Vietnam & After

Flawed Reasoning

"Unless we can achieve this objective in South Vietnam, almost all of Southeast Asia will probably fall under Communist dominance (all of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), accommodate to Communism so as to remove effective U.S. and anti-Communist influence (Burma), or fall under the domination of forces not now explicitly Communist but likely then to become so (Indonesia taking over Malaysia).  Thailand might hold for a period without help, but would be under grave pressure.  Even the Philippines would become shaky, and the threat to India on the West, Australia and New Zealand to the South, and Taiwan, Korea, and Japan to the North and East would be greatly increased" - National Security Action Memorandum 288, March 17, 1964

In LSAT language, this is what is referred to as a "circular argument".  In a circular argument, the premise is left to assumption.  One can assume that the "Domino theory", or China's or the Soviet Union's sphere of influence may be at the forefront of one's thoughts upon reading this memorandum.  However, none of that can be directly inferred from this document.  So, what premise to this argument is a reader supposed to summon in order to fully understand a memorandum of this magnitude?  And for a document as consequential as this, is it safe to assume?

Technology Versus Nature

"The rationale for much of American technology had been the conquest of nature.  But in Vietnam, the VC/NVA used nature for the conquest of technology!"

According to Gibson in "The perfect War"  American technology was supposed to be the deciding issue in victory.  What the American military machine didn't understand was the ineptitude of the technology they possessed in the character of the war they fought.  The infiltration of the enemy into every part of Vietnam, and the cooperation of the people to the VC proved invaluable.  Enemy communications were hard to disrupt and intercept.  Most contact in battle was initiated by the enemy.  The tunnel system that was created by the VC in South Vietnam totally confused American response in retaliatary strikes and search and destroy missions.  Noisy Amerian machinery gave early warning to American attacks and also gave away American positions.  The American military machine was forced to initiate contact by using their grunts as "live bait", which resulted in heavy loss of life.  Even after contact, the VC knew they had time to leave the area before the heavy technology descended upon them.

The U.S. formula for body counts, field operation effectiveness, and military promotions criteria, lowered U.S. morale.  Apparantly the numbers game did not create the equation that the technology masters had predicted. The VC/NVA proved "natural" intelligence a lot smarter than technology!   

Mao tse-tung revolution achieved victory on a principle of land for peasants

land in Vietnam was a way that many made a living. It wasnt just goods it some. the land had no price in the eyes of most peasants, land was pricless to them. Moa Tse-teng said...

"Everything arose out of a specified situation; we organized peasant revolt, we did not instigate it. Revolution is a drama of passion; we did not win the people over by appealing to reason, but by developing hope, trust, fraternity. In the face of famine, the will to equality takes on a religios force. then, in the struggle for rice, land, the rights brought by agrarian reform, the peasants had the conviction that they were fighting for their lives and those of their children...

This quote lead the victory of Mao Tssetung's revolution. This principle of land for peasant was looked up to by many people; it was honored and it was great encouragement. revolution being a passion tells us that this is in people, that this is what they feel they want to do, and is necessary. It wasnt won over! people did what they felt would be beneficial in the end.

Johnson's Plee To The People

By 1965, after the U.S. has been fighting a covert war, president Lyndon B. Johnson attempts to explain to his fellow Americans why America needs to go to war. He claims that it is somehow the U.S.'s duty to ensure world peace. He even admits to communism being the real enemy here. He states in his speech in 1965 that:

"The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy."

President Johnson goes on to explain that because the U.S. went ahead and involved ourselves in Vietnam's dispute with the French, that we somehow had an obligation to South Vietnam.

"Why are we in south Vietnam? We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American president has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam. We have helped to build , and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend It's independence."

To the  American people  the U.S. was acting bravely and selflessly. In actuality, the U.S. were sticking their nose where it didn't belong for both economic incentives and political dominance over weak nations. By this point the U.S. seemed to pose a bigger threat of expansion than the communism in many ways. 
But was the threat of communism really so severe ? Or was it blown out of proportion in order to gain support from the American people?   

The Great Deception Escalates

LBJ lamented giving up on the "Great Society" when he inherited the situation in Vietnam.  "The Great Society" was perhaps dead but a great deception was escalating.  Stated in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, 1964:

"... the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in their own way..."  (Emphasis added)

By this time certain fictions had snowballed, new ones were created, and what was being established remained unchallenged.  For instance, John Foster Dulles in the Eisenhower administration stated that communism was a monolithic block.   Evidence indicates that the issue was far more complex, however what was perceived as reality influenced policy.  "Containment" was the basis of such policy, thus how can any reasonable perspective not see that US intervention was in fact territorial.  Self-deception ran very deep from the outset and continued.

There were political ambitions- the political maneuvering took place on a world map between polarized superpowers.  Relevant to this point, continuing self-deception in the Kennedy administration is apparent is the statement of Henry Cabot Lodge, who warned against letting 240 million people in the area of southeast Asia fall to communism.  "Losing" more of the East was definitely political, and bi-partisan. It was hardly a humanitarian concern. 

Of course when it was difficult to establish the democracy that needed defending, there was a need to increase military involvement.  It is interesting how the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution negates all evident rationale.  Much can be said to further support this conclusion.  But another point is that when we look at history we need to make certain acknowledgments, which in this case deals with intentions.  Calling this a great lie might suggest deliberate negative intentions.  Since certain perceptions were taken for reality, it is perhaps better to call this a very serious endemic of deception.

I believe there is a lesson in all this which is relevant to the political philosophies of the current Republican presidential candidate.  The campaign often takes history out of context and uses deceptive tactics.  They appeal to the anti-intellectualism which take issues at face value, and like Dulles, cannot see the greater complexities.

