Political and Social Outcomes of the End of the War in Vietnam - Assignment Example

Political and Social Outcomes of the End of the War in Vietnam Our world, since its ‘origination’ has been a ‘hotbed’ of activity. Activity in the sense, we humans have been showing activeness both mentally and physically, which have transformed our globe from a primitive one to an advanced one. The activities are normally carried out by the humans, segregating themselves into different countries. That is, a country’s government, defense forces, scientists etc, will only join ‘hands’ together, to protect their territorial integrity, gain superiority over other countries and importantly provide good governance. To achieve these objectives, countries or its governments will initiate or get involved in events, which will contribute to the overall objectives. So, this paper will discuss the events, the government of USA got involved in, namely Vietnam War, Cold war and the Watergate Scandal. Vietnam War, which continued for more than 15 years, ended in 1975 with the victory for the North Vietnamese military. But, significantly it ended in the first ever defeat for the United States. So, because of the defeat, political and social outcomes bordered slightly on negativity. That is, in United States, a lot of Americans of that period struggled to understand the political motives and the lessons of that military intervention. As, US government was not clear on its ‘targets’ in the Vietnam war, people questioned any such military attempts in other areas of the world after that, giving rise to anti-war demonstrations. So, the main political outcome is that, after the war, US stopped directly involving itself in any military activities against communism, even though it took steps against it indirectly. This non-intervention resulted in subsequent losses to communism in the '70s, but which were reversed by Reagan against the will of the by-now leftist U.S. congress. The other political outcome is the loss of third world allies, particularly Asian countries, who doesn’t want a dominating US presence in their backyard (tinyvital.com). One of the social outcomes of the end of the war is raising inflation and the resultant tax rise. That is, due to the continuous war activity for more than 15 years, defense spending reached an all time high. Because of the high allocation, inflation grew, with prices of essential commodities soaring throughout US, affecting the society on a whole. So, to keep the inflation at low levels, then American president, Johnson forced raise in taxes. But, the Republicans wanted the implementation of a $6 billion cut to the administration's social programs to approve the raise in taxes, affecting the people again. Even the returning American soldiers did not find any comfort because many of them had both physical and mental ‘scars’ of the war. That is, as many of them were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange, they had many physical complications. And due to the post traumatic stress disorders, many of the soldiers felt depressed to live. This stress got accentuated, when many of the American citizens due to their hatred of the war gave a not so favorable welcome or response to the returning soldiers Comparison of Nixon's policies of engagement to the strategies used during the Cold War Richard M. Nixon, who took over the US Presidency in 1968, followed a policy of engagement, which bordered on peace with honor. That is, he wanted US to disengage from any war front, which is not strategically feasible to its own interests. This policy only formed the dominant part of the so called “Nixon doctrine”. Nixon applied this same doctrine to Vietnam under the tag name of ‘Vietnamization’ (Hickman). That is, when he understood the losses that are mounting in Vietnam, he decided to clear up the mess by slowly disengaging from the war. But, in contrast, during the peak period of Cold War, US Presidents particularly Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan followed strategies against Soviet Union that bordered on direct and indirect attack, with containment as the other option. The main plank of Nixon’s policy of engagement, Vietnamization, was implemented from late 1960’s till early 1970’s, with the training of the South Vietnamese army. That is, to fight the NLF (National Liberation Front or Vietcong) and the North Vietnamese Army, and at the same time disengage from the war, Nixon administration started training the South Vietnamese army, so they can hold its own against them. With the able ally in Henry Kissinger, Nixon pursued this policy resulting in the peace talks in Paris. Also, this policy reduced anti-war protests in the US, allowing US troops to return to their homeland with some honor. But, on the other hand, during the Cold War period, US tried to dominate and defeat Soviet Union in whatever ways possible, and thereby contain communism as well. In the war front, it engaged them in third countries like Cuba, Afghanistan etc. In Cuba, during the regime change, missiles were positioned in threatening positions. In Afghanistan, USA indirectly fought the Soviet troops (who entered Afghanistan to support the Marxist government) by providing arms, money and other assistance to the Afghan fighters. So, the US administration followed contrasting strategies in different periods of their history, with one bordering on peace with honor and the other bordering on direct and indirect attack. Both of which provided positive as well as negative results. Measure the impact of the Watergate scandal on the publics’ perception of government power The Watergate Scandal, one of the major scandals to affect US Presidency, started with the arrest of five men for burglary and other privacy crimes at the Watergate complex, in which the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee was housed. That is, the arrests only opened a can of worms with the President’s office and importantly then President Richard Nixon, a Republican, being accused of many crimes including campaign fraud, political espionage, spying on opponents, Press and American citizens etc. This scandal culminated with the resignation of President Nixon, with evidence, his aides and importantly common people turning against him. That is, when his aides provided a lot of information against him in the senate hearings, opposition to him formed among the people, with his approval ratings at an all time low. And this altered the public perception of government power on a very negative path. This negative effect was seen immediately in the Senate elections that were held three months later, when the voters appalled by Nixon's actions, voted for Democrats. Also, the public started to distrust all the politicians and the government machinery, suspecting that, they may always be doing something illegal, to further only their personal interests. So, after the Watergate Scandal, politicians and other officials are viewed in a negative light by the public and also by the Press. The Press became a lot more vigilant and tried to expose any politician involved in any scandals. So, when a politician or an official was alleged to have been involved in some illegal or unlawful activities, public branded him/her as culprit, until he/she is proven innocent. "We used to give politicians the benefit of the doubt. Now, they're presumed to be guilty -- until proven innocent. After Watergate, there is an element [of the public] that is very cynical and is no longer outraged against scandal. We're deep into that now, and we don't know how to break out of it” (Noyes qtd. by Goode). So, after the Watergate Scandal only, publics’ perception of government power started bordering on negativity, with some commentators attributing, the increased level of cynicism about politics to the Watergate affair (Watergate. info). Conclusion So, all these events, which have become part of history, have changed US’s fortunes both in the positive and in the negative direction. That is, all the above discussed events like the Vietnam War, the Cold War and the Watergate Scandal, initiated by the US administration with the US Presidents playing the key role, made an effect in the publics’ perception and their actions. Even though, the above three events can be regarded as failures of the US administration, they helped US to learn a lot of lessons, both in the political as well as in the social arena. These major events helped US fine-tune their military strategies and their administrative functions. Reference: Goode, S. (1997). Since Watergate scandal, the intolerable is tolerated - Cover Story. Retrieved November 19, 2007 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n23_v13/ai_19504401 Hickman, K. Vietnam War: Nixon & Vietnamization. Retrieved November 19, 2007 from http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/VietnamViet.htm Tinyvital.com. (2003).Vietnam War - Facts and Fiction. Retrieved November 19, 2007 from http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000354.html Watergate. info. The Aftermath of Watergate. Retrieved November 19, 2007 from http://watergate.info/aftermath/ Read More