Category: Vietnam War

Throughout the entire history, humanity has conceived wars that have taken the lives of many people. In the contemporary world, the idea of global conflicts is not attractive compared to ancient warriors desire to battle. There exist substantial grounds which show the unpopularity of any potential warfare. This essay will examine the reasons media coverage and the antiwar movement made the Vietnam War unpopular and argue the opposite opinion.

Usually, heads of nations tend to influence people in any method possible, obtain public support, and convince individuals to accept certain beliefs. With the use of media technologies to disseminate information, it became possible to affect the masses and make the war unattractive and unpopular. Spector states that American disillusionment with the war was a product of many causes of which the media was the one. Films from Vietnam were edited in Tokyo and showed to the United States (Spector). The deep insight into the wars consequences resulted in the Antiwar Movement when the global conflicts unpopularity became significantly high (Vaughan). Evidence proves the substantial influence media coverage had on individuals.

On the other hand, some individuals may doubt the reliability of the use of media resources. Vaughan states that Contrary to popular belief, television news coverage of the Vietnam War did not directly affect public support for the war, nor did it profoundly impact American nationalism (2). Despite the absence of direct effect, Vaughan claims that television news influence how events of the war were perceived and remembered by the American public (2). The mentioned evidence proves the actual indirect effect of the news on peoples opinion about the war.

Global conflicts are generally accepted as adverse events that result in millions of victims. The media coverage played an essential role during the Vietnam War, revealing the consequences of battles. Although the media coverages influence is not direct, it affects the perception of the war. It is difficult to argue that television news was a significant reason the war became unpopular, and people created the Antiwar Movement to stop and prevent it in the future.

References

Spector, Ronald H. The Vietnam War and the Media. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016. Web.

Vaughan, Brock J. War, Media, and Memory: American Television News Coverage of the Vietnam War. Bridges: An Undergraduate Journal of Contemporary Connections 4, vol. 4, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-10.

Introduction

The Vietnam War stands as a pivotal moment in modern history, casting a long shadow over both American and Vietnamese societies. Spanning from 1955 to 1975, this conflict fundamentally reshaped global geopolitics, military strategies, and societal attitudes towards war. However, its complexity extends far beyond mere battlefield engagements; it encapsulates a multifaceted tapestry of political intrigue, cultural clashes, and ideological struggles.

At its core, the Vietnam War emerged as a battleground for competing ideologies, pitting the capitalist West, led by the United States, against the communist forces of North Vietnam, supported by the Soviet Union and China. Yet, its roots delve deeper into the complexities of Vietnamese nationalism, colonial legacies, and Cold War proxy conflicts. Understanding the Vietnam War necessitates a nuanced examination of these interconnected factors.

Moreover, the war’s impact reverberated far beyond the confines of Southeast Asia. It fractured American society, sparking widespread protests, social unrest, and a crisis of confidence in governmental institutions. The anti-war movement, fueled by disillusionment with official narratives and the human cost of conflict, catalyzed profound shifts in public opinion and policy-making.

This essay endeavors to dissect the Vietnam War’s enduring significance through a critical lens, exploring its geopolitical ramifications, socio-cultural implications, and lasting legacies. By delving into its complexities, we can unravel the layers of history that continue to shape our world today.

100 Words Essay about the Vietnam War

The Vietnam War, spanning 1955 to 1975, stands as a complex mosaic of political, social, and cultural dynamics. Rooted in Cold War ideologies, it manifested as a battleground for conflicting visions of governance and sovereignty. Beneath the surface, however, lie deeper complexities, including Vietnamese nationalism, colonial legacies, and strategic interests. This conflict fractured American society, igniting widespread protests and reshaping international perceptions of military intervention. Its aftermath echoes in contemporary geopolitics, underscoring the enduring legacy of interventionism and the limits of power projection. Analyzing the Vietnam War unveils not just a chapter in history, but a tapestry of interconnected forces that continue to shape our world.

250 Words Essay about the Vietnam War

The Vietnam War, spanning from 1955 to 1975, remains one of the most contentious and complex conflicts of the 20th century. Beyond its surface narrative of North Vietnam’s quest for reunification and the United States’ intervention to contain communism lies a web of intricate factors that shaped its trajectory and legacy.

At its core, the Vietnam War was a clash of ideologies and geopolitical interests. The North Vietnamese, led by Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong, fought for independence and a communist system, inspired by anti-colonial sentiments and Marxist-Leninist principles. On the other hand, the United States saw its involvement as a crucial front in the global Cold War struggle against the spread of communism, viewing South Vietnam as a bulwark against the domino effect in Southeast Asia.

However, the war’s complexities extend beyond ideological battles. It was also deeply rooted in historical grievances, including Vietnam’s long struggle against colonial powers and its aspirations for self-determination. Additionally, the war intersected with domestic politics in both the United States and Vietnam, fueling social unrest, protests, and political upheavals.

Moreover, the Vietnam War had far-reaching consequences beyond its borders. It reshaped international diplomacy, redefined the limits of military intervention, and left a profound imprint on collective memory and national identities.

Analyzing the Vietnam War requires a nuanced understanding of its multifaceted nature, encompassing political, social, and cultural dimensions. By delving into these complexities, we can unravel the layers of history and glean valuable insights into the human cost of conflict and the complexities of global power dynamics.

