The United States' Role in the Vietnam War_ [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
American Public University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
123
Subject
History
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
Pages
8
Uploaded by BrigadierNeutron13773
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
1/8
The United States' Role in The Vietnam War
Categories: United States Army (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/united-states-
army/)
Vietnam War (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/vietnam-war/)
The Vietnam War started in 1954 as a war between the government of South Vietnam
and the communist government of North Vietnam. The latter was aided by
communist forces in South Vietnam, known as the Viet Cong. The war was initially a
purely internal conflict, but between 1961 and 1965, the U.S. gradually joined on the
side of South Vietnam. This was part of the U.S.’s participation in the Cold War, in
which it attempted to “contain” communism by preventing the creation of new
communist countries allied with the Soviet Union.
However, the “costs and casualties” of the war increased until the U.S. finally withdrew
in 1973, not long before North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam in 1975.1 The war had
a very destructive legacy in Vietnam, and was very controversial in the U.S.
International relations theorists seek to explain events in international politics using
different paradigms, which are consistent theories about how states and other
entities interact with each other, and what motivates them in these interactions.
The usefulness of a paradigm is judged by its power to explain the events that are
seen in the world. Therefore, it is a worthwhile question to ask which paradigm can
best explain the Vietnam War. The paradigm of constructivism posits that a state’s
goals are based on the ideas and values of its leaders, and that the actions of a
state depend on the context and social conditions of the moment. The United States’
role in the Vietnam War can best be explained by constructivism, because American
leaders’ values, beliefs about the situation, and understanding of the war’s context
motivated them to enter and stay in the war.
About this sample
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
2/8
In constructivism, the ideas and beliefs that leaders have about international
situations affect their actions, whether or not these beliefs are correct. The United
States’ involvement in the Vietnam War was encouraged by certain beliefs on the
part of American leaders. One of these was the belief that the “so-called communist
bloc” was “a monolith”, and that therefore a new communist country was necessarily
a close ally of the enemy Soviet Union and a danger to the U.S. In reality, the
communist bloc was “torn by nationalist divisions” and was not as united as
American leaders believed.
Another idea that motivated the U.S.’s entry into the war was the idea that the U.S.
had the power to accomplish any goal and would inevitably win the war. Robert
Johnson, a member of the U.S. State Department during the time of the Vietnam War,
later wrote that “senior policymakers… were naïve in… failing to perceive the limits of
American power”. It was this failure, Johnson believed, that caused the policymakers
to incorrectly predict the results of U.S. escalation in Vietnam, and to think that it
would lead to a favorable outcome for the U.S. Other sources corroborate this.
John Murnane says that policymakers “had an exaggerated view of America’s
capabilities”4; Robert Schulzinger says that “U.S. participation in the war originated
from ignorance and excessive optimism”.5 The fact that leaders’ ideas had a major
influence on the course of events – regardless of whether they reflected reality – fits
with constructivism.
The values and ideals held by leaders are also important in a constructivist
framework, and values certainly played an important role in the Vietnam War. In the
ideology of American leaders, communism could not be allowed to spread in the
world, not only because it posed a threat to the U.S. but also because it was seen as
an evil system. Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense under Presidents John F.
Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, was an important figure in the U.S.’s entry into the
Vietnam War.
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
3/8
Later in life, he expressed regret for the decision. In his 1995 book, he wrote “[w]e of
the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on
Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of
this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values”. Another important figure
was Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor to President Richard Nixon, who
was very involved in the end of the war. In 1999, he expressed that he and other
leaders were invested in the outcome of the war partly out of concern for the South
Vietnamese people: “[w]e would not… leave the country… by turning over to
communist rule tens of millions who had staked their lives on our word”.
Leaders believed that the U.S. had a responsibility to promote democratic capitalism
worldwide. According to Murnane, U.S. involvement in the war was based on such
“beliefs about America’s mission to reshape the world” and “good intentions as the
‘defender of the free world’”.4 Values also motivated the other side. North
Vietnamese Leader “Ho [Chi Minh] and his top associates were communists, deeply
committed to establishing in Vietnam at the first opportunity a state based on
Marxist-Leninist dogma”.
To the communists, a North Vietnamese victory was desirable because it would unite
and (in their view) liberate Vietnam. An important assumption of constructivism –
that leaders’ values play a large role in determining a state’s actions – clearly holds
true in the case of the Vietnam War.
