The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 Is a Turning Point in Vietnam War

Vietnam War is the American’s longest war. During the war, there were many turning points that influenced on the flaw of it and “changed its direction”. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that occurred in August 7, 1964, was one of the major turning points in the United States military involvement into the flow of the Vietnam War.

The official title of the resolution was The Joint Resolution to Promote the Maintenance of International Peace and Security in Southeast Asia. George Moss (2010) mentions that “the key language in the 300-word document that granted Johnson the constitutional authority he later used to wage a war in Vietnam” (p. 173).

The Resolution was not just another event in the history of the United States, it was really a major turning point because in has a great “impact on the Ohioans many of whom were members of the armed forces during the Vietnam War. Bealsville, Ohio, lost more people per capita in the Vietnam War than any other community in the United States” (“Gulf of Tonkin Incident”, 2005).

In addition, Resolution also had a historical significance as this allowed the presidents greatly increase the involvement of the U.S. in the South Vietnam and have an “uncontrolled” interference in the war actions between South and North Vietnam, including the armed forces. The number of American troops there became more than 500,000. This led to enormous losses. More than 55,000 Americans who were engaged in fighting had been killed, as well as thousands of Vietnam people.

The events preceding the Resolution were very important. First of all, after the Kennedy’s death, Johnson assumed the presidency and pro-American military leadership replaced the governing of Diem. The year 1964 was the year of elections and Johnson needed to “neutralize” Goldwater somehow. So, he stood against the “Communist threat” in Vietnam.

It was announced that two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy, were attacked by the Vietnamese forces, though the United States did not provoke these attacks. But, actually, “the United States provoked these attacks when they supported South Vietnamese commandos by letting them use American worships to identify North Vietnamese radar stations”. (Moss, 2010, p. 458).

These events were named “the Gulf of Tonkin Incident” that permitted to accept the Resolution that worked as a legal justification of the president’s actions directed on the increasing of the American participation in the war.

The events that were caused by this Resolution also were significant. First of all, it convinced American people in the fact that the Congress was confident in Johnson and his poll number quickly rose from 42 to 72 %, moreover, he got an individual power.

Later, the Americans realized that they deceived. Cynthia Ann Watson (2002) says that “ The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution has had memorable effect on U. S. national security policy” (p. 170). After the events caused by resolution, many questions aroused about the real course of those events.

Many scientists assume that there were no the second attack. Moreover, the outcome of the conflict “made the Congress less willing to grant wide military power to the executives. (Watson, 2002, p. 170). So, it influenced on the structure of the decision-making process and until G.W. Bush none of the U.S. presidents had a complete and unquestioned support from the Congress.

So, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was one of the major turning points in the history of the USA that greatly influenced on the flow of the Vietnam War increasing the involvement of the American troops in the war. This Resolution was preceded by important events and it had no less important consequences.

References List

Gulf of Tonkin Incident. (2005). Ohio History Central. Web.

Moss, G. D. (2010) Vietnam: An American Ordeal. 6th Ed. New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Watson, C. A. (2002). U.S. National Security: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Views on Vietnamese War in the Revisionism School

The Vietnamese War is one of the hotly contested debates among political scientists, historians and even journalists. In the event of hot debates, different personalities induce different ideologies creating different schools of thought. From orthodox to revisionism, there are still contentious issues on who was responsible for the war in Vietnam and why America decided to chip in.

It is now apparent to articulate that, the ongoing conflicting discussions have led to the creation of various schools of thought with different and divergent views about the Cold War. This comprises of orthodox, revisionism and post-revisionism schools of thoughts regarding Vietnamese war. The paper will only consider revisionism as a school of thought about Vietnamese war.

Many historians and political scientists do not understand why United States involved itself in Vietnamese War. Its intrusion into the Soviet Union brought more harm than good according to some historians, while others see it an advantage. Revisionist views forms a critique about United States’ international affairs and its foreign policies especially during period of Cold War.

For example, revisionist writers argue that, United States used dubious diplomacy in breaking into Soviet Union’s crisis. United States policymakers enacted capitalistic laws, which led to Americans accessing foreign markets. Consequently, this led to the expansion of America’s economy leading to internal power emancipation.

Revisionists from Vietnam accuse America’s war strategies and vehemently discarding liberal orthodox while citing America as the bulwark of the Indochina war. Historian argues that, beside numerous mistakes from United States, its foreign polices lacked correct facts. Moreover, the policies represented miscalculations, blunders and inaccurate interpretations concerning the war.

For example, the creation of free markets was a sign of capital imperialism under gorgeous idealistic perceptions. In addition, political intervention from United States brought not only bureaucracy into Vietnam’s domestic politics but also created ethnocentrism.

According to revisionists, America would not have involved itself in Vietnamese War. There was all manner and idealistic modalities to avoid its involvement. Liberal realist viewpoints indicate that, American policymakers made errors by thinking that the war was important to the affairs of United States. If these policymakers accessed both security and economic curiosities, then national revolution would not have resulted. United States relied on past war experiences before making an adventure into Vietnam War.

Another important viewpoint to note is that, America depicted defiant behavior and prudent intentions to Vietnamese War. Selfish interests like being concerned about their economy led to creation of open foreign markets for business and agricultural commodities. The global hegemony of United States kept rising with the expansion of its economy making many countries to fear them. In one way, America had gained autonomous authority with majority. According to revisionists, this was a bad impression.

According to revisionists, America’s judgmental mistakes were because of emotions rather than analyzing the situation on the ground first. It is through this reasoning that, revisionists do not see any reason of America involving itself into Vietnam War. They see President Roosevelt as an opportunist and a figure of capitalism thus terming executive powers duplicitous. American diplomacy tactics meant to impose American policies abroad selfishly.

In conclusion, though there are divergent views concerning America’s involvement in Vietnam War, both liberal revisionists and orthodox views are the same especially in accusing America’s stake in the war. United States foreign policy led to enactment of a policy leading to America’s involvement in Vietnam.

Though United States did not involve itself into the war in order to break the dominance of Soviet Union, it wanted to gain politically and economically. Through this horrendous tactic, military war ensued resulting to Vietnamese War and Soviet Union separation move. Nevertheless, the Cold War was has all to answer on who was to be the next super power and biggest world’s economic hub.

Stories From the Vietnam War

What do stories related by soldiers who fought in Vietnam tell you about the experiences of soldiers in Vietnam? How was this war different from World War II?

The Vietnam War turned out to be one of the most tragic experiences of the twentieth century. Not only did it bring about death and sorrow inherent in any war, but it also led to dramatic social consequences and resulted in radical divisions among American families, communities, and the whole nation (Davidson et al., 2008).

Opinions split as for the essence and necessity for the war, and the nation’s spirits dropped as thousands of American soldiers were perishing in a foreign land for no obvious reason. In the dissonance of opinions on the Vietnam War, it appears reasonable to turn to the first-hand experiences of the veterans and to draw real-life information from their stories.

