Why Couldn’t The United States Bomb its Way to Victory in Viet Nam?

1. What do you think would happen if America had bombed Vietnam the way the military officials planned to? What things would be different?
 

The American military were at a great disadvantage when it entered the war against North Viet Nam and the Viet Cong:  the North Vietnamese and their southern counterparts had been at war against the French during and after World War II.  The Viet Cong had dug in and established ground under Ho Chi Min.  During and immediately after the war when a vacuum of power existed after the fall of Japan and French troops were still interred, the Viet Cong were viewed as liberators from foreign powers.  By the time the U.S. was involved enough in Viet Nam to actively engage in combat, the Viet Cong had infiltrated the south and created a network of underground tunnels, spies and supply lines from the north.  General Curtis LeMay, known for his bombing strategies against Japan in World War II, the Berlin Airlift and for powering up SAC to be a front line command center for nuclear war, believed in total strategic bombing (like Sherman’s total war).  LeMay argued that the U.S. should be bombing North Vietnamese cities, harbors and other strategic targets and that merely severing the supply lines to the South wasn’t enough to win the war.  Because of the political opposition to widening the war in Viet Nam, President Johnson settled for a scaled back offensive.  Operation Rolling Thunder, a strategy of bombing that gradually increased intensity, began in February 1965.  In the aftermath of the carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities and Hiroshima, Americans began to view this type of total war against civilians with revulsion.  While still in its infancy, the idea that strategic bombing should be precise with a view to reducing civilian casualties was being tested.  With the tension between these two viewpoints, Johnson took the conservative approach (to appease the public and out of fear of Chinese direct involvement) in the hope that Operation Rolling Thunder would demoralize the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong.  Quite the opposite occurred.  They viewed the United States as not having the determination to win and dug in deeper.  This was a different kind of war that did not respond to conventional tactics.  Perhaps precision bombing that destroyed the supply lines from Soviet Russia and China would have been effective, but the United States did not have that kind of technology at the time.  Therefore aggressive bombing would have created a large amount of damage.  It could have shortened the war, but it could also have brought the world to the brink of World War III. 

2. Do you believe that if the United States would have bombed Vietnam more aggressively it would have turned into another World War with China, and the Soviet Union?

With the split between China and the Soviet Union that began in 1956, North Vietnam began to drift to the Soviet camp because the PRC pushed Ho Chi Min to accept division of the country.  Both the Soviets and the PRC supplied North Vietnam and the Viet Cong with war materiel and competed with each other for the ideological leadership of communism.  Khrushchev believed that it was possible to peacefully coexist with the West while Chairman Mao Zedong’s attitude was more belligerent.  The United States entered the fray under Kennedy with the supposition that the fall of “democratic” South Vietnam would usher in the “domino theory effect,” and that all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism.  But Mao Zedong viewed the United States as a “paper tiger” that would blow away in the wind by overextending itself.  To this Khrushchev reportedly replied, “but the paper tiger has nuclear teeth.”  In this political climate, all three countries were practicing brinksmanship.  How far could the U.S. go in North Vietnam before the Chinese or the Soviets for that matter, jumped in?  Since Nixon’s bombing in 1972 didn’t trigger the war, is it possible that in 1965 that Johnson could have accomplished the same goal without causing China or the Soviets to intercede?  Probably not. The difference is that in 1965 the United States had not recognized the PRC and would not until Nixon’s historic visit in 1971.  Would the Soviets and China have set aside their differences to defend North Vietnam?  Probably not.  But the Chinese were very aggressive and this was a bluff that Johnson did not want to call.  In addition, losing the political ground gained with the Soviets was something the United States couldn’t afford to do with the delicate three-way balance of superpowers at the time.

3. In the second paragraph Admiral Grant Sharp stated, "Our airpower did not fail us; it was the decision makers." What did he mean by this?

