Decades after the Vietnam war, Kissinger gives a detailed outline of the happenings of that period
Decades after the Vietnam war, Kissinger gives a detailed outline of the happenings of that period in his Years of Renewal Memoir. In his Memoirs Kissinger, all the decisions and approaches used by the US Army and allies were incognizant of the national interest of a healthy democracy and leadership in both countries. As he recounts, the war was could quickly turn the US a foe or a friend. As the secretary of state, it was his overall duty to ensure the proceedings of the war culminated in a peace settlement and land reforms. He held close talks with the then President of US Richard Nixon to come up with the most comprehensive strategies to engage with Northern rebels of Vietnam as well as the Southerners. They collaborated with the US in their mission to accomplish capitalistic and democratic Government. Through concise and precise prose, he depicts the relentless nature of the American Government to encompass geopolitics on an already liberated land from the chains of communism. Although Northern Vietnam had not fully habituated to the capitalist plan, the South had already familiarized itself with the political inclination and was very collaborative to the US.
Furthermore, the Government could not compromise its morality pact and international codes of conduct by denying the people of Vietnam the right to a democratic country following the annex of the South. The majority of the national security managers of the South were at the forefront, pushing the American agenda. Therefore the reliance of the South on the anti-communism plan was a massive milestone to attaining democracy and capitalism. The peace movement comprised two categories of people, i.e., the Vietnam veterans, antiwar movements in the US. According to Kissinger, the peace movement was a façade termed as a uniting front. The ultimate goal of the Peace movement was to ensure that peace prevailed regardless of the costs. According to Kissinger, the Peace Pact was a raw deal to instigate fear and warn the people of the possible consequences if they failed to comply. In his memoir, he reflects masses channeled their peace plan to the people of Indochina to down their tools and march and fall prey to the communist aggression. On one front, the Peace movement leaders opposed and dismissed the war on both moral and economic grounds while other issued directives that any clashes that disrupted the peace and calm of Vietnam called for unlimited force on regardless of the consequences (US History, 2018-2019). Throughout his memoir, Kissinger depicts the peace movement leaders as dictators clothed in cloaks of morality. The rationale behind the peace movement was biased and did not hold up any of its morality pacts it claimed allegiance.
Backed up by masses of people, the peace movement pioneered the demonstrations across the country and divided people along with age, race, and gender lines. The ultimate goal of the crusades was to weaken Government power and loosen its forces and obsession with acting as the global emblem for the ongoing communist revolution such as the one experienced in Vietnam. The peace movement opposed the use of honor and credibility as a symbol of national pride as there were just empty slogans to coax the Vietnamese people. In essence, the US was entrenched in a vicious cycle of empty slogans and principles of a flawed society continuously embedded in errors that would resort to the same level of destruction. In their view, the US efforts to interfere with communist aggression would only deepen the communist revolution and at a considerable cost. The Vietnamese were worried about the aftermath of the war, such as health problems, post-war traumatic stress, and the rapid decline of the young generation in society. According to the Protestors, it was their responsibility to prevent one of the greatest moral abomination from happening, such as the establishment of the highly glorified “honorable peace” as the outcome of the war. According to Kissinger, the Peace movement reincarnated America’s moral vindication and presumption as a national benchmark for peace and democracy as the leading cause of the distress in Indochina. It out rightly invoked America’s intervention in Vietnam as a symbol of global unity and categorically disputed the nation’s action a show-off of its innate influence and power abroad. The movement distanced itself from any affiliations with the American efforts on the Vietnam war and condemned the national Government for failure to reconsider its commitment. It also criticized Nixon’s morality on using the term “honor” to refer to the nation’s role in the Vietnam war.
Differences in Approach
In his 1967 Riverside Church Speech, Martin Luther King preached about the mounting and escalating costs of the Vietnam war on American society, specifically the black people. In his remarks, he contemplated on the intricate relationship between the Vietnam war and the struggles he and his fellow civil rights leaders had been waging in America for the longest time possible. In his speech, it became increasingly clear that the war in Vietnam was doing more harm than right back home in relevance to his fight for equality and conformity for the black child. The tenacious war began at the time when Martin Luther King had made some breakthroughs and was on the process of pulling out the poor black man from when the effects of the war came crumbling down all the systems in place. In his view, the war was sucking in all the potential skills, money, and men who had the potential to liberate the black community. Perhaps the most tragic revelation in his speech is the ironic representation of black and white people fighting on the same front in Vietnam for a country that has never given equal opportunities back home, such as access to education, healthcare, etc.
