as an alliance were discovered. This was not due to the acceptance of multilateralism, but because the havoc in Iraq made it evidentiary to Washington that it needs help in the Middle East, therefore Europe will continue to ally and rebel against U.S in the Middle Eastern regions (Day, 5) Now we will talk about America’s bureaucratic induction in Vietnam. During the past few months, there has been a swift change in America’s dictionary of political terms. It is called the "Vietnam syndrome" and was coined by Richard Nixon. As employed by the Reagan administration, it means that America's failure in Vietnam and the backlash from it have been responsible for the depression that has reduced the United States to a state of powerlessness in a cruel world. Doctor Reagan and his associates seem determined to cure the disease. Some of the administration's defenders have even justified the interference in El Salvador as essential to that end; and although the White House and State Department may not go that far, their public statements leave no doubt of their determination to get rid of the Vietnam syndrome (Davies, 2002). The idea of a Vietnam term gives a view of the war which, although rarely explained in full, nevertheless clearly influences the administration's foreign policy. Reagan himself has stated contrary to a long-prevailing view that Vietnam was "in truth a noble war," a noble attempt on the part of the United States to help a "small country newly free from colonial rule" defend itself against a "totalitarian neighbor bent on conquest." He and Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig, Jr. have also insisted that it was a necessary war, necessary to check the expansionist designs of the Soviet Union and its client states and to uphold the global position of the United States. They have left no doubt that they regard it as a war that we should have won. America failed, Reagan recently stated, not because it was defeated but because the military was "denied permission to win." Haig has argued that the war could have been won at any of several junctures if American leaders had been willing to "apply the full range of American power to bring about a successful outcome." The defeat was thus inflicted by themselves, and the consequences have been enormous. America is no longer the America it was," Haig has stated, and "that is largely attributable to the mistakes of Vietnam. The aggressiveness of the Soviets and the Hanoi regime have made it easier for us to justify our own actions morally and in terms of national security. An explanation of failure which places blame on them rather than elsewhere is probably easier for us to live with. Scholars had begun to revise predictable views of the war well before Reagan took office, and films such as the Deerhunter, whatever their artistic merit, promoted a form of regret. What is significant is that this now seems to be the official view and is also a partial basis for major policy decisions. Equally important, it is getting little challenge from Congress and the media, the centers of respectable dissent in the late 1960's and early 1970's. From all appearances, to apply an Oriental usage, 1981 is the year of the hawk. The questions that we need to ask are as follows. It seems urgent, therefore, that we examine this view in terms of the following very difficult questions: was Vietnam a just and necessary war as is now being proclaimed? Was it a winnable war, our failure primarily the result of our own mistakes? Has the so-called Vietnam syndrome been responsible for our recent inability to control world events and meet foreign challenges? We are still very close to Vietnam, and it is difficult to evaluate the war with the sort of perspective we would like. We have no more than roughly 15 percent of the documentation on the American side, and Hanoi has given no indication that it plans to initiate a freedom of information act. More important, some of the major questions concerning the war can never be answered with finality. We cannot know, for example, what would have happened if we had not intervened in Vietnam or if we had fought the war differently. With these qualifications in mind, we can turn to the essential questions that have been raised about the war and its consequences. For many of those who experienced the Vietnam era, Reagan's "noble war" statement seemed so far off the wall that it could not be taken seriously. The charges of American atrocities and war guilt that echoed across the land just a few years ago ran across the grain of our traditional sense of our own righteousness. Every war has its elements of nobility, moreover, and it is perhaps proper and even necessary for us to recognize the acts of heroism, sacrifice, and compassion that were as much a part of Vietnam as the atrocities. Reagan’s argument was based on the specific premise that we intervened in defense of a "free government" against "outside agression," however, and this interpretation badly distorts the origins and nature of the war. In fact, we tried to contain an indigenous revolution that, although Communist led, expressed the deepest and most powerful currents of Vietnamese nationalism. The Vietnam conflict cannot be understood by looking at the situation in 1965, when the major U.S. commitments were made. It is necessary to go back to 1945 or even earlier. The revolution that erupted in Vietnam at the end of World War II sought to eliminate French colonialism and to unify a country that had been divided for several centuries. During the ensuing war against France, the revolution generated widespread popular support, and its leader, Ho Chi Minh, came to symbolize for many Vietnamese the spirit of national independence just as George Washington did for the revolutionary generation of Americans. Ho's Vietminh defeated the French in 1954, despite the massive aid given France by the United States. It would probably have unified Vietnam after 1954, had the United States not stepped in and helped to make permanent a division at the 17th parallel the Geneva Conference had intended to be temporary. The Vietcong revolution, which erupted spontaneously in the south in the late 1950's, and subsequent North Vietnamese support of it, were extensions of the revolution of 1945, a fact which explains their unusual staying power in the face of tremendous adversity. This is not to endow the revolution with a higher ethic. Its leaders were in pursuit of their goals and were capable of great brutality toward their own people and others. The point rather is that throughout much of the 30-year war, Ho's revolution represented the most powerful political force in Vietnam, and one can talk of outside aggression only in the most narrow, a historical sense (Drew, 2001). References Shah, Anup, Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism, Published on 30th December, 2002http://www.globalissues.org/article/260/control-of-resources-supporting-dictators-rise-of-terrorism, Accessed 8th December, 2011 Primor, Avi, The International Community and the Conflict, Published in 2004, http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=186, Accessed 8th January, 2012 Day, Finnin, Julie, 50 year of U.S Policy in the Middle East, Published on 27th September, 2001, http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0927/p25s1-wome.html, Accessed 8th January, 2012 Bard, G, Mitchell, U.S Middle East Policy, Published in 2011, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf21.html, Accessed 8th January, 2012 Drew Dennis, Col, Rolling Thunder 1965: Anatomy of a Failure, Published in 2001, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew2.htm, Accessed 11th January, 2012 Davies Mr, American Involvement in Vietnam, Published in 2002, http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/gcselinks/britishworld/vietnam/Vietnamusinvolvement.pdf, Accessed 11th January, 2012 Aberman, Samara, Debating the news: Iraq, Published on 7th August, 2002, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/debate/iraq.html, Accessed 8th December, 2011 Read More