The Vietnam War: Hawks vs. Doves (Adrienne Mitchel)

          During the Vietnam War, America was divided into two opposing viewpoints about what actions the United States should take in Vietnam — one side was the hawks, the other side was the doves.

 

Although public opinion polls in 1967 revealed American citizens were evenly divided on their viewpoint regarding the Vietnam War, the majority of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s political advisers were hawks. Prominent hawks included Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Hawks believed that the U.S. should expand their military involvement in Vietnam for three major reasons.

The first was that protecting Vietnam from communism was more than just protecting the one country; protecting Vietnam meant protecting the whole world from being overtaken by communism. This idea is illustrated in the domino theory, which is the idea that when one thing falls, more things fall, and eventually everything falls. Therefore, the fall of Vietnam would likely result in the collapse of Cambodia, Laos, and the rest of Southeast Asia, eventually spreading throughout the entire world.

The second argument for increasing military involvement in Vietnam was the failure of the Munich Pact of 1938 and thus the failure of a policy of appeasement. The Munich Pact was created to appease Hitler and prevent future conflicts, but ultimately failed by allowing World War II to occur. It was argued since the pact with Germany failed, a pact with Vietnam would also logically fail.

The hawks’ third main argument was that the U.S. had to increase military involvement to prove to their allies that the U.S. was reliable and would stand by them in times of crisis and prove to their communist enemies that the U.S. would do everything it could to prevent their attempts to spread communism.

 

In contrast to the hawks, the doves wanted to end the Vietnam War through negotiation and compromises. Doves, like Undersecretary of State George Ball, did not want to escalate the Vietnam War for three main reasons.

The first was that there was no possible way for the U.S. to win the Vietnam War. Winning a war on enemy turf is difficult, but winning a guerrilla war on enemy turf in a jungle terrain is nearly impossible. Doves referenced the Korean War, which the U.S. fought for three years, achieving nothing and losing everything. They argued that the Vietnam War would be no different from the Korean War if the U.S. were to continue fighting. Additionally, much of the government spending at the time was focused on the Great Society programs. Thus, there wouldn’t be enough money to fund both the war and Johnson’s programs.

The second argument was that involving the U.S. in another country’s war wouldn’t benefit the U.S. The Vietnam War was a civil war, not a global war, so the U.S. had no right to interfere. If anything, the Vietnam War was distracting the U.S from achieving more important goals and solving more important problems.

The doves’ third main argument was that continuing to fight in the Vietnam War would result in China or the Soviet Union also becoming involved. Instead of comforting U.S. allies, expanding military involvement would actually make them more anxious that a major war could erupt in Southeast Asia.

So what do you think? Should America have chosen a policy more in line with that of the Hawks’ or that of the Doves’? Did America have any right in interfering in Vietnam? Do you agree or disagree with the choices presidents during the Vietnam War made?