Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
His morally-grounded idealistic rhetoric gained him definite advantages. His arguments made him sound tough and pleased those with an equally hard-line position against communism in Southeast Asia. He could also use these arguments to justify and support his policies, such as when Congress threatened to reduce foreign aid. He insisted that foreign aid was an all-or-nothing proposition because principles were at stake. He pressed that Congress could provide all the aid he believed should be given or Congress must assume the responsibility and culpability in the event of a victory of Communism and the defeat of freedom in those nations at risk. He maintained that representatives and senators must make policy decision in the light of the larger moral consequences to which these policies would inevitably lead. At the Economic Club of New York in 1962, he commented that Vietnam would instantaneously collapse if the U.S. did not assist it. He consistently presented and idealistically argued that Vietnam as the conflict or a battle of principles and urged all citizens to commit themselves to an all-out support to that commitment. If they did not, they would then have to prepare for a communist victory, which would negate and...
#
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy all gave their word and best to the commitment to freedom in South Vietnam (Bostdorff and Goldzwig 1994). Their individual experience, personality and temperament played a role in this commitment. It was a commitment they and other U.S. Presidents could not abandon or neglect, as it put U.S. credibility at stake (Bostdorff and Goldzwig).
Bibliography
Bostdorff, Denise and, Steven. Idealism and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy.New York: Presidential Studies Quarterly. Vol 24 Issue 3, 1994
Eisenhower, Dwight. The Importance to the United States of the Security and Progress of Viet-Nam. Address at Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1967. http://mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/eisen.htm
Rotter, Andrew J. The Causes of the Vietnam War. The Oxford Companion to American Military History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. http://www.english.uuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
Smitha, Frank E. The United States and Vietnam. Macrohistory, 2005. http://www.smitha.com/h2/ch26.htm
Bibliography
Bostdorff, Denise and, Steven. Idealism and Pragmatism in American Foreign Policy.New York: Presidential Studies Quarterly. Vol 24 Issue 3, 1994
Eisenhower, Dwight. The Importance to the United States of the Security and Progress of Viet-Nam. Address at Gettysburg College, Pennsylvania. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1967. http://mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/eisen.htm
Rotter, Andrew J. The Causes of the Vietnam War. The Oxford Companion to American Military History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. http://www.english.uuc.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm
Smitha, Frank E. The United States and Vietnam. Macrohistory, 2005. http://www.smitha.com/h2/ch26.htm
Vietnam -- Rules of Engagement There are many reasons given for the fact that the United States lost the war in Vietnam, and that America was basically pushed out of the country by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army even though the U.S. had far more firepower. Among the more credible reasons America lost the war was the failure on the part of the political leaders back in Washington
American Ideals and the Challenges of the post-WW2 Years America changed quite a bit after WW2. It changed with respect to gender roles, with respect to racial issues, with respect to the economy, and with respect to politics. Everything was in flux after WW2—but it did not happen all at once. What happened first was the Cold War. Immediately the war ended, Americans returned home from the war and returned to
Vietnam War has gone down in history as one of the worst war efforts made by the United States for its sheer cost in human capital and the collective sanity of the nation. While many social and psychological issues can be cited as bearing the blame for the atrocity that was this war, one major challenge was the basic lack of communication and consistency among the levels of command. Individual
“As Long as The Personal and Societal Safety of American Citizens Is at Risk from External Threats, Historical Precedents Suggest That Rather Few Limits Will Be Placed on The Use of American Military Power, Or on The Constraints the United States Will Impose on The Peoples of Other Countries.” The government of America exists for its citizens’ welfare, an obligation which encompasses being in charge of both its internal and external
U.S. Military Chain of Command The traditional wars that have followed the Europeans models developed by Napoleon basically incorporate the leadership in writing and training troops for rules of engagement. Rules of Engagement (ROE) is described as a management tool that help in keeping soldiers within control and aligned with the specific mission. This management tool has contributed to benefits and costs in which training ROE in each leadership level down
Therefore, the conflict that was begun to address that grievance was a fraudulent conflict and unjust. Not only were the reasons for starting the war somewhat dubious, the American military did not have a realistic plan for winning the war. Once the United States became involved and it became increasingly apparent that the war was not being won, the United States simply fell back on its dependence on superior firepower.