The Vietnam War debate and the Cold War consensus

dc.contributor.authorProctor, Patrick E.
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-13T14:42:40Z
dc.date.available2014-11-13T14:42:40Z
dc.date.graduationmonthDecember
dc.date.issued2014-11-13
dc.date.published2014
dc.description.abstractBoth Presidents Johnson and Nixon used the ideology of military containment of Communism to justify U.S. military intervention in Vietnam. Until 1968, opponents of this intervention attacked the ideology of containment or its application to Vietnam. In 1968, opponents of the war switched tactics and began to focus instead on the President’s credibility. These arguments quickly became the dominant critique of the war through its end and were ultimately successful in ending it. The Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were central to the change of opposition strategy in 1968. For Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin incident had provided the political impetus to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which the administration used as an insurance policy against Congressional dissent. For Congressional dissenters in 1968, inconsistencies in Johnson’s version of the Gulf of Tonkin incident allowed them to undermine the Resolution as a weapon against Congress. For the American people, revelations about the administration’s dishonesty during the incident simply added to grave doubts that Americans already had about Johnson’s credibility; the American people lost confidence in Johnson, ending his Presidency. The dramatic success of this new strategy—attacking the administration’s credibility—encouraged other opponents to follow suit, permanently altering the framework of debate over the war. This change in opposition strategy in 1968 had a number of important consequences. First, this change in rhetoric ultimately ended the war. To sustain his credibility against relentless attack, President Nixon repeatedly withdrew troops to prove to the American people he was ending the war. Nixon ran out of troops to withdraw and had to accept an unfavorable peace. Second, after the war, this framework for debate of military interventions established—between advocates using the ideology of containment and opponents attacking the administration’s credibility—would reemerge nearly every time an administration contemplated military intervention through the end of the Cold War. Finally, because opponents of military intervention stopped challenging containment in 1968, the American public continued to accept the precepts of containment and the Cold War consensus survived until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.
dc.description.advisorDonald J. Mrozek
dc.description.degreeDoctor of Philosophy
dc.description.departmentDepartment of History
dc.description.levelDoctoral
dc.description.sponsorshipRobin Higham Military History Graduate Student Research and Travel Fund
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2097/18665
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherKansas State University
dc.rights© the author. This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectVietnam War
dc.subjectPolitical debate
dc.subjectCold War consensus
dc.subjectMilitary containment
dc.subjectCredibility gap
dc.subject.umiAmerican History (0337)
dc.subject.umiMilitary History (0722)
dc.titleThe Vietnam War debate and the Cold War consensus
dc.typeDissertation

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
PatrickProctor2014.pdf
Size:
2.81 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Dissertation

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.62 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: