Senator J. Fulbright's The Arrogance Of Power

In her book The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990, author Marilyn Young examines the series of political and military struggles between the United States and Vietnam, a nation that has been distinctively separated as the South and the North. Young chooses to express the daily, weekly, monthly progresses of the affairs collectively called the Vietnam Wars, focusing on the American interventions in the foreign soil. She seeks to provide an answer to a question that has haunted the world for years: What was the reason behind the United States interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country in which it had no claims at all? Young discloses the overt as well as covert actions undertaken by the U.S. government officials regarding the foreign affairs with Vietnam and the true nature of the multifaceted objectives of each and every person that’s involved had.

During the Lyndon Baines Johnson presidential administration, both those policy makers who supported America’s involvement in Vietnam and those who opposed the war were part of the “containment generation.” They had reached political maturity during World War II and the early years of the Cold War and had experienced the intense anticommunism of the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. These leaders understood and applied the lessons of American nationalism, which had the primary message that the U.S. was the dominating nation that had to embrace its responsibility to aid and improve nations in America’s image. Therefore, when they saw that there was a threat of the spread of communism to areas of Southeast Asia, a majority of the

For the sake of conciseness, and in order to focus the bulk of the content on the main topic, this essay will make certain assumptions. Most importantly, the essay assumes that the conflict in Vietnam was, indeed, lost by the US. It also presupposes that � due to the political climate in the US � the war itself was unavoidable. Finally, the essay takes for granted

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 exposed a generation of Americans to the fallacy of American exceptionalism by exposing the magnitude of grievances the Government was willing to commit at the expense of Human lives. “For nine years victory wavered [in the Trojan War]” (Hamilton 261), for nearly twenty years media claims of American victory in Vietnam remained unfounded .”[Trojan] Men sickened and died so [often] that funeral pyres were burning continuously (Hamilton 261) as did their modern American counterparts.Both wars ended in part to the deviation of its constituents, anti-war movements eventually influenced Government as did the secretive actions of the few (the Trojan Horse) constrain further conflict. As, the current President continues to augment the U.S., seemingly in preparation for conflict, it is imperative that we remember from experience that swift revolutionary civil disobedience rather than reactionary civil obedience after grievances have been committed will ensure that the lives of Millions do not become

The Vietnam War is widely regarded as the lowest point in the history of U.S. foreign affairs. It mercilessly dragged an unwilling country on a fatal ride for twenty years, all while receiving low approval ratings and high funding. The Vietnam conflict served as an optimum environment for the virus of controversy. No one has more experience with controversy than Heinz Alfred Kissinger. He is the ultimate pragmatist, as embodying his philosophy of realpolitik, a diplomatic ideology based on utilitarianism rather than international ethical standards. When one’s political calling card downplays the role of ethics in diplomacy, that individual is bound to garner a high profile reputation. Kissinger himself has lamented the national predicament during this conflict—squeezed between the ultimate rock, his duty to keep peace, and hard place, his duty to act with the approval of the American people. This predicament was rooted in an omnipresent opposition to Communism, as was America’s role in the entire Cold War. Cold War politics were politics of fear. That fear drove competition, which bred a certain variety of leader – a logical, calculating politician with regard for nothing but his country’s success. To avoid an uncontrollable spread of Communism through the westernized world, some moral casualties were strewn about the wayside. However, the American public had no trouble rolling up their collective sleeves to back this forward-thinking activist. In more recent years, some

The Cold War era proxy war known as the Vietnam War wrecked global havoc during 1955-1975. Although the destruction on the ground occurred in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the bloodshed of the war was just one part of a much larger worldwide communism versus capitalism battle headed by the United States and the Soviet Union. For the U.S., diplomatic and military policies had never before been so tightly intertwined with domestic policies. The war in Vietnam had such an impact on the home front in America that the term, “The Vietnam Syndrome” is still repeated to this day. The war, which is sometimes seen as a part of the larger anti-communist policy of ‘containment’, is largely to blame for the near destruction of three presidencies, as well as causing numerous political and social divides, a detrimental effect on the U.S. economy, and a credibility gap that caused distrust between government and the people. The focus on the war meant that many domestic issues such as the civil rights movement, the war on poverty, and Johnson’s ideology of the ‘Great Society’, were neglected by the government and therefore limited in their progress. The overall domestic impact of the war in Vietnam was largely negative and extremely divisive.