Admiral Sharp was an outspoken critic of the way the administration conducted the war.  He charged Defense Secretary Robert McNamara of consistently disregarding the advice of his military advisors and “[giving] the enemy plenty of time to cope with our every move.”  Sharp was an advocate of decisive offensive airstrikes and believed that holding back gave the enemy more time to regroup and retrench.  There was a real distinction between the scenarios of the bombing of North Vietnam as opposed to ground invasion.  If the United States initiated a ground invasion, China would have become involved on the ground as it had in Korea.  However, China did not appear ready to engage when bombing occurred. Sharpe’s criticisms of United States policy makers was that by restricting bombing, the Viet Cong continued to receive supplies and reinforcements, thus putting American soldiers at more risk.  With sustained air support and cutting off supply lines, in Sharp’s opinion, the war would have been shortened, thus saving the lives of American soldiers and Vietnamese soldiers and civilians. 

4. Even though the US heavily bombed Vietnam, why was it difficult for American forces to subdue the Vietcong? Why, ultimately, did bombing fail to bring victory for the US?

Bombing an enemy is difficult if you have no discreet targets.  The Vietcong were heavily entrenched in the jungle and hidden in villages and tunnels.  Intelligence about their whereabouts had to be completely accurate in to order to effectively root them out.  However, with heavy bombing and the use of chemical warfare (napalm), the number of civilian casualties through bombing was certain to be extremely high.  The civilians were poor villagers who had endured war for decades.  If pro-South Vietnam villagers were bombed and killed by “friendly fire”, surely their loyalty would be undermined and the chances that they would aid and harbor Viet Cong fighters increased.  Targets that can be readily identified, like industrial areas, ports, harbors, cities, were basically off-limits for bombing.  Air strikes became more of a support for ground troops than effective measures in and of themselves.  The only way the Viet Cong could have been subdued by bombing would have been to destroy the civilians that the United States was supposedly there to help.  This is something the American public would not stand for.  The Vietnam War was really a shadow war between the communist superpowers and the United States and neither would back down for fear of losing face with their allies nor engage in total war: the result was a bloody stalemate.  In addition, the Viet Cong would not back down in South Vietnam and used civilians to cloak their activities.  This was not an industrialized country where the conventional bombing tactics used on Germany and Japan that destroyed their infrastructure would be equally effective.  In the heart of Vietnamese jungle, in the shadows where the war was fought, there was no infrastructure.  Only the Ho Chi Min trail and apparently, bombing that was not enough.  The Viet Cong were being supplied by the North Vietnamese government, the Chinese and the Soviets.  Only by attacking the real source of their support could the bombing have been effective against the Viet Cong.  And that act, indeed would have risked World War III.

The Face of An American Hero - Japanese Americans During World War II

On December 7, 1941, Ben Kuroki listened in horror to the announcement that the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor without warning or a declaration of war. Like millions of other American sons and daughters, this second generation American son of immigrant parents went with his brother Fred to the local recruiting office to enlist. The distinguishing difference was that Ben was Nisei, an American born child of Japanese parents. And Ben was ashamed that the Japanese had viciously attacked his country. Ben’s reaction reflected the attitude of the majority of Issei (non-citizen Japanese immigrants) and Nisei (second generation Japanese-American citizens). Eager to prove their loyalty, they enlisted in droves. Still, as a result of President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 1066, Japanese Americans who lived on the West Coast were rounded up and forcibly moved to “relocation centers,” leaving their property and businesses behind. In relocation centers, like Heart Mountain, Japanese American dissenter activists struggled to regain their civil rights. Both the soldiers and dissenters wished to improve their status under the law and gain majority America’s respect for their racial and cultural heritage. In battle, the soldiers proved their loyalty in combat, earned trust and gained respect while the civilian dissenters were (unfairly) viewed as disloyal, untrustworthy and unpatriotic.  A comparison of the two groups during and immediately after World War II American suggests that the soldiers succeeded, while the dissenters appeared to have failed: however, in retrospect, the dissenters succeeded on a different level that was not appreciated until decades later.

