From the Horses Mouth In The Belly Of the Beast From One of the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse Think Tank. a/k/a US Army War College.
Michael Pugliese
Vietnam, the Cold War, and Kosovo: Irony and Confusion over Foreign Policy
JOHN A. TOKAR The questions of when, where, and how to employ the nation's military are serious and complex. Not only has the aftermath of the Cold War produced an increasingly intricate foreign policy environment in which the United States is still trying to define its role, but the stakes are high: the lives of America's sons and daughters. James D. Hunter and Francis Fukuyama, in their discussions of "culture wars," do not focus on issues of American military policy per se, and the subject is not one that precisely fits their models of cultural conflict.[1] Nonetheless, while the current ideological debate over the use of our armed forces may not be a "war," it is certainly about war, and Americans are crossing traditional cultural boundaries in their quest to be heard on this topic. The political leadership in the United States is largely composed of people whose current ideology was shaped mainly by events of the 1960s and, in particular, the Vietnam War. The recent bombing campaign in Kosovo not only demonstrated eerie parallels to the beginnings of our nation's long ordeal in Vietnam, but it also exposed a significant rift among our decisionmakers. Interestingly, the opponents in this debate are not coming down on predictable sides of the political fence. No longer are doves and hawks readily identified as either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, left- or right-wing. An examination of the players in this ironic but potentially deadly and world-destabilizing drama illustrates that the culture wars of the 1960s, with their social, economic, and even religious influences, are still shaping the beliefs and decisions of our political and military leaders, and will continue to affect them for some time. Before examining the effects of the "Age of Contradiction"[2] upon individuals currently in positions of political and cultural influence, a broader examination of the Vietnam-era legacy on our society as a whole is appropriate. America's longest war and its most bitter defeat was the source of extraordinary social stresses during the 1960s. The legacy of those times is perhaps not so momentous when compared to other eras of great social strife, such as the Civil War or the Great Depression. What makes the sixties culturally significant is that so many adults in American society today spent their formative years in that decade. Those who fought in Vietnam (either through the draft or by volunteering) compose one segment of the baby-boom generation who remain affected by the war. Their obvious counterparts are those Americans who either actively avoided service (legally or illegally) or who actively protested the war. (Certain individuals will undoubtedly fit into more than one category.) There is a third segment of this generation that is largely forgotten in discussions of the aftermath and legacy of Vietnam. Those who neither fought nor protested the war compose a sizable majority of "boomers." Professor Paul Lyons of Stockton College believes the silence of these individuals during such a tumultuous time in our history is the source of significant guilt, and the persistence of this emotion is still influencing the consciousness of millions of Americans. These people constitute, by no coincidence, much of the large, undecided middle, over which so many of today's cultural warriors are fighting. Furthermore, many Americans from this group are now in positions to shape the circumstances in which our military forces are employed. Understanding the events that helped determine this generation's mindset is important.[3] The Effects of Vietnam As historian David Levy notes, "The quest for the meaning of the Vietnam War, the endeavor to draw instruction from the long presence there, has always been deeply affected by the political views, the social agendas, the personal prejudices of those doing the instructing."[4] It is not surprising that those who debate the continuing legacy of the Vietnam War have often taken positions that are in line with their wartime views. Proponents of large-scale bombing in the 1960s continue to extol its virtues, arguing simply that too many political constraints were put in place for this strategy to be successful in Vietnam. Similarly, advocates of Vietnamization, pacification, or even search-and-destroy missions continue to defend, to differing degrees, the positive aspects of each of these programs. Most supporters of the war continue to argue that the war could have been won, usually blaming our defeat on reasons such as political interference and an unwillingness to bomb North Vietnamese cities or even to employ nuclear weapons. Many of this group felt America should not have become involved in a war it did not intend to win and that once the country was engaged, politicians should have left matters in the hands of the military. For the rest see this URL http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/00spring/tokar.htm