American History Research Paper: Was Entering The Vietnam War A Good Idea?

I. Intro

Going to Vietnam was a good thing for the U.S. It is, however, the most hated and protested war in all of U.S. history. However, it was a needed war. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, and for the most part succeeded. Even thought it was the most military drafts ever given out, and it caused massive inflation in the U.S. The Vietnam War was an effect of the Cold War, which was an arms build up between Russia and the U.S. Then Russia tried to turn Vietnam into a communist country, so the U.S. intervened. In the following you will see that entering the Vietnam War was a good thing and that otherwise communism would still be very popular today, even though it was the only war the U.S. ever lost.

II. Evidence

The first reason that going to Vietnam was a good idea was that we needed to stop the spread of communism (Brownell 12). It was a growing threat, and needed to be stopped as quickly as possible (Brownell 87). We entered the war, and for the support of France and to stop communism in its steps (Welch 2). With little success in both areas at first, in the long run we were successful in our main goals (Welch 7). The spread of communism started the Vietnam War and The Korean War. Both wars had the same objective, stopping the spread of communism (O’Brien 1). We succeeded in both wars with this idea, but we pulled our troops out of Vietnam towards the end of the war (Brownell 5).

The war officially ended in 1974 when the North Vietnamese took control of South Vietnam and made the entire country communist governed (Brownell 5). They may have been communist in the end, but much of the surrounding countries remained democratic (Welch 98). So we lost the country of Vietnam to communism, but gained many of the surrounding countries (O’Brien 2). So we went in to stop the spread of communism, and we did stop it from spreading, it just got Vietnam in the end (Welch 7).

Another reason entering The Vietnam War was a good idea was that we gained the support of the French. They initially started the war, but we entered and helped them out (O’Brien 3). We entered the war with the intention of stopping the spread of communism, and we gained the support of the French. In doing this we gained a little help from them in future wars (O’Brien 3). We also gained some financial gain from the war. With people buying war bonds and the draft, we didn’t need to worry too much about money (Welch 12). Plus, with the withdraw of our soldiers we had an excess amount of money (Welch 13). So we gained the support of the French and got some money, but unfortunately it was at the cost of 58,168 U.S. troops (Maraniss 307).

A huge reason that entering The Vietnam War was that it really helped boost our economy as a country. When we entered we had a mad rush of people buying war bonds to help support our troops and the war cause (Maraniss 256). Then when we pulled out of the war, we actually didn’t spend all our money on the war. So we gained some money. Unfortunately a lot of the money went missing with President Nixon resigning (Brownell 56). Some speculate that he took it and spent in on more private things, while others claim he hid it away if he was ever run out of the country. The ideas continue into the improbable all the way to the just insane (Marraniss 25).

Yet it is still very curious as to where all that money disappeared to. Many consider it one of the main reasons President Nixon resigned before congress could impeach him. However, it was nothing compared to what was left (Brownell 56). Most of the money went to covering up and paying off the officers involved it the drug trade that took place during The Vietnam War. Instead of it rightfully going back to the people, or the troops, it went right into the pockets of traitors and lying drug junkies. Yet what remained mostly went into repairing roads of all things. So we traded a war for not getting caught up in another one of the government’s scandals, and nice roads (Brownell 57).

III. Contradictions

One of the reasons that entering The Vietnam War was a bad idea is that it is the most protested war in all of U.S. history (Brownell 12). We had more people voice there protests against The Vietnam War than ever in U.S. history, even more than The Korean War (Brownell 13). Another reason is that we lost more men in The Vietnam War than in any other war, except The Civil War. It was mostly protest because of the draft (Welch 26). The draft was 1,728,344 people, but only 17,000 were accounted for in deaths (Brownell 1).

It was so protested that many of the people who were drafted left the country and fled to Canada. The people who didn’t go after the war were pardoned (O’Brien 5). The last reason that it was a bad idea entering The Vietnam was that it was the only war we ever lost. However, many people believe it was a good thing because it showed the world that America could infact lose a war, that we weren’t all powerful (Welch 10).

IV. Conclusion

With the facts given, it is obvious that going to Vietnam was a good thing for the U.S. Even it was the most protested and hated war in all of U.S. history; we still accomplished the main goal of what we went there for. This was to stop the spread of communism. We also got, sort of, a head start in The Cold War. Even though the Vietnam War was technically caused by the beginning of The Cold War. Not to mention that it was the most military drafts ever give. However, you can’t really deny the fact that it was a necessary war, that without it, communism would be still popular today.

Read more

What Was the Largest Protest Against the Vietnam War?

The movement against the Vietnam War in 1960s America was one of the largest of its kind, in both national and international comparisons; the movement was heavily linked with other reform groups which were pressurising the American government during that time period. Due to this, opposition to the war came from a diverse number of groups who each had their own reasoning for their anti-militaristic stance – ranging from veteran’s opposing based upon their experience or Civil Rights demonstrators who felt they were trying to uphold the rights of the Vietnamese people, whilst not necessarily having the same themselves, domestically.

What facilitated the exacerbation of the anti-war movement was the greater access to uncensored information in the extensive television coverage from Vietnam; not forgetting that the right to freedom of speech was also capitalised on by those in education who sought to bolster the importance of student activism, and their pressure group status.

Others viewed the conflict as a war against Vietnamese independence, or as intervention in a foreign civil war; others opposed it because they felt it lacked direction and appeared to be potentially unsuccessful – devastation for a nation that was, and possibly still is, the largest international influence. Source A

Source A, an extract from the book ‘Four hours in My Lai’ by Michael Bilton (published in 1992), is a piece that mainly focuses towards the military aspect of the war and the effects of the involvement had on real life soldiers – this would be the case, given that this secondary source is based upon an influential telling of events by some individuals who were involved in the My Lai incident on 16 March, 1968. The U. S. soldiers who had been interviewed for this process – a T. V. ocumentary had been produced prior to the publication of the book, in the late 1980s – may have been asked the questions quite a few years after their involvement in the war, but this bears not much significance on what they say – the vivid memories they would hold of that event would not leave for a long time and so, by and large, would be true to an extent beyond doubt.

The source itself mentions that the “increasing” number of recruits scored “so low” on intelligence rankings that they wouldn’t normally have been given a place in the regular U. S. Army during a peace-time period. It then goes on to mention how the tours of duty affected each soldier, with some dying in the first month of duty as this was “highly likely”. Due to the soldier rotation and their differing lengths of duty (some of the soldiers were wounded, so would not serve the same length as those they had arrived with, for instance) the inexperienced recruits were often polarised by the conditions they faced – they were quite different to those they had probably been trained in, in the United States.

The result of this continuing spiral of poor strategy and younger and younger recruits et al. meant many of the objectives which had been planned, ultimately failed in response to the effort which was being put in; low morale in existing, serving soldiers also played its part. A consequence of lack of planning and poor skill within soldiers trained, spontaneously affected those back home who saw lack of progress, especially at a time when the taxes were being increased by Johnson.