Questioning Priorities

" I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved. If I left the women I really loved- the Great Society- in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then i would lose everything at home. All my programs... But if i left that war and let the communists take over South Vietnam then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser, and we would both find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe." - Lyndon B. Johnson, as quoted in The Vietnam Wars by Marilyn Young.

The question here is priorities. What is more important, the issues at home, or issues overseas? I feel that the issues in our own society are more important than issues over seas. Here we are trying to help Vietnam fix their government while we put our own at risk. Johnson would risk our society to fight a war " whose definitions he never question ( Young 106)." The issue here is that a president should keep our own country's well being as the number 1 priority. Johnson would rather risk societies well being rather than be seen as a coward, or our nation be seen as an appeaser. Was this decision made in the interest of society's well being or a presidents pride? The purpose of a government is to protect the people it governs. Johnson's decision put the Vietnamese first and the American people second. Where was his priorities?

What LBJ has to say

Given the essence of our culture in America, we tend to not look at the all the same variables our president and joint Chiefs of Staff have to consider.  We were are coming off back to back World War victories ( we even have t-shirts) ,  but did we ever really listen to President Johnson.

" The most important question I had to face was:  How will the decisions we make in Vietnam or elsewhere afffect the security and the future of our nation? "

During Johnson Recalls his Decision to Commit  he shows concern for the well being of Americas future.  He takes the possibilty of the United States looking vunerable to out side nations attack.  We had to keep communism at arms length and prevent the spread of Russia and China's power.  President Johnson states "...if we do not live up to our commitment in Southeast asia and elsewhere, they would move to exploit the disarray in the Unitied States and in the alliances of the Free World".  He believed whole heartly that if we were to just pick up and leave Vietnam with some sort of peace accord that communism would suffocate the entire Southeast Asia and potential make a world power that we were later have conflict with.  Granted all the lives lost and money spent we had to walk on egg shells and really think of out security before retreating. 

Our Pledge To Vietnam.

" We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence." - Lyndon B Johnson.

This quote by Lydon B. Johnson gives me a feelings of mixed emotions. The loyalty and dedication spoken about in this quote make me feel proud to be an American but at the same time i feel as if you can sense and underlying message. Is it really that we support South Vietnam that much? Or is that we dislike Communism so much we will do whatever and took whoever-es side in order to defeat it. It even reminds of me the talks we hear to today with the situation in Iraq, i feel as if all the fancy words and in-depth analysis batenly just say look we started this and we have to finish it. No matter who we are fighting or what the cause the main concern is a victory not a defeat. Since taking this class it has become clear to me how we became involved with Vietnam but unclear to me as to why we took it all up upon ourselves in the end. Our police like actions being such a powerful nation i feel have put us into such a situation of expectations. From the beginning it was never our war. It was France's attempt to reestablish themselves and since we were hands on from the begging, it is no surprise that it all came back to us in the end with a full blown war between us and North Vietnam.

Lyndon B. Johnson's lies about the Gulf of Tonkin and his invovlment in Vietnam

Lyndon B. Johnson had to make certain decisions about the Vietnam war. One of the issues that L.B.J had to decide on was the gulf of Tonkin. L.B.J told congress as well as Americans that two American Patrol boats were attacked by the Northern Vietnamese unprovoked. This gained support for him send more armed forces into North Vietnam and use any forces necessary to repel attacks on the United States. But while the Maddox and Timer Joy were attacked it was because the ships were collecting electronic information from North Vietnam. This wasn't the only lie that L.B.J told Congress as well as the American people about his involvement in Vietnam.

"The President's response to the Gulf of Tonkin incident spiked his poll ratings and no longer felt so vulnerable to Goldwater's attack. Instead he painted Goldwater as a dangerous extremist who might lead the United States into World War III and presented himself as a man of peace."(Appy, 113).

L.B.J actions contradicted his statements that he was a "Peace" candidate. Instead of trying to keep peace in Vietnam the amount of armed forces he sent into North Vietnam kept escalating. Not only was L.B.J sending troops into North Vietnam he was sending troops to bomb South Vietnam. More then five hundred thousand members of the armed forces were sent to Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson kept telling Congress and Americans that sending more troops was a way to protect Americans and keep peace in Vietnam. All the increases made in Vietnam were meant to help the people in South Vietnam. While L.B.J was explaining to Americans that his increases involvement was to keep peace, it was really a way to declare war without going through the American people or congress. Lyndon B. Johnson was not only planning the Gulf of Tonkin but also the major escalations in the war. this proves that Johnson's plans in Vietnam were not intended to keep peace but to go into war with Vietnam without the formal title. Many of the Congressmen and Americans were on the side of Johnson until they started finding out about the lies. Johnson kept informing Americans he was optimistic about the success in Vietnam. But Johnson had a lot of doubts in the success of Vietnam. Would the lies of Johnson lead to the downfall of Americans in Vietnam?

Diem's misunderstanding

"'Look, they stepped all over my shoes,' Diem said with wonder on the return plane ride to Saigon. [...] He had been reluctant to go, content to govern from his office in the palace. Now he was glad he had listened to Lansdale..."

Ngo Dinh Diem is famous for being the U.S. selected puppet president of South Vietnam. Popular to the landowners, he was unpoplular in the poor countryside regions. In this quote he seems to be coming to the (false) understanding that the public adores him. Is it possible self-trickery like this led to hid confidence in letting his brother run a Nazi inspired secret police? Could he have been blinded by U.S. support enough to think that decisions like these would not affect his popularity?