FREE ESSAY ON WAR IN VIETNAM

WAR IN VIETNAM

No new taxes. This is a quote that most all of us remember from
the 1992 presidential election. Along with it we remember that there were
new taxes during that presidents term in office. There are a myriad of
promises made and things done in a presidential election year that have
questionable motives as to whether they are done in the best interest of
the people or in the interests of the presidential candidate. These hidden
interests are one of the biggest problems with the political aspects of
government in modern society. One of the prime examples of this is the
Vietnam War. Although South Vietnam asked for our help, which we had
previously promised, the entire conflict was managed in order to meet
personal political agendas and to remain politically correct in the world's
eyes rather than to bring a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This
can be seen in the selective bombing of Hanoi throughout the course of the
Vietnam War. Politically this strategy looked very good. However,
militarily it was ludicrous. War is the one arena in which politicians
have no place. War is the military's sole purpose. Therefore, the U. S.
Military should be allowed to conduct any war, conflict, or police action
that it has been committed to without political interference or control
because of the problems and hidden interests which are always present when
dealing with polit
United States involvement in the Vietnam War actually began in 1950
when the U. S. began to subsidize the French Army in South Vietnam. This
involvement continued to escalate throughout the 1950's and into the early
1960's. On August 4, 1964 the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in which
American Naval Vessels in South Vietnamese waters were fired upon by North
Vietnam. On August 5, 1964 President Johnson requested a resolution
expressing the determination of the United Sates in supporting freedom and
in protecting peace in southeast Asia ( Johnson ). On August 7, 1964, in
response to the presidential request, Congress authorized President Johnson
to take all necessary measures to repel any attack and to prevent
aggression against the U. S. in southeast Asia ( United States ). The
selective bombing of North Vietnam began immediately in response to this
resolution. In March of the following year U. S. troops began to arrive.
Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution specifically stated that we
had no military, political, or territorial ambitions in southeast Asia, 
the interests back home were quite a different story ( Johnson ). The
political involvement in Vietnam was about much more than just promised aid
to a weak country in order to prevent the spread of communism. It was
about money. After all, wars require equipment, guns, tools and machinery.
Most of which was produced in the United States. It was about proving
America's commitment to stop communism. Or rather to confine communism in
its present boundaries But most of all it was about politics. The
presidential political involvement in Vietnam had little to do with Vietnam
at all. It was about China for Eisenhower, about Russia for Kennedy, about
Washington D.C. for Johnson, and about himself for Nixon ( Post ). The
last two of which were the major players in America's involvement in
regards to U. S. Troops being used ( Wittman ).
The military involvement in Vietnam is directly related to the
political management of the military throughout the war. The military
controlled by the politicians. The micro management of the military by the
White House for political gain is the primary reason for both the length
and cost, both monetary and human, of the Vietnam War ( Pelland ). One of
the largest problems was the lack of a clear objective in the war and the
support to accomplish it. The predominant military opinion of the
military's role in Vietnam in respect to the political involvement is seen
in the following quote by General Colin Powell, If you're going to put
into something then you owe the armed forces, you owe the American People,
you owe just you're own desire to succeed, a clear statement of what
political objective you're trying to achieve and then you put the
sufficient force to that objective so that you know when you've
accomplished it. The politicians dictated the war in Vietnam, it was a
limited war, the military was never allowed to fight the war in the manner
that they thought that they needed to in order to win it ( Baker ).
To conclude on the Vietnam War, the political management of the war
made it unwinnable. The military was at the mercy of politicians who knew
very little about what needed to be done militarily in order to win the war.
There is an enormous difference between political judgment and military
judgment. This difference is the primary reason for the outcome of the
Vietnam War ( Schwarzkopf ).
The Gulf War in the Middle East was almost the exact opposite in
respect to the political influence on the war. In respect to the military
objective of the war the two are relatively similar. The objective was to
liberate a weaker country from their aggressor. The United Nation's
resolution was explicit in its wording regarding military force in the
Persian Gulf. The resolution specifically stated by all means
necessary.( Schwarzkopf ).
The President was very aware of the problems with political
management of warfare throughout the war. He was very determined to let
the military call the shots about how the war was conducted. He made a
specific effort to prevent the suggestion that civilians were going to try
to run the war ( Baker ). Painful lessons had been learned in the Vietnam
War, which was still fresh on the minds of many of those involved in this
war ( Baker ).
The military was given full control to use force as they saw fit. 
Many of the top military leaders had also been involved in the Vietnam War.
These men exhibited a very strong never again attitude throughout the
planning stages of this war. General Schwarzkopf made the following
statement about the proposed bombing of Iraq in regards to the limited
bombing in Vietnam, I had no doubt we would bomb Iraq if I was going to be
the Military Commander. He went on to say that it would be absolutely
stupid to go into a military campaign against his, Iraq's, forces who had a
tremendous advantage on us on the ground, numbers wise. It would be
ludicrous not to fight the war in the air as much, if not more, than on the
ground ( Schwarzkopf ).
The result of the Gulf War in which the military was given control,
as we know, was a quick, decisive victory. There were many other factors
involved in this than just the military being given control, particularly
in contrast to Vietnam, but the military having control played a major part
in this victory.
In conclusion, although there are some major differences between
the two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that
the military is best suited for conducting wars. Politicians are not. It
is not the place of a politicians to be involved in the decision making
process in regards to war or military strategy. The White House has
significant control in military matters. That control should be used to
help the military in achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where
George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job. The only
alternative to this is to use political influence in the same way that it
was used in Vietnam. If we do not learn from these lessons that are so
obvious in the differences between these two conflicts then we are
condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Lets just pray that it does not
take the death of another 58,000 of America's men to learn that the
politicians place is not in war but in peace ( Roush ).