400 Words Essay about the Vietnam War

p>The Vietnam War, spanning from 1955 to 1975, represents a profound chapter in global history, marked by intricate political maneuvering, complex socio-cultural dynamics, and enduring legacies. Beyond its surface portrayal as a conflict between North and South Vietnam, it embodies a convergence of multiple forces that shaped its trajectory and continue to reverberate in contemporary geopolitics.

At its essence, the Vietnam War was a manifestation of Cold War rivalries and ideological struggles. The communist North Vietnamese, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, sought to unify the country under a single, socialist government, while the United States perceived its intervention as crucial in containing the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. This ideological clash fueled decades of conflict, resulting in immense human suffering and profound societal transformations.

However, delving deeper into the Vietnam War reveals a myriad of intertwined factors that contributed to its complexity. Historical grievances stemming from Vietnam’s colonial past, particularly under French rule, fueled nationalist aspirations for independence and self-determination. The desire to break free from external domination and assert sovereignty played a significant role in galvanizing support for the Viet Cong insurgency in the South.

Moreover, the Vietnam War intersected with broader global dynamics, including decolonization movements and the Cold War proxy conflicts. As the United States poured billions of dollars and deployed hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam, the war became a lightning rod for anti-imperialist sentiments and a rallying cry for progressive movements worldwide. The conflict exposed the limits of American power and the fallacy of the domino theory, ultimately reshaping international perceptions of military intervention and superpower politics.

Furthermore, the Vietnam War deeply impacted both Vietnamese and American societies, leaving scars that endure to this day. In Vietnam, the war resulted in widespread devastation, environmental degradation, and the displacement of millions of civilians. In the United States, it sparked a wave of social upheaval, with mass protests, civil disobedience, and a crisis of confidence in government institutions.

Analyzing the Vietnam War through an analytical lens allows us to unravel its complexities and discern its enduring significance. By examining the interplay of political, economic, and socio-cultural factors, we gain insights into the human cost of war, the complexities of nation-building, and the enduring legacies of conflict. Ultimately, the Vietnam War serves as a sobering reminder of the complexities of global power dynamics and the imperative of understanding history to navigate the challenges of the present and future.

500 Words Essay about the Vietnam War

The Vietnam War, a conflict that raged from 1955 to 1975, remains one of the most contentious and divisive episodes in modern history. It was not merely a military confrontation but a complex web of political, ideological, and socio-economic factors that intertwined to shape its trajectory and outcomes. In this analytical essay, we will delve into the multifaceted nature of the Vietnam War, exploring its origins, key players, strategic miscalculations, and enduring legacies.

At its core, the Vietnam War was a clash between the ideologies of communism and capitalism, with the United States supporting South Vietnam and its anti-communist regime against the communist forces of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. However, the roots of the conflict can be traced back to the colonial era, with Vietnam’s struggle for independence from French rule igniting nationalist sentiments and aspirations for self-determination.

The involvement of external powers, particularly the United States, transformed what began as a struggle for independence into a protracted and devastating conflict. The Cold War context amplified the stakes, as both superpowers viewed Vietnam as a battleground in their ideological struggle for global supremacy. The domino theory, which posited that the fall of one Southeast Asian nation to communism would lead to a chain reaction of communist takeovers, further fueled American interventionism in the region.

Strategic miscalculations on the part of American policymakers exacerbated the conflict and prolonged its duration. The reliance on conventional military tactics ill-suited for the terrain and guerrilla warfare tactics employed by the Viet Cong resulted in a protracted and costly engagement. The heavy-handed approach of the U.S. military, including the widespread use of chemical defoliants like Agent Orange and the bombing campaigns that devastated Vietnamese civilian populations, further alienated the local populace and fueled anti-American sentiment.

Despite possessing superior firepower and technological capabilities, the U.S. military struggled to adapt to the asymmetrical nature of the conflict, where victory was not measured in territorial gains but in winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. The Tet Offensive of 1968, although militarily inconclusive, dealt a psychological blow to American morale and exposed the widening credibility gap between official narratives of progress and the harsh realities on the ground.

The Vietnam War left an indelible mark on both the Vietnamese and American societies, with profound social, political, and cultural ramifications that continue to reverberate to this day. The war shattered illusions of American invincibility and moral superiority, sparking widespread disillusionment and anti-war protests that galvanized the civil rights and anti-establishment movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

In Vietnam, the scars of war endure in the form of environmental degradation, unexploded ordnance, and the long-term health consequences of chemical warfare. The reunification of Vietnam under communist rule did not herald an era of peace and prosperity but instead ushered in a period of economic hardship and political repression.

In conclusion, the Vietnam War stands as a cautionary tale of the perils of ideological entanglements, hubris, and the human cost of armed conflict. Its complexities defy easy categorization, demanding a nuanced understanding of its origins, conduct, and legacies.

The sixties were a time of great upheaval in the Unites States. Externally, the country was embroiled in an unpopular war in Vietnam and internally, rejection of the ‘establishment’ typified by the ‘Counter-culture movement’ and the Black Civil rights movement was gaining momentum. The Vietnam War was deeply opposed by African American leaders for differing reasons. This essay attempts to compare and contrast the views and perceptions of two African American leaders of the Sixties, Stokely Carmichael and Dr. Martin Luther King based on their speeches delivered at Berkeley, 1966 and New York City, 1967 respectively.

