War in Vietnam - Essay Example

How can we explain America's involvement in the Vietnam War HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN AMERICA'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR TO WHAT EXTENT DID AMERICA GET IT "WRONG, TERRIBLY WRONG" Titus Rock Manickam Order No. 277735 13 March 2009 Table of Contents Introduction3 The Diem factor.3 Post Diem..5 "We were wrong, terribly wrong"6 Communism..9 Conclusion.10 Sources..11 HOW CAN WE EXPLAIN AMERICA'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR TO WHAT EXTENT DID AMERICA GET IT "WRONG, TERRIBLY WRONG" Introduction It is difficult to explain America's involvement in the Vietnam War. On the face of it, the Americans had overwhelming advantages to press home a victory. However, the outcome was defeat. The Americans had the man power, the best in technology, the latest firepower, aircraft carriers, armory and other weapons. One may think of the involvement as an attempt to stem the communists. Indeed, in the times of President John F Kennedy, communism was seen as such a dangerous threat that he vowed he would do anything to stop it from spreading. The generation who lived at that time saw what Kennedy was bent on doing. It is not the actual military defeat that hurt. It was the emotional defeat, the defeat of intelligence, the political defeat, the defeat of calculation, the defeat of the entire plan and purpose of the war that so staggered the nation that it is still trying to come to terms with the questions of the war to which different analysts are providing different answers (Mackubin Thomas Owens). The Diem factor Probably the best person to answer the Vietnam question was Ngo Dinh Diem who capably led the charge of South Vietnam. Like John F Kennedy, Diem too was a Roman Catholic. He successfully kept communism under control, sometimes brutally. However, in the process he angered the Buddhist monks who were part of the majority in Vietnam. He was seen as a protg of the Americans and he behaved like one. Nevertheless, as time went on, he was becoming increasingly isolated because of fears by some including the United States ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge that he was leading a corrupt regime. The failure of the American intelligence to track the correct course and keep at it grated the final nail to the coffin with a very big hammer. Now the Americans are coming to realize that Diem was not such a bad fellow after all (Mackubin Thomas Owens). Journalists David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan depicted Diem in the most debilitating terms. Their account of Diem was so horrifying and unpleasant that a 1963 congressional mission described them as "arrogant, emotional, unobjective and ill-informed." One cannot fault Halberstam and Sheehan though. They were only faithfully and unwittingly reproducing what was fed to them through obliging Vietnamese sources who were secretly communist agents themselves (Mackubin Thomas Owens). Diem depended on the Americans to carry out his agenda of blocking the communists. He signed a joint communiqu with President Eisenhower condemning communism (Dr. Penelope Nicholson). Diem complemented the policies of the United States quite well in Vietnem. However, the American politicians were not happy with Diem. They did not want a Catholic running amok amidst the predominant Buddhist population. They found fault with his government capturing and killing communist insurgents. They wavered in backing him on long term basis fearing he was increasingly becoming a liability and must be isolated. The fault lines in the American intelligence were undermining a factor that was actually providing them positive results in the war. The intrigue took its toll. Diem was assassinated in a coup by his senior military officers in 1963. Kennedy was unnerved by the assassination of Diem although he approved of the coup. Post Diem After the assassination of Diem the question of leadership haunted Vietnam. Any leader who took up the reins had to have the backing of the Americans. But the policy decisions for Vietnam came from the United States. Kennedy had the problem of framing policies on the basis of divergent views and advices. He also had to be sensitive to the American public opinion which was increasingly becoming anti-war. Very soon after Diem, Kennedy too was assassinated. Meanwhile the Diem factor continued to make its presence felt. There was something missing in South Vietnam and how was it to be accounted The Vietnamese communists were emboldened with Diem's death and began exploiting the instability in the south with more aggression and ambition. In the days and years that followed, 60,000 American soldiers were killed in the war. Three million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians too lost their lives. The Americans, however, lost the war. A large share of the blame for the loss has been attributed to President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson rejected several aggressive and strategic options that would have helped South Vietnam continue the war with only a limited deployment of U.S. forces (Mackubin Thomas Owens). Johnson appeared to be facing the same dilemma as Kennedy. All Johnson knew was the Americans were fighting the communists. But who were the communists Ho Chi Minh was a covert Soviet agent. However, history bears him out in different light. Now he is seen as a nationalist (Stanley Karnow). Post World War II, the Americans were highly enamored of communism. Almost half of Europe had fallen to the Soviet Union. The edgy Americans could scarcely afford to see a repeat of what had happened in Europe in Asia as well. The domino theory presented a challenge they could ill afford to not take up. Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia could go the communist way once Vietnam fell. The American politicians were so psyched with fear of this occurring that they threw their full weight behind South Vietnam without a sound strategy. But it all ended in tragedy. The defeat in Vietnam made America wiser to not become bogged down in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and East Timor. War is all about strategies and one must know when to exit. Military can never be the permanent solution. Robert McNamara, the secretary of defense under Presidents John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson wrote, "We were wrong, terribly wrong" (Robert S. McNamara). "We were wrong, terribly wrong." It was not necessary to bypass all alternatives and opt for military solution in an obscure corner of Asia. Perhaps the proximity of the communist giants, Russia and China, made the Americans uneasily opt for a military solution without giving much thought to other alternatives. Or was it the after effects of World War II which made the Americans prone to considering military options when it was not needed At