Vietnam and the Eisenhower Era - Essay Example

Vietnam and the Eisenhower Era The Eisenhower era is significant because American policy in Vietnam was shaped during this time, although the actual war took place during the Kennedy and Johnson era. It was because Eisenhower pursued a policy of containment in Vietnam, that the war finally erupted. The reason for the high level of success enjoyed by the Vietnamese was because Eisenhower chose to focus the strength of the American attack through its air force and the Vietnamese were able to hide in the jungles and had minimal damage. Eisenhower chose to send in very limited land forces which was an unwise policy, because the strength of the Vietnamese was in their guerilla land forces and they were able to win a victory on land. The Vietnam policy of Eisenhower may therefore be summed up under the two following headings: (a) a reluctance to actively go to war in Vietnam using the full power of the American attack force, in spite of the fact that he acknowledged the Communist threat from China in south east Asia. This created domestic political friction within the Republican Party. It caused a split between those who fiercely opposed Communism, favoring full scale war with Vietnam and Eisenhower, who held back for reasons of safety and preventing loss of life in war. (b) using air attacks rather than focusing the strength of the attack on land forces. This created initial setbacks in the war as the Vietnamese showed their superior land power, that later led to the defeat and withdrawal of American forces. This is why the Eisenhower policy is important. All the ambiguities, uncertainty and losses generated during the Vietnam war were due to the policy that was followed by Eisenhower. It also gave the Democrats an opportunity to attack the Republicans for their “weak” policy in Vietnam because they did not take strong effective action to go to full scale war in Vietnam. Bipartisan politics and bickering was the result. Eisenhower’s policy made the clear cut division between Republican and Democratic to blur and become less well defined. His policy in Vietnam was most unlike the Republican witchhunt of Communists, in fact it was more a pacifying policy like the Democrats had. The report under study states that before the Eisenhower era, there was a bipartisan consenses and agreement as far as the Vietnam was concerned. Both parties agreed that Vietnam was very important to prevent Indochina from turning Communist. But during the Eisenhower era, there was a split in the position of the two parties, as republicans became increasingly hard about the Communist threat and put pressure in Eisenhower to engage in full scale war. According to this report, Eisenhower’s policy in Vietnam was a weak and ineffective policy because it was not strong enough to go all out and engage the full power of American forces to counter act the threat of Communism in Vietnam. Eisenhower dithered and delayed American involvement in the war and pursued a policy of involving limited numbers of air troops which was not a good enough attack to win a victory. Instead of going to war, Eisenhower set up a Government in Vietnam which was supposed to be a puppet Government and follow the instructions of American foreign policy guidelines. Large sums of money were invested in Vietnam by the American Government under Eisenhower, in order to ensure that Vietnam became America’s puppet. But the result that was achieved was as ineffective as Eisenhower’s policy on containment was. The puppet leader went his own way and Americans were unable to get the kind of foreign policy they wanted from the Vietnamese in order to prevent the Communist threat of China from spreading. Therefore Eisenhower’s policy in Vietnam has been strongly criticized, especially by the Republicans because it was not effective in suppressing the Communist threat from China. Shaping of foreign policy: The two major actors in the development of the Eisenhower policy on Vietnam were (a) Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and (b) Army Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgeway. These were the two main players in this conflict, both of them having opposing views on American military intervention in Vietnam. These two major players were on opposing ends of the spectrum. Secretary of State Dulles was a major player in the Republican Party and his actions and statements were motivated by the need to echo the Republican position, since he was primarily a political person who was interested in furthering the cause of the Republican Party. But the role of the Army Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgeway was different, because his opinion was based upon the ground realities as he saw them, in entering into war with Vietnam. His motivations were primarily military and expressed the viewpoint from a military position rather than a political one. The motivation of Secretary of State Dulles was a partisan one. He toed the line of the extremists in the Republican Party, who hated the Communists. Vietnam was considered extremely important, to prevent the rest of Asia from falling into the hands of the Communists. While at first, only the Soviets had been viewed as threats to democracy, now the Chinese were seen as the new threat to democracy in South east Asia and the republicans were anxious to enforce democracy in south east Asia and ensure that those countries did not fall into the hands of the Communists. Dulles was strongly in support of crushing the Communist threat from China. Since China supported Vietnam, he favored an all out military offensive against Vietnam to crush the Vietnamese independence movement, because it was being aided by the Chinese. He felt that France had to be supported in its effort to hold on to Vietnam, since France represented democracy. Chief of Staff Ridgeway on the other hand, was not fooled by the small size of Vietnam. He was not interested in the political issues, rather he spoke against the containment policy of Eisenhower and felt that mere air attacks alone were not enough to demolish the power of the tiny army of the Vietnamese. He felt that winning the war in Vietnam would involve a substantial involvement of American forces, both land and air troops with huge support from naval forces. He also felt that there would be large losses to American lives and from a military standpoint, the investments of money, military power and the loss of life were not worth it, in order to support the French remaining in Vietnam. In the development of Eisenhower’s policy, he was influenced by the attitude and perceptions of both these advisors, but more so by the arguments of Ridgeway. This military viewpoint made Eisenhower feel that it would be worth the