With regards to the question, how useful is it for demonstrating why there was an anti-war movement – it isn’t that useful, since it doesn’t mention any of the direct causes itself, instead implying various reasons for one explanation (i. e. giving reasons for the lack of progress which frustrated those in America). However, it does also give an impression that with the large numbers of deaths came great anger within communities who had lost a relative, a friend or somebody else.

This could be integrated into the logic behind the personal rationale that fell behind another reason why people demonstrated against the Vietnam War – they wanted to see an end to the ‘bloodshed’ and ‘unnecessary killing’ that engulfed the media reports throughout the U. S. Its advantages are also its downfall, ultimately – the limitations of the source are great, as it doesn’t consider the financial burdening on tax payers (or any other economic aspect), the Civil Rights movements, the failure of the Great Society programme, the suffering of the Vietnamese people shown in the media, or the media influence itself.

So, therefore, it is useful for explaining the problems faced by the troops on the ground in Vietnam, who will have encountered people who weren’t responsible, nor mature enough, to make their own decisions and the horrific effects of the war on the Veterans – something they took back from their tour of duty, exacerbating the anti-war movement as people flocked to prevent their relatives from being seriously maimed or killed. Source B

Source B, a photograph taken during a napalm attack on June 8, 1972, demonstrates the true extent to which the American bombings were taking their toll during the Vietnam War – the children running representing the apparent innocent victims that were being brutally murdered in raids that were deemed unacceptable by the majority of the American population. All of this contributed to the “Credibility Gap” which describes almost any “gap” between the reality of a situation and what politicians and government agencies make statements about.

Once those who were reading the papers were shocked by the initial target of the bombing raids, anger would turn into questions as they would seek who lied about the reality, perhaps even wondering what else the administration may not be revealing the full facts about. The deeper the credibility gap, the larger the polarisation of people from the Vietnam War, who would now see it in a negative light and therefore would not be likely to support it, both financially and physically through public endorsements.

As a primary source, it’s hard to find fault with the photograph – it isn’t likely to be redacted so it shows one side over another, and is also fairly neutral as it shows the after-effects of the American incursion, rather than something happening at that very moment. However, as the media was part of the continuing anti-war movement, this photo could in fact show only one incident that ever occurred but was highlighted for additional emphasis to their campaign – given the accounts of citizens and U.

S. soldiers, however, that is unlikely to be true. As its overall purpose was intended to shock the readers in the U. S. A. , it is difficult not to find that this picture was as an asset to the movement given that it was taken by dedicated photographers, in this particular case, a Vietnamese one – Nick i??t – who would have wanted the war to be stopped, given it was his country that had been drawn into a long and bitter war.

This isn’t its only limitation however, as a photograph it only captures one event at one time, so by default it can’t take into consideration other reasons for the anti-war movement. Saying that, it has a specific purpose to underline that the government was lying about certain aspects of the war that it wanted to keep hidden – this was released to make citizens aware of this fact. It is therefore useful for giving us some idea why there was a contra-militaristic viewpoint in the U.

S. and why people were prepared to act upon that. Source C Source C, an extract from the publication of personal memoirs in 1982, gives us a personal perspective to an individual soldier’s experience in the Vietnam War and McCarthy also reflects upon the intimacies of his encounter with the Vietcong. Whilst describing one event that occurred early on in his tenure as a rifleman, we see that – as with many other U. S. oldiers – he wanted to kill the Vietcong upon hearing and seeing the effects of their guerrilla warfare tactics which meant that damages could be incurred by the Americans but often, there could be no retaliation given that the enemy couldn’t be seen.

McCarthy makes note of this saying that even in daylight it was hard to distinguish between those who were part of the North’s continuing campaign for the liberation of the South and those who were just normal peasants – this resulted in more deaths than had been initially projected.

Due to the fact that often the enemy was not visible until it was too late, or in en masse confrontations, it was difficult to foresee a war that could be won by the Americans – too many losses were sustained, whilst relatively modest amounts of VC combatants were being killed in fighting locations. Not only that, the VC also had foreign backing with the aid of China and the USSR helping with the funding and the strategic logistical movements of weapons. McCarthy mentions that “[… we knew guys’ wives, mothers, fathers and kids” – suggesting that the impact of the deaths reached beyond the remit of the immediate family and affected other people, the soldiers’ themselves even – who’s stories of the deaths would return to their communities when they returned from their tour of duty – all of which would be passed on to the public who’s view of the war would possibly change from supporting to opposing based on what they hear, and see on the television and in the newspapers.

However, there are other omissions from the source; there is no particular relation to the failure of the Great Society programme or the struggle for Black Rights, for example. Nevertheless, that would hardly be needed in the personal memoirs of a soldier who has possibly died – commenting on the situation as he felt it would not need to include any information which was not relevant to the experiences he had had.

Due to there being no information to suggest other reasons for the anti-war movement, it could be considered not as useful for the purpose of investigating why but it does give us a personal reflection and wouldn’t be biased for the simple fact that nothing was to gained for the author by writing this piece.

Source D

Source D, an extract from a newspaper piece by American journalist Richard Hamer in 1970, is a primary source revealing an extent to which the conflict was affecting those who were militarily involved – the fact that often the Vietcong were ‘invisible’ or ‘out of range’ meant that often the troops became frustrated in their objectives and all too regularly lost sight of a war that could have been won if the South Vietnamese government convinced the peasants of the benefits of capitalism.

Due to the complications with invisible attackers meant more and more lives were being lost and no retaliation could be given – this sentiment is also present in Source C. This source runs along a central theme, however, and is clearly against the war and the actions of some renegade soldiers who felt it necessary to commit atrocities like those at My Lai. At the time, this would have been a damaging piece of writing for its noticeable anti-American stance – despite the writer being an American citizen.

This in itself shows the deep degree of pacifism within the United States at the time, but this could, nevertheless, be part of a wider-ranging media campaign to prevent any further actions in the war due to other factors, perhaps the increase of taxes – this would indicate that it is possible that Hamer wasn’t anti-war based on the prospect, rather the inconvenience it caused him.

The fact that this was released during the period of war means it is also linked to the credibility gap; its exposure of American counter-tactics would almost certainly ensure the exacerbation of the anti-war sentiment and give another reason for people already desperate for relatives to return, to not believe what their government was saying.

What we need to know however, is whether the information presented in this source is what Hamer actually saw with his own eyes, or whether it was a brief summarisation of stories he had collected from soldiers; if the latter, its provenance could be affected, as soldiers influenced the reporter’s personal views. This source was also published one year after the My Lai incident has irreversibly affected most people’s views of the Vietnam War – thinking what damage could be done to the reputation of the U. S. A, a country that had protected democracy only 20 years earlier in the Second World War – this could then, be a piece catered towards their views, however, that is unlikely given the deep sense of conviction within the content of the source and the way in which he has written the piece. This sense of betrayal by American soldiers extended to within the hearts of the communities across the U. S. who saw individuals committing acts which could not be seen as ‘heroic’ in any respect.

