Category: Vietnam War

There are numerous similarities between the Korean and Vietnam wars. Yet, identifying how different they were in conflict resolutions and political interferences. That is why the author has written a thorough Korean war and Vietnam war compare and contrast essay.

Similarities between Korean and Vietnam Wars

First of all, the decision to start both wars had an ideological background. According to the Truman Doctrine, the government of the United States supposed that in case if Korea and Vietnam choose communism as the ideology, the United States has to stop this process.

Such measure seamed only one good solution used to prevent the expansion of communism around the Asian continent and around the world. However, the way battles, the use of chemical weapons and millions of victims demonstrated that those wars were unfair regarding the citizens of Korea and Vietnam. While the United States and the URSS were solving their ideological conflicts, millions of the local citizens were involved in this process.

Although the Vietnam War and the Korean War had the same ideological roots, methods of battles, both countries were separated for two parts where North parts were favored communism and South were supported democracy. There were also several differences such as the way of development of the conflicts where the Korean War was during three years, and the Vietnam War was the prolonged struggle, the participation of the Chinese troops in the Korean War, the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam and the different outcomes.

After World War II, the world faced a new way of ideological wars. The world was separated between the United States and the URSS, democracy, and communism. Considering the expansion of the communism among the Asian countries, the United States had to develop the measures which could stop the expansion of communism and to spread the ideas of democracy and liberalization on the Asian continent.

In the end of 50s, when the Cold War started to be more open and transparent, the United States and the URSS decided to find out which political system is stronger. According to the article The Cold War, Korean Conflict, and Vietnam, “it grew out of long-standing disagreements between the United States and the Soviet Union over which type of government and the economic system produced the most liberty, equality, and prosperity” (The U.S. Department of State publication).

Both of the systems did not want to start the open conflict and especially to do it on their territory. They chose Vietnam as the base where both systems could examine their forces, fighting with each other. Such politics was the continuation of colonial rule that always existed in this part of the earth but with a different face.

The conflict of two economic and political systems, communism and liberalism, caused a number of problems and led to several military conflicts. The Vietnam War and the Korean War were two of those conflicts.

Differences between Korean and Vietnam Wars

After World War II, the leaders of Vietnam started to accept the system offered by the URSS and considered communism as the only one possible and acceptable system for this country.

The conflict occurred in the middle of 50s and located in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (Edwards 1998). In the beginning, it was not an evident war; it was rather hidden, latent conflict overage to the serious and prolonged war. According to the Digital History, the project of University of Huston, “between 1945 and 1954, the Vietnamese waged an anti-colonial war against France and received $2,6 billion in financial support from the United States” (Digital History).

The United States did everything to get support and to provide protection to this area. Thereby, when Vietnam decided to choose a communistic way of development, the United States did not want to lose their power in the country and had to answer.

The county was divided into two parts: North and South. The United States sent 2,000 soldiers to help South Vietnam which preferred liberalism. In 1963, a number of U.S. soldiers in this area was about 63,000 (Digital History). The conflict lasted until the 1970s and ended only in 1973 when the U.S. forces were withdrawn. South and North Vietnam were reunited only in 1975.

The situation in Korea was different. This war started as the apparent military conflict when in 1950 North Korea with the help of the URSS crossed the border with South Korea. North Korea favored communism, while South Korea tried to build the country based on the liberalism.

Again, as it was in case of Vietnam, the country was a base on the confrontation of two political and economic systems supported by the United States and the URSS. One crucial difference between the wars in Vietnam and Korea lies in the presence of the third force. The Chinese troops participated in the Korean War as the country had its interest in this area and wanted to protect it.

The United Nations attitude and influence on the Vietnam War and the Korean War was similar. The war is always a terrible event that should be stopped as soon as possible. No matter who started the conflict and why, the UN has to do everything to make both sides arrange a peaceful agreement.

However, in the case of the Vietnam and Korean Wars, the UN did not provide an appropriate solution. It is evident that the UN could make something and prevent conflicts. However, during the Cold War, the situation in the world was complicated, and even the UN was unable to change this.

The UN supported South Korea during the War. The United Nations Security Resolution decided to help South Korea and to stop the forces of North Korea. In the case of the Vietnam War, the UN supported the US and Korea to arrange a peace agreement in 1975. In honor of this agreement, North Vietnamese Prime Minister Tho and the US Secretary of State Kissinger got Nobel Peace Prize.

In both situations, the United States wanted to protect their interests as well as the Soviet Union tried to help the communistic regime. It would be wrong to claim that the United States only particularly participated in the conflicts. The United States and the URSS supplied the Vietnamese or Korean armies and both the U.S. and the URSS started those wars; moreover, both countries wanted this to happen.

Because it was a real chance to prove their strengths, although it sounds terrible, the Vietnam War and the Korean War were the games of two world’s superstates. Although the UN could not stop the wars, they had to forbid the use of chemical weapons. Besides, after more than 40 years since the Vietnam War, one can notice that no one was punished for the crime towards the Vietnamese nation.

Differences of battle way consisted of the various weapons used in those wars. Thus, first of all, the Vietnam War is noted by the use of chemical weapons and the terrible consequences for the nation. As a result, the Vietnam War “cost the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties; it also resulted in between one and two million Vietnamese deaths” (Digital History).

As it was mentioned before, this war started as the latent conflict; therefore, the way of battles was different than during the Korean War. Although the United States provided weapons, ammunition and military advisors for both South Korea and South Vietnam, the way of ballets in Vietnam was more aggressive and terrible. As a result of the use of chemical weapons, millions of Vietnamese were infected and got terrible diseases. Even today the nation can still feel the influence of those events.

Conclusion

Although the same reasons caused both the Vietnam and Korean Wars, the circumstances and the peculiarities of them were quite different. The similarities of the two wars were the same ideological background, the confrontation of two super nations, the US and the URSS, and their economic and political systems. Vietnam War was the prolonged struggle and lasted more than 10 years, while the Korean War – only three. Vietnam War was the most unpopular event in the history of the United States.

