- by Karen Berg


     The participation of the United States in the Vietnam War was one of the most divisive foreign policy issues in US history.  Americans did not agree with the reasoning of being in the war, the objectives the US had, or the strategy of involvement.  The war became even more unpopular with the
great increase of casualties the US was accumulating.  When the chances for a military victory started to decrease, the popularity of the war went with it.
    Many Americans believed  that the participation of the US in the war was an essential help to stop communist aggression and to maintain US prestige and honor.  They believed that if there was a communist victory in South Vietnam, that it would lead to other communist take-overs in other
countries.  There were other Americans who thought that the conflict in Vietnam was a war in which the US should not have become involved.  They believed that since the US security was not at stake, they should leave Vietnam alone and stop trying to be the "world policeman."
    Robert S. McNamara, President John F. Kennedy's secretary of defense, wrote the book called In Restrospect, and in it he tells many of the lessons learned through the Vietnam conflict.  McNamara says, "By the time the US left South Vietnam in 1973, we had lost over 58,000 men and women; our economy had been damaged by years of heavy and improperly financed war spending; and
the political unity of our society had been shattered, not to be restored for decades."  Were these high costs we paid for the conflict justified?  Many of the geopoliticians like Dean Rusk, Walt Rostow, and Lee Kwan Yew would answer "yes" to this question.  They have decided that without US intervention in
Vietnam, the communist hegemony, either Soviet or Chinese, would have spread throughout South and East Asia to include control of Indonesia, Thailand, and possibly India.  Others would go further and say that the USSR would have felt like it could take greater risks to extend their influence in the world,
especially in the Middle East, where it could have sought the control of the oil-producing nations.
    McNamara believes that the US should have withdrawn from South Vietnam either in late 1963, amidst the turmoil following Diem's assassination, or in late 1964 when the increasing  political and military weakness in South Vietnam was becoming more apparent.  Political stability did not exist in
South Vietnam and it was unlikely that it would ever be achieved even with aid from the US.  The South Vietnamese were incapable of defending themselves even with the training and logistical support that the US gave them.  So, it should have been apparent that since the advisers were not making any progress with South Vietnam they should have not sent troops over to help.

Lessons Learned From Vietnam:

1.  The US misjudged the geopolitical intentions of its adversaries and exaggerated the dangers from their actions to the United States.
2.  The US viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of its own experiences and it misjudged the political forces within the country.
3.  The US underestimated the power of nationalism and the motivation of people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4.  The US' misjudgment of friend and foe alike reflected its ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5.  The US failed to identify the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine in meeting unconventional, highly motivated people's movements.  The US also failed to adapt military tactics to win the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
6.  The US failed to bring Congress and the American people together in a discussion and debate of the pros and cons of US military involvement in Southeast Asia before it initiated any action.
7.  The US did not prepare the American people to understand the complex events that it was facing.  The US was not able to retain its support because of the fact that it did not explain fully what was happening and why it was doing what it did.  A nation's strength does not lie in its military prowess but in
the unity of its people.  The US failed to maintain that unity throughout the war.
8.  The US did not recognize the fact that it does not have the God-given right to try and shape every nation to its own image or as it likes.
9.  The US did not hold to its principle that the US military action should only be carried out in response to a direct threat to its own security.
10.  The US did not want to see that in international affairs as well as in other aspects of life that there are problems for which there are not immediate solutions.

- by Misty Jordi


 Senator George S. McGovern
    Senator McGovern ran for president on an anti-war platform.  He was against the war early and did not see the need of losing US men to the war.  He felt that the Vietnam War was a great tragedy.  Although he was against the war, he did not agree with the people who did not support the soldiers when they returned.  Sen. McGovern felt that the military methods not only failed to win over the Vietnamese people, but that they also hurt many of the soldiers.  Many of the men who served in Vietnam have permanent scars from the War.  He also felt that the War had terrible consequences for the US and Indochina.  The war led to the division and confusion of the US citizens and also to restrictions placed on the press.

General William Westmoreland
    General Westmoreland led the troops into Vietnam.  He was later removed and placed as Chief of Staff of the US Army.  He felt that the US had a clear objective in Southeast Asia, which was to preserve territories and the political independence of South Vietnam.  Gen. Westmoreland felt that the military should have been able to pursue the enemy.  He also believes that the media played a major role in causing the American people to stop supporting the War.

Edward Luttwak
    Mr. Luttwak did not really support or oppose the war, but he felt that the war should have been fought better.  He felt that the US did not go in the Vietnam War to win.  Luttwak believed that if the US had wanted to win it would not have defended the land, but rather gone in and killed the enemy.  He also felt that the sent-in military had too many inexperienced leaders.

Conclusion:
    From these three speeches it seems that none of the men changed their perspective.  Most of them knew what they believed before the war had even begun.  All of them were men who had studied wars and the military for many years before they came to their conclusions.  It seemed that the reasons one used for the war were the same reasons another used against the war.

- by Kejda Xhaja
    Such Is Vietnam is a very interesting book, because it gives us the Vietnamese view about the Vietnam War, and about the role US played in it.
    According to this book, when North Vietnam was completely liberated, " the United States took direct hold of South Vietnam and turned it into a new-type colony and military  base." (p92)  The US set up in the South the fascist dictator regime of Ngo Dinh Diem in contradiction with the Geneva Agreements*, so that it could prevent in any way the spread of communism in South Vietnam.  Many Vietnamese were against the US and the Diem regime making the situation more and more suffocating,   In 1960 the South Vietnam Liberation Front was formed to fight for an independent peaceful and neutral South Vietnam.
    The US and Diem hoped to better the situation and suppress the struggle of the South Vietnamese.  In 1961 the US came up with an 18-month pacification strategy, which although extended, did not work.  In 1963 the US processed a coup d'etat and killed the Ngo Dinh Diem brothers.  The US kept trying with other strategies, while the war spread more and more both in North and South Vietnam.  The South Vietnamese were resisting the US intervention even more.  When Nixon came to power, he started a new strategy, the ' Vietnamization of the war."  He gradually took the US troops out of the war, while the Saigon army had strengthened to the point to replace the departing Americans.
    In April of 1970, in the Conference of the Indochinese countries, they had issued a "statement on solidarity against a common enemy - the US imperialists." (p99)
    Although US had pulled out its troops, it was still trying to maintain neocolonialism in South Vietnam by giving South Vietnam "millions of tonnes" (p100) of weapons, and thousands of military advisers by sabotaging the Paris Treaty on Vietnam**.  The US spent more money on the Vietnam War than it did during the WWII and the Korean War.  However, the Vietnamese people won the final victory to a complete national liberation.
    In this book it seems that Vietnam was not in need of the US.  Actually, while reading it, I felt the harsh feelings that the Vietnamese developed against the US and its intrusion in this domestic matter.  I felt as if the Vietnam War seemed to be more against the US and what it was trying to dictate, than between North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

*  Geneva Agreements of 1954 - ended French occupation of Vietnam and separated Vietnam in North and South.  According to these agreements, both North and South were allowed to self determine their governments and destinies through elections.
**  Paris Treaty of 1973 - reduced direct US involvement in Vietnam.

Back