However, it is important to remember that most of the Vietcong were invisible to an extent – they did use purposeful tactics that did have an effect; most of the time soldiers did not who they were engaging with within the dense forests and this did have devastating effects on those on the ground. Those injured in the attacks would return back to the U. S. sharing their stories and further affecting people’s views on the war that wouldn’t finish for (officially) 5 years after Source D was published.

The use of the word ‘one’ (in this context it is in reference to the collective American force) seems almost like a paradox – the righteousness of that word compared with the conditions that were faced on the ground in Vietnam. As it focuses towards these aspects more than the other possible reasons for the anti-war movement, it may be seen as not that useful; however, I would strongly discourage any sort of thinking along that line.

It ascribes the particular tensions between the two rivalries on the ground as VC entered into guerrilla combat with the Americans, who hadn’t been trained to a great level in that respect, and with the luck of hindsight suggests to us why there was an anti-war movement within the country – it’s clear that the media used an en masse approach to their reporting of the Vietnam War, ensuring that the readers of their reports were to be influenced by their ideology on the subject; whether it was because the papers’ were more left-leaning or were simply against the war because of the financial cost, for example, is of not much significance.

Its main limitations are the fact that it doesn’t mention some features of the war that turned people against it, such as the government’s preference of that over the Great Society programme (being at a bad time, given that Black Rights had already suffered setbacks with the Martin Luther King assassination a few years earlier) and the drafting of poorer people from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of race. Source E

Source E, a cartoon published by the satirical magazine ‘Punch’ in 1967, demonstrates the international view of the American involvement in Vietnam. Although it uses the failure of the key Great Society programme of the Johnson administration in its depiction of “the costs of the Vietnam War”, it does not discuss the effects of that failure or suggest any possible reasons for that (increased spending elsewhere, aside from the military, for instance).

Another point is the fact that as Punch is a British magazine, it would be assumed that they would favour the side that had helped them defeat the Nazi threat in the 1940s, but no, it could be interpreted that they instead believe that money is needlessly being wasted on something that they themselves weren’t involved in – perhaps because of the recovery that was still ongoing in the UK.

In the cartoon, we can see President Johnson dismantling the US economy ‘train’ (perhaps with connotations as a gravy train – the sentiment prior to the war that was against the Communist threat, whereas now it wasn’t) in favour or the war in Vietnam he had initiated with the conspiracy regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The smoke billowing from the train’s engine funnel reads ‘Vietnam’, backing up the British thought that money was needlessly being wasted in a dirty war. The source itself was published in 1967, not that long into the actual fighting phase of the war, but still after key events practically highlighted the fact that the programme Johnson had promised during his presidential re-election campaign of 1964 was failing.

The effects of the unsuccessful plan meant that many of the potential conscriptees were turned against the prospect of being involved in the war; their family would have already been affected by the change (as often those drafted were from impoverished backgrounds) but the deprivation would not only have an effect on them, it would also radically change those opinions held by the rest of their family. It would yet another reason to oppose the war, especially considering taxes had already risen enough to concern the financial well-being of most families.

The limitations of the source are clear; it, as many others, doesn’t consider many of the aspects that made up the significant anti-war movement in the early 1970s – the Civil Rights demonstrations (which is surprising given that those most affected by the collapse of the programme were mainly of an African-American ethnicity) or the media campaigns et al. Punch, as a satire magazine may not be the most reliable or sourcing though – as a magazine dedicated to cynicism and making mockeries of political blunders, means with that purpose and the fact that evidently Punch were against the war, means the provenance of the source could be affected.

On the other hand, it could be useful for explaining the views held by those who weren’t personally involved in the tragedies of death or affected by the charges made by the American government. Source F Source F, a partial transcript from a seminar conducted by Robin Day in 1970, although addressing a British conference reflects upon the explanation for the sizeable increase in the anti-war attitude that had overran the initial support in the late 1960s.

Day, a highly revered individual within the British media at that time, would have been eagerly listened to in the RUSI (a government think-tank studying naval and military science) seminar that took place during the latter stages of the Vietnam War; Day gives what he thinks was the overwhelming reason that formed the basis for all the opposition against the war – the repeated and consistent images of Vietnamese (and American) brutality on the television.

He believed that the repeated visualisation of what was really happening (given that during previous wars, colour television in real-time was not a reality) made images resonate within the minds of the communities across America, who, on top of various misgivings they already had for the war would now act upon that; it brought a sense of to reality “a situation 10,000 miles away from home”. Whilst saying that, he doesn’t explicitly refer to this being the single factor – in fact, it was the media campaign in its most general form – it was the more “uninhibited [coverage]” as opposed to specific things that may have been seen.

These images, as with the other sources that represent other media items released during the war, widened the credibility gap between the political establishment and those who it governed. Day had been reporting the Vietnam War since it had begun only a few years prior to this seminar and was knowledgeable on the topic of why and when the war really developed in the full-scale conflict it did. This in turn means that the provenance is supported because we can rely upon this fact as meaning he would understand the complex motivations for particular events.

This could, however, be his downfall – as in that time he could have developed anti-war views based on what he had seen and been reporting, that is unlikely though, given the general neutral tone of the source. The limitations to the source are obvious as some other causes for opposition included the returning wounded (and the much publicised deaths of) soldiers amongst others. Source G Source G, a 1989 film adaptation from an autobiography of Ron Kovic, which contained extensive notes on his experiences in the Vietnam War – a war which left Kovic paralysed for the majority of his body.

In the film, the key points are: * It is apparent that some of the authorities wanted to hide the veteran soldiers, due to the fact that they were a key component of the anti-war movement. * There were protests against the 1972 Miami Republican Convention, at which Nixon received his party’s presidential nomination. * Some Republicans defended the war to an extent. * Often violent scenes when pro and anti war movements met.

Some even mentioned that anti-war supporters were “communists”, because of their support for pacifism and, although largely incorrect, left -wing socialism. Although Kovic was the inspiration for the story, Oliver Stone, the producer of the movie adaptation, was also someone known for his vehement opposition to the conflict in Vietnam. Through this film, Stone almost tries to change people’s perceptions of the war; the dramatic re-enactments of events that happened and the exact quotes used in history re-quoted giving it a sense of reality.

Kovic mentioned all the reasons why he was anti-war in the film extract, with the delegates in the background all shouting “four more years” as Nixon promised to withdraw the soldiers. Although produced some years after the end of the war, Stone still lacks the critical evaluation of both sides of the story, instead tending to focus on the anti-war movement almost completely – but then, he would, he was an activist himself, trying to stop the deaths and serious maiming of further service personnel.

