How Did Eisenhower Influence Vietnam

Many historians viewed Kennedy as a young, naïve president who lacked a clear policy but the counter argument is that Kennedy was decisive and assertive. In order to judge whether John F. Kennedy lacked a clear policy in Vietnam we have to compare the policies of Dwight Eisenhower’s in Vietnam and John F. Kennedys policies and how it contradicted with their ideologies.

The political instability in Vietnam from 1950 to 1975 between the communist North Vietnam and anti-communist South Vietnam during the Cold War era has led to the United States’ inevitable intervention in Vietnam. The main motivators for the United States’ incremental decision to intervene and commitment in Vietnam can be viewed as an accumulation of socio-political, political and economic catalysts. In recognition that there were many other factors that may have contributed to the U.S’s involvement in the conflict in Vietnam, this essay will largely focus on these three factors. As the cold war resonates, the American’s crusade was propelled by the fears of the domino theory and perception of Communist threat and expansion affected the

The Vietnam War was a conflict, which the United States involved itself in unnecessarily and ultimately lost. The basis of the conflict was simple enough: Communism vs. Capitalism, yet the conduct of the Vietnam War was complex and strategic, and brought repercussions which had never been seen before. The struggle between North and South had an almost inevitable outcome, yet the Americans entered the War optimistic that they could aid the falling South and sustain democracy. The American intentions for entering the Vietnam conflict were good, yet when the conflict went horribly wrong, and the resilient North Vietnamese forces, or ‘Viet Cong' as they were known, refused to yield, the United States saw they were fighting a losing battle.

The Vietnam war brought many changes to the United States in the 1960’s and the 1970’s. Some of the changes were for the better of the country, take the rediscovered Women’s Rights movements and the ever growing Free Speech movements inspired by New Left, while most of the other changes brought on tensions between government and their people. The Domino Theory pushed our leaders to the edge. In order to stop the Domino Theory in Vietnam, the U.S. invaded. The war was useless for the American government to get involved with. Even Robert Kennedy described our presence in Vietnam as ‘... sending a lion to halt an epidemic of jungle rot.’ (Doc E) From new groups forming to rebel, to inflation and loss of trust in the Government, from 1960’s to

Diem's nationalism and administrative experience made him the logical choice for the premiership of an independent Vietnam, but he was lacking many qualities that were required for the challenges he would face. Herring admits that even now it is unclear how Diem became the premier of Vietnam. The US did not think that Diem was capable of controlling the nation, but at the same time, "there was no one to take his place who would serve US interests better"(55). Through his bungling of responsibilities, Diem was found to be nothing but trouble for the United States and France, therefore; officials in Saigon were convinced that he must be removed. Now the experiment in nation building assumed the form of a crusade. Private charitable agencies provided food, soap, toothbrushes and emergency medical supplies. American money and technology helped to repair the vast damages resulting from more than a decade of war. More than any other single group, American aid allowed South Vietnam to survive the first few critical years after independence. By the late 1950s it appeared as though the new nation was flourishing.

The US has been known to diverge from its once-isolationist state, engaging in international affairs like World War I and several other events alike. It’s therefore no surprise that the US intervened in the Vietnam War during the 1960’s. At the time, President Lyndon B. Johnson put forth new ideas, plans and tactics to help and protect the South Vietnamese and surrounding countries from communist influence. However, the United States’ initial goals and plans didn’t always go the way they had expected. Indeed, Johnson’s Vietnam policies failed because of his unreasonable military strategies and his inefficient political actions.

President Eisenhower sent US advisors into Vietnam shortly after the French pulled out after the unsuccessful First Indochina War. He entered Vietnam under the pretense of protecting Vietnam from falling into the hands of those godless communists. A noble endeavour? Maybe. A wanton disregard for a nation’s sovereignty and right to self determination? Absolutely. President Eisenhower pulled the United states into a two-and-a-half decade long conflict that would claim the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. You had the chance to support Vietnamese independence and self-determination, didn’t you Ike? You had the chance to make the transfer peaceful, oh but of course, if the people choose a communist government then they lose those peaceful possibilities, don’t they?

The United States played a very crucial role in the conflict that occurred in Southeast Asia between the U.S.-backed democratic South Vietnam, and Soviet-backed communist North Vietnam. Following the defeat of its French administration in 1954, North Vietnam, led by Communist leader Ho Chi Minh, wanted to reunify the country with the help of its rebel allies in the south, known as the Viet Cong. Out of this chaos emerged a difficult situation for the United States, as Cold War sentiments were present within this proxy war between the two powerful nations and the third party of Vietnam. The United States wanted to support Ngo Dinh Diem, leader of South Vietnam, in order to ensure his government would not fall into ruins and be taken control by the communists, but President Eisenhower was also hesitant to get his troops involved in this large scale conflict in Southeast Asia.

