Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
August 7 marks the anniversary of the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, in my estimation, perhaps the most impactful event in American history since WWII. The Johnson administration and the DoD essentially sold the country out to the 'military-industrial complex' Eisenhower had warned about (though it grew significantly during Ike's administration and he waited until his farewell to bring it up). In addition to increasing the US entanglement in Vietnam's civil war (US troop presence jumped from 23000 to 184000 between 1964-1965 before peaking at over half a million in 1968), the resolution absolved Congress of the necessity of using its constitutional authority to declare war, a condition that has continued to this day. While the War Powers Act requires some Congressional commitment, since 1964, the executive branch has wielded enormous power over the deployment of the military, a trend that started with Korea and has continued since.
The US Naval Institute published an analysis of declassified documents about ten years ago, and concluded that the administration pushed the resolution despite knowing its justification was based on a false narrative. One wonders how American foreign policy might have developed without it. The war in Vietnam was happening anyway, though the level of US involvement and the precedent of Congress yielding its authority has led to numerous consequences.
I'm too young to remember the passing of the resolution, but I would love to hear commentary from people who do. I'd also like to know if people think I am overestimating its impact on the course of history.
I was five years old when it passed.
When you say there was a "false narrative" to the Resolution the answer is not as simple as you think.
American ships were patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 to conduct surveillance of North Vietnam. Undoubtedly, they were obtaining intelligence in this fashion. North Vietnamese vessels violated a cardinal rule of dealing with ships of a foreign power. They got within range of an American destroyer, the U.S.S. Maddox. The destroyer fired on the North Vietnamese vessels. What happened next is undisputed. The North Vietnamese vessels fired guns and launched at least one torpedo at American vessels. This could certainly be seen legitimately as an act of war on the United States.
Where the whole episode gets murky is a few days later on. The same American vessels were still patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin. A radar man believed the North Vietnamese were attacking again and relayed this to his commanding officer. Visibility was apparently limited. In any event, there was a belief that the ship was under attack again. Many shells were fired at alleged "targets". Finally, when the shooting stopped, those aboard American ships began to question whether they had really been under attack a second time. The answer is they probably were not. The ship's crew probably misinterpreted information they were fed by radar and other means. However, this was not clearly understood until much later.
There is no question President Johnson used the situation as an excuse to obtain the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from Congress. However, before one starts blaming Johnson or others its important to understand exactly what happened. American vessels had actually been attacked on one occasion by North Vietnamese ships. In other words, the Johnson Administration exaggerated events, but did not make them up.
I don't think there is any doubt that even without the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that America was headed to war with North Vietnam. Commitments had been made before Johnson was president to help defend other nations against communist aggression. The idea that Ho Chi Minh and his followers were simply using the identity of "communist" to obtain support from Russia and China was not understood. Communism was seen as a huge monolithic entity that was determined to destroy the nations of the free world. There was a belief that only the USA had the military force and prowess to prevent that from happening.
The Vietnam War routinely comes up as a topic in this forum. While America should have avoided this conflict and there was a certain mendacity to many statements by our government, still the origins of the war are complex indeed. I think given the hysteria about communism in the 1950's and early 1960's and the commitment of the USA to defend the world from it that avoiding this war would have exceptionally difficult for any administration. Vietnam was like a train coming down the tracks at full speed. Perhaps, it could have been stopped, but I have difficulty imagining how.
I have read much over the years about the war. It is a very difficult historical subject to wrap your mind around. It is why I am reluctant to extend too much blame to anyone for it.
I largely agree, except about Johnson's level of culpability. He was quoted as saying, "Hell, those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish" a couple of days after the second incident, not much later. He knew what he was doing, especially in an election year.
I had a fish named Stockdale.
I chose that name because a fish has a 15 second memory and Admiral Stockdale began his acceptance speech with the line "Who am I?..... Why am I here?" The admiral was startled when every broke out in laughter. He did not intend to be funny.