The chemical weapons were used during the Vietnam War. Two wars had different outcomes: the US protected South Korea but lost South Vietnam. Besides, the territory of Vietnam was exposed to severe damage including people’s loss, spreading of diseases and mass destruction of the cities and villages.

Reference List

Digital History, n.d. Learn About the Vietnam War.

Edwards, Paul M., ed. 1998. The Korean War: an annotated bibliography. US: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

The U.S. Department of State publication. n.d. The Cold War, Korean Conflict, and Vietnam. In USA History in Brief. Web.

Principles of a Just War

Warfare has often been used by different countries in order to enable them to advance and defend their national interests. Wars that have been waged in the past have often elicited mixed reactions. For instance, some have been considered unjust, whereas others are justified based on a number of principles. A country can declare war on another because of varied reasons. However, a war is considered a just course based on the following principles.

First, a war is just if it is waged for the purpose of self-defense (Buell, 2014). A country can resort to warfare in order to defend itself from aggression. Additionally, a country can declare war in order to protect a weaker state from aggression in accordance with existing treaty obligations. However, this does not necessarily permit a country to wage a preventive war. Second, a war should be waged as a last resort. Thus, “countries ought to explore various peaceful means of resolving disputes before resorting to warfare” (Buell, 2014).

Third, war is considered just if a legitimate authority undertakes it. For example, a legitimate authority includes a sovereign state, an international agency like the United Nations, and an alliance formed by various nations for purposes of self-defense. Fourth, a just war should employ the principle of discrimination (Buell, 2014). According to the principle of discrimination, “the weapons used in war must discriminate between civilians and the combatants” (BBC, 2014). Finally, the most crucial goal of just war should be to restore peace and security.

From the preceding discussion, one can assess whether America’s involvement in Vietnam was a just course. The United States of America mainly undertook military action against Vietnam in order to curb the spread of communism (Roskin & Berry, 2010).

However, America’s action was unjust because it had not suffered any form of direct aggression from the Vietnamese. It had only faced an ideological threat. Moreover, the United States of America would have explored other peaceful means of curtailing communism before engaging in military action. For instance, it would have formulated anti-communist policies in order to contain its spread in third world countries (Roskin & Berry, 2010). Furthermore, the war worsened the living conditions of the civilians. For instance, the war led to massive loss of lives and destruction of properties.

How the World would be Different Today if the United States of America had not become involved in Vietnam

The United States of America would have saved the lives of many American soldiers and Vietnamese civilians by not getting involved in the Vietnam War. Additionally, America would be highly regarded for morality, which has been its major principle in international relations. However, the involvement of America in the war has made other countries around the world to question its principle of morality.

According to the post, the author has clearly shown that America’s military action against Vietnam was unjust. For instance, he has argued that America lacked an immediate threat to self-preservation. Additionally, the author has stated that America had not explored all measures of diplomacy. This is true because America had only faced an ideological threat from the advocates of communism in Vietnam. Moreover, America would have exhausted other diplomatic actions. For example, it would have formulated anti-communist policies to control its spread to other developing countries. The author has also stated that the cold war was inventible despite America’s military action against Vietnam. This has been attributed to the rise of two major ideologies after the Second World War.

Preemptive versus Preventive War

A preemptive war can be waged when a country perceives an imminent attack from its enemy. The aim of preemptive war is to enable a country to gain an advantage over its enemy. For example, America’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 was considered a preemptive war. The invasion was justified because Iraq acted as a host to terrorist groups that were a threat to Western countries. Additionally, Iraq was suspected to be developing weapons of mass destruction, which posed a grave danger to the United States of America.

On the other hand, a preventive war aims at curbing an imagined future war. It can be launched without an immediate threat from an adversary. In most instances, the attacking nation often launches a war in order to prevent its potential adversary form being more powerful. Thus, the attacking nation can use a preventive attack to maintain a balance of power in the international system. The World Wars mainly erupted because of preventive attacks. For example, during the Second World War, the Axis and Allied powers invaded nonaligned states in order to prevent attacks from their potential adversaries. Moreover, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor has been perceived as a preventive attack. The Japanese aim was to curtail America’s naval power in order to enable them to advance with ease in the Pacific.

Israel’s Preemptive Approach

Israel is one of the nations that have used the preemptive approach against its adversaries. One of the major preemptive wars waged by Israel was the Arab-Israeli War in 1967. Israel decided to attack Egypt and Syria when it discovered that the two countries were planning to invade it. The preemptive invasion enabled Israel to overpower Egypt successfully. Additionally, Israel waged another preemptive Arab-Israeli war in 1973 against Egypt and Syria.

References

BBC. (2014). Just War-Introduction. Web.

Buell, J. (2014). Just War Theory and the Wars of the 20th Century. Web.

Roskin, M. G., & Berry, N. O. (2010). The New World of International Relations. SanFrancisco: Longman. Web.

The period associated with the Vietnam War is surrounded by disputes and controversy, not to mention the extensive amount of literature and the emergence of different schools of thought (orthodox, revisionist, and neo-orthodox). While, for example, America and Vietnam by George Herring comprised only nineteen pages, the Vietnam War Era: A Personal Journey by Dr. Bruce O. Solheim can be considered a scholarly treatise on one of the most disturbing and haunting subjects of modern history.

The Neo-orthodox Argument

Compared to the interpretations of the majority of wars in which America participated, views regarding the Vietnam War’s significance have changed drastically from the ‘typical’ opinions inherent at the time to more traditional schools of thought. While many official accounts of World Wars I and II defended the position of America, the dominant opinion with regard to the conflict in Vietnam leaned significantly towards criticism of United States policies. The relatively modern approach towards the Vietnam War, neo-orthodox scholarship (popularized by Herring), placed emphasis on the argument of “flawed form of containment” (Solheim 198).

The “flawed containment” was the “flawed” U.S. policy that relied upon the indifference to the interests of Southeast Asia and its history. The key opinion held by the proponents of the neo-orthodox interpretation of the Vietnam War was that the United States misread its interests and misunderstood Vietnamese realities, which subsequently led the United States into its unsuccessful attempt to build an independent South Vietnam. This effort ended in the United States participating in a military intervention that was impossible to win. As mentioned by Solheim in his concluding statement, the neo-orthodox view makes the most sense, even in the current state of America’s external affairs and can also be applied to the war in Iraq.