In the book Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, author Stephen Kinzer argued the many events that led to America’s long term failure of “regime change” in Iraq. I believe that the most compelling case for Kinzer’s argument of long term failure for the United States has to be when America tried to overthrow the leader, President Ngo Dihn Diem, of Vietnam whilst we were aiding the country. Even if America thought that getting a new leader would be better in the war against North Vietnam. This case was different than the others. For example, instead of just targeting person or a movement, the United States was targeting the leader of Vietnam during the time where America was aiding them in the way. In turn, when President John F. Kennedy and his advisors were together for a final meeting to overthrow Diem, Kennedy never gave a clear decision. Three days later, President Ngo Dihn Diem was murdered. This, of course, caused controversy and a major dilemma between Vietnam and the United States and eventually led to a strain between the two

However, America did not want to try and stop Communism but just to seize control over the growing movement. After the battle of Dien Bien Phu, America, the USSR, France, China and Vietnam gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1954. The Vietminh wanted early elections due to the fact they defeated the French, the gathered the Vietnamese would elect them to form a Communist Government. This concerned America greatly therefore to prevent this Government formation they suggested the elections were delayed so the people of Vietnam had time to choice a Government wisely. As a result of the conference, Vietnam was split into North and South Vietnam along the 17th parallel. North Vietnam would be ruled by Ho Chi Minh and the South ruled by Ngo Dinh Diem who was anti communist. America’s fears of Communism spreading across the West and taking control over the world was one the reason why they chose to increase their

Diem was therefore determined to be the best man for the job of preventing communism in S. Vietnam. One reason is most likely because he was “Westernized” being that he “lived for some time in the Mayknoll Seminaries in New Jersey and New York State” (Genesis 116). He quickly gained the approval of American Catholics such as Cardinal Spellman, which “certified Diem as an important anti-Communist” (Scheer 116). Some Americans were skeptical of Diem at the time, but as Secretary John Foster Dulles simply stated, “the United States could simply not find ‘a better man’ to carry out its designs” and “Diem is only means US sees to save South Vietnam and counteract revolution. US sees no one else who can” (Gettleman 133). This is, however, a little unsettling being that it sounds as though the U.S. merely “settled” on Diem in lieu of a better candidate.

Clinton associates himself, during his speech, with the combined values of a progressive as well as a collectivist through claims supportive of the future, of progress, of community, and of equality. He states in response to the critics of his actions during the Vietnam War: “I believe it weakened and divided America and made us reluctant to use our strength in other parts of the world. But I know many of you then and many of today disagree with me. And I respect that” (Clinton). The passage shows a collectivist demeanor in that Clinton strives to attain a nation drawing strength from its unity; in his belief, the Vietnam War destroyed the bond Americans share as a result of boundaries being drawn between parties. Moreover, he promotes an atmosphere bent on equality where no personal belief outweighs any other personal belief. Clinton later states: “If any of you choose to vote against me because of what happened 23 years ago, that is your right as an American citizen, and I respect it. But I hope that you will cast your vote looking toward the future, rather than remaining fixed to the problems of the past” (Clinton). Clinton, once again, builds an arena of equality through recognition of the possibility of differences of opinions from the audience members; however, he shifts his focus to a progressive mindset. Clinton asks the audience to look ahead at what the future holds rather than the events of the past. He, later, confronts the dilemma of the election

In the Opposition to the Spread of Communism Speech, the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles says, “...Under the conditions of today, the imposition on Southeast Asia of the political system of Communist Russia and its Chinese Communist ally, by whatever means, must be a grave threat to the whole free community.” This means that the United States believed that communism was not a good influence because it takes away the people’s freedom and rights. Since America valued their freedom, they wanted to be involved in the Vietnam War in order to protect the rights that they and other countries have. Third, Dwight D. Eisenhower thought the Vietnam War should be fought because of the domino effect. From the Interview with Copley Press, President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower says, “... “falling domino” principle.

Eisenhower viewed Vietnam as their way of regaining a foothold in Asia, which was moving toward becoming a Communist continent. He viewed Vietnam assistance as a way to protect Indonesia and the Southeast Asian regions, to establish a working relationship and alliance that would benefit America not only in global dominance, but the emerging capitalist markets, as well. Ho Chi Minh certainly did not take Eisenhower’s comments lightly. While not truly a die-hard communist, it seemed clear that he took offense to American

Vietnam, invaded by the Chinese, parceled up by the French and later divided by the west again. The United States aiding the South, and the North structured based off of a variation of Communism. Has had in modern times a rough couple hundred years. Before reunification was achieved, many steps had to be followed by both halves in order to become whole once more. Now this doesn’t imply in the least that the North from the outset would win as the South took a more decidedly Western and capitalist approach to nation building and nationalist ideology. Hearts and minds are what would prevail not military might.