Download Vietnam War!

APUSH: A WAR THAT CHANGED OUR HISTORY -UNDERSTANDING VIETNAM
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The study of the Vietnam War is important for a number of reasons. The direct military
involvement by the United States in this southeast Asian country lasted for many years, most
notably from 1964-73. Young men born between 1945 and 1955 came of draft age during the
war and approximately 2.6 million Americans (men and women) served in Vietnam. 58,169
were killed and over 300,000 wounded in this war. No war since the Civil War caused such a rift
in public opinion as did this war. Though we are still close to the history of the conflict, one
thing is for certain: the Vietnam War changed the landscape of our nation forever. This
reading is designed to give you the basic background to the war and to gain some
understanding of how it sill has an impact on our foreign policy.
QUESTION #1: HOW ARE FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS MADE IN OUR GOVERNMENT?
The EXECUTIVE BRANCH, and particularly the PRESIDENT, controls our military and diplomatic
corps. The President, of course, is accountable to the public and, in theory, should act in the
best interests of the American citizens. The LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (House and Senate) controls
how much money is spent on the military. In addition, the Senate must approve all treaties that
are made with other nations. Members of Congress are accountable to the public through
elections and, in theory, should represent the wishes of the American people. Especially since
1945, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH has had the greatest impact on our foreign policy.
QUESTION #2: WHERE DOES THE PUBLIC FIT INTO THIS PICTURE?
In our system, leaders reflect the public will. However, in the area of foreign policy, the public
is often "disengaged" due to our preoccupation with domestic affairs (things going on inside
our country). Nevertheless, it is the public that pays the taxes to support government
spending. It is the public that selects our leaders. And finally, it is the public that must hold
leaders accountable for their decisions. Our most important obligation as citizens is to stay
informed about what our government is doing, whether it be a foreign or domestic situation.
QUESTION #3: WHY DID WE GET INVOLVED IN VIETNAM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
At the end of World War II the United States was the most powerful nation in the world, but we
became embroiled almost immediately in a "contest" with our former ally, the Soviet Union.
The struggle was very complicated and would last for the next 45 years (until 1991). Primarily, it
was a clash of ideas --- democracy vs. dictatorship, free market capitalism vs. a command-style
economy based on communist principles. Both nations began to compete for control in many
different regions of the world --- Europe, southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America
were all to become "Cold War" battlegrounds. The central idea driving our foreign policy at
that time was CONTAINMENT, the idea that we needed to stop the spread of Soviet influence
wherever we saw it happening. Vietnam (or IndoChina, as the whole peninsula was called)
became part of that struggle. France had controlled the region prior to World War II and had
PS RYKKEN/ VIETNAM CASE STUDY
1
been "kicked out" by the Japanese at the start of the war. When Japan was defeated in 1945,
the French returned to the area and the United States backed the French for the next 9 years in
the region until their defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese in 1954. We did not have military
people there during those years, but we were supplying money and weapons to the French in
their struggle for control of the region. A man named Ho Chi Minh led the Vietnamese against
the French. He was a NATIONALIST who wanted foreigners out of his country. He was also a
COMMUNIST who had connections with the Soviet Union. We, therefore, opposed him.
QUESTION #4: THE AMERICAN VIEW IN THE MIDDLE 1950s?
Keep in mind that during the 1950s, we had a "Red Scare" going on within our nation. This
meant that the American public and our leaders were really focused on the Cold War conflict
and tended to see everything "through those lenses," so to speak. The victory of Ho Chi Minh,
therefore, was seen as a truly dangerous development in southeast Asia. Don't forget that we
also fought a frustrating three year conflict in Korea (up the coast from Vietnam) from 1950 to
1953. The situation in Vietnam was viewed as part of a bigger picture. The "specter" of
Communism controlling that area of the world was appalling to US leaders. Keep in mind also
that China had gone through a revolution and civil war that had brought a Communist
government into power there. To Americans, this was truly seen as part of a global struggle.
QUESTION #5: WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FRENCH WERE DEFEATED IN 1954?
There was a major conference held in Geneva, Switzerland to determine the fate of Vietnam.
The nation of Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel (north and south) and the nations of Laos
and Cambodia were also created. Ho Chi Minh controlled North Vietnam and the United Statesbacked government of Ngo Dinh Diem controlled South Vietnam. According to the Geneva
Accords, there were to be "free elections" held in Vietnam in 1956 to determine the future
government of the country. The United States, ultimately, refused to sign those Accords and,
instead, formed the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) which committed us to the
defense of South Vietnam if it was attacked. For the next ten years (1954-1964) the United
States gradually became more and more embroiled in what had become a civil war in this small
southeast Asian nation. We were getting involved "incrementally" (one small step at a time).
We believed that if one nation fell to Communism, others would follow (the so-called "domino
theory"). Average Americans were probably not very aware of this because Vietnam was one
of a number of areas where the nation was involved. Dwight Eisenhower, two-term Republican
president (1953-1961) was leery of sending combat troops to this region of the world again, but
the US remained committed to the cause financially.
