Vietnam War causes, events, and historical impact

¶ … Viet Nam War and its comparison to several social theories. Using the war as a measuring stick theories are examined and held against the war to see how the war could be applied to each theory. The writer explains a short history of each theory and then examines how the war holds up using that particular theory.

The Viet Nam War was arguably the most controversial war that America has ever been involved in. It sparked social movements that had never before been seen. It pitted the young against the old, the conservative against the liberal and the rich against the poor in ways that threatened to tear the nation in pieces. Until Viet Nam, service personnel had been considered heroes, worthy of the nation's admiration. During the Viet Nam war those who served often came home to being spit on, and having things thrown at time. Until Viet Nam efforts were made to preserve the life of those serving the nation.

Their jobs were protected with pride, their families were aided if needed and the nation banded together to provide support to the conflicts. During the Viet Nam war this was not the case. The Viet Nam is an excellent study in social theories as it does not follow the predictable patterns of previous wars.

Many social theories can be applied to this particular war and examined to see how the war dovetails or fights against the theory and its basic foundation. An examination of social theories against the Viet Nam war can be very telling about what America was experiencing at that time.

The Deterrence Theory basically believes that might is right. It is founded in the opinion that convincing an opponent particular actions will elicit a response with measurable and unacceptable damage

"Rather than a simple cost/benefits calculation, however, deterrence is more usefully thought of in terms of a dynamic process with provisions for continuous feedback. The process initially involves determining who shall attempt to deter whom from doing what, and by what means. Several important assumptions underlie most thinking about deterrence. Practitioners tend to assume, for example, that states are unitary actors, and logical according to Western concepts of rationality. Deterrence also assumes that we can adequately understand the calculations of an opponent

The Viet Nam war held against the Deterrence Theory is a study in cultural differences

The Deterrence theory assumes that the other side feels the same way as the one making the future threat. America went into the war believing that its size and power and weapons ability would be enough to quickly squash the problems with the communist side of the war. What was not really focused on, or taken into account was the understanding of the cultural differences between North Viet Nam and America. Basic beliefs were not the same therefore the threat of "We are bigger and stronger than you and if you fight back it will cause us to attack" did little to dissuade the Viet Kong from digging in and fighting back

The Cold War provided a world wide respect of nuclear weapons and the power owning them gave. The deterrence theory relied heavily on that mutual respect of those weapons

. The Viet Nam war when held against the Deterrence Theory fails because those who were on the other side knew from experience that America was "all talk." Much of the war was about holding the line without pushing forward. Time and time again troops were told not to attack, or not to move forward. It soon became apparent that America would not cross those lines, and the implied threat that the deterrence theory is based on became ineffective

"One major flaw in deterrent strategy is what deterrence theorists call "self-deterrence." The problem is that retaliatory threats lack credibility when risks to homeland survival are great (the expected case in nuclear war). Threats of nuclear retaliation can have a hollow ring if it is believed actual retaliation would be self-deterred by fears for national survival

. Also, empty threats have no security value or can even be counterproductive. A former CIA official once remarked: "I can think of no example where the introduction of nuclear weapons has enhanced that region's security."

In the Viet Nam war it was not so much a threat of nuclear attack as it was a threat of power attack. Over and over again the nation threatened to do this if that was not done, and over again the nation did not follow through. The deterrence theory lost its credibility and its clout during the Viet Nam war because America appeared to be all bark and no bite.

Another hurdle when it comes to the theory and the war is that there is an expectation that the opposition will be rational and wise in its decision making. As stories of children being wired and explored, women infecting themselves with disease then approaching Marines and other horrors became public it became apparent that cultural differences would make it impossible for them to react wisely by Western standards. This also helped provide weakness to the deterrence theory in the Viet Nam war.

HEGEMONIC STABILITY THEORY

'The central idea of this theory is that the stability of the international system requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most important members of the system. For a state to be a hegemon, it must have three attributes: the capability to enforce the rules of the system, the will to do so, and a commitment to a system which is perceived as mutually beneficial to the major states

A hegemon's capability rests upon the likes of a large, growing economy, dominance in a leading technological or economic sector, and political power backed up by projective military power

. An unstable system will result if economic, technological, and other changes erode the international hierarchy and undermine the position of the dominant state. Pretenders to hegemonic control will emerge if the benefits of the system are viewed as unacceptably unfair

When one holds the Viet Nam war against the Hegemonic Theory one can determine that it was the belief of each side that they should be the dominate state. The North and South side each believed that they held the key to success and cohesive living for the inhabitants of both sides.

The war pitted North against south, communism against democracy and east against west in attitudes and desires. America brought with it the belief that North Viet Nam would be better off if only it would realize and embrace the standards of America

One can test the needed elements of Hegemonic theory against the war easily once the three attributes of the theory are understood. They are:

'The Capability to enforce the rules of the system;

The Will to do so;

A Commitment to a system which is perceived as mutually beneficial to the major states

To achieve these three objectives many factors must be present. One of the most important needs of the theory is a large and a growing economy. During the war this became a factor on both sides as funds dwindled and the war ravaged the entire nation

A second factor in the theory involves leading technological dominance. In the case of the war there was a lack of technology which seriously impairs the ability to become hegemonic.