The purpose of this film was to give the impression that the Americans were wrong to go to Vietnam in the first place (as Kovic’s character clearly says in “the poor Vietnamese seeking freedom for hundreds of years”) and that despite the intermittence between the end of the war and the time of the production, Stone’s views had not changed on the subject.

In that context, and the fact that the film is much more dramatic than necessarily need be, it is easy to assume that this is a piece of biased film-making – despite that, it is useful for one thing; informing us of the thoughts of people who had experienced the full horrors of the conflict and the effect it had on them. It is also historically accurate as all the dates, places and people are all correct – only the story itself is elaborated – therefore it is reliable in some form.

Referring back to the original question, “How useful are the sources A to G for explaining why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s? ” – I would respond by saying that some are more accurate than others in terms of their respective historical context, their individual purposes (some are cartoons, some are memoirs), and the reality that some are more reliable than others as they represent individual events on film or simply people’s thoughts on the war.

In terms of usefulness, they have a collective worth as when combined they allow a fuller picture of the war to be completed – as opposed to thoughts garnered from one source. In some sources, the usefulness could be undermined by the purpose or the provenance of each source – authors all have different views on what they write, but this can also be played to our advantage as even this in itself can represent the effect the conflict had on individual writers.

Primary sources are not necessarily more beneficial as those that are produced as secondary sources, as often even in these cases, bias is still present – often we forget that in secondary sources, the author has had the chance to evaluate many of the explanations for something of a long period of time before publishing their thoughts – this can give us a better view of what really happened.

Read more

Lessons Learned from Vietnam War

Introduction The Vietnam experience was a war that lasted for almost twenty years. The American military and leadership appear to have learned some lessons from our involvement in the . This paper will discuss the lessons learned from the following arenas: diplomatic negotiations, presidential leadership, and cultural/social contexts. Diplomatic Negotiations Princeton University (2006) defines diplomatic negotiations as between nations. The lesson learned by the Americans was the need to communicate with their enemy. Our military leaders and president, Lyndon Johnson, used bombing as “verbal” negotiations with Vietnam.

Neither the Americans nor the Vietnamese were willing to compromise and enter into discussions. This refusal to enter into talks led to millions of deaths. The Vietnam War could have been avoided entirely or ended much sooner had the negotiations taken place. Presidential Leadership Presidential leadership styles vary from president to president along with their cabinet members. From Presidents Eisenhower to Nixon, each had their own style in how to handle negotiations and win the war in North Vietnam. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy provided aid to South Vietnam in the form of military training.

President Johnson sent aid to South Vietnam in the form of military troops. President Nixon negotiated the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam giving him “peace with honor” (Devry University, 2011). One of the best lessons that can be learned from our presidential leadership is that there is a need to admit mistakes. Although no one ever wants to admit when they are wrong, the public can be more forgiving when they are told the truth. America was losing the Vietnam War, but no president ever wanted to admit defeat nor did a president want to go all in.

The Rules of Engagement were so restrictive that it made winning a war in Vietnam virtually impossible. Cultural/Social Context The Vietnam War brought about changes in how Americans felt about war. Americans were torn in their feelings about being involved in Vietnam. One of the lessons learned was that technology can be defeated by resourcefulness and determination. The American leaders felt that the war could be won through guns and bombs. They underestimated the will of the Vietnamese. They (government and military) leaders were ignorant of the Vietnamese culture.

The Vietnamese were all in for the fight but the Americans were not. The Vietnamese fully believed in their cause but the American people were uncertain and later multiple protests were held across our country reflecting this uncertainty. Conclusion The experiences in Vietnam taught U. S. military and government leaders many lessons on diplomatic negotiations and the importance of learning the cultures of other countries. As a practical historian, I have learned the Vietnam War was not just a war that pned a few years but many years. I have also learned that the war in Vietnam was not something any president wanted to have happen.

However, once the war escaladed and American troops were sent over to Vietnam, the restrictions placed on them made it very difficult for soldiers to fight the war. Also, many men only enlisted for a year, leaving units discombobulated with experienced and “green” soldiers”. This made for a lack of cohesiveness within the unit. President Johnson never wanted to admit defeat. In the end, it cost him a chance at a second term as president. There is great value in studying past history. When we examine our history, we are able to see why things are done the way they are now.

Studying history allows us to learn from our mistakes and change the direction or course that is taken the nest time. Military leaders and the government are not only able to review what worked and why, but also what failed and why. History of any subject is important because it teaches lessons learned. References Diplomatic Negotiations. (n. d. ). WordNet® 3. 0. Retrieved from http://dictionary. reference. com/browse/diplomatic negotiations Moss, G. (2010). Waging limited war in Vietnam, 1965-68. Vietnam: An American Ordeal. (6th ed. ). Boston, Ma: Prentice Hall. pp. 160-191.

Read more

Assignment: Quiet American-Vietnam War

Dilemmas of Democracy and the responsibilities of the West; he was determined… O do good, not to any individual but to a country’ (Greene, 18). He believed preventing the spread of communism would be beneficial for all. Based in the mysterious Asian country as a secret agent, his Job was to import weapons and set up attacks throughout the country. One incident describes: “that day all over Saigon innocent bicycle pumps had proved to contain bombs which had gone off at the stroke of eleven…. It was better from their point of view to let people assume that the bombs were communist” (Greene, 18-135).

To stir up anti-communism the U. S. Litany put the blame for civilian casualties on the rebellious Viet Congo, giving a impelling reason to the American people for why they must be stopped. Bloods states how the United States went to Just about any extent “to prevent the Domino Theory… The Communists taking South Vietnam and then the Philippines and marching across to Hawaii and then on the shores of California” (Terry, 156). Consequently, government officials promoted fear with the Second Red Scare to incite their citizens to take a stand against the further spread of communism. American troops were placed in Vietnam up until spring 1975.

Between that time American troops were let loose in this foreign country. Not only was there a huge culture shock, but also language played as a barrier. Little efforts to understand the Vietnamese culture became an issue in the war. One of the soldiers said, ” this old man was running like back towards his crib… I think people said halt” but we didn’t know no Vietnamese words” and so they shot him (Terry, 7). Another case of miscommunication was when a soldier told a girl to did did AMA and her lack of effort to to why she remained on the road; she couldn’t get through traffic or could not understand his Vietnamese.

America showed no mercy and was brutal to anything ND anyone that stood in the way. With their endless supplies of artilleries “if something moved in front of you…. You fired at it” (Terry, 157). Lots of the poorly trained solders were blind in the Jungles of Vietnam, especially at night, aimlessly shooting to any noise. Americans treated the people of Vietnam poorly as well, women especially. Some of the captives were women and while being integrated they were abused. One of the African American hospital corpsman from the Navy was explaining how he saw a Vietnamese woman get a lit flare shoved in her during questioning (Terry).

