Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Virtual JFK
Can a president make a decisive difference in matters of war and peace? Can a president decisively lead his country into war, or keep his country out of war? Or are the forces that drive nations into conflict far more impersonal – out of the control of any single human being, even a president?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I feel that a president does have the power to influence the direction that the nation takes amidst times of war and peace. Ultimately, though, I think that the true driving force behind the path, which the United States pursues in these times, is truly the will of the American people as a whole. In the Virtual JFK film, viewers are given the opportunity to see the presidential policies of Lydon B. Johnson take shape, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Without a doubt, the most critical matter of foreign policy to comprise the Johnson Administration was the Vietnam War. While initially Johnson expressed little concern for the war (in deference to his pursuit of the "Great Society" reforms), he soon began to lead the nation in a different direction, sending a significant number of additional troops to Vietnam. Johnson's commitment to an escalated war effort continued, adopting the military of "attrition." In an effort to hit the communists with more blows than they could handle, Johnson heightened American involvement to over 500,000 soldiers, by the end of 1967. Johnson's policies for American involvement in Vietnam did not proceed unchallenged, however. As the war continued to drag on into the late 1960s, a national antiwar movement steadily emerged. This movement steadily gained support as many Americans sought an end to the thousands of rapidly amounting casualties among American soldiers. The popular sentiment of the American public had such a profound effect on Johnson, that he announced a halt on bombings in North Vietnam, making his first major concession to the antiwar protestors. More significant, though, was the fact that Johnson announced, in 1968, that he would not seek to run for the presidency. As the film alludes, Johnson was tormented by a sense of guilt that originated from a personal responsibility that he felt for the dying American soldiers in Vietnam. Although Johnson had steered America toward a heavy involvement in Vietnam, it was really the American people who acted as the driving force behind change. Had Johnson been the decisive force in matters of war, he may well have sought to extend his administration and pursue heavy involvement in Vietnam. Instead though, soon after Johnson's presidency had ended, Richard M. Nixon ascended to the oval office, where he promptly requested the withdrawal of over 150,000 American soldiers. Therefore, I feel that the popular sentiment of the American people truly steered the direction of United States war policy in Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that a decisive president can make a difference in matters of war an peace, but in some cases, only to an extent. The forces that drive war, as repeated in the documentary have a domino effect and as one piece is set into motion, a series of unstoppable chain reactions follow. A president can play a role as far as the extent to which these series of events affect the nation, but even with that power, a president, jut like the rest of the nation is to some degree vulnerable to the products of the chain reaction. However, with this being said, it is important to mark the difference of a president's role in war and peace as far as offensive and defensive situations. Wars like World War I and World War II were wars fought out of necessity. The forces that culminated in the war were to large to be ignored. For that reason, I classify those two wars and the majority of other wars fought in US history as defensive wars. On the other hand, is the Vietnam War, what is in my opinion, an offensive war. It is in this type of war where the president has total control in matters of war and peace, and it is in this specific example, that I believe the government instigated war. The situation in Vietnam was a civil war in which the US had not obligation to become involved in, however the US took offensive actions and what followed was a series of unfortunate events that characterize the extent of a president's power in matters of war and peace, but only under "offensive" circumstances versus defensive ones.
ReplyDeleteI believe presidents play an enormous role and can make a difference in the matters of war and peace through their decisions. John F. Kennedy was one of the few presidents during this era that was strongly against war and the use of nuclear weapons. Through John F. Kennedy's decision making, the U.S. was able to prosper and were becoming a better nation. Kennedy was trying to make the nation a better place, for example, funding more money to schools to let kids have a better education. John F. Kennedy was able to make wise decisions throughout his presidency, for example, not going to war, which helped the nation prosper. However, Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson came to power. During Johnson's presidency, he decided to intervene in the Vietnam War and sends troops into Vietnam. Supposedly Johnson and the government decided to go to Vietnam because they believed Vietnam was threatened with communism and the U.S. did not want communism to spread in Vietnam. Johnson's decision to intervene in the Vietnam cost the lives of thousands of Americans. Even when numerous Americans were dying and the U.S. was losing in the war he decided to send even more troops in. His decisions during the Vietnam War tormented him and caused his health to deteriorate. If John F. Kennedy was alive during the Vietnam War, the U.S. would not have intervened and thousands of Americans would not have died.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a president can make a decisive difference in matters of war and peace. If you look at the presidency of JFK it is very clear to see what his motives were. He wanted to avoid war. He had put no actual soldiers in Vietnam at all in his presidency. All he had was 500 military advisors. It was clear that he saw no need to engage war in Vietnam and the people agreed with him. But that all changed after LBJ took office after the assassination of JFK. LBJ dramatically increased the military presence in Vietnam. LBJ was even warned of the consequences of going to war but ignored them and the people tell him. The reason for the increase of military presence while not solely the responsibility of LBJ much of the blame rests on his shoulders. He against the will of others increased military presence. Even in the face of large anti war protests in the nation LBJ continued to increase military presence. While the anti war protests might have made little steps it never came close to ending the war in LBJ’s presidency. Against all these forces LBJ led the nation into war. While I do believe that enough force from the American public could have pulled America out of Vietnam this was not the case. I believe that the public having the final say in matters of war and peace is a highly unlikely scenario but a possible one nonetheless. But in most cases the president will lead the nation into war or peace.