least it was not needed in the scale that it was deployed. Many now feel that the Vietnam war was not needed and could have been avoided (Fredrik Logevall). However, the Americans are not known to fathom such feelings. They will learn from it. They will apologize for it. But given similar situation, they will go ahead with military action. They will go ahead with the planning with gusto. The only fear is what happens if someone takes advantage of the situation and uses the nuclear bomb. The Americans invaded Iraq in 2003 for the purported reason that Iraq was manufacturing the nuclear bomb. They did not find the nuclear bomb. The lessons that one draws from such fait accompli is that when you are in doubt and you want to put the various alternatives to test, just go ahead! Begin with military action. The other alternatives will fall in place. Sadly, the alternative do not fall in place. The large-scale fighting in Vietnam in 1965 was avoidable. It was evidently failure of intelligence from the beginning that began the war. This failure was allowed to continue and by the time it was found that nobody is getting anywhere, the Americans found themselves in the losing end. Nonetheless, it is difficult to think why the Americans did not reflect on the French defeat earlier. The circumstances then were the same. However, the magnitude of the war does not allow for closing of the Vietnam chapter without a clearer look at the circumstances prevailing at that time. One has to accept the fact that the war and the preparations of the war spanned the period of three United States presidents! Presidents John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon could not have persisted with the war unless the stakes were enormous. It was the era of the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was also the time when these two nations were stockpiling conventional and non-conventional weapons in the fear that one of them could press the trigger against the other. As the most powerful nation among the free, democratic countries the United States was not in a position to be dictated to by small and weak nations. The instance of the Koreas comes to mind. The Americans were involved in the Korean conflict too. As compared to Vietnam, the Korean conflict was more complex. However, the Americans were more successful in Korea, and there is an armistice pact signed in 1953 governing the situation there (Korean War). However, intelligence failure in Vietnam proved to be the nemesis for the Americans in Vietnam. The media played spoilsport by swallowing all types of information and presenting them as facts, aggravating the entire scenario. The American soldiers met with reverses on the battlefield owing to misinformation successfully engineered by the North Vietnamese. The bombing of North Vietnamese cities also proved to be a dampener as it was seen as quite unnecessary by the American public and the rest of the world. The ultimate analysis was that North Vietnam never wanted to embrace communism and it was using the communists only to oppose the Americans. As for the Americans, the big picture was communism and the effects of the cold war that was largely responsible for the war. Thus it was that the mismatch in thinking and execution led to such colossal bloodshed and wrong publicity. It was good for the Americans that the war ended even if it meant defeat for them. Nevertheless, the war highlighted one important aspect. It underlined the importance of not doing business with communism. Communism cannot work anywhere. It is a system devoted to failure. Communism If the misunderstanding arising out of communism in Vietnam can trigger war and bloodshed, then there is an issue with communism. The break up of the Soviet empire in 1990 largely rests on the fact that communism is a horrible ideology (Susan Nerenberg). It does not uphold the welfare of humanity. It was on this assumption that America pursued its goal in Vietnam. It was a noble gesture although the process got bogged down in shambles. Ultimately, the Americans' failure to realize their goals was a failure to grasp the true situation. The true situation demanded that they pack and go home. They could stay back, but just enough to keep track of law and order. However, they did not do this. They were determined to stamp out communism from Vietnam. It takes ideology little longer to wear out. The failure of American intelligence in realizing that Vietnam never intended to be part of communism cost them the war. Ho Chin Minh flirted with communists. However, he did not desire communism in Vietnam. His actions amply pointed towards nationalism and the middle-of-the-road policy. Possibly the Americans did not have time for such actions and these were promptly dismissed as theatricals, never to be seriously considered for reconciliation (Dr Penelope Nicholson). Conclusion The Vietnam episode provides enough scope for study and research. Much has been written and spoken about the war in Vietnam. And undoubtedly, much will continue to be written and spoken about Vietnam. It is difficult to get to the correct picture although the one thing clear is that America overreacted. Nonetheless, they did a good job attempting to curtail communism. The generation that fought the war in Vietnam exists even today. They are the men and women who must be honored for bravery and courage for fighting against heavy odds. One must not forget the innocent soldiers and citizens of Vietnam too. These are the men and women who lived and died to fight on behalf of conflicting principles. Most of them did not know what these principles were all about! Sources: Dr. Penelope Nicholson, Vietnam, Asian Law Centre, http://www.lfip.org/laws827/link06-vietnam.htm Fredrik Logevall, Book Description, Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam, http://www.target.com/Choosing-War-Chance-Escalation-Vietnam/dp/0520229193 Johns, Andrew L, Review, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, 277735_Triumph_Forsaken_critical_review[1].doc Korean War, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea.htm Lloyd C. Gardner, Review, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War, http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.phpid=4360 Mackubin Thomas Owens, A Winnable War: The argument against the orthodox history of Vietnam, 277735_Revisionist_art[1].doc Robert S. McNamara, Wars and Conflicts of the Postwar Period (1945-1989), www.siglo21info.com/1945-1989/biografias/politicos/mcnamara.html Stanley Karnow, The Vietnam Debacle, 27 April 2000, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/04/27/revisionists Susan Nerenberg, The Break-up of the Soviet Empire: Forces of Neo-Nationalism, www.international.ucla.edu/print.aspparentid=23602 Time Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, Review, http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1599/ Read More