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."