The Vietnam War - Term Paper Example

The Vietnam War U.S. involvement in Vietnam proves that there are limits to the capabilities of any military, even the largest and most sophisticated in the history of the world. Understanding this reality is, or should be, a vital facet of foreign policy. The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq shows that if the costly lesson learned from Vietnam is not appreciated the U.S. will continue its foreign relations debacles which will further weaken its armed services, economic stability and political influence within the community of nations. The former imperialistic Roman Empire should serve as an example of how this cause and effect scenario plays out. A similar destiny awaits America if it refuses to stop repeating the rationalizations for military involvement that kept it in Vietnam for a decade. A result of justifications emanating from Cold War, anti-communism attitudes, Vietnam became the standard by which limitations of the American military can be measured. Following the U.S. victory over the Japanese in 1945, the U.S. and former Soviet Union became engaged in a politically ideological battle that enveloped much of the rest of the world, the Cold War. Communism was clearly America’s adversary and after the Soviets build the Berlin Wall and continued to dominate other Eastern European countries, which became known as ‘satellite’ nations of the Soviets, the U.S. decided to not allow communism to spread into far Southeast Asia for motivations that remain unclear. Though the U.S. used the atomic bomb in Asia less than 20 years earlier, it deployed thousands of troops to the jungles of Vietnam during the decade-long ‘police action’ despite pleas by some that ground troops were necessary only after ‘the bomb’ was dropped in a clean-up role. The fiasco of Vietnam instigated an anti-military response from the majority of American citizens which contributed to the Cold War’s end. America was forced to redefine how its military would be employed and question its capacity to force it’s will in foreign countries such as Vietnam. America also had to examine its overall foreign engagement policy and ensuing strategies. (Hogan, 2004) “U.S. foreign policy, from its abandonment of isolationism at the ending of the 19th century to its status as the sole remaining superpower, has always been centered on the promotion and conservation of its own interests and ‘the advancement of civilization,’ the exercise of power to assert itself beyond the bounds of the American continents in ‘the interest of civilization and of humanity’ and its own selfish interests.” (Olney, 2004) This period of military re-evaluation lasted from the end of the Vietnam War in 1973 until the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. The U.S. entered the Vietnam conflict to bring democracy to the oppressed indigenous population (the official reason) very optimistic of securing a quick victory. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. went into Vietnam War with somewhat of an arrogant attitude thinking that the North Vietnamese army would soon bow to the mighty American military machine and that South Vietnam would willingly accept and adjust to a westernized style system of government. According to Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State under President Nixon, America entered Vietnam with a “brash confidence in the universal applicability of America’s prescriptions.” (Kissinger,2003) The paradoxical epilogue to Vietnam was that America went into this bloody, horrifying and long-term war believing it would be the noble liberator of the South Vietnamese. The U.S. did this without appreciating the obvious fact that the South Vietnamese people had been fighting for liberation from a North Vietnamese government which represented the same imperialistic way of thinking as the American government. (Ignatieff, 2003) The U.S. failed in Vietnam not because it lacked military capability but because it did not understand the enemy. Although the U.S. marched in with a tremendous military advantage it was insufficient to beat a war-weary, third-world nation approximately the size of New Jersey. The main cause of the negative result derived from the fact that the U.S. did not yet understand “being an empire, or superpower, doesn’t mean being omnipotent.” (Ignatieff, 2003) President Johnson was persuaded that due to U.S. military superiority; an unquestionably substandard enemy would be swiftly and decidedly defeated. He failed to comprehend that projecting military might will generate fear of and respect for the U.S. but not admiration and affection. The massive bombing campaigns and frequent offensives caused enormous amounts of destruction on the people of South Vietnam and their property which served only to estrange the indigenous population. These actions inspired opponents of the war both in America and Vietnam and led numerous questions regarding the morality of the campaigns. “Johnson did not understand that the enemy in Southeast Asia could not be deterred or coerced, only emboldened by military incursions from a foreign source.” (Ignatieff, 2003) Replace Iraq with Vietnam and all reactions to events apply as well. It is likely that the ‘battle of wills’ mindset which was set into motion during the Cold War. The corresponding reluctance to pull out from an altercation against the ‘red menace’ of communism prejudiced the decision making of the Johnson and Nixon administration regarding continued involvement in the conflict. (Hunt, 1996) During the decade of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the neo-conservative faction grew due to the political polarization happening across nation between the neo-cons who championed blind patriotism and the anti-war sentiments of the counterculture. All Neoconservatives were not necessarily for the continuance of the war or for imperialistic expansionism but all were obsessed with the idea that communism would spread. The term ‘domino theory’ was often invoked by the neo-cons to rationalize America’s military involvement in Vietnam. If this tiny Southeast Asian nation fell to the communists, they reasoned, the rest of this area of the world would be methodically consumed by the ‘Red Menace.’ A number of the Vietnam era neo-cons, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, went to the far right of the ideological scale by opposing domestic spending; supporting tax reductions for the rich and a strike -first, ask questions later military mentality. Domestic concerns were once a uniting issue but was abandoned by modern neo-cons. Foreign-policy matters stirred the most emotional response by the voters so it therefore gained attention from this group. They thought then, as now, that foreign matters were a more important than domestic issues for national discussion because the survival of the nation hung in the balance. “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 divided the nation severely and neo-cons, even the war-hawkish ones, were constantly ready to argue their position regarding the effects of losing to communism. When those opposed to the war said that communism wasn’t the county’s most urgent concern and that American expansionistic and imperialism tendencies were the main issue, neo-cons were fast to admonish what they considered unpatriotic rhetoric. They feared that communism would spread which was a position that proved to be unfounded. The grisly human score at the end of the Vietnam War was three million enemy soldiers killed as opposed to 58,000 Americas. Despite this overwhelming disparity, the ‘big dog’ in the battle ultimately had to run back home with its tail tucked between its legs, dishonored and soundly beaten. Due to the unprecedented media coverage of the truth of the war, the U.S. quickly lost credibility in the international community including the people in its own country. “The U.S. cannot be involved in a unilateral conflict without operating under the constraints of its limited resources and range or without the support of the people in the region it intends to occupy. In that fictional world, the sole superpower might be tempted to act as if others didn’t matter, while regional powers would strive toward multipolarity but the world can be stable only to the extent that these conflicting tendencies can be balanced.” (Adhikari, 2004) Today, the U.S. has is the most powerful military force in the world even taking into consideration that its personnel have been seriously depleted by the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. It is also, according to Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under President Clinton, the “world’s indispensable power.” (Adhikari, 2004) The U.S. has utilized its military machine to start needless human and political catastrophes’ by entering into improperly planned unjustified wars. By contrast, the U.S. military has been involved in humanitarian ventures around the world that are too numerous to count. If a major armed conflict was to happen somewhere in the world the U.S. would unquestionably be called upon to suppress the situation. No other nation has anywhere near the ability to react effectively. America is, by default, the policeman of the world whether it wants the title or not. Because of its economic and military prowess, the U.S. has the unofficial yet undisputed position as world leader. The responsibilities demanded by this position can be equated to that of a successful president of a major company who must possess proficient persuasive techniques, understands how to construct a consensus opinion and exercises authority with discretion after suitable contemplation. “If the United States wants to reassert itself as a widely accepted, and respected, leader of the democratic world, it will have to carry the world with it. Its efforts will fail if it continues to believe it can wield unilateral power indefinitely in a unipolar world.” (Adhikari, 2004) Vietnam confirmed that owning the superior armed force does not assure victory. No other nation is as well stocked with technologically superior weapons but it seems that just about any other country or even organized coordinated group can gain the advantage against the U.S. The benefit of the massive and potent U.S. nuclear arsenal has been basically neutralized because Russia, China, Pakistan and China all have access to a virtually infinite number of troops and nuclear weapons of their own. Even engaging the small, third world country of North Korea would be an enormously complex and challenging enterprise and it has but a handful of short-range conventional missiles. The latest and most feared enemy of the U.S. is terrorism. “Clearly the ‘war on terrorism’ cannot be won by military means alone, no matter how all-powerful it might believe itself to be.” (Adhikari, 2004) American military relevance has clearly been undermined by the misuse of its superiority. The U.S. has acquired many enemies while losing prestige and respect worldwide. In addition, if Vietnam had never occurred America’s military limitations would not be as evident to all other countries and the U.S. today would today be thought of as mightier and more powerful than it really is therefore would have more political influence than it currently does. However, this unfortunate reality is probably soon to be an irrelative point anyway because America’s place as the world’s lone superpower is a short-lived situation. It takes capital to build and sustain a massive military force, capital which the U.S. no longer possesses due in part to its involvement in Vietnam type wars. The most eminent risk to U.S. security is not the terrorist ‘evil doers’ or the ‘red menace.’ The National Debt is immense and threatens to not only weaken the military but plunge the country into a ‘third world’ status. The U.S. is considered a good investment and has a limitless ability to obtain loans without difficulty but loans must be repaid, with interest. China, Germany, Japan and other nations own a substantial piece of America, a potentially ruinous prospect. Defaulting on the debt would cause an abrupt and shocking decline of the economy which would increase the debt further. Unnecessary wars have been instrumental in severely hindering America’s ability to effectively defend itself or become engaged in other potential world conflicts. The lesson of Vietnam was not learned. The generation of that era paid the ultimate price and generations following are paying a heavy price too. The Vietnam War separated the country into two ideological camps. The perceptions of the older population were derived during the WWII period. The ‘establishment,’ as they were called possessed a strong nationalistic perspective. They assumed that to be truly patriotic was to blindly conform to governmental authority, to support the country no matter what, even if it were making poor choices. The ‘counter-culture’ or the ‘new generation,’ personified by young college protesters, sought to redefine the definition of patriotism. They assumed to be truly patriotic was to question authority, to scrutinize governmental decisions and openly rebel when they determined it was wrong, similar to the original American patriots of the 18th Century. The philosophical divide was extensive. Passions were intense on both sides. The youths who protested sacrificed greatly though not as much as those fighting in Vietnam of course. “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.” (Viorst, 1979: 374). The country’s youths suffered the ridicule and contempt of their parents who could not comprehend why their kids were revolting against their parents’ fundamental beliefs. This chasm what was aptly termed the ‘generation gap.’ Some college students protesting the Vietnam War were killed by National Guard soldiers as was the case at South Carolina State and Kent State in Ohio. Those who were protesting the war and publically burning draft cards were considered anti-American by the conservative factions, the majority opinion regarding U.S. involvement in Vietnam until the early 1970’s. The ‘establishment’ regarded the student actions as nothing less than 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 student protesters of the Vietnam War era acted upon the courage of their philosophical and political unlike those who are opposed to unnecessary wars today. The experience of Vietnam supplied a pronounced and poignant message which has since been ignored to the detriment of American respect and prestige throughout the world. History clearly demonstrated that Vietnam was a waste of young lives, finances and military hardware. The national mantra after the Vietnam War ended was ‘never again.’ It’s terribly ironic that the same generation that suffered the most due to Vietnam did not understand this sentiment or the many harms caused by American involvement in Southeast Asia therefore continue to repeat this mistake in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Works Cited Adhikari, Gautam. “American Power: The End of the Unipolar Myth.” International Herald Tribune / YaleGlobal. (September 27, 2004). July 22, 2011 Bexte, Martina. "The Vietnam War Protests." Essortment Articles: Free Online Articles on Health, Science, Education & More. Pagewise, 2002. Web. July 22, 2011 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). Hunt, Michael H. Crises in U.S. Foreign Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press, (1996). Ignatieff, Michael. “The Burden” The New York Times. (January 5, 2003). Kissinger, Henry. Ending the Vietnam War: A History of America’s Involvement in and Extrication from the Vietnam War. USA: Simon & Schuster, (2003). MacDonald, Scott B. “The passing of the unipolar moment.” Asia Times. (February 22, 2006). July 22, 2011 McGourty, Steve. “An Analysis of the Presidents who are Responsible for Excessive Spending.” United States National Debt (1938 to Present). (June 25, 2006). July 22, 2011 Muravchik, Joshua. “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism.” Commentary Magazine. (October, 2007). July 22, 2011 < http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-past-present-and-future-of-neoconservatism/> Olney, Richard. “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, (March 1900) cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Viorst, Milton. Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster, (1979). Read More