Vietnam Antiwar Lit Review Vietnam Anti-War Literature

Vietnam Antiwar Lit Review

Vietnam Anti-War Literature Review

The Vietnam War marked a lot of "firsts" in relation to the course of American history. It is the first war that the United States lost. It is one of the first major military actions where actual war was not declared. It is also the first war that was brought to a halt by a public uproar and political fallout. The people were a major reason (if not the main reason) that the war ended the way it did and this movement took on many forms. There have also been many scholarly and pundit-based treatises written and scrutinized since then that are worthy of review. This report covers a dozen sources relating to the Vietnam antiwar movement and they range in time of authorship from during the action to since then up through the present day. While the war could have potentially been won or could have ended "better" than it did, the results as they actually happened represent a marked shift in how wars are fought and whether (and to what degree) public support before and during the actions matters.

Literature Review

One major flashpoint of the Vietnam War was the involvement of black soliders during the conflict. While black soldiers played an integral part in World Wars I and II, Vietnam was different because blacks were still fighting for equal footing even though the days of Jim Crow were finally ending. Additionally, the Vietnam was immensely unpopular. This led to a refrain from many people that basically said "keep our black warriors out of the draft." Obviously, the assertion was that black people should not be subject to going to war in a compulsory fashion like it was for whites at the time. Major proponents of this idea were the people at traditionally black Southern University. This idea was trumpeted and advanced throughout the height of the Vietnam War from 1968 to 1973. One manifestation of this was a linkage between the anti-war movement itself with the social and economic inequalities and disparities that existed in the United States at the time. Of course, black people were often on the short end of that proverbial stick. The Vietnam War and many of the more recent Civil Rights movement laws happened at roughly the same time. These black university protests stood in contrast to the similar but different clashes that happened at colleges like Berkeley and those of Ivy League faire. Further, the violence (if any) that occurred at the black colleges was centered on civil rights and other issues specific to blacks rather than just being centered on the war itself. Indeed, many blacks conflated the two issues as being part of the same overall problem

. However, this was one of many perspectives that existed or still exist in the political ether. For example, a different study suggested that the uprising against the Vietnam War was related to a "confluence of scholastic meritocracy and cold war mobilization in the new student class"

. Even groups that are direct social outcasts (especially at the time) like homosexuals and anarchists found a voice as it related to the Vietnam anti-war movement. An example of this can be found in the work of Robert Duncan, as summarized by Eric Keenaghan in 2008. Keenaghan notes that Robert Duncan was on record as saying that the Vietnam War had themes that were strongly related to anarchism and homoeroticism. Duncan further stated that anarchism, which some people equate to lawlessness, simply states that the power of individuals rather than the state should be the guiding and ruling power of a group of people. In other words, Duncan is saying that anarchism is meant to oppose the state in "creative" ways rather than destructive and the Vietnam War was no exception. Indeed, Duncan was apoplectic when actions started against North Vietnam. He engaged in a "unrestrained and venomous condemnation of the Johnson Administration for taking military action"

. Similar outrage that took a broader approach was stated by Charles Chatfield in his 2004 treatise regarding the perceptions about those that opposed the Vietnam War. Indeed, the abstract for that work states that "popular myth today associates the anti-Vietnam War movement with radical New Left politics, counter-culture, and student protest, if not also with violence." He continues by saying "that these stereotypes originated from media coverage at the time is widely assumed, no doubt, but our images of the antiwar movement are also constructed and were reinforced by the historical literature wirten during and in the decade or so after the war." However, Chatfield then asserts that the base of people that opposed the war was much wider, deeper and more ideologically varied than some other people would suggest. Indeed, the "New Left" has since "disintegrated" but yet the anti-war ideology is still very much present

To be fair, there were many on the right end of the political spectrum that were conflicted and perturbed about the war. At least, there were groups that had wide arrays of political opinions including those on the right and the left that had problems with the war regardless of how they fell. One such group was the Catholic Church. Some people in those and other Christian/religious groups would assert that people should be loyal to the United States and go to war if called. Others asserted that going to war, Vietnam in particular, was against God and should not be happening. The latter led to a Catholic anti-war movement and an internal war within the Catholic church about what it truly meant to be "loyal daughters and sons of God"

