Vietnam & After

War in Afghanistan

This is a website to a movie I just saw this on Good Morning America this morning about a platoon in Afghanistan's Korengal valley.  http://restrepothemovie.com   The movie follows this platoon for one full year.  It is on National Geographic Channel Monday November 29th at 9pm Eastern time.  I just wanted to let everyone know since our last essay is a comparison between the war in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq I thought this might come in useful.

 

LBJ Speeks at Johns Hopkins

After reading LBJ’s speech at Johns Hopkins in 1965, I got a better sense of what the American people were being fed during this time period. LBJ talked about helping Vietnam avoid communism rule from China and allowing Vietnam to form a democracy on their own. I ask then, why were we in the thick of things not only helping but also shouldering much of the effort. Our troops were fighting another countries war for them and against them so it seems to me that it was a loose loose for America. LBJ seems to view it differently, always falling back on the argument that we must avoid communism at all cost and at least allow Vietnam to mold itself into a democracy. But we know that if Vietnam was left with a choice between democracy and communism and picked communism, we would have to go back in there and fight them because we just could never allow communism to expand.

The fact is, that communism is very much universal everything, but ideas about how communism should work do vary. During this time the United States could not get that through its head. LBJ talked in this speech about defending Vietnam in order to defend our way of life in the free world and to allow every nation to develop on its own. This is funny because by the U.S. fighting a war in Vietnam, we are not letting Vietnam become anything more then a nation we want to build. We were nation building.

“We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure”

Lyndon B. Johnson Speech at Johns Hopkins 1965

This quote seems to explain why we were In Vietnam then and even why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. As a country, America cannot stand by and let other nations work conflicts out on their own. We believe we must act as the worlds police, and when we do this we usually make conflicts bigger and more drawn out then they need to be. I believe it’s a lack of trust on America’s part that forced us into Vietnam. We didn’t trust the idea of communism not spreading all over the world and we convinced ourselves we needed to fight it, no matter where it popped up.

Johnson also states; “appetite of aggression is never satisfied”. He was referring to Vietnam and China's rule over it, and then potentially China going after other countries, as a reason why we had to stay in Vietnam. I think this is true I do think once someone or a country develops a taste for power, they may never stop, but I also think this is true for governing. America cant seem to stop wanting to build nations in their own way and this seems to lead to conflict after conflict. 

The Johnson Doctrine

"It is likely that Johnson himself believed an attack against American warships had taken place.  Yet there can be little doubt that he responded to the possibility of such an attack with stunning alacrity.  No one suggested waiting a bit, probing Hanoi's intentions, or seeking mediation.  Whatever happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, its successful presentation to Congress and the public as an overt act of Hostility by Hanoi was precisely what Johnson's advisers had told him he needed: a way to justify direct American participation in the war". - Marilyn Young

Diem; Chalabi.  The Gulf of Tonkin "incident", anti-communist ideology, an existing agenda for war, The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; WMDs, Yellowcake, Chemical and Biological weapons, neo-con ideology, the Project for a New American Century, the Iraq Resolution.  War.

So is the Bush doctrine (unbeknownst to Sarah Palin) actually a refabrication of the Johnson doctrine?

Johnson's white house actively sought after something, albeit true or not, that could garnish public support and approval for an existing agenda of military expansion in Vietnam.  Similarly, the Bush white house seems to have waited for an excuse to invade Iraq.  In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld (later, Bush's Secretary of Defense), Paul Wolfowitz (later, Deputy Secretary of Defense), and Robert Zoellick (President of the World Bank), of the neo-conservative think tank, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton professing their neo-con ideology for a global Pax Americana, strategically beginning with military aggression in Iraq.

WMDs (that never existed) were one of many fallible reasons Bush cited for a preemptive war against Iraq.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident (which never happened) provided Johnson with a publicly acceptable reason for the preemptive war with Vietnam.  Johnson's war can be referred to as preemptive after closely examining at his motives for increasing military presence in Vietnam, embodied by anti-communist ideology.  Bush's motives for war with Iraq seem to be embodied by neo-con ideology.

So what did we learn about going to war from our military excursion in Vietnam? 
Nothing that is not being learned all over again in Iraq.

Deceptive Foreign Policy

As most people know, foreign policy is one of the most important issue that a president has to deal with. Foreign policy can often define the legacy of a president in the way he handles it, for example, President Ronald Reagan was a driving force in the eventually destruction of the Berlin Wall. However, there are presidents who have questionable foreign policies. President Lyndon B. Johnson sent Americans to fight in Vietnam based on inaccurate information about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. President George W. Bush sent Americans to Iraq based on the false belief that the country was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). These policies combined have resulted in the deaths of over 60,000 soldiers with countless soldiers left wounded. To understand how these policies come to fruition and implemented, can be found in the following from the book, Iraq and the lessons of Vietnam:

The distortion of information for political objectives became worse with time, but it preceded the Vietnam War by well over a decade and simply continues in our own day. The CIA, which often produced excellent analytic assessments, was taken seriously only insofar as its burgeoning action wing could implement foreign policies covertly. The Vietnam War evolved in this context, and erroneous and often duplicitous estimates provided the setting of every crisis since then-Iraq included. It is crucial that we regard the intelligence and information process as inherently polluted, subject to political whims. The problem has never been knowledge but policy.

After reading this, I believe that the process in which a president goes about his foreign policies is broken. There are too many individuals in our government who are pushing for their own personal agendas at the cost of American lives. If more Americans took the time to read that snippet, it would make them seriously question the actions and motives that our government to the point of distrust. I hope that the next president has a clear foreign policy that does not lead to deaths of American serviceman who fought on our behalf under false pretenses.

