Theories of War Vietnam

¶ … War: Vietnam

The concept of 'Realism' has been one of the most important and dominating theories that has come into force, especially after the World War II. The theory has not only been responsible for guiding international relations but has also been the predominant force behind the formulations of foreign policies. (Theories of International Relations) For most of its history, Vietnam has been under the domination of foreign rule, most of the time by the Chinese. It was in the year 1860 that the French entered the soil of Vietnam, and by the end of the nineteenth century, they had established colonies all over Vietnam, especially around the Gulf of Tonkin. This was the area that the Japanese took complete control over, during the Second World War, until the year 1945 when the Vietnamese took up a bold stand and threw them out.

Afterwards, until the year 1955, the French tried hard to re-conquer their lost territories, but it was of no avail. Their army was completely disorganized, perhaps because the world war had just gotten over, and the troops were barely determined to do their best. The efforts did not pay off, and the French had to accept defeat. The Communist General Vo Nguyen Giap was responsible for the defeat and the eventual withdrawal of the French troops from Vietnam, and left a buffer zone between the North and the South of Vietnam. The leader Ho Chi Minh set up his government in Hanoi, and dissatisfied North Vietnamese fled to South Vietnam where the leader was the notorious Ngo Dinh Diem, who had established the Republic of Vietnam by this time. There was serious in fighting between the north and the south of Vietnam, and from the years 1955 to 1960, the North Vietnamese with the southern Vietcong attacked and tried to take over the government under the President Ngo Dinh Diem, and in the year 1963 these troops succeeded in overthrowing and executing him. (The Vietnam War)

By the year 1964, the North Vietnamese with the help of Russia and China launched an attempt to capture and conquer the entire area of Vietnam. It was at this point that the United States of America, fearing that the Communists under Russia and China would be able to successfully take over Vietnam, began to keep an eye out for the developments in the region. Ho Chi Minh was emerging as a successful leader, and Vietcong was also gaining in popularity. Communism had become a world wide 'menace' and the United States of America had the idea of stopping it from spreading even further. This was the time when the Cold War too was at its peak, and the Americans feared that if they were to interfere in the matters of Vietnam, the communists would spread their wings further and manage to create more and more tensions between the people of China and the Russians, which would even lead to another world war. This was what prevented the United States from pursuing a more strict policy, and what eventually led to more tensions. (The Vietnam War)

Furthermore, the cultural differences between the U.S.A. And Vietnam were enormous and quite unbridgeable, because, for example, what was corrupt according to USA standards was not corrupt according to the standards being used by the South Vietnamese. USA was finding it quite a difficult proposition to term the South Vietnamese as being hardworking and honest when corruption was rampant, and dishonesty was the order of the day. What was even worse was that the leaders of South Vietnam were also demoralized, and whatever they did was more for personal gains than for anything else. The U.S.A. soon arrived at a decision seeing that there was nothing that would mobilize the troops and encourage them, and this was to take matters into their own hands. After this decision was made, the Americans started to send out so-called advisory troops into South Vietnam, and soon this became a huge commitment.

The then President Lyndon Johnson formed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that stated that the maintenance of peace and security and protecting the freedom of the peoples in the regions of Southeast Asia was the priority at the time for the Americans. The President did not want to halt the War, however, that was going on between the North and the South of Vietnam and since he did not want to go down in history as the first U.S. President to have lost a War, he handed over the responsibility to Richard M. Nixon, who also could not cope with all that the War entailed. The young men of the troops of America could not hope to survive in such an alien environment, and when it was obvious that the U.S.A. was highly demoralized, the decision was made to withdraw. Ceasefire was established in 1973, and soon the U.S. troops began to leave foe their own homelands. In the year 1975, North Vietnam captured South Vietnam, and the whole of Vietnam became united as one single entity, one single communist state. (The Vietnam War)

In essence, the events that led up to the Vietnam War are as follows: after the Second World War, the Communist Strategy had divided the four countries of China and Germany and Vietnam and Korea. Vietnam was in itself divided into two factions, the North and the South, the north being Communist, and the South being Republican. North Vietnam had fought for many years to overthrow the French government that was ruling it for several years before the world war. When the French were finally overthrown, and the Geneva Accord was signed authorizing the removal of French troops from Vietnamese soil, Vietnam became split up into North and South, and the United States of America sent out her troops to protect the world or at the very least, South Vietnam from being overwhelmed by a communist regime. The U.S.A. stationed her troops in South Vietnam, and this is how the U.S.A. entered the Vietnam War. (Background: www.bergen.org)

