The Socio-political Effects of the Vietnam War Axia College of the University of Phoenix The Vietnam War was the most controversial and politically unsettling events in American history. While the war had many dramatic effects on society, the distrust in the American government and politicians that it generated has had a lasting effect on some of today’s citizens and advocacy groups. This attitude shaped many individuals political beliefs which have been passed down to younger generations. While this distrust does not affect all members of society, it is important to realize the strong emotions that the Vietnam War ignited and understand the impact it had on certain generations. There were several factors that created this general distrust.
The United States got involved in the Vietnam War from 1954 -1964 to prevent and contain communism. In Vietnam, an independence movement under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh rose to challenge French rule. The United States helped France by giving financial and military aid. The US had moral and ethical reasons to stand up and face unethical leaders that oppressed other weaker people and to contain the spread of communism. Communism is horrible because the government controls every move you make and you have no say in what happens in your life.
To what extent can Eisenhower be blamed for US involvement in Vietnam? In this essay I will explain reasons that Eisenhower both could and couldn’t be blamed For America’s involvement. For example, Eisenhower could be blamed because he gave the French billions of dollars in aid. But Eisenhower also couldn’t be blamed because his advisors weren’t didn’t assess whether or not Vietnam was important to winning the Cold War, just on how to win the war in Vietnam. These are two of the several arguments I will cover.
Choosing War vs. An Unwinnable War The Vietnam War and its effects were and still is a topic that is greatly debated. It was probably the longest lasting and the most costly war in the United States History. The people or persons present during that time period would agree that it was a war of great cost financially, many lives was lost, and that is to be regretted . In this paper I am going to compare the Choosing War by Fredrik Logevall and An Unwinnable War by Robert K. Brigham. Both of these essays show the history behind the war and the reasons of why it took place and why it should not have transpired.
The Vietnam War was, in the words of historian John Prados, ‘unwinnable’ for the United States; no matter how many casualties they inflicted upon the North Vietnamese communists, there was always a steady flow of replacements available. By the 1970s this became increasingly obvious to the US public which, along with very unreliable media coverage – particularly during the communist Tet Offensive of 1968 – stating that US troops were struggling to survive, sparked a mass-anti-war movement on the US home front. The pressures this placed upon US military and political officials, including the President, was one of the major reasons for US implementation of their policy of Vietnamisation – effectively a planned withdrawal from Vietnam by the US, leaving vast amounts of high-quality armaments in the hands of the poorly trained South Vietnamese military. It is due in large part to the collapse of the American home front that the communists overcame US forces; subsequently, the catastrophic failures of US Vietnamisation resulted in the communists overcoming the remaining South Vietnamese troops and placing all of Vietnam under communist control by 3 May 1975. The beginning of the end for US involvement in Indochina arguably occurred during and immediately following the communist Tet Offensive of 1968.
When the war started many American people was against it and want this to end son as possible. They were against it because United States didn´t have any trade with Vietnam or something like that. Many people give their opinions about the war in Vietnam. In the next paragraphs I am going to talk about two American groups fell about the war, the two groups are the American public and the soldiers. The first group the American public at the beginning of the war agreed with the fact that Us was helping South Vietnam, this because the president of the united States in this year told the people that they need to go to war and they have to go even if they don´t like the idea.
Related to this aspect was the preoccupation of U.S. political elites with the reputation of America as a respected world power. As a result of these forces, President Johnson was hardly presented with any option to overcome the difficult situation in Vietnam other than by committing troops, and making the U.S. a direct actor in the war. When the presence of a North Vietnamese Army regiment was spotted in southern Vietnam, and the subsequent decision was made to use air power to combat them, the fate of U.S. troops’ involvement in Vietnam was sealed. One of the most important factors that drove President Johnson to commit troops to Vietnam was the unstable state of the South Vietnamese government in Saigon. Essentially, the U.S. was embattled by the same problematic political relationship with the Vietnamese politicos as the French were when they exerted control over Vietnam.
How the Vietnam War started The Vietnam War was the longest and most unpopular war in the American history. It was also the only war that the U.S. lost. The whole war for Vietnam was for independence, but for the U.S. it was about stopping communism, and so the war itself started due to the two rival governments, the French occupation, and the interruption of foreign powers. A conflict was sparked by the two rival governments that were present in Vietnam. One government was led by a communist leader, Ho Chi Minh, who wanted to unite the country and help spread communism.
Throughout the better part of the 1950′s, Eisenhower’s national security strategy insured that there was no military superpower confrontation. Because Eisenhower had doubts that a “limited war” would remain such, his over-all national security policy, called the “New Look,” was based on the unstoppable nuclear striking power of Strategic Air Command. During this period of relative peace, Democrat political opponents and social-science civilian theorists were in constant chorus that the New Look Massive Retaliation was simply too risky for the country and the world. In spite of the Massive Retaliation doctrine’s success in preventing conflict between the U.S. and Soviet Union, in 1961 President Kennedy and his civilian social-science theorists rewrote the rules of war, conceiving and implementing a replacement doctrine they dubbed “Flexible Response” to counter client proxy warfare. It was at this point that we completely departed from the strategic thinking that had won World War II.
Another Major flaw was that “the country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America -, refused to join it.” The league’s most powerful militaries Britain and France not only suffered casualties, but also economically as they were greatly in debt to the United States. Because of this neither country was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect Western Europe. Therefore the League had no military might and could only enforce economic sanctions in hope that they worked against aggressive nations. All these flaws point to signs that the League of Nations was a failure. However, even though there were a few setbacks, the league was a success in many ways.