The Vietnam War of 1954 - 1975 was the longest and one of the most unsuccessful wars in U.S history. It took place in countries such as South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The war was a huge blow to the United States’ pride and military, so much that there were lotteries for soldiers. There were five presidents in office during the war, but the main presidents that had a big impact on being involved were Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon. Although the objectives of the U.S being involved were good intentioned, there are many reasons to support that it was an Unjustifiable war due to the casualties. While looking at present information about the war, it was not needed for America to step into the territorial
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 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
For many in the United States "Vietnam" is a term which conjures up visions of war, anarchy, and finally defeat and humiliation. It was a war that many felt the U.S. should never have gotten involved in, and was a waste of more than 50,000 American lives. And for many years after the war ended the prevailing wisdom remained that the U.S. had failed. But as years turn to decades, and Vietnam is fading into the recesses of history, one can begin to look at the war in an objective manner; as just one part of the larger "Cold War." When viewing Vietnam as part of the larger Cold War, one can see that the United States should not only have been there, but it was necessary as part of the overall strategy to defeat Communism world wide.
January 1969, Richard Nixon entered the executive office picking up the pieces Lyndon Johnson who had left while the Vietnam War was still in effect. Many Americans had the expectation that Nixon would be the “peaceful president”, visualizing he would put an end to this war in Southeast Asian and bring back home our troops. A policy Nixon redefined was the American role in the world by suggesting to limit the U.S resources and commitments. Therefore, Nixon’s set his efforts to end the war since the withdrawal from Vietnam was not an immediate option. Also, Nixon had his radar on Moscow and China because according to George C. Herring, they felt that they must release the United States from the war in a way that would uphold United States credibility with their friends and foes alike. During Nixon’s term in office, he tries a number of different strategies in his effort to end the war, but to this day, one can see that Nixon only prolonged the war when it could have ended earlier.
Nixon’s first term of presidency was full of accomplishments. Once in office, Nixon and his staff faced the problem of how to end the Vietnam War. Nixon made a nationally televised address on November 3, 1969, calling on Americans to renew their confidence in the government and back his policy of seeking a negotiated peace in Vietnam. Earlier that year, Nixon and his Defense Secretary Melvin Laird had unveiled the policy of “Vietnamization,” which entailed reducing American troop levels in Vietnam and transferring the burden of
To start with responding to the widespread protests, Nixon outlined his new Vietnam War policy in this speech; Called “Vietnamization”, Nixon’s war policy called for contraction in American troops but continued fighting. Nixon contrasted his international strategy of political realism with the idealism of a vocal minority. He ended his speech with the famous words that his speech became known by: “So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support;”
Protesters had lost their faith in Nixon’s ability to keep his promise of ending the war. Years into the conflict, when he decided to expand into Cambodia, the protesters were outraged. The Vietnam War was costing lives and money, and no one knew exactly what they were supposed to be fighting for, and if the United States was winning. They were incredibly confused, because they had been led to believe the war would be brief against an inferior opponent, such as the North Vietnamese. At home, the draft was drawing more and more young men away from their lives into an uncertain future, and college deferments had been ended. After 15 years, people were angry and tired of this conflict, and they lost trust in Nixon, with his continual misleading of the public. They wanted it to end, and many had trusted Nixon with that endeavor, when he had run for president on the promise of ending the war. However, instead of keeping his campaign promise, he grew the war’s size to include more boundaries, and with that, more American soldiers. The dissenters of his administration felt voiceless and angry.
The Vietnam War was the longest of the 20th century spanning over 30 years from 1945 to 1975,; it complex nature mingled the problems of colonialism, nationalism, communism and power struggles of the great powers. It is also a major war since the American failure ended the policy of containment of communism worldwide, that was started at the end of the Second World War. Following that containment policy and it impacts on the war and the world in general, we come to the question that was it actually all about the change of balance of powers and get the US out of China or a new balance of powers against Russians?
The Vietnam War had discredited the United States’ stereotype of being the strongest world power for being “undefeatable” in war by trapping the most powerful foreign nations into a merely undefeatable war, and by destroying any hope that the United States had for institutional change in Vietnam. The United States’ involvement in domestic affairs had again proved that the nation felt confident enough to present itself as the “problem solver” in issues regarding foreign policy. The main intention of Americans was to bring forth an established democracy to Vietnam that would overpower
In Nixon’s letter to Ho Chi Minh, Nixon talks about a “just peace”. Minh responds to Nixon’s call for a “just peace” by stating that peace will happen, and the Vietnamese people want peace to happen, but the “United States continues to intensify its military operations”. Minh also responds with the only way that peace will happen in Vietnam is when the United States withdraws their troops and allows the South Vietnamese to fight with out “foreign influence”. (Document A) In terms of the United States, the Nixon administration ended the war between Vietnam and the U.S.
Throughout Nixon’s campaign, his promise to the American people focused on law and order as he often spoke to the forgotten and silent (Richard Nixon 2014). Furthermore, he catered to this group in his domestic policy by attacking liberal programs and successfully passed significant and progressive social legislation such as welfare reform, strict environmental laws and consumer protection legislation (Richard Nixon 2014). The focus of Nixon’s agenda was to attack liberal ideology by confronting liberalism within the Supreme Court and concentrating on nominating conservative justices (Richard Nixon 2014). Where President Johnson’s desire was to win the approval of the American people by bringing them together, Nixon pursued to accomplish conservative control through division. However, both Johnson and Nixon encountered the developing social unrest which was deepened by the Vietnam War due to their presidential boldness (Pfiffner 2011, 13). President Johnson deceived the American people which worked to intensify the war as he did not want to endanger his Great Society Program (Pfiffner 2011, 13). President Nixon’s continuous pursuit of the war and opposition to the congressional efforts at ending the war led to his challenging
Oftentimes, a deciding factor for a president’s reputation is his involvement in foreign affairs. Though Richard Nixon’s terms have been deservedly cast into a bad light, historians still quarrel about his international policy. Interestingly enough, the very traits which made him so despised as a public officer—his paranoia, lying, backstabbing, distrust, opacity, etc.—these traits made him an fascinating figure on the global stage. Instituting a policy coined “détente,” he sought separate peaces with the Soviet Union and China so as to subversively convert these communist foes into allies. He also wished to bring “peace with honor” to the Vietnam War through a practice nicknamed “Vietnamization.” To accomplish these two tasks, Nixon consolidated them under a single goal: the reduction of military spending. To accomplish that goal, President Richard Nixon relied on the dirty tactics he knew best and almost succeeded. The problem? His dirty tactics got in the way.
The investigation assesses the level of success President Richard Nixon’s Vietnamization policy attained during the Vietnam War to end U.S. involvement in the war. In the strive to evaluate the level of success this policy demonstrated, the investigation evaluates the ability of the policy to equip, expand, and train Southern Vietnamese forces and allocate them to a substantial combat position, all while simultaneously reducing the quantity of U.S. combat troops in a steady manner. The Vietnamization policy is investigated and analyzed by both its causes and effects. The motivation that led to Nixon’s creation of this
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