Vietnam Leadership of Dwight Eisenhower and John

Vietnam

Leadership of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in the Post-War Era

The United States emerged after the end of World War II as the most powerful nation on earth and in the history of mankind. American political, economic, and military power was unmatched by any other nation, although the Soviet Union eventually built a comparable nuclear force. With that enormous power also came great responsibility to lead the Western world in the struggle against International Communism. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy acted within the context and confines of this historical development. Their actions and leadership styles were strongly influenced by world events and also domestic concerns. In George Moss's Vietnam: an American ordeal, Eisenhower emerges as a decisive leader whose liberty to act was contained by domestic politics, while Kennedy emerges a weak decision-maker although pressured by international events and domestic politics.

Eisenhower was a military leader and as such believed in American military power and was a resolved leader. Whereas President Truman wanted a political settlement of the Indochina crisis, Eisenhower believed that the problem could be solved militarily. He supported French attempts to re-take Indochina. Eisenhower was not fond of antiquated French colonial ambitions but he feared Communist expansion more. So, he wanted the French to continue fighting. Despite his encouragement, however, the French wanted a negotiated settlement with the Vietnamese, especially after a fiasco at Dien Bien Phu. When the French forces were defeated there, Eisenhower was ready to intervene militarily. But he could not do so without congressional support and the participation of America's allies, particularly the British. When Eisenhower and his Secretary John Foster Dulles met Democratic and Republican senators, the latter told the President that the Senate would not approve an American military intervention without an assured cooperation of America's allies in Europe (Moss, 2010, p. 36). In numerous later instances, Eisenhower expressed his willingness to intervene in Vietnam.

In contrast, President Kennedy was unresolved in political affairs. He talked tough and even accused his predecessor of being "soft" on Communism -- ironically his Republican rivals accused him of the exact same thing -- and warned the Soviets in several instances with tough-talk speeches. But in practice, Kennedy turned out to be an indecisive leader. When the Soviets placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, Kennedy could not intervene. He sought a negotiated settlement with the Soviets. It might have been a wiser decision, but in the eyes of many Americans, he looked weak. Kennedy presided to the Oval Office when Laos, Vietnam's crucial neighbor, was in crisis. Eisenhower told him that a military intervention would probably be necessary to save the country from Communism but Kennedy did not intervene. As Moss (2010) explains, "Kennedy's failure to intervene in Cuba at the time of the Bay of Pigs fiasco probably killed any possibility of sending troops into Laos. How could Kennedy explain to the American people his willingness to send troops to Laos 9,000 miles away if he was unwilling to send them to Cuba 90 miles away?" (p. 89). As the situation in Vietnam did not improve in favor of American goals in Southeast Asia, the pressure to intervene directly mounted. Nevertheless, Kennedy only increased military aid and sent Special Forces (Green Berets).