The Effects of War on U.S. Politics: Elections & Presidents

During a time of war U.S. politics have greatly changed as a result. Vietnam became the catalyst for many changes in U.S. society.  "The struggle for civil rights, for women's rights and for the creation of a more open, liberal society", wrote Jonathan Marcus in The Long Shadow of Vietnam about the impact of Vietnam in the U.S.. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated and shortly after Senator Robert F. Kennedy along with continuous Vietnam protests, politics were changing and the Democratic Party Cracked under pressure.

The Democratic Party held it's national convention in Chicago in August of 1968. The Convention was a disaster, protesters rallied everyday, the National Guard and Chicago Police were criticized for the problems keeping control. The Democrats lost credibility on National Security over the Vietnam War. Republicans continue to win on the strong stand for National Security, Richard Nixon, Ronald Regan and both Bushs. The dramatic effects of Vietnam are still being played out today during debates and on the campaign tour for the upcoming election.

Iraq is compared to Vietnam often and even by the current President who until recently said that there were no correlations between Iraq and Vietnam. The problem with President Bush is that he is using the wrong lessons from Vietnam to support the war effort in Iraq.

The debates have begun for next years election and the war in Iraq is a very important issue the Democrats are challenged with. They have been protrayed as bad for National Security, will people protest as in 1968? Well Youtube has become this generations public forum. CNN hosted the Republican Debates just recently and the Democrats had their debates over the summer also hosted by CNN, but more importantly the candidates were questioned by average Americans who posted there important concerns about the country on Youtube.com.

<----Republican Iowa Debate.

The war in Iraq is changing our politics as you are reading this. Next years Presidential election will tell us how much U.S Politics has changed.

Iraq and Vietnam: One and the Same??

Iraq and Vietnam may share some of the same similarities, invasion of a foreign, unknown territory, enforcing their northern wills amongst the northern people, death toll in the thousands and rising, but, the comparisons between the two would probably stop at that point. What we as people fail to realize is that Vietnam was more than fifty years ago. What we have now as far as technological advances far succeed what we had then. Despite advances in technology, historic events do not compare. As far as incidents such as My Lai, and other abominations such as, have not occured (to the publics knowledge). With Bush trying to go in and invade Iraq like Truman and Eisenhower previouslywith Vietnam, Bush is realizing that by invading and facing off with Irag and other rebels, he is not only sacrificing U.S. troops and Iraqi civilian lives, he is fighting an enemy in which he does'nt know of. But, what is most similar is the American support that both wars have conjured in order to veil the wrongs that have been acted out. Once Bush linked 9/11 to thier purpose of invasion, this relation makes it undeniably similar to Vietnam and how Americans associated the Japanese of World War to the Vietnamese of the war, like second class citizens.      

Class and Wars

As everyone knows, for a nation to enter a conflict in a foreign nation, that nation must have a decent amount of individuals to either win the conflict and or complete the mission. In the case of the United States, we have been participants of wars and conflicts through the 20th and now the 21st Century. The basic requirement to fight in a war for the United States is being an able-bodied citizen who is a member of one of the branches of the armed forces. However as you look deep into who fights in wars for the United States, lies an ugly truth. The truth is that the majority of the soldiers that are in America's armed forces are largely poor and working class individuals. These individuals use the military as a means to escape their status of poverty. In the passage called Class Wars, from the book, Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam, the point of America having a class war can be made and elaborated on through the following:

Another, perhaps less noticed, connection between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam is that in both cases the United States sent a disproportionately working-class military to kill and die while asking or demanding virtually no sacrifices from privileged Americans at home. Despite the differences between the Vietnam-era draft and current all-volunteer force, both systems put the most of the dirty work of warfare in the hands of people with significantly fewer choices and opportunities than their wealthier peers and sent them to fight undeclared wars on false pretexts.

As we read, the wealthy are never asked to fight in a war whereas the poor have no choices at all. One question that I would like to ask is, Are the lives of the wealthy that precious to the point where they cannot fight in wars? I personally feel that wealthy should be forced to fight just as much as the working-class does despite the fact that our military is a volunteer-based force. I feel like all working class individuals should avoid joining the military unless the armed forces recruiters stop exclusive recruitment of the poor and start going after individuals in the higher tax bracket.

Manufacturing the Iraq and Vietnam War

Chapter 4 in Iraq And The Lessons of Vietnam is a very interesting chapter.  It brings up how the two wars started in a smilar way.  The war planners created threats so the American people and government would stand behind the policies directed at going to war.

"They (war planners) felt they had to have a serious threat, because withouot it, political resistance would have been too strong, whether inside the government, outside it, or both."(p88)

The threats created were the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq.  It's debatable whether these ploys worked or if the wars would have started without the threats.  Chances are the wars would have taken place no matter what, because other interests besides those of the American people were involved.  These created threats just made it easier to enter into the wars.

BBC: Seeing Iraq: Thinking Vietnam

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus has produced a short article and a two part audio documentary: "Seeing Iraq: Thinking Vietnam."

Part 1: Past and present: The impact of the two conflicts on American society and politics.

Part 2: Fracturing impact: The US army had to be totally reorganised following Vietnam.

Vietnam & the Presidency Conference Audio & Transcripts

The JFK library hosted a conference on Vietnam and the Presidency.  American RadioWorks produced an audio version, including a one hour documentary and transcripts of the event.

Here is the description:

"In March 2006, the John F. Kennedy Library hosted a landmark conference, Vietnam and the Presidency. It brought together some of the nation's foremost historians, journalists, veterans and policy makers to discuss the lessons and legacy of the Vietnam War. At a time when the United States debates what to do in Iraq, these lessons are more relevant than ever." 

You can listen to the sessions of the conference as well as read the transcripts.