When reviewing the Vietnam soldiers stories published on The Vietnam Experience (2008) and Vietnam Stories Regarding War (2010) websites, one gets the general impression of depression and disappointment that characterize the veterans. Most of them confess that the Vietnam War has left an indelible imprint on their outlook and character, with some people getting stronger, others being weakened and destroyed for decades onwards (Vietnam Stories Regarding War, 2010).

Joe Galloway confesses that for many of them the Vietnam War was “everything”, a defining moment in life that worked later on as a prism through which they judged the world (Vietnam Stories Regarding War, 2010). Roland Rocheleau’s memories reveal the hypocrisy and the lack of professionalism in the army officials who conducted show visits and prohibited taking pictures of real-life Vietnam (Vietnam Stories Regarding War, 2010).

The same indignation at the mendacity of motives and tendency for disinformation among the official press is seen in Edward Ewing’s sketch: a journalists jumps into the safety of the helicopter out of turn and intends to simply brag his own deeds instead of objectively recording the army’s courage; a lieutenant colonel is awarded a medal although he was never present at the battlefield (The Vietnam Experience, 2008).

Such injustice could not be overlooked by the soldiers who fought to their last breath for ideals of democracy.

The abovementioned attitude of emotional rejection constitutes the core difference between the Vietnam War and the World War II. As contrasted to American fight against fascism for the greater good of the whole planet during the Second World War, the war in Vietnam appears a violent and unwelcome intrusion into a totally foreign territory which neither asked for help from outside nor needed it.

The disturbed American society experienced economic and spiritual downturn, as the war overseas echoed in the domestic unrest (Davidson et al., 2008). The most dramatic part was that those soldiers who survived the terrors and injustice of war on the battle field returned home only to be met with the same injustice there. Contrary to the elevated moods that ruled the world after the victory over fascism, no triumphant reception of war veterans was held after the Vietnam War.

According to the testaments of ex-soldiers, they faced distrust and ignorance from the civilians only for doing what they were told to (Vietnam Stories Regarding War, 2010). This cold and blaming attitude led to a huge social disaster of the Vietnam veterans who could never resume normal peaceful life again. In addition to the ghosts of the war horrors, they were haunted by public ostracism and condemnation which made their lives miserable and senseless.

References

Davidson, J., DeLay, B., Heyrman, C., Lytle, M. & Stoff, M. (2008). Nation of Nations. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

The Vietnam Experience. (2008). Web.

Vietnam Stories Regarding War. (2010). Web.

Hanoi and Washington: The Vietnam War

Introduction

Vietnam War was a long time tussle between the northern and the southern region of Vietnam which culminated into one of the bloodiest wars of the time. America played a dominant role in this particular war with Hanoi and Washington waging war in an attempt to ensure that Vietnam was free from the domination of foreigners. This paper seeks to compare the ability of Hanoi and Washington in waging the war successfully.

Background Information

The Vietnam War was a conflict that was military in nature, occurred between the years 1954 and 1975, and was between the communists and the non-communists. The communists received immense support from China while the non-communists were supported by America.

The first war that preceded the Vietnam War was known as Indochina War where the Southern part of Vietnam was fighting to prevent from being united with the northern part under the policies of communism. When this war ended, these two factions were kept apart to prevent further damage and they were expected to remain that way until the next elections were held.

The Paris Agreement

In the year 1973, an agreement known as the Paris agreement was signed and this was meant to end the more than a decade war between the South Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese. Under this agreement, there are various issues that were agreed upon with Hanoi and Washington each stating their position regarding the issue.

There was an acrimonious agreement between Hanoi and Washington in the signing of the agreement although parties understood this agreement could have far-reaching consequences to both the North and the South Vietnam.

Though Hanoi and Washington were aware that this agreement could bring problems to the already warring factions, the events that had taken place earlier both parties to the agreement that such a move was the only way out considering the surrounding circumstances.

The provisions of the agreement were quite vague and thus not workable with both Washington and Hanoi ignoring the necessary factors of the agreement. To both parties, the most important aspect of the agreement at the time was to fulfil certain purposes for each side.

Washington on one hand was concerned in having the American prisoners released as well as being able to formally withdraw from participating ion the Vietnam and marinating the credibility that America had during the Cold War.

Hanoi on the other hand was more concerned on being able to force the forces from America to withdraw from the Vietnam War, ensuring that the revolution that was socialist in nature that was going to happen in North Vietnam was saved and being able to improve on prospects of reuniting the two warring factions.

Steps by Hanoi and Washington

In Washington, there was an elevation of diplomacy which was meant to ensure that the support that America was giving to South Vietnam was not in vain. Nixon, the then president of America placed great emphasis on steeping up diplomacy that there was manipulation of wars in Vietnam both in the air and the ground with the main aim being to ensure that the negotiation of the Paris were fulfilled.

Hanoi was in an equally swift move to ensure that all measures had been put in control. Diplomacy was also elevated but in this case, different strategies were adopted.

In the year 1972, having made keen observations of all that was taking place and with the flop of Spring Offensive came as a clear indication to Hanoi that it would not be practically possible to gain a victory through the military and that diplomacy was the only tool that they could use for an assured victory (Kissinger, 2003, p.543).

This was the same case with Washington who had realised that diplomacy was the only way that the bloody war which had lasted for so long could be ended with the terms and conditions being most favourable

The Paris Agreement had been signed by Washington and Hanoi with both parties being under extreme pressure due to all the surrounding circumstances one of them being military intervention. The Vietnam War had gone on for a very long time and thus had proven to be very costly for all the parties involved.

Neither of the parties seemed willing to back down on seeing their part of the bargain in the Paris Agreement being fulfilled. Hanoi was not accepting anything short of a solution that would serve to bring unity to the whole country of Vietnam (Kissinger, 2003, p. 456).

Due to the high cost that both parties encountered during the war, it became apparent that it would not be possible to fulfil some of the provisions of the agreement as each party was now concerned to ensue that their ambitions were met. Thus, the parties were only keen to honour the part of the agreement which favoured them while generally disregarding the letter and spirit of the agreement.

Interaction between Washington and Hanoi

These two sides had not always interacted or at least the interaction was not as frequent. It was only after the outcome of the Tet Offensive that the two sides began to hold talks both private and public.

For a period of close to years, the talks did not yield much other than the adoption of a decision to bring the bombing of Vietnam to an end. In the year 1970, Hanoi and Washington resumed talks and this time, they were more consistent and better outcome was realized. This is how the Paris Agreement of 1972 came to be.

Importance of Diplomacy in Vietnam War

As mentioned, there were a lot of negotiations and talks that were held between Hanoi and Washington regarding the Vietnam War. Looking keenly at all the vents that led to the Paris Agreement and later brought to and end decades of fighting between tow regions of one country, it is apparent that diplomacy was central in all these issued.

It is also argued by many scholars that the outcome of the Vietnam War was not as a result of the battles that were fought but more so, the diplomatic talks that were held between Washington and Hanoi (Levie, 2004, p.98). It was through the Paris Agreement that certain conditions were set and both parties were ready to out necessary measures in place to ensure that the war was brought to an end.

