U.S. Involvement In The Vietnam War Essay, Research Paper

U.S Involvement in the Vietnam War

“No new taxes.” This is a quote that most all of us

remember from the 1992 presidential election. Along with it we

remember that there were new taxes during that presidents term in

office. There are a myriad of promises made and things done in a

presidential election year that have questionable motives as to

whether they are done in the best interest of the people or in

the interests of the presidential candidate. These hidden

interests are one of the biggest problems with the political

aspects of government in modern society. One of the prime

examples of this is the Vietnam War. Although South Vietnam

asked for our help, which we had previously promised, the entire

conflict was managed in order to meet personal political agendas

and to remain politically correct in the world’s eyes rather than

to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This can be

seen in the selective bombing of Hanoi throughout the course of

the Vietnam War. Politically this strategy looked very good.

However, militarily it was ludicrous. War is the one arena in

which politicians have no place. War is the military’s sole

purpose. Therefore, the U. S. Military should be allowed to

conduct any war, conflict, or police action that it has been

committed to without political interference or control because of

the problems and hidden interests which are always present when

dealing with polit

United States involvement in the Vietnam War actually

began in 1950 when the U. S. began to subsidize the French Army

in South Vietnam. This involvement continued to escalate

throughout the 1950’s and into the early 1960’s. On August 4,

1964 the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in which American Naval

Vessels in South Vietnamese waters were fired upon by North

Vietnam. On August 5, 1964 President Johnson requested a

resolution expressing the determination of the United Sates in

supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia (

Johnson ). On August 7, 1964, in response to the presidential

request, Congress authorized President Johnson to take all

necessary measures to repel any attack and to prevent aggression

against the U. S. in southeast Asia ( United States ). The

selective bombing of North Vietnam began immediately in response

to this resolution. In March of the following year U. S. troops

began to arrive.

Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution specifically

stated that we had no military, political, or territorial

ambitions in southeast Asia, the interests back home were quite

a different story ( Johnson ). The political involvement in

Vietnam was about much more than just promised aid to a weak

country in order to prevent the spread of communism. It was

about money. After all, wars require equipment, guns, tools and

machinery. Most of which was produced in the United States. It

was about proving America’s commitment to stop communism. Or

rather to confine communism in its present boundaries But most

of all it was about politics. The presidential political

involvement in Vietnam had little to do with Vietnam at all. It

was about China for Eisenhower, about Russia for Kennedy, about

Washington D.C. for Johnson, and about himself for Nixon ( Post

). The last two of which were the major players in America’s

involvement in regards to U. S. Troops being used ( Wittman ).

The military involvement in Vietnam is directly related

to the political management of the military throughout the war.

The military controlled by the politicians. The micro

management of the military by the White House for political gain

is the primary reason for both the length and cost, both monetary

and human, of the Vietnam War ( Pelland ). One of the largest

problems was the lack of a clear objective in the war and the

support to accomplish it. The predominant military opinion of

the military’s role in Vietnam in respect to the political

involvement is seen in the following quote by General Colin

Powell, “If you’re going to put into something then you owe the

armed forces, you owe the American People, you owe just you’re

own desire to succeed, a clear statement of what political

objective you’re trying to achieve and then you put the

sufficient force to that objective so that you know when you’ve

accomplished it.” The politicians dictated the war in Vietnam,

it was a limited war, the military was never allowed to fight the

war in the manner that they thought that they needed to in order

to win it ( Baker ).

To conclude on the Vietnam War, the political management

of the war made it unwinnable. The military was at the mercy of

politicians who knew very little about what needed to be done

militarily in order to win the war. There is an enormous

difference between political judgment and military judgment.

This difference is the primary reason for the outcome of the

Vietnam War ( Schwarzkopf ).

The Gulf War in the Middle East was almost the exact

opposite in respect to the political influence on the war. In

respect to the military objective of the war the two are

relatively similar. The objective was to liberate a weaker

country from their aggressor. The United Nation’s resolution was

explicit in its wording regarding military force in the Persian

Gulf. The resolution specifically stated “by all means

necessary.”( Schwarzkopf ).

The President was very aware of the problems with

political management of warfare throughout the war. He was very

determined to let the military call the shots about how the war

was conducted. He made a specific effort to prevent the

suggestion that civilians were going to try to run the war (

Baker ). Painful lessons had been learned in the Vietnam War,

which was still fresh on the minds of many of those involved in

this war ( Baker ).

The military was given full control to use force as they

saw fit. Many of the top military leaders had also been involved

in the Vietnam War. These men exhibited a very strong never

again attitude throughout the planning stages of this war.

General Schwarzkopf made the following statement about the

proposed bombing of Iraq in regards to the limited bombing in

Vietnam, “I had no doubt we would bomb Iraq if I was going to be

the Military Commander.” He went on to say that it would be

absolutely stupid to go into a military campaign against his,

Iraq’s, forces who had a tremendous advantage on us on the

ground, numbers wise. It would be ludicrous not to fight the

war in the air as much, if not more, than on the ground (

Schwarzkopf ).

The result of the Gulf War in which the military was

given control, as we know, was a quick, decisive victory. There

were many other factors involved in this than just the military

being given control, particularly in contrast to Vietnam, but the

military having control played a major part in this victory.

In conclusion, although there are some major differences

between the two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly.

That is the fact that the military is best suited for conducting

wars. Politicians are not. It is not the place of a politicians

to be involved in the decision making process in regards to war

or military strategy. The White House has significant control in

military matters. That control should be used to help the

military in achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where

George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job.

The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the

ege Station. 9-10 Jan. 1996.

Bibliography

Post, James N. E-mail to the author. 26 June 1996

Roush, Gary. Statistics about the Vietnam War Internet Page.

Nov. 1993.

United States, Joint Resolution of Congress H. J. RES 1145.

Aug. 7, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1965.

Wittman, Sandra M. “Chronology of the Vietnam War.” Vietnam:

Yesterday and Today Oakton Community College. Skokie, Illinois.

16 May 1996: n.p.