The Vietnam War's Impact on the United States - Essay Example

The Vietnam Wars Impact on the United s A product of justifications stemming from the Cold War andanti-communism sentiments, the Vietnam War became the benchmark by which American military limitations can be measured. All military conflicts are costly. Most importantly, lives are lost and of those who survive, many are forever altered physically, mentally and emotionally. Great amounts of money are spent on military actions which accrue a debt that must be paid over time, sometimes over many generations. The National Debt rises which acts a as drain on the economy and takes away monies that could have been spent on domestic endeavors. It takes money to fund wars but neither financial nor military dominance guarantees victory. The political dynamics that result from war, particularly the Vietnam War, produce a myriad of varying effects. The U.S. lost political capital from within South Vietnam when it continuously bombed North Vietnam, a surprising development that was harmful to the war effort. The ‘hawkish’ neo-conservative ideology was born in this era. Those of this political philosophy did not believe the U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam and are the ones who took control of the White House in 2000. The ‘neo-cons’ are the group that, a quarter century after the fall of Saigon in 1975, involved the U.S. in the Iraq war debacle and refuse to withdraw. Many parallels can be drawn between these two conflicts that are separated by a generation. The generation of people who lived through the Vietnam period evidently did not learn the lessons from that war. Congress made what they believed would be a lasting political statement following the Vietnam war by passing the War Powers Act in hopes of preserving the separation of powers as guaranteed by the Constitution. The most evident and memorable political fallout during the Vietnam War was student protestors who, through great sacrifice and courage, were instrumental in ending U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. The U.S., because of its involvement in ‘nation building’ that began in Korea and continued during the Vietnam era and is in full effect today, has lost political credibility throughout the international community. From the end of the Cold War in 1989, as symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall, to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. was undoubtedly the world’s greatest power militarily, economically and therefore politically. However, this time in which the U.S. operates as the only superpower and therefore the world’s dominant force, known as the ‘unipolar moment’ was first, superficial to begin with and second, fleeting. The Soviet Union’s collapse left the U.S. as the lone superpower and it quickly showed a willingness to operate unilaterally when pursuing its interests. “Those in Washington who believed that superpower status was equal to a unipolar international system justified making decisions without the cumbersome involvement of allies” (Hogan, 2004: 2). This unipolar moment was, of course, a myth because a gap has always existed between the U.S.’s military capacity and its capability to control world events to its liking. The U.S. certainly enjoyed and took full political advantage of the widely accepted perception of its unipolar status following the Cold War’s end. It is this perception, this myth that should be examined when attempting to understand the concept of a world superpower and its limitations in an era of globalization. A unipolar world never existed, it was a term made up by observers that only saw the surface effects of the Cold War’s end. The U.S. was also referred to as the first hyperpower by the French but both of these terms are misleading at best and if believed, especially by the U.S., dangerous, as has been shown by the arrogance displayed in the invasion of Iraq. There are other descriptions of the supposed power wielded by the U.S. including ‘leader of the free world’ and ‘indispensable power’ that should be re-thought when defining America’s political position in the world community today. A vast disparity exists between America’s perceived capacity to wage war and its actual capability to twist events in accordance with its ambitions. The potential military power and technological edge the U.S. has over all other nations is not in dispute, however, because it spends more for defense than nearly all of the other nations of the world combined. “An $11 trillion economy that facilitates enormous technological prowess and a defense budget that exceeds the combined total of the next 25 powers should leave no doubt about the potential of the United States” (Olney, 1990: 78). The hard lesson learned, seemingly, from America’s involvement in Vietnam was that possessing an overwhelming military force does not guarantee victory. Though three million enemies were killed compared to 58,000 on the American side, the ‘big dog’ in the fight eventually had to run home with its tail between its legs, beaten and humiliated. Thanks to the unprecedented media covering the truth of the war, the U.S. rapidly lost credibility worldwide including within the borders of its own country. Support for Nixon’s Vietnam policy dropped sharply in 1970 when he authorized the bombing of enemy strongholds in neighboring Laos and Cambodia. This did disrupt communist supply lines but was seen as a broadening of a war that was growing increasingly unpopular (Robinson, 2007). The extensive bombing campaigns and numerous offensives