Pyle never hectically harassed a female, but saw Phonon (his Vietnamese lover) as an object. Disregarding her input, he was going to bring her to America as his wife (Greene). Poor interactions with the Vietnamese people, a negative ambiance was left behind by the Americans. Americans believed they were sincerely helping the Vietnamese. When in reality the people of Vietnam did not see the need for their intervention. A soldier explained, ” I spent a great deal of time discussing the problem of Vietnam with the Vietnamese people, and what they thought about America’s involvement.

I learned right away the AR was not the right thing to from the people’s point of view’ (Terry, 67). The people of Vietnam could have cared less if they were getting military support from America. In fact they did not like the war that was happening on their homeland. “They want one day to be much the same as another. They don’t want our white skins around telling them what they want” (Greene, 86). They want to go back to their daily simple lives before any war began. Their way of life is agriculture of rice patties not whether they have a communist or democratic government.

Pyle was getting lectured about hat the Vietnamese people wanted, ” do you think peasants sit and think of God and Democracy… We’ve brought them up in our ideas” (Greene, 87). Before intervene from America, people of Vietnam were not thinking of which government is suitable for them. Neutral Vietnamese said, “However win is the one we go with. The Americans are the ones that are crazy; cause they not gain anything. They lose their lives and their money here”(Terry, 67). America did not gain anything directly from this war. There were no significant natural resources and hundreds were dying everyday.

As he war got dragged even Americans began to question their intentions of being in the war. While men were fighting for a better government, there was trouble back at the home front. Racism was a big factor still in the United States and that custom was brought overseas. Men of color were grouped together and were mainly put on the front end. An African American war veteran said, ” more blacks were dying in combat than whites, proportionately, mainly because more blacks were in combat- oriented units, proportionately, than whites” (Terry, 167). White folks were still seen inferior to lacks.

There were times were the whole squad would be of black men (Terry). This prevented white Americans from getting hurt during the war. Even though there was inequality, African-Americans were still treated better then in the States. While enlisted, they could hold some kind of power. “There weren’t many opportunities for Where else could a black go and get that label Just like that? ” (Terry, 221). African- Americans enlisted as an escape of racism and segregation because in the war zone they are all fighting together under one cause, democracy for the Vietnamese.

One big issue in both books for the reason why they lost the war to the Viet Congo was the inability to establish who the enemy was. It was Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese- like the civil war. White folks could not identify whom to shoot, “It wasn’t suppose to be nobody out at night but the marines. Any Vietnamese out at night was the enemy… It was easy to get killed by an American” (Terry, 7). The soldiers were trained to take down Vietnamese enemy. Everyone looked like the enemy to them. This became problematic of many innocent lives being killed. For this reason,

Americans are seen as mechanical beasts across the globe and will strike at ease in order to win. Americans played different roles in the two books due to the time frame, but had the same goal of fighting for democracy. In The Quiet American being European or white was favorable. “An advantage of this war was that a European face proved in itself a passport on the field: a European could not be suspected of being an enemy agent” (Greene, 42). This is why Pyle was able to sneak around Vietnam with bombs. No one suspected Americans (whites) behind the attacks. Things were a lot more useful for Americans before they sent troops over.

Once the military got involved, it was non-stop gunshots after gunshot. It got to the point where soldiers did not know why they were shooting, they were Just told to. Around this time, university students also began to question the government along with the upraising of segregation. Congress had a hard time dealing with upset citizens over the dead of Martin Luther King and the questioning of when the war will end. In the efforts to help Vietnam have a better life under Democracy, America suffered from the high death toll, expenses on weapons and supplies, and the extended years spent overseas.

Read more

Effects of the Vietnam War

Table of contents

Abstract

While it takes societies to start wars, war changes societies. Whether it be the loss of life, wealth or influence, war determines what a society becomes. This paper will look at some of the effects on U. S. society following the war in Viet Nam. The Effects of the Vietnam War on American Society The Conflict in Southeast Asia had lasting effects on the United States society. It was sold to the American people as necessary to stop the spread of Communism and quickly become one of the longest and costliest wars in U. S. history.

Looking at the war strictly from the point-of-view of society, the after effects of the war were staggering. There was weakened public faith in the government and a change in the public image of the American soldier. The loss of national pride was deep. America had effectively lost a war to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had called “a fourth-rate power. ” The U. S. was no longer looked at as an invincible giant. Because President Johnson wanted to fund the war without raising taxes, the government deficit skyrocketed. Additionally, troops returning home could not find jobs in the private sector.

These factors together caused double digit inflation and unemployment rates. The people felt that the government was not taking care of them like it used to. These factors led to a change in the country’s role around the world. Congress was worried that the world was viewing the U. S. as the planet’s policeman, ready to jump in anytime another country seemed ready to fall victim to Communism. In 1973, the mostly Democratic Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, which limited the president’s powers. The Commander-in-Chief could only send U. S. troops into combat for less than ninety days without congressional approval.

Besides the lack of jobs, returning soldiers were not given parades and hailed by the people as conquering heroes as they were following previous conflicts. Instead, they were viewed with disdain, both for losing the war and for the vicious actions taken by a few soldiers. The hero gave way to the villain, the soldier became the baby-killer. The American sensibilities had changed as well. While soldiers were fighting and dying in Viet Nam, the United States had a few other conflicts within its own borders. Race riots and anti-war protests were shown side by side with battlefield reports on the nightly news.

National Guard intervention and the shooting of students at Kent State and Jackson State universities did little to gain support for the government. According to Sen. Frank Church, Viet Nam “has already stretched the generation gap so wide that it threatens to pull the country apart. ” (“Vietnam War Quotations”, para. 13) Whether the outcome of the war was beneficial or detrimental depends entirely on your point of view. On one hand, the more liberal attitude of government towards foreign intervention, the redefining of the right to protest and the skepticism toward the government can be looked at as positive effects of an unpopular war.

On the other hand, the image of the country in the eyes of the world, the loss of traditional values and the blow to the economy can be viewed as negative. No matter what personal stance one has on the Viet Nam Conflict, there is one truth; The War in Southeast Asia definitely changed the United States as a world power, as a country and as a people.