Failure to Assess the U.S’s Importance

The neo-orthodox perspective on the war in Vietnam consisted of criticism towards United States policies in the sense that civilian and military leaders of the country were unsuccessful in developing achievable and realistic plans with regard to America’s involvement in the conflict. The leaders were also unsuccessful in accurately analyzing their war rivals’ capabilities and intentions. Lastly, the American side of the conflict failed to conduct effective battlefield tactics and implement a strategy that would have secured its position in the war.

The “flawed form of containment” argument regarding the neo-orthodox perspective also contended that the involvement of America in the Vietnam conflict could have been avoided if the key policymakers and stakeholders did not overexaggerate the importance of the country’s participation and did not misunderstand the events taking place in Southeast Asia. Overall, those opinions that stated that the conflict in Vietnam would be impossible to resolve through military actions were disregarded by the American policymakers that overstated their importance and tried to win a war that could not be won.

Concluding Remarks

To conclude, the neo-orthodox interpretation of the Vietnam War can be considered the most logical and applicable to other conflicts in which America participated. The opinion that U.S. policies failed to include considerations of the Southeast Asian perspective and forced America to participate in another war essentially describes the thought process of the majority of politicians. It is unfortunate that more analysis and thought did not go into the decision-making process so that historians later had to put forward an argument of “flawed containment” to explain the actions of the U.S’s authorities.

Works Cited

Solheim, Bruce. The Vietnam War Era: A Personal Journey. Praeger, 2008.

The Vietnam War was the bloodiest conflict that the United States participated in since World War II. It changed how the country looked at military operations for years to come, and it is hard to overstate how important the outcome of this war was to the American state and society. Widely considered to be the United States’ most shameful and embarrassing campaign, the war led to the reformation of the U.S. military – after Vietnam, conscription was abolished, and professional soldiers stepped in to replace drafted conscripts. The war also traumatized many of the soldiers who participated in it; those who returned alive were crippled both physically and psychologically.

Many were and continue to be diagnosed with PTSD and other mental disorders caused by days and nights of fighting in a jungle against a deadly and elusive foe. To make a tragic situation worse, the veterans of the Vietnam War were stigmatized by the nation. Unlike the esteemed veterans of World War II, those who fought in Vietnam were considered to be dishonorable and dangerous, and many of them suffer even today. Although numerous books and articles contain memories of those who lived to tell the tale, the best way to learn about the Vietnam War—and to understand how war changes people—is to talk to the veterans who participated in it. This paper is dedicated to analyzing and comparing the experiences of John Gutierrez and Carl Ferguson, two veterans of the Vietnam War.

John Gutierrez’s Story

In the video, John Gutierrez appears as a tall man in glasses. He looks a little shaken, and he does not exude confidence. His story about the Vietnam War is filled with recollections of the many horrors he faced in battle. His experiences seem to have a very deep emotional impact on him still; he requests the audience to read the article about an ambush for him because it is difficult for him to do so on his own. He shares certain details that did not find their way into history books – for example, he describes how some of his fellow soldiers kept count of their kills by cutting off the ears of their fallen foes (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”).

It seems unbelievable that someone could act like this in the 21st century, yet there is no reason to doubt his words – some of the crimes committed by American troops in Vietnam were far worse than a mere desecration of the dead. As he tells his story, he switches back and forth between the past and the present. He recalls the depression he experienced and the difficulties he had fitting in because his family did not want him when he returned home. He had no job, and the nightmares kept plaguing him (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”). John’s war with himself is still not over – some of the issues he brought home with him from Vietnam may follow him to his grave.

Carl Ferguson’s story

Carl Ferguson presents himself as a relatively cheerful and upbeat man. Despite the topic of the story being highly personal, he does not shy away from the truth or lament about personal grievances. Perhaps his role in the Vietnam War had something to contribute to his emotional stability – the man was a radar operator (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”). Although he saw his share of action and danger, Carl was not actively sent out into the danger zone; instead, he and his crew operated a radar dish that nobody believed worked at the time.

Carl acknowledges that serving in the army helped him realize his own sexual preferences, explaining that he is gay and that the army helped him “come out of the closet” (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”). While he does not approve of what happened in Vietnam, he views it from a philosophical perspective, saying that war is the natural state for all living beings, from nations and societies to the tiniest microorganisms. Carl considers many of the Allied interventions, including the wars in Korea and Bosnia, to be failures. Still, he believes that such conflicts are inevitable and that peace is a rare and precious thing in the 21st century.

Compare and Contrast Analysis

When watching the videos, it is clear that the Vietnam War greatly affected both veterans just from listening to how they talk. It is obvious that Vietnam hit John harder than Carl. It must be noted that John is not a weakling or a coward – his medals and awards prove that fact. However, he was more exposed to the hostile nature of the combat environment, which resulted in the PTSD and other psychological disorders he expresses up to this day. Carl, on the other hand, never had to directly kill anybody – he says so himself in the interview. Although he contemplates that knowing exactly how much suffering he caused may bring him peace, this seems very unlikely (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”).

Carl is much more open about his service than John. His story has a better flow and is more informative than John’s. He tells the audience about his wartime worries and routines and explains how he and his platoon contributed to the war effort during the Tet Offensive. John’s memories are much more visceral, so instead of telling about them, he asks volunteers to read articles that best represent his side of the story. John came home with plenty of psychological issues, while Carl hardly mentioned even one. The audience only knows that he was ambiguously gay before the war and that his time in the army helped him discover his true sexual orientation (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”).

Both veterans are reluctant and upset about the war. While John never explicitly states that the United States was wrong in invading Vietnam, he expresses great remorse for what he did. He even loathes his medals and says he earned them for killing people, not for courage or valor. Carl is more outspoken on the subject of American intervention, stating that not only Vietnam but also the wars in Bosnia and Korea were pointless and self-defeating (Solheim, “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson”).

