The US Should Not Have Fought in Vietnam - Essay Example

The U.S. Should Not Have Fought in Vietnam Political ambition, ambiguous righteousness and one man's ego made possible the day of July 27, 1964 - on which, American troops were first ordered into the country of South Vietnam. It was almost ten years and countless lives later that America withdrew from the conflict. Why was the United States there to begin with Over the almost thirty years since America withdrew from Vietnam, countless people have espoused their views on why or why not America should have been involved to begin with. Most discussion surrounding the Vietnam Conflict has been based on emotion, personal opinion and, too often, a distortion of the facts. In examining the United States' presence in Vietnam, I have come to the conclusion that the United States should not have fought in Vietnam. In an address at John Hopkins University, then President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, "We fight because we must fight it [the Vietnam Conflict] if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure" (1). Johnson's statement intended to stir up fervor for the 'cause' was nothing more than rhetoric and was far from the truth. To understand this claim, one must look back into the not so distant past. In 1954 Vietnam was given its independence from France. This country had for years been in internal conflict with a division between embracing Socialism in the north to favoring a democratic society in the southern part of the country. During the ensuing years Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Socialist movement in the country, was gaining popularity. The end of French colonialism in Vietnam led to the call for free elections by the Geneva Convention. The United States blocked that. Why - Quite simply because the United States knew that Ho Chi Minh would have won the free election and a Socialist leader would have established in the country. "In his memoirs, President Eisenhower explained honestly: In free elections, the socialist government of Ho Chi Minh would have won by an overwhelming margin" (Jensen, 1). Therefore, the war was not fought to defend freedom. The United States in blocking free elections in the country itself defiled freedom, merely because, in its opinion, the 'wrong' person would win the election. The support from the White House in favor of America's entrance into the Vietnam conflict was based on deceit. As President Johnson, publicly stated the motives were altruistic in nature, "supporting freedom and free choice", and the American public, at the time, was willing to believe such. In truth, however, the motivation was not to defend freedom. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public because of one man's fear of appearing weak to the world. Johnson's own sense of righteousness led America into a war it neither wanted nor needed. This is exemplified in the following: "in 1964 between President Lyndon Johnson and Richard Russell, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee. As Johnson's comment hints, ever since the United States had "lost" China to Communism in 1949, it was considered politically fatal to "lose" another country" (Schell, 8). President Johnson was not motivated to enter the war to defend freedom. He chose to enter the war because he did not want to appear weak before the world. The Johnson Administration's decision to enter the war was politically motivated on two fronts, domestically and internationally. As I have shown, internationally, Johnson was concerned with his image as a world leader, but domestically as well, he was concerned with how the public would view his decisions and ultimately himself. This was exhibited not only prior to America's entrance into the war, but continued throughout Johnson's tenure as President. This was verbalized "in 1964 between President Lyndon Johnson and Richard Russell, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee."I don't believe the American people ever want me to [abandon Vietnam]," Johnson told Russell. "If I lose it, I think they'll say I've lost it....At the same time, I don't want to commit us to a war." Russell's answer was a prophecy that turned out to be exact. A full-scale effort would "take a half million men." he said. "They'd be bogged down in there ten years." In short, all the arguments against the war were privately well-known--obvious--to the Administration. Yet it plunged deeper and deeper into the war" (Schell, 8). Johnson demonstrated not his concern for the country; rather he demonstrated his own political ambition. The Administration prior to the United States entry into the Vietnam Conflict understood that America's entry would be a futile attempt to solve Vietnam's internal strife. They understood that the war could not be fought and won without fully engaging the full arsenal of the United States military. Knowing this, they entered the war anyway. "Johnson had other options and few allies at the time but chose to listen to the hawks on his advisory team-McNamara, Bundy, and Rusk. The window of opportunity for avoiding war was available because Hanoi was willing to compromise and accept a temporarily neutralized South Vietnam-fearing a massive U.S. escalation. Drawing on archival document from international depositories, Logevall argues that China, Russia, and France were also predisposed toward this neutralist solution and that elite public opinion would have supported it. Moreover, Logevall makes extensive use of polling data from 1964 to show that the public was ill-informed and had not formed strong opinions on Vietnam. In the end, Logevall casts responsibility with Johnson and his close advisors for the critical decisions on America taking over the war. He correctly notes that this group, the so-called best and brightest, had been involved in policy making for several years and had a large personal stake in seeing that commitment succeed." (Berman & Routh, 194). Those in favor of America's entry into the Vietnam Conflict would argue that the Government's decision