The term 'realism' is used so often and in so many different contexts that it is virtually impossible to define the term. However, theorists such as Waltz, Carr and Morgenthau state their own definitions of the word, but the problem here is that each person demonstrates their own focus on the particular issue. (Realism in International Relations) The term 'Realism' was coined by EH Carr in an attempt to analyze the underlying issues of the onset of the World War II. (Political Science 14 Notes) Realism is often considered to be an extremely complex and complicated theory by the scientists and the researchers who study them. At the core of the principle is the question of whether 'justice' must be applied, when carrying out international affairs.

A realist believes that moral principles such as justice must not be forced onto theories of War and the principles involved in maintaining international relations. A realist prefers to state that the issues of power and security must be given more importance that those of morals, and also that a given state must concentrate on developing its own self-interests, and that the world of international affairs is an arena in which to display their own power in a sort of anarchical regime. A realist also believes that the idea that War is in itself an anarchical thought since it involves the entire anarchical world system that relies on national self-interest, where once a war has begun, it is imperative that one must make all the necessary attempts to win the war. (War: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Therefore, during the war, all attempts must be made to keep up one's own self-interest, and all the other theories that purport justice or uphold theories of international law must be pushed into the background and ignored completely; it is this that would enable one to win the war, and winning the war is the ultimate goal of the war taking place. The fundamental interest in a war must lie in the upholding of one's own power and security, according to a realist. Some of the most popular realists down the ages are Thucydides, Hobbes, Henry Kissinger, and Kenneth Waltz. In the theory of realism, there are two distinct differences, one being that of descriptive realism, and the other being that of prescriptive realism. Descriptive realism is the theory that states that any state cannot or will not be able to behave in a moral manner, when there is a war. It cannot behave morally because of the severe competition involved in the fighting of a war, and it will not behave morally because it will not find sufficient motivation to do so.

Therefore, there cannot be any sort of moral discourses and discussions on the moral behavior of a state during the war, because it is not practical to do so. The concepts of morality and justice and so on will not matter or make the least bit of difference to them during the war; preserving the national spirit, conserving self-interests, and so on will be the primary forces for the states involved, and if one state is more powerful than the other, then there is no doubt whatsoever what the outcome of the war would be. What must be remembered, say realists, is that a state is not an individual or a person, and therefore, it must not be treated as such. The rules and the theories and principles that guide the moral behavior of an individual cannot be applicable to a state, and it must be remembered that a state belongs to the world, and when the world is taken as an arena where the various players must defend their own territories, then the state must be taken as a participant in the activities of the arena where violence is the natural course and order of things. (War: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If a state needs to maintain its power and security and provide these for its citizens in the present as well saw in the future, then it will undoubtedly have to participate in all the activities that will take place in this violent arena, and, most importantly, WIN. Walzer, a realist and a proponent of the theory of realism, does not agree, however, to this concept. He says that a state must respond and conform to moral conditions and behaviors, even if eventually, it fails to upkeep the morals that were expected of it. He also says that a state may not be an individual person; however, it is a fact that a state was created by a group of individual persons, and it eventually belongs to that group of individuals. Therefore, it should be able to uphold morality and justice in its actions, and want to voluntarily do so.

