Why the United States Fought in the Vietnam War
Introduction
History is not very clear about the origin and the rational behind the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. However, the blanket story is that the main reason why the United States entangled itself with Vietnam is because of its defense of its political ideology – democracy (Henretta, p. 32). It was said that the United States had to counter the Communist insurgencies in Vietnam solely because it wanted to reduce and/or eradicate the spread of communism in South East Asia. Hence, it needed to attack Vietnamese communists as a fight against the counter ideology of democracy - Communism.
Communism had been initializing its campaigns in the major countries of Southeast Asia and South America. Thus, the United States was pressured to counter the communist expansion through its military power and its foreign influences (Suri, p. 64). Generally, the traditional nature of the Vietnam War is often divided into two – the ideological (pro democracy and anti-Communism) and counter-insurgency (Vietnamese guerilla warfare).
This paper aims to seek the more rational view regarding the engagement of the United States in the Vietnam War. It seeks to source firsthand and secondary sources which can support the main argument to counter the blanket story as mentioned above. This paper aims to prove that the United States did not fight against communism in Vietnam. On the contrary, the super power engaged itself with Vietnam solely for capitalist purpose. Its agenda were set on the commercial and trade related reasons, more than the ideological ones. This will be expanded and evidenced throughout the paper. The revisionist thesis of this paper supports the contention that the United States involved itself with Vietnam on the pure capitalist grounding and reasons.
The Vietnam for America, For Economic and Security Reasons
In an interview with Robert J. McMahon, specialist in the Vietnam War, Cold War and US Foreign relations, the U.S. political leaders all aimed to secure the capitalist expansion of their nation. Hence, in order to realize this general goal, they pursued an “open door” international policy which inherently means more access to capitals and businesses at the foreign markets. This view is supported by the book, America, Russia, and the Cold War, which emphasized that the origin of the Cold War between the United States and the USSR was mainly on the opening of East Asia to American trading and foreign influences (LaFeber, p. 10).
McMahon asserted that the hegemonic stance of the United States stemmed primarily from its economic motives and expansionist drive. Hence, the opposition to the Communism ideology is primarily because of the notion of the free market economy as hampered by the communist’s idea of communal property. He justified the hegemonic character of the United States in Vietnam as “necessary and rational consequence of a belligerent drive to rule the world.” The United States’ intervention in Vietnam was predictable in seizing up the major economies of the Southeast Asian countries with the threat of the communist at bay. The Vietnam War specialist also explained that the United States’ need for more raw materials, investment channels and the capital linkages from the First World countries to the developing economies can be served by their dominion over Vietnam and its neighboring countries. Specifically, this pertained to the East Asia, particularly the Japanese market (Walker, p. 208). Thus, Washington sent out a collision course with the insurgents and nationalists of Vietnam and then the rest of the Third World countries.
The war and the insurgency in Vietnam, which started in 1959 up to 1975, were supported by Ngo Dinh Diem who was then a puppet government of the United States. He was being funded by the United States because he was supporting capitalism (Xia, p. 83). Ngo Dinh Diem was said to be an incompetent and a rapacious dictator. He set out to institute major economic and social reforms which included a creation of a new South Vietnamese government, accommodation of northern refugees, and a general attempt to develop economic stability within the support of U.S. funds.
In 1961, then President of the United States John F. Kennedy augmented their financial help to the beleaguered South Vietnam (p. 89). This amounted to $US65 million worth of tactical equipment. Another $US136 million was sent by the U.S. government as economic aid. At the end of the said year, Kennedy sent 3,200 US military officers in Vietnam. This number increased threefold in a period of twelve months.
In 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated (p. 90). The real worry of the United States was not just the spread of communism in Vietnam; the super power was great concerned because the fall of South Vietnam to Communism (which America feared would spread throughout the rest of Southeast Asia) would mean the reduction in the surplus markets for their products and services (Ibid.). Thus, they built numerous military bases around South Vietnam. They also sent in more American troops in these Vietnamese provinces.
The U.S. leaders wanted a capitalist Vietnamese president whom they will support for various economic gains. For one, Dwight D. Eisenhower’s term from 1953 up to 1961 ushered the production of war supplies which, in turn, led to the aggrandized military spending (Walker, p. 210). Their involvement in wars which they termed as “containment of the spread of communism” justified this huge spending. Thus, with the expansion of the USSR across European states, the U.S. government maintained their military powers and increased military investments in highly advanced military weapons. As the U.S. extended their help to the war ravaged European countries through its Marshall Plan, this has also allowed the extension of their markets (extra goods and services) to these new lands (p. 211).
The mission of their international relations and foreign policies was to “create a positive environment for other countries to trade with the U.S.” (Henretta, p. 25). The U.S. was also promoting its large corporations. In fact, Morgenthau, the US Treasury Secretary, even said that their country needed a world system wherein the global economic affairs can be smoothly facilitated between countries (Ibid.). Hence, alongside their counter communist activities was the institution of worldwide agencies such as the IMF, World Bank, GATT, among others (p. 29).
Was this significant enough to defend Vietnam? According to McMahon, in hindsight, it was. This was because the U.S. leaders were viewing it with the greatest fear in mind that the USSR will eventually win over Vietnam and the rest of the Southeast and East Asian markets. They needed these countries to supply them with cheap labor and raw materials, minerals, and oil (Ibid.). These were the necessary resources for the American economy to operate successfully. Hence, at the end of the post-war economic development, the major multinational companies of America constituted 20 and 25 per cent of the world’s exports (Suri, p. 62).
