Mosiah Gonzalez

Dr. LeTourneau
English 2010
Vietnam: RW -1
November 18, 2014
As Told by those who Win

1. The American mission in Vietnam was ultimately not justified, and we

should not have stayed there as long as we did because we started to
place resources into the war that should have been used for issues at
home, those fighting in the war were kept in the dark as to what they
were fighting for, the intent and purpose for fighting communism was
not a strong enough reason to fight for so long, and the end results and
outcomes did not justify the means in regards to Vietnam. Americans
caused damage to the Vietnamese that could have been completely
avoided.
2. Audience in relation to itself: I am to target those for the war,
specifically those who believe we were fighting to preserve freedom for
the Vietnamese. I aim to target children of veterans who might be for
the war for no substantial reason, and the young people of my
generation who do not have a stance on the war.
Audience in relation to the subject: The audience will not agree with
my stance that the ends did not justify the means. In their eyes,
communism is something that should be eradicated by any means.
Audience in relation to the writer: I must establish that the cause for
going to war was a noble one at first; however, there is a time to call
things off. The atrocities committed by Americans are not worth the
fight we put up.
3. I like my overall argument that the ethical line was crossed during
this war. I also like the use of primary sources.
4. I need to develop common ground better. Also, I feel that more
historical knowledge on my part is needed in the paper to make my
argument more convincing. It is difficult to argue this, in my opinion,
due to hindsight bias.

Desire to help those less fortunate is a mark of decent human concern.

Currently, there are quite possibly thousands of projects in the works to help people
in developing areas of the world. These efforts do not go unnoticed; some receive
attention from media and can, at times, even appear to be glamorous. Others,
however, are mistaken as wastes of resources that should be triaged and shared
with others who might very well deserve them. The war in Vietnam proved to be an
honorable one at its core. The ideals for why we were there were to be applauded.
How can anyone argue with Thomas Dodd, the senator from Connecticut during the
sixties, who said in 1968 the reasons for our presence in Vietnam are so crystal
clear. . . We are [there] because it is our national interest to assist every nation . . .
seeking to defend itself against Communist subversion, infiltration, and aggression
(Dodd p. 809). This is a noble cause indeed. However, the ends did not justify the
means. It is not the intent of this paper to narrate the war, nor to discuss history.
The aim is to question the moral and ethical motivations behind the time we spent
brutally fighting a war that wasnt ours. The end of the war did not justify the
means. True it is that we went in with noble intentions, but we did not equalize the
output with the input. Americans caused heinous damage to the people of Vietnam,
we misplaced our funds on this war while neglecting troubles at home, and kept our
soldiers in the dark as to whom, why, and what we were fighting.
The intentions of the government of America were noble in that they aimed
to stop the spread of communism. After Viet Minh established ties with communist
China in 1949, the eyes of the American government turned in support of France,
which, at the time, had control of the territory of Vietnam. One issue that casts
doubt on our involvement in the fight of Ho Chi Minh and his communist followers
2

and those against him was whether or not this was our fight at all. The White Paper
Aggression from the North: The Record of North Vietnams Campaign to Conquer
South Vietnam was published by the U.S. Department of State and argues that this
was indeed morally justified because in Vietnam, a Communist government has set
out deliberately to conquer a sovereign people in a neighboring state (Dept. of
State p. 825) or, in other words, this was two countries fighting each other. But was
this sufficient enough reason to involve ourselves in this fight? Truth be told, this
was a civil war, and not one nation against another, as the White Paper reports.
Vietnam had always been one nation, and Minhs declaration of independence from
the French was evidence that he acted on behalf of the people of all Vietnam. Now,
though many Americans were anticommunism, the fact that we went to war with a
country striving for independence was wrong. The Declaration of Counscience
against the War in Vietnam states we believe that all people of the earthhave an
inalienable right to life, liberty and the peaceful pursuit of happiness in their own
way (Dellinger, et al, p. 841 emphasis added).
I argue, also, alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who was one of the most
peaceful men in our history. Some would find it odd that a man who fought for
peace and equality would be opposed to a war that had as its core mission
freedom and peace. Dr. King, however, had his priorities where they should have
been. He was first and foremost concerned with poverty and inequality in the
states, particularly the Southern States where this had been an issue. The teaching
that states youve got to help yourself before you can help others applies
perfectly in this situation. While we were busy fighting the war in Asia, I argue, as
did Dr. King, that we should have been more focused on the development problems
back home. Pacifism is not what is implied, but rather neutralism in this particular
3

affair. A triage of priorities, one might say, is the issue. Dr. King ties in what he calls
western arrogance to his argument, which adds to the argument I make overall,
he says: Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for
independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has
poisoned the international atmosphere for so long (King, p. 853). Because we
thought, at first, that this country was not ready to make their own choices, we took
action, and actions are not without price. Moneys and other resources were spent in
increasing amount when they could have been spent on developments at home.
The ends of the war, however, did not justify the means that were expended.
Never mind that the war did not turn out as the American government had hoped,
and never mind that our resources were misspent. Where, in the history of anything,
is torture, rape, arson, or murder justified? When has a noble person or country
murdered in the name of freedom? This is perhaps what tugs at heartstrings more
than the morality of the war or Americas noble intentions of anticommunism.
This is why the war turned sour, and why we spent too much time, blood, and
nobility fighting communism. Take a moment, and imagine the following: children
played in the streams and danced through the weeds./ Then there was the flash
silver and gold/Golden water raining./ The rice ponds blazedThe jungles burst
into gold and sent up little birds of fire./ Little animals with fur of flame./ Then the
children flamed./ Running their clothes flying like fiery kites./ Screaming their
screams fying as their faces seared/The children are screaming (Beidler p. 843).
These fires that were so vividly described in this poem were made from napalm, a
flammable substance used to make incendiary bombs. Bombs that were flung into
villages and jungles to attempt to draw out Viet Cong . . . only sometimes, these
bombs fell on the wrong people. John F. Kerry was a veteran of Vietnam who was
4

