Introduction
The onset of the Vietnam War exposed the vagaries in the American political and administrative systems in terms of issues of diplomacy, presidency, and even in cultural and social matters. The social-political undertones that played out during the war outlined some of the salient administrative issues in the American government. This work seeks to offer a consummate discourse on the issues of diplomacy, presidential leadership, and the social issues that played out during the Vietnam War.
Diplomacy
The Paris peace endorsed in 1973 by the Nixon administration effectively ended the war. Activists had earlier condemned roundly, the diplomatic solecism under the Kennedy administration fuelled the flames of the war. Very prominently, the American containment policy in Vietnam appeared rather shaky to a region in which knowledge on democratic principles based on universal suffrage was inherently scanty.
The concept of statehood was nebulous to Southeast Asia, and the American diplomatic model was not patient enough to instill such knowledge into these societies. Pundits have invariably argued that the framework employed by the USA was rather confusing; a direct conflict was the least probable option since the USSR, the avatar of communism, was very unstable after the demise of its strongman Stalin. Incidentally, China was convalescing from the Korean War, and so the voice of communism defenders was essentially “inaudible” (Filipink, 2009).
Hixson (2010) asserts that the need to inject the template of the capitalism creed in Southeast Asia over the duration of time should have averted the war. Most prominently, the Kennedy administration should have committed itself to a policy of neutrality as entailed in the “Declaration for the neutrality of Laos.” Such diplomatic gaffes by the American government fuelled the hostility other than seeking the right way of asserting its authority over communism and its tenets. In summary, the USA noted that the policy of neutrality in any war or military engagement is very crucial.
-1+Presidency
The “burden” of the Vietnam War was heavily perched on the Kennedy administration. Considered as a novice and a political greenhorn, Kennedy’s diplomatic rubric and arrogance came into question during the Vietnam War. Kennedy openly supported the South Vietnam leader, Ngo Dinh Diem. International relations scholars have emphatically asserted that this was the first undoing of the American presidency. The administration got involved in the local politics directly, thus having exposed the US presidency to the ridicule of the very people whose support of the American administration was required in furthering their agenda (Hixson, 2010).
Engagement in the local political issues of any state should not be direct, to say the least. The decline of the popularity of the Diem administration due to its irrational decisions directly “reflected” onto the American presidency. The American presidency required the goodwill of the Southern Vietnamese to nip the wave of communism that was threatening to “bleach” the rule of law in the whole of Vietnam and so appearing to be directly engaged in the local issues interfered with the US engagement in the process. The American presidency has thus adopted the neutral policy that does allow the US military to engage in activities that seek to “preserve” human dignity, but not “install” individual interest (Moss, 2009).
Social issues
The Vietnam War was a subset of the Cold War. It was a proxy struggle between the “communist culture” and the advocates of the “capitalism society” as represented by the US. In the cultural context, the Vietnam War was pretty much justified by the American government. The US loathes the practice of communism; this culture is deeply despised in the American social facet. Nonetheless, the “uprooting” of the communist social-political culture had to be done (Hixson, 2010).
The salient lesson regarding the cultural context is to induce programs that “seep” into the social rubric with time. The USA has since perfected this framework in managing its influence in the geopolitical arena. Not all ideological differences should lead to armed struggles. These armed conflicts fronted very serious economic challenges to the American government. The lessons from Southeast Asia have led to the restructuring of the American social “restructuring” system and policy.
The intelligible model that the US employs in the current political dispensations is an improved version of the failed model used in Vietnam. Currently, these social issues are to be introduced as “support programs.” Such programs are essential in the establishment of a platform to inculcate those social issues without armed conflicts (Moss, 2009).
Summary
The manner in which history chronicles events provides humanity with a chance to learn and remodel their lives for the future. The historical lessons have enlightened me on the past events and the mistakes thereof. The studies of these slips have provided me with the opportunity to be able to be part of the correction for a better future. Concerning the issues of the Vietnam War, proper scheming in the establishment of proper diplomatic mechanisms is essential for solving ideological stalemates.
References
Filipink, R. M. (2009). America at the Brink of Empire: Rusk, Kissinger, and the Vietnam War by Serewicz, L.W. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 20(1), 188-189.
Hixson, W. L. (2000). Leadership and diplomacy in the Vietnam War. New York: Garland Pub..
Moss, G. D. (2009). Vietnam: An American Ordeal. New York, NY: Prentice Hall PTR.