Stokely Carmichael was a firebrand leader of the Black power group SNCC, whose extreme radical thoughts on racism were termed too militant by the more moderate Black civil right activists. Stokely stated that “The war in Vietnam is illegal and immoral” (1966, p.6). His solution to stop the war was open defiance of the existing government laws. According to Stokely “This country will only stop the war in Vietnam when the young men who are made to fight it begin to say, “Hell, no, we aren’t going” (1966, p.7). Dr Martin Luther King, on the other hand, while agreeing that the war was immoral, had other reasons for opposing it. According to King, the war was diverting the Poverty program funds set up to help the poor of America. He rejected the war on grounds that the US was sending black men to fight a war “to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem” ( King, 1967, p.3). This view is echoed by Stokely in stating that “any time a black man leaves the country where he can’t vote to supposedly deliver the vote to somebody else, he’s a black mercenary”(1966. p.7). King also attributes the American support to the French for the re-conquest of Indo-China as another reason why he opposed the war as it militates against American values of democratic rights for everybody. King also accused the US government of supporting a vicious dictator Diem to run Vietnam, which was rightfully opposed by the people of Vietnam who do not have the support of China but were indigenous communists. With this, King honestly believes that the Vietcong was a revolutionary government seeking self-determination. While the thrust of Stokely’s speech is on Black rights with Vietnam as one of the issues, King’s entire speech is predicated on the opposition to the Vietnam War and his reasons for doing so.

While some of the reasons of both the leaders are morally valid, some perceptions show gaps in their information as to why America went to war. The chief reason why the US intervened in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism throughout Southeast Asia. The fear was that Southeast Asian countries would fall like a stack of Dominoes to communist ideology if Vietnam was allowed to become a communist state. This ‘Domino theory’ was the most important reason for America to go to war. What Stokely and King did not know was that the US intelligence had positive documented information of massive covert Soviet support to the Viet Cong to carry out the revolution. The third important cause was the impending defeat of the South Vietnamese forces, a US ally which could not be allowed. Thus the dictates of the defined global strategy of Containment of the Soviets was the prime mover for US involvement in the Vietnam War, a fact not sufficiently underscored by both the African American leaders who continued to look through the prism of morality and Human Rights.

Works Cited

Carmichael, Stokely. 1966. “Black Power”. Transcription by Eidenmuller, Michael E. 2007. Web.

King Martin Luther. 1967. “To Atone for our Sins and Errors in Vietnam”. 2008. Web.

The war in Vietnam demonstrated that there are limitations to a military superpower’s capabilities. This is a lesson the defunct Roman Empire never learned and a similar fate waits America if it continues to repeat the same mistake that was Vietnam such as the one in Iraq. The same mentality that would have the US still in Vietnam led us to an unnecessary war in Iraq.

During the Vietnam era, the neo-conservatism movement expanded due to the political polarization occurring in the country between the anti-war, anti-American sentiments of the counterculture and neo-cons who championed blind patriotism. Neoconservatives were not collectively for the expansion or continuance of the war but they were united in their fear that communism would spread. The term ‘domino theory’ was used quite often by the neo-cons to justify America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia. If Vietnam fell to the communists, they reasoned, the remainder of the region would be systematically consumed by the ‘Red Menace.’ Some of the Vietnam era neo-cons, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, went to the right opposing domestic spending; advocating tax reductions for the wealthy and an attack-first, ask questions later mentality. Though domestic issues were once a rallying point then abandoned by contemporary neo-cons, foreign-policy matters invoked the most emotion therefore attention from this group. They reasoned then, as they do now, that foreign affairs were a more important consideration for national discussion because the very survival of the nation was at stake. “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 sharply divided the country but neo-cons, even the ones who were less than hawkish, were always on the defensive regarding the consequences of losing to communism. When war opponents voiced the opinion that communism wasn’t the most imperative concern, that American imperialism and expansionistic tendencies were the big issue, neo-cons were quick to rebuke what they thought was unpatriotic rhetoric. This same rhetoric echoed throughout the Iraq war during the Bush administration.

The hard lesson learned, seemingly, from America’s involvement in Vietnam was that possessing an overwhelming military force does not guarantee victory. Though three million enemies were killed compared to 58,000 on the American side, the ‘big dog’ in the fight eventually had to run home with its tail between its legs, beaten and humiliated. Thanks to the unprecedented media covering the truth of the war, the U.S. rapidly lost credibility worldwide including within the borders of its own country. The war in Iraq has only exacerbated this loss of credibility and has reproved that the belief that a technologically advanced military machine combined with the world’s mightiest economic power is adequate to conquer any enemy is only a dangerous delusion (Adhikari, 2004)

The war in Vietnam could not have produced a more poignant or pronounced message but has been ignored to the peril of American prestige and respect throughout the world and to its military, economy, security and young soldiers lives. ‘Never again’ was the national mantra following the Vietnam War. It’s shamefully ironic that the generation that lived through the Cold War, even the neo-cons, should have understood this sentiment the most but is the ones that are repeating the same mistake.

Works Cited

Adhikari, Gautam. “American Power: The End of the Unipolar Myth.” International Herald Tribune / YaleGlobal. (2004). Web.