Conclusions

The topic of the Vietnam War has been studied in America for many decades, and these two veterans do not tell the audience anything they do not already know or have at least heard of before. However, it is their perspectives that count. To hear the same story told by a veteran is a lot different than reading about it in a history book. In this case, the non-verbal message is more important than the verbal one. John serves as a prime example of what war can do to people – a strong, brave, and confident young man turned jittery and easily startled. He had to face the same demons every day during and for many years after the war. The stories of these veterans serve as a reminder to people that wars are a terrible thing and should not be fought over nothing.

Work Cited

Solheim, Bruce. “John Gutierrez; Carl Ferguson.”Archive.com, uploaded by Solheim, Bruce, 2016, Web.

Introduction

Chester’s work in this article centers on the fact the American use of attrition strategy in the American – Vietnam War was a failure. There are several arguments that the author uncovers to substantiate this claim. There are several aspects of his arguments that are effective. First, the operations of the US based troops were not unified in their patterns such that they could only attain the same end through a difficult experience. This was contributed by lack of territorial objectives and frontier lines which consequently led the soldiers into cynicism and frustration. Attrition only encouraged military operations that were not properly coordinated which could only end up in demand for additional US soldiers and requirements for their use. This was mainly experienced between 1965 and 1967.

Main Body

Second, the Vietnamese had a seemingly better strategy compared to the American’s attrition. This was manifested in two main ways. One is that, they had organized themselves in such a manner that their battle with the American troops were not frequent. This confused the American troops such that when the Vietnamese soldiers seized the opportunity, they could get their enemies unawares and consequently frustrate their attrition strategy.

The other way is that, while the American soldiers used attrition through missions that entail searching and destroying, their opponents could attack populated zones. However, when the American soldiers attempted countersurgency attacks, the repercussions were devastating to the environment, refugees and other non-targeted individuals. This shows how the strategy employed by the American troops did not achieve the desired end but instead caused unwanted harm resulting to more casualties. This evidence refuting the use of attrition by the American troops indicate that the strategy was ineffective and as such, it gave their enemies a leeway to capitalize on it and intensify the combat.

In defending the fact that attrition was not a strategy at all to the American troops, Chester presents other evidence that is not only superfluous, but also unconvincing. A good example is where the author points out that a greater percentage of the war reports shed more light on how the US forces were fighting and the rather genuine reports from the government of South Vietnam were dismissed. By doing this, the media journalists imagined that they were feeding the audience with relevant information.

Whereas this may point out to the fact that the journalists were trying to conceal the defeat that the American soldiers had suffered due to using an incoherent strategy (attrition), this is not brought out as the main reason for the journalists’ reporting style.

Therefore, it may not be a solid ground or evidence for the fail of attrition as a battle strategy by the American troops. The journalists may have been motivated by other reasons to present their reports in such a manner. It is evident from Chester’s argument that journalists presented such reports purposefully to please the editors who preferred such. The authorities in charge of media also gave directions that pictures and reports that indicated the defeat of American soldiers should not be disclosed.

Conclusion

In general, Chester succeeds in arguing out the fact that the use of attrition by the American troops in fighting against the Vietnamese was not a viable strategy. This is because his convincing evidence overshadows the superfluous one on this matter.

It would not be an understatement to claim that the Vietnam War was one of the most miscalculated and misguided endeavors undertaken by the American government in an effort to protect democracy. According to John Kerry, although the main idea behind the decision made by the U.S. government at the time seemed legitimate given the rise in the threat of communism taking over democracy, the execution of it and the decision to start a war were detrimental to the well-being of the U.S. (Kerry).

As Kerry explained, the Vietnam War had a massively negative impact on American soldiers and citizens since neither could determine the difference between the philosophies of communism and democracy (Kerry). As a result, without strong ideological support and the sense of doing the right thing, American troops were doomed in their efforts.

The stance that Kerry takes when talking about the Vietnam War seems quite sensible, yet it warrants further discussion and is not immune from criticism. For example, one might claim that Kerry’s perspective on Vietnam War lacks the assessment of the threat that the U.S. experienced as far as the possibility of a nuclear attack from the USSR was concerned. In addition, Kerry’s statements concerning his military service can reportedly be questioned since he may have embellished the truth in some parts of his account of the Vietnam War and his role in it (Kristof).

While the fact that Kerry deserved each of his medals is undeniable and unquestionable, his interpretation of the effects that he produced as a participant of the military actions may have been slightly skewed. Nevertheless, the specified arguments do not diminish the sensibility of Kerry’s claims as far as the Vietnam War’s objectives and ultimate results are concerned.

Work Cited

Kerry, John. “Statement by John Kerry of Vietnam Veterans against the War (1971).” The American Yawp Reader, n.d. Web.

Kristof, Nicholas D. “A War Hero or a Phony?” New York Times. 2004. Web.

Pre-Vietnam war time in the United States has already showed signs that some people were in major opposition judging the actions of the government. The time of the war confirmed that many Americans were against it and this could be evident from the great number of protests that took place. Some people were willing to go great distances in the movement against violent action.

Overall, usually strong American social unity was divided into two, those who supported the war and those who were against, but with the passage of time and acquisition of true understanding, the number of supporters drastically decreased.

During the 1960’s and more particularly during the Vietnam War, United States has experienced a social movement that was a large scale separation between those who thought that military action against Vietnam was justified and those who made strong points that America had no place in Vietnam.

In the year 1965, more than half of American citizens believed that United States must take active part in the Vietnam Conflict. These Americans supported their government and this was enough for the authorities to rely on. But it is very concerning that the other half either were against or had no opinion.

Next year the number of supporters started to decline steadily but this was not enough and not a reason for the American troops to get withdrawn from Vietnam. A closer look at people’s reasoning in the opposition to the war shows a differentiation between classes within society, occupations and age groups. Those who were in support were mostly younger population. One of the possible explanations is that younger people are not as rational as the older population and do not have as much life experience.

But, at the same time, there was a very significant amount of younger population that was against the war. One of the reasons is the opposition to the drafting process. Even in the state of peace there are many people who oppose war and any violent conflict, even if there are good reasons for it. For example, pacifists believe that humanity, civilized people, should never resort to violence when resolving a conflict.