References

  1. Frey-Wouters, E. , & Laufer, R. S. (1986). The Vietnam Generation’s Views of the Combatants. In Legacy of a war: the American soldier in Vietnam. (pp. 108-109).
  2. M. E. Sharpe. Sitikoff, H. (n. d. ). The Postwar Impact of Vietnam. Universtiy of Illinois. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from http://www. english. illinois. edu/maps/vietnam/postwar. htm
  3. The Vietnam War: An Overview. (n. d. ). The Wars for Viet Nam: 1945 to 1975. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from http://vietnam. vassar. edu/overview/index. html
  4. Vietnam War and the American Economy. (n. d. ). History Central. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from http://www. historycentral. com/sixty/Economics/Vietnam. html
  5. Vietnam War Quotations. (n. d. ). VietnamWar. net. Retrieved February 18, 2012, from http://www. vietnamwar. net/quotations/quotations. htm

Read more

The Vietnam War Persuasive Essay

War is always a controversial topic whenever it is discussed in a political setting, or even a private conversation between friends. No War has ever been a more controversial than the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was the longest War the nation has ever engaged in. The United States entered the war in 1961 and pulled out in 1975. Although the death toll did not reach as high as the civil war, or either World War One, or World War two. The Nation still lost over fifty thousand soldiers in the deadly conflict. After World War two the French returned to controlling Indochina, but democracy in all areas of Indochina were not welcomed.

Ho Chi Minh tried to downplay the tension to Washington, and show his respect for democracy, but a resistance was formed against the French. The French army and their American advisors seriously underestimated the Vietnamese Independence League and thought a victory would be easy. In 1953, President Eisenhower sent military aid to the French along with military advisors to Vietnam to prevent a Communist victory. However, a year later in 1954, around 10,000 French soldiers surrenders after a crucial battle at Dein Bein Phu at which around 8000 Viet Minh and 1500 French soldiers died.

After this crucial loss the French decided to pull out completely after eight long and bitter years of fighting. The Americans at this point, had already invested billions of dollars in aid to the French and decide to enter and to step up their presence in Vietnam heavily. The U. S. main objective upon entering the war was to stop the spread of communism and to put a halt to the “domino” theory. In 1961, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev called the Vietnam War a ‘wars of national liberation’ and greatly supported communist in North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Heavy volumes of U. S. roops began to arrive in South Vietnam in 1961, as well as economic aid. The Americans showed their support to the President Ngo Dinh Nheim and joined forces against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. By 1961, The United States were heavily involved with the war both in military and in economic support. John F. Kennedy became president and virtually inherited this new war. Kennedy saw the Vietnam War as another by product of the Cold War. Kennedy became excited about using his military, and his “flexible response “military strategy. The Army began a new training program in counter insurgency called Special Forces.

Like a kid with a new toy, Kennedy was eager to use his new elite, unconventional small armed tactical soldiers named the Green Berets in the jungles of Vietnam. “Despite American aid, the corrupt and repressive Diem regime installed by Eisenhower in 1954 was losing ground”. (Henretta, 830) The North Vietnamese had formed a revolutionary movement called the “National Liberation Front”. (Henretta, 830) The National Liberation Front (NLF) had their own specialized guerilla warfare soldiers known as the Vietcong, and they were fighting in their backyard. Once again, the Americans had not fully realized what they were up against.

We had not learned the lesson from the French, and even with more troops on the ground and Special Forces Green Berets in the fight, the North Vietnamese were collecting one small victory after another. This was an unconventional type of warfare that America was not prepared for in more ways than one. When talking about guerilla warfare this is one rule that must be followed to have a successful guerilla campaign. When a smaller force is going up against a larger force, and are outnumbered and out gunned they must follow this rule to have any sort of real success.

Guerilla warfare is primarily composed of shoot and move, hide and seek tactics. These tactics will work very well if you have support from the surrounding civilian populous. “The NLF’s guerilla forces-the Vietcong –found a receptive audience among peasants alienated by Diem’s strategic hamlet program, which uprooted whole villages and moved them to barbed -wire compounds . “(Henretta, 830) To further separate the natives from the American interest and Diem, militant Buddhist monks began protest in dramatic fashion. These protest included self- immolation and were captured on film by American television crews.

Eventually Diem was overthrown and assassinated; this was not something that was anticipated by Kennedy. By this time, the United States had around 16,000 ‘advisors’ from helicopter crews to Green Berets. President Kennedy was at a point of putting full responsibility on South Vietnam for winning their own war and completely pulling out all U. S. aid. In a CBS interview “Kennedy had remarked that it was up to the South Vietnamese whether there would be won or lost. ”(Henretta, 830) History will never know if Kennedy really would have pulled out of Vietnam like he hinted he had plans of doing so.

On November 22, 1963 President Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas Texas. Kennedy’s closest advisors argue that is exactly what he was planning on doing , but we will never know, and to some that argument downplays the stakes of what the Vietnam was really about and what it represented. “The United States was now engaged in a Global War against communism. Giving up in Vietnam would weaken America’s credibility. And under the prevailing domino theory, other pro-American states would topple after Vietnam’s loss. (Henretta, 830) Just as Kennedy inherited the Vietnam War from Eisenhower, Lyndon B Johnson had now inherited it from Kennedy. Although Kennedy may have been planning a full removal of U. S. troops and economic aid. However, it was almost a completly different war than what Kennedy first inherited. Johnson knew by this point that preventing the fall of South Vietnam would take a large scale military force that had not been committed to South Vietnam. This was not an option for Johnson who was a firm believer in global containment. In fact, this was his position upon taking office.

I am not going to lose Vietnam; I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia goes the way China went. ’(Henretta, 835) Johnson was a bit of a sneaky fellow; he kept his foreign affairs out of the limelight, and had a tendency to do the complete opposite of what he said he would do when dealing with the Vietnam War. He did not think the American populous would have the stomach, or the will to do what he ultimately thought was necessary. In 1964, Johnson ran on the pledge that there would be no escalation, and that “no American boys fighting Vietnams fight. (Henretta, 835) Well Johnson being a slick talker, said one thing and did another. In the summer of 1964, Johnson got reports that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had fired on the U. S. destroyer the Maddox. “In the first attack, on August 2, the damage inflicted was limited to a single bullet hole; a second, on August 4, later proved to be misread radar sightings.

The specifics of the ‘attacks’ really did not matter; this is all Johnson needed to sensationalize. A classic strategy used through the military in U. S. military. Whether or not this was a necessary man ever to encourage U. S. involvement in Vietnam a debatable. None the less, Johnson’s request to “take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression” was popularly voted in by Congress. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution gave President Johnson the authority to conduct operations in Vietnam as he saw fit. In 1964 Johnson had successfully put the elections behind him. Now he could really get to work on the American takeover in Vietnam. The escalation took on two forms in 1965 and really got rolling.

The first form of escalation was the deployment of American troops. The Second form was the increased bombing of North Vietnam. In early 1965, U. S. Marines were patrolling the shores of Da Nang, their main objective was to protect an American air base there, but they would soon find themselves in fire fights with the enemy. “By 1966, more than 380,000 U. S. soldiers were stationed in Vietnam; by 1967, 485,000; and by 1968, 536,000. ”(Henretta, 837) The request of more and more troops in Vietnam by General William Westmoreland, commander of the U. S. orces in Vietnam, was a fear that President Kennedy had right before he had died. His comparison of requesting more troops was compared to having another drink of alcohol. “The effect wears off then you have to take another. ”(Henretta, 837) Other than mass amounts of troops being deployed in Vietnam, another type of escalation was in full swing. Operation rolling thunder was a bombing campaign against North Vietnam. The Hoi Chi Minth trail was an elaborate series of trails, bridges and shelters that stretched from North Vietnam, to Cambodia, all the way over to Laos in South Vietnam.