loss in American lives to engage in active, full scale war in Vietnam. The beliefs and attitudes of these policy makers were part of the internal forces influencing Eisenhower. Another internal factor that affected Eisenhower was his shrewd political sense, he wanted to retain the support of republicans and Democrats and also the world community and did not want to take a decision to go to war which could prove to be unpopular for him. He did not want to take on full responsibility for a war in which victory was not certain. The external forces shaping the foreign policy decisions in Vietnam was primarily the Chinese victory in the Korean war. This pushed America into war with Vietnam to prevent the Communist threat from China in spreading further. Another external factor was the loss of the French forces in the war with the Vietnamese independence fighters under Ho Chi Minh. Since the French forces had been holding the balance of democracy alive in south east Asia, their loss left the area vulnerable and America had to step in to rectify the situation by applying its foreign policy of suppressing Communist forces in two steps. Firstly, by setting up a puppet Government to try and contain the Communist threat and when that failed, to send in American troops into Vietnam. In my opinion, the most important factor that fashioned Eisenhower’s policy in Vietnam were the internal forces, rather than external or international forces. Eisenhower was not in support of sending in American troops into Vietnam and facing the possibility of losing American lives and he was deeply reluctant to take a decision that would result in such an action. This is why he was so strongly influenced by the position of Ridgeway. Although American had emerged as an important world player after the World War II and America was interested in consolidating her position in the world and ensuring that democracy was maintained in Asia, Eisenhower was not eager to enter into another war so soon after the conclusion of the Second World War where there had been so much carnage and atrocities committed by the Germans. The Korean war was the catalyst that forced Eisenhower to realize that some kind of war would be necessary in order to counter the growing threat from China but even here, he was reluctant to compromise the safety of the troops by sending in the ground forces. This is why he preferred to send in air troops instead and this led to the policy of containment which was so bitterly criticized by his opponents as an ineffective policy in Vietnam. I feel that this policy contributed significantly to changing all the known equations that existed – it pulled up China as an important world player on the side of Communism and strengthened that country’s role. This policy also changed the domestic political scene by leading to protests against the first unpopular war in Vietnam. Clarifications: This is why the Eisenhower policy is important. All the ambiguities, uncertainty and losses generated during the Vietnam war were due to the policy that was followed by Eisenhower. Yes, it was because of the policy followed by Eisenhower that Kennedy and Johnson were faced with an increasingly unpleasant situation in Vietnam. Because Eisenhower’s policy was not effective in stopping the Vietcong, Kennedy and Johnson had to send in more troops and face more losses. It also gave the Democrats an opportunity to attack the Republicans for their “weak” policy in Vietnam because they did not take strong effective action to go to full scale war in Vietnam. Bipartisan politics and bickering was the result. What this means is – Democrats were being attacked by Republicans when Truman was President. When Eisenhower did not follow his Party line and start hunting down so-called “Communists” with full strength, it gave the Democrats an opportunity to criticize the lack of unity within the Republican party and the ineffectiveness of Eisenhower’s policy. Eisenhower’s policy made the clear cut division between Republican and Democratic to blur and become less well defined. His policy in Vietnam was most unlike the Republican witchhunt of Communists, in fact it was more a pacifying policy like the Democrats had. Eisenhower did not fully agree with his own Party’s aggressive policy against Communists and had a more moderate outlook, like the Democrats. Therefore, the strict division between Republican and Democrat views because less rigid. Eisenhower’s policy in Vietnam was not as aggressive as his own party men, it was more like the Democrats. You say the main actor are Dulles and Chief of Staff Ridgeway. What about Eisenhower? I think he is the main actor as well. Please explain the combination I did not mention Eisenhower, because he was actually the one who, as President, laid out the policy. The question is, who or what influenced his policy? This is what I have answered. Eisenhower was most profoundly influenced by Ridgeway’s views, which also agreed with his own internal views about the dangers in sending American troops to die in Vietnam. It sounds like Eisenhower misleading is that he dont follow the full scale of war which can make Vietnam a loser. Is it correct? While her pursue policy allowing limited air troops and not put weight on ground troops and it make Vietnamese survive and getting strong thus the next Administration have to face the growing threat from Vietnam more and more. Is it correct? The Eisenhower should follow decisive action. Moreoever, Pupple government is not a good idea and ineffective. Is it correct   Yes, you’ve interpreted right. That was my reading of the material that was available on the website you mentioned. If Eisenhower had gone for an all out offensive and not hesitated, the war might have been won and it would not have been so prolonged or painful. Rather than depending upon a puppet Government, it would have been more helpful to America’s interests to crush the Communist threat in its budding stage. Hello, Im stll wondering if you put more wrignted on internal factor is correct. I think "The lost of China" is really imporant at that time. Why wasnt it decisive factor that shape Eisenhower policy?   I agree that China’s Communism was a big threat. But the reason why I rated the “internal factor” as more important is like this. If Eisenhower was influenced by the external factor of China, why would he have hesitated to go for an all out offensive? If he felt that the danger from China was so big a threat, he should have sent the troops immediately – after all, Hitler’s atrocities were still fresh in public memory. Eisenhower should have crushed another emerging threat, but he was not willing to do it without agreement from other nations. Yes, it was important, but was it THE most important factor? Read More