Conclusion

The Vietnam War was one of the bloodiest wars that were ever witnessed. This war saw a diplomatic clash of France and America both of whom had vested interests in Vietnam. However continued talks between America and France helped bring the Vietnam War to an end.

References

Kissinger, H. (2003). Ending the Vietnam War: a history of America’s involvement in and extrication from the Vietnam War. London: Simon and Schuster.

Levie, D. (2004). The Vietnam War. London: Twenty-First Century Books

Appy, C. and Bloom, A., Vietnam War Mythology and the Rise of Public Cynicism, 49-73

In this article, Appy and Bloom present a discussion with regard to the Vietnam War. In this discussion, there are arguments alluding to the fact that there were several myths presented by policy makers regarding the Vietnam War. There is convincing evidence that is presented to support the fact the information presented by the policy makers was mythological rather than factual. This evidence is revealed through concrete historical realities that have been used by Appy and Bloom to counter these misleading facts dubbed myths.

The first myth is that the intervention of the US in the Vietnam War was devoid of any political interests and colonial based ambition contrary to that of the French. This is a myth because the conquest of Vietnam by France was supported by America. The US had also refused to recognize Vietnamese independence.

The second claim is that regarding South Vietnamese nationhood. The US leadership maintained that Vietnam had been partitioned into two different nations by the Geneva accords and that the US was protecting South Vietnamese from being attacked by the North. Appy and Bloom refute this claim by asserting that Vietnam was not divided by the Geneva accord but rather by Viet Minh (communist-led). Also, the US opposed the ability of the two parts to be reunited.

The third claim that the two authors refute as a myth is that by American officials that they were guarding South Vietnam’s democracy and freedom. On the contrary, all South Vietnamese regimes supported by America exercised oppression, gross corruption and dictatorship.

Fourth, there’s the myth that portrayed South Vietnam to Americans as independent. Appy and Bloom argue that this cannot be true since the US supported South Vietnam in the military sense and in other aspects without which South Vietnam could have failed.

The fifth fact presented by Appy and Bloom as a myth is the one portraying the US military support to South Vietnam as mere assistance when the truth is that the American soldiers fought most of the battle and where the South Vietnam troops were used, they were fully funded and equipped by the US. Therefore, to say that the US was merely ‘assisting’ in the combat would be a lie since they were actively involved.

Sixth, Appy and Bloom also provide strong evidence to oppose the myth that there was economic modernization during the Vietnam War. Although South Vietnam was full of American aid, the truth is that it did not promote economic stability but rather led to inequalities and encouraged economic dependence. The creation of refugees and devastation of farmland encouraged rural – urban migration which resulted to prostitution, drug use and the black market (p. 57-58).

On the other hand, some aspects of the evidence presented by Appy and Bloom is not fully convincing. For example, in the myth of progress, there are two points that are not convincing enough. First, the authors are opposed to the myth that there was progress in the war and as such, the evidence given to oppose this myth should indicate points of defeat for the American troops in the war.

However, explanations such as US troops killed more people and that the blocking of the troops’ movement from the north towards the south was not effective are self defeating. This is because if the American troops succeeded in killing numerous bodies, that is a mark of progress.

Also, if they blocked troops from moving from north to south, it was an indicator of progress, only that it was not effective. Moreover, Appy and Bloom assert that some of the myths summarized above were outright lies. That means that not all the myths were lies, meaning that some were truthful and were therefore not myths.

Generally, most of the arguments presented by the authors are convincing, making a greater part of the work to hold water.

China’s Support for North Vietnam in the Vietnam War

Introduction

One of the major wars waged after the Second World War was the Vietnam War (1965-1968). The two major antagonists in this war were China which backed North Vietnam and the US which backed South Vietnam. This war was in actual sense a front from which an ideological war between China and America was waged.

China was keen on spreading communism while the US was equally keen on advancing capitalism or at least curbing the spread of communism. The then US president Lyndon Johnson adopted a policy favorable to South Vietnam. Therefore, the US extended its commitment to preserve the independence of South Vietnam from the communist threat that North Vietnam posed.

On the other hand, there existed a close relationship between North Vietnam and China. Evidence of this is present in the assurance from Chinese Leader Mao Zedong to the North Vietnamese that “your business is my business; my business is your business, we together will unconditionally fight America” (Bradley 9). China therefore vowed to support the north to whatever extents were needed. This paper shall analyze the specific manners in which China supported Vietnam in the course of the Vietnam conflict.

Reasons for Chinese Involvement and Support

A major result of World War two was the emergence of two Super Powers, The USA and the Soviet Union, both of which favored different political ideologies. While the US favored capitalism, the Soviet Union was pro communism and aimed to spread this ideology to its spheres of influence. One of the biggest allies of the Soviet Union was China which advocated for an even more radical implementation of communism.

China was committed to the idea of a communism which emphasized violent revolution and Vietnam presented a perfect ground from which China could propagate its ideology. In addition to this, China was even more determined that Moscow to spread the communism ideology everywhere. Aiding North Vietnam presented an immediate means through which China could oppose the US and as such, undermine capitalism.

Vietnam was the arena for China’s support for “wars of national liberation” and china encouraged North Vietnam to take on an aggressive course in the fight to unify the north and the south. As of the time of the war, the capital city of South Vietnam was Saigon while that of the North was Hanoi. US defense of South Vietnam was an expression of greater commitment to battle against Communism in Southeast Asia.

Another reason for the increased Chinese support of Vietnam was the deteriorating relationship between the Soviet Union and China. These Sino-Soviet tensions were brought about by ideological and political issues between the two communist states. This split between the Soviets and Chinese resulted in public criticism of each other’s policy and each party aimed to establish itself as the major communist power. For China, supporting Vietnam would reinforce its power and influence among the communist countries.

While it was possible to arrive at a political resolution of the Vietnam conflict, China firmly opposed any political settlement. This opposition was as a result of the realities from the First Indochina War which ended in 1954 with a decisive victory for Hanoi against the French. Following this victory, China and the Soviet Union had failed to support North Vietnam in their ambition to reunify Vietnam under communist rule.

This lack of support had resulted in North Vietnam failing in its unification attempts and Hanoi viewed this as a betrayal by their Communist comrades. With this historical backdrop, China was keen to ensure that North Vietnam did not lose out again since a loss would destroy Hanoi’s trust in China.

Ways in which China Supported North Vietnam

Even before the Vietnam War began, China had made it clear to the US that any military action against Hanoi would be considered as action against China and as such, China would give military support to North Vietnam. Actual Chinese support of North Vietnam began following the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which a US navy ship was engaged by North Vietnamese boats resulting in a sea battle.

Following this incident, America undertook reprisal air strikes against North Vietnam. The air strike code-named “Rolling Thunder” commenced on March 2, 1965 and its aim was to pressure Hanoi and Beijing into stopping their aggression against Saigon.

In response to this reprisal Beijing ordered Chinese air and naval units which were to the south of China to be ready for combat. In addition to this, a number of air divisions and anti-aircraft artillery divisions were deployed near the North Vietnam border. Dinglie and Kongjun document that China “sent some MIG-15 and MIG-17 jets to Hanoi to deter further U.S. escalation of the war”(385).

