The End Result

After the Tet Offensive and Nixon's Vietnamization, the Paris Peace agreement was signed and put into affect. Causalities were put into numbers and along with the other realizations. The number of dead had reached 58,148 killed in Vietnam, while other soldiers had become disabled had reached 29,578. Soldiers were also asked if they would serve again if they knew the outcome of the battles and war, 74% of the veterans that were asked, stated that they would serve again along with 91% of them said they were glad they had served in the Vietnam War.

When the U.S. troops left Vietnam, accusations came up of who lost the war, what is going to happen to the workers, what is going to happen now? Accusations of who lost came up across the country as people were asking did we loose the war. People were also asking what was going to happen to the economy due to the massive increase in inflation. With the war costs estimated around 167 billion dollars spent and without a increase in taxation to counter the spending, inflation went into double digits and also putting America into even more debt causing living standards to spiral downward up into the 1990's. The effects of the governments choices led to the countrywide distrust of all government agencies until later years which is now the opposite of the distrust. Even though soldiers had to go through a tough war and a tough home coming, today, we see the remaining veterans as heroes and good soldiers that had to do what they did due to orders. A memorable site that salutes the soldiers that had lost their lives in the war is the Vietnam Veterans memorial that is now one of the most visited site in our Nation's capitol.

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/postwar.htm

http://www.uswings.com/vietnamfacts.asp

A Waiting and Patient Enemy

While fighting the Viet Cong and against the North Vietnamese, both had surprises against the U.S. which showed that they were more coordinated and also were a stronger force then anticipated. The fighting against the Viet Cong took a major toll on U.S. troops since the Viet Cong used guerilla tactics. The guerilla tactics would consist of ambushes, booby trapping roads or the outskirt of villages, and also the troops could not tell who was helping the Viet Cong. Villagers would make booby traps, house and feed, and also help the Viet Cong escape through complex underground tunnels. Without knowing who was helping the enemy, U.S. troops were becoming angered and started becoming angry when fighting started, started to use drugs, and moral declined.

Another surprise to the U.S. troops was the coordinated attack of the North Vietnamese called the "Tet offensive". The coordinated attack went across the country, attacking around 100 different South Vietnamese cities. The U.S. forces at the cities defended the attack but showed that they were facing a formidable foe that can make such a coordinated attack. After the coordinated attack of the North Vietnamese, President Johnson had to now face a angry country along with bad news from his military advisors that state war is escalating and can become worst for U.S. troops.

(http://history1900s.about.com/od/vietnamwar/a/vietnamwar_2.htm - "Surprise Attack" and "Life in the Jungle" )

Bring the Troops Home

The photo I chose shows mobs of American citizens protesting against the Vietnam War as well as sending their American troops to Vietnam, the anti-war movement. It is obvious that the majority of Americans did not want to see their loved ones involved in fighting a war they did not agree with in the first place. In August of 1965, 61% of Americans believed it was not a mistake in sending the troops to Vietnam. Not long after in May of 1971, after five years of slowly fading approval, 28% of Americans agreed it was no longer the right decision. It is a very big issue having such little support, especially during a war as brutal as the one in Vietnam, and at such a fast plummeting rate. It was no secret to the public of just how graphic and violent combat actually was and how powerful their weapons and bombs really were.

http://vietnammedia.wikispaces.com/5.+Public+Opinion+During+and+After+the+War

Breaking Political Boundaries

Prior to 1971 it was alright to serve in the U.S. military without having a say in, or influencing the people sending troops to war. Eighteen years of age was the minimum age that one could be drafted yet in order to vote, the age was twenty-one. The roots of the drafting age starts back in WWII when President Roosevelt lowered it to eighteen to boost conscription. But at the time all one could do was serve and die for their country, that was until the Vietnam War and the protesters that surrounded it. The protesters and anti-war radicals argument was to have more of a say in the country's policies and leadership. Considering most of the protesters and radicals were college age students (not 21 years of age) it was a logical direction for them to pursue.