caused massive amounts of destruction on the Vietnamese and their property which only served to alienate the indigenous community. It galvanized the enemy and opponents of the war in both Vietnam and America and led many to question the ethics of the campaigns (Olney, 1990: 80-85). The limitations of American power have been clearly evidenced by the misuse of its military superiority. The U.S. has gained many enemies and lost respect and prestige worldwide. In addition, if Vietnam and Iraq had never happened, the limitations of the military would not be as apparent to the world at-large and the U.S. would today be perceived as stronger and more effectual than it actually is thus would have more political clout than it presently does. However, this regrettable reality is likely soon to be a moot point anyway because the U.S. position as the world’s only superpower is a short-lived scenario. It takes money to build and maintain a military force, a lot of it to fund a nation’s superpower status, money which the U.S. no longer has. The most eminent threat to U.S. security is not the ‘red menace’ or the terrorist ‘evil doers.’ The National Debt, currently at more than $8 Trillion, is spiraling out of control and threatens to not only diminish the military but plunge the nation into the ‘third world’ category. The United States is regarded as a good investment and has an unlimited ability to secure loans without a problem, but loans must be paid back, with interest. Germany, Japan, China and other countries own a large piece of America, a potentially disastrous prospect. One or a combination of creditor countries could cause a sudden and shocking reduction of the economy which would further increase the debt (Ignatieff, 2003: 3). The Vietnam War divided the nation along ideological battle lines. The older generation, the ‘establishment’, was of the WWII period and operated under a nationalistic perspective. They believed that to be a true patriot was to blindly follow the authority of the governmental powers that be, to support your ‘country’ even when you thought it was wrong. The young college protesters, the ‘new generation’, the counter-culture redefined this notion of patriotism. They believed that to be truly patriotic was to question the decisions of government and openly dissent when it was judged to be wrong. The philosophical chasm was wide and emotions ran deep on both sides. Those that protested sacrificed much. They suffered the scorn of their parents who couldn’t understand why their children were rebelling against the very foundation of their parents’ beliefs thus causing what was referred to as the ‘generation gap.’ Some war protesters were killed by soldiers of the National Guard as was the case at Kent State and South Carolina State. The protesters and draft-dodgers were thought of as anti-American by the mainstream citizenry who regarded their actions as nothing short of treasonous. This attitude makes one wonder what the ‘greatest generation’ thought they were fighting for during WWII. They fought to defend freedom on foreign soil but were very much opposed to the constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully assemble in their own country (Bexte, 2002). The war protesters of the 1960’s had the courage to act upon their political and philosophical convictions unlike those who are opposed to the Iraq War today. The two conflicts are eerily similar on many fronts yet the public reaction has been very dissimilar. Then as now, those opposed to the war are characterized as unpatriotic or as not supporting the troops, both of which, of course, are patently ridiculous concepts. The major difference is that the draft personalized the conflict for many more Americans. More families had a personal stake in the Vietnam War as opposed to the war in Iraq which only affects a small segment of the population. Today, the incentives to protest are less while the consequences are the same. Being scorned and spit at on campus is easier to confront than are bullets and bombs in a snake infested marshy jungle thousands of miles from home. Acts of disobedience were commonplace during the 1960’s and all too uncommon in past and future decades (Viorst, 1979: 374). During the Vietnam era, the neo-conservatism movement expanded due to the political polarization occurring in the country between the anti-war, anti-American sentiments of the counterculture and neo-cons who championed blind patriotism. Neoconservatives were not collectively for the expansion or continuance of the war but they were united in their fear that communism would spread. The term ‘domino theory’ was used quite often by the neo-cons to justify America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia. If Vietnam fell to the communists, they reasoned, the remainder of the region would be systematically consumed by the ‘Red Menace.’ Some of the Vietnam era neo-cons, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, went to the right opposing domestic spending; advocating tax reductions for the wealthy and an attack-first, ask questions later mentality. Though domestic issues were once a rallying point then abandoned by contemporary neo-cons, foreign-policy matters invoked the most emotion therefore attention from this group. They reasoned then, as they do now, that foreign affairs were a more important consideration for national discussion because the very survival of the nation was at stake. “If a domestic policy fails, you can try another. If a foreign policy fails, you may find yourself at war” (Muravchik, 2007). The Vietnam War sharply divided the country but neo-cons, even the ones who were less than hawkish, were always on the defensive regarding the consequences of losing to communism. When war opponents voiced the opinion that communism wasn’t the most imperative concern, that American imperialism and expansionistic tendencies were the big issue, neo-cons were quick to rebuke what they thought was unpatriotic rhetoric. They feared the proliferation of communism and argued this fear was not unfounded. Congress attempted to regain its sole authority to declare war when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 as a response to the undeclared Vietnam War. The Act allows the Commander-in-Chief to respond to emergency situations and deploy troops for a limited amount of time without a formal declaration of war. According to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Eight, only Congress has the exclusive authority to “to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal” (United States Constitution). Presidents do not have this authority. However, the War Powers Act of 1973 circumvented the Constitution. The Act allows for the President to deploy troops to a country for 60-90 days without the consent of Congress (War Powers Resolution, 1973). It is intended to first allow the president to deploy troops in an emergency situation but secondly to strictly enforce Congressional authority to declare war, to adhere to the framers of the Constitution’s intention for the people’s representatives in Congress to decide if military action was in the nation’s best interest. Given the ambiguity of this license the office of President now has to initiate war, but the President could, hypothetically of course, act without specific congressional approval to wage war against a sovereign nation that did not pose a military threat. This could theoretically lead to a seemingly endless, bloody conflict that greatly impairs the credibility and security of the U.S. The U.S. has the ability to invade a country simply because it can and not because it is the option of last resort. The War Powers Act of 1973 was intended to rein in the president’s authority to wage war without the approval of Congress but was, in effect, unsuccessful and may as well not have been enacted at all. The Act has been ignored by all presidents subsequent to its enactment. The major flaw of the Act was that it does not stipulate Congressional redress if a President declines to abide by the Act. The War Powers Act was written to restore the authority of the Constitution and assure that the balance of intended powers between the three branches of government is retained. The result of an imbalance of power has been realized during the present Bush administration and if not curtailed will lead down the pathway to the authoritative, totalitarian government the Founding Fathers fought a revolution to escape. The U.S. military has also been involved in worldwide humanitarian ventures too numerous to mention. If a major war was to break out somewhere on earth, the U.S. would undoubtedly be called to quell the situation. No other country has near the capability to intervene in a major outbreak. America is indeed by default the policeman of the world regardless of whether it wants this title or not. Because of its military, political and economic prowess, the U.S. occupies the position of world leader. However, when the U.S. intervenes in foreign conflicts, such as in Vietnam, it ultimately loses economic and political capital both at home and abroad. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action. This underscores the reason for demonstrating extreme caution when making the decision to use force. Vietnam was a lesson learned until President Bush and a rubber-stamp congress took office. Had this lesson, that because America is the lone superpower, it is not all- powerful, been learned, the lives lost in Vietnam would not have been a total waste. The war in Vietnam could not have produced a more poignant or pronounced message but has been ignored to the peril of American prestige and respect throughout the world and to its military, economy, security and young soldiers’ lives. ‘Never again’ was the national mantra following the Vietnam War. It’s shamefully ironic that the generation that should have understood this sentiment the most is the one that repeated the same economic, political and military mistakes that cost so many so much. Works Cited Bexte, Martina. “The Vietnam War Protests.” Essortment. (2002). November 25, 2007 http://ohoh.essortment.com/vietnamwarprot_rlcz.htm Hogan, David W. Jr. “The Cold War Army.” Centuries of Service The U.S. Army 1775-2004. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History United States Army, (September 7, 2006). Ignatieff, Michael. “The Burden” The New York Times. (January 5, 2003). Muravchik, Joshua. “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism.” Commentary Magazine. (October, 2007). November 25, 2007 Olney, Richard. “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, (March 1990) cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Robinson, James A. “Nixon, Richard Milhous.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2007. Grolier Online. November 25, 2007 Viorst, Milton. Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster, (1979). United States Constitution. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. November 25, 2007 War Powers Resolution Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 (November 7, 1973). The Avalon Project Yale Law School. November 25, 2007 Read More