On the other hand, Kissinger depicts the war on Vietnam in favor of the national interest of America. Kissinger had a deeply rooted belief that defending South Vietnam from communist aggression would revitalize the global equilibrium of democracy and capitalism and weaken other countries plotting a communist revolution. In his view, the mounting pressure from the protestors to withdraw US troops from Vietnam based on escalating costs and to devastate the hopes of poor people at home was just a façade to a paralyze the Government. He only recalls the social protests and enormous chaos as a get pass for the crusades to abandon the country irrelevant to the fate of the population. In pursuit of the global honor and credibility enacted on the American role in the Vietnam war, Kissinger states that the mass demonstrations acted as solace for protestors to social injustice. Not only did Kissinger believe in the US role in the Vietnam war, but the intrinsic power to stop the communist plan regardless of the horror and destruction the war would have on the people of the US and Vietnam would experience.
According to his speech, Martin Luther King did not base his argument on the lines of capitalism or communism but the basis on the horrifying effects of the Vietnam war on the black community. To some extent, the violence and chaos in Vietnam were influencing the behavior and tendencies of black people. As the wars grew into ravaging force, young people in the streets became more violent as it had become a new norm for their brothers in Vietnam. Martin Luther King talks of the complex phenomenon strategically evolving at an unstoppable force, aiming to bury the youths in the streets in more violence. Martin Luther King did not conform to any geopolitical or social ideologies to weigh the intensity and magnitude of the Vietnam war on the people of America. He delineated himself from any political or social affiliations and based his approach to strengthening the health of American land.
In contrast, Kissinger had an intrinsic belief in capitalism, the political strategy that would strike a global equilibrium. His approach in the war was purely political, and he was obsessed with the power vested in him to facilitate the implementation of the ideologies. Although initially, he talked about the moral regard and his conjoined intention with Nixon not to comprise the anti-communist list of the South, it is presumed he had played a significant role to play in the collaboration of the South to the American word. Despite Kissinger’s attempts to alienate his role in the Indochina tragedy, his powers and influence as national security leader intensified the deflection of the South from the communism. It was evident that the non-communism was the centerpiece of his term in office.
In his memoir, Kissinger is quick to criticize the Protestors and address them facades clothed in a cloak morality for the lack of concern for the Vietnamese people. In essence, Vietnam was an independent country with the ability to make morally upright decisions. For so long, the US had denied acknowledging the credibility and capacity of Vietnam to build a healthy democracy free of communism. The US Government restricted Vietnam the right of Independence for nine years consecutively. For instance, the Northern army, under the patronage of Hanoi, claimed that they were fighting a patriotic war to curtail foreign invasion. After all, the US had denied them movement and access to their own country; in his view, Kissinger was more optimistic that the US was helping the South Vietnamese to build their country. His continuous affiliation to the moral code and sophisticated interpretation of the ethical laws governing America detached him from the realities on the ground. The horrifying and tenacious detachment and remoteness of the national security leader from the facts of the is a complex phenomenon that the Vietnamese people recall with soo much accuracy. In a bid to continue waging ways in Vietnam, the US misinterpreted the Geneve Peace Agreements, Paris Peace Agreements. We vigorously supported the invasion of the France Government, whose main aim was to recolonize Vietnam. In his book Chomsky’s The Backroom Boys details an in-depth analysis of the moral decay entrenched in the US system and the values strategies and methods applied to distance itself from taking account of the tragedy in Indochina. For the longest time, Martin Luther King had viewed the whole recolonization process as just an obsession of power. He opposed the Government’s efforts of controlling already independent country as cited it as the oasis of the “western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere.” The US was in total control of the political scene of the community and had no plans of reuniting North and South Vietnam. The Indochina violence and tragedies occurred at a time when many Vietnamese had hoped for the enactment of land reform and peaceful reconciliation to rebuild their lives. The US vigorously supported the division of the nation based on the varying ideologies shared in the regions. America’s leader of choice misappropriated and squandered government land as the peasants watched in dismay. All while parading leaflets and empty slogans of a peaceful nation while brutally launching missiles and bombs and herding the Vietnamese people to concentration camps of the land of the forefathers. For a long time, the Vietnamese people did not see the change they had for so long been promised and continued to dwell in concentration camps where the social needs were not a point of concern. Ironically, the only difference the Vietnamese experienced was the insurgence of military troops to support the flawed Government system without the masses’ support. Martin Luther King echoed the destruction of the most valued possessions, such as the cultures and traditions of the family and the village. ot Sentiments that would be highly criticized by Kissinger because, according to him, the Vietnamese people were learning a new way of life. From his perspective, the western alliance was abolishing the deep-rooted communist agendas instilled in the nation by the forefathers to create a firm foundation for an Independent Vietnam. But instead, America’s involvement in the war is the oasis of the most severe pathologies ailing the nation today. In his view, the US involvement in Vietnam had far-reaching effects that can never be remedied, such as the destruction of the only non-communist ideology of the unified Buddhist church.
