Lessons Learnt from Halberstam’s “The making of a quagmire”
Vietnam War was probably the most controversial war in the history. Beginning with the first attempt of the South Vietnam to become independent, until the moment when America entered the war, it took many turns. After reading the book by David Halberstam, “The making of a quagmire”, I changed my opinion about this war. First of all, it should be mentioned that this war made American people be more interested in the external politics and it provoked the birth of the major youth movement in the American history, hippie.
It was the movement for peace. So, the book gives an insight into the war, together with the journalists we observe the actions of American and Vietnam soldiers, life of peasants and all terrible pictures of that war. Now, I believe that all wars have a political basis. It was not just war against the enemy or war for independence. It was war of politicians who wanted to grasp the power in their hands. People were just puppet, “the war was entirely political: its military aspects were simply a means to permit them to practice their political techniques” (Halberstam and Singal 13). In addition, very few American soldier, as well as people, understood adequately this political context.
However, I understood that no matter what the objectives of politics are, one should have his/ her own point of view on everything. And if you are told to do something, you should think twice before doing it. Another thing that I understood is that humanism is very important. The NFL cadres tried to live among people, work with them in fields and provide education and medical aid (Halberstam and Singal 13).
It was a great step to reconciliation. I guess that the Vietnam governments should have acted like this too. The book showed me that war could never solve the conflict. Only understanding and mutual aid can bear some fruit. I guess that the main objective of the book was to show people that they were not marionettes in the arms of the government and that war was not the way to solve the conflict.
The evaluation of the actions of Buddhists in the book
Halberstam does not judge in his book, he just provides evidences and events as he saw them during the war. He provides the actions of different people who played their roles in it. Among them were Henry Cabot Lodge, Ngo Dinh Diem, John Paul Vann and Madame Nhu. There were another people who made their contribution to this war and who fought for their independence – the Buddhists. 60% of the country were the Buddhists. But when the Catholics were announces to take leading positions in the government, the Buddhist began their “war”. “The Buddhist movement was the primary cause of political instability: (Moyar 750).
It is hard to say nowadays what they were fighting for. The magazines wrote that they fought for the religious independence, but I would go as far as to say that their primary objective was to take the power in their hands. They burned themselves in hope that it will help them taking the power. I do not thing that it could help. In addition, Madame Nhu did not react to this, saying: “Let them burn and we shall clap our hands” and then she added that the Buddhist should be beaten and these words provoked further horror (Halberstam and Singal 148).
So, I do see sense in their actions. One more thing comes to my mind, another sort of manipulation appears in Buddhists actions. People killed themselves, but what for? Consequently, politicians “played” with lives of simple people. As a group of people, the Buddhists fought for the religious freedom and as the leader of the group wanted to grasp the power. Moreover, “the Buddhists practiced a form of political activism that was inconsistent with traditional Vietnamese Buddhism” (Moyar 749).
Press Versus Government in the Vietnam War
In his book, Halberstam, says that press cannot make the government better than it is, “news management cannot turn a bad government into a good one” (7). Government always used media as a means to influence on people, there always was a sort of “collaboration” between press and government during the war. However, in Vietnam, there were no such relationships, “the split between the reporters and the mission was basic” (Halberstman and Singal 7).
Harberstman says that it was the result of the American traditional freedom. The media tried to show a real war to American people. The journalists depicted the rude pictures of it. So, the effect was quite contrary: the government wanted to encourage people to participate in war, and press did an absolutely contrary job. People did not want the war to continue and there were mass demonstrations and movements. I guess that press was right. It did a great mission to stop that war. That was the work of young and emotional journalists, in particular, Browne, Sheehan and Halberstam.
They played a great role in the evolution of the Vietnam War. “The split between the American press and the American officials in Vietnam continued throughout the bitter years of the Indochina war and it continued to exist during the war of the Vietnamese government against the Vietnam congress” (Halberstam and Singal 6). Halberstam, in particular, criticized the American policy. His intention was to win the war against the NFL, not to curtail American involvement (20).
Singal says that Halberstam also believed that only a compromise could solve the conflict and that all that the American government should do was to study the mistakes done and avoid them in future (Halberstam and 20). This is the main idea he followed in his articles. And this is the idea I support as well.
Works Cited
Moyar, Mark. Political Monks: “The Militant Buddhist Movement during the Vietnam War”. Modern Asian Studies, 38 (2004), pp 749-784.
Halberstam, David and Joseph Singal. The Making of a Quagmire: America and Vietnam During the Kennedy Era. The United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008.