Japanese Americans who immediately enlisted in the armed services had the opportunity to prove themselves straightaway, while those on the West Coast (who were interned under the presupposition of disloyalty), fought for their civil liberties in court. During the first two years of the war, soldiers like Ben Kuroki were trained and eagerly sought action in the European theatre. Not so the internees. While the Nisei soldiers were fighting overseas, the internee dissenters were fighting for their constitutional rights. In Hirabyashi vs. the United States, Supreme Court Justice Stone held that racial discrimination was justified since "in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry."¹ Korematsu vs. The United States tested the constitutionality of Executive Order 1066, giving the government the right to exclude individuals of a particular race from areas critical to national defense. Korematsu lost. These quiet battles were being fought in the courts while military battles were being fought by Nisei in the European front. American sentiments were more inspired by wins on the battlefield than legal battles that spotlighted civil disobedience.

During their time in the field Nisei soldiers gained the trust of their comrades in arms through the shared suffering of war while dissenters were looked upon with mistrust and suspicion. The highly regarded 442^nd Infantry Regiment, composed primarily of Japanese Americans, fought with distinction in Italy, Southern France and Germany. Many of the Japanese American troops had families who had lost their homes and businesses and were crowded into cold, poorly built internment camps in desolate parts of the country. In spite of these tribulations, Nisei soldiers were determined to fight for their country and the 442^nd went on to become one of the most highly decorated regiments in the United States Armed Forces. In contrast, the dissenters resisted the draft on principle. They believed that they should not be asked to fight for the rights of others while being denied those same rights themselves. Other dissenters refused to sign a loyalty agreement. Frank Emi was a dissenter at Heart Mountain who “never had an allegiance to Japan, so how could he renounce such an allegiance?”² Mr. Emi and his cohorts in the Fair Play Committee (“FPC”) viewed their acts as patriotic because they were attempting to challenge what they held as unconstitutional laws.³ The FPC leaders were convicted of conspiracy to help draft evaders, but their sentences were appealed and overturned in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Soldiers like Ben Kuroki won the respect of military and civilians alike while dissenters were accused of being unpatriotic for refusing to register for the draft. Mr. Kuroki flew thirty combat missions in the European theatre. His record was such that Secretary of War Henry Stimson overlooked the policy against allowing Japanese American to fight in the Pacific and allowed him to transfer to the 484^th Squadron. By the end of the war he had flown fifty-eight combat missions. Because of his record, the Air Force asked him to travel to various relocation centers in the United States to urge internees to volunteer for military service. At the Heart Mountain center Mr. Kuroki spoke to the internees, encouraging them to enlist. While he was received as a hero by the children, many Issei adults were cold to him, offended by his “American ways.”⁴ The meetings between Kuroki and the draft resisters were tense and members of the FPC wanted to “beat him up.”⁵ The Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) was wildly opposed to the FPC for putting Japanese American loyalty and patriotism at risk. In spite of draft resistance efforts, over 700 eligible Nisei at Heart Mountain registered for the draft. The incidents like those between FPC members and Mr. Kuroki showed dissenters in a bad light.

While the dissenters’ efforts to gain respect and rights under the law may have failed at the time of World War II, perception of the dissenters has changed and their efforts are now appreciated along with those of the Nisei soldiers.  During and after the war the dissenters at Heart Mountain and other relocation camps were dismissed as “draft dodgers,” “pro-Japan,” and “traitors.”⁶ But heroism takes many forms.  Today it is recognized that the dissenters fought racism through court action and civil disobedience and were willing to go to jail for their beliefs. There was no cowardice there, but a shared bitterness of poor treatment at the hands of state and federal government⁷ and determination to fight for their rights as Americans.  In 1988, President Ronald Regan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 that: (1) formally apologized to the Japanese Americans who were interred in World War two; (2) provided for a token restitution of $20,000 for each affected family; (3) acknowledged the injustice of the evacuation; and (4) provided for funds to educate the public about the internment to prevent a recurrance.⁸ The soldiers always were and remain heroes to this day. Ben Kuroki, soldier and hero, became a journalist after the war and an advocate for racial equality. He experienced first-hand poor treatment because of his race and “had to fight like hell for the right to fight for [his] country.”⁹ World War II was fought to defend democracy and defeat tyranny. Japanese Americans fought a two front war, abroad and at home; and through their dignity, honor and patriotism, won both.

