U.S. Foreign Policy in Vietnam
In the history of the United States, our foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. Because of the unique beliefs and ideals by which we live in this country, we feel obligated to act as leaders of the world and help other countries in need. Therefore, the U.S. has attempted to somehow combine this attitude with economic and strategic gain. After World War II, the Cold War was initiated, and America's fear of communism led Truman to begin the endeavors of the "containment" of communism. As a result, the U.S. became involved with Korea and then Vietnam. The U.S. was determined not to let South Vietnam fall to the communists because President Eisenhower once stated that the fall of Vietnam would have a "domino" effect. Unfortunately, not everyone viewed Vietnam the same way as Eisenhower. Opponents of the war believed that the U.S. had no right to intervene in this civil war, while supporters maintain the attitude of moral obligation for the world by defending freedom and democracy from communism. Three historians in Conflict and Consensus carefully examine our foreign policy and involvement in the Vietnam War. Each article emphasizes different points and explains how one
The fall of Vietnam marks the most humiliating defeat in American History. Americans were awaken by the trauma of Vietnam. A "No more Vietnams" psychology sprung up all over the country. Lewy commented that American turn to isolationism in hope that such an disaster will never happen again. Lewy stated that the "United States cannot and should not be the world's policeman." (490) The result for taking up a moral burden such as Vietnam only results in the severe casualties. Despite what the American ideal for democracy, Lewy concluded, we can not support and change the world. "The Statesman cannot be a saint" (491) as the Korean Conflict and Vietnam conflict had shown to the American people. The American idealism changed significantly because of the impact of Vietnam war. In the first article, "God's Country and American Know-How," Loren Baritz argues that the American myth of superiority based on nationalism, technology, and moral ideals brought the U.S. into the war. The Americans never understood the Vietnamese culture and their true sentiments on the war. Nevertheless, because of our power and moral prowess, the U.S. was confident that we would prevail. This was our biggest mistake; we were blind and "ignorant"(473). Baritz states that "we were frustrated by the incomprehensible behavior of our Vietnamese enemies and bewildered by the inexplicable behavior of our Vietnamese friends"(470). Because of our isolation on the North American Continent, the U.S. had a difficult time understanding the exotic cultures around the world, especially Vietnam. Thus, as a direct result, Americans considered foreign courtesies and rituals crude and inferior to the customs of the civilized country of America. This point is quite sad and embarassing, but Baritz points out that "cultural isolation"(476) occurs all over the world. It is the Solipsistic philosophy that the universe revolves around the earth, just as all the nations of the world revolve around the U.S. According to John Winthrop, we are the "Chosen People"(473) because of God's favor and presence. So are we obligated to set the standards of culture for the world? Because of our prominence and success as a prosperous nation, we stand forth as leaders; however, no country can define the culture of another nation. The U.S. failed to understand that "everyone prefers their own language, diet and funeral customs"(475). Upon first impression, the American soldiers viewed the Vietnamese people as savages because "they lived like animals"(470). Thus, the soldiers failed to appreciate "the organic nature of Vietnamese society, the significance of village life, the meaning of ancestors, the relationship of the family to the state, the subordinate role of the individual, and the eternal quest for universal agreement"(470). Just because the Vietnamese were poor, we presumed that they were begging for our help; we were "attempting to build a nation in our own image"(471). Furthermore, it is not the "ingratitude or stupidity"(470) which sparked the Vietnamese resistance against U.S. soldiers but rather a cultural misunderstanding. If the power of United States were overestimated, the war then was lost because of the aid of our allies and the cost of the war. The Revisionists often overlooked this subject, LaFeber argued. He pointed out that "of the forty nations tied to the United States by treaties only four- Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Thailand- committed any combat troops." (506) Even South Korea, a country which owed much to U.S., only send troops after Washington bribed them. The failure of the aid from the coalition eventually undermined the U.S. effort in Vietnam. The will of the people which the Revisionists stressed as the downfall of the war is also affected by the cost of the war. The American people simply did not want to fight a bread and butter war. Domestically, the Great Society Program must be sacrificed to accommodate the war.
Some common words found in the essay are:
People473 God's, President Johnson, South Vietnam, United States', North Vietnamese, Conflict Consensus, Henry Kissinger, Vietnamese Communist, Loren Baritz, Vietnam Lewy, lost war, south vietnam, foreign policy, war lost, american people, military power, war lewy, south vietnamese, lafeber concluded, north vietnamese, war american people, war lafeber concluded, south east asia, suffered major casualties, wrong foot beginning,
Approximate Word count = 3697
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
