HOW AND WHY DID THE US GET SO DEEPLY INVOLVED AND INVESTED IN THE VIETNAM

CONFLICT?WHY DID THE WAR LAST SO LONG?

THERE WAS A LONG RECKONING AFTER THE WAR. IS IRAQ AND/OR AFGHANISTAN A

CASE OF HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

Some Puzzles of the US-Vietnam War (1959-1975)

Context

The time from the end of WWII to the beginning of the Vietnam conflict was only 14 years.

The United States was engaged in a global rivalry with the USSR (‘the Cold War’) and to a much lesser extent with Communist China.

The Cold War was primarily fought through client states. The primary explicit worry was that the communization of all of Vietnam would cause other states in the region to become Communist.

From Kolko

Roosevelt suggested Indochina might become a four power trusteeship. Independence was something that the world powers would ‘grant’ rather than an intrinsic right of the Vietnamese.

Potsdam, July 1945: British takeover authorized south of the 16th parallel and the Chinese occupied N. of the 16th parallel.

The Vietnamese rebelled.Washington saw Vietnamese nationalism as a tool of the

communists. Kolko sees massive US intervention as ‘inevitable’…The

colonial wars drained France and left Europe vulnerable in the cold war.

Some Background

Vietnam was a very old civilization but prior to colonization was not a nation state but instead made up of several kingdoms. They were ruled by the Chinese until 938 AD (and for a short time afterward). Vietnam, along with Cambodia and Laos, was colonized by the French in the 1890s (the same period the US colonized the Philippines).

The people of Vietnam resisted French colonization throughout the colonial period. The area was called ‘French Indochina.’

Background of Vietnamese Revolution against the French

In 1925 there was a rebellion against the French by Nguyen Ai Quoc who later called himself Ho Chi Minh, which means “the bringer of light.”

He founded the Revolutionary Youth League which later evolved into the Vietnamese Communist Party.

In WWII Ho formed the Viet Minh who sometimes received money from the US. Ho thought the US would support his independence.

Partition of Vietnam

After WWII, the allies did not object when France reconquered Vietnam but there was continual resistance leading to the French leaving in 1954 (a period of resistance to colonization throughout the world).

Vietnam was partitioned into North and South by the Geneva Accords. This was supposed to be temporary.

South Vietnam was democratic and capitalist (also corrupt and agrarian). Led by Ngo Dinh Diem

North Vietnam was Communist, led by Ho Chi Minh.

Civil War in Vietnam

The US supported the South. North Vietnam had a guerilla war in the South. The US sponsored the army in the South (The ARVN: Army of the Republic of Vietnam). Eisenhower had pledged assistance to S. Vietnam and Dem in 1955 as our allies in the Cold War.

What does Walzer say about allies and war?What does Walzer say about revolutions and

uprisings? Is there anything different about the case of the

North invading the South?

Fighting for Democracy? US resistance to the Geneva Accords

In 1956 there was supposed to be a general election to determine whether the people supported unification of Vietnam as part of the Geneva Accords.

The US opposed the general election for fear that Ho Chi Minh would win them. They refused to sign the Geneva Accords.

Dwight Eisenhower admits, “I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, a possible 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader.”

Repression in S. Vietnam/The Domino Theory

Diem’s government repressed Buddhists and other dissidents. The US feared Diem would unify with the North.Eisenhower claimed that Laos was ‘the cork in the bottle’ as

far as Southeast Asia was concerned. The Domino Theory was born

“Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences. “

What similarities or differences do you see with prior or later US military involvements?

US Involvement

JFK elected in 1960 and immediately tested by the Bay of Pigs crisis (in Cuba).

The Ugly American 1958 suggested the US would lose the 3rd World because diplomats did not understand the language and culture and were isolated from the people.

Kennedy expanded economic assistance ‘Food for Peace’ and The Peace Corps.

George McGovern was the head of it. By 1963 it was feeding 92 million people per day.

3rd World Nationalism

3rd World Anti-Colonial movement spearheaded by Nehru in India and many revolutions throughout the world was a concern of the US.

Kennedy could not really get a foothold of influence over India. Pakistan was furious about military aid to India and leaned toward China.

Syrian and Iraqi governments were overthrown in 1963 by pro-Nasser Egyptian forces. US became more embedded in the Middle East during this period and started directly supporting the Israeli military. (The UK and US sponsored a coup against the democratically elected leader of Iran and put in the Shah in 1953.)