Notes and footnotes:

1.       (Gordon Hirabyashi was a University of Washington student for was arrested for a curfew violation; it is believed that he deliberately broke the law to test its constitutionality.)

2.       http://www.amerasiajournal.org/blog/?p=669

3.       Ibid.

4.       http://www.pbs.org/itvs/conscience/resources/for_teachers/college_guide.pdf

5.       Ibid.

6.       http://www.pbs.org/itvs/conscience/resources/for_teachers/college_guide.pdf

7.       (primarily by the State of California, with Washington and Oregon not far behind)

8.       http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/civilact1988.html

9.       http://www.netnebraska.org/about/pdfs/062807_01.pdf

1968 Protests

1968: Year of Protest

1. What was the reasoning behind so many student and youth led demonstrations?

America’s strengths allowed protestors to decry America’s weaknesses.  The reasoning behind student demonstrations was multifaceted.  Peace movements and pacifism were not new to the United States.  Quakers and Unitarians have long held pacifist beliefs.  In 1957 a Quaker led group formed to protest nuclear armaments, the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (“SANE”) and its most prominent member was Dr. Benjamin Spock.  In 1959, a group known as the Student Peace Union (“SPU”) formed along similar principals as SANE.  But SPU was not driven like the Students for Democratic Society (“SDS”) and quietly faded away.  The SDS, founded in 1960, was an offshoot from an older socialist organization.  Their statement of purpose read: “We are people of this generation, bred in modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably at the world we inherit.”  The SDS formed a “New Left” with the goals of civil rights, peace, and universal economic security.  In 1962 the “Port Huron Statement,” adopted at the SDS annual convention, criticized the United States for failing to bring about international peace, discrimination and many other facets of American life.  It advocated non-violent civil disobedience and encouraged “participatory democracy,” all with in the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.  After the McCarthy Era, the political pendulum swung back from the right to the left.  University students were being exposed to socialist ideas.  Young, financially stable, away from their parents’ restrictions, and with no life responsibilities, students were free to explore alternative concepts.  The ideals of the Progressives segued well into the heated platforms of the SDS and young people, told they could make a difference in the world, took to the streets with high hopes.  By 1968, agitators had succeeded in radicalizing students across the country and protests hit their peak. 

While the ideals of peace, economic security and the end of segregation and discrimination are very worthy, the movement had a very dark side.  Violent, terrorist groups, like the Weather Underground, a splinter group of the SDS, emerged that bombed buildings and robbed banks.  Their avowed purpose was to destroy the United States.  The popular culture of the time also glamorized the protestors.  Artists like Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and events like the Woodstock festival promoted the “counterculture” movement.  Dr. Timothy Leary advocated LSD and other psychedelic drugs to “develop a higher level of consciousness” and many popular songs advocated drug use (Jefferson Airplane’s refrain “feed your head” being one example).  Protestors included idealists who sincerely wanted to promote traditional Progressive ideals; socialists who wanted to radicalize impressionable students; emerging minority groups advocating their rights; draft eligible young men; and those who were just along for the ride.  There were groups who decided to form communes and live off the land, animal rights groups and popular music lovers coming to hear their favorite groups support the cause and party.  I believe that Robert Hunter of the Grateful Dead described it best in his lyric from Truckin’: “lately it occurs to me:  what a long strange trip it’s been.”  It was a time where a large number of young people didn’t have to work or go to war and what began as an idealist movement turned into something darker, and the older, war veteran generation viewed their behavior as self-indulgent, subversive and un-American.

2. Why do you think it was mainly students who led these protests? What was the significance in students leading the demonstrations?

