Whys is Nixon Always Blamed for Vietnam?

Question

I am not old enough to know exactly what happened durning the Vietnam Conflict, however, I do know that Kennedy sent the first troops, Johnson increased the conflict to a full scale war, and Nixon began withdrawing our troops from the war. I am curious as to why Nixon gets blamed for all the miss steps for Vietnam from the left, even though Johnson was the President during the main fighting there.

The reason I pose this question is because I can forsee Bush being blamed for blunders in Iraq if a Democrat becomes the next president and brings the troops home. Do you see a double standard? Do you think a Democrat President will be blamed for bringing the troops home to early? Do you think History will judge Iraq the same as Vietnam, Why?

NOTE: During the Nixon presidency troop levels in Vietnam DECREASED each year until wars end. From 536,100 in 1968 to 24,200 in 1972. So please note all answers saying Nixon ESCILATED the war are false.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

Answer 1

To answer your question;

Nixon should not get the blame, he tried to win the war Johnson lost, by trying to bomb North Vietnam to the peace table. Also to destroy the Ho Chi Man Trail that was built during the Johnson years.

Johnson should get the blame since it was he who, buckled to the Democrat Congress appeal to stop bombing and fighting the Vietcong outside of Vietnam (Cambodia, Laos, Thailand) the Ho Chi Man Trail, that led to the eventual re-arming and strengthening of the guerrilla forces in South Vietnam and the "Tet" offensive that changed public opinion against the war.

Eventually this public pressure lead to the complete pull out of Vietnam, and the loss of the war.

To the second part of your question;

If we pull out of Iraq, as Democrats want too. It will be the Democrats who should get the blame since they are repeating Vietnam and have not learned from their mistakes that costs us the Vietnam war.

Answer 2

He is blamed mostly because he was president when the conflict was decided to be lost. He did pull troops out, but slowly, and many of the withdrawls were under cover so the enemy would not find out.

You are correct though that he did more to end the war than anyone, but is the face of the conflict. But this war will not be like vietnam. First, ther eis no draft. So the public in general isnt that insistant on troop withdrawl. The president that ends this war will be the hero, you are right. Nixon did what most others would not have been able to, that is end the war with lies, but saved lives.

Answer 3

of direction Obama would be blamed...he's following the comparable footsteps as GWB...whilst are you adult adult males going to awaken and see the genuine colorings of the two events or any occasion for that remember?. they are the two between the comparable coin one is the Jack @ss on a similar time as the different is the bumbling trunk head. Steven J, you forgot to state that Turkey had missiles dealing with Russia and that there replaced right into a secret telephone call the place Kennedy spoke to Khrushchev approximately dismantling those missile bases in Turkey (If that incredibly ensue it somewhat is yet to be usual). In 1963 they agreed to a "Nuclear try ban treaty". They began with Cuba of direction. you think of this replaced right into a one sided concern? wager lower back. the issue is the unfairness Media we've here, the place we take in spite of they are asserting as fact. The humorous section replaced right into a cartoonist (i've got faith from Britian) drew up Kennedy and Khrushchev arm wrestling sitting on bombs.

Answer 4

Advisors were actually first sent into Vietnam by Eisenhower. There is some difference in opinion over why he did this. It is commonly believed that Ike did this to help the French, but this is not the only belief held. There has been evidence to suggest that we were actually providing arms to Ho Chi Min's Army during this time in an effort to thwart the French and persuade the North Vietnamese into siding with the US over the Soviets.

When this failed Kennedy was president and actually was stuck in the position of either bringing troops home or sending more advisors. Not wanting to get branded a Communist sympathizer, he opted for sending more advisors. Meanwhile the conflict was spreading throughout South East Asia, into Laos and Cambodia. Kennedy felt that the US was getting in too deep and actually was getting ready to bring home our advisors and stick to an economic embargo, when he was assassinated.