Muravchik, Joshua. “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism.” Commentary Magazine. (2007). Web.

Introduction

The onset of the Vietnam War exposed the vagaries in the American political and administrative systems in terms of issues of diplomacy, presidency, and even in cultural and social matters. The social-political undertones that played out during the war outlined some of the salient administrative issues in the American government. This work seeks to offer a consummate discourse on the issues of diplomacy, presidential leadership, and the social issues that played out during the Vietnam War.

Diplomacy

The Paris peace endorsed in 1973 by the Nixon administration effectively ended the war. Activists had earlier condemned roundly, the diplomatic solecism under the Kennedy administration fuelled the flames of the war. Very prominently, the American containment policy in Vietnam appeared rather shaky to a region in which knowledge on democratic principles based on universal suffrage was inherently scanty.

The concept of statehood was nebulous to Southeast Asia, and the American diplomatic model was not patient enough to instill such knowledge into these societies. Pundits have invariably argued that the framework employed by the USA was rather confusing; a direct conflict was the least probable option since the USSR, the avatar of communism, was very unstable after the demise of its strongman Stalin. Incidentally, China was convalescing from the Korean War, and so the voice of communism defenders was essentially “inaudible” (Filipink, 2009).

Hixson (2010) asserts that the need to inject the template of the capitalism creed in Southeast Asia over the duration of time should have averted the war. Most prominently, the Kennedy administration should have committed itself to a policy of neutrality as entailed in the “Declaration for the neutrality of Laos.” Such diplomatic gaffes by the American government fuelled the hostility other than seeking the right way of asserting its authority over communism and its tenets. In summary, the USA noted that the policy of neutrality in any war or military engagement is very crucial.

-1+Presidency

The “burden” of the Vietnam War was heavily perched on the Kennedy administration. Considered as a novice and a political greenhorn, Kennedy’s diplomatic rubric and arrogance came into question during the Vietnam War. Kennedy openly supported the South Vietnam leader, Ngo Dinh Diem. International relations scholars have emphatically asserted that this was the first undoing of the American presidency. The administration got involved in the local politics directly, thus having exposed the US presidency to the ridicule of the very people whose support of the American administration was required in furthering their agenda (Hixson, 2010).

Engagement in the local political issues of any state should not be direct, to say the least. The decline of the popularity of the Diem administration due to its irrational decisions directly “reflected” onto the American presidency. The American presidency required the goodwill of the Southern Vietnamese to nip the wave of communism that was threatening to “bleach” the rule of law in the whole of Vietnam and so appearing to be directly engaged in the local issues interfered with the US engagement in the process. The American presidency has thus adopted the neutral policy that does allow the US military to engage in activities that seek to “preserve” human dignity, but not “install” individual interest (Moss, 2009).

Social issues

The Vietnam War was a subset of the Cold War. It was a proxy struggle between the “communist culture” and the advocates of the “capitalism society” as represented by the US. In the cultural context, the Vietnam War was pretty much justified by the American government. The US loathes the practice of communism; this culture is deeply despised in the American social facet. Nonetheless, the “uprooting” of the communist social-political culture had to be done (Hixson, 2010).

The salient lesson regarding the cultural context is to induce programs that “seep” into the social rubric with time. The USA has since perfected this framework in managing its influence in the geopolitical arena. Not all ideological differences should lead to armed struggles. These armed conflicts fronted very serious economic challenges to the American government. The lessons from Southeast Asia have led to the restructuring of the American social “restructuring” system and policy.

The intelligible model that the US employs in the current political dispensations is an improved version of the failed model used in Vietnam. Currently, these social issues are to be introduced as “support programs.” Such programs are essential in the establishment of a platform to inculcate those social issues without armed conflicts (Moss, 2009).

Summary

The manner in which history chronicles events provides humanity with a chance to learn and remodel their lives for the future. The historical lessons have enlightened me on the past events and the mistakes thereof. The studies of these slips have provided me with the opportunity to be able to be part of the correction for a better future. Concerning the issues of the Vietnam War, proper scheming in the establishment of proper diplomatic mechanisms is essential for solving ideological stalemates.

References

Filipink, R. M. (2009). America at the Brink of Empire: Rusk, Kissinger, and the Vietnam War by Serewicz, L.W. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20(1), 188-189.

Hixson, W. L. (2000). Leadership and diplomacy in the Vietnam War. New York: Garland Pub..

Moss, G. D. (2009). Vietnam: An American Ordeal. New York, NY: Prentice Hall PTR.

Different states choose to engage in wars with other states for various objectives. Majorly, governments may wish to take over other countries wealth. The underlying inspiration may be an economic motive to gain prestige upon taking over a country’s economy. Again, the urge to prove that a country is superior to the other triggers the start of a war. Nationalism may take the form of invasion of other states’ land to access territorial gain. Thus, war is usually fought against an opponent to achieve an objective and the opponent to protect their interests. The Vietnam War broke out after intensifying conflicts after a continuous cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Vietnam War was an expensive and hostile fight that forced the northern Vietnam socialist regime to battle against that of the south and its associate, the US. The war was aggressive and triggered massive killings, including the Americans. Notably, the Vietnamese were primarily affected by the fight, where nearly 3 million people died (Maclaren, 2019). The root cause of the war was during World War II upon Japanese forces invading Vietnam. A Chinese leader inspired by the Soviet Union and the Chinese, Ho Chi Minh, formed a union to aid the resistance against the French occupiers in Vietnam and the Japanese. He created the Viet Minh, which would earn the independence of Vietnam.