The 26th had its up and down moments before finally becoming ratified. At first in 1970 it was seen as an extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which allowed 18 year olds the right to vote in all elections. Then on December 1, 1970 it was decided in Oregon v Mitchell that 18 be the age one was aloud to vote for national elections but not for state and local elections. It took 3 months from that decision for Congress to pass the specific text stating that the voting at be 18 at all levels of election. It was finally ratified July 1, 1971. (26th Amendment)

This was a huge decision for the country, the protesters, and the youth of American. It was a decision that still holds today and allows us to continue to vote as soon as we're 18. I can understand the argument against this amendment just as well as I understand the argument for it. 18 year olds demand respect because they want to be thought of as adults and because they are able to enlist in the military they should have a voting say in who is in charge of the country. On the other hand an 18 year old, for the most part, is barely out of high school and could care less about who is leading the country, let alone make an informed decision on who to put in office. It's something, I feel, to this day that we haven't been able to find the correct balance between the two and who knows if we as a country ever will.

http://www.deafvote.com/why_vote/26th-amendment-explained.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am26

Nixon's Ambition

Before Nixon got into office, he already had a plan that would win the war and called his secret strategy "Vietnamization", which stated that the Vietnamese people were not fighting hard enough to win the war. The strategy called for pulling out troops and increasing the air warfare, which pushed the ground warfare onto the ARVN. When Nixon was elected into office, his plan went into effect and took troops out of Vietnam. While the plan was in effect, the Communists party started to take the war into neighboring countries such as Cambodia and Laos.

As Nixon kept sending bombing runs to push back the Communist Party, the bombing runs started a wave of anti-Nixon rally's all over the United States. Two examples of protests that stood out across the country was on Kent State, Ohio, and also at Jackson State, Mississippi which combined had 6 students killed, which made a mother cry out "They are killing our babies in Vietnam and in our own backyard". With Nixon relying on air warfare angered citizens and his administration working on a treaty. With the pre-treaty talks not working, Nixon and his administration started a series of major bombings of the DRV's major cities of Hanoi and Haiphong (referred to as the Christmas Bombings). After the attacks were made, the severe attacks brought a lot of dislike to Nixon and his administration from people around the world. The immediate talk and dislike of the choices caused Nixon and his administration to rethink their war tactics and also talk of negotiation. After new negotiations went underway, Nixon and his administration signed a peace accord on January 23, 1973 which stated that the United States would not abandon the GVN.

(http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/index.html - "The Nixon Years" and "The Paris Peace Agreement" )

Assessing the Future

Before entering a war, would you send advisors to tell you what you need to do, how much aid is needed and how bad the situation would get if the worst came, would you try and go the middle route and please as many people as you can? Before entering the war, President Kennedy sent a team of advisors to assess the situation and tell him what aid is needed. The report now is known as the "White Papers", which stated that there needed to be an increase in military forces to counteract the successful actions/victories that were taking by the NLF. After receiving the White Paper's, Kennedy talk with other advisors on what should be done. Some agreed to intervene, while other's advised that the war would be meaningless.

After talking about the situation and what should be done, Kennedy ended up making a compromise and limited the warfare that would be done in Vietnam. Kennedy ended up sending more guns, ammo and aid, along with more advisors to help the war. After some time sending just aid and advisor's to Vietnam, more papers came into Washington stating that the victories by the NLF are taking the countryside. With Kennedy taking the "please everyone road", the victories by the NLF led to attacks on rural areas. With the rural attacks continuing, the advisors are completely separating themselves from the people being divided.

( http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/index.html - December 1961 White Paper)

Losing Battle

If someone in power say's "we are going to do it this way and with little interaction", will it actually happen? During the Vietnam War, this did not happen and went in the opposite direction of what was said. At the start of the war, the Johnson Administration stated that the war would be done in "cold blood" and also a limited war. The limited war that the Administration saw was little confrontation, little domestic impact, limited resources and bodies. The goals that were said were never achieved and it was seen among the people across the nation. With the Johnson Administration not keeping its word on a "little interaction" war, the Administration met with a lot of civil unrest and protesters across the country.