They also supplied the Vietnam War with its armistice. This was not just for ideology’s sake but also for profits (p. 65). The US multinationals also headed the global arms trade. They consisted about the majority of the world’s top one hundred arms traders. They also accounted for the two thirds of the world’s leading sales of arms (Ibid.).
The United States’ reconstruction of a worldwide financial agency through the creation of the World Bank justified the need for more capitalist states and hence, the need for fighting communism, especially in developing economies such as those of Vietnam and the rest of Asia and Latin America (Henretta, p. 47). The biggest American banks also led the financial system throughout the world. The petro dollars were utilized by the American private banks and its interests were fuelling the third world economies through foreign debts and the IMF’s financial schemes (Ibid.). Vietnamese economy also shared its part in this through the money sent to them to buy arms and to keep their economy afloat during the Vietnam War. Simultaneously, the country’s commercial enterprises such as their large communications, hotel and services companies, and baking and investment agencies also extended their reach in the said “open markets” (P. 49). Hence, U.S. conglomerates flourished and it paved its way to the Southeast Asian markets to develop.
Great changes happened in the United States during the 1960’s. President John F. Kennedy took an active role in world governance by “meeting the challenges of the new frontiers” (Xia, p. 90). American economy was defined by increased federal spending, especially in military affairs. Military spending was justified by the American presence in Vietnam. While the massive protests against the Vietnam War drew attention, it was evidently the swollen trade deficits such as low-priced and frequently high-quality imports of automobiles, semiconductors and steel which flooded into the United States made the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam. (p. 94).
After the War, the foreign policy of the United States became more pluralist in its position. They left their bi-partisan politics and refrained from intervening in local affairs of other countries. According to McMahon, the United States leaders reaffirmed a greater role as a model nation and a super power and a defender of democracy without having to sponsor dummy governments in its neo-colonies. They also evaluated their military approaches. The U.S. Congress also enhanced its role in international politics in terms of military policies after the Vietnam War.
In 1994, the U.S. lifted its trade embargo with Vietnam. In 1995, President Bill Clinton resumed the diplomatic relations with Vietnam (Ibid.). In 2004, Vietnam became one of the largest trade partners of the U.S. This trade accounted for US$6.4 billion and this was mostly in terms of the products which Vietnam sends to the U.S. In 2006, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit was held in Hanoi. Hence, all started in capitalist motives and agenda and stays the same even up to now.
Conclusion
In retrospect, if the United States was really concerned with the spread of the atrocities committed during the reign of the Communist leaders, it must have sent several troops to relaunch its fight against the Communist terrorism in the reunited Vietnam. In the first place, it has a massive atomic arsenal, extensive conventional forces, and it has the capability to send thousands of military troops in Vietnam and its neighboring region.
Consider the U.S. atrocity after the September 11, 2001 attack and its subsequent launch of a “War on Terror.” In a matter of ideology, it has launched all its might and resources to fight global terrorism. Years back, over the thirteen year war period in Vietnam, more than one million casualties were born in the South, excluding another one million from the North. Less than three thousand were killed in the September 11 attacks yet for the Vietnam War, the United States lost 57,000 soldiers and injured more than 150,000 (Henretta, p. 61). Added to these were the casualties in the neighboring states of Laos and Cambodia which were also affected by the communist containment in the region during the 1960’s.
In the end, there was no ideological integrity on the part of the United States when it suddenly entered into the Vietnam War. The super power left it soon after its bruised ego and fledging economy. Principally, it was the economic motives and expansionist drive of the hegemonic United States which led it to engage in the Vietnam War. It opposes the Communist ideology primarily because of the notion of communal property in communism. Scholars believed that the greedy nature of the United States made their intervention in Vietnam as “necessary and rational consequence of a belligerent drive to rule the world.”
The United States’ intervened in Vietnam to seize up the large economies of the Southeast Asian countries and covet it against the impending expansion of the USSR. They wanted Vietnam and the rest of the Asian countries for their raw materials, investment channels and the capital linkages. They also wanted a link to the East Asian markets, particularly Japan.
War is linked often with capitalism because it is driven by economic motives and forces which inevitably need to expand itself towards more markets abroad. This very nature of capitalism makes it susceptible to bloody revolutions. In the harmless nature of commercial competition, an entity wins over the other through rational elements such as fair play, best criteria, among others. However, greed makes the competition dangerous and this happens when one country wants to rule over some other countries in terms of economic and military power.
Works Cited:
Henretta, James A., ed. Americans History, 6th ed. Maryland: Bedford: St. Martin's, February 26, 2007. Print.
LaFeber, Walter. America, Russia and the Cold War, 1945 -71 (America in Crisis). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Print.
McMahon, Robert. Telephone interview. 25 October 2011.
Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" Journal of Cold War Studies - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92.
Walker, J. Samuel. "Historians and Cold War Origins: The New Consensus", in Gerald K. Haines and J. Samuel Walker, eds., American Foreign Relations: A Historiographical Review (1981), 207–236.
Xia, Yafeng. “The Study of Cold War International History in China: A Review of the Last Twenty Years.” Journal of Cold War Studies. 10 (1). Winter 2008, pp. 81-115.
