Decision-Making of Politicians in the Iraq and Vietnam Wars - Essay Example

History and Political Science Compare and contrast the decision-making of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the Vietnam War with that of George W. Bush and Barack Obama in the Iraq War. What did they share? What was different? Why was ending both wars so difficult? Iraq and Vietnam Wars resulted into political and military stalemate within the United States of America. The war led to frustrations amongst the American public and political leaders. During this time, modern American presidents such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George Bush, and Barack Obama found themselves thwarted within the process of developing better strategies for making decisions in a bid to win. A serious political price accompanies such decision-making strategies employed by American president within the Iraq and Vietnam wars (Polsky 127). According to Polsky (127), since all the four mentioned presidents applied different strategies in fighting Iraq and Vietnam wars, the political price met by each significantly differed. Moreover, it was evident how parallel each president behaved in respect to the wars. Such parallel behavior greatly contributed to enhancement of political puzzle hence the political and military stalemate (Polsky 127). Surprisingly, some of the mentioned American presidents persisted in employing failed strategies to make decisions in the wars leading to America paying more in terms of political price. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George Bush, and Barack Obama applied different strategies in fighting Iraq and Vietnam wars. These American presidents had similarities and differences in their strategies. The differences and similarities in strategies employed by these American presidents significantly contributed to their success or failure. The following discussion provides the similarities and differences within strategies employed by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon versus those applied by George Bush, and Barack Obama in fighting the Iraq and Vietnam wars. Other than discussing various strategies that were the same and those that differed in decision-making, the paper also discusses reasons attached to the difficulty in ending both the Iraq and Vietnam wars. Similarities between the two Groups of Presidents Many similarities exist between strategic decisions made by Presidents Johnson and Nixon during the Vietnam War and strategic decisions made by Presidents Bush and Obama during the Iraq War. For instance, in the Vietnam War, Presidents Johnson and Nixon employed various strategies, which slightly corresponded to those applied by Presidents Bush and Obama in fighting the Iraq War. According to Landy (120), both groups were forceful and resolute during the wars especially in respect to adversity. Being forceful and resolute assisted Presidents Johnson and Nixon on one hand and Presidents Bush and Obama on the other hand in making effective strategic decisions aimed at winning both wars in Vietnam and Iraq. What’s more, these two groups of presidents in their quest for winning Vietnam and Iraq Wars engaged in application of executive powers. Polsky (130) confirms that Presidents Johnson and Nixon were so much resolute to the extent that only executive power was enough in making strategic decisions during the Vietnam War. These two presidents embraced aspects of region’s culture capable of providing necessary and required confrontations (Polsky 130). On the same perspective, President Bush extensively applied the executive powers during the Iraq War that included detention of suspected illegal enemy combatants, harsh, and coercive interrogation in gaining of necessary and vital information concerning threats (Landy 104). Apparently, his successor, President Obama applied the same in strategic decision making with an aim of winning the war (Landy 120). President Johnson’s administration extensively used the idea of interrogations to obtain more information regarding possible planned attacks by Vietnam military. Such interrogations were useful in making informed strategic decisions to fight back as well as defend preparedly during the war. President Nixon was not an exception with reference to making interrogations deemed necessary for attaining vital information. Obtained information from such interrogations assisted in preparing defense for the Vietnam military (Polsky 131). Similarity between Presidents Johnson and Nixon on one hand and Presidents Bush and Obama on the other hand existed in allocation and distribution resources to enhance the fight of Vietnam and Iraq Wars respectively. President Nixon increased the American military commitment whilst mobilizing the American economy in a bid to fight the Vietnam War (Polsky 129). President Nixon also enhanced distribution of required resources for strengthening military force with a bid of winning the war. Presidents Johnson and Bush in their tenure made investments in a limited war, which was to boost the performance of the military during Vietnam and Iraq Wars respectively (Polsky 135). Despite the fact that such investments were also deployed by President Obama, more personnel were also increased in the military for the purposes of increasing commitment in order to win the Iraq War (Polsky 128). Another similarity between these two groups of presidents in fighting different wars is on the idea of consideration of supporters despite wounding of American soldiers. For instance, Presidents Johnson and Nixon had so much passion in reaching to his supporters during the war to obtain their views without minding much on their minority status in the society (Polsky 132). Presidents Bush and Obama on the same perspective cared and valued the information from supporters especially through the mails received at the White House. In addition, President Bush went a step further to reach out to families of killed soldiers in the Iraq War in order to offer his condolences and consolation (Polsky 132). In this regards, all the four modern American presidents fought Vietnam and Iraq Wars with their citizens in mind. Surprisingly, after increasing military commitment, President Nixon withdrew some of the American troops when the war was becoming uneconomical. The same strategy has so far been used by President Obama in withdrawing some military troops especially in regions where there seem to be no hope of winning against Iraq military. Differences between the two Groups of Presidents Despite the many