Following the defeat in World War II, the Japanese withdrew from Vietnam. Thus, only the French forces were left in Vietnam under the rule of Emperor Bao Dai (Maclaren, 2019). Upon seeing an opportunity to reign, Ho’s forces took over the north of Hanoi and declared it the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Ho Minh took over the northern part of Hanoi as the head of state. Later, France pressed to regain control over the region. To aid this, they supported Emperor Bao in setting up the Vietnam state with its capital, Saigon. Indeed, emperors Bao and France pressed to unite Vietnam (Maclaren, 2019). Both wanted a state with close cultural and economic relations with the Western countries. On the contrary, the Chinese leader wanted a nation molded after other communalist states.

The Chinese communist armies took over northern Vietnam. Southern forces’ massive conflicts began against the north from the southern troops until 1954, when Minh attained victory (Maclaren, 2019). Subsequently, Geneva Conference, a treaty, was signed to split Vietnam defining control of the north to Minh and Bao to the south. The following year, Dihn Diem, an anti-communist statesman, pushed aside Bao and became the head of the southern Vietnam state.

The United state’s policies were hardened while the cold war was rising. Training and equipment were offered to aid the Diem’s troops, forcefully regulating the Minh supporters, Viet Cong, who fought back in the south. To disrupt Minh’s supplies and prevent the rise of more communist militaries united states began bombardments. Hostility dominated northern and southern Vietnam for several years. Therefore, the United States and Vietnam North signed the ultimate peace treaty to calm the existing enmity.

Despite having a peace agreement, a war between the two divisions continued until Saigon was captured by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and renamed Minh City. The Vietnams population had suffered an overwhelming toll over two decades of violence. Massive deaths were experienced yearly, and more people were injured while others became refugees. Notably, the diplomatic relationship between Vietnam and the US resumed in the 1990s (Maclaren, 2019). Again, the country’s destroyed economy and infrastructure later on, were slowly reconstructed.

Reference

Maclaren, J. (2019). The Sino-Vietnam War and China’s long route to Winning. The Diplomat, 24.

Introduction

The Vietnam War was and is still considered the longest deployment of the U.S military in the history of U.S wars. It took place when John F. Kennedy was in power in the 1960’s. Over two thousand military soldiers were deployed to the South Vietnam where the number increased gradually over time.

President John Kennedy’s intention was to preserve an independent as well as a non communist state in South Vietnam but failed to do so due to the harsh resistance that he faced. The U.S, headed by president Dwight D. Eisenhower was unable to neither contain nor regulate small unit and terrorist attacks that were being carried out by troops popularly known as Vietcong (Brocheux, 2007).

A diplomatic negotiation is a term used to describe the process where different countries carry out a dialogue with the aim of generating a consensus. During the talks that preceded the Vietnam War, an agreement appeared to have been reached by the negotiating parties, or so it seemed. The sham peace deals and fabricated diplomatic dialogues bore no fruit but resulted to false results and hope. The war took a turn for the worse when U.S. reinforced its military grip and they dug their claws deeper into North Vietnam.

It was the year 1967 that beckoned the birth of the failed negotiations that would result in massive losses to both parties involved in the Vietnam War. However, the real trouble begun brewing two years earlier. In 1965, the year that the last of the rational diplomatic negotiations appeared to have taken place, Premier Pham Van Dong established the four point program that sought to weaken the hold of the U.S on Vietnam (Palmer, 1978).

The recommendations appeared to bring bad taste in the mouths of those in U.S., and they did not let the moment slip right through their fingers. They retaliated by saying that the recommendations were undemocratic as they insinuated that the National Liberation Force was the only representative of the Vietnamese People. At this point, no agreement could be reached and both parties resorted to taking matters into their own hands (Herring, 1979).

The Vietnam War seemed to have begun with the ‘honorable’ intentions of serving the American people’s interests but as is the case with any war, its brutal aftermath brought about both cultural and social devastation among people. It brought about social unrest among students and the young activists who frantically campaigned for the end of the killing of innocent persons in Vietnam (Moss, 2010).

In the U.S., the deep hatred for the way the war had been conducted and the way it had ended caused the people to give a cold welcome to their troops as they came back from the war. The war also caused the American people to lose faith in their leaders when they learned that Lyndon Johnson had lied to them regarding the war.

Back in Vietnam, the war had catalyzed the defeat of the South and its subsequent absorption by the North which had been persistently seeking to impose its will on the South. Millions of Vietnamese were killed, displaced and some were even completely disabled as a result of the war.

To date, vast acres of land still remain wasted as they were destroyed by the poisonous herbicides that were used during the war and the government of Vietnam still struggles to cope with the needs of its people (Moss, 2010). In a nut shell, the Vietnam War brought more harm than good both to the people of America as well as the Vietnamese.

Presidential leadership during the Vietnam War can be explained in ways such as the ethics and efforts that were put to ensure that peace was restored.

