History of the Vietnam Wars - Essay Example

History of the Vietnam Wars HISTORY OF THE VIETNAM WARS GRACE SARKAR Order No. 437337 30 April Table of Contents Introduction … 3 The political mess … 3 Lessons from Indo-China war … 6 HISTORY OF THE VIETNAM WARS Introduction The Indo-China war was a disaster from the beginning for the French as well as for the United States. The tropical climes of Vietnam did not offer any chance for conventional war. The French failed to hold on to their colony despite a nine year war between 1945 and 1954. The Americans proved no better in the 1960s and 1970s although successive government of President Johnson and President Nixon tried to achieve breakthrough victories. The French defeat was mainly military. “The French defeat at the Dien Bien Phu was followed by a peace conference in Geneva, in which Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam received their independence and Vietnam was temporarily divided between an anti-Communist South and a Communist North. In 1956, South Vietnam, with American backing, refused to hold the unification elections” (Learn about the Vietnam War, 2010). It is difficult to understand what the French and the Americans tried to achieve. If they felt they could impose their might through superior military prowess, they had difficult time proving it in the marshy soil of tropical Vietnam. In the first place, the military preparation was nothing short of disaster. The huge pile of weapons stocked by the French and the Americans was of little avail to the Vietnamese. The weapons only served to aggravate or spoil things for the French and the Americans by adverse reactions from their own homelands. The political mess Nothing much is known about adverse public reaction to the Indo-China war in France. The protests were largely muted and it was left to the politicians to take action as they deemed fit. The French defeat in Dien Bien Phu was a substantial eye-opener to the French government and they did not waste time in tactfully concluding the war with a peace conference in Geneva. The Americans were, however, more noisy. In the United States, opposition to the war was vociferous. As the years progressed, the media was pregnant with news of public protests and atrocities committed on American soldiers. Politically, both President Johnson and President Nixon faced angry crowds swearing by anti-war statements. The American Presidents were sensitive to adverse political decisions and had no idea the chaotic situation at home might cause in the present or in the future. In the latter years of President Nixon, he was too caught up with the Watergate scandal to think clearly on issues with regard to Vietnam. His frustrations compounded issues and the failure of the Americans in the Vietnam was the result of political wrangles that only added to the confusion with even minor defeats given a grotesque media coverage (Learn about the Vietnam War, 2010). Why were the Americans fighting the Vietnamese? Why did America get sucked in the war when other big powers like China preferred to successfully act behind the scenes and achieve victories? The calculations in the democratic camps of the world were chaotic and cynical. The democratic powers in the west had the worst fears about communism. These fears brought to fore various discordant voices of nightmarish proportions suggesting wars had to be fought in the larger interests of democracy and also questioning the rationale behind the decisions to make wars. Those holding powers like Richard Nixon and General Haig faced tough times taking military decisions and explaining to an angry nation why they took such decisions. Nobody paid much attention to the actual causes and reason behind West’s pre-occupation with desires to contain communism. Post-war communist Russia had occupied a large portion of Eastern Europe. The West could do little in Eastern Europe to make the Russians leave. Tiny strip of nations in the Asian continent were better targets to show the communists the might of the democratic arsenals. Who bothers about loss of lives and properties in these tiny, insignificant nations anyway? However, America did not bargain for any such losses with their own men in uniform. They felt it was simply a matter of gaining quick military victories through strong military actions including aerial bombings. These will put paid to further communist ambitions anywhere else in the world. However, when American heads began rolling like those of the French earlier the Americans realized the military expedition in Vietnam had to be rehearsed from the start. The Americans had severely underestimated the North Vietnamese (French Indo-China War, 2010). They had made a mess of the media handling arising from the military offensive as well as the military adversities suffered. It was only a question of making a face-saving retreat and bringing the war to an illogical end that mattered in the end. Whatever lessons had to be learnt was left for future generations. At the time of retreat there was only enough time to lick the wounds of defeat. Even now, there are discordant voices about the actual cause of defeat. Those directly involved in decision making continue to make statements justifying the war and providing reasons why the war should have continued. After all the Americans were involved in the Koreas too! The Americans were successful in South Korea, weren’t they? The qualitative difference in Vietnam and Korea was that South Korea had a strong leadership. Unlike Vietnam, South Korea was also resourceful and rich. The media was charitable to South Korea. Consequently, political and military decisions in South Korea were swift and fruitful. The same, however, was not the case with South Vietnam. South Vietnam was as poor as North Vietnam. North Vietnam had China very close by for support. However, South Vietnam depended on distant America for support. The bombing of Hanoi was the final nail in the coffin of America’s involvement in the war. The destruction caused by the bombing created disturbing photo snaps and brought about the world’s as well as the American citizens’ disapproval. The top leadership’s view in America that they could have brought North Vietnam to their knees with persistent bombing only shows how savage these leaders were. The best thing about the Vietnamese war was that it came to a premature end. Continuance of war would have only brought about miseries of unimaginable proportions (French Indo-China War, 2010), Lessons from the Indo-China war Simply put, the lessons are no matter how mighty a nation is, it cannot dictate the course of another nation. This decision must be made exclusively by the nation involved, in this case South Vietnam. Even in South Vietnam, there is nothing to show that the South Vietnamese wanted war. It was only the exuberance of United States to protect another country from becoming communists that pushed United States into Vietnam. “After the civil war in China ended with the Communist victory in 1949, President Truman and President Eisenhower after him could ill afford the political damage of another loss to a Communist power in Asia. In practice, the U.S. provided money, weapons and military advisors to the French while rebuffing attempts by Ho Chi Minh to approach the U.S. After the military failure of the French in 1954, the U.S. accepted the burden of supporting the Bao Dai regime in newly formed South Vietnam and the French gave up all claim to Vietnam. President Eisenhower wrote to the new Prime Minister of the Bao Dai government, Ngo Dinh Diem, in September 1954, promising U.S. support for a non-Communist Vietnam” (French Indo-China War, 2010) The American began well in South Vietnam. There was nothing wrong in providing support for South Vietnam. However, the Americans erred in providing support as well as getting military involved. The direct involvement of America inevitably made them sitting ducks for the North Vietnamese as well as the media back home. History does not view America’s involvement in Vietnam charitably. Military involvement is also all right provided the scale of involvement was low and strategic. In the first place, a referendum could have been held seeking the people’s mandate for the war. In the absence of such a referendum, the Americans could have been more effective had they learnt the method to tackle insurgencies and taught this to the native South Vietnamese. Conclusion The disastrous involvement of the United States in Vietnam is a good lesson for those contemplating direct and barbaric involvement in another’s quarrel. In spite of the security risks, it is important to learn how to make friends with the native residents. Diplomacy is a good strategy in foreign dealings. You weed out difficult people from those who are good and resourceful. It is not good strategy to fight a whole country of people without telling them the reason for the fight. If there is a good reason for the fight, people normally come out in support of the fight. The Americans must have been busier building the boundary lines, digging trenches, and organizing a strong line of defense. These are things which even the enemy respects. Learning the right lessons from defeat helps building strategies in future that earns one the respect and admiration of others, including the enemy. Sources: Bradley, Mark Philip; March 2004, Becoming Van Minh: Civilization Discourse and Visions of the Self in Twentieth-Century Vietnam, http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.1/bradley.html French Indo-China War, 2010, http://www.olive-drab.com/od_history_vietnam_french.php Learn about the Vietnam War, 2010, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm Read More