similarities within strategic decision-decision making by America’s modern presidents in fighting Vietnam and Iraq, there are noted differences. First, it is not clear whether Presidents Johnson and Nixon applied the authority of detention other than interrogations. However, President Obama strongly held onto Bush administration’s detaining authority. In this regards, President Obama signed Bush administration’s approach in trying captured terrorists. Like is predecessor, Obama employed a lot of coercive force and techniques in fighting the Iraq War (Landy 104). In addition, unlike Presidents Johnson and Nixon, Presidents Bush and Obama extensively apply electronic surveillance techniques in order to enhance internal security within the nation. Notably, President Obama followed the principles of his predecessor in the closing of Guantanamo Bay detention facility (Landy 103). During the closing of this detention facility after criticisms, the two presidents developed a process by which habeas corpus request from Guantanamo detainees could be considered under special and restrictive US rules (Landy 109). This is not true amongst Presidents Johnson after succeeding Kennedy never heeded to Fidel Castro’s call for US to give up its military base at Guantanamo but rather seized Cuban-fishing boats to push Castro to return the water supply. This led to cutting off water supply to the base forcing the American military to find their own water supply. Therefore, whereas President Johnson valued the Guantanamo Bay, Presidents Bush and Obama closed it after criticisms of experienced torture and applications of abusive methods of punishing the detainees. Other than the above-mentioned differences, another difference existing between the two groups of America’s modern presidents during their tenure with respect for fighting Vietnam and Iraq Wars reflects on the captured suspected terrorists. Presidents Johnson and Nixon treated such people as terrorists thus trying them as such. However, President Bush and Obama treated such individuals as criminals. For instance, both Bush and Obama administrations treated the Christmas Day bomber as a criminal offender (Landy 103). These two administrations did not consider the individual as a terrorist as it would have been under Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Moreover, Obama’s administration tried the mastermind of the September 11 bombing, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian criminal court rather than military commission. Unlike many other presidents, President Bush developed and extensively applied wise and decisive applications of executive discretion during the process of proclaiming of principle neutrality (Landy 105). Such discretion was a rare aspect amongst many modern presidents who had exclusive executive authority. It is also worth noting that unlike his counterparts, President Obama in the fight against Iraq banned the idea of waterboarding together with some coercive techniques that his predecessor effectively applied (Landy 120). Landy (120) goes ahead to confirm that despite banning such aspect of administration especially with respect to Iraq War, President Obama confirmed that the closing of Guantanamo Bay used in detention was inevitable especially following various critics on inhuman torture and punishments. Difficulties experienced in Ending both Vietnam and Iraq Wars Ending the Vietnam and Iraq Wars was a difficult thing to both groups of America’s modern presidents. Such difficulties are attributable to many reasons. First, there was a serious need to strike the balance in dual obligations of American presidents. American presidents have the dual obligation of protecting American citizens’ security as well as safeguarding their civil liberties. Most of these presidents failed to strike the balance hence leading to failure in ending the war in Vietnam and Iraq (Landy 104). Moreover, due to cropping in of the fear of tyranny, American presidents were denied the supreme power to enhance making powerful decisions such as ending the wars (Landy 105). Lack of such supreme powers resulting from tyranny fears made it difficult for any of the four presidents to end the wars. Even though the two fights aimed at different objectives, it was obvious that America had started a war it was not sure of winning but at the same time reluctant to lose. Inability of winning the war coupled with reluctance of Americans to lose made it difficult to end the war. Americans were only ready to end the war after winning, this was difficult since Vietnam, and Iraq proved to be stronger. America was unable to win both Vietnam and Iraq Wars given that they were all by choice. However, there was a communist threat within Vietnam and Islamic extremist in Iraq that pulled America into fighting the same. From this perspective, it was difficult for America to end both the Vietnam and Iraq Wars. According to Polsky (135), stalling of a war makes it difficult for a president to withdraw but rather persists in the fight to avoid perception of cowardice. After the stalling of both Vietnam and Iraq Wars, it became difficult for the reigning presidents to withdraw. Therefore, they persisted in fighting and this made it difficult to end the two wars. Moreover, war-stall result into lack of sufficient strategic alternatives other than firmness hence makes the ending process difficult as in the case of Vietnam and Iraq Wars. Therefore, it was difficult for the four presidents to stop both Vietnam and Iraq Wars on the basis that there was need to demonstrate the military’s and America’s will against determined adversary (Polsky 135). Combination of all these factors confirm the difficulties experienced in ending Vietnam and Iraq Wars by the four presidents who reigned during the war times. In conclusion, despite the many similarities shared between Presidents Johnson and Nixon on one end and Presidents Bush and Obama on the other end, there were differences that existed as well. Nevertheless, these presidents tried their best in ensuring that they won both Vietnam and Iraq Wars however difficult it was. Even though America was unable to win both the two wars, they could not afford to end the same due to fears of intimidations from their opponents hence the difficulties experienced in ending Vietnam and Iraq Wars. Work Cited Landy, Marc. “Terror and executive”. National Affairs, Spring 2010. Pp 103-120. Polsky, Andrew. “Staying the course: Presidential leadership, military stalemate, and strategic inertia”. Staying the Course, 8.1 (2010); Pp 127-139. Read More