President Kennedy had been advised by France president Charles de Gaulle that he would not succeed even if he injected more funds and soldiers into North Vietnam. In the period between 1961 and 1963 his military advisors had requested him to send combat divisions instead of the so called advisors to aid the Diem government.

President Kennedy was in support of a coup where Diem together with his brother died. However, he did not last long in the war as he was assassinated three weeks later. Lyndon Johnson took over and was in power when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution took place. He sent the first combat troops to Vietnam with hope that North Vietnam would give up and surrender to peace talks.

Richard Nixon succeeded Johnson by claiming he had a secret plan to the war. He intended to train South Vietnamese and slowly pulling out American troops (Neale, 2001). Vietnam was headed by Eisenhower who reigned from 1953 to 1961. He did not support the Geneva Accords that were between Vietnam and France thus, led to the division of the country into two, North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

South Vietnam was ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem who won the elections and later on claimed that his country was under communist attack. This marked the beginning of the Vietnam War in 1957 and Diem imprisoned all those who were suspected to belong to the communist and this led to demonstrations and protests (Brocheux, 2007).

In conclusion, both the U.S. and the Vietnam governments have a lot to ponder regarding the outcome of the Vietnam War. Years have gone, but people are still agonizing from the effects of the war. Proper negotiations and good governance should be embraced before any war is embarked on, in order to avoid a repeat of what was witnessed during the Vietnam War.

References

Brocheux, P. (2007). Ho Chi Minh: a biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herring, C. (1979). America’s longest war: the United States and Vietnam 1950–1975 New York: Wiley publishers.

Moss, G. (2010). Vietnam: An American Ordeal (6^th Ed). Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.

Neale, J. (2001). The American War. London: Bookmarks.

Palmer, D. (1978). Summons of the Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective. Novato: Presidio Press.

Introduction

Indeed, the just war wage policies (JWPs) were famous with the Vietnam War of 1961-64. However, it can be critically argued that the JWPs might fail in certain war cases owing to several challenges such as terrorism, lethal weapons, and genocide issues, which render this policy ineffective.

Therefore, it is important to re-think whether this policy was actually important in the Vietnam war, and through such analysis, the scholars of history might be in a position to advise policy makers to either adopt or reject this war strategy.

Analysis of the JWPs in the Vietnam War of 1961-64

The just wage war policy can be analyzed under different contexts. First, it is important to argue that the policy constitutes jus ad bellum, which justifies the underlying principles and reasons of taking the war advances.

In addition, the study can be centered on the principle of jus in bello, which deals in justices concerning war conducts. Another principle to be analyzed under the JWPs approach in the Vietnam War is that of jus post bellum, which is concerned with war conclusions as well as the establishments of the peace settlement programs after the war (Biondi 119).

In essence, the analysis of JWPs in this war would entail critical exploration of the jus in bello, with the aim of determining the combatants and non-combatants, and this is important in the sense that it makes it possible to prevent unnecessary loss of life among the innocent civilians. This principle is directly linked to that of jus ad bellum, which can be used to ascertain the causes that justified the conflicting countries to go into war (Biondi 120).

In this analysis, the focus is not centered on rejecting or disapproving the relevance of the just wage war policy in the Vietnam’s case, but the essence is to establish its effectiveness in achieving the intended goals. For instance, the JWPs in the Vietnam War led to loss of lives among innocent citizens, thus it would be important to rethink or even revise this policy approach.

Besides, it is important to incorporate religious variants as well as secure elements when addressing the suitability of adopting the JWPs in the Vietnam War since elements of moral and justice should not be overlooked when countries are going into war (Evans 1).

Such loss of lives and destruction of property do not justify a country to engage in war activities. Therefore, war should be adopted as the last resort, only if all the possible non-violent choices have been fully exhausted (Blattberg 12).

Examples that linked directly to JWPs in the Vietnam War

Even though the democratic South Vietnam, under the support of the United States refused to comply with the communist North Vietnam’s request to unite Vietnam as one country, the latter with the backing of other communist countries were not justified in waging war against the former.

Under this, the support against the implementation of the JWPs can be evidenced in the sense that there were other possible avenues to address the concerns, which might include the non-governmental organizations, religious based organizations, and International Law on Human Rights (ILHR).

Another example was witnessed when North Vietnam attacked the United States in 1964 (Daryl 592). Though, the American governments could argue that the war was justified in this case since the North Vietnamese interfered with their sovereignty, but still there were other avenues to address the issues and reach a peaceful agreement under the international law (Walzer 1).

In sum, the adoption of the JWPs in the Vietnam War was not appropriate in the sense that it failed to establish a permanent agreement between the North and the South Vietnamese. Moreover, it did not take into account the justice and moral principles, thus it violated the fundamental human rights. Therefore, it should have just been adopted as the last resort.

Works Cited

Biondi, Carrie-Ann 2007, Rethinking the Just War Tradition. Web.

Blattberg, Charles 2009, Taking Politics Seriously. Web.

Daryl, Charles 2005, Just-War Moral Reflection, the Christian, And Civil Society. Web.

Evans, Mark 2005, Just War Theory: A Reappraisal. Web.

Walzer, Michael 2003, The United States in the World – Just Wars and Just Societies. Web.