The final element needed when it comes to the theory, is political power backed up by projective military power. In theory this was provided, at least for the South side but in actuality because of America's refusal to use the power that it had, this too was not a factor

The hegemon is founded in the induction or coercion of the other state to support the firs state's system. "The U.S. system tries to produce democracy and capitalism, thus it champions human rights and free trade. Over time, there is an uneven growth of power within the system as new technologies and methods are developed. An unstable system will result if economic, technological, and other changes erode the international hierarchy and undermine the position of the dominant state. Pretenders to hegemonic control will emerge if the benefits of the system are viewed as unacceptably unfair

In the case of the Viet Nam war the pretender was the United States of America

The Normative Theory when applied to the Viet Nam war goes with the belief that the states believed it was involved rightfully in the conflict or war.

"Normative theory referring to conditions under which (1) states rightfully go to war (jus ad bellum) with just cause, as in self-defense in response to aggression, when the decision to go to war is made by legitimate authority in the state, as a last resort after exhausting peaceful remedies, and with some reasonable hope of achieving legitimate objectives; (2) states exercise right conduct in war (jus in bello) when the means employed are proportional to the ends sought, when noncombatants are spared, when weapons or other means that are immoral in themselves are not used (typically those that are indiscriminate or cause needless suffering), and when actions are taken with a right intention to accomplish legitimate military objectives and to minimize collateral death and destruction

In the case of the Viet Nam war the Normative theory works well.

The United States believed that it had exhausted the peaceful remedy attempts to no avail and that the only avenue left was to participate in the war.

"Many of these principles of just war are part of the body of international law and thus are legally binding on states and their agents (Viotti, P. And M. Kauppi, (eds.). 1987. International Relations Theory. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York)

The Viet Nam War when applied to the theory allows for the use of aggression because it is something that peaceful remedies did not work with . However, there is no act of self-defense because the United States was not being attacked. The South Viet Nam area did have the right to war because it was an act of self-defense in that they were being attacked and had the right to take up arms against such attacks. The United States did try to intervene and help both sides come to peaceful resolutions to the problems, and when they did not work and the North continued to try and overtake the south, then the U.S. felt it was justified in getting involved. Once the U.S. troops began getting attacked during peace keeping missions than the self-defense part of the theory became applicable.

JUST WAR THEORY

'Before talking about a just war, one must define what is meant by war. It is "defined as a state of conflict between two or more sovereign nations carried on by force of arms."(1) Looking into this definition more closely we see that war involves a state of conflict contrasted with passing conflicts such as border skirmishes or momentary conflicts. It involves sovereign nations, which rules out civil wars and riots. Also a nation fights a nation and not a particular individual or group in a nation. Force of arms excludes for example trade embargoes and blockades. These make up the basic components of a war

The Just war theory for the purpose of examination of the Viet Nam War can be applied minus the origins of the religious base. The Just war theory is a war in which a body claiming to want peace answers with destruction and violence. The United States got involved in the Viet Nam conflict because of the desire to have peace. The U.S. worked to get the two sides to see each other as equal and told the North and South that Democracy was the best avenue to achieve the desired peace

The war was about peace according to the United States, yet when it entered the war it participated in acts of destruction, violence and aggression.

"The idea of war being fought in a proper manner means that not all is fair to do in war. Three main areas of discussion here are violent acts done against things connected with religion, against people and against property.

Sacred places such as churches are not to be harmed unless there is a real military necessity. A church could be used for military purposes and thus becomes a target of attack. Also it may happen that a church is next to some military target and unintentionally is harmed by attacking it. Apart from these circumstances they cannot be attacked

These principles were upheld to the best of the troop abilities according to historical accounts of the war, though many veterans came home with stories of being ordered to burn churches, schools and other supposedly off limit areas.

Neo-realism theory when applied to the Viet Nam war can easily be dissected when looking at the reasons the United States got involved in the war to begin with.

Before one can begin to understand the war and the theory it is important to have a grasp on the theory and its components

"Essentially, a systemic, balance of power theory developed by Kenneth Waltz in which states do not seek to maximise power, but merely balance it. And because the international system is regarded as anarchic and based on self-help, the most powerful units set the scene of action for others as well as themselves. These major powers are referred to as poles; hence the international system (or a regional subsystem), at a particular point in time, may be characterised as unipolar, bipolar or multipolar

NEW WAR THEORY

(New War Theory http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm)

'Mary Kaldor's new war theory argues that contemporary types of warfare are distinct from the classic modern forms of warfare based on nation-states. New wars are part of a globalized war economy underpinned by transnational ethnicities, globalized arms markets and internationalized Western-global interventions. The new type of warfare is a predatory social condition which damages the economies of neighboring regions as well as the zone of conflict itself, spreading refugees, identity-based politics and illegal trade. It is also characterized by new forms of violence (the systematic murder of 'others', forced population expulsion and rendering areas uninhabitable) carried out by new militaries (the decaying remnants of state armies, paramilitary groups, self-defense units, mercenaries and international troops) funded by remittances, Diaspora fund-raising, external government assistance and the diversion of international humanitarian aid. "

This theory is perhaps the most applicable war theory to the Viet Nam war. It was funded in part by United States tax dollars. It utilized foreign help with the help of the United States military assistance. It hurt international humanitarian aid when the stories began to surface about the horrors the troops were sometimes ordered to visit upon the opposition during the war, and it used forced population expulsion when entire villages on both sides were routinely burned and destroyed, thereby displacing the village inhabitants.