LBJ inherited the mess at that point. The public was not fully behind our efforts in Vietnam at this point. So, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured to create a national need to commit the full military resources that the Joint Chiefs felt needed to be used to win a war in Vietnam. Though the goal was much bigger, it was actually intended to open up a front on the Communists in SE Asia (Laos and Cambodia, included). They were still feeling slapped in the face by the Communists after Korea and having weathered the Cuban Missile Crisis--it was time to get on the ***-kicking side of the equation, in their eyes.

Now to Nixon. Nixon campaigned on bring our troops home, if elected president. While troop levels did start to slowly decline--casualties were on the rise. The American public had no stomach for losing our troops in a jungle on the other side of the planet--they wanted them home, and that is why the voted Nixon in. He failed, so the public started to turn on him.

In a lot of ways there are parallels that can be drawn between Vietnam and Iraq. Some would argue that starting a war on false pretenses is the link, and others would argue it is the quagmire of occupation that connects them. I think there are similarities, but they are not the same. It's like saying Coke is like Pepsi. War is war. People die, bad decisions are made, and we get feed the same line of BS to whoop us into a nationalistic frenzy. Who will ultimately be blamed for this mess is left to history and the people who write it.

If a Democratic president wins and starts to bring our troops home 60% of the country will be very happy, 30% will be very mad, and 10% will still care more about who wins American Idol.

You pose your question stating that Bush would be "blamed" for blunders if the next president brings our troops home. Is the answer to saving Bush's "legacy" staying in Iraq forever? Which is more important--Bush's legacy, or the blood and treasure of our great nation? I know which one I choose and why, do you?

Answer 5

Nixon's 'Vietnamization Program' did indeed bring American troops home with the hopes that South Vietnamize troops could take their place. It did not work. Also Nixon did indeed escalate the war in that he carried bombing runs into Laos, Cambodia, and targeted major cities in North Vietnam which brought huge American protests because of the civilian casualties (hence the student riots and killings at Kent State and Jackson State). Nixon does not get blamed for starting the Viet Nam war but he does get blamed for extending and intensifying the war even after he claimed to have a quick solution for the war prior to being elected.

Answer 6

Maybe I live in a hole but I've never heard Nixon being blamed for Vietnam. The US was in Vietnam at the request of the South Vietnam Government to help it fight against North Vietnam which invaded S.Vietnam. On the other hand the US went into Iraq on lies and false pretenses and not at the invitation of Saddam Hussein. We also didn't go into Iraq with enough boots on the ground and that's why we're still there. That's what happens when you have people running a war that know nothing about it. You can never fight a war "on the cheap". You have to have a plan to win the war and then one to win the peace after winning the war. The US had no plan on what to do after winning the war. The Iraqi leaders have proven themselves incompetent and unable to hold their country together because of pettiness. I'm for pulling our troops out of Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan as it was Afghanistan that attacked us and not Iraq. If Iraq starts causing problems then we just bomb them into oblivion.
I'm a Vietnam Era Veteran and am a registered Independent as I prefer to think for myself and not have a political party do my thinking for me. Plus I don't want either major political party taking my vote for granted.

Answer 7

Nixon actually prolonged the war in Vietnam because he thought bringing the troops home would effect his re-election.

Answer 8

If my memory serves me right, we were in vietnam during Eisenhowser's administration although it had not escalated into warfare yet. Some one will correct me if I'm wrong no doubt. There's always plenty of blame to go around concerning the vietnam war but nixon promised to end the war if re elected and did not and that time period was the worst of the war conflict. Bush pretty much owns this war all by himself.

Answer 9

Johnson is blamed for the most part. He escalated the war after trumping up the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Johnson's approval rating on the war was so low, that he withdrew his bid for a second term, and disappeared entirely from public life. Nixon is blamed for not ending the war quickly as he had promised during the 1968 election. He was reelected in 1972 despite the fact that there were still troops in Vietnam. It simply is not true, however, that "Nixon is always blamed for" that war.

It is way too early to worry about a double standard being applied to a Democratic President and Bush. Most of the Democrats are not even planning on bringing the troops home for a few years.

Vietnam was quite a different war from Iraq, and the US got involved for very different reasons.

Answer 10

I think it is because we were in nam through out his term as president where as johnsons term was shorter