Looking back to the post World War II period and the effect that the G.I. Bill had on higher education, it is easy to understand that by the 1960s, the expectation existed that middle class families would have the wherewithal to send their children to college.  Beginning in the 1950s and early 60s, college students had the time and the resources to volunteer as civil rights activists and assisted leaders like Martin Luther King in non-violent demonstrations in the South.  These students took great risks and often were injured as a result of their presence with black protestors.  The effectiveness of non-violent civil disobedience in the black civil rights movement in the South encouraged other groups to form and enlist students to aid them.  Students had the time, opportunity and idealism needed to propel many grass roots movement off the ground.  Young people, raised in comfort and made aware that they were far better off than the majority of the people in the world felt that it was their duty to work for social justice.  After World War II, with decolonization and the power vacuum that existed in third world countries, congress proposed setting up an organization that brought American technology and know-how to non-industrialized countries.  The idea was that by helping to stabilize the economies of these emerging nations, socialist revolutions could be avoided.  Young college graduates with a zest for non-profit service were viewed as the ideal candidates to enlist in this organization.  In President Kennedy’s inaugural address, he challenged Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  When he founded the Peace Corps in 1961, it became a model for global activism.  This idealism evolved from government driven programs to grass root activities organized and promoted by the students themselves.  Many students in the 60s were disenchanted with the Democratic Party and felt that “the Establishment” was not acting quickly enough for them.  Activist students were excited by the idea of organizing for a cause and feeling the clout of political power.  This was a life lesson in politics and the effectiveness of grassroots organization that has its roots in the Progressive movement of the prior century.  In the 1890s, Progressives were middle class men and women who had the wherewithal to donate their time and efforts.  Now, it was students who picked up the banner.

3. How successful were the student protest movements in bringing reform and resolution to issues of the late 1960s, such as the Vietnam War?

The student protest movements were successful in the sense that they generated a great deal of publicity for their cause.  Media coverage and popular culture encouraged student activists to see their protests as an agent for change.  Occupation of the administration building at Columbia and other “sit ins” yielded results and encouraged similar forms of protest by students.  The media coverage helped bring the topic of the Vietnam war to the public.  However, many public figures were also critical of America’s involvement in Vietnam and spread the message through more traditional avenues.  Walter Cronkite questioned Johnson’s administration’s honesty about the depth of U.S. commitment to the war after the battle of Tonkin.  Student demonstrations and affiliation with a multitude of causes such as the anti-war movement, civil rights, women’s rights entrenched the belief that student activism was a powerful tool for change.  Many ideas of the sixties migrated to mainstream culture and have been adopted.  So in the sense that the protests help bring media attention to various political issues, students helped to bring reform.  Yet, it must be noted that when the American public as a whole viewed the injustices against southern blacks, or the killings at MyLai, they went to the polls and made it known they would no longer tolerate these acts with their votes.

4. If you had been a college student on politically active campus in 1968, would you have joined in the protests explain why or why not?

As a student in 1968, my gender would have much to do with my political activism.  I would have been interested in the Feminist and Women’s Rights movement as well as the peace movement.  I would have been a member of the Peace and Freedom party and hoped that when I graduated, I would be accepted into the Peace Corps.  I must confess that I am a “true believer” and that the call to action for social justice begins with one step, one person at a time, and surely a drop of the ocean will become a tidal wave over time.  The assassinations of President Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy would have devastated and discouraged me; the real horror of violence would be made real right before my eyes through the media.  Then the brutal shock of seeing Jack Ruby murder Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy’s assassin, on the television screen would have a profound impact on my views toward violence and I may well have been a pacifist.  As a pacifist, I would have volunteered as a signature gatherer for petitions and attended political rallies, volunteering for favored candidates, like Bobby Kennedy.  I would not have occupied a campus building nor engaged in rioting because I believe that while those activities may have a short term gain, it is wrong to disrespect the property and the persons of others because they hold different beliefs than you.  I would disagree with the New Left in that they appeared to have no room for discourse and believed in an ideology that was as rigid as the “Establishment” they revolted against.  Further, the cultural symbols of many student movements (free love, drug use and hedonism), promoted the loss of dignity of the individual and cheapened relationships between men and women.  It is the same argument here as the one between the Suffragists and the New Woman in the 1920s.  Does the freedom to behave irresponsibly equal equality?  Kris Kristopherson’s lyrics performed by Janis Joplin express the idea so well:  “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”  In conclusion, I would have been politically involved, but not to the degree that many activists were.  Like Dr. Zhivago, I approved of many of their ideals, but for the "wrong reasons."

Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" Speech - August 1963

          I agree with Irina that Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” was very powerful and with her assessment that his use of intelligent language was effective and inspirational.  A statue of the seated Abraham Lincoln provided the perfect backdrop for Dr. King’s seminal speech.  It was a hot August day in 1963 and almost a quarter of a million people, black and white, gathered peacefully to show their support for the black civil rights movement.  Dr. King’s choice of the Lincoln Memorial steps as the podium for his speech was brilliant as the carved face of the great emancipator enhanced and supported the call for full civil rights for black Americans.  His rhetoric, evocative use of language, the cadence and rich literary allusions, together with his fervent delivery make this one of the most powerful speeches of modern time. 

          When I listened to and then read this speech, I felt that there were two distinct parts.  The first part was elegantly written with great precision and use of literary and historical references woven in. Dr. King opened by invoking Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, “. . .Five score years ago a great American . . . signed the Emancipation Proclamation.”  And as Irina points out, Lincoln’s promise had not been fulfilled.  Here Dr. King used the simile of a check, a promissory note or a payment that is long overdue.  He echoes the argument between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois when he states that “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” has no further use when it comes to desegregation and opportunity for education and jobs.  “This sweltering summer of the Negroes’ legitimate discontent” is a play on the opening of Shakespeare’s Richard III [“Now is the winter of our discontent”].  The Old Testament is invoked in “every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight” [Isaiah 40:4].  His exhortation to “continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive” is a core Christian belief.   Dr. King’s use of repetition of the opening phrases “I have a dream” and “let freedom ring” are highly effective.

          The power of this speech, however, is more than a sum of its gracefully written parts.  Dr. King was a Baptist minister and the authority of his conviction and purity of his call for justice surpasses even his impressive rhetoric as he begins the “I have a dream” portion of his speech.  In a cadence that builds with every sentence, he paints a picture of freedom for all Americans, where cruelty and discrimination will be toppled. And when he closes with those beautiful words, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!", it feels like a mighty prayer of thanksgiving to which we all say “Amen.” 

Dwight D. Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex Speech

I agree with Danica that President Eisenhower’s speech was motivational by encouraging the next administration avoid bankrupting the nation through the excessive expansion of military buildup, although I do not believe it was his central argument.  The title itself, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” declares its focus.  Eisenhower was an interesting combination of characteristics that made him an effective president for the mainstream population, though his civil rights record was reactive rather than proactive.  A civilian might expect a former general and war hero to embrace policies that favor heavy military spending, but Eisenhower was a moderate who believed in “the most bang for the buck” [I see a pun in there].  He was deeply concerned with the escalating arms race and as Danica points out, he declared “we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren” [an argument that continues today in the debate about Social Security reform].  While he emphasizes the importance of America’s military establishment, Eisenhower makes a very telling point:  “until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.”  Consider what a shift in world view this represents.  From colonial times onward, America’s view of the world was “no foreign entanglements.”  That view may have made sense when the distance to Europe entailed travel of many weeks.  However, after World War II when Europe was as close as a several hour plane flight, the security America felt because its borders were the high seas, no longer applied.  The technology of transportation had reduced the size of the globe, so that the idea of “foreign” no longer applied to most the world.  With the advent of unmanned missiles that could carry payloads of nuclear weapons, the touch of a button could ignite a weapon of mass destruction that could destroy hundreds of thousands of lives. When the United States declared war on the Axis powers on December 8, 1941, America was militarily unprepared for global warfare. That lack of preparedness in the Cold War could have spelled annihilation for the United States.  Instead of gearing up for war, the United States was now in a constant state of readiness. 