Weaponry plays a crucial role in all battle and the availability of surplus quality weapons often dictate which side emerges victorious. Under the terms of the 1954 Geneva Agreements, Hanoi was forbidden from increasing its military force. This meant that Hanoi had a limited supply of military forces and the international community was unwilling to supply Hanoi with military equipment.

As a result of this, North Vietnam was ill equipped for battle against the American backed South which had superior weaponry. The Chinese helped to equal the battle ground by supplying the North with better weapons. China ignored the arms embargo imposed against Hanoi and continued to supply significant amount of arms to the Northern forces. Shaplen reveals that the basic weapons for the North were Chinese-manufactured 7.62 millimeter family which were better than the traditional Vietnam guns (98).

In addition to this, China stepped up its efforts to train North Vietnamese soldiers into a professional modern force that could engage in combat with western forces (Zhang). This Chinese military hardware support to Vietnam was critical to Hanoi which had suffered from international isolation in the years leading up to the war.

Chinese support also included building of new infrastructure in North Vietnam to streamline the war efforts. China helped in the construction of roads in North Vietnam and an improvement of the railways. The roads serve as infiltration routes that helped to move Hanoi troops to the south in a bid to match the US escalation.

The railway lines were improved so as to handle the increasing flow of Chinese supplies to North Vietnam. Also, China undertook efforts to reinforce Hanoi’s defenses. In anticipation of a US amphibious assault, China engaged in the construction of defensive works in the northeast islands and the coast between Haiphong and Hon Gai (Shang, 748).

The Vietnam War was characterized by heavy bombardment of North Vietnam targets by American forces. This ever-widening pattern of bombing which aimed at weakening the North greatly damaged infrastructure and property. The North undertook projects to repair this extensive bomb damages. China assisted and as of 1965, Shaplen records that over 100,000 Chinese volunteers were involved in the repairing of bomb damages in North Vietnam (95).

In late 1965, Chinese troops were engaged in repairing a 554 kilometer stretch of railroad that had been damaged by US air attacks. Zhang highlights the effectiveness of Chinese repair efforts by revealing that while the rail complex at Kep was bombed nearly 50 times and was severely damaged from each strike, it was always quickly repaired and in fact remained operational for the entire duration of the air war (755).

In recognition of the aerial threat that US posed, China dispatched a fighter regiment which consisted of 36 MIGs to North Vietnam. These aircrafts were based a few miles outside the capital city of Hanoi and they were aimed at ensuring air defense in case of US invasion (Zhang 741).

In addition to this, China also sent a number of air force engineers to help with the upgrading of airfields which were meant to be used by jet fighters. Vietnamese pilots were also trained to operate the war planes in to enable them to wade of US aerial attacks. Zhang notes that while the presence of these Chinese-made MIGs would not pose any threat to the superior American air power in Vietnam, the fighter planes meant that any US air raids would carry with them a real risk of retaliatory attacks from North Vietnamese air force (741).

Supply routes are a critical resource in any war since they are the bloodline of the war. In the Vietnam War, the supply routes used by the Northern forces were under continued attacks from American bombardment. The Chinese troops helped to maintain the vital supply route from China to Vietnam (Gilbert 85). Before 1965, most supplies to Hanoi were by sea route. These same routes could not be used during the war since the US Navy launched a number of sea operations that effectively closed off the sea route for Chinese shipments.

Zhang documents that China build a special transport line that went to South Vietnam vie Cambodia for supplies to the Northern forces that were engaged in the region (749). When this route became inadequate due to the increased number of Northern forces in the South, China assisted Hanoi to improve the Ho Chi Minh Trail which traversed eastern Laos into South Vietnam (Rosenau).

The American forces made use of their air force for a number of tasks including: reconnaissance, attacks and transporting military personnel. To get to North Vietnam, US warplanes at times intruded into Chinese air space through the Hainan Island. While the Chinese initially ignored this intrusion on their air space, they changed their stance as the war intensified and their support for Hanoi soared. As of April 1965, the Chinese military had requested for permission to engage US warplanes that flew over China’s air space (Zhang 744).

Once this permission was granted, Chinese units extensively engaged US warplanes that got into China’s air space en route to North Vietnam. China asserted that these attacks on US warplanes were retaliatory action against an invasion of China’s air space and hence were to be viewed as China protective herself.

However, this was not entirely true since the US had in numerous occasions assured China that it had no intention of invading China. As a matter of fact, the warplanes took care not to hit any Chinese target and tried to steer off Chinese air space. The attacks on US warplanes were therefore action in direct support of North Vietnam which China considered to be a Comrade.

As US strikes against North Vietnam intensified, North Vietnamese leaders requested Beijing for a consignment of Chinese volunteer pilots and fighters in April 1965. Vietnam’s leader Le Duan’s stated that the presence of Chinese forces would not only assist in the defense of Hanoi from US air bombardment but it would also raise the morale of the Vietnamese people and therefore increase their likelihood of pushing on with their war efforts (Zhang 747).

In response to this request, China mobilized some of its troops for deployment in Hanoi. Shang states that the first Chinese deployment to Hanoi consisted of three special division sized units that were designated as “the Corps of the Chinese Rear Services” (125). Chinese fighters served as a strategic reserve that was to be used in the event of an American led invasion by the South into Hanoi.

These Chinese reserve forces were placed under the command of Hanoi greatly boasting the Northern military capacity. The deployment of Chinese troops had a number of positive implications for North Vietnam. To begin with, Chinese troops mitigated the escalation of the US war in Vietnam. In addition to this, Chinese forces took up the task of defending Hanoi and as such, Vietnamese troops were freed up to go to the South and engage in offensive action.

Discussion and Conclusion

Without a doubt, Chinese support to the North had huge implications on the War. To begin with, China’s support was unequivocal and even General Vinh who commanded the Northern Army acknowledge that “China gives us wholehearted support” (Shaplen 98).

Duiker notes that the goal of North Vietnam in the war was not to defeat its enemy but rather to prevent the US from controlling South Vietnam (30). As of the 1960s, North Vietnam was one of the world’s poorest nations lacking a modern army and without an arms plan, both of which were vital to the war effort. It is therefore inconceivable that Hanoi would have managed to achieve its objective without outside help.

It was China’s large scale infusion of aid that enabled North Vietnam to survive the war and indeed achieve its objectives. The huge support received by Vietnam from the Chinese was a direct attempt by China to stop the perceived spread of American imperialism and challenge the Soviet’s leadership of the International Communism movement. In addition to this, China was committed to the success of the war of national liberation that it encouraged Hanoi to engage in.

This paper set out to highlight how China supported North Vietnam in the Vietnam War. To this end, this paper has discussed the specific means through which China demonstrated its support for North Vietnam.

China made a promise that she would regard Vietnam’s problems as her own and was throughout the war the major ally for Hanoi. From the arguments presented in this paper, it is clear that Chinese assistance was crucial to the success of North Vietnam in the war and it is inconceivable that Hanoi would have faired as well as it did without Chinese support.