Walzer felt that any state that only wanted to upkeep its own self-interest and preserve its own power and security would fail over the years because the people of the state would feel demoralized, and they would feel that they want a deeper sense of commitment and understanding from the state in which they live, rather than living in a powerful state that exhibited absolutely no morals values in its quest for power and dominance. Prescriptive realism is the theory that states that a state must or 'ought' to behave amorally when there is a war, in the international arena, where self-regard will gain predominance over the other issues during a war. Therefore, when the state wants to be a smart player in the international arena, then it must leave all its moral values behind and try to concentrate on the various ways and means with which to gain control and power over the others during the war. A prescriptive realist also says that the rules of a war involve theories such as those stating that a war must be fought only for the purpose of countering the aggression being demonstrated by the other state in the war, and that during the war, those who are not directly involved in the war must not be harmed with certain lethal violence methods. (War: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Some of the most important concepts of the Theory of reality are these: international relations are open to objective studies, and all the events that take place during the war can be described according to the various terms used by the Law, and like scientific theories, these laws can be applied anywhere and will remain true at all the places where they are applied. The second fact is that the state is the primary actor in the drama of war, and it can be represented by those supra-national structures of the world like the United Nations, and not by individuals like the Pope. Anarchy will be followed, and the state must not have any divided aims about this issue. The behavior of the state is seen as being rational, and they are often seen to be relying on force to achieve their aims. Ethical and moral issues are ignored, and this is what makes up the basis of Realism in International Theory and War. (Realism in International Relations)

Though the occurrence of a War is statistically rare, it is a fact that it commonly occurs, and must be taken as a recurring phenomenon in international relations. There may be several different kinds of war. One of them is the war where the participants are two different sovereign states, and they have a common problem between them, like for example, a shared border and its boundaries. The second type of war is the war that occurs when other countries interfere in the war that is going on in one country as an attempt to offer humanitarian aid. This is also referred to as a Civil War, or Conflict. The third type of war is the war that is occurring in today's world, wherein the issue at stake may be terrorism or some such problem that involves international interventions. One example for this is the war against terrorism that is being carried out by the United States of America on certain Islamic factions in Afghanistan after the terrorist attack carried out by them on the World Trade center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2000. (Lecture 10, War)

Thousands of innocent civilians were injured and many thousands suffered a traumatic death on account of these attacks. The Security Dilemma Theory of War explains that when a state tries to increase its own security, it eventually tends to decrease the security of others. Although war is the inevitable result of basic insecurities and a lack of the feeling of power, there is often no upward limit on how much of security would be best for the state. This results in states acquiring and spending more and more resources on the acquisition of more and improved security for their states, and if others suffer because of it, nothing can be done about it, as they must be concerned about their own state first, before showing any moral concern for the others. The result of this is that security may be increased, but the arsenal may be decreased. The fact is that there are two types of states that demonstrate these concepts; one of them being 'aggressors', and one of them being 'defensive'. What make the security dilemma worse are the questions of whether offense or defense is the better option for a war, and can defensive actions be differentiated from offensive actions? These two questions must be addressed by the states that are at war. (Lecture 10, War)

It is the general opinion of certain theorists that if the ideal of the world is that of a totally 'unified government', then such an ideal must decidedly be based on a system of anarchy, where self-interest and self gain would become the ideals to base the government on. Both the theory of 'security dilemma' and the theory of 'balance of power' are the direct results of the system of anarchy that is very much in evidence in the world politics and international relations of today. As far as the United States of America is concerned, there is a general consensus that in the international environment where anarchy is predominant, all the states of the world are fearful of each other, and this is caused, primarily, because of certain innate misunderstandings. This leads to the truth that all states have to be prepared for any sort of eventuality, and this can only be achieved when the issue of security is addressed. Security becomes an issue of top priority, and all the countries try to hike up their security, and also go about the various means of achieving this. (Security Dilemma, the Balance of Power vs. U.S. Policy towards China in the Post-Cold War Era)

Therefore, military security is improved, and self-security is also increased, by the method of spending more money on improving the military system. The problem herein is that when one state improves its security, then it automatically means that the other state would be at a lesser level of security than the first one, and this means that the second state must improve its security to surpass that of the first one. Therefore, the others will quickly and rapidly overtake one state's military efforts, and this means that attaining 'absolute security' becomes highly impossible. This phenomenon is very evident in the Asia-Pacific regions of the world where there is no multi-lateral security regime like the NATO in existence, and these result in the classical condition of the security dilemma, and certain regions like Kashmir and Taiwan have turned into hotspots of trouble.

