Question

- Why did the U.S. enter the war in Vietnam?


- Why could the U.S. not win a quick victory over the Vietcong, and what was the effect?

Answer 1

@wwhitlock @PurpleUnicornn7771234

Answer 2

@Captain_Page_Turner

Answer 3

Have you ever looked up the official reason stated at the time? Also, North Vietnam had ties to China. What do you think China would have done if they saw a major flood of US troops in their back yard?

Answer 4

The effect was a protracted war. The why is both obscure and profound. First to the obsure: the concept of a war of containment implied that this was not a war to be fought and won, and if the former is true, protect yourself, this isn't worth committing your life to. In no other war in US history was a war fought with such an educated force. They were not the young riflemen of World War I who had an eighth grade education or the rifleman of WWII who as a child of the depression had fared little better, or of the Korean War where the frontline troop still was short of a high school education. The young troops of the Vietnam War were better educated. They could think and reason, many had interupted a college education to serve and they did not blindly or easily go to the slaughter. The US Military had been divided for years on where the Defense dollars should be placed. The Air Force had been reciving funds at the expense of ground forces. The Army saw this as an opportunity to reverese the trend and that was the first profound rationale that encouraged acceptance of the war, the Army was ill equiped to fight any war and needed to re-equip since most of their assets were already positioned in Korea and Europe as per Cold War policy. A quick defeat against the Viet Cong and the Viet Minh could not be achieved because the troops were committed to defend and not to attack. Because US ground forces were unavailable. Because bickering within the DoD prevented proper leadership to exist. Because the US Military when commited when committed must be given a clear objective. Because senior officers wanted advancement. Because junior officers wanted advancement. Because everyone wanted to survive a war without a clear objective.

Answer 5

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution marks the official entry of the US into the Vietnam conflict. US Military advisors were first assigned under the Eisenhower administration and increased under Kennedy.

The USS Maddox was doing some electornic survielance off the coast of North Vietnam Augs 2, 1964. Some NVN torpedo boats and the Maddox fired at each other. The NVN boats were damaged with no damage to the Maddox. Two days later something happened that, at the time, was portrayed as an attack on the Maddox. From the evidence, President Johnson observed that "the Maddox could have been firing at whales."

But Johnson asked congress for authority to respond to the 2 non events and got the Resolution, signed Aug 10 1964.

Why did we get involved? You can explain the Eisnhower and Kennedy actions in terms of containment. We wanted to keep Communisma out of south east Asia. The Domino Effect was a great worry for many Americans. The idea was that since North VN was getting help from communists, we needed to support the south. Because if it fell, Cambodia would be next, then Thailand, Maliasia, Burma, and so forth.

Another reason to consider is the election of 1964. Johnson was not a war monger. He'd much rather spend time and energy on the Great Society instead of foreign affairs. But he didn't want to be seen as soft on Communism. The Gulf of Tonkin events were 3 months before the Presidential election. He didn't want to declare war, but got a vague resoluntion to do what was neccesary.

Now as to a quick victory. That was never the goal in Viet Nam under Johnson. There was no "the troops will be home by Christmas" rhetoric we get with most wars. That's because Vietnam was not a declared war. The GoT resoultion was vague and unclear. We didn't know why we were there. Johnson seemed to make mistake after mistake because he didn't want to be there, but he didn't want to "lose." Who knows what losing would have looked like becuase they didn't know what winning would be either. Just don't lose.

So the effect was. The US military got a lot of experience fighting against guerrilla tactics. We improved our military knowledge a lot.

But we also got disillusioned , commanders and troops because they didn't have clear cut objectives. We got disillusioned citizens for the same reason. There is always an anti-war feeling in every war in every country. It is usually drowned out by the majority that is convinced of some greater good the war is accomplishing. That wasn't present in Viet Nam. That's why Johnson didn't run again in 1968. He screwed up the war and the peoples trust in government.

Nixon and his Secretary of State actually got Vietnam right. They turned the war back over to the government and military of South Vietnam. Some brilliant diplomatic moves with USSR and China helped, but their "Vietnamization" strategy worked.

The problem was that Nixon was not likeable or trustworthy. His personality and parinoia was not what America needed after Johnson. When he screwed up Watergate and tried to cover instead of fire most of his campaign staff, that gave everybody a release valve on the frustration with bumbling Johnson that seemed to continue with Nixon.

We won a military and diplomatic victory in Vietnam. But we couldn't stand to give the crook credit. Congress cut the legs out from under the South Vietnamese just 3 years later. Left an ally to fall, deserted friends and took a decade or four to figure out how Vietnam should impact our role of leadership in the world.

Answer 6

Thanks a lot =')

Answer 7

My pleasure.