Many of the younger population were pacifists, as they were opposed to any violence. Those who did not want to get drafted realized that they would face harsh conditions and very possibly death. In comparison to those who supported the war, it is clear that the obvious majority were those who did not get drafted or were volunteers to participate in the military violent action. This created a great separation within the society in the younger population (Gilbert 23).

One of the strong points that came out of the drafting process was the separation between classes. It was those in the lower and middle socio economic class that would get drafted, with anyone in the higher class having a greater ability to avoid any unwanted participation in the matter. The fact that people started to take part in demonstrations and openly protest any drafting and involvement of the United States in the war, created even more attention towards the Vietnam Conflict.

People started to question the reasons and their views began to change. As they found out more of the details, the opposition grew and by April of 1968, the amount of supporters of the war was 40 per cent. In October of 1969, only 32 per cent of American citizens supported the war (Robbins 28).

The steady decline shows that people became educated about the reasons and the toll that was taking away lives of both Untied States soldiers and Vietnamese fighters for freedom, as well as a great number of civilians. Students were another great part of the protest to the Vietnam War. Very many colleges and universities, as well as teachers and professors, took part in active demonstrations, demanding the American government to withdraw the troops.

The gradual separation between the citizens and the American government began to emerge. People started finding out that justifications were false and fabricated. The explanation that the communist Vietnam would spread its influence around, causing other countries to join with the communists was exaggerated.

These fears came mostly from example of the Soviet Union and the fall of communism there (Hall 118). American citizens started to protest and the government did notice. Even those who were supportive of the war, started to change their views, as is evident from the polls that were taken. People started to realize that the war was causing more casualties and that Americans had no place in Vietnam. It was the conflict that Vietnamese people had to resolve for themselves, in the building of a better and more liberal future.

The older population was also being drafted but their opposing views were mostly due to humanity and understanding that an armed conflict, so far away from home and in another country with traditions and ways of life so different, would not end in success. Another great contributor to how the war was perceived and viewed by many Americans was the media.

An increase in the development of technology, more particularly television and videotaping, has played a key role in the transference of information. The events that took place so far away, were not really understood and “felt” by many people but televised coverage brought the war to people’s homes. The casualties, horror of aimless bombing and lack of reasoning were viewed by many and so, the outrage increased drastically (Hallin 110).

The graphic nature and content of the televised footage was experienced by many people and they were able to realize what their government and soldiers were doing to a culture that has been fighting for its own freedom. Then, the news emerged that the borders with other countries, who were not participating in the conflict, were also affected. The bombing of close-by sites and villages was pointless and illegal but nonetheless, happened.

The proof of this lies in many letters and reports of people from the villages in the region (Robbins 17). People have started to realize how far the actions of Americans and United States’ government have gone and that this needs to be stopped. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke very precisely of the war and the views that people had about it:

“If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony…The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to life of her people” (“Landmark Speeches on the Vietnam War” 105).

These words very truly state what United States has accomplished and how people felt about the Vietnam War. The atmosphere within the American society became extremely heated and it was clear that some changes will have to be made. At the time, the president of the United States was Lyndon Johnson and he was an avid supporter of the war, starting such a movement of the American citizens against the government.

The book “Against the Vietnam War: Writings by Activists”, demonstrates people’s outrage by the following: “His popularity was at an all-time low; he could not appear publicly without a demonstration against him and the war. The chant ‘LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?’ was heard in demonstrations throughout the country” (Robbins 19).

It is clearly evident that people started to get outraged by the United States’ involvement in the war and wanted it to stop. In the end, this has had a significant effect on the withdrawal of troops. The proof of this is that Lyndon Johnson declared that he is not going to run for presidency and people gave their votes to Richard Nixon who promised to remove the troops from Vietnam.

The movement against Vietnam War was so great and historically significant that it lead to women’s rights movement and an increase in the demand for their acknowledgement of equality and freedoms. Even though they have been fighting for their own rights and freedoms throughout decades, their movement was very significant and primary, at that time. There were numerous committees that were formed, one of which was Women Strike for Peace.

Their slogans were in support of men who were against the war (Hall 43). Numerous groups of students, educators, racial minorities and classes have been forming committees and this has become a clear representation of the way people viewed the war. United States have become divided; one side was the minority that has kept their uneducated and blind hopes in the outcome of the war and the need for military presence and action.

It is as if the only reason they were supporting violence was the momentum they have gained in the beginning years of the war. The other side, the majority, has now understood that a great mistake was made and that it was very much an echo of the brutality and horrors that the world has already experienced during the two World Wars.

It would seem that people would try to never repeat such dehumanizing and pointless acts but examples of the breakage of the promise continue to the day. The anti-war movement has finally dominated the minds and hearts of Americans and Richard Nixon supported the nation and citizens. His policy, called “Vietnamization” was the beginning of an end for the US involvement in Vietnam (Wyatt 197).

The anti-war movement that Americans have demonstrated in relation to the Vietnam War illustrates an optimistic hope that it is people, their majority that believes in peace and goodness. Even though there are wars and armed conflicts, people will always voice their opinions against it, while governments, sometimes, follow a wrong path.

Works Cited

Gilbert, Marc. The Vietnam War on Campus: other voices, more distant drums. Westport, United States: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001. Print.

Hall, Di Mitchell. The Vietnam War: Second Edition. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education, 2007. Print.

Hallin, Daniel. The Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Los Angeles, United States: University of California Press, 1989. Print

Landmark Speeches on the Vietnam War. Texas, United States: Texas A&M University Press, 2010. Print.

Robbins, Mary. Against the Vietnam War: Writings by Activists. Maryland, United States: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print.

Wyatt, Clarence. Paper Soldiers: The American Press and the Vietnam War. Chicago, Untied States: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Print.

Introduction

Agent Orange used during the US war in Vietnam has sparked off interest from various stakeholders because of various reasons. These reasons have been expressed through questions such as ‘Did the government know short and long term effects of dioxin use and why did it continue to use it if it did?’, ‘Why did the government respond differently to the problem?’, ‘Were veterans’ litigations justified?’, ‘Was the justice system impartial to claims?’ and ‘Were veterans just as susceptible as Vietnamese citizens?’ the paper shall attempt to shed some light on these matters and many more surrounding the Agent Orange debate.