‘New Frontier’ foreign policy, Alliance for Progress in Latin America

The ‘Good Neighbor’ program and other programs were seen as soft power by some—a way to insure that Latin America did not go Communist.

The US attempted to influence Latin America and the Caribbean at every turn.

The context of the Cold War made every impoverished country a possible ‘breeding ground’ for Communism.

The economic policies did not cause as much economic growth as hoped but it did have some successes.+

Cuban Missile Crisis

Khruschev tried to conceal the shipment of missiles to Cuba as a way to make up for US military superiority. The CIA detected the missiles.

Hawks like the Joint Chiefs of staff and Acheson wanted air strikes against the missile strikes

Doves worried about the morality of a surprise attack, the success rate and possible Soviet retaliation against Berlin. They argued for a blockade of Cuba.

US and the Soviets almost came to a military (or possibly nuclear) confrontation. The Soviets backed down the the concession from the US to take missiles out of Turkey.

The Fall of Diem

By 1961 Diem was a great worry to the US.JFK was reluctant to commit combat troops to shore up

Diem but did send 11,000 ‘advisers’ by 1962. They engaged in combat. They gave a large amount of military aid to S. Vietnam to shore up the unpopular and failing Diem regime.

The N. Vietnamese/Viet Kong insurgency was succeeding. In 1963 the Buddhist majority began rebelling in the cities.

The US decided to get rid of Diem because he wouldn’t meet minor opposition demands made by the Buddhists. The US told Army officers they could engage in a coup against Diem.

Diem and his brother were captured and murdered by the coup forces.

Three weeks later JFK was assassinated in Dallas.

Kolko: Origins and Objectives of an Intervention

Vietnam “illustrates…the nature of he American internal political process and decision-making structure…”

Larger context: There is a worldwide movement toward revolution in poor third world countries.

The US intervenes in many of these revolutions: Greece to Guatemala.

In Vietnam, the revolution is a nationalist, revolutionary agrarian movement. It is not a real civil war. The US support for S. Vietnam is support for a traditional colonialist structure.

Vietnamese Independence: A Threat to the US?

Why would a small conflict in a small country be of such concern to the US?

For the US, the issue is the US ambition in relation to the Third World. This is political, and he points out the military is ‘tractable’ and will follow civilian guidance.

The US saw an independent Vietnam as a “prize” for Russia. ..Ambassador to France David Bruce said this was true because of “rice, rubber and so forth…” The fear was the whole region would fall.

Economic Motives

If the region fell, this was economically costly. Eisenhower [in his memoir]: “…The loss of Vietnam…would have meant the Communist enslavement of millions…[but also] spelled the loss of valuable deposits of tin and prodigious supplies of rubber and rice..”

Escalation and Human Rights Violations

The US presence in Vietnam began to escalate starting in 1960.

Kolko: “To understand this war one must always place it in its contextual relationship and recall that the issues in Vietnam were really those of the future of the United States power not only in south-east Asia but throughout the entire developing world. In Vietnam the United States government has vainly attempted to make its vast power relevant to international social and political realities that had bypassed the functional conservativism of a nation seeking to save an old order with liberal rhetoric and, above all, with every form of military power…”

According to Kolko, it was obvious by 1963 the US was headed for defeat.

Full Scale War

On August 4, 1964 the ‘Gulf of Tonkin incident’ occurred. Johnson ordered the bombardment of N. Vietnamese and Congress was asked to pass a resolution to ‘protect the armed forces…’

It’s unclear what happened really—but the South was already raiding the North so the North could be seen as defensively repelling an aggressor.

The US began to bomb the DRV.Kolko “Experience over subsequent years has shown…

that the words ‘peace’ and ‘negotiation’ from official United States sources from 1964 onward always preludes to a new and more intensive military escalation.

Denoument

The

Moral Verdict: Kolko

“Any objective and carefully prepared account of the history of Vietnam must conclude with the fact that the United states must bear the responsibility for the torture of an entire nation since the end of the Second World War. The return of France to Vietnam…was due to crucial political decisions made by Washington…”To escape defeat time and time again [the US] accelerated warfare in the hopes of attaining its unique ends through military means rather than diplomacy.

The United States has fought in Vietnam with increasing intensity to extend its hegemony over the world community and to stop every form of revolutionary movement which refuses to accept the predominant role of the United States in the direction of the affairs of its nation or region…”