In addition, this paper will argue that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution itself and the rhetoric of President Johnson and his advisers show that the top officials in the U.S. government had an attitude of insincerity toward South Vietnam as an independent country. The stepping-up of military efforts by the U.S. in the first nine months of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency was motivated by a self-serving sentiment, which was to show the world the United States’ political resolve with regard to the spread of Communism. In essence, the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution enabled President Johnson to use whatever means necessary to do what he wanted to do, or felt he needed to do, in Southeast Asia.

Although plenty of author’s have documented the debate of idea’s in the Vietnam senate hearings, Joseph A. Fry provides an intricate and compelling analysis that is unlike any other. Fry gives the reader plenty of information so they can really understand exactly what went on with the two committees and what each of them represented. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee presented a direct and powerful argument with genuine, hard hitting points that urged the public to think more about what is going on and what they stand for. Led by the tenacious Senator J. William Fulbright, the SFRC analyzed and questioned the strategy’s, reasoning, and goals of the administration. Fulbright always had support backing up each of his claim’s and well planned

America’s Prescient Dissenters embraces Senator Fulbright and Dr. Bacevich’s impassioned and educated objections to the Vietnam War and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) respectively, and it champions their public disagreement with the presidential administrations of their time. Furthermore, America’s Prescient Dissenters reinforces the notion that Dissent and political discourse are founding principles of our great democracy, but also suggests that history forgets those like Fulbright and Bacevich. Fulbright argued that “consensus was equivalent to complacency” (LeVien 10), but as a nation, our greatest crowning achievements occur when we overcome partisanship and focus on results and collaboration achieved through “passionate, frank, and thorough

The conflict concerning Vietnam can be dated back to the Cold War and the fight against widespread communism. The fear of a domino theory in Southeast Asia lies at the heart of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Starting with president Truman and ending with Nixon, the Vietnam conflict continued to become progressively worse with time. Unlike previous wars, the Vietnam War tarnished America’s image as it was the first time in history the U.S. came out defeated while being far more advanced. However whether or not this conflict can be referred to as “Johnson’s War” is controversial. While Johnson is responsible for the escalation of the war, one man can not fully be at fault as this conflict was inherited by his predecessors and Johnson was within reach of acquiring a peace treaty until being interfered.

Within the context of the United States, wars, atrocities, and widespread violence has plagued our nation’s history. Although we go through periods of revolution and pride, a more critical and overarching perspective of American history reveals a common theme of war. Since the American Revolution of 1776, major wars like the Civil War and the Vietnam War have broadly changed the American landscape. In particular, the Vietnam War solidified widespread distrust in the American government because of the drastic disparities between political rhetoric and reality. The pervasive propaganda in the rhetoric of American politicians created an inaccurate portrayal of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, influencing the imaginations of the American public. In

“No event in American history is more misunderstood than the Vietnam War.” –Richard Nixon, 1985. Since the Vietnam War, there has been almost fifty years of remembrance, various readings, and the publication of military documents. However, Richard Nixon’s quote still has a certain veracity. The United States has fought in many wars, but none have compelled Americans to question our motives like the Vietnam War. The United States should not have gotten involved in Vietnam, because it was illegal, unjustified, and unethical.

The United States intervention in Vietnam is seen by the world as America’s greatest loss and longest war. Before the start of the war in Vietnam, the thought of the United States losing this war was unheard of because America was technologically superior, no country in south East Asia could contend with them. Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not be the president to allow South East Asia to go Communist . Why the United States lost the war has been a huge debate since the end of the war, because there were so many factors affecting why they lost; the war was a loss politically, after losing support from not only the American public but also the South Vietnamese and losing a political mandate for the war by 1973, when the last

In 1954, Northern and Southern Vietnam entered a war that led to the death of nearly 3 million people including civilians, Vietnamese troops, and ally soldiers. Though the number of lives lost during the war is atrocious, so are some of the other lasting effects of the “poor man’s fight”. Throughout this essay, I will explain my opinion regarding what I believe were the costs and the benefits of U.S interaction in the war in Vietnam.