In my 18 years of life, I’ve only really heard my parents actually talk about the Vietnam War. In the classroom, it was always mentioned right after the 60’s and the civil rights movement with a long silencing following, and perhaps a fit of coughing afterward and quick change of subject. Even with what I’ve been told about the Vietnam War, all I really know are the phrases “Nixon,” “Watergate,” and “rice paddies.” Mostly, all I know about the Vietnam War was that it was a war without actually being a war. It had all the elements of war, but there was something a little different about Vietnam. It was not the organized war that you imagined and that you saw in the movies. It was full on guerilla warfare. Chaos ruled in the jungles of Southern Asia.
Honestly, I don’t know why the Vietnam War was started. Sure, they had a civil war, but why did the United States get involved? Perhaps it has to do with the USA’s tendency to meddle. I realize that the word “meddle” has a very negative connotation, but that’s not necessarily how I mean it. Think about it: Korea, Israel, Iraq, Vietnam. What is the purpose? To meddle. Sure, we thought Iraq and Iran had WMDs, but did we leave when we found out they didn’t? I’m not trying to criticize. To support a country that is trying to free itself from the tyranny of a corrupt party is an honorable cause, but maybe you need to step back for a minute and rethink what you’re doing.
In light of this revelation, the Vietnam War to me was an honorable concept that was not fully thought through on the part of our government, and now there sits a memorial with 58, 256 names of casualties to remind us of our mistakes.
Here's an amazing site dedicated to the remembrance of the Vietnam veterans. It's all about the memorial. It has pictures, information, and a list of all the names on the wall.
2 comments:
I think that you are exactly right about how the US gets involved in other countries affairs. The involvment in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, the United States military lost many soldiers. In addition to this loss of US soldiers was the extreme loss of life in the countries where these wars took place.
To put Ashleigh's comment on "meddling" into the vocabulary of foreign policy, this is the meaning of "imperialism" (an approach to foreign policy that foregrounds intervention, with the assumption that we'll get something out of it rather than just an interventionist approach, which a government might undertake for strictly humanitarian reasons, like to stop a genocide...).
The opposite policy is "isolationism" -- an approach to foreign policy that maintains boundaries between countries, refusing intervention in the affairs of other countries, except to uphold dictates of international courts or bodies, such as the U.N. (for example, you could still have an isolationist foreign policy and send soldiers to stop a genocide in keeping with a UN initiative or ruling by the Haig, etc.)
Post a Comment