Introduction

Leading historical scholars term the Vietnamese war an accident while accusing United States for its contribution. The war did bring controversies nationally and internationally. The controversy was because of some faction supporting it whiles the rest opposing it vehemently.

Interestingly, majority of the people who opposed the war were college students simply because, in one way or another, it affected their lifestyles. Unluckily, the war in Vietnam occurred during the periods when colleges and universities across Europe and America experienced unprecedented student unrest over social, political and economic issues affecting their respective countries.

In many occasions, the government forced many students out of school and go to fight their enemies. Ultimately, they realized how wasted they had become due to lack of education. The paper examines what conspired college students to go on rampage because of the Vietnamese war. Additionally, the paper will also examine the social and political outcomes from the Vietnam War whether it was for good or the worst. (Student Unrest, (n.d.), Para. 1-3).

Student Unrest and the Vietnam War

There are numerous reasons that led to the war in Vietnam. Other than nations fighting for supremacy, the concept of one nation targeting to be a superpower clearly depicted out. Many American felt that the involvement of United States in Vietnam War was an ill motive meant to subject Americans into social and economic hardships. The American government drafted a military paper, which became an official government policy demanding all male persons who are over eighteen years old to offer military service to their country.

Further, the policy continued by setting up a time framework of two years that all new recruits would serve as United States soldiers. Nevertheless, there was one exemption from serving as a soldier. This was only a short-lived period because, the draft allowed college students to finish their education first and then enter the military. This increased tension among students especially when they neared graduation date. The fear to go to Vietnam and participate in a war that many believed America will inevitably lose, continued to engulf their life even more. The policy had become a law and no male person of over eighteen years old, was exempt to fight in Vietnam.

The law of casualty applied heavily in that, as one became older and older, the chances of going to Vietnam continued to increase. This left then with only two options. The first one was of course to run away from their countries to evade this dilapidating government responsibility.

In fact, many students after completing college moved to Canada to seek refuge instead of going to Vietnam to fight a war so controversial. The second option available for students to choose was to participate in national protests, as a way of forcing United States Congress to change the policy draft. (Marc, 2001, pp. 1-53). Interestingly, many students who decided not to flee to Canada to seek asylum opted to cause unrest to achieve their mandate. (Pike, 2009, Para. 1-37).

For example, in states like San Francisco, many students went into the streets holding peaceful demonstrations. However, the demonstrations turned student rioting where police officers dispersing the protesters decided to kill some. No sooner had police officers killed student protesters, than the war escalated even more. It had now become an internal war, which many believed would not end soon.

The protesters continued to carry out their protests as normal just because; they had a strong believe that they were not supposed to die for something, which majority of Americans rejected vehemently. Student unrest continued each day drawing more support from the public.

The number of young men and women, who did not attend colleges due to financial hardships, was thrice that of college students thus, many went to fight in a war they had little faith. Statistics indicate over two million youthful Americans participated in the Vietnamese war leaving about 58, 000 of them dead. Financial costs soared to the highest level leaving many Americans to languish in poverty. As a result, government ratings declined heavily thus affecting its popularity.

Political and Social Outcomes of the War

United States suffered greatly from the war in Vietnam. So many Americans died in Vietnam while politically, America became more sidelined by many countries. United States Treasury under the direction of President Johnson spent more and more money without providing a tangible solution on how the government will meet the expenses.

Although he created many national programs, federal deficit and high inflation rates resulted, leading to slouching of American economy. Many Americans lost confidence in their leaders and the government in general. To many Americans, political leaders had become liars and elements of dishonesty never to entrust with high positions. For example, the emergence of President Nixon’s scandal and the appointment of Ford as the President increased public distrust even more to unprecedented scales.

It reached a point where Congress had to save the public from similar political and social abuses. For example, Congress enacted a bill requiring the executive first, to inform Congress before sending troops to participate in any war. Moreover, Congress must first analyze the situation within two months before vetoing any go ahead to the executive. Although many Americans had died in Vietnam, United States Congress dodged the draft saving many young Americans who would have died in the war. (Zelizer, 2007, Para. 2-22).

In conclusion, soldiers who survived from Vietnam War did not receive finicky recognition at home because; many Americans never liked America’s involvement in Vietnam War. The society despised these soldiers although forced by the government to go and fight in Vietnam.

Even up to today, many Americans still do not understand why America decided to fight in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Vietnam War still serves a lesson to any American government and the public at large, with optimism of learning from past slip-ups, which led to political and social problems.

Reference List

Marc, J.G. (2001). The Vietnam War on campus: other voices, more distant drums. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Pike, J. (2009). Vietnam War. GlobalSecurity. Web.

Student Unrest. (n.d.). Web.

Zelizer, J. (2007). How Congress Helped End the Vietnam War. The American Prospect. Web.

In spite of the fact that history is constantly repeating itself and the sad lessons that then next generation is about to learn, in fact, do not differ from the ones taught to the ancestors, people go on and on making the same mistakes. That goes for all wars that have ever been carried out on the Earth, and the Vietnam War is of no exception. One of the hardest questions that have ever occurred as the war broke out was why – why it all had to start. It was needless, useless and frightening; yet it was, as shocking and daring as it could be.

There are many points of view on what has happened during the long eleven years of fighting. It could be a good idea to take a closer look at all of them, analyzing the ideas that underlay them – if war could have something that underlay it. The brilliant scheme worked by Napoleon was supposed to be of great help to the general, the commanders and their troops.