I recalll him in the VP debates. When asked a question, he just sat there with his eyes shut. When nudged, he said "I'm sorry -- I turned off my hearing aid".
April 30 1975. Watching the news. How many of you remember. The thoughts and memories running through your mind ? Lots of emotions.
I couldn't watch it. To this day when I see a news item about it.. I cannot watch or read it...…..
My thoughts? I feel ashamed we betrayed the south Vietnamese...…….
I largely agree, except about Johnson's level of culpability. He was quoted as saying, "Hell, those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish" a couple of days after the second incident, not much later. He knew what he was doing, especially in an election year.
Johnson was nothing if he was not a "bull****ter". However, this is one of those things that again shouldn't be simplified. Being a "bull****ter" means one exaggerates. It does not mean one is totally wrong. I think Johnson's motives were good ones in the sense that he really believed he was defending America and South Vietnam from communist aggression and that if it wasn't done in Vietnam it would have to be done somewhere closer to the USA. He undoubtedly believed that waiting would cost even more American lives. Johnson and those around him had come of age in World War II and one of the lessons of that war was the need to stand up to aggression sooner rather than later. He won the upcoming election by a landslide. I doubt the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution made the difference.
Plus, North Vietnam had actually attacked American ships. It was only the second attack that was in question.
It was not until Watergate, ten years later in 1974, that Americans really began to question the office of the presidency and presidential powers. In Johnson's era, it was sort of understood that the President ran foreign affairs and sometimes he might have to do something that was unsavory to protect the country. In retrospect, it is clear that view was flawed. However, we make a huge mistake trying to judge past actions through a prism or lense relevant only to today. I think even Johnson recognized his mistake prior to dying in 1973. In 1964, it was far from clear.
Johnson was nothing if he was not a "bull****ter". However, this is one of those things that again shouldn't be simplified. Being a "bull****ter" means one exaggerates. It does not mean one is totally wrong. I think Johnson's motives were good ones in the sense that he really believed he was defending America and South Vietnam from communist aggression and that if it wasn't done in Vietnam it would have to be done somewhere closer to the USA. He undoubtedly believed that waiting would cost even more American lives. Johnson and those around him had come of age in World War II and one of the lessons of that war was the need to stand up to aggression sooner rather than later. He won the upcoming election by a landslide. I doubt the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution made the difference.
Plus, North Vietnam had actually attacked American ships. It was only the second attack that was in question.
It was not until Watergate, ten years later in 1974, that Americans really began to question the office of the presidency and presidential powers. In Johnson's era, it was sort of understood that the President ran foreign affairs and sometimes he might have to do something that was unsavory to protect the country. In retrospect, it is clear that view was flawed. However, we make a huge mistake trying to judge past actions through a prism or lense relevant only to today. I think even Johnson recognized his mistake prior to dying in 1973. In 1964, it was far from clear.
Good point. Understanding history requires us to consider what people knew at the time they made the decisions they made. The memories of WWII were something that Johnson and all his staff, the military leaders at the time, had to consider, how trying to "sit that one out" resulted in a harder fight with a stronger Axis than they would have faced say in the late 30's.
Things would have been better for the US if leaders at the time had taken a harder look at the South Vietnamese government, which was hardly a paragon of virtue.
I do agree with Jeffdoorgunner, though, that the US leadership in 1975 more or less betrayed the South Vietnamese *people*. I think Theodore Roosevelt said something about staying out of a fight if you can, but once you decide to get into the fight, you fight to win, and you don't quit.
It would be great if we could elect some leaders who are willing to really look objectively at any proposed or postulated use of military force, and figure out if the use of military assets has any possibility of success, what "victory" would look like, what the objective is, what the "exit strategy" is. I'm not going to hold my breath though. I think a level-headed analysis would have kept us out of Vietnam, and out of Afghanistan as well for that matter.
Final thought. The Founding Fathers vested war-making powers in Congress and not the Executive for damn good reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