Works Cited

Bradley, Mark. Vietnam at war. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Dinglie, Wang and Kongjun, Zhongguo. “Modern Chinese Air Force”. Social Science Publisher, 1989.

Duiker, William. Waging Revolutionary War: The Evolution of Hanoi’s Strategy in the South, 1959-1965. Werner and Luu.

Gilbert, Marc. Why the North won the Vietnam War. Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Print.

Rosenau, William. . 2002. Web.

Shang, Like. Shedding Blood in Vietnam. Beijing: China Personal Press, 1993. Print.

Shaplen, Robert. Vietnam: Crisis of Indecision. Foreign Affairs, 2004.

Zhang, Xiaoming. “The Vietnam War, 1964-1969: A Chinese Perspective”. The Journal of Military History, Vol. 60, No. 4, 731-762.

French Involvement in Vietnam War

The Vietnam War or the Second Indochina War as it is also known has always been a subject of thorough historical research, especially the main causes of this conflict. There is a vast variety of books and research papers dedicated to this topic, However; we can single out some major ones, like for instance “Vietnam War. A History”, the book that was written by a prominent American journalist Stanley Karnow.

Even though in the overwhelming majority of cases, the author focuses attention on the history of Vietnam since the Involvement of the French troops in the nineteenth century, he also gives background information as to the struggles of the Vietnamese against the domination of China’s government.

The main peculiarity of this book is that the author tries to remain as objective as possible, overall, it is worth mentioning that “Vietnam War. A History” is believed to be the most unbiased book devoted to the conflict in Vietnam.

It is also worth mentioning that in the authors belief, Vietnam was like a tidbit for superpowers like for example the United States, the Soviet Union, or France.

The chapter, which is called “The War with the French” explores the factors, that contributed to the downfall of the French dominion in Vietnam. Moreover, the author analyzes the antebellum situation in the country, especially before the intervention of American troops.

According to Stanley Karnow, one of the main reasons for the war itself was the vast discrepancy that existed between Buddhist Vietnamese and Catholic Vietnamese in terms of social and financial status. Probably, to a certain degree, the war was triggered by this division of Vietnamese society. It should be mentioned that this problem was extremely acute at the end of French rule in the country.

The author believes that the French government made a great number of unnecessary steps after 1885 the year then France assumed almost entire control over Vietnam. First, they tried to impose a Western lifestyle in the country, which was not always appropriate. The French government turned Vietnam into a plantation economy country, which was undoubtedly very detrimental because such an approach gave no possibilities for further development. Moreover, the civil rights of Vietnamese people and their calls for autonomy were practically disregarded. It comes as no surprise that such policy sparked off a wave of protest. Forced labor, high taxes, and oppressive law enforcement could not produce anything but resistance from the Vietnamese people. Every person, who disagreed with this regime was considered to be a dissident and subsequently arrested. The author argues that if the French government agreed to make some concessions to the Vietnamese people the country would not have become a pro-communist state (Karnow, 1997).

The situation took a different turn after the two world wars. First, the territory of Vietnam was under Japanese control nevertheless, according to Postdate conference Vietnam was again submitted to the control of the French government. It is worth mentioning that the role of France was to supervise (as it was explicitly stated at the Potsdam conference) but the French interpreted this function differently. They refused to acknowledge the countrys independence which was called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, although it was officially recognized by many communist nations. Naturally, in the United States, these events were perceived as the bright example of communist expansionist and soon the so-called Military Assistance and Advisory Group were formed to give a helping hand to the French government. Stanley Karnow believes that the United States government could not allow the USSR to take control of Vietnam because it would have a disastrous effect on the position of the country in the East.

Moreover, the author believes that the US government was very skeptical of the chances that the French had against the Vietnamese and probably this is the main reason why the French troops were not given sufficient support.

The battle of Dien Bien Phu put an end to the domination of France in Indochina. This victory can be explained by the fact that the Vietnamese forces received sufficient support from China and the Soviet Union. The French government asked for a cease-fire and subsequently all of the above-mentioned resulted in establishing The Democratic Republic of Vietnam, whose policy was strongly influenced by the Soviet Union and China.

Thus, we can arrive at the conclusion that in the chapter “The War with the French” Staley Karnow provides a thorough analysis of the events that caused or probably to a certain degree contributed to the involvement of the United States. Moreover, the author believes that the war in Vietnam could have been averted if the French rule in the country had been more prudent.

Bibliography

Stanley Karnow. (1997) Vietnam: A History. Penguin Books.

The Vietnam War: A Clash of Viewpoints

Introduction: The Deadly Breath of the War

Among all controversial issues that the humankind conceal sin the folds of time, the history of was must be the most biased one. Caused by certain political issues and demanding enormous blood-shedding to satisfy its thirst for cruelty, war is the most despicable and disgusting invention of the humankind.

Nevertheless, a part and parcel of evolution, wars do occur even in the most advanced countries on a variety of premises, not to mention the clash of cultures and the resulting conflict that occurs as two countries of different stages of development are at war.

Because of the complexity of the political, economical and personal issues that mixed in the course of the notorious Vietnam War, the latter can be posed not only as a conflict between the two states, but as a conflict between the two cultures, political forces and the visions of the reality, both political and civil one, which requires thorough considerations.

Providing sufficient food for thoughts, the events of the Vietnam War are quite hard to analyze from the bird’s-eye view of the present days, yet offer an enticing material for exploration that allows to learn more about the political affairs of the USA, the motivations of the 1967-68 Congress and the President and make certain conclusions about the policy of the United States.

Analyzing the viewpoints of an ordinary soldier and a civil citizen who witnessed the Vietnam War, one can demonstrate the differences in the visions of the two and offer reasonable explanations for the phenomenon.

The Matter of Honor and Courage: In the Eye of a Soldier

There can be no possible doubt that, to realize what the war is, one has to see the horrors and the destruction of the armed conflict with his/her own eyes, which the author of the book, Frederick Downs[1], demonstrates quite well. With the help of the most realistic descriptions and the vivid pictures of woes that soldiers had to take in the course of the battles, the author makes the people sink into the mind of the man with the gun.

It is quite important that the author portrays both the elements of the relatively calm and peaceful environment – if anything in the front line can be calm and peaceful – and invites the reader into the mind of his own – the place where ideas and morals are set loose, and the only wish that is left is taking the revenge on those who destroyed his life – not the vengeance inspired by raging fury, but the revenge of a cool-blooded mind, the man who knows what he is doing and why.

