"“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” ...

The “Vietnam Syndrome”

Name

Institution

Introduction

The “Vietnam Syndrome” is a term that is used to refer to the general distaste for foreign military intervention that the American people developed after the Vietnam War. The war had started as an effort to stop the spread of communism and their takeover of South Vietnam. However, by 1975 the war ended with the United States troops withdrawing after failing to achieve their objective. Over the 1980s there were biased opinions among the public over U.S involvement in foreign military involvements. The government was also reluctant to deploy troops over the fear that the results would be similar to what happened in Vietnam. The failure of the military in Vietnam was a result of poor military leadership (McMaster, 2018). However, the peak of the syndrome was a result of the poor treatment that the soldiers received after returning home. This was an indication that military involvements would only create more damage than good, and that the United States should resolve to military intervention only as a last resort. The “Vietnam syndrome” has existed among the United States society and institutions, and there is still evidence that the United States is less willing to engage in foreign military interactions as a result of Vietnam.

The United States intervention in Vietnam was a result of noble efforts to end communism spreading across the world. The United States had joined the war in Vietnam confidently owing to its superiority in terms of military and economic power. The objective was to stop the invasion of South Vietnam by the North Vietnamese communists (Duiker, 2018). At the time the United States was joining the war there was a general supportive atmosphere because the American public and political figures believed that it was a noble cause. However, as the war progressed and more American soldiers were killed there was a widespread view that they should withdraw (Duiker, 2018). The families of the soldiers back home called for the troops to be withdrawn with the view that they were dying for an unjustified cause. In this regard, the American public felt that there was no point to lose their people for a war that did not concern them.

After more than twenty years in the war the United States failed in their mission to secure South Vietnam which eventually fell into the hands of the Communists. The United States army lost more than 58,000 soldiers. The Southern communists lost more than eight times this number of soldiers, but their relentless fight still made them the conquerors in this war (McNamara, 2017). The “Vietnam Syndrome” was initially used to refer to the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome that the American soldiers underwent after the war. The soldiers felt that they had undergone a lot of suffering and in the end lost to the under armed and under-equipped South Vietnamese soldiers. After the war there was a general feeling that the United States military had lost its might, and that it might never win another war with a foreign state (Scott, 2017). The result of this was a divided American society where there were mixed opinions about the future involvements of the United States in foreign conflicts. Overall, there was a view among conservatives that the United States should never get involved in military conflicts of the future. This general distaste for war came to be known as the “Vietnam Syndrome”.

The “Vietnam Syndrome” is largely characterized by the suffering of the United States soldiers after leaving the war. These veterans returned home with severe mental problems, and others had been severely scarred in the war. Post-Vietnam syndrome was witnessed as many veterans committed suicide. Others could not support their families since they hardly earned anything from the war. It was observed that the number of veterans who committed suicide after the war is greater than the number of soldiers who died in the war. Most of the veterans became jobless and homeless after the war. Soldiers who were uneducated were not honorably discharged and this made them feel that the war had made them waste their lives, which could have possibly turned out better if they had not gone to Vietnam. These issues largely contributed to the American population having distrust for their government. They felt that they had been betrayed by giving their lives to a cause that had only been an illusion. The government failed to honor these soldiers who also felt discouraged by the fact that they had lost the war (McNamara, 2017). These factors combined created a lot of post-war stress for the veterans. The negative treatment that they received after returning home escalated their post-war stress because they felt that they were not honored for the sacrifices and betrayal they had experienced.

The general distaste for war among the American soldiers and citizens largely resulted from the feeling they had that they had lost the war as a result of poor leadership and organization. In this regard, it was observed that the military could not carry out air strikes without the direct word coming from the commanders. This resulted in many American casualties because they were often left abandoned in hot zones. On the other hand, the North Vietnamese had mastered guerilla warfare and they had a superior knowledge about the landscape and terrain (Scott, 2017). As a result, the United States faced devastating defeats in many instances where they could have won if they had employed better tactics. The reluctance of the U.S. commanders to issue airstrikes was because they did not have clear objectives when entering the war. In this regard, they had hoped that they would be able to convince the North Vietnamese that they could not win the United States. Instead, the opposite happened as the North Vietnamese were relentless and they had a strong obligation to defeat the South Vietnamese. Furthermore, the communist support for the South Vietnamese had a greater motive to an extent that the United States lost due to its failure to work relentlessly in the fight against communism. In the years that followed after the Vietnam defeat, the United States experienced general dislike and hesitated to engage in foreign conflicts over fear that the military was not committed enough to win major wars. This “Vietnam syndrome” is characterized by the distrust that the American people had in the involvement of the government in foreign affairs.

There have been many sentiments made over the reasons leading to the loss by the American troops in Vietnam. A majority of these views points towards the political decisions which undermined basic military tactics. For instance, instead of troops on the ground assessing the best course of actions, they had to follow a strict order made only by the Commander in Chief (DiCicco and Fordham, 2018). This meant that they were likely to be attacked and could not make timely decisions. Other views point fingers to the United States general public who opposed the continuation of the war. The public became opposed to the war as a result of anti-war propaganda which portrayed the war as a massacre without any just cause. The anti-war propagandists strategically overturned the people’s support for the war as they showed images of people killed and wounded in battles. As a result, there were massive protests in the United States calling for the withdrawal of troops (Campbell and Falk, 2015). These factors combined resulted to a general incoordination of the United States in the war and ultimately led to its failure. The period after the war saw people pointing fingers and blaming others for what had happened. This post-war blame game was also part of the “Vietnam Syndrome”.

The “Vietnam syndrome” was felt not only in the social contexts but also in the political scenes. Following the loss by the American troops in Vietnam, among the first political responses was to dissolve the bipartisan consensus since it had supported the country’s foreign policies since the 1940s. The Left movements felt that there was no urgent need for the United States to counter the spread of communism over what it termed as a campaign for democracy and freedom. In this regard, the Left movement felt that the United States should not prioritize interventions which aimed to stop the spread of communism. This was largely a result of the failure to stop the communist takeover in Vietnam. In this sense, the “Vietnam syndrome” was established as a general disinterest in spreading democratic ideologies or stopping communism (DiCicco and Fordham, 2018). This is despite the fact that the United States and its allies had established in the Second World War that communism was not a good social ideal as it promoted oppression and violated human rights. Nonetheless, the loss in Vietnam made the United States hesitant to continue with this course. On the other hand, the Right movement felt no need for the United States to intervene in foreign military intervention for the fear that they would never reassert their position among the world super powers. Overall, the political responses showed a negative attitude towards future involvement by the United States in foreign conflicts.

The United States has made efforts over the past decades to bury the Vietnam Syndrome. Such include President Reagan’s speech urging Americans to support the military programs which would reestablish the United States global power. He made a speech to the Veterans in which he urged them to help the country in changing the attitude which had been created by the Vietnam War (Campbell and Falk, 2015). He also urged the successive administrations to be aware of the military threats posed by countries such as the Soviet Union. In these remarks, President Reagan sought to stress the urgency in which the United States needed to avert the fear for foreign intervention. The United States has over the past made big strides in its military interventions. The involvement in the Gulf War and the Bosnian War are some of the indications that the United States is striving to bury the Vietnam Syndrome.

Conclusion

Although the term “Vietnam Syndrome” was believed to have disappeared by the early 1990’s, there are still some scholars and analysts who believe that the syndrome is still present in U.S politics and among the people. The success of the United States in the Gulf War (1990-1991) led President George W. Bush to declare that the syndrome had been eventually kicked off (McMaster, 2018). The United States has also considerably recovered after the Vietnam War, both in terms of social ideology, politically, and economically. Over the years the United States has significantly invested in expanding its military potential. In this regard, there are massive efforts that have been made to ensure that the mistakes which were made in Vietnam are not repeated. Therefore, to some level it is true to say that there has been a great effort for the United States to recover from the “Vietnam Syndrome”. Still, for the United States people who remember or know about what happened it will always be clear that there are risks involved when the country intervenes in a foreign conflict.

References

Campbell, K. J., & Falk, R. A. (2015). Tale of Two Quagmires: Iraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War. Routledge.

DiCicco, J. M., & Fordham, B. O. (2018). The things they carried: generational effects of the Vietnam war on elite opinion. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 131-144.

Duiker, W. J. (2018). The communist road to power in Vietnam. Routledge.

McMaster, H. R. (2018). Dereliction of duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the lies that led to Vietnam. HarperCollins.

McNamara, R. (2017). In retrospect: The tragedy and lessons of Vietnam. Vintage.

Scott, W. (2017). The politics of readjustment: Vietnam veterans since the war. Routledge.