Vietnamese History In the 20th Century There has been much controversy regarding the Vietnam War, considering that the general public has gradually come to acknowledge that it was unproductive for the American military as a result of a series of factors that prevented both leaders and soldiers from acting effectively. Taking this into account, one can observe how the Vietnam War came to be one of the most debated conflicts in history because of the rules of engagement (ROE) employed in it. The ROE in the Vietnam War were initially meant to ensure that the conduct of war took place in safe conditions and slowly but surely evolved into being a tool in the hands of politicians. Individuals such as George Donelson Moss got actively engaged in discussing regarding the topic, given that one of his books, "Vietnam: An American Ordeal, 6th Edition" goes at highlighting errors in management during the conflict. Donelson Moss managed to put together the diplomatic elements behind the war and its historical context, making it easier for readers to understand it.

Individual soldiers in the fields of Vietnam had trouble acting efficiently as a result of the fact that the ROE limited them. Moreover, American soldiers fighting against the North Vietnamese were demoralized because of this respective restriction. Political influences were particularly important in limiting soldiers on battle fields, as they were sometimes required to refrain from fighting back and to risk...

Soldiers were virtually required to leave most of the fighting to the Vietnamese, so as for the international public to consider that the conflict was primarily fought between locals, with the Americans being mainly interested in guaranteeing that the South Vietnamese were backed up when such action was needed. It was frustrating for American soldiers to know that their power was limited when concerning the greater war and that they were "essentially authorized to kill anything that moved" (Free-Fire Zone) in the areas that they were in charge of. The ROE persuaded soldiers in ignoring their purpose in order to act in accordance with what their leaders expected from them (Gross, 2004, p. 46).
Because they were unable to look after their troops properly, battalion commanders were left with no alternative but to try and be in control of what happened around them without losing many of their men and with trying to generate positive results. They were provided with clear instructions concerning who or what they had to consider hostile and who or what they were not allowed to shot at. Individuals were practically able to use force against anyone that they considered aggressive as long as the respective person was in a "free-fire" zone. Such areas changed from time to time, making some people who were previously considered to be hostile no longer a threat while others (who initially resided in a…