NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ever, Nixon faced the problem of emerging social unrest, intensified by his policies in Vietnam. Student activism was at an all time high during his presidency and led to draft resistance and campus protest. While Johnson reacted to these tensions with a sense of betrayal, Nixon responded with the covert determinism that characterized his style. He initiated subversive efforts against left wing organizations, and enlisted the aid of the FBI and CIA to infiltrate such organizations. He organized conservative counter-demonstrations.
And, he continued to use the tensions in America to his political advantage by mobilizing the disaffected white middle Americans. He catered to the right by vetoing national daycare legislation as countercultures and by taking a stance against abortion. He openly criticized the terrorists of the far left and claimed that [t]he time has come to draw the line, ... for the Great Silent Majority to stand up and be counted against the appeasement of the rock throwers and the obscenity shouters in America. (Chafe 416). Ultimately, the legacy of Nixon's presidency was to mobilize a coalition of conservative disaffected middle Americans, many in the Sun Belt the states in the South plus Texas, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona who would later play a significant role in undoing much of the unity that Johnson and his programs had sought to achieve. Despite the vast differences in their domestic policy, Johnson and Nixon's approach to foreign policy, and in particular the crisis in Vietnam, was similar in many ways.
When Johnson assumed office, he initially planned to maintain the policy of the Kennedy administration which was to continue increasing the American presence in South Vietnam without beginning a major escalation. From the beginning, however, Johnson viewed foreign policy as a manner of commitment, honor and courage, a result of his Southern-style politics. Furthermore, he understood the political importance of maintaining a strong stance on anti-communism in order to continue to have support for his favored domestic policies. Finally, he subscribed to the domino theory that a failure to stop the takeover of South Vietnam by North Vietnam would raise the possibility that all of Southeast Asia would be lost to the communists. For these reasons, Johnson began to authorize secret sabotage missions in Vietnam by ordering the bombarding of coastal bases and sending guerrilla teams into the north.
After he had determined that America should begin a more aggressive campaign in North Vietnam, he seized the occasion of the North Vietnamese attack against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin in August, 1964 to push Congress to pass a resolution authorizing Johnson to take all military action necessary in Southeast Asia. However, Johnson achieved this broad statement of Congressional support by manipulating the facts of the Tonkin attack and by lying about his true objectives. After this event, Johnson began to severely escalate American troops involvement in South Vietnam. He initiated a massive bombing campaign in the North in February 1966, and escalated the presence of American troops in the region. He began to take the war very personally, viewing it as his war being fought by his boys, with his helicopters and his guns. (Dallas). He refused to listen to criticism and concern by his advisors, and would shut out from political debate all those who disagreed with him.
As with his domestic policy, Johnson focused on maintaining the appearance of unity and consensus, despite serious tensions in his administration concerning the appropriate course in Vietnam. He misled the public about the success of the increased American mission in Vietnam, despite the fact that private reports indicated that the bombing attacks and enhanced mission had failed to affect the resolve of North Vietnam. Johnson became obsessed with winning the war in Vietnam and engaged in a policy of committing even greater resources in the fact of negative evidence. In order to increase the troops in Vietnam from 75, 000 to 125, 000 in 1965, he lied to the American public and told them that he could do this without increasing taxes or calling upon the reserves.
By 1967, 14, 000 American troops had died in Vietnam and fifty-seven percent of Americans disapproved of Johnsons handling of the war. Johnson ended his presidential term bitter and frustrated by the emerging criticism of his policy in Vietnam. He felt betrayed by the American people, and he refused to believe that America could not achieve its will with such a little piss-ant country. (Chafe 291). Superficially, Nixon's foreign policy in Vietnam departed from Johnsons.
Upon taking office, Nixon was publicly committed to ending the war in Vietnam (although, he did this in large part based on political necessity, which explained the initial basis for Johnsons policy as well). Nixon came up with the Nixon doctrine in which he argued that the South Koreans would have to exercise more self-help. Under this proposal, American troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam, and the United States would provide funds to support the takeover of fighting responsibility by the South Vietnamese forces. However, like Johnson, Nixon had private objectives about the war in Vietnam that he was determined to achieve, even if it meant concealing facts and lying to the American people and even to his chief advisors.
Privately, Nixon devised a secret plan to escalate the war in Vietnam and to convince the North as well as Russia and China that he was capable of deploying nuclear weapons if provoked. Like Johnson, Nixon shut out all advisors who disagreed with his plan, including the State and Defense department. He relied primarily on Henry Kissinger, his National Security Advisor, to execute his plans. Nixon conducted a massive bombing raid with Kissingers assistance against the communist bases in Cambodia, without the knowledge of the American public.
Nixon's need to prove himself to America and to the elite policy advisors who were criticizing him led him to begin to push more publicly for increased American efforts in the region. When he decided to send American troops into Cambodia in 1969 to destroy the headquarters of the North Vietnamese, he attempted to rally the public with courageous rhetoric like that Johnson had repeatedly relied on. Like Johnson, he viewed the war in Vietnam as a test of personal strength and honor. He stated: We will not be humiliated... It is not our power but our will that is being tested tonight. (Chafe 397). The raid in Cambodia was not successful and resulted in massive public protest both in the United States and internationally.
But it did indicate to North Vietnam and Russia how far Nixon would go to achieve his plan. For the next two years, Nixon continued to withdraw troops while engaging in repeated acts of military intimidation. His final secret strategy involved a massive bombing raid of North Vietnam during Christmas week 1972, in which troops devastated hospitals, residential areas and factories. One week later, North Vietnam agreed to a peace accord that was acceptable to the South. Although Nixon is credited with ending the war in Vietnam, 40 % of the U. S.
casualties in the Vietnam War and half a million enemy casualties, occurred during his presidency. Like Johnson, Nixon conducted much of his policy in Vietnam in secret and without acknowledging the disagreement of the American public. Both Johnson and Nixon's personal view of their efforts in Vietnam, and their refusal to lose that war for personal reasons, resulted in casualties of American and Vietnamese soldiers on a catastrophic scale. At least superficially, the presidencies of Lynn B. Johnson and Richard Nixon shared little in common. Johnson operated in a domineering fashion, achieving consensus through fast talking and manipulation.
Nixon worked in isolation, and executed his will through a few chosen advisors while shutting out the rest of his administration. Domestically, their policies were radically different. Johnson sought to unify the countrys many divisions through activist civil and social legislation, while Nixon sought to exploit the divisiveness in America to gain the support of alienated white middle class Americans. Johnson will be remembered for escalating U. S. involvement in the Vietnam war, while Nixon will be remembered for ending that war.
Despite such differences, however, Johnson and Nixon shared a fundamental willingness to achieve their own agenda despite public protest or the criticism by their advisors. Both were driven by insecurity and the need to prove themselves, and this led them to rely heavily on duplicity and outright deception to achieve their will. Their presidencies are remarkable examples of the effect that one mans will can have on shaping the course of American history. Bibliography:
Free research essays on topics related to: southeast asia, north vietnam, war in vietnam, american troops, vietnam war
Research essay sample on War In Vietnam Southeast Asia
