Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

History
International Relations
Politics
Vietnam was an undeniable failure for the United States government. Despite expending more than $141 billion, and 56,000 American lives, the world’s largest military superpower was unable to achieve its sole strategic objective: to prevent Vietnam from falling under communist control. Historians are deeply divided over the reasons that led to US defeat. Most attribute the loss to several factors that each played a role. This topic offers an overview of those factors, with careful consideration of the evidence that both supports and refutes each claim as a viable reason for defeat.

Positions

Arguments supporting this position

Details

Context

Questions about the fundamental winnability of the Vietnam War have bounced around academic circles since the 1960s.

The Argument

As soon as America put troops into Vietnam, the war became unwinnable. It enabled the communists to invoke nationalist sentiment, branding the Americans as imperialists, drawing many Southern Vietnamese civilians to their cause. As a result, the communists remained hidden in the South. The South Vietnamese population hid them, fed them, and assisted them where they could. It kept the Americans clutching at ghosts, leaving them totally unable to engage their enemy on their own terms. Lt. Gen. Arthur S. Collins, the troop commander for Central Vietnam from 1970 to 1971, told a historian after the war, “I don’t think there was any way that South Vietnam could survive, no matter what we did for them.”[1] A group of historians labelled the Legitimacists, shared Collins’ view. They assert that victory in Vietnam became unobtainable as early as 1963. When the US helped overthrow Ngo Dinh Diem, it was condemning itself to defeat.[2] Diem was the strongest, most charismatic leader South Vietnam was able to produce. His overthrow caused a power vacuum in the country, which led to instability and ultimately forced the US to commit troops to Vietnam. Diem had a far better understanding of the Southern Vietnamese political landscape than those that came after him. He was also responsible for a period of economic growth and upheld nationalist pride.

Counter arguments

Counter arguments come from two major blocs of historians. The Clausewitzians and the hearts-and-minders. Both believe that the war was very much a winnable war. The Clausewitzians suggest that it was policy failings in Washington that led to the fall of Vietnam. Essentially, lawmakers in Washington misunderstood the nature of the conflict. Their policy reflected a lack of understanding of the war as a war of attrition and aggression. Had they deployed every weapon available, and secured the backing of the American people, the war could have been won quickly.[2] The hearts-and-minders, as the name suggests, believe the only way for the US to win in Vietnam was to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. The army leadership failed to apply effective counterinsurgency strategies. The search-and-destroy strategy only made enemies among the South Vietnamese population. For all America’s firepower, it was their lack of understanding of the local Vietnamese people that led to their downfall.

Premises

No matter what the US did in Vietnam, the outcome would have been the same due to events that occurred before Johnson ever committed ground troops to the country.

Rejecting the premises

In the 1970s, Nixon's narrative of the war rejected the unwinnable war premises. He promoted the "Lost Victory" position, that America threw its chances at winning the war when it lost the public support at home.[1]

References

  1. http://universitypressblog.dept.ku.edu/uncategorized/why-vietnam-was-unwinnable-an-essay/
  2. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24912383.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A336a2930230ac9b5c49c57d7c2354c18

Proponents

Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Monday, 17 Sep 2018 at 17:21 UTC