The Vietnam War was the critical conflict that altered our “post modern” societal view of what war is really about. Tim O’Brien shows the brutal reality of war to our “post modern” society without adding the propaganda and fluff that our society has come to accept. In our trying times today, Operation Iraqi freedom has supposedly come to an end. With the amounts of embedded reporting, our society has been able to see battles as they occur. The news ran non stop coverage on the war, where T.V.
The large amount of bombs that the U.S dropped on North Vietnam was almost pointless, as the Northern Vietnamese were willing to lose all of those people if it gave them an ultimate victory in the war. To conclude, George Herring and Loren Baritz both had plausible and realistic arguments for what led to the ultimate failure in Vietnam. From over-confidence to lack of understanding, and over confidence, they all played a major role. Without the support of the American people and the amount of money being put into the war, there was a point that we could no longer continue to fight a war that the Northern Vietnamese were destined to win due to our ignorance of their people.
War is not pretty, and it is not for the weak at heart. Images of war should not be broadcast into living rooms live. During the Vietnam conflict this is what happened. Pictures and real time video of our troops being slaughtered during battles of the Tet offensive and the siege of Khe Sahn were sent home for all of America to see (Klein 50-51). Again, war is not pretty and the way you keep morale up is you don't let the public know how bad war really is.
O’Brien has biases too; however, that does not dismiss his firsthand account of the war or the retelling of what he saw years ago. His book is worthy of being considered a historical account of the Vietnam War because he was there, he witnessed the atrocities, he witnessed the loss of life, he witnessed soldiers inability to continue fighting the war and the psychological effect it had on some of them. So regardless of the method of retelling his experience, O’Brien’s account of the war is truly historical.
The guilty media thesis is one that blames the media as to why America lost the war; it was mainly government and military officials who took this view and they were adamant that the war was “lost in the living rooms of America, not on the battlefields of Vietnam.’ It was the first ever televised war with the advancing technologies making it easier to transmit news instantaneously. The reporting of the conflict showed the brutality of war turned the people against it a... ... middle of paper ... ..., The “Uncensored War” The Media and Vietnam, (Los Angeles,1989), p. 106 Carruthers, Media, p. 113 Clarence R. Wyatt, Paper Soldiers: The American Press and the Vietnam War, (Chicago, 1995) p.81 David Culbert, ‘Television’s Vietnam and Historical Revisionism in the United States’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol.8, No. 3 (1988), pp. 259 - 260 Hallin, Uncensored, p.107 Hallin, Uncensored, pp 107 - 108 Carruthers, Media, p. 111 ‘Tet Offensive’, The History Channel website, http://www.history.com/topics/tet-offensive, consulted January 2nd 2014 Culbert, Televisions Vietnam, p. 255 Bruce Southhard, quoted in David Culbert, ‘Television’s Vietnam and Historical Revisionism in the United States’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Vol.8, No. 3 (1988), pp.
Opposing the Vietnam War The War in Vietnam is one of the most controversial arguments in history. The main reason That it is so controversial, is because we lost. Both democrats and republicans argue that the way the war was handled should have been differently. Some ask why bother, the war is over and done with; that there is nothing anyone can do to change it. The amazing thing about history though is that we can learn from our mistakes, and make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
They declared we needed a draft to help supply troops to fuel the war against communism, but in the end the result was the same. The Draft was an unneeded part of the Vietnam War. If the draft would have never been introduced less protestors to the war would have risen and more volunteers would have came forward and sent to Vietnam. When American troops were beginning to be withdrawn from Vietnam, it was not because of a lack of troops, but from a lack of support (Walpole, Andy.). The lack of support and the idea of and unwinnable war was the cause of a slow end to the terrible war efforts.
No spies to be sent, not theories to be established or perspectives to be evaluated. The building of arms and strength of the opposing military could be monitored more easily. The horrible decision to escalate into the Vietnam War may have been avoided. As we sum up the causes of war, one can only see them as excuses for rationalizing the killing of own kind. The lack of world sovereignty, the presence of a nation-state and human nature of individuals can be studied, revised and studied again.
The American government could no longer censor information and was forced to withdraw. To conclude it could be argued that it is pointless that America fights in a world war to prevent massacre and condemns it as a war crime and then itself participates in the massacre of over 300 innocent people at Mai Lai. It appears that America has taken nothing tactically nor morally from previous wars and as the saying goes 'history has a habit of repeating itself'. Vietnam serves as ever-conclusive proof of this statement.
The writers are trying to achieve the views of the officers; they never actually saw mental ill health as serious as it was. They kept sending men back to war whether they had recovered or not. In the first chapter of 'Regeneration' we learn of the 'soldier's declaration' written by Sassoon. "I believe the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it". To other men in war this would be seen as "wrong and wimpish" because men weren't expected to do that, if you went to war you weren't seen as a coward.