was based on protecting our freedoms as well as protecting the Vietnamese people. This statement of course assumes that the citizens of Vietnam wanted our protection or for that matter needed it. There were free elections scheduled to be held at which time the populous would decide their own choice of rule. The United States wanted not to defend these people, but, rather, to force it's will upon them. America was still recovering from the "Red Scare" Era. The Cold War was still very much alive. "Policy-makers of the day believed that nothing in the foreign policy of the United States was more important than American "credibility." If American power was defeated anywhere, they believed, it might crumble everywhere. The idea of a strategic retreat was ruled out. Both motives, then, had to do with power--in the first place, domestic political power, in the second, global power" (Schell, 8). Defenders of the war in Vietnam would also claim that the United State's entrance followed by its persistent presence was a result of intense anti war sentiment and propaganda, much of which was politically motivated at home. In fact, there was much propaganda during this war. This was the first war ever fought where every evening the American public could and often did sit and watch it happen while they sat and ate their dinner. Statistics were the rule of the day - " kills", "hits" , "targets" - no longer were they people. The administration was in carrying out its agenda brought the war to the American public daily, not the ant-war supporters. The North Vietnamese had much more at stake here than did the United States government for a security standpoint. They were dedicated to winning; it was, after all, their homeland they were defending. The also used a great amount of propaganda in an attempt to further strengthen the rising displeasure of the American people with their continued involvement in the war. The propaganda began there, was countered by the Johnson and later Nixon administration, and lastly by the anti-war movement. To blame the opponents to the war for creating mass propaganda assaults on the government's decision to enter the war is unfounded. Defending freedom as I discussed earlier is probably the recurrent theme of those in support of the war - Protecting those unable to defend themselves. The outcome of the Vietnam Conflict itself answers that claim. The Vietnamese people showed their willingness and dedication to protect their freedom of choice. They did not back down to America. Instead with resolve the tactically carried out a much more organized military campaign than did the United States. Does a population of people willing to stand up to one of the world's 'Super Powers' need to be protected Vietnam had been in internal strife for years. The government had changed hands five times in the years preceding America's entry into the war. This was just another such event in the tumultuous development. What could and should have been objectively dealt, assuming that was even necessary, through diplomatic channels instead because of ego and pride - escalated into war. "At midnight Greenwich Mean Time on January 27, 1973, the war in Vietnam was declared officially over. Delegations representing the United States, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Communist Government of South Vietnam signed the agreement known officially as the "Paris Agreement and Protocols on Ending the War and Restoring the Peace in Vietnam." (Berman & Routh, 204) - Thus ending the War that was never one but merely a conflict, showcasing the fallacies of frail political ambitions and tales of misinterpreted patriotism. Works Cited Berman, Larry and Routh, Stephen R. "Why the United States Fought in Vietnam." Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 6, Issue 1. 2003: Pages 181 - 204. Academic Search Premier. Galileo Virtual Library, , Georgia. 15 Nov. 2005. . Jensen, Robert. "Vietnam War is a Study in US Crimes." 3 May 2000. Common Dreams News Center. Accessed 16 Nov 2005. . Johnson, Lyndon B., "Why are We at War." 6 Apr. 1965. Address to John Hopkins University Series " Peace Without Conquest" from Department of State Bulliten. 15 Nov. 2005 Michigan State University. Accessed 16 Nov. 2005. . Quindlen, Anna. "We've Been Here Before." Newsweek. Vol. 146, Issue 18. 31 Oct. 2005: Academic Search Premier. Galileo Virtual Library, , Georgia. 15 Nov. 2005. . Roberts, Tom. "Questioning How We Behave and Why People Hate Us." National Catholic Reporter. Vol. 29, Issue 6: 29 Nov. 2001: Page 12. Academic Search Premier. Galileo Virtual Library, Georgia. 15 Nov. 2005 . Schell, Jonathan. "Learning the Obvious." Nation. Vol. 277, Issue 10. 6 Oct. 2003: Page 8-8, p 1. Academic Search Premier. Galileo Virtual Library, Georgia. 15 Nov. 2005. . "They Charge War Crimes." National Review. Vol. 56, Issue 8. 3 May 2004: Pages 38 -41. Academic Search Premier. Galileo Virtual Library, Georgia. 15 Nov. 2005. . Tuttle, Jon. "How You Get That Story: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the Literature Of theVietnam War." Journal of Popular Culture. Vol. 38, Issue 6. Nov. 2005: Pages 1088 - 1089. Academic Search Premier. Galileo Virtual Library, Georgia. 15 Nov. 2005 . http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=aph&an=10609385 why the us fought xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.commondreams.org/views/050300-102.htm Vietnam war is a study xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/hst306/documents/johnson.html Why we are in Vietnam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=aph&an=18643220 we've been here before xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=aph&an=9684551 questioning how we behave xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=aph&an=10880924 learning the obvious xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=aph&an=12856396 they charge war crimes xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://search.epnet.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=aph&an=18387887 how you get that story Read More