To suggest that the anti-Vietnam War vitriol was limited to the United States would be less than accurate. Indeed, one source about the Vietnam War and the opposition to it emanated in 1992 and related to the perceptions and feelings of those in New Zealand. The selection of New Zealand is no accident because only two Western democracies sent troops to assist the Americans in Vietnam and New Zealand was one of those two. The article, written by Rabel, notes that the internal strife and dissent in the United States was white hot and stood in stark contrast to the more unified feelings about keeping up the effort for the Cold War against the U.S.S.R. This tended to lead to any similar sentiments in other countries, even those that sent troops, to be left by the wayside. However, the signs in New Zealand were present early and often, going as far back as 1954. At that time, Secretary of State John Foster called upon American allies to unite in action and help prevent a French collapse in Vietnam. However, people in New Zealand came out of the woodwork to rally against this sentiment. This included trade unions, peace/pacifist groups and others that were somewhat or vehemently anti-war. This was understandable given the lack of desire for more conflict along the lines that happened in the 1930's and 1940's with the two World Wars. Even so, the opposition in question was a slow trickle until the war truly went south and, up until that point, the policy of New Zealand and Australia was to remain in lockstep with the Americans. The anti-war movement that existed in New Zealand parroted that of the United States in many ways but was also unique in other ways

Many might focus on the anti-Vietnam War activities of the 1960's and 1970's but they have continued in many forms through the last decade, or at least have resurfaced in the last ten years even if the pertinent events were decades ago. For example, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 was John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran. Not long upon his return from that war, Kerry engaged in anti-war activities himself and those activities and the accounts of the same absolutely became a campign issue. Indeed, the term "swiftboating" came to light during that time frame as many hold that Kerry was slandered by his "Swiftboat" shipmates and others. Some suggest that Kerry got himself injured so he could get medals and/or could come home early. However, some went even further and suggested that Kerry consistently "supported the enemies of the United States" based on his comments about Southeast Asia, Central America and the Middle East. Author Joshua Muravchik gives a recitation of all of those parts of world diplomacy and why perhaps Kerry is not particularly pro-American. It is asserted that this just started with the Vietnam anti-war movement and has continued since. Others counter that he is being slandered and railroaded. They say he has the right to say what he is saying in addition to being correct in the first place

Much like those in New Zealand, the anti-war activists in the United States were often in the stark minority. Such is clear when listening to the words of Ernst and Baldwin when they speak about the anti-war movement in Kentucky from 1966 to 1975. They speak about an unbridled animosity being displayed towards pacifists and other anti-war voices. They also discuss Muhammad Ali and his stern anti-war stance. There is also discussion and support for conscientious objectors to fighting in the war on a compulsory basis. When it comes to the "not so silent minority," the aforementioned Ali was certainly among those. In fact, he faced very real consequences for that stance when he was drafted and he subsequently refused to support. He said, in part, "I don't have no personal quarrel with those Vietcongs." This led to him having his title stripped and he was summarily banned from boxing until 1970. It literally took a Supreme Court ruling to fix that sequence of events

Even with the minority status of many of the anti-war movements of the day, the presence of those anti-war voices led to freer speech from those that happened to pass by and otherwise became exposed to the anti-war movements. Indeed, an actual study was done about the subject by Berkowitz in 1974. His study reviewed the opinions and viewpoints of roughly 2800 pedestrians that were either among anti-war protests related to Vietnam or where away from such protests. It was found that when people were around such protests, the likelihood that they would sign petitions and otherwise support the anti-war movements was much higher. That being said, the impact stemmed more from attention-getting rather than immediate changes of attitudes of the passersby. Also important was the ingrained ideology and politics of the passersby in question. However, those that were open to new and different ideas were more likely to respond to the protests even if there might have been a bit of a peer pressure element involved when it came to swaying opinion and/or eliciting support

When it comes to parallels being drawn throughout history, Melvin Small notes that those exist in spades when it comes to comparing the military actions in Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 1970's to the similar events in Iraq during the late 2000's and early 2010's. Indeed, Small asserts that there was a very strong "bring the boys home now" mentality when it came to Vietnam and the same thing played out in Iraq before the troop drawdown truly came to pass. Even so, Small notes that Nixon was not initially swayed when it came to such rhetoric and was actually quite slow in ending military actions in the Vietnam Theater. In much the same way, the drawdown in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan) has and is happening quite slowly due to the perceived problem of what will happen when American troops are not present. This is due to military or insurgent groups like the Taliban or the formerly-in-power Baathists/Sunnis undermining the Shia majority government that has been elected since Saddam Hussein was deposed

Even with the unquestioned place in history that the antiwar movement towards Vietnam had, there are some people like James Max Fendrich that suggest that the movement is now "forgotten" in nature. Despite the fact that the movement "mobilized millions of citizens to public protest" and "activated third parties to question and demand and end to war policies," there was obviously a tapering off of the movement after the Vietnam War was ended. Fendrich even throws a bit of a verbal bomb when he says that the effects of the antiwar movement during Vietnam were "indirect rather direct." However, to suggest that it had no effect at all would be specious and not even Fendrich says that. However, the lack of force the movement now has is palpable in light of the lack of impact that anti-Iraq movements had circa 2001-2003. Perhaps 9/11 had something to do with that but the difference in the movements between then and now are hard to miss for those that know both well