EUROPE AND THE WIDER WORLD: TOPIC 3
The United States and the world, 1945 - 1989
SAMPLE ANSWER
Reasons for involvement
When Lyndon Johnson became president of the US following the death of John F Kennedy in 1963, he continued the policies on Vietnam followed by his predecessors at first. He was committed to the Policy of Containment to stop the spread of Communism and the Domino Theory, which held that if one country fell to Communism, others would follow. Johnson worried that America’s credibility would be questioned if the US withdrew from Vietnam and that he could end up being the first US president to have a lost a war. Furthermore, he had the same military advisers as John F Kennedy (McNamara and Rusk), who convinced him that he should actually change policy and get militarily involved in Vietnam.
Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Resolution
Before Johnson became president, the policy followed by the US in Vietnam was to give financial aid and military advisers to the South to help it defeat the Communist North. Now, however, McNamara and Rusk urged Johnson to get militarily involved, but he couldn’t justify such a move without a good excuse. A clash between US and North Vietnamese ships in what became known as the ‘Gulf of Tonkin Incident’ gave Johnson the opportunity he needed. The incident led Congress to
pass the Tonkin Resolution, which allowed the president to “take all steps necessary to protect US interests in SE Asia”.
Operation Rolling Thunder
Thus, Johnson sanctioned Operation Rolling Thunder and launched massive air attacks on North Vietnam. He hoped that this would stop it from helping the Vietcong in the South and bring a swift end to the war. It was supposed to last eight weeks, but went on for three years, forcing Johnson to send in ground forces, which by 1966 numbered half a million. Operation Rolling Thunder led to the death of 50,000 civilians, but failed to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail, which fed ammunition and troops from North Vietnam to the South. Indeed, the bombing seemed only to stiffen the North’s will to fight on. In contrast, morale among US troops was very low.
‘Hands-on’
Johnson’s commitment to Vietnam and his ‘hands-on’ approach was reflected in the fact that he requested daily updates and met with his advisers once a week to decide on bombing targets. But, despite his claims that America was winning the war, it was in fact making little progress. His policies were futile against the guerrilla tactics of the Vietnamese. US troops found it impossible to negotiate the forests and jungles, most of which were booby-trapped. As Johnson’s policies were clearly failing, many US troops turned on their own officers for ordering them to fight an enemy they couldn’t hope to defeat.
American tactics
Under increasing pressure to bring the war to an end, the US army used a variety of tactics. They launched search and destroy missions to attack villages suspected of helping guerrillas. It was during one such attack that the My Lai Massacre, leading to the deaths of thousands of Vietnamese villagers, took place. The air force also began to drop napalm ( jellied bombs) and chemicals (defoliants) on South Vietnamese forests. Free Fire Zones were created between villages and anyone found in these was considered a legitimate target. Johnson also maintained Kennedy’s tactic of trying to improve the South Vietnamese army (AVRN), so it could take control of the fighting, however, this met with little success.
Anti-war movement
involvement in Vietnam, as the war went on an antiwar movement began in Michigan University in 1965. Protesters claimed that the war was a civil war and America should not intervene. They also argued that it was damaging Johnson’s Great Society Programme. Many students felt that saturation bombing and the use of napalm, together with the mounting numbers of civilian dead, was morally wrong.
Support for anti-war movement
As the deaths continued to increase on both sides, many ordinary Americans also began to feel that the government was being less than truthful in revealing the extent of what was happening in Vietnam and this led to a credibility gap. As the anti-war movement gathered pace, many senior politicians and political commentators began to criticise the government. Johnson came under even more pressure to either win quickly or withdraw. However, Johnson continued to claim that he was winning and American troops would be home “by Christmas”.
The Tet Offensive
However, the Tet Offensive contradicted Johnson’s claims as the Vietcong and North Vietnam launched a surprise attack on all major cities in South Vietnam. The ensuing fighting was horrific and led to the deaths of 81,000 people, 4,000 of whom were American, who now came home in body bags. This incident made it clear to Americans that the war was far from over. While military leaders in Vietnam were arguing that an increase in US troops would help to end the war, Johnson knew that Americans would never accept this, especially as demonstrations against the war increased. Johnson’s reputation began to suffer and everywhere he went he was bombarded with slogans like, ‘Hey, hey LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?’
Credibility gap – Media – Peace talks
The Tet Offensive also increased the credibility gap and many Americans came to believe that they were being misled about events in Vietnam. The media in Vietnam beamed back horrific pictures of the reality of the war, which led to public commentators and former supporters to question US involvement. Johnson was now forced to change his policy on Vietnam. He ordered a partial halt to the bombings and began peace talks in Paris with the North Vietnamese. However, these were soon deadlocked and before the general election of 1968, Johnson ordered the US to stop bombing Vietnam altogether. He then withdrew from the presidential race.
Conclusion
Johnson’s policies on Vietnam had proved a failure. Most Americans, now felt that it was wrong, a drain on economic resources, and a distraction from domestic policies. Johnson’s policies had seen the war escalate into a full-scale conflict, 30,000 US soldiers had died, 150,000 were wounded and it cost over $150bn. Black Americans felt that their young men were dying in much greater numbers than whites, many of whom were perceived to be using every avenue to escape being drafted into the army. The war also led to a divide in American society between the anti-war movement and those who felt America was right to fight against Communism in this way.