This trail was a specific bombing target in operation rolling thunder. “800 tons a day for three and a half years. ” (Henretta, 837) By 1968, a million tons had fallen on the North Vietnamese! Around twice that was dropped in the south trying to drive out the Vietcong fighters. Americans did not have a true sense of the enemy they were fighting. They thought that this incredible amount of firepower that was dropped on them would break there will. The American strategist also thought that a combination of severe bombing campaigns, mixed with the vast amount of U. S. troops on the ground would ultimately break the will of the Vietnamese and lead to surrender. This would prove to be the exact opposite at the war goes on. The Vietcong prove to be more resilient and adapt to American tactics. The Vietcong began moving their munitions underground and began constructing a network of tunnels. Operation rolling thunder herded the Vietcong’s will to fight as a result. The North Vietnamese proved that they were willing to loose everything to win this war. The Americans did not have the dame convictions in this particular conflict.

This is a classic rule of warfare that the Americans arrogantly ignored because they thought they had significant fire power and numbers. This would take a toll on the average ‘grunt’ on day to day operations. The massive bombing campaigns took a horrific toll on the Vietnamese countryside. After on particular harsh and unusual engagement with the North Vietnamese a commanding officer was quoted as saying “it became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it. ’(Henretta, 837) This was the logic at the time for fighting guerilla warfare.

This was not a conscript ‘grunt’s’ opinion, this was the report of a commanding officer. The bombing campaigns were thought to do more than just remove strategic targets. They were also used to reduce resources to the Vietcong, as well as reduce the amount of available jungle for them to hide in. Chemicals were also used to destroy vegetation. One Chemical known as ‘Agent Orange’ was released to kill vegetation. This chemical was later found to be highly toxic to not just plant life, but to humans as well. Many Vietnam veterans have had serious complications as a result of contact with ‘Agent Orange’.

American policy makers and strategist, as well as Johnson’s advisors were left scratching their heads as the North Vietnamese proved them a worthy adversary. We could just not find a way to win the war. Or could we not find an easy way to win the war? Some argued that a reform in Saigon was necessary to turn the tide of the war. Others argued that America had not fully committed to winning this war with a full scale invasion of North Korea, and possibly a war with China. In my humble opinion, that is exactly what we needed to do if we were over there fighting and dying in the first place.

Otherwise just pack the boys up and send them home. Johnson was ultimately hoping that we would win the war of attrition and hope that American firepower would be the ultimate deciding factor. Johnson was very confident in the beginning years of the Vietnam War. Steady consensus polls showed full American support of the Cold War and the escalation of Vietnam in 1965, and in 1966. However, these numbers began to shift, as the war raged on. American had become weary of seeing nightly news broadcast of American soldiers being killed and seriously wounded.

Journalists began to write about a “credibility gap” and were accusing the Johnson Administration of shielding a lot of the truths of the war. The Johnson administration also began to take a lot of heat from the sheer cost of the war by American taxpayers. “The Vietnam war cost the taxpayers $27 billion dollars in 1967, pushing the national deficit from $9. 8 billion to $23 billion. ”(Henretta, 839) This access of military spending pushed inflation upward. This would end up plaguing the U. S. economy well throughout the seventies. Out of this economic frustration antiwar demonstrations were on the up rise.

At the core of the anti-war voice was a long standing pacifist group known as SANE. SANE, was one of the major protestors of nuclear testing done in the atmosphere in the 1950’s. They gained momentum and were joined by many sets of people. Student groups, clergy, and civil rights activist had all joined the anti-war movement. The movement spread like wildfire and they had grown by enough numbers to put on mass anti-war protest bringing out as many as 30,000 protestors at a time. “Although they were a diverse lot, participants in these rallies shared skepticism about U. S. policy in Vietnam.

They charged variously that intervention was antithetical to American ideals; that an independent, anti-communist South Vietnam was unattainable; and that no American objective justified the suffering that was being inflicted on the Vietnamese people. ”(Henretta, 839) The war raged on and so did the protest. President Johnson through a dice and gambled that the Vietnam War would be a relatively quick victory by the second escalation. There was no such victory to be had been won. Ultimately the unrest of the American people forced the U. S. to withdraw its troops from Vietnam.

Read more

Going After Cacciato

Waking up from the American Dream in Going after Cacciato (Tim O’Brien) What passing-bells for these who die as cattle? Only the monstrous anger of the guns. Only the stuttering rifles’ rapid rattle Can patter out their hasty orisons. (from Anthem for Doomed Youth, Wilfred Owen) Sassoon’s epitaph “All Soldiers are dreamers” at the beginning of the novel functions as a signpost signaling the shape the novel will take. It does not merely deal with brutal horror, it is imagination. Reality and dream, fact and imagination are interwoven.

The choice of Siegfried Sassoon suggests the Great War, the English experience of war, which can be compared to the American Vietnam experience, for it had the same impact: total disorientation and national trauma because of lost values. This novel then deals, in story and structure, with the war experience, but also with the US society’s influence on that war through the ordinary soldier. The common grunt raised the question how to act properly in this horrible situation, in which he even did not know whether his presence was morally justified or not.

Yet he concluded that, although he knew this war was just as insane as any other war, he should not run away from his duty. He stayed in the war, because of his personal obligations to society. Not out of idealism, but merely because his people expected him to. In novels dealing with Vietnam we often see veterans coming back into the American society (like in Caputo’s Indian Country), but here we are confronted with the country itself. The novel Going after Cacciato deals with the journey to Paris an American soldier fantasizes about.

It is November 1968 and Spec. Four Paul Berlin is in his observation tower in Quang Ngai, Vietnam, by the South China Sea, performing his tour of duty, which lasts 365 days for the common grunt, the foot soldier he is. He feels he has come to Nam in another way than soldiers had gone to the Second World War and to Korea. His lieutenant, Lt Corson had been in Korea, and he was looking back to it with nostalgia: “In Korea, by God, the people liked us. Know what I mean? They liked us. Respect, that’s what it was. And it was a decent war (… The trouble’s this: Nobody likes nobody. (p. 134) New were the blindness of war, the inertia, drugs were taking over, the creation of the new word “fragging”, i. e. killing a superiour officer It all illustrated this war was supposed to be different from those wars in which Paul Berlin’s ancestors had fought, with in their mind the American dream. However, Vietnam was not different at all. Soldiers who enthousiastically started their participation in Vietnam, were as quickly traumatized by the killings, as any other soldiers. A war like any other war.