For some reason, the National Liberation Front rallying call for peace and land reforms fell on deaf years. The false hope and violence build up so much hate and resistance for the so-called Liberators. The Backroom stories give a full description of the spite and hate that drove the Northerners to march on to get rid of the foreign enemies cloaked in morality. They were often clashes between the national security leader’s involvement and the national liberation movement as they propelled force shaped as revolutionary ideologies for a healthy democracy. The National Liberation movement rose to power due to the mounting corruption and cruelty of the Deim regime aided by the US troops that turned its people against one another. The abject misery and social chaos inflicted by the “liberators’ as invoked by Martin Luther King Jnr spells the reawakening of the South to fight for their right of Independence and get rid of the foreign enemies. The continuos reference and gratification to the American troop’s mission as credible and honorable contradicted their invocation of “aggression from the north” to connote the whole war. The sentiments mention that the only goal of the US was to repress the North from reuniting with the South. Chomsky offers an image of the United States, as reflected in Vietnam. Through his precise prose, the writer depicts highlights mind-blogging questions that had been echoed by Martin Luther King. In his remarks, he pounded on the thought of the west, accusing the Vietnamese people of the violence. In essence, the US troops under the authority of the national security leaders launched untested weapons of death on their land. As well as offer support to corrupt and inept Government to reign and squander all the properties as the Vietnamese people languish in poverty. It becomes increasingly difficult for the Vietnamese people to trust its Government, let alone a foreign Government. In the eyes, the American Government was sheer evil, perhaps the cruelest nation as a symptom of its international vainglory and presumption.
From the onset of the war, the national security leaders were aware of the limited affiliations to the communist Government. The parliamentary allocations comprised less than 25% of the communist political parties. As evident in Kissinger’s perception of the political analyses of the Vietnamese Government. However, his argument depicted America’s involvement in civic affairs was to reduce the infiltration of the communist, which, in this case, was very minimal. According to Chomsky, the Vietnamese Government viewed this as outright denial of Independence and dictatorship. The national security leaders were aware of the significant antic-communist political party had power in major sections across the country but still denied the paralleled civic organizations their federal right to participate in the national campaign. The people condoned questioned the viability of the free national elections following the censorship and controlled the Saigon press by the military to dedicate the outcome of the national polls. With the elimination of the only party with the needs at heart, it was uncertain what kind of Government the US was planning to form following the general elections. The Vietnamese people had lived in misery as they had lost hope for a sustainable and peaceful settlement as the Government was building on a political myth. The liberators and greed for power were becoming more apparent. The aversion and mistrust continued to blossom between the Vietnamese people and the American Government.
On the other hand, the American military troops continued the tenacious war against the North on a mission to repress their communist agendas across the nation. To the Northerners this the intrusion of the US military troops was the initial breach of international relations and marked the beginning of the war. According to Martin Luther King, the invasion of the US military in support of the Diem regime did not trigger the war up until when the first bombing and the gradual increase od military enforcements that the Hanoi soldiers took up their arms in defense.
An in-depth analysis of the Vietnam war provides a broad contrast on American’s role in Vietnam as per the popular anti-communist agenda versus its national obsession of power and control. With the active support of the national security leaders under the command of President Nixon, the US troops exercised dominion and control most cruelly and devastatingly to the people of Vietnam. Over the years, the ravaging wars caught the attention of civil, clergy, and individual who outrightly invoke social justice for the people of Vietnam with immediate effect. For decades the US participation culminated in political slander and deep-rooted social evils that will forever be in the minds of both the South and Northern Vietnamese.