Background information

Agent Orange is a code for the chemical mixture of 2-4-5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2-4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in equal measure. During the manufacturing process, these chemicals produce a residue known as TCDD or dioxin and the latter is a highly toxic substance. The US military utilized herbicides such as Agent Orange to eliminate plant coverage (through defoliation or forcefully making leaves fall) in enemy territory to expose adversaries. Although some other toxic substances were used, Agent Orange by far has generated the most controversy because of both the long and short-term effects of its component chemical – dioxin. (Tuyet and Johnson, 156) In the lab, dioxin has been shown to affect the reproductive system and internal organs of animals. In Sweden, research has demonstrated that these lab findings can be generalized to cancerous and skin-related complications in humans.

The Vietnam scenario is quite different from earlier researches on the latter herbicide because, at that time, the US military had requested large amounts of it. To meet this rising demand, chemical industries had to speed up the manufacturing process thus resulting in higher concentrations of the by-product dioxin. Reports assert that the concentration of dioxin that the Vietnamese and American veterans may have been exposed to was twenty-seven times more than usual agricultural uses. Consequently, the effects brought on by the sprays may have been more than had been anticipated. In fact, concerns raised by the Environmental protection agency in the 1970s assert certain mammals could be killed by moderate concentrations of dioxin such as mice. These concerns have now been accepted by the scientific community as factual. Furthermore, dioxin could get into the human body through inhalation, skin contact, or oral consumption. This implies that their penetration levels are very high.

The controversy

Government assertions and reactions

As stated earlier, the late nineteen sixties witnessed unprecedented spraying of the toxic substance in Vietnam and these actions did not go unnoticed by the scientific community in the US. The Association of American Advancement of science prompted the US government to allow investigations into the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam in 1968. In response, the US secretary of state and the US embassy in Vietnam hand-picked a scientist from the Department of Agriculture in that same year to carry out those investigations. Upon coming back, he reported that there were no long-term effects of the chemicals and that warm-blooded animals could not be affected by Agent Orange adversely. His report can be found in a 1969 science magazine issue. (Sutton, 10) Several stakeholders following this story affirmed that this scientist’s report was done to avoid friction between the Government and chemical companies. The government combined these findings with what had been done earlier by a research firm known as Midwest Institute which exonerated any blame on the government.

Given such strong assertions, one would wonder whether the government was aware of the problems associated with the use of such a chemical. In a letter to Congress by one military scientist – Dr. Clary, it was asserted that he (together with other military colleagues) was well aware of the excessive concentration of the toxin and the dangers to human life that it would cause. However, he asserted that little attention was given to this since the parties who would be affected were Vietnamese citizens and that in case any American veteran was exposed, then chances are that the government would act to mitigate these effects. (Sutton, 22)

In 1984, another report was released by the US health and human services. They were experimenting to determine whether the lives of their veterans were in danger because of exposure to this chemical. The findings were similar to earlier government assertions that Operation Ranch soldiers were not in any danger. In other words, the Government’s stance on this matter is that Agent Orange posed no serious health implications and that those who purported so were just using propaganda against the nation. However, the controversial element about these assertions is that the government appeared to be using double standards on the matter. Back in the US, war veterans have received compensation in the past thus denoting that higher authorities do see some elements of truth in their cases. Critics assert that if the government is responding to their needs, then it is acknowledging that dioxin does affect the human body.

Reported effects and damages

Since Vietnam has minimal resources, its government has not sponsored scientists to investigate the effects of Agent Orange. However, international organizations have carried out their researches there in this decade. For instance, a Canadian institute called Hatfield Consultants has demonstrated that there are still substantial amounts of dioxin in the food chain and that these could pose serious threats to the lives of Vietnamese soldiers. (Denselow, 5) Therefore, approximately two decades and a half after the US war in Vietnam, it has been found necessary to safeguard the public’s health by removing people from areas that have been deemed highly toxic in this country. Other Vietnamese scientists have asserted that without even carrying out thorough investigations, one can deduce the harm caused by dioxin by the high cases of deformities noted in areas that were intensely sprayed by Agent Orange.

Pilot studies carried out by local doctors such as Nguyen Nhan have found that children born in areas that were sprayed by this herbicide have a three times higher than normal chance of having: cleft palates, extra toes and fingers, hernias and mental retardation. In response to these excessive cases of deformities, the Vietnamese government had to create over ten special schools to take care of children born with those disabilities (Denselow, 8). Another pilot study carried out in Vietnam by Tuyet and Johnson (156) among 200 women through semi-structured interviews found that those participants who had undergone high levels of exposure to Agent Orange had higher chances of undergoing miscarriages or bearing handicapped children. On top of the latter, seemingly normal children would develop disabilities in their first years of life. This imposed huge emotional and psychological challenges to the participants of the research as caring for such children necessitates financial resources which are not readily available in these Vietnamese homes.

As much as the US has tried to downplay these effects, what it did not know was that its military personnel in Vietnam would be just in as much danger as ordinary Vietnam citizens. During the war, some US soldiers in the latter country would store fruits in Agent Orange drums, store petroleum products which would then be placed in cars and inhaled, others would place water in the drums for bathing and the like – thus making them highly exposed to the chemicals. This was witnessed as soon as the latter Veterans’ settled back in America. Most of them reported liver, stomach, lung and skin disease. Others reported birth defects in their children while others had emotional complications. All these cases were prevalent among individuals exposed to this controversial herbicide.

Reactions of veterans to the problem

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences NAS (5) released a report linking several diseases among US veterans in the Vietnam War and exposure to Agent Orange. The latter group asserted that out of the two hundred and thirty studies carried out by the latter group, there were sufficient links to soft sarcoma, Hodgkin’s diseases, lymphoma, liver disorder and chloracne. Consequently, the Department of Veteran Affairs was advised to compensate former US soldiers who had these diseases. Nonetheless, it ruled out other possibilities such as cancer, reproductive and neurological effects citing either inadequate evidence or no association with these kinds of disease. Therefore, the latter cases were not eligible for compensation.