In a conflict, an important part of a state’s values is how it views its adversary, so this
can also be influential in constructivism. American leaders had a very unsympathetic
attitude towards North Vietnam, and this prevented them from having too many
reservations about entering and escalating in the Vietnam War. This lack of
sympathy existed partly because “[t]here was no correspondence or personal
connection between American and North Vietnamese leaders”
Murnane contrasts this with the relationship between John F. Kennedy and Soviet
leader Nikita Khrushchev, who, despite their competing interests and ideologies,
communicated often – sometimes in a cooperative way. In fact, this communication
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
4/8
was vital in averting disaster during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. When the
Vietnam War is contrasted with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it seems likely that American
leaders’ lack of constructive communication with North Vietnamese leaders was one
factor behind their decision to intervene in the war in an aggressive, militaristic way.
According to Joseph Nye and David Welch, constructivism is unique in that it “not[es]
the importance of social and cultural context”. One reason for the U.S. entry into the
Vietnam War was that the U.S. saw the war in a very different context from North
Vietnam and the Viet Cong. To the U.S., the Vietnam War was very much part of the
Cold War and the U.S.’s own conflict with the Soviet Union. U.S. officials believed that
the communist leaders in Vietnam were “instruments of the Soviet drive for world
domination, directed and controlled by the Kremlin”.
Some American leaders held a view of Vietnam that was less about the country in
reality and more about the meaning they attributed to it: “the world was truly divided
between “us” and “them,” between the “free world” and the Communist bloc.
Vietnam had become a Cold War abstraction”4. This view prevented American
leaders from seeing the war as a civil war in the context of Vietnam’s own history,
which was how most Vietnamese people – including the U.S.’s communist
adversaries – saw it. According to Murnane, “Washington policymakers were focused
entirely on the rivalry with the Soviet Union; they had very little understanding of the
Communist movement in the Third World, let alone Vietnamese history and culture”.
Vietnam had a long history of being dominated by outside powers, such as China
and colonial France, and the communists in Vietnam saw the war as a struggle to
finally establish an independent, united Vietnam. This made them very determined
to win the war. According to Murnane, “[h]ad they known more about the history of
the Vietnamese struggle, McNamara and his circle would have expected that the
Vietnamese would never stop fighting”. With this knowledge, these officials might not
have believed that the U.S. could be victorious as a participant in the Vietnam War,
and therefore they might not have entered the war.
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
5/8
Thus, a difference in contextual understanding was part of what caused the U.S. to
enter the war and eventually withdraw in defeat. The fact that understandings like
this play a major role in determining international events is quite consistent with
constructivism.
Some might argue that the Vietnam War can best be explained not by
constructivism, but by realism. Realism is a paradigm in which states are motivated
by their concrete self-interest, rather than by values. In realism, states are thought to
prioritize power or security (or both) first and foremost. It is true that the U.S. had
some concrete interests at stake in the Vietnam War, and thus that realism could
provide some explanation for the U.S.’s entry into the war.
The “communist bloc” of countries was of course considered a threat to the U.S.
during the Cold War, and its expansion could reasonably be expected to increase
that threat. American leaders felt that intervening in Vietnam could help protect
them from later confrontations with the Soviet Union: a firm stand” in Vietnam “would
discourage a return to adventurism and reinforce the trend toward détente” with the
Soviet Union.
American leaders were concerned about the threat posed by China as well, as it
“appeared to be more militant and aggressive than the Soviet Union” in the 1960s,
and they wanted to prevent China from expanding its influence. It was believed that
if the U.S. did not deter its rivals by showing strength in Vietnam, they might “be
tempted to take steps that might ultimately leave no option but nuclear war”.
Actions based on calculations of how to maximize security are indeed considered
typical in realism. American leaders also believed that they had economic and
military interests at stake in the Vietnam War: “[i]f [Vietnam] fell, all of Southeast Asia
might be lost, denying the United States access to important raw materials and
strategic waterways”. These types of interests are also accounted for in realism.
However, the fact that there were some concrete U.S. interests involved does not
prove that realism is a better paradigm for the subject than constructivism. Nye and
Welch explain that constructivist and realist explanations are not necessarily
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
6/8
incompatible, which means that the latter do not disprove the former. Also, there are
several ways in which realism cannot explain the Vietnam War. For example, internal
factors are generally ignored in realism, in which states are seen as single entities.
However, domestic politics in the U.S. did affect the course of events in the Vietnam
War. For example, one event that was used to justify the escalation of the Vietnam
War was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964, in which North Vietnamese torpedo boats
attacked a U.S. ship off the coast of North Vietnam. Fujimoto Hiroshi asserts that the
choice to increase military action in response to this was motivated by Lyndon
Johnson’s desire for domestic political approval: “the presidential election campaign
of 1964 was in a crucial stage, for Johnson was opposing the hawkish Republican
candidate Barry Goldwater.