Stories that began and ended without transition. No developing drama or tension or direction. No order. (p. 255) When Paul realizes this, the main question for him is how to determine his own place in it. As he does not know an anwer, the possibility, or rather the necessity of dreaming something else in the face of horror, is brought to Vietnam. He starts to think about Cacciato. This bloke fishes in the world’s Great Lake Country where everybody says there is no fish. He dutifully goes through all the motions and all of a sudden het gets out, and Paul is intrigued.

Paul’s squad is sent to go after Cacciato. They are following the unmarked character and find him more and more almost a holy character, less defined as they go along. Finding him a friendly leader almost, they follow him. From soldier among soldiers, he develops into a friendly symbolical figure pointing the way. The seductiveness of Cacciato leads them on. He sheds his war implements. He is that annoying, different, seperate chap who bounces the ball, who nobody can trace and think of, who does not really exist, he has not even got a first name!

Cacciato, that just fulfills. Going after Cacciato means “going after a dream”, following that dream, but it can also mean “going after to actually get that dream”. Time and time again there is this ambiguity of going on the hunt after Cacciato, or following the Italian on desertion; there is the choice between reality and dream for Paul. Cacciato, who nobody has actually seen, has hit upon an idea which his indeterminance made possible, and it speaks to the imagination. Paul goes after him, catches him, thus completing his mission, but lets Cacciato escape.

Cacciato then leads them through the beautiful high country, through orderly Mandalay, normal Delhi, to a beheading in gruesome Tehran, all the way via Athens to Paris; the change of scenery symbolizes the hope Paul first feels, gradually turning into despair and total confusion. His experiences on the way show Paul that he cannot actually leave the war behind. “Can’t get away from it,” Doc mumbled. “You try, you run like hell, but you just can’t get away. ” “It’s the truth. ” (p. 178) Arrived in Paris and having hugged, outbursts of rain and thunder presage the forthcoming difficulties.

Reality soon makes the squad go and hunt down Cacciato again. Oscar, the streetwise Detroit black, insists on the Real Politik of getting Cacciato to save their own skins from punishment for desertion. They have to arrest Cacciato and abandon their dream, because society expects them to do so. “Oscar’s right,” Doc said, and sighed. “You can’t get away with this shit. the realities always cath you. ” “But maybe. ” “No maybes. Reality doesn’t work that way. ” (p. 275) Paul Berlin is not ready yet to stop Cacciato and lets him escape again. Choosing reality and turning his back on the dream are, however, close at hand.

In the promotion scene Paul remembered himself answering questions to a committee that scared the living daylights out of him. “Why do we fight the war? ” they asked him, but at the same time the committee told him the answer: “to win”. Very afraid, he repeated this and got the job. Paul then realizes society urges him to do as he is told, and not to think for himself, as society will do that for him. He has to conform and shut up. He knows this cannot be right, but on the other hand his fantasized run for Paris would have been an equally unhappy experience to him in reality.

For fantasy it had been all along. His dream of going after the freedom and peace Cacciato led him to, had all been . The latter dream was dreamt in order to avoid having to solve the dilemma of staying in or running away from the war. He finally woke up from that dream, for now he had found the answer: he had to go through it; trying to escape and fleeing from social obligations was not according to his background, his personality and his beliefs. “I fear what might be thought of me by those I love. I fear the loss of their respect.

I fear the loss of my own reputation. Reputation, as read in the eyes of my father and mother, the people in my hometown, my friends. I fear being an outcast. ” (p. 286) The novel is structured round three elements that are in accordance with the three different activities of Paul Berlin’s conscience: reflection, imagination and memories; he is wondering how people die in the war, he thinks about going to Paris and he stands on guard. The killings of war and their stories are told non-chronologically, as if they happen at this very moment.

Paul Berlin tries to get things straight, tries to get a chronological list of the men killed. He needs order, wants to keep it straight, but he has problems with this. The structure of the novel reflects the structure of any war: it is confusing and without order, sometimes a mess and going in different directions. The hero solves this problem by making up a story himself. It is a story in the third person, told as a reality, told almost as observed by an omniscient observer, who has no involvement; but at the same time we know they are Paul Berlin’s imaginations.

All of a sudden this woman comes up in the he-country of Vietnam; only in imagination a beautiful girl is possible there. By the end of the novel the reader knows that the squad never went after Cacciato any further than the hill, and that Paris only denoted the illusion of seeking the Far West. In reality they had always been in the Far East. The unlimited possiblities of the Imagination, as that of the United States and its American Dream as well, fail in the reality of the Vietnam War.

Berlin, whose name points to the American commitment to saveguard freedom (by setting up the airbridge to the city of Berlin under siege of the Soviets in 1948) finds himself in a situation in which the values, ideals and intentions of the United States no longer have the absolute meaning they seemed to have in previous wars. In Paris, the heart of Western civilization, Paul Berlin lacked the courage to free himself, even in his dreams, and reality took over: No question, it was all crazy from the start. None of the roads led to Paris. p. 203) He has to accept that he and his comrades would be the very deserters, who would flee from the original idea of the American Dream, that told them that the only way if you really wanted to overcome all problems is to keep on trying. Only Cacciato, who with his childish simplicity and innocence, with his optimism and his individual power embodies the mythical American loner, he frees himself from the society that tells him what to do. He is, however, lost, together with these values, in the Vietnam War.

The American Dream had led young Americans into a place where they had no right to go. They were supposed to fight and defeat the Viet Cong to serve the American nation, but in this war, just like in any other, confusion and death were the real victors; the war served no American purpose at all. The lesson Paul learned from the Vietnam War was far from significant: “Don’ never get shot”. “There it is,” said Eddie Lazzutti. “Never. Don’ never get shot. ” (p. 254) He might have learned that back home in the US as well.

So in Vietnam this trail West was a fake one. In Fort Dodge you could build good solid houses, in the wilds of Wisconsin you fraternized with your father who told you, back there, to look for positive things in the war. In Nam, however, there is only the squad, and all of a sudden this “boom”, like in Billy Boy Watkins’ story, the case of the grunt dying of fright. It is the ultimate war story, the story of Vietnam. So Paul starts dreaming his own dream, he rejects the American dream. He nevertheless does not reject reality.

Like Arthur Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter by Nathanial Hawthorne, he does not want to give in to the code of society, but does not want to be lured into the moral wilderness either. He wants to stay part of that society, although he knows its claims are based on air. “… it is this social power, the threat of social consequences, that stops me from making a full and complete break. ” (p. 286) However nasty the war may be, it is better to take part than to be isolated, so Paul Berlin ends his dream, in order to face reality.

Bibliography

  1. Going after Cacciato (Tim O’Brien) Walking Point: American Narratives of Vietnam (Thomas Myers)

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp