AFP NOTES 3/27

Lecture 17: The Vietnam War, 1963-1969
US thought that the vietnam was was essentially a proxy war to start
-LIMITED war
US shall 'pay any cost, bear any burden' to ensure democracy around the world

A) Kennedy (1961-63)
Kennedy made the bear any burden speech
-key strategy was 'flexible response'
-this was in contrast to the strategy of massive retaliation
-two-pronged strategy for this
-founded the peace corps, to spread US values to the third world
-founded the green berets, trained to fight in the third world against communism
kennedy thought SE asia was key in the war against communism
-US stakes its prestige on the survival and success of S.Vietnam
big difference between kennedy and eisenhower
-eisenhower thought of vietnam as a military conflict
-kennedy put it into the context of the cold war, politicized it
-kennedy was really reluctant to commit ground forces, sent lots of advisors instead
US is willing to work with basically any sort of government as long as it wasnt communist
-military regimes and coups were supported
-'puppet regimes'
-south vietnamese people weren't willing to stand up for this government
Ngo Dinh Diem
puppet leader, assassinated
-ironically, JFK was assassinated just 3 weeks later
Ngo Dinh Nhu

B) Lyndon Johnson (1963-69)
comes to power after JFK is assassinated
-puts vietnam securely in the realm of US historical response
-'whenever the US had stood firm against aggression, it has been turned back'
-appeasement DOESNT WORK (look at hitler)
Tonkin Gulf Resolution
empowered the president to protect against ANY attack on US or SEATO forces
-SEATO- southeast asia treaty organization
-essentially a blank check for force
-SEATO is NEATO (props to evan)

Sec of Def McNamara
symmetric response was put into play here
-low grade nuclear weapons to be used to defoliate vietnam were considered, rejected as extreme
-meet aggression with matching defense
several things were considered when making airstrikes above the DMZ
-advantage gained by making the strikes
-risk incurred to planes and pilots
-danger of widening the conflict (china enters? oh shit)
-civilian casualties (baaaaaaad pr)
essentially the first time that the white house had micromanaged the war effort anywhere
airstrikes escalated during the war
-25,000 sorties flown in 1965, 108,000 in 67
-63,000 tons of bombs dropped in 65, 226,000 in 67
-scope of strikes escalated as well
-ended up encompassing even civilian infrastructure
-troop commitment shot up as well
-from 184,000 in 65 to 486,000 in 67
unfortunately, graduated response and 'calibration' DIDNT WORK in vietnam
-with the soviet union, perhaps it would have worked against nuclear holocaust
-EXCEPT the VC weren't the soviets
-only calibration and symmetrical response was interpreted as WEAKNESS rather than resolve
-gives the initiative to the VC
VC works out that the US really wants to negotiate
-drags out the conflict as long as possible
-keeps demanding more concessions
-johnson modifies negotiation policies
-starts suspending bombing during negotiation
-refuses to talk to the individual leaders of the national liberation front, waffles here, ends up accepting them as a legit political party
-longer the VC keep up the war, the better the terms are for them
US is locked into old-school strategy of search and destroy
-set piece battles just WERENT HAPPENING
-guerrilla war was just DIFFERENT
Sec of State Rusk
Nat Sec Advisor Rostow
Tet Offensive
VC offensive
-full-scale assault on the lunar new year
-attacked 30 vietnamese cities
-actually controlled one of them for 25 days
-most poignant image was that the US embassy at saigon was actually breeched for a time
-there was a huge loss of confidence and credibility for the johnson administration
irony here was that the Tet Offensive was basically a failure
-the south vietnamese weren't willing to rise up as the VC had expected
-the VietCong was basically wiped out
-N.Vietnamese regular army forces had to bear the brunt of the fighting
-N.Vietnamese are actually LOSING
-the american people didn't perceive it that way, though
-THATS why the US was losing
US general was asking for additional 200,000 troops, denied because the US just didn't have them
Johnson just doesn't run for reelection
the election was essentially a referendum on the war
-democratic nominees were bobby kennedy (assassinated), mcCarthy (lost), and johnson's VP (won the nomination)
-all lost to Richard Nixon. woot republican president
the chief purpose of the US in vietnam was CREDIBILITY
-US credibility as an ally on the international stage
-the problem was the strategy used by the superpowers
-korea, vietnam, afghanistan, etc were not contested because they were important, they were important because they were contested
-this is a problem
-there could not be any incursion in europe
-boundaries are far too clearly defined
-any incursion there would lead to nuclear conflict
-conflicts had to happen in the third world, where the borders were looser
-inspired the 'vietnam syndrome'
-any subsequent war was criticized as 'another vietnam'
-the real irony here was that the vietnam war actually shot our credibility to hell
-confirmed to other rebellions around the world that vietnam-esque tactics would work against the US
-another massive problem was that the s.vietnamese people would NOT stand up and fight for themselves
-korean people would, this is part of the reason why korea wasnt as big a failure
-all the american money POURING into vietnam destroyed the vietnamese economy