Starting from the very bottom of the army roster, that is, from the soldiers, it would be important to say that these people fought basically because they were said to do so. Inflamed by the ideas of the patriotic behavior and the mission of protecting the interests of the native land, the American soldiers were eager to start the battle. However, they soon felt that there was something wrong about the whole situation.

With Moss’s book, it becomes clear that the battalion commanders knew only what was going on below, where the warriors were serving their country and doing their prior duty. They were merely the people who were acting according to the orders that were coming from the upper circles.

The same went for the individual commanders. They were aware of what they were supposed to as it came to the war and the strategy of the future actions, but that was as far as their plans went. The individual commanders were supposed to create the plans that would make the warriors stronger and create the system of the actions that could make the American troops benefit in the battle. Their prior goal was to build up a strong army of soldiers that could fight decently and make the country win in this fight, wherever it could take them.

It was a bit more complicated with General Westmoreland. In fact, he was the backbone of the whole idea and it was him to command to the whole army and the officers. The commanders followed his orders, and he was the brain of the tactics of the war. However, that did not mean that he persuaded the economical interests that actually lay in the basis of the war.

What was the goal that he pursued? Was it just making an advertising campaign of his own personality, as Moss suggests? For there was no actual reason for the war to get started. As Addington suggested, this could be an extremely complicated strategy of the general that put the campaign at such risks and proved wrong for the thousands of people.

By the time President Johnson had decided to commit a large American ground force to the defense of the ROV, Westmoreland had conceived of a three-stage strategy for using it. (Addington 2000, 88)

Why did it end in the failure? Was it the fact that the soldiers were not trained well enough? The very fact seems absurd. Just as insane sounds the idea that the equipment of the American soldiers was worse than the one of the Vietnamese. Perhaps, that was the lack of certain something that the Vietnamese had. It is not for the sake of the word that Moss emphasizes,

From the gaining of their independence in 939, the Vietnamese endured a precarious national existence. They were threatened eventually by powerful foes, particularly China, the colossus of the North. Internally, Vietnam was frequently ruled by inept leaders, riven by civil wars, and suffered from a fragmentation of power. But the Vietnamese managed to maintain their independence for over 900 years. (Moss 2010, 6-7)

It all started to fall apart when people understood that there was something unsaid about the whole business.

“I cannot seem to convince the embassy that this is Vietnam – not the United States”, said Diem at the beginning of August 1963” (Moyar 2006, 229) – this phrase was the first sign of the fact that there was something deeply wrong about the whole idea of the war.

Every single citizen in the US started having doubts of whether the war was held the way it was described. The tragic consequences have not been forgotten, but in the light that Moss has shed on the war and its idea, they seem in quite different way. What goal did Robert McNamara pursue in this puzzle? What was his prior aim?

McNamara was desperate to end the war, and repeatedly implored me to extract from my invisible interlocutions any hint, however oblique, that would enable him to promote the cause of a negotiated outcome. (Kissinger 2003, 42)

A brilliant strategist, President Johnson was the Napoleon in this game for the power. Lyndon Johnson was the one who knew exactly every single detail about the idea of the war and the goals that the country was pursuing. He thought that he had calculated everything, but, unfortunately, his plans went wrong when he did not suppose anything or anyone to fail.

The Colossus took a step on his feet of clay, swayed in the air for a second and collapsed with a terrible racket. That was the battle that could not end in victory. The stakes were high, but there were too many things that the government did not take into account, among then the mentality of the people that they were going to fight with.

The idea of the orders delegated from the upper part of the governmental pyramid to its bottom, the basis of the war – the soldiers, was more than brilliant – it was genial, for it was the genius of Napoleon who created it. The American strategists improved it, creating the specific routes for the military actions and making the whole scheme closer to the present days, yet preserving the idea of the war held with the fierce temper of a tiger.

Rather unexpectedly, this proved to be a failure. However, there was nothing to blame the structure that Napoleon created for. The main reason for the defeat was the miscalculation that the government made when thinking through the strategy for the battle. The Communist forces that the American troops were to meet in June were the last straw that broke the camel’s neck.

Since it was understood quite well from the very beginning that the whole war was a big and tragic mistake for the entire United States, the actions that have been undertaken were the very kind of bravery that was supposed to show that even when losing, there must be the spirits kept up. And the top, the government and the structures that it was connected to, had a perfect view of the war result, with all the tragic consequences.

Once trying to get their brilliant idea to working, the government forgot about the fact that these were actually live people whom they were against, and their prior arms were live people as well. There are certain things that have to be remembered despite the bitter feeling they cause. Otherwise, the next generation will make the same mistake once again. Thus, people have to keep in mind all the things that they have learned from the past experiences, and derive the necessary lessons from these events.

References

Addington, L. H. (2000) America’s War in Vietnam: A Short Narrative History. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Kissinger, H. (2003) Ending the Vietnam War: A History of America’s Involvement in an Extrication from the Vietnam War. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Moss, G. (2010) Vietnam: An American Ordeal, 6^th Edition. London: Pearson Publishing

Moyar, M. (2006) Triumph Forsaken. The Vietnam War, 1954-1965. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.