Vietnam War--The War We Should Have Won

51due论文代写网精选代写范文："Vietnam War--The War We Should Have Won"。本篇论文主要讲述越南战争是美国历史上最不光彩的时期，在越南战争中，美国主要想打击共产主义力量，派遣财政和军事援助，希望阻止共产主义的蔓延，并且错误的使用燃烧弹，伤及更多平民，从而成为了美国有史以来最糟糕的战争。

The Vietnam War is one of the most disgraceful periods in American history. Not only did an almost third-world nation best the greatest superpower in the world, but also the loss was a great one. Perhaps this war could have been won, or even prevented in the first place. The United States could have and should have won this war, with a combination of better weapons usage, better tactics, and better support from their home country. Even years before the war, Vietnam was a hotly disputed territory. Many countries had taken Vietnam over, and after World War II, Vietnam was in the hands of France. Obviously, the Vietnamese wanted their own country, and their long history of being a colony prompted the oppressed people to fight for their independence in the French-Indochina war (Gregory 83). Ho Chi Min, a leader of the Communist party, organized the Vietnamese independence movement, Viet Minh. Asking for support from America first, Ho Chi Min did not want to have to turn to communist support for the freedom of his people (Gregory 114).

Since the United States viewed helping Ho gain his independence from France as a move against their own allies, they declined. It was only after Russia and China offered to help that Ho adopted communist ideals and wanted to make all of Vietnam communist (McNamara 37). The Vietnam war started simply because Ho Chi Min and his communist supporters wanted South Vietnam to become communist after the South split off in 1954 to become its own democratic nation (Gregory 115). The United States saw this as a threat to democracy, and using the Domino theory, successfully threw the U.S. into the one of the worst wars it has ever seen (Brooks 30). If only the United States had looked past its petty alliances and helped another country gain its independence like we had gained ours so many years ago, this war would have been completely avoided. Unfortunately for the families of over 64,000 soldiers, it wasn't (Lomperis 64).

As early as 1954, the United States started sending financial and military aid to South Vietnam, hoping to stop the spread of communism. The flow of 'military advisors' from 700 to over 14,000 built up steadily through John Kennedy's presidency. After he was assassinated, Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the war to the point of no return (McNamara 53-57). Johnson used the ludicrous domino theory to justify the military buildup in Vietnam. American people were so scared of communism by McCarthyism in the 1950’s that they were willing to do anything to stop communism where it started (Becker 27). The people of the United States let Johnson build up a huge force in Vietnam, and he was also almost unanimously backed by congress. If the American populous would have stopped and thought about what they were getting themselves into and not jumped gung-ho into a frivolous war, their representatives wouldn't have felt so pressured to back Johnson (Lomperis 94-98).

In 1964, the event every war-hungry person was waiting for happened. In the Gulf of Tonkin, several VC torpedo boats reportedly fired on a U.S. vessel. 6 Even though the American ship sustained no damages, Johnson drafted the 'Gulf of Tonkin Resolution', which authorized him to use any force necessary to beat back the North Vietnamese (Neal 68). Congress never declared war or even directly authorized troops, but Johnson twisted enough words around to have his own little executive war (Gregory 152). Many warfare tactics brought on by Johnson proved to be wrong and utterly useless. By bombing industry, the U.S. just wasted billions of dollars and precious time and manpower for nothing (Lomperis 104). Also, the bombing of population centers rallied the enemy and brought the North Vietnamese closer together, instead of its actual goal (Becker 72). Napalm was also another mistake. By using a flammable jelly to literally burn up all of North Vietnam, the U.S. not only killed more civilians than soldiers, but also raised several ethical questions. Napalm coated anything it came within reach of, and burned continuously for up to a week. Doctors who treated napalm victims said their wounds would still glow green with heat at night, while the patients writhed in pain. Also, many international scientists and influential people around the world protested the use of napalm very adamantly (Lomperis 133-135).