However, the latter findings did not stop US veterans from taking action against chemical manufacturing companies responsible for producing Agent Orange for the US military at the time of their serving. Thousands of cases have been launched against these groups with most veterans asserting that the birth defects they are experiencing or other health complications like cancer have been caused by this very problem. Most of them were well aware of the political implications of their cases but chose to proceed with litigations anyway. Analysts (Marcus, 104) assert that different Veterans were motivated by different reasons. Some were sincerely suffering and needed a way out of their predicaments; others were bitterly disillusioned by the war and wanted some justice while others may have been idealists who believe that the government should be involved in addressing the damage done by their actions in war.

How the legal system has responded to the controversy

In most cases, excessive amounts of money were involved; consequently, some lawyers took up these litigations out of a financial need. On the other hand, some plaintiff lawyers knew the publicity that these cases have and the exposure that it would create for their careers or their futures. Consequently, a lot of bickering and jockeying was witnessed in these trials amongst lawyers who were more interested in meeting their needs rather than fighting for justice on behalf of their clients. (Marcus, 78) often paints a picture of a very naïve group of US army veterans in these legal tussles. These individuals thought that they could fight it out with huge chemical companies and win. What they had missed was that most of these firms were well connected and therefore untouchable. Additionally, the judges involved in these cases could not just carry out rulings without considering the ramifications of their actions to the larger political society.

It should be noted that there has been a different pattern of response to the plight of affected US veterans in the judicial system over the past two and half decades. In 1984, a range of Agent Orange manufacturers like Diamond Shamrock, Uniroyal, Monsanto and Dow Chemical were directed by the Supreme Court to pay one hundred and eighty million dollars as compensation to affected parties between 1988 and 1996. Therefore, the Supreme court asserted that any Veterans who had been diagnosed from 1996 onwards were eligible to sue manufacturers afresh.

However, Chemical companies soon gained an upper hand after a hearing in 2005 by the second circuit court of appeals. The latter found that based on military contractor’s doctrine, then chemical companies were not liable to pay Veterans any compensation. This had been set out by Judge Weinstein in the Agent Orange litigation case no 381. The latter assertions by the Supreme Court were made in 2007 after concluding the 2005 case. In 2008, some Veterans also made claims i.e., Stephenson and Isaacson. The Second Court of Appeals dismissed these civil cases. (Lamb, 2)In 2009, appeals launched by Stephenson and Isaacson cases were denied with no viable explanations on the why Supreme Court judged opted to do that. Consequently, Agent Orange lawsuits have hit a deadlock as Veterans cannot rely on the legal system to air out their complaints.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Agent Orange use stems from some issues. First, government-sponsored reports are contradictory on the effects as some claim that only selected diseases are linked to chemical orange while others claim that there is no linkage at all. Independent reports carried out by international organizations like Canadian and Swedish-based institutes have found strong correlations between this herbicide and several diseases including those that were overruled by government scientists. Additionally, how victims have been treated has also generated controversy as some veterans before 1996 have been compensated while others in recent times have been denied this opportunity. No satisfactory actions have been given on this discontinuation thus prompting observers to think that there may be something that higher authorities are trying to hide.

Works Cited

Tuyet Le Thi Nham & Johansson Annika. “Impact of Chemical Warfare with Agent Orange on Women’s Reproductive Lives in Vietnam: A Pilot Study.” Reproductive Health Matters, 9.18(2001): 156. JSTOR. Web.

Marcus, Richard. “Review: Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts.” Michigan Law Review, 85.5 (1987): 1267-1296. JSTOR. Web. Mar.

Sutton Paul. “The History of Agent Orange use in Vietnam. US- Vietnam Scientific conference on Agent Orange health and environmental effects.” Agent Orange and Dioxin Committee. 2002. Web.

Lamb, Thomas. Agent Orange cases. Lamb law office, 2010. Web.

Denselow, Robin. Agent Orange blights Vietnam. BBC news. 1998. Web.

NAS. Report links diseases to herbicides for exposed Vietnam Veterans. Press release 1993. Web.

Introduction

Any significant historical event impacts society greatly and gives rise to several concerns related to the nature of this very phenomenon and the way it altered peoples mentality. There are numerous examples from the history of our planet that evidence the given statement. War has always been an inseparable fellow traveler of humanity and influenced its evolution greatly. Moreover, social shifts that resulted from any serious military conflict promoted the appearance of numerous artworks devoted to it. Art is another integral part of our society, and it could not but respond to all significant events providing a certain point of view and manifesting the communitys attitude to one or another process. For this reason, it is quite obvious that the Vietnam War as a great social and military conflict conditioned the appearance of numerous artworks devoted to its main peculiarities.

Background

Several main factors turned the topic of the Vietnam War into one of the most discussed issues of all time. First, the unfair character of this conflict and the lack of understanding of its main purposes resulted in the rise of a civil movement against the further development of war and US participation in it. American society blamed the government and soldiers who took part in it. Second, several war causalities and horrible conditions under which people had to survive impacted the psyche and mentality of the main participants and preconditioned the appearance of the so-called Vietnam Syndrome. For these reasons, the majority of the works devoted to the given issue tend to demonstrate the horrors of war and factors that impacted people.

Flashback

At the moment numerous poems are related to the given issue. For instance, David Vancils Flashback is an artwork of the given sort. The author touches upon the theme of war and its impact on common people. However, the poem might be sometimes confusing. It’s beginning introduces the main theme as there is a question about the combat (Vancil, “Flashback” 246). One could guess that the author opposes peaceful life to the horrors of war by comparing impressions of people with different experiences. This approach is rather interesting as it helps a reader to understand the gap between these people better and realize the fact that war does affect people greatly. In this regard, Flashback could be considered a poem that contributes to the improved comprehension of the given topic.