Showing the readers that war literally kills the remnants of humanity left within, Frederick portrays himself as a man motivated by the wish to kill: “The American strategy was to draw them into a fight so we could use our superior firepower to destroy them. To win a battle, we had to kill them. For them to win, all they had to do was survive.[2]

On the battlefield

Whenever Downs refers to the descriptions of the battles, he emphasizes that the fights that take place here are far from what the civils imagine as they hear the word “battle.” Making it clear that there is no room for compassion when the war is going on, Downs draws the line between a soldier and the people left in the rear. Whenever the author mentions civils, there is a slight tint of scorn in his words:

‘Not everyone doing the fighting is in the newspapers. You’ll never ever see a reporter up there. It’s too rough for them.’ He looked at my youth. ‘You’ll get a belly full of fighting up there, son, if that’s what you want.[3]

Thus, the author clearly showed that the Vietnamese war, like any other one in the history of the universe did, split the nation into two parts, the still living one and the ones who have their life on credit. In the vision of a soldier who is partaking in the Vietnamese War, there is no yesterday or tomorrow, there is only the current moment, the blissful “now,” which means that the death is not here yet: “Chu Lai was a free-fire zone.

I was instructed to shoot at everything not American, ROK, or ARVN. The brutal war of the highlands had come to the flat farm ground of the South China Sea coast.[4]” When the war has broken out, there can be no compassion, otherwise, the soldier will go mad.

The political controversy

Of all the issues concerning the Vietnamese War and the decisions undertaken by the government, the issue concerning the way the war went and the way the government wanted to portray it to an average citizen were strikingly different, which Downs does not hesitate to expose. At this point, the interception of the soldier’s life and the life of a civil citizen can be traced to point at the obvious diversities in the perception of the two and point at the main difference between a soldier and a civil.

It was obvious that the Congress was trying to lift the spirits of the country and not let people become depressed about the tragic event once again, which resulted the striking contrast of the attitudes towards the war in the front and in the rear. While the latter were perfectly sure that the situation is fully under control and that the victory is just around the corner, the soldiers were supposed not merely to observe the opposite, but to fight it with their efforts doubled.

Perhaps, it is even not the cruelty of the tragedies that occurred in the course of the war, but the cool, emotionless reports of Downs that sends shivers down the reader’s spine: “Two women survived long enough to cross the bridge and enter one of the hootches. Three of my men crossed over the bridge and threw grenades in the hootches.[5]” It is worth mentioning, though, that the lead character is not portrayed as a machine for murdering enemies either.

Though the battles and the numerous deaths that he has seen made him coarse and emotionless, there is still the remaining of his old self, and he still feels pity when mentioning that the war is spreading like cancer all over the place: “Chu Lai was a free-fire zone. I was instructed to shoot at everything not American, ROK, or ARVN. The brutal war of the highlands had come to the flat farm ground of the South China Sea coast.[6]

Serving on the home front: An average citizen’s position

In contrast to the soldiers in the front, the people in the rear were under the delusion that the Vietnamese with their attempts at defeating the American troops are doomed to a failure. Considering the letters to the New York Times Editor, one can see the way the enemies were portrayed: “the intense and futile commitment in Vietnam is deepening the sense of resentment…[7]

However, it must be taken into account that the New York Times editors were aiming rather at keeping people optimistic, forgetting what kind of road good intentions pave, depicting the Vietnamese patriotism as “not quite bright” instead of “rather dangerous.[8]

Playing a game of chess

However, it is essential to add that the vision of war that an average citizen had in the USA in 1967-68 was half-optimistic, half-frightened. Some journalists conveyed in their articles the ideas that there were instances of corruption and treachery in the USA Army[9], which dropped the rates of optimism among the citizen.

Still, compared to the miseries and injustice depicted by Downs, these were the minor issues that called to people’s patriotic feelings and the willingness to protect the country, while the soldiers were already deprived of any hope. Portraying Presidents “rejection of dissent on war,[10]” journalists made attempts to stir the public, yet they did not reveal what happened in the front.

Here is the newsflash

Offering the citizens snatches of essential information, journalists contributed to the shaping of people’s idea of war. For most of the citizens, war was the gas used on crowd[11] and the short notes on the success of military actions. On the one hand, such inspiring ideas did contribute to the shaping of patriotic feeling.

On the other hand, people were unable to see that was going on in the front, which made people think of the war as of some faraway monster that will obviously be defeated. With his incredibly gloomy and truthful story, Downs bursts the bubbles of the public, yet he is unfortunately late.

Conclusion: Counting the Losses

Hence, it can be concluded that Vietnam War was rather versatile issue in the distant 1967-68 for a civilian and a soldier, which can be explained by a number of reasons.

Due to the different settings and environment, the two could not envision the war any different way; serving on the home front and learning about the events on the battlefield from the newspaper articles and short reports that could not deliver the grief and pain, though journalists did attempt to[12], citizens could not conceive the terror and pain of being in the heat of the battle and, thus, considered the war as the event that will help to restore justice in the USA if only the army pulls itself together[13].

Meanwhile, soldiers were facing the terror and agony of pain, coming one step closer to peril every single say and narrowing the article of death with every step that they made.

Therefore, it can be claimed that Downs’s book served as an eye-opener for millions of people. Obviously, the two viewpoints considered above are diametrically opposite to each other, the vision of a civil citizen being mist optimistic, and the world of a soldier collapsing in front of him. However, comprising the two, one will be able to obtain the ultimate truth – the real story of what happened in the course of the Vietnam War, the painful experience that was inevitable yet almost unbearable for the two nations.

Reference List

Carr, A. Z. (1967). Our Vietnam policy. New York Times, p. 46.

Downs, F. (2007). The killing zone: My life in Vietnam War. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Friedman, R., & Saltzman, E. (1967). Use of gas on crowds. New York Times, p. 46.

Letter to the Editor of The Times (1967, Sep. 8). War opposed. New York Times, p. 38.

Meacham, S. (1967, November 6). Despair over war. New York Times, p. 6.

Micou, R. (1967, Sept. 29). President’s rejection of dissent on war. New York Times, p. 46.

Rosenberg, J., et al. (1967, Dec. 13). Opposition to war in armed forces. New York Times, p. 46.

The Patriotism of Dissent (1967, Nov. 15). New York Times, p. 46.

Footnotes

  1. See Downs, 2007.
  2. See Downs, 2007, p. 108.
  3. See Downs, 2007, p. 17.
  4. See Downs, 2007, p. 188.
  5. See Downs, 2007, p. 216.
  6. See Downs, 2007, p. 211.
  7. See Letter to the Editor of The Times, 1967.
  8. See The Patriotism of Dissent, 1967, p. 46
  9. See Rosenberg, 1967.
  10. See Carr, 1967, p. 46.
  11. See Friedman & Saltzman, 1967.
  12. See Meacham, 1967.
  13. See Micou, 1967.

Causes and Effects of the Vietnamese War

The Vietnam War was one of the longest fought military battles in the Southeast Asian history. Although the war was primarily between north and South Vietnam, the United States and other Guerrilla armies gave a divided support to the two worrying factions, a fact that intensified the war leading to numerous losses of lives, properties hence, deteriorating diplomatic relationships between America and other countries.

The war lasted for more than 16 years, leaving behind a trail of destruction, which included more than two million dead Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, sixty thousand United States dead soldiers, and millions of wounded soldiers and civilians.

