Protesting War: Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam
Abstract
Since the divisive Vietnam experience, U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to intervene militarily in the affairs of other states fearing a negative American public reaction. U.S. involvement in Beirut and Somalia was cut short once there were military casualties, and the use of ground forces in Kosovo was off the table. As President H. W. Bush concluded in 1991, a "Vietnam Syndrome" had taken hold of the public. Bush explained this problem in greater detail: "I don t think that [public] support [for the 1991 Gulf War] would last if it were a drawn-out conflagration. I think support would erode, as it did in Vietnam." Foreign adversaries also have made calculated, strategic decisions on the belief that Americans are unwilling to support protracted, bloody conflicts. This was especially true in Osama Bin Laden's calculus when he declared war on the United States. In fact, in a letter to his chief deputy in Iraq, Al Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahiri, wrote, "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam, and how they ran and left their agents, is noteworthy." So, given that the Afghanistan War has now lasted longer than the Vietnam War, why have Americans not protested to the same degree? By comparing and contrasting the George W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson Administrations, this work examines three possible explanations: supporting war rationale, economic sacrifice, and personal connection.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Oct 27, 2011
- Accession Number
- ADA552582
Entities
People
- George M. Reynolds