In light of our current topic of Turkey's denial of genocide, the actions of The United States in
Vietnam have been a contentious issue for years, but they too have faded in and out
of the world’s focus. Some scholars insist that the treatment of the Vietnamese
by the American troops can be categorized as straightforward genocide. Others, taking
a more political focus, argue that the killings that occurred were all part and
parcel of the guerrilla warfare and that there were no orders to kill civilians.
The middle ground makes the best argument: the US military definitely committed
crimes against humanity, but the actions can not be classified as genocide due
to lack of intention to exterminate the Vietnamese people.
There can
be no denying that the thousands of civilians killed in Vietnam were not simply
byproducts of war – as the US government insists. The razing of crops and homes
and sinking of civilian fishing boats directly impacted the nonmilitary members
of the civilization and did not do much in the way of deterring the Viet Cong.
It has been argued that the widespread use of poison gas, napalm, and Agent
Orange were intended to impact the Vietnamese military, but the effects were again
primarily on the civilians. The non-specific nature of these chemicals and how
they were distributed (sprayed over large areas of land and over towns) negates
the claim that the harm was meant for the soldiers – the soldiers were
underground or in the jungles, not in the fields or homes of civilians.
Undoubtedly the strongest example of the United States’ criminal actions comes
in the form of the My Lai Massacre; over 400 unarmed civilians (mostly women,
children, and the elderly) were slaughtered in South Vietnam in early 1968. These
civilians posed no threat to the US soldiers and had no will or way to
retaliate to the brutal attack.
Despite all
this damning evidence, the US should not be guilty of genocide (as the War
Crimes Tribunal decided in 1967[1]). The
reason the troops were there was political in nature; the US wanted to try to
wipe out communism in the country – not wipe out the people. Things definitely
got out of hand and the military’s focus wavered, but at no time did the United
States order the unnecessary execution of civilians. By no means should the
United States be let off the hook because the intention was not to exterminate
the Vietnamese; there were multiple instances of crimes against humanity
committed by the US during the war and guilt should be admitted.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the actions taken by the US military and the American state do not fit perfectly within our paradigmatic framework of genocide, I argue that they represent comparable desires and intentions, but on a larger scale.
The first comparison that came to mind when thinking about the U.S. killing of Vietnamese non-combatants was to Stalin’s political purges in Russia. In the case of Stalin’s mass murders, they were meant to unify a state and a national ideology under the banner of communism by cleansing all political dissent from the nation. The Soviet empire grew, annexing large swaths of eastern Europe and cleansing them of those deemed a threat to this new world order. Although the U.S. did not add any states after 1959, there is no question that imperialist patterns, especially ideological imperialism, defined U.S. foreign policy in this time period. I argue that at a time when the Soviet Union was going through an intense period of nation building, and successfully spreading an ideology, the U.S. was going through a similar period of “world building”, attempting to favorably shift the global political climate entirely. Using this framework, we can see U.S. involvement in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, South America, and Vietnam all justified under this same intention of world building, cleansing key locations of any ideological dissent.
Even within the paradigmatic model of genocide, which most would say is the holocaust, this intentionality is mirrored. Hitler himself did not jump to mass murders, but simply wanted “Germany for Germans”. He wanted all the resources, land etc. The U.S. killings in Vietnam were, perhaps not an attempt to eradicate an entire people, but were geared towards accumulating political power and inevitably wealth, and spreading a democratic ideology. The facts of the demise of those who intervened show that genocide is not out of the question in terms of U.S. wartime policies/realities. By dehumanizing the “gooks”, diffusing responsibility and creating a social climate of acceptance, the U.S. government laid the groundwork for genocide in Vietnam. Whether they actually committed one is more contentious.
Although both the U.S. murder of Vietnamese non-combatants and the Soviet killings of political dissidents have both avoided widespread classification as genocide, I think making the connection between the two more evident is important.
I have adhered to the honor code in this assignment
Tom Kearney
Ms. Hay argues in favor of America- she believes the actions performed by the United States in Vietnam do not elicit the label ‘Genocide’. She cites in her post the lack of intent present in our country’s ‘police action’ to label it a genocide, and political motivation for troop presence. Her final point is attacks on the civilians of Vietnam should be punished within the realm of ‘crimes against humanity’, not genocide.
DeleteI must disagree with Ms. Hay‘s assertion. Though the intent was not clear, the effects in Vietnam from the United States interference were disastrous. America stepped out of some sense of moral obligation and political fright, certain of a Domino Theory; if Vietnam fell to communism, the rest of Southeast Asia would succumb to communism too. The U.S. venture into the quagmire that was Vietnam was largely a political exploit to reclaim land for democracy, and suppress the spread of Red Soviet Russia.
Here I compare the Vietnam genocide to the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish. While the Spanish were simply trying to acquire more land, in the process they committed acts that constitute genocide just as Americans did in Vietnam while they were attempting to claim land for democracy. When the Spanish landed they noted the barbarous nature of the indigenous people of the Americas, and went about trying to westernize them. Similarly, the U.S. came to Vietnam to eradicate communism, and westernize Vietnam, and in the process of doing this. In the process of this radical westernization, much Vietnamese culture was lost; Villagers were forced from ancestral grounds and into “protective camps”, there was a mass-movement to the cities for new jobs to accommodate the Americans, Entire villages were destroyed from thousands of feet in the air. Both the Spanish and the Americans responded to resistance with brutal force. Few tribes could withstand the weapons and armor that arrived with the conquistadors. Likewise, U.S. touted the most advanced weapons technology in the world including helicopters, Agent Orange, napalm, and a massive field support network. These world powers were facing enemies significantly less equipped, (The Vietcong were equipped by Russia and China, but still only had a fraction of the resources the U.S. put into the war), and were destroying the lives of many innocent people and with their culture. The intent may not necessarily be clear, but actions such as these should not be hidden behind agendas.
As a U.S. citizen, I would like to believe that there was no genocide in Vietnam. But there are many things I would like to believe about that war. I trust the pictures painted by Michael Herr in Dispatches before I trust any Congressional addresses from General Westmoreland. Both the U.S. intervention in Vietnam and the Spanish conquest of the Americas are hot with the genocidal debate of intent.
I still hold the position that political agenda, or intent is not highly relevant when such a morbid outcome is the result of an action, such as the effect the occupation and the final U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam had on the people’s population, culture, and nation.
I have adhered to the Honor Code on this Assignment
-Dan King