ReplyDeleteI do think that, though the scope and effects of war are often bigger than one man, the president does have a large impact on matters of war. Comparing the presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson, its not hard to argue that depending on whether Kennedy had lived or died, two very different actions would have been taken in Vietnam. My father, a college student at the time, describes both Kennedy and Johnson in favorable terms, but when asked he says that he blames Johnson for the war in Vietnam. As he has said, "Johnson was an aggressive man, and I truly believe that if he had not been in office we would not have fought in Vietnam". Going away from the example of Johnson, Kennedy and Vietnam, the position of president is a dangerous and personal one. Though there are many factors in any decision the president makes, along with people and systems in place to solve any problems these decisions may cause, at the end of the day we have handed over the keys to the most powerful position in the world to a single man and trusted him to make a decision. Thinking back to FDR and Kennedy, it is impossible to say that the man and the president were two separate entities, as their personalities were as much a part of their presidencies as there actions, which bear the mark of their personalities quite strongly. Though the power rests in the people, we willingly give up that power to an individual who we trust to lead us, and ultimately, in decisions of peace and war, it is his decision which path he will go down with us in tow.
ReplyDeleteThrough the documentary it is clear to me the large influences president has concerning episodes of war and peace. As the Virtual JFK movie shows, JFK had a completely different perspective on sending in military forces than LBJ had. Even when the situation in Vietnam continued to deteriorate, John F. Kennedy made the choice only to send military advisers and no ground infantry. All this changed however when LBJ came to office after Kennedy's tragic assassination. LBJ sent large waves of soldiers to Vietnam and as the losses and costs of the war escalated, so did our commitment to the effort. It was clear that these choices were not inevitable, as many in the political spectrum argued against getting our men tied up in that jungle quagmire which we did not fully understand. If we had another man in the oval office it is quite possible that the Vietnam War would not have happened as it did, and American and Vietnamese lives would be saved. JFK for example, following a long pattern of trying to minimize direct involvement, may not have done what LBJ did. Undoubtedly, outside forces play a huge role in pushing nations into war, for example the terrifying threat of German domination in Europe and the collapse of our allies I believe would have forced any leader of the United States to enter the war. Vietnam on the other hand, was no World War; Vietnam was a war of choice and it took the actions of a certain president for it to turn out the way it did.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a president can indeed make a huge difference in matters of war and peace. As the chief executive the president is the ultimate decision maker. For instance, Kennedy had a present, but more subtle influence on the conflict in Vietnam as he pushed for South Vietnamese generals to overthrow Diem's regime. Lyndon Baines Johnson heightened the executive influence as he sent military advisors into the region. His decision to carry out the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution resulted in the mass sending of troops. He implemented a much more aggressive policy than Kennedy. Vietnam was largely Johnson's war: his decisions completely influenced its course, which resulted in his fall from popularity. Often the forces of conflict are out of a president's control, but it is in his power to decide what to make of these forces. A president can drive or avoid a war, as we see in the difference between Kennedy and Johnson.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a President can indeed make a great difference in matters of war and peace. President Kennedy established an extremely consistent pattern in his decisions concerning foreign policy: avoid direct conflict whenever possible. JFK, under extreme pressure from advisers, opted not to push further and possibly initiate a direct conflict with Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion; it is certain that the U.S. would have certainly reinforced the attack had Kennedy not acted. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's constant steering of Executive Committee meetings was essential to the prevention of a much larger conflict. President Johnson used his power similarly for the reverse cause; Johnson exploited the minor Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to provide and ironclad reason for further involvement in Vietnam. Although there are inevitably factors out of the President's control that heavily influence decision making, the President, as it has been proved, should he act with conviction and intelligence, has the ability to greatly sway the tidings of war.
ReplyDelete