In addition, due to fear of death, the war made many Vietnamese civilians to flee their homes, causing many economic, social, and political problems to the surrounding communities. To the U.S. the war was a loss, because the reunion of South and North Vietnamese citizens marked the end of the war, hence U.S.’s undivided support for the southern region yielded nothing, apart from numerous losses (Pike, 2010, p.1).

Prior to the Vietnamese war of 1954-1975, in its endeavor to flee itself from colonization, Vietnam fought against the French colonizers leading to the division of the country into two republics; the northern and southern.

Causes of the Vietnamese War

The end of the Geneva conference, which saw the division of Vietnam into two republics, marked the onset of the rivalry between these two Vietnamese regions. To unite the two regions, the northern region (that was under the communist rule) attacked the democratic south, a fact that triggered mixed reactions from both Asian and western countries.

Because of fear that the communism ruling orientation was spreading fast than expected; the United States intervened in the war between this two regions by supporting the democratic Southern republic. It is important to note that, it is not only the defeating of the Democratic South Vietnamese republic that instilled fear in western powers for example America, but also the fear of communism spreading backdated to World War II, when Vietnam defeated Japan from Indochina.

In addition, the initial success of Chinese communists enabled the Vietnamese communist society to gain more power, a fact that made the situation worse as communist nations sought to rule the Southern Asian region. Therefore, power struggles between the communists’ communities and the democratic communities was the primary cause of the Vietnamese war, as the Domino theory became common in the southern Asia region (Rotter, 1999, p.1).

Due to fears of the communism ruling orientation spreading, America under the rule of President John F. Kennedy in 1961, secretly gave the French; who had reoccupied the southern region, military assistance, through training armies aligned to Southern Vietnam. Subsequent U.S. presidents adopted the same war tactics as President Kennedy, with little considerations on the havoc caused by the war on the entire American community.

The main aim of these wars was to defeat the communist armies of Northern Vietnam, which then received a lot of support from other communists nationalities, for example, The then Soviet Union. Such biased support from western powers made the Northern Vietnamese army to attack American and French soldiers, making America to involve itself fully in the war, although most of its efforts were fruitless, with the two regions rejoining later (Rotter, 1999, p.1)

On the other hand, because of the increased poverty levels of the Vietnamese citizens; caused by the oppressive nature of the French and Japanese rule that favored South Vietnam, northern Vietnam organized revolts against their western rulers, in an endeavor to free the country from colonization. This was even evident prior to the onset of the war, as the leader of freedom fighters Ho Chi Minh led the Vietnamese in conquering the French who had reoccupied southern Vietnam, after their early defeat in 1946 (Schulzinger, 1997, pp. 2-3).

Effects of the War on Neighboring Countries

Although he war primarily involved America and Vietnam, the war also affected other surrounding nations, which held different opinions about the war. The effects of the war were very adverse on neighboring countries for example, Cambodia, because as the war intensified, combined military efforts from the U.S. and South Vietnam forces entered Cambodia.

Although invasion of Cambodia gave these two military groups a chance of capturing some sections of North Vietnam and destroying its weapons, the effects on Cambodia were adverse, because of the undivided support Cambodians gave the war. Such undivided support made individuals who opposed the attacks to join underground opposition armies, a fact that caused major rifts in Cambodia’s government. It is important to note that, by 1970; U.S. troops had occupied a better part of Cambodia hence, controlling its government’s activities.

Although early attacks had no many adverse effects on Cambodia, later due to failure by the then Cambodian leader Khmer Rouge in 1975 to win elections marked the onset of the harshest and dictatorial regime in Cambodia. The regime caused extreme suffering to the Cambodians, numerous deaths of innocent civilians, and loss of property; effects that prevalent even presently in Cambodia (Milne, 2006, Para. 9).

Apart from Cambodia, the war had adverse effects to other surrounding nations, because the war resulted in an influx of runaway Vietnamese refugees, who sought refuge in neighboring nations. Because most of the extreme poverty levels of most of those refugees, countries in which they settled had to bear the economic burden of sustaining them all throughout the years of the war.

In addition to the economic strain imposed on many surrounding nations, because of the chemicals used by American soldiers to clear vegetation, such chemicals caused great environmental pollution, which led to many health catastrophes that are evident even today, not only in Cambodia, but also in its neighboring countries.

A good example is the chemical used by America was Agent Orange, a chemical that is very carcinogenic. Such a chemical affected most surrounding nations, refugees affected with the chemical spread it to the neighboring countries in which they sought asylum (Enzler, 2006, Para. 46-49).

Conclusion

In conclusion, effects of the Vietnam War are still evident even today as both Vietnam and America face the reality of the war. This is because many controversies surround the war, a fact that many individuals attribute to poor leadership orientations embraced by former American Presidents, who “dragged” America into a war that caused massive deaths and property destruction.

Reference List

Enzler, S. M. (2006). . Lennthech. Web.

Milne, B. W. (2006). Australia in the Vietnam War. Cyber Sages. Web.

Pike, J. (2010). . Global Security. Web.

Rotter, A. J. (1999). The causes of the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press. Web.

Schulzinger, R. (1997). . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Web.

Why Did the United States Lose the Vietnam War?

Vietnam is a strip of land situated on the Eastern part of Indochinese Peninsula in Southern Asia, sharing the northern border with China and stretching over a thousand miles. Lying in the tropics close to the equator, Vietnam has never been peaceful, as the region was always torn by constant civil wars, where the Vietnamese people constantly fought their conquerors.[1]

The Vietnam War refers to the greatest fight that took place between 1961 and 1975 in Vietnam against the US. This war has been given many names but where it happened, the Vietnamese refer to it as the American War to distinguish it from other international confrontations with other foreign countries during their bloody twentieth century.[2]

Vietnam was an independent nation until the nineteenth century when the French conquered it. During their conquest, the French were aided by a policy of appeasement that was pursued by the Vietnamese Royal Court. This controversial and divisive war is one of the longest in history.

It was a great struggle between the nationalist forces, communist government, and the United States. The involvement United States can be traced through five distinct phases as follows: combined French and US advisory (1950-55), US advisory phase (1955-64), combat phase (1965-67), offensive operations (1967-69), and Vietnamization (1969-73).

The United States involvement in Vietnam War came as a result of confrontation between the East and West, after the end of the Second World War. Following the spread of communism within the country, the United States turned to containment policy in order to counter the widespread communism.[3]

The United States lost the Vietnam War due to several attributed reasons. When the war began, there was misunderstanding about whether to engage in full combat or cross border aggression. The US related this war to the Korean War, which was a conventional fight where the territory taken and held was a success.

