Vietnam War to Iraq: Paul Potter's Critique of U.S. Policy
This essay examines Paul Potter's 1965 anti-war speech, "The Incredible War," delivered at a Washington peace march, and uses it as a lens through which to critique U.S. military and political conduct during the Vietnam War. The paper argues that the U.S. government relied on propaganda and patriotic fear-mongering to justify a conflict that served American imperial interests rather than Vietnamese freedom. It then draws pointed parallels between the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, noting similar justifications, similar domestic protests, and similar consequences for civilian populations. The essay concludes that the rhetoric of democracy and freedom has historically masked expansionist bullying tactics.
- Introduction: U.S. Power and the Vietnam War: Context for U.S. dominance and Vietnam War dissent
- Paul Potter's 'The Incredible War' Speech: Potter's 1965 critique of U.S. Vietnam intervention
- Government Propaganda and the Contradiction of Democracy: How war rhetoric contradicted democratic principles
- Parallels Between Vietnam and the Iraq War: Structural similarities linking two U.S. wars
- Conclusion: The Cost of Imperial Overreach: Dangers of violence justified by freedom rhetoric
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a primary source — Paul Potter's 1965 speech — as a rhetorical anchor, grounding the argument in a historically significant text rather than relying solely on the author's opinion.
- Draws explicit, specific parallels between two wars (Vietnam and Iraq), showing the reader concrete structural similarities rather than asserting them abstractly.
- Ends with a direct quotation from Potter that reinforces the thesis, giving the conclusion rhetorical weight and a sense of thematic closure.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative historical analysis — using one historical event (the Vietnam War and Potter's critique of it) as a template for analyzing a more recent event (the Iraq War). By aligning specific details — the U.S.-backed dictators, domestic protests, patriotism rhetoric, and civilian casualties — the author builds a structured argument through analogy rather than simply asserting equivalence.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with historical context about U.S. geopolitical dominance post-World War II, then narrows to the Vietnam War and Potter's speech. The middle sections analyze Potter's specific claims about U.S. hypocrisy and government propaganda. The argument then pivots to the Iraq War, systematically matching each Vietnam-era pattern to its Iraq-era counterpart. The conclusion returns to Potter's words to frame the ongoing danger of violence conducted in freedom's name.
Introduction: U.S. Power and the Vietnam War
While the United States has maintained its superiority over other nations in terms of political clout over the past decades, there is a certain imbalance of power within the geopolitical system of the world that has caused nations to become embittered. The United States began its reign of controversy after World War II, yet it was the Vietnam War that completed its role of unethical representation in terms of military and political power. The Vietnam War was fought on the basis of freedom, democracy, and the need to hinder the spread of Communism. The slogan of the times was that if the spread of communism was not stalled, America would soon lose its freedom, and democracy the world over would be wiped out.
These words may seem dramatic to the rational mind, but to truly understand the mood of the era, such language must be engaged with seriously. The government of the time played on the emotional fears of the people through propaganda, making them believe that unless they supported the Vietnam War they would be unpatriotic and cause the nation to lose its sovereignty. Though Vietnam was thousands of miles away, the war soon reached America's own borders — for as the war began, so did dissent. Some groups within the U.S. began to question the voices of authority and stood against the war. Lobbying, war protests, and strikes became common.
Amid these voices of dissent was one that reached out to have a powerful impact on the nation. It was in 1965, during a peace march in Washington against the war, that Paul Potter, President of the Students for a Democratic Society, spoke words that made a mockery of the war and the authoritative figures who stood for it.
Paul Potter's 'The Incredible War' Speech
Calling his speech "The Incredible War," Potter made the title itself an irony. He spoke the word incredible in a manner that questioned and condemned rather than commemorated. His words revealed the actions of the U.S. as self-serving rather than genuinely concerned with the people of Vietnam. Setting aside the government's claim that the war was for the Vietnamese, Potter clearly condemned this argument by pointing out that the dictator Diem had been installed in Vietnam by the U.S. itself. Had the U.S. truly been concerned about the Vietnamese people, it would not have allowed that dictator to persecute them through complete and utter control, where the slightest rebellion was punished by death.
Through direct political and military intervention, Potter argued, the U.S. had effectively turned the nation into a system of concentration camps, where citizens were confined to certain areas — not free in any meaningful sense, as fearful of the Americans as they were of the Communists.
Government Propaganda and the Contradiction of Democracy
The President claimed that the war in Vietnam was to preserve democracy, and yet there existed a "red" hysteria within the U.S. itself that caused the government to confiscate films, censor media, and interrogate anyone who raised a voice against the government (Smith, 1989). To claim the war preserved democracy was a mockery of the word. As Potter stated, the war was not, as the President declared, "to defend the freedom of the Vietnamese people" (Potter, 1995) — it was to extend U.S. control over other nations.
Conclusion: The Cost of Imperial Overreach
The U.S. is flexing its muscle to show the nations of the world that it is the most powerful. It alleged that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, then reneged when there was no evidence to support that claim. It stated that Iraq had terrorist links — another fallacy. The war on Iraq, like the war on Vietnam, is a ploy by politicians seeking to prove their superiority. The actors have changed, as have the names, but the rules remain the same. Under the guise of freedom and democracy, the U.S. has adopted hegemonic bullying tactics.
It is a dangerous game the U.S. is playing — going to war at the expense of innocent civilians, who are the true victims, now as then. When civil disobedience turns to revolution, there may be far greater consequences than the U.S. envisaged, for the power of the people — as democracy itself states — should never be underestimated. Potter's words resonate still, for when violence conducted in the name of freedom turns to terror, then, as he warned, "The pattern of repression and destruction that we have developed and justified in the war is so thorough that it can only be called cultural genocide." (Potter, 1995)
References
Potter, Paul. "Incredible War." In Takin' It to the Streets: A Sixties Reader, edited by Alexander Bloom and Wini Breines. Oxford University Press, 1995.
Smith, Ted J., III. Propaganda: A Pluralistic Perspective. New York: Praeger, 1989.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.