Johnson swiftly decided to retaliate against [North Vietnam] to show the public his
toughness and to portray his opponent as weak”.8 Also, although it is often forgotten,
the U.S. got smaller forces from a few other countries – Australia, New Zealand, South
Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand – to assist its effort in the Vietnam War.
According to Jonathan Colman and J. J. Widén, this aspect of the war was also
motivated by domestic politics: “[Johnson] and his colleagues sought military help
less for practical reasons than for political ones as a way of legitimizing the war both
domestically and abroad”.
Also, according to the aforementioned Robert Johnson, policymakers in 1964 were
unwilling to negotiate with North Vietnam and allow a communist takeover partly
because “officials feared a McCarthy-like reaction at home”.3 The involvement of
domestic politics can be better explained by constructivism, in which leaders’ need
for public approval can be seen as one of the social conditions that shapes
international events.
Also, in realism, the determining factor in international interactions is always a state’s
interests. Nye and Welch associate realism with the statement that “states have no
permanent friends or permanent enemies, merely permanent interests”. However, it
seems that the U.S. did consider communist states “permanent enemies” during the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
7/8
Cold War, simply by their nature. If interests were truly the only relevant factor, the
U.S. might have considered allowing Vietnam to become communist, then trying to
negotiate with it to build a relationship that was more positive and favorable to U.S.
interests.
However, the U.S. did not consider this; the social context meant that a communist
Vietnam would necessarily be considered an enemy, simply because it was
communist and allied with the Soviet Union. The realist view assumes that states’
interests are inherent and objective, and are the starting point for international
interactions. By contrast, in constructivism, states’ interests are considered neither
inherent nor the starting point.
Alexander Wendt, one of the political scientists who first developed the paradigm of
constructivism, described it as a theory “in which identities and interests are the
dependent variable”: interests themselves are shaped by social circumstances such
as ideas and values.10 American leaders believed that Vietnam was important to
their interests not because they had any clear evidence that it was, but because
their previously-held ideas about the Cold War led them to arrive at this conclusion.
According to Herring, “[t]he United States most probably exaggerated the
consequences of nonintervention”. Its leaders were invested in the war partly
because they had “proclaim[ed] Vietnam a test case of credibility”, with “credibility”
meaning their strategy of showing strength in the Cold War. Robert Johnson said that
officials “had convinced themselves that Vietnam was important to the United
States”. He did not think that the reasons for the war were important enough to justify
the large scale of the U.S.’s war effort: “[t]here was a terrible lack of proportionality
between the importance of the goals America sought and the means used to reach
them”.
American leaders’ ideas about the necessity of intervention against communism
were ultimately just ideas; they were not evidence that it was in the U.S.’s interest to
intervene. These ideas were not objective and infallible; Robert McNamara himself,
“[i]n the final years of his life… began to question many of the underlying
11/29/23, 4:07 PM
The United States' Role in the Vietnam War: [Essay Example], 2648 words GradesFixer
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-united-states-role-in-the-vietnam-war/
8/8
assumptions of the Cold War”. Basically, the Vietnam War mattered to the U.S. partly
because American leaders decided that it mattered, and constructivism is the
paradigm that allows this to be possible, far more than realism.
Basically, the paradigm of constructivism is particularly useful for understanding the
U.S.’s actions in the Vietnam War. American leaders’ beliefs, such as those about the
nature of North Vietnam and about the U.S.’s own capabilities, played a role in the
war. So did American leaders’ values, which motivated them to oppose communism
and to believe that the U.S. had a responsibility to create a more democratic and
capitalist world. U.S. and North Vietnamese leaders placed the war in different
contexts, and this difference can help to explain the outcome of the war.
Domestic political factors also had a role in determining the U.S.’s actions in the war.
The U.S. did seem to have some concrete interests at stake in the Vietnam War, but
the amount of importance that American leaders attached to Vietnam reflects
subjective judgments that were based on the assumptions of the time period.
Therefore, constructivism remains a better paradigm than realism for explaining the
war.
It is important to understand and learn from the Vietnam War, as it is a relatively
recent historical event that caused a great deal of death and suffering, and
constructivism can be helpful in developing an understanding of it. This is also
evidence of the strength of constructivism, which is a unique paradigm in that it
recognizes human agency and accounts for the complexity of human nature and
society.