Vietnam Vanity (Vanity)

[mojojockey]

Ok I am very familiar witht the politics of the Vietnam conflict, but on my upcoming exam my professor (liberal professor) insists on the facts of two components of Vietnam.....(a)What was the United States hoping to achieve? and (b)What was the role of domestic forces in the USA on the conduct of the war? (I'm not so sure what is meant by "domestic forces"!) But anyway, would love to invite any tid bits of information you guys might have.

[Conservative Canuck]

a) To stem the onslaught of Communism in the Far East, and to fill the political vacuum left when the French ran away, and,
b) Intially, Eisenhower sent special forces as advisors and trainers for the ARVN. This was expanded by Kennedy to include active-duty teams, and eventually escalated to full involvement. Unfortunately, the South was divided on the war, and the regime was so corrupt that it lost the support of the people. So, as usual, the US was left holding the ball, trying to accomplish a) without the support of the people on the active front line.

[506trooper]

From The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Ed. John Whiteclay Chambers II. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Copyright © 1999 by Oxford UP.by David L Anderson "The Vietnam War was the longest deployment of U.S. forces in hostile action in the history of the American republic. Although there is no formal declaration of war from which to date U.S. entry, President John F. Kennedy's decision to send over 2,000 military advisers to South Vietnam in 1961 marked the beginning of twelve years of American military combat. U.S. unit combat began in 1965. The number of US. troops steadily increased until it reached a peak of 543,400 in April 1969. The total number of Americans who served in South Vietnam was 2.7 million. Of these, more than 58,000 died or remain missing, and 300,000 others were wounded. The US. government spent more than $140 billion on the war. Despite this enormous military effort, the United States failed to achieve its objective of preserving an independent, noncommunist state in South Vietnam. This failure has led to searching questions about why and how the war was fought and whether a better diplomatic and military outcome was possible for the United States. Escalation. By 1961, guerrilla warfare was widespread in South Vietnam. Communist-led troops of the National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Vietnam, commonly referred to as Vietcong, were initiating hundreds of terrorist and small unit attacks per month. Saigon’s military, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), was not able to contain this growing insurgency. During the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a small U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), never numbering more than 740 uniformed soldiers, had provided training and logistics assistance to the ARVN. The Kennedy administration determined that the size and mission of the U.S. advisory effort must change if the U.S.-backed government of Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon was to survive. Some of Kennedy's aides proposed a negotiated settlement in Vietnam similar to that which recognized Laos as a neutral country. Having just suffered international embarrassment in Cuba and Berlin, the president rejected compromise and chose to strengthen U.S. support of Saigon. In May 1961, Kennedy sent 400 U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) troops into South Vietnam's Central Highlands to train Montagnard tribesmen in counterinsurgency tactics. He also tripled the level of aid to South Vietnam. A steady stream of airplanes, helicopters, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and other equipment poured into the South. By the end of 1962, there were 9,000 U.S. military advisers under the direction of a newly-created Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV), commanded by U.S. Army Gen. Paul Harkins. Under U.S. guidance, the Diem government also began construction of "strategic hamlets." These fortified villages were intended to insulate rural Vietnamese from Vietcong intimidation and propaganda. U.S. and South Vietnamese leaders were cautiously optimistic that increased U.S. assistance finally was enabling the Saigon government to defend itself...."

link here

More good info here

Much info available on the web...just keep searching.

As far as the "domestic" forces, and I am assuming you mean the troops not actively involved in RVN, we spent a lot of time training to fight the Soviet threat. The Korean peninsula heated up at the same time; it appeared the North Koreans were testing our resolve there.

On the home front, we trained, fought forest fires or whatever, and in my case I deployed to the city of Chicago twice, once during the Democratic National Convention (what I witnessed there caused me to change from being a conservative Democrat to a CONSERVATIVE and once after the assassination of MLK.

There was much going on in the world....I think you might want to narrow it down to one or two specific points and go from there.

Good luck.

[LibFreeOrDie]

"(b)What was the role of domestic forces in the USA on the conduct of the war?"

Given that the professor asking this question is a liberal, "Domestic forces IN the USA" must mean the anti-Viet Nam war activists - Kerry, Jane Fonda, Weathermen, etc. Many from that time are also involved in ant-Iraq war activities now: Staughton Lynd (now a lawyer defending the current deserters) and Ramsey Clark (a founder of A.N.S.W.E.R.).

