Term Paper on "Vietnam Every American President"

/>

President Truman supported the French also in the hope of helping them build and reinforce non-Communist nations whose fate depended to a large extent on the preservation of Vietnam (Rotter 2005, Smitha 1999). He saw that a free world in the region would open markets for Japan, the involvement of the U.S. In Vietnam likewise assured the British of the revival of the rubber and tin industries in Malaya, a neighbor of Vietnam. With U.S. help, the French could move on with efforts at economic recovery at home and ultimately retrieve their military forces from Indochina to oversee the rearmament of West Germany. These were the perceived deep-seated motivations of U.S. involvement in Vietnam (Rotter, Smitha).

After the invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson convinced President Truman to increase U.S. assistance to the French (Smitha 2005). The U.S. also recognized France's pupper king, Bao Dai, in Vietnam (Smitha).

President Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)

When the Vietnamese Nationalist Vietminh army won over the French at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were forced to accept the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel and leaving a non-Communist side in the south (Rotter 1999). Then U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower rejected the arrangement. Instead, he endeavored to set up a government there to wrestle control from the French, sent military advisers to train a South Vietnamese army, and operate the Central Intelligence Agency to stage a psychological warfare against North Vietnam (Rotter). In his address at the Gettysburg College, Eisenhower pointed to Vietnam as a free but poor and underdeveloped country with a weak economy where the average individual income was less than $200 a year (1959). The northern part of Vietnam was taken over by communists. He stressed that South Vietnam needed assistance in self-defense and economic growth. The people of Vietnam wanted to thrive and to become self-sufficient. For Vietnam to expand economically, it would need to acquire capital and for this to happen, it should be freed from outside hostility and private investments should be established to infuse capital. Otherwise, it should be given outside loans and grants from more fortunate countries. He emphasized that Vietnam's freedom should first be insured and then its economic problem would be solved. In addition, the military forces in Vietnam also needed support without affecting or destroying the economy of Vietnam. He justified the continued existence of U.S. military forces in Vietnam because of the closeness of Communist military forces in the north. He also said that while Communist guerrillas had been substantially contained, the remaining ones continued to disrupt the overall conditions of the nation. He emphasized the need to equally provide sufficient moral support to the troops so that they would continue to have the hope, confidence and pride needed to ward off the threats of aggressions from within and without the borders (Eisenhower).

He also called attention to the likelihood of communist power spreading to several hundred miles into the free region if left unchecked (Eisenhower 1959). He meant countries in Southeast Asia's then 12 million people and 150 million more in adjacent lands as being endangered. The loss of South Vietnam to the communists strongly hinted at this grave threat to freedom and freedom-loving people. He concluded that national interests required sufficient help from the U.S. government and people for the sustenance of Vietnam's freedom, morale and economic progress and support for U.S. forces for the sake of the continued existence of freedom (Eisenhower).

Upon his assumption as President in 1952, U.S. aid to the French in Vietnam increased and reached 80% in two years' time (Smitha 2005).

President John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)

As congressman from Massachusetts, Kennedy first set out for an extensive fact-finding mission to the Middle and the Far East in 1951 and, on its return, he re-stated his support for all Western efforts for freedom in the regions (Bostdorff an 1994). He stated that if the West did not promptly and appropriately realize their ideal, especially in Southeast Asia, the Chinese Communists could and would dominate the region. He also disagreed to the Frenchs anachronistic colonialist mentality and nationalistic ideals. Instead, he called attention to complex realities in Southeast Asia and that these complexities required particular and concrete policies. He found the French and U.S. policy in the region as lacking in practicality, while he continued to express support for the principle of freedom behind the policy. In 1956, he said that Vietnam was the cornerstone of the Free World in Southeast Asia and the "keystone to the arch (Bostdorff and)."

Throughout his term, President Kennedy roused Americans with the use of idealistic terms to incline them to view Vietnam as the symbol of the very struggle between freedom and communism itself (Bostdorff and 1994). He kept reminding them that the U.S. must do what was necessary to defend and preserve the freedom of Vietnam. He interpreted the Vietnam situation as very unique and complicated on account of the country's history, government, logistics and legal relationship with the U.S. He thus believed that the U.S. must establish pragmatic policies in fulfilling its mission in Vietnam. His pragmatic method consisted of a kind of "technocratic realism" in addressing complexities and expertise. It typically alternated between public problem-solving and pragmatic discourse and emphasized the effectiveness of the practicability of policies. Idealistic arguments established a particular class of things according to principles they held in common or applied to existing classifications. Rhetoric emphasized principles of definition while pragmatic discourse consisted of arguments from cause and effect or consequence. In simple terms, idealistic discourse dealt with enduring principles or defined ideas, while pragmatic discourse dealt with practicalities. President Kennedy raised the concept of Vietnam in a higher moral ground by citing it as just a battleground in the conflict between freedom and communism. He described it as extending beyond "the clash of armies or even nuclear armaments." In a magazine interview in 1963, he visualized nations as actors playing respective roles either on the principle of freedom or that of communism. He said that new nations too would have to make a choice between these two ideological extremes. He insisted that Vietnam was the challenge faced by free nations against the "Communist conspiracy," "the Communist tide," "Communist efforts" and "the Communist advance." He also assessed nations according to those principles they held in common with the U.S. He made persistent and insistent idealistic appeals on the importance of U.S. efforts and intervention in Vietnam and unrelentingly urged all Americans to support its cherished fight for freedom in that country. In New Orleans, he called on citizens to bear the burden of helping freedom defend itself in Vietnam. At the General Assembly of the United Nations, he likewise urged the members to join the fight as free men by standing up to their responsibilities towards freedom. He said they could do so by preserving that country's freedom and by defending freedom as a whole. As for the U.S., Kennedy committed to whatever must be done to succeed in this commitment to freedom (Bostdorff and Goldzwig).

At a news conference on the steel crisis, President Kennedy contrasted those Americans fighting for freedom in Vietnam with executives who pursued private power and profits beyond a sense of public responsibility (Bostdorff and 1994). While recognizing the importance of the steel controversy, he re-emphasized the value of the… READ MORE