Introduction
Reflecting on the Vietnam War era, one’s thoughts are immediately diverted to the large-scale war protests, particularly those that occurred on university campuses. It was a time of a great awakening among the collected consciousness of the nation in terms of sex, drugs, rock and roll, art, and, perhaps most importantly, the way society views the meaning of patriotism. The political dynamics that result from war, particularly the Vietnam War, produce a myriad of varying effects. It not only divided the country ideologically at that time, the effects still divide the nation. The ‘hawkish’ neo-conservative ideology was born in this era which, as the Iraq War demonstrates, has greatly divided the country.
Main body
The hard lesson learned, seemingly, from America’s involvement in Vietnam was that possessing an overwhelming military force does not guarantee victory. Though three million enemies were killed compared to 58,000 on the American side, the ‘big dog’ in the fight eventually had to run home with its tail between its legs, beaten and humiliated. Thanks to the unprecedented media covering the truth of the war, the U.S. rapidly lost credibility worldwide including within the borders of its own country. Support for Nixon’s Vietnam policy dropped sharply in 1970 when he authorized the bombing of enemy strongholds in neighboring Laos and Cambodia. This did disrupt communist supply lines but was seen as a broadening of a war that was growing increasingly unpopular. (Robinson, 2007). The extensive bombing campaigns and numerous offensives caused massive amounts of destruction on the Vietnamese and their property which only served to alienate the indigenous community. It galvanized the enemy and opponents of the war in both Vietnam and America and led many to question the ethics of the campaigns. (Olney, 1990 p.80-85).
The Vietnam War divided the nation along ideological battle lines. The older generation, the ‘establishment’, was of the WWII period and operated under a nationalistic perspective. They believed that to be a true patriot was to blindly follow the authority of the governmental powers that be, to support your ‘country’ even when you thought it was wrong. The young college protesters, the ‘new generation’, the counter-culture redefined this notion of patriotism. They believed that to be truly patriotic was to question the decisions of government and openly dissent when it was judged to be wrong. The philosophical chasm was wide and emotions ran deep on both sides. Those that protested sacrificed much. They suffered the scorn of their parents who couldn’t understand why their children were rebelling against the very foundation of their parents’ beliefs thus causing what was referred to as the ‘generation gap.’ Some war protesters were killed by soldiers of the National Guard as was the case at Kent State and South Carolina State. The protesters and draft-dodgers were thought of as anti-American by the mainstream citizenry who regarded their actions as nothing short of treasonous. This attitude makes one wonder what the ‘greatest generation’ thought they were fighting for during WWII. They fought to defend freedom on foreign soil but were very much opposed to the constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully assemble in their own country (Bexte, 2002).
During the Vietnam era, the neo-conservatism movement expanded due to the political polarization occurring in the country between the anti-war, anti-American sentiments of the counterculture and neo-cons who championed blind patriotism. Neoconservatives were not collected for the expansion or continuance of the war but they were united in their fear that communism would spread. The term ‘domino theory’ was used quite often by the neo-cons to justify America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia. If Vietnam fell to the communists, they reasoned, the remainder of the region would be systematically consumed by the ‘Red Menace.’ Some of the Vietnam era neo-cons, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, went to the right opposing domestic spending; advocating tax reductions for the wealthy and an attack-first, ask questions later mentality. Though domestic issues were once a rallying point then abandoned by contemporary neo-cons, foreign-policy matters invoked the most emotion therefore attention from this group. They reasoned then, as they do now, that foreign affairs were a more important consideration for national discussion because the very survival of the nation was at stake. “If a domestic policy fails, you can try another. If a foreign policy fails, you may find yourself at war” (Muravchik, 2007). The Vietnam War sharply divided the country but neo-cons, even the ones who were less than hawkish, were always on the defensive regarding the consequences of losing to communism. When war opponents voiced the opinion that communism wasn’t the most imperative concern, that American imperialism and expansionistic tendencies were the big issues, neo-cons were quick to rebuke what they thought was unpatriotic rhetoric. They feared the proliferation of communism and argued this fear was not unfounded.
The war protesters of the 1960s dared to act upon their political and philosophical convictions unlike those who are opposed to the Iraq War today. The two conflicts are eerily similar on many fronts yet the public reaction has been very dissimilar. Then as now, those opposed to the war are characterized as unpatriotic or as not supporting the troops, both of which, of course, are patently ridiculous concepts. The major difference is that the draft personalized the conflict for many more Americans. More families had a personal stake in the Vietnam War as opposed to the war in Iraq which only affects a small segment of the population. Today, the incentives to protest are less while the consequences are the same. Being scorned and spit at on campus is easier to confront than are bullets and bombs in snake-infested marshy jungle thousands of miles from home. Acts of disobedience were commonplace during the 1960s and all too uncommon in past and future decades.
Works Cited
Next, Martina. “The Vietnam War Protests.” Essortment. (2002). Web.
Muravchik, Joshua. “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism.” Commentary Magazine. (2007). Web.
Olney, Richard. “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, (1990) cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.
Robinson, James A. “Nixon, Richard Milhous.” Encyclopedia Americana. 2007. Grolier Online. 2008. Web.