However, they were wrong in their judgment because in Indochina, the topography provided communist forces with extensive combat staging area and infiltration routes that denied the U.S forces perfect ground for war. Unsurprisingly, the French experience defeat from the communists while fighting in the same area.[4]

According to Elizabeth Errington and B. McKercher, the US did not lose the war due to military weakness or failure; instead, it lost due to ineffective strategy.[5]

The U.S foreign policy makers’ decision to intervene in Vietnam War was calamitous, since they engaged full military aggression without proper understanding of the actual position on the ground regarding the war. At this point, Asian foes were at a great advantage to exploit their superiority against the disadvantaged United States. In addition, the influence of France as the main investor in Vietnam economy played a big role in the war.[6]

Policy makers in the U.S misinterpreted the Vietnam War character, which resulted in conventional military responses to a revolutionary political challenge, resulting to a difficult conflict as compared to the actual stakes that were involved. The Office of the Secretary of Defense had become demoralized due to the events that had taken place; hence, it was unwilling to escalate the war further due to the decline of the army troops and operational freedom of action in Indochina.

The commitment of the U.S to an open-ended war in an area peripheral to traditional American security interests compromised the commitment of the U.S in the war, thus giving advantage to its foes and allies. The ground was limited in South Vietnam, thus providing the forces on ground little chance to effect their operation with regard to the Vietnam War. This situation limited the ability of the U.S to perform various combat operations while their foes were at a greater advantage to launch attacks on their enemy.

Conflict of interest between politicians and military in decision-making crippled the ability of the U.S to fight and eradicate communism in Vietnam. Primarily, the invasion was done without proper understanding of the magnitude of insurgence required and the actual position of the war on the ground.[7] Under such circumstances, the military generals were to have an upper hand in planning and activating combat activities.

They were to exercise complete control over the entire warfare. In addition, U.S politicians were serving their own interests at the expense of the military troops on the ground hence sabotaging their efforts, a situation that led to their defeat and crippling of their efforts. They were handicapped in that, all the decisions to engage in bomb runs and other combat missions were decided by the office in the U.S headquarters.

The U.S did not get much assistance from South Vietnam, as it did not want to fight the war. This situation would put the U.S in front line and ensure that it had to fight the entire war, which was against its interest. However, the US demanded and sought support from the south before accepting to engage in the fight fully.

Poor adherence to the principle of objectivity based on an under-appreciation of the population resulted into a lack of a secure environment, hence inability to protect the Southern Vietnamese peasants. This would require additional troops, which would be diverted from other big wars.

The atrocities that committed by the army troops such as the massacre at My Lai where the U.S army soldiers massacred thousands of unarmed Vietnam civilians undermined moral authority of the U.S with regard to continuing to fight the war. As a result, the U.S was on the verge of losing the Vietnam War.

The entire cost of supporting the Vietnam War was digging deep into the economy of the U.S to an extent of presenting substitution options to other government programs. This would require that other important issues and missions be foregone in order to fully support the activities of the U.S military in Vietnam. Moreover, wrong and innocent people were killed by the high-tech war facilities, and this action in itself demoralized the military troops.[8]

Vietnamese had been to war several times, including their resistant war against Japan during the Second World War. They had much experience and guerilla tactics appropriate to the conflicting nature as compared to the U.S troops who had a shortfall in terms of war experience. This worked to the advantage of the Vietnamese, especially due to the fact that they were being sheltered and supported by the native South Vietnams.

The American soldiers engaged in immoral acts such as taking drugs, which influenced them to shoot their colleagues in the force, hence lowering chances of the U.S military winning the entire war. There was poor coordination of the entire combat operation, hence weakening the morale of the troops in fighting their foes.

Given that Vietnamese were fighting in their own home ground, they had a great advantage against the U.S military troops and they were determined to fight and win the war irrespective of the cost involved. Precisely, home ground combat gave Vietnamese an advantage of being familiar with every part of the war zone including places to hide that the US could not establish.

The U.S failed in its politics regarding its involvement in Vietnam War, especially with its sense of liberalizing the South Vietnamese in terms of rights and opportunity of self-control and governance. This turned out to be a hypocritical assumption by the U.S government that would raise credibility questions from governments around the world about the involvement of the US in the Vietnam War. Some nations saw this action as an attempt by the US to take over Vietnam politically rather than eliminating the underlying causes of the war.

American military effectiveness was limited in the north where aerial fighting was prevalent. The Vietnam troops countered the attacks from the U.S troops more rapidly and dug tunnels for transportation and activity flow. Air bombings in the north had major drawbacks as they had no harmful effects, especially given the fact that the agricultural economy in the north was resistant to the bombings. All these drawbacks gave the northern troops energy and morale to fight back against the U.S forces with the determination to win over their foes.

The Vietcong were fighting to defend their country from invasion. They were fighting with motivation and clear objective of winning against their enemy. They had no shortage in terms of their ability to preserve their territory, as they were prepared for the war through training for a long time.

The surprise attack on the U.S Embassy in Saigon paralyzed the operations of the American troops. The Vietnam army commandos staged counter attack efforts to demoralize the American troops, killing many civilians and holding others hostage. The American Embassy was a strong hold for the presence of the U.S government. However, constant execution of police and military officers by the South Vietnam officers horrified the U.S army and the American public.

The American bombing was not stopping the war; rather, it was increasing the number of innocent casualties. At the same time, the war requirements in terms of ammunitions and other sophisticated machinery would require hefty capital investment, which would in turn have drastic effects on the economy of the U.S. This would mean that taxes would increase, credit restrictions would be effected, and even wage and price would be controlled in order to cater for the rising cost. This option was not readily to be accepted by the U.S government.[9]

In conclusion, the Vietnam War is one of the bloodiest wars that the US has ever engaged in and lost. Various factors contributed to the failure of the US in the war among them being ineffectiveness of the policy makers, which led to conflict between political and military involvement. In addition, the Vietnamese were determinate to reclaim their land and eliminate any intruders in whatever means possible.

Bibliography

Allen, Joe. Vietnam: The (Last) War the U. S. Lost. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2008.

Errington, Jane and Brian McKercher. The Vietnam War as History. Portsmouth: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1990.

Grimsley, Mark. Why did the United States Lose the Vietnam War? (Attached PDF file).

Jennings, Phillip. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War. Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2010

Lawrence, Mark. The Vietnam War: A concise International History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Levy, Debbie. The Vietnam War. Minneapolis: Lerner Publication Company, 2004.

Record, Jeffrey. The Wrong War. Why We Lost In Vietnam. Washington D.C: Library of Congress, 1998.

Willbanks, James. Vietnam War Almanac. New York: InfoBase Publishing, 2009

Footnotes

  1. Debbie Levy, Vietnam War (Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 2004).
  2. Mark Lawrence, The Vietnam War: A concise International History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), p.1.
  3. James Willbanks, Vietnam War Almanac (New York; Infobase Publishing, 2009), p.
  4. Phillip Jennings, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam War (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 2010), p. 15-18.
  5. Elizabeth Jane Errington, Brian McKercher, The Vietnam War as History (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1990), p. 166.
  6. Joe Allen, Vietnam: The (Last) War the U. S. Lost (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2008), p. 7.
  7. Mark Grimsley. Why did the United States lose the Vietnam War? (Attached PDF), P. 5
  8. Jeffrey Record, The Wrong War, Why we lost in Vietnam (Washington D.C: Library of Congress, 1998), p.
  9. Mark Grimsley. Why did the United States lose the Vietnam War? p. 29