( http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/history/index.html - "The War In America")

The wait and see mentality.

It took four different presidents to eventually commit the US completely to war with Vietnam. It began with Truman authorizing aid to the French, shifted to Eisenhower taking control from the French and unleashing the CIA's campaign in Vietnam, and then took on another role as Kennedy sent 2,000 military advisers to train the South Vietnamese army. These were all tactics that didn't offensively commit us in the war, it wasn't until Kennedy's unfortunate assassination that the US was thrust into an offensive mindset when Lyndon B. Johnson gave the go ahead for air strikes and bombing of targets north of the 17th parallel. It took about 15 years from the onset of the conflict until the US was fully involved in Vietnam, some might say a little too long.

All of them had one goal and that was to keep the Communists at bay and keep them from flexing their might. That was the US policy regarding foreign affairs surrounding the Cold War. Each president took a different stance on that approach and I believe it ultimately allowed North Vietnam to succeed. Truman took the initial stance with the Truman Doctrine, which promise U.S. support to countries threatened by communism, spread us too thin as a nation. Truman was ambitious to think that we could prevent its spread, especially following WWII when the world was left with so many voids. (Truman). Eisenhower was the first to take a stance with regards to Vietnam and with his outstanding war credentials decided to allow the CIA, which had been successful in ousting other regimes during his administration, to get involved. I'm not so sure the CIA was the best route to go. Sending spooks and spies into a region already in turmoil and unrest I think did more harm than good. Eisenhower should of sent a military presence over there with the CIA and advisers, if not in place of them. (Eisenhower).

The one president I think that would have best suited the U.S. involvement was President Kennedy. The reason why I think he didn't have a bigger impact was because his focus had to be closer to home with the failed Bay of Pigs operation, set up by the Eisenhower administration, along with the Cuban Missile Crisis. J.F.K. and his hard-lining stance toward the Soviet Union could have proved productive in Vietnam and yet before he got the real opportunity he met his untimely fate. His stance toward Vietnam could be summed up by this quote he gave in April 1963, "We don't have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at any point. But I can't give up that territory to the Communists and get the American people to re-elect me". (Kennedy). Then Johnson picked up where Kennedy left off and expanded the military involvement with bombing and more troops on the ground. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and its resolution allowed Johnson to use the military as he saw fit without the approval of the Senate. America's proactive stance in Vietnam forever changed with Johnson.


http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/anderson.htm
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

Communism .. was it the only reason for the war?

We're all aware that containing the spread of Communism was the main political stance of the U.S. following WWII and making sure that the U.S. was in the forefront of every potential conflict. I believe it was during this time when the U.S. took up its "World Police" mentality because as a superpower it felt the need to involve themselves in matters that may or may not concern them. France's inability to hold off the Communist threat in Indochina and their ultimate defeat to Ho Chi Minh led to a more proactive U.S. involvement. But could there have been underlying reasons for why the U.S. wanted the region to not fall into the hands of the Communist?

There have long been reports of studies conducted in the region for its oil deposits and its rubber industry. I read an article stating that indeed there was a large deposit of oil off the coast of Vietnam of which Rockefeller's Standard Oil company had an interest in. And today there are oil derricks pumping it out from various U.S. companies.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions but it does raise some questions about why it was so difficult to withdraw troops from the region even after the tremendous loss of American and allied soldiers. I find it hard to believe that our only political agenda in Vietnam was to keep Communism at bay. It didn't work in Cuba, North Korea, Laos, China and ultimately North Vietnam, that's not including the countries that adopted it for even a short while. Afghanistan was a communist country for a while in the Cold War era but that's another topic entirely.
http://www.oilcompanies.net/oil1.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vietnam2.htm