 By simply thinking ahead, weighing the consequences of using weapons such as napalm and Agent Orange, the U.S. quite possibly could have won the Vietnam War completely through the use of air power. More tonnage of ordinance was dropped in any given week during Vietnam than during all other wars in the history of the world combined. One would think this would make the war easy to win. Unfortunately, ethical problems and lack of planning made it impossible to settle the war in the air, thus forcing the U.S. to invade with ground forces (Neal 78). President Johnson chose General William C. Westmoreland to command the land forces in Vietnam. Westmoreland, a tall, rugged man from South Carolina, was know for his enthusiasm, and for always having good news from the front lines. Westmoreland commanded over 500,000 troops at the peak of the war, and was still unable to crush the Viet Cong, as hoped by most of Washington. 3 There were many factors that contributed to our startling defeat on the ground in Vietnam led by Westmoreland (Westmoreland 117). The first and foremost was the difference in tactics between the Americans and the North Vietnamese. The VC were ruthless soldiers, who, even though sometimes poorly trained, fought with as much drive and enthusiasm as the best-trained soldiers in the world. The VC used something called guerrilla tactics. They would recruit children, tie themselves to trees, use babies as bait for booby traps, and other 'unethical' things. These and other fighting techniques such as strapping explosives to kids and having them run up to soldiers, were a few of the toils U.S. soldiers had to deal with (Westmoreland 134). Also on the tactics side, the entire U.S. offensive consisted of a myriad of 'search and destroy' missions. S & D missions involved a patrol, (usually 10-35 soldiers), going out of the base and finding (then killing) the enemy.

Unfortunately, the booby traps placed by the VC and the fact that they knew the land and could hide, meant the S & D missions were like throwing soldiers away. In fact, more U.S. soldiers were killed from booby traps than any other cause of death in Vietnam (Westmoreland 147-154). Weapons were another problem in Vietnam. Going back to World War II, the massive armored assaults that won the war for the allies were useless in the dense jungle. U.S. armor was limited to using M113 troop carriers with machine guns on them, instead of using the more effective M60 tanks and artillery (Neal 82). So Westmoreland was forced to rethink tactics, as well as use weapons and strategies untested in the history of American warfare (Westmoreland 163). Other difficulties with weapons were rampant. The M-16, a revolutionary new infantry rifle, was prone to frequent jams as well as water damage. In a country when it rains almost every day, that wasn't good news. Also, U.S. commanders underestimated the power of the Viet Cong's weapons, thinking that they only had muskets and bolt-action rifles. Since the Chinese and Russians were supplying the VC with modern AK-47s and other similar arms, the officers were faced with one nasty surprise after another (Neal 107-110). Weapons, though new and advanced, can still have weaknesses, and the battlefields in Vietnam exploited almost all the weaknesses of our weapons.

However, with tactics that could use the strengths and all but eliminate the weaknesses, the ground war would have also been a snap. This shows that relying too heavily on technology and not enough on battle-tested weapons can be downright deadly (McNamara 73). While Johnson and Westmoreland had loads of support at the beginning of the war, the American people started to see that the war was unwinnable; their support began to decline. 1 in 5 of every soldier who fought- and died- was drafted, 1 and this caused distress among the public. Draft cards were burned publicly, schools walked out in protest of the war, and even large music events were held to somehow stop the fighting. With all this public opinion against the war, one would wonder why the fighting continued (Becker 83). Daily firefights, dead comrades, and officers who were fresh were a few of the troubles grunts had to deal with on the battlefield. Mutiny was common, and the amount of soldiers who went mentally insane was higher than any other war. With soldiers who didn't know what they were fighting for and people at home who didn't support you, what else could go wrong' Vietnam vet Rich McGowen stated that fighting in this war was the most traumatizing experience in his life. He was drafted into the war when he was a young man and didn’t have the choice of staying home. He didn’t want to go over seas but was forced. He joined the war late enough to know that no one back home wanted to be involved in the Vietnam conflict. He said, The hardest part of fighting this war was knowing that you’d never be a hero because no one wanted you fighting in the first place.”

Without the support from home soldiers were unmotivated and undetermined to win. The largest reason why we lost the war is very apparent. When one is fighting for a country's independence, and the citizens of that country don't support the efforts, trouble abounds (Brooks 32). The South Vietnamese were not happy about U.S. soldiers being in their country, and it showed. Every day, thousands of South Vietnamese joined the Viet Cong, so the American soldiers never knew who to trust, and who to shoot. Not having the support of the people you're fighting for is the worst curse that can be bestowed onto a military (Becker 97). Westmoreland and Johnson should have figured out the root of the problem before sending more troops, and the problem was that the American weapons were destroying the peaceful farmer's fields and burning their villages. For a people as far away from the conflict and as apathetic towards the war as they were, it is surprising we lasted this long without being forced to capitulate (Lomperis 174-175). The saddest chapter in American history could easily have been avoided, with a combination of good leadership, planning, preparedness, and morale. Perhaps in the future, American soldiers will know what they are fighting for, be equipped for the conditions, and not be thrown mercilessly into the meat grinder of an already-lost battle.-M

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。