QUESTION #6: SO WHEN DID WE REALLY GET INVOLVED WITH OUR MILITARY?
Under President Kennedy (elected in 1960), we sent military advisors to the region. They were
there to help the South Vietnamese with training and planning. By the time of Kennedy's death
in 1963, we had 16,000 such "advisors" in the region. There has always been a controversy
about whether or not Kennedy was going to commit the nation further into this effort. It's one
of those great unanswered questions of history. Before his death, Kennedy had sent a letter to
Diem in January of 1962 in which he said:
PS RYKKEN/ VIETNAM CASE STUDY
2
"I have received your letter in which you described so cogently the dangerous conditions cause by
North Vietnam's effort to take over your country. The situation in your embattled country is well
known to me and to the American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your
country. Your letter underlines what our own information has convincingly shown --- that the
campaign of force and terror now being waged against your people and your government is
supported and directed from outside by authorities at Hanoi (Capitol in the North) . . . . "
Diem was an unpopular leader in his own country and was assassinated in August of 1963 (just
before Kennedy was killed). Therefore, the situation was very unstable in the South Vietnam.
This was the situation that faced Lyndon Johnson, the new President of the US in 1963.
QUESTION #7: HOW DID THE SITUATION CHANGE IN 1964?
In August of that year, the US Destroyer "Maddox" allegedly was attacked by North
Vietnamese fire in the Tonkin Gulf (off the coast of North Vietnam). Accounts of the attack
were hazy at best, and history later revealed that the attacks may not have happened at all, or
not to the extent government leaders suggested at the time. The "attacks," however, gave
President Johnson a reason to ESCALATE (increase) our involvement. This is what he said to
the Congress on August 5th, 1964:
"Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted
further deliberate attacks against US Naval vessels operating in international waters . . . After
consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask
the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in
supporting freedom and in protecting peace in Southeast Asia . . ."
On August 7th, the Congress of the United States passed the so-called "Tonkin Gulf Resolution"
by a vote of 414-0 in the House and 88-2 in the Senate. This is the important part of that
resolution:
"THE CONGRESS APPROVES AND SUPPORTS THE DETERMINATION OF THE PRESIDENT, AS
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO REPEL ANY ARMED ATTACK
AGAINST THE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO PREVENT FURTHER AGGRESSION."
Opinion polls indicate that over 60% of the American people supported this resolution in 1965.
It has often been called the "informal declaration of war" against North Vietnam. (It is similar,
by the way, to the resolution passed by Congress in September of 2001 authorizing the use of
force by President Bush against the forces of terrorism). Years later, when the war became
increasingly unpopular, many viewed this resolution as a mistake. In fact, the War Powers Act
of 1973 which attempted to restrict Presidential power in war-making, was definitely a
response to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
QUESTION #8: WHEN DID AMERICANS BEGIN TO QUESTION OUR INVOLVEMENT?
In February of 1965, Johnson ordered the first bombing campaigns ("Operation Flaming Dart"
and "Operation Rolling Thunder"). The purpose of bombing the North was to force them to
stop the war against the South. Johnson hoped that bombing campaigns would persuade the
leaders of the North to negotiate. The bombing of the North was questioned by more and
PS RYKKEN/ VIETNAM CASE STUDY
3
more people in America, particularly young people at the major universities of the country
(such as Madison). Anti-war protests became more and more common. At the same time, we
began escalating troop involvement and that meant the drafting of more and more young men.
Many men who were coming of age found ways to avoid the draft, including a variety of
deferments or alternatives (i.e. Bill Clinton who did not serve in the military and actively
protested the war and George Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard). The following
numbers help you see the escalation of our involvement:
November of 1963:
December of 1965:
December of 1966:
December of 1967:
December of 1968:
16,000 Advisors (at the time of Kennedy's death)
200,000 troops (a year after the Tonkin Gulf Resolution)
400,000
500,000
540,000 (peak year)
QUESTION #9: WHY DID AN INCREASING NUMBER OF AMERICANS BEGIN TO
OPPOSE THE WAR?
The reasons for opposition were complex, but here are some of the things you would have
heard had you been alive at the time:
"The civil war in Vietnam is none of our business. We should stay out and be more concerned
about our own problems. Young American men should not be killed in this cause."
"Vietnam did not threaten us in any way. They had not attacked us and were thousands of miles
away from our shores."
"Ho Chi Minh was more of a NATIONALIST than he was a COMMUNIST. We were being too hung
up with the "Red Scare" kind of mentality. Furthermore, China and North Vietnam did not get
along and we were making too much of the fear of Communism in that region of the world."
"The government we were supporting in the South was corrupt and did not have the support of its
own people. They were not worthy of our support."
"Bombing non-military targets, killing innocent civilians, defoliation of the countryside, and the
use of Agent Orange and Napalm were immoral acts on our part."
"American leaders had not been forthright about the war. The public had been lied to,
particularly with regard to why we were there and what we were doing."
QUESTION #10: HOW DID THE WAR IMPACT OUR SOCIETY?
