A product of justifications stemming from the Cold War and anti-communism sentiments, the Vietnam War became the benchmark by which American military limitations can be measured. All military conflicts are costly. Most importantly, lives are lost and of those who survive, many are forever altered physically, mentally and emotionally. Great amounts of money are spent on military actions which accrue a debt that must be paid over time, sometimes over many generations.
The National Debt rises which acts a as drain on the economy and takes away monies that could have been spent on domestic endeavors. The U.S., because of its involvement in ‘nation building’ that began in Korea and continued during the Vietnam era and is in full effect today, has lost political credibility throughout the international community. The most evident and memorable political fallout during the Vietnam War was student protestors who, through great sacrifice and courage, were instrumental in ending U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.
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: 80-85).
The limitations of American power have been clearly evidenced by the misuse of its military superiority. The U.S. has gained many enemies and lost respect and prestige worldwide. In addition, if Vietnam had never happened, the limitations of the military would not be as apparent to the world at-large and the U.S. would today be perceived as stronger and more effectual than it actually is thus would have more political clout than it presently does.
However, this regrettable reality is likely soon to be a moot point anyway because the U.S. position as the world’s only superpower is a short-lived scenario. It takes money to build and maintain a military force, a lot of it to fund a nation’s superpower status, money which the U.S. no longer has. The most eminent threat to U.S. security is not the ‘red menace’ or the terrorist ‘evil doers.’ The National Debt, currently at more than $11 Trillion, is spiraling out of control and threatens to not only diminish the military but plunge the nation into the ‘third world’ category.
The United States is regarded as a good investment and has an unlimited ability to secure loans without a problem, but loans must be paid back, with interest. Germany, Japan, China and other countries own a large piece of America, a potentially disastrous prospect. One or a combination of creditor countries could cause a sudden and shocking reduction of the economy which would further increase the debt (Ignatieff, 2003: 3).
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).
The war protesters of the 1960’s had the courage 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 a snake infested marshy jungle thousands of miles from home. Acts of disobedience were commonplace during the 1960’s and all too uncommon in past and future decades (Viorst, 1979: 374).
The U.S. military has also been involved in worldwide humanitarian ventures too numerous to mention. If a major war was to break out somewhere on earth, the U.S. would undoubtedly be called to quell the situation. No other country has near the capability to intervene in a major outbreak. America is indeed by default the policeman of the world regardless of whether it wants this title or not. Because of its military, political and economic prowess, the U.S. occupies the position of world leader.
However, when the U.S. intervenes in foreign conflicts, such as in Vietnam, it ultimately loses economic and political capital both at home and abroad. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action. This underscores the reason for demonstrating extreme caution when making the decision to use force.
The war in Vietnam could not have produced a more poignant or pronounced message but has been ignored to the peril of American prestige and respect throughout the world and to its military, economy, security and young soldiers’ lives. ‘Never again’ was the national mantra following the Vietnam War. It’s shamefully ironic that the generation that should have understood this sentiment the most is the one that repeated the same economic, political and military mistakes that cost so many so much.
Works Cited
Bexte, Martina. “The Vietnam War Protests.” Essortment. (2002). Web.
Ignatieff, Michael. “The Burden” The New York Times. (2003).
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. Grolier Online. (2007). Web.
Viorst, Milton. Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster. (1979).