Pulpwood

This authors next poem Pulpwood is also devoted to the same issue. However, Vancil introduces another aspect by emphasizing the fact that war is not a horrible thing when you hear about it from TV or radio. Using a jet that flies over a peaceful picture, the author introduces a strong allusion as he concludes that it could also be the sky of Vietnam of Afghanistan and this very plane might deal with death and destruction (Vancil, “Pulpwood” 246). The last words underline the fact that no one is proof against war and could suffer from its devastating nature. The poem is clear and understandable, and it manages to create the image of war with its unexpected causalities and deaths. People should realize the fact that is should be avoided at any price.

Another word for orange

Finally, Vancils artwork Another Word for Orange provides a reader with the image of a person who is involved in this conflict. The author describes the most noticeable peculiarities of those warlike M16, the scent of napalm, thicket, etc. (Vancil, “Another Word for Orange” 247). The given details help to create a clear image and obtain at least a slight understanding of what was happening in Vietnam. Vancil also introduces the figure of a priest who might be taken as the symbol of faith and religion. Soldiers pray to survive and return home. All these metaphors conditions a readers improved involvement in the atmosphere and recognition of the major concerns related to this military conflict. The author manages to convey his main message and helps us understand the real face of war which is scary and disgusting. Faith and religion remain the only hope for those who fight on another land.

Conclusion

Altogether, the above-mentioned poems contribute to the improved comprehension of the image of the Vietnam War greatly. The author manages to create the atmosphere and helps readers to understand the fact that any war is disgusting and horrible. It comes along with numerous deaths, devastations, and despair. While the poem Flashback might be confusing as Vancil uses complex metaphors and allusions. However, Pulpwood and Another Word for Orange provides readers with clear images and understandable allusions. The author wants to warn readers that a war could come to any state and people will acquire the unbearable sufferings. It should be said that these poems might trigger the reconsideration of an individuals attitude to war and serve as a good basis for numerous discussions related to its nature and a great pernicious impact it might have on people, states, and society. For this reason, a person who wants to obtain at least a slight understanding of the nature of war should be recommended to read these artworks.

Works Cited

Vancil, David. “Falshback.” Viet Nam War Generation Journal: A Tribute to Robert Olen Butler. 2.3 (2003): 246.

—. “Pulpwood.” Viet Nam War Generation Journal: A Tribute to Robert Olen Butler. 2.3 (2003): 246.

—. “Another Word for Orange.” Viet Nam War Generation Journal: A Tribute to Robert Olen Butler. 2.3 (2003): 247.

“A Path to Shine After” by James Post is a short story which describes the experience of an American soldier in the Vietnam War. The main character of the story, a Vietnam veteran, recalls his experience after the war when he is visited by his son’s family. The story is a complex work with many underlying themes, but the major theme of the story is the continuing psychological effect the exposure to war has on a person’s life.

The author develops this theme by contrasting the experience of the veteran during the Vietnam War with his current normal life as a family man. The narrator of the story was serving as a truck driver in a supply unit during the Vietnam War. The name of the narrator is not mentioned, only his nickname, Chickenchest, presumably given for his fragile appearance. Long after the war is over, the veteran is visited by his grown-up son and his family, including their daughter. In a brief introduction, a particular detail of their visit, a ribbon they tie over her hair, is singled out by the author: “the ribbon makes it difficult for me” (Post 124). What follows is a series of flashbacks of the Vietnam War mixed with the descriptions of the veteran’s current life. The author uses the contrast between a peaceful life of the veteran and his experience as a soldier to highlight the senselessness and cruelty of war.

In the flashbacks, the narrator recalls what is was like to serve as a truck driver in a supply line of American army forces. The veteran recalls that their supply convoy was a constant target for ambushes and that the Vietnam army used children and adolescents as part of their military operations: “this kid, maybe sixteen and bare as a newborn, […] stares at us all searching for any weapon we can get our hands on”. A more disturbing fact the author includes in the final paragraphs of the story. During one of the supply convoys, the veteran was driving through a village, and a girl appeared on the way of the trucks, wearing a dress with a flowery pattern and a ribbon. She did not move as the trucks approached closer. The narrator speculates that most likely the girl was bait: if they had stopped, they would have been ambushed and killed in a matter of minutes. The ribbon and the dress were too out of place, and the whole situation seemed too staged. However, there was no way of knowing for sure, and this experience, and this girl who stood with her arms opened as the truck approached. The feeling of guilt is still consuming the narrator when he sees a ribbon in his son’s daughters’ hair.

War is understood as something inhumane, cruel, and ruthless. War, however, is a general concept: for those who never saw a war, it has no real meaning, no human face. The message of the author’s story is that war is so cruel and senseless it leaves an ever-present trauma behind. Post makes war a personal, individualized experience, by showing the experience in the first person. The story of the girl with a ribbon is heartbreaking and the description of the narrator’s son’s daughter wearing the same ribbon, living a happy and peaceful life, makes the reader makes the reader wonder if war, any war, is really worth it. Why one girl deserves to live happily, and another die miserably under the army truck? Who is responsible for her death, the truck driver doing his duty or those people who used the girl as bait?

The traumatizing experience of the veteran also emphasizes the fact that those who experienced war suffer psychological trauma which stays with them for the rest of the life. The narrator recalls the way after the war a siren prompted him to carry his wife under cover to avoid bombing. He recalls the way he tried to attack his wife with a sledge when she told him she was leaving, “the neglect, the verbal abuse” (Post 127). It takes a very strong man to overcome the experience and an even stronger woman to accept and live with such a man. War does not consume only those whose experience is first-hand, it affects their loved ones, too. The author provides valuable insight into what it is like to live a normal life after one has seen the atrocities of war. Post also highlights the role veterans’ wives played in the post-war recovery process and the abuse they suffered for the sake of their family.

The name of the story “A Path to Shine After” is a religious quote which describes a trail a creature of terrible force lives behind. The author uses allegory to convey the idea that war is so horrifying it leaves a glowing trace in many people’s lives. The vivid description of the veteran’s flashbacks provides a comprehensive insight into what is it like to leave through this horrifying experience also gives readers some understanding of the effect war has on a person’s life.

Works Cited

Post, James. “A Path to Shine After”. Viet Nam War Generation Journal: A Tribute to Robert Olen Butler. Maple Valley: Viet Nam War Generation Press, 2003. 124-128. Print.