During Eisenhower’s presidency, one out of every ten individuals working in the United States was employed in the defense industry. The growth in federal spending on defense materiel was partially responsible for the enormous population shift to the “Sunbelt” and west coast states.  President Eisenhower was very cognizant of the dangers inherent in an industry that was so closely interwoven with federal policies.  He warned the country against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex [“MIC”].  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplace power exists and will persist.”  This warning from a conservative Republican president (who as a five star general spent over forty years of service in the military) is quite astonishing and is, in my opinion, the heart of his speech.

Eisenhower’s argument in support of his position is logical and difficult to refute.  He points out how insidious the MIC’s influence was on intellectual property and independent research in universities.  His comments showed a great deal of insight and prescience.  Eisenhower’s fears were that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and that public policy could become “the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.”  Of all the statesmen that have called for disarmament, President Eisenhower stands out.  From 1915 to 1953 he served in the United States Army, Five Star General of the Army and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in World War II.  He experienced and influenced the transformation of the American armed forces through two devastating world wars and the threat of nuclear war and had a singular expertise and wealth of experience in all things military.  Because of this, I believe his comments are to be taken very seriously.  And finally, I have to say, after reading the speech and course materials, I have to join in with millions before me to say, “I like Ike.”

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address

           John F. Kennedy, with his first inaugural address, set a whole generation of young people on fire to end poverty, promote social justice and protect the weak from tyranny.  President Kennedy argued that in order to defend liberty, it was imperative for the United States to maintain its military strength so as not to “tempt [our enemies] with weakness,” and thus prevent an atomic holocaust; while simultaneously seeking to negotiate peace by focusing on common “enemies of all mankind.”  He announced to the world that even with the scepter of atomic war hanging over their heads, that “we shall pay any price . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”  Kennedy also invoked the Monroe doctrine by pledging to “our sister republics south of the border” to oppose military incursions in the Western Hemisphere.   President Kennedy reminded the nation that it was entering a new era of scientific knowledge and that with that knowledge, carried a grave responsibility. “For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of life.”  [emphasis added.] 

President Kennedy’s logic is clear.  He appealed to the Soviet Union, not by name, but by implication to:  “explore problems that unite us,” “formulate . . . precise proposals for inspection and control of arms”, “use science to solve the problems of mankind, not destroy it,” let “the oppressed go free,” and create a new world of law, “where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.”  Kennedy mapped out specific and realistic steps to accomplish his goals, and extended his hand to the Soviets, inviting and challenging them to accept his call for international cooperation.

The emotional appeal of Kennedy’s speech is undeniable.  He reminded listeners that they were the “heirs of that first revolution” and the new generation, “born in his century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.”  Everyone, he told Americans, holds the “final success or failure of our course” in their hands; they are soldiers in the war against “tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.”  Kennedy's speech empowered his listeners to take an active part in American goals, to feel loyal, brave and generous.

As America’s first Catholic president, Kennedy's character was perceived as idealistic, patriotic, hopeful, strong and spiritual.  He humbly asked for God’s blessing “and His help,” but reminded Americans that they were part of “God’s work” on earth.  Kennedy echoed the Declaration of Independence when he reminded Americans that human rights come not from the “generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”  In this era of the Cold War where the world feared nuclear warfare, President Kennedy courageously declared, “I do not shrink from this responsibility - - I welcome it.”  Kennedy was a decorated World War II veteran and proved his courage in the Pacific Theatre - his bravery was well known.  The patriotism and hope he demonstrated when he said “I do not believe that any of use would exchange places with any other people and any other generation,” inspired listeners with pride and confidence. 

This document is historically significant because John F. Kennedy inspired a whole generation of idealists.  These words have thrilled Americans since the first day they were uttered: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  His inaugural address set the tone for the rest of his presidency.  The Kennedy Era was a time of political romanticism.  Here was America’s very own “Camelot.”  Kennedy created the Peace Corps that enlisted thousands of idealistic young Americans willing to pick up the challenge to end poverty in our time.  He was dedicated to scientific advancement, made America’s space program a national priority, promoted a strong national defense and commitment to improve the world.  The promise of his inaugural address only accentuates the country's grievous loss when he was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

          Fifty years later, John F. Kennedy's words still have the ability to convince me that our country and its ideals are worth fighting for; not just in wars, but in our daily efforts to contribute to an end to injustice, poverty and tyranny, both on the home front and overseas.  He reminds us that it isn’t what we receive - it’s what we give that defines us as a nation and as human beings.  And that message is eternal.