Just look back on the FR threads of a few months ago regarding Kerry's actions in the '70s.

[Conservative Canuck]

"As far as the "domestic" forces, and I am assuming you mean the troops not actively involved in RVN, we spent a lot of time training to fight the Soviet threat. The Korean peninsula heated up at the same time; it appeared the North Koreans were testing our resolve there."

Good point. What many forget is that, less than 15 years before, the US had just emerged victorious from a bloody Pacific war in which tens-of-thousands of Americans (and British, Canadians and Australians)were killed or wounded. Does everyone think they detroyed Japanese imperialism in the Pacific just to walk away and let the commies take over? In spite of it all, the US will be shown to have been right in its VN involvement. Even though the war was lost by the US (or, really, it was one theatre in a global conflict. In this respect, it lost the battle, but won the war.), it demonstrated America's resolve, its attempts to keep its word to its allies, and kept enough Russian and Chinese resources busy to blunt the threat until the communist system was shown to be what it was: an unworkable Utopian idea, which lent itself all-too-easily(as most Utopian ideals) to dictatorship and btutal tyranny.

[506trooper]

" Even though the war was lost by the US (or, really, it was one theatre in a global conflict..."

Ouch! I always have a problem with that perception....true, the communist north defeated the forces of RVN, but not until a couple of years after the last combat troops left Viet Nam.

When JFK first ramped up the advisors to RVN, the purpose was to assist RVN in it's effort to fight off a communist take over. When it appeared, more was needed, LBJ ordered the escalation of American involvement. (both Democrats....hmmmm.)

I am purposely leaving out the political considerations that led to these decisions; too many to discuss in this post.

In 1968 after TET the communists were so weak, the war was winding down, but a bizarre chain of events involving many puppets on this stage we call life came into play or became more prominent.

The anti-war movement.

The decision to stop the bombing in the north.

The decision to allow the build up of material and men just across "neutral borders", the efforts of SOG notwithstanding.

McNamara's often strange advice on the way to conduct the war.

LBJ's decision to not run again.

The election of RM Nixon and the perception/belief of the American public that he must/should withdraw the troops.

Kissinger's selection.

The idiotic misinformed statements of Uncle Wally about the unwinnable war.

On and on.

A lot more came into play in the decision to leave RVN and let them carry the fight, but I believe, America did not lose that war, the Vietnamese did, and the only egg on our face was our lack of re-intervention in 1975. It created a world wide suspicion of American resolve, for which we are still paying the piper.

[Conservative Canuck]

Sorry. I should have been more accurate. I see your point of view, and agree the game was up when the RVN gave up on itself. Regardless, the US didn't 'win'in Viet Nam, in the conventional sense, anyway. Except now, in hindsight, we can see that the so-called 'divisive' and 'aggressive' policies of the United States saved much of Southeast Asia and Oceania from communist domination and destruction. With all the similarities to Viet Nam the RATS have been trying to draw with Iraq, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this one: it was the right thing to do; it was a huge sacrifice; The United States of America was proved right in the long run.

[506trooper]

"Regardless, the US didn't 'win'in Viet Nam, in the conventional sense, anyway"

Right you are.

And when the elections in Iraq are over and we bring the troops home, there will still be problems.....the Iraqis will have to exhibit the self resolve and determination required to breathe the air of freedom. It will be interesting to see how they develop a national identity given the tribal nature of the region. Once the population has a sense of freedom, I believe they will understand.

[506trooper]

Finally figured out what your prof probably meant by domestic forces.

"(b)What was the role of domestic forces in the USA on the conduct of the war?"Might have better been phrased "How did domestic issues influence the war in Viet Nam?"

I think LibFreeOrDie nailed it up in post 4.

If that be the case, I might have asked, "How did the United States allow a very few but vocal minority of socialistic, draft dodging, duty shirking cowards influence the conduct of a war, and how did the left leaning, headline seeking media help them do it?"

Course I'm gonna have to reflect on that a bit..tick..tick..OK, I like my question better, but if your prof is a lib, I suggest you not use it if you want a passing grade.