We had gone to war for two reasons in Vietnam: first, the 17th parallel dividing North and South
Vietnam represented to us one of the "frontier lines" between the free world and the
Communist world; and second, the war was seen as a test of our will. If we failed there, we
may fail elsewhere in the world. The War, therefore, was not some isolated story from the
1960s and early 70s. Rather, it was the end result of a generation of American foreign policy. In
PS RYKKEN/ VIETNAM CASE STUDY
4
some respects, there were really two "wars" here: one in Vietnam and one inside our country.
The war, therefore, had a profound impact on America in a number of ways:
1.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS: We spent over $150 billion over a 16 year period in Vietnam. While we
were doing that, we were also increasing spending on many domestic programs (i.e. the
"Great Society" programs of Lyndon Johnson). The war led to an inflationary cycle in our
economy that became severe by the early 70s, especially after the Arab Oil Embargo of
1973.
2. THE POLARIZATION OF OUR PEOPLE: By 1967-68, the citizens of America were beginning to
have severe debates about this war. Supporters of the war were called "hawks" and
opponents were known as "doves." The nation's college campuses became embroiled in
this tension. In many respects, the arguments became "generational" -- that is, young
people vs. the "establishment" (older crowd).
3. POLITICAL EFFECTS: Three of our elections were affected by the war: 1964, 1968, and 1972.
Two Presidents -- Johnson and Nixon -- paid a big price for the war politically. We also see
the beginning of what some have called the "CREDIBILITY GAP" developing because of the
war. People lost faith in the government to tell them the truth. A famous poll done in 1976
indicated the impact of this:
Confidence in the Presidency: 11% (compared to 41% in 1966)
Confidence in the Congress: 9% (compared to 42% in 1966)
Confidence in the Military: 23% (compared to 62% in 1966)
Keep in mind also that the Watergate Affair (1972-74) became front-page news in the latestages of the war.
4. QUESTIONING OF AMERICAN VALUES: The war seemed to shake some long-held beliefs.
Patriotism was questioned. Loyalty to the country was questioned. The proper and
improper uses of military force was heavily debated. Such questions shook the soul of the
country.
QUESTION #11: THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM: WHY DID WE FAIL?
The last remaining soldiers returned from Vietnam in early 1973. The war continued for another
two years with the North finally winning the conflict in April of 1975. As we get further away
from the time period, the reasons for our failure in Vietnam have become somewhat clearer.
Here are some possible explanations:
1.
GRADUAL INVOLVEMENT: John Spanier, in his book, American Foreign Policy Since World
War II, suggests that we became involved in this conflict in a very gradual way, and that
leaders stopped asking fundamental questions in the process: Was Vietnam vital to our
security? Given the nature of the South Vietnamese government (lacking public support)
could we save it militarily? How much was Vietnam worth in American lives?
2. PROBLEMS WITH STRATEGY: Robert Leckie, in his book, The Wars of America, makes the
case that we failed with our strategy in the war in the following ways:
PS RYKKEN/ VIETNAM CASE STUDY
5





We mistakenly assumed that China was poised to enter the war, when in fact they were
not. Because of that assumption, we limited offensive moves in the North.
By not moving aggressively in the North, we allowed the North Vietnamese leader,
Giap, to move freely in the North and within the sanctuaries he held in Laos and
Cambodia.
We did not place the enemy on the defensive effectively enough.
The war became a "war of attrition" which favored the North -- they just had to hold
out.
We did not have a clear and coherent strategy throughout the war.
3. BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC SUPPORT: The Vietnam War coincided with the widespread use of
television in America. Americans were confronted on a daily basis with images of the war,
including the nightly "death counts" and this certainly had an impact on public opinion. In a
representative democracy, public support for any major foreign policy initiative is critical
and during this war we simply did not have it.
QUESTION #12: WHAT IS THE LEGACY OF THIS WAR?
The immediate impact of the war was pretty clear. The Congress attempted to curb the powers
of the President in the military sphere (War Powers Act). There was a new ISOLATIONISM in
America as well. The American people were tired of "world involvement" and our leaders
reflected that. We re-evaluated our role in world affairs for several years after the ending of
the war and, for many years, suffered from something political scientists called the "Vietnam
Syndrome." This was a fear of a long-term commitment in a war. This seemed to last well into
the 1980s and probably into the period of the Gulf War (1991). Policy-makers must still be
conscious of this as America contemplates involvement in far-off places. Many of our leaders
today, including our last two Presidents (Clinton and Bush, Jr.), came of age during the Vietnam
period and we must consider it part of their "worldview."
Certainly, many people were changed because of this war. Soldiers who served often found it
somewhat difficult when they returned to an America that did not support the war. The
families of those who were killed were greatly affected. In addition, many refugees from
southeast Asia ended up coming to America in the late 70s and beyond. One dramatic example
of that in our area are the Hmong refugees. Approximately 35,000 Hmong people came to the
US from Laos. They fled their own country because they had HELPED the United States --- in
fact, had been enlisted for service by the American CIA --- and when the war ended, faced death
or persecution. Their story is an excellent example of how the conflicts between nations can
impact the lives of everyday people.
PS RYKKEN/ VIETNAM CASE STUDY
6