How Did the GI Bill Transform Education?

1. How did the GI Bill transform higher education?

Although perhaps an unintended consequence, the GI Bill not only transformed higher education, but the entire nation.  When Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, it made education and job training available to over 16 million veterans.  This type of benefit was unheard of.  A college education was thought to be a luxury that only those from wealthy families could enjoy.  Now colleges and universities had to open their doors to middle class students, many of whom had never considered college an option before.  University Trustees had to expand their campuses and programs.  The influx of students advanced the establishment of community colleges that could provide a college transfer program or job training program at the same campus.  It also spurred teachers colleges and gave rise to a growth of the number of college educators.  Once hesitant about admitting veterans, college administrators later commented that the GIs were the best and most dedicated students on campus.  They were older, more experienced and mature, and focused on preparing themselves for better financial opportunities in life.  The GIs were more interested in practical courses like engineering and business and this demand shaped the course of college curriculums in the decades to come.  The GI Bill also gave minorities educational opportunities not available to them in the past, resulting in a more diverse student population.

2. How was the government able to pay for the large amount of veterans attending college and university?

At the end of the war, the government had to revert to a peacetime economy and military expenditures plummeted.  After World War II, America enjoyed an economic boom as it made a successful transition from a war time to a peacetime economy.  The aid program to rebuild the European economy allowed those countries to purchase U.S. goods, further stimulating the economy.  The expense of sending the WW II veterans to college (along with the other benefit the GI bill had to offer) was far less than the cost of the war.  In addition, with a large number of GIs attending college at any one time kept unemployment numbers down.  After veterans graduated from college, because of their education, they were able to obtain higher paying jobs, had more spending money and paid higher taxes.  For every tax dollar the US government spent on veterans, it got back eight.  The upward mobility of GIs enriched the country financially as well as sociologically.

3. Why did the Southern States refuse to grant black veterans the same equal benefits of the GI Bill?

Since GI Bill benefits were administered on the state and local level, southern states with Jim Crow laws still on the books were able to discriminate against black veterans even though under the GI Bill they were entitled to equal benefits.  The separate but equal doctrine required blacks to attend all black colleges and universities.  Because of the large influx of students after WW II, black colleges in the south were quickly filled.  However, this answers how Southern States were able to refuse to grant black veterans the same equal benefits of the GI will.  Why?  The thought that hundreds of thousands of blacks would become educated and compete with whites for professional, middle class jobs most likely was the cause of this continuing discrimination.  It wasn’t until Brown v. the Board of Education broke the chain of “separate but equal.”  That ruling ensured that the federal government would enforce access educational opportunities for blacks heretofore available only to whites.

4. Why do you think this bill only applied to the veterans and not all the other unemployed citizens during the Great Depression?

The bill was enacted to benefit those who fought in WW II and defended the United States.  The Unites States government has always rewarded it veterans to the best of its ability.  After the revolutionary war, veterans received land grants.  After WW I, because of the Great Depression, veterans were not paid their Bonus, a problem that caused protests in Washington D.C.  During the Great Depression, FDR’s New Deal provided as many work projects and aid to the unemployed that the government could afford, but economy was such that it could not provide the level of assistance available after WW II.  By the end of WW II, the American economy was booming and there was no need to extend the GI benefits to the nation as a whole.  The purpose of the GI Bill after WW II was to assist veterans in making the transition from war to peace.  If they flooded the job market, the economy could have been thrown into a recession.  To give veterans job training opportunities ensured not only a more highly qualified employee, but raised professional standards across the country.  And finally, it was a way for America to honor its veterans.  The impact of the bill transformed a generation.