There are a number of territorial disputes between various states of this region, and the United States of America has entered into these regions with promises of improvement, that will be achieved by the security dilemma, with which the U.S.A. is also attempting to contain China, as it did Vietnam before and during the Vietnam War. Some persons offer the opinion that the U.S.A. has as its basic aim the idea of entrapping China, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines into major security dilemmas, and continue interfering in all the affairs of these states. The security dilemma theory and the 'balance of power' theory came into existence at the same time, and according to the theorist Prof. Kenneth Waltz, all those states that would ordinarily have no rivalry or tensions with each other, would, on account of the security dilemma, lapse into enmity and tensions, because of the factor of anarchy that is an inherent part of the security dilemma. (Security Dilemma, the Balance of Power vs. U.S. Policy towards China in the Post-Cold War Era)

Therefore, it naturally follows that all the states would try to utilize the 'balance of power' concept to keep their own security well and safe, and since it is a recognized fact that security dilemma would exist in international politics, it will be at the root and at the end result of the concept of the balance of power. Traditional realists like Professor Hans Morgenthau believed that the balance of power was centered in the reality where a group of countries shared power among themselves. Since the one goal of any foreign policy, the realists felt, was to acquire power, the same theory can be applied as the balance of power among several different countries. This means, in other words, that it is this balance of power that would prevent one particular state from acquiring more power than others, and the others would also ensure that this particular state did not by any means, happen to enjoy more power than them. In the balance of power would lay the benefit for all those involved.

The United States of America has as its foreign policy the concept of balance of power, and this is the theory that is used in her control over any big country trying to challenge her hegemony in the Asia-Pacific regions, over the years. In fact, ever since the nineteenth century, this has been the guiding principle of the U.S.A. In its dealings with the Asia pacific, since it aims to prevent East Asia from being taken over or dominated by one major power. The possibility of a power stronger than that of the United States in the Asia Pacific regions was quite unacceptable for the U.S.A., and the vanquishing of Japan during the World War, and the control of China and of Vietnam after the World War is all a part of this strategy. (Security Dilemma, the Balance of Power vs. U.S. Policy towards China in the Post-Cold War Era)

How are these three theories of 'realism', 'security dilemma', and 'balance of power' applicable to the Vietnam War? It is a fact that it was during the Cold War that realists were able to analyze and detect the strategies that were used by the various warring factions. However, the same realists were not able to analyze the regional or the local crises that were happening in their own domains. This is especially true of the Vietnam War, as there is a lot of discord in the various theories brought out by the realists on this issue. The famous theorists, Hans Morgenthau, the classical realist who believed that the War could have been stopped, and who stated that he thought that the war was 'irrational, and another famous neorealist, Kenneth Waltz, who stated that the war could have been stopped and that it was for the most part 'irrelevant' completely missed the entire reality of the War, in that their theories did not arise from an experience of their regional issues; it rather rose from a mere regional level of awareness of the problem. (Flawed Realism: Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz on Vietnam-- The Case for a Regional Level-of-Analysis)

The Cold War had the distinction of bringing in the study of realism in war into the theories of international relations. With realism came the concerns for one's own internal security, and the need for the balance of power. Realists became concerned and focused on achieving and attaining military power, and though realists were able to provide a dryly analytical answer to the problem of the war, the nature of the peace and the stability that was supposedly brought about at the end of the war were considered to be doubtful. Morgenthau the realist stated that stability would only be found in an environment like that which was brought about by the Congress of Vienna in the year 1815. This, he said, paved the way to a multipolar international system, and this was the system that was effective. Waltz stated that the Cold War had resulted in the creation of hitherto unseen stability, achieved in the main by the superpower status of the United States of America and the U.S.S.R.

These two powers were able to balance the power that they enjoyed in the vast international arena by being able to balance the power within their own societies, rather than externalizing it. However, both the realists staunchly opposed American involvement in the Vietnam War, while some of the other realists such as Henry Kissinger, who played an active role in the foreign policy of America, supported American involvement in the Vietnam War. When analyzed separately, Hans Morgenthau's theories on the Vietnam War were extremely complex and sometimes even inconsistent, while the views of Kenneth Waltz were simple but forceful at the same time. Morgenthau even undertook a journey to Vietnam and took part in the anti-war demonstrations in the year 1955, and gave a series of lectures all over the country in his attempt to try to shape up a national policy on the idea. Morgenthau was in essence a multipolarist, and at the time when he was totally committed to the concept of amoralism, he condemned the leader of South Vietnam, Ngoh Din Diem as being unworthy of American support since he was amoral. (Flawed Realism: Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz on Vietnam-- The Case for a Regional Level-of-Analysis)