elected to the Senate. He gave a testimony to the senate and explained some of
what some army men were doing: They told stories that at times they had
personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, [electrified genitals], cut off limbs,
blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, [and] razed villages (Kerry p. 891).
How is rape going to help Vietnam escape communism? Kerry continues to describe
the atrocities, but I cannot do him justice unless I cite his whole discourse. Kerry
strikes at the pride of America when he says How do you ask a man to be the last
man to die for a mistake (p. 894). This statement, is telling. By this point in the
war, we were in Vietnam simply not to lose. These war crimes that were committed
were done under the direction of military leaders, telling soldiers to do these things
in the name of liberation.
The Vietnamese were shell-shocked, to say the least. Many were angry, yet
had no outlet. Ward S. Just documents one leaflet that was found all over villages
that read: Dont be a tool of the Wall Street warmongers. American Yankee
imperialists go home. Such was language spoken against Americans. Those poor
people who had no other way to vent than to beg through posters for Americans to
leave, were sitting, waiting, and wishing for the warfare to end.
This is one point in which I do not budge. What American military forces did in
Vietnam was wrong. I do not place the blame entirely on them, however. Many of
them were simply following orders. Drown out the communists, and save the
Vietnamese was what they were doing. We fought and fought, and eventually
stopped fighting and started a rampage. Many veterans were ashamed to return to
America once they came to themselves and realized what they had done to an
innocent people. Kerry was not the only one. Kerry brought with him stories and
memories of many men who fought and rampaged.
5

History is told by those who win. In the case of Vietnam, America withdrew,
and the history remains to be interpreted by those who choose to. Many people do
not understand this wars history, and believe whatever is told to them. Whatever
the interpretation of the war itself is, the argument as to what was done to innocent
people cannot be interpreted in any other way that is not a negative one. The
American mission lost its purpose. The American military was in Vietnam for too
long. Scars were made, and they cannot fade. Nothing justifies what was done. In
the end, the war was a mistake, and we are left with the haunting memory of what
we did to a people who simply wanted to live their lives in the simple and humble
way that they knew how to. Think of the napalm dropping on children. How, I ask, is
that justified?

References
Dodd, Thomas J. (1959). From a Speech to the U.S. Senate. In P. Bizzell, B.
Herzberg (Eds.), Negaotiating difference: Cultural studies for composition (p.809).
Boston, MA: Bedford Books
U.S. Department of State (1965). Aggression from the North: The Record of
North Vietnams Campaign to Conquer South Vietnam. In P. Bizzell, B. Herzberg

(Eds.), Negaotiating difference: Cultural studies for composition (p.825). Boston, MA:
Bedford Books
D. Dellinger, A.J. Muste, Et Al. (1965). Declaration of Conscience against the
War in Vietnam. In P. Bizzell, B. Herzberg (Eds.), Negaotiating difference: Cultural
studies for composition (p.841). Boston, MA: Bedford Books
M. L. King (1967). Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam. In P.
Bizzell, B. Herzberg (Eds.), Negaotiating difference: Cultural studies for composition
(p.853). Boston, MA: Bedford Books
B. Beidler (1965). Afterthoughts on a Napalm-Drop on Jungle Villages near
Haiphong. In P. Bizzell, B. Herzberg (Eds.), Negaotiating difference: Cultural studies
for composition (pp.842 -843). Boston, MA: Bedford Books
J. F. Kerry (1971). Testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. In P. Bizzell, B. Herzberg (Eds.), Negaotiating difference: Cultural
studies for composition (pp.891-897). Boston, MA: Bedford Books
Just, Ward A. (1968). Vietnam Notebook. In K. Whittermore, E. Rosenbush, J.
Nelson (Eds.) The sixties: Recollections of the decade from harpers magazine (pp.
143 160). New York, NY: Franklin Square Press
Revision Plan

Aspect
Claim

Assessment
My claim is stated quite
clearly.

Action
The morality of the war
isnt questioned at first,
but the length of time we
stayed is, I will need to
develop that more

without making America

seem like a quitter
Qualifier

Exceptions

Reasons

Evidence

Objections

Rebuttals

Source Integration

Internal Documentation

Paraphrasing

Bibliographic Format

The qualifier was the

common ground, that the
war might have been just
if we had not been so
ruthless
There is common ground,
but in a war, there isnt
much room for
exceptions
My reasons come mainly
from primary sources, I
need to find relevant
secondary sources.
Some evidence is cited
from primary sources.

The objections are

included along with the
reasons and evidence
rather than towards the
end of the paper.
The rebuttals still need to
be developed right after
the objections.
Integrated well so far. I
still need more
secondary sources.
Works are cited to the
best of my ability up to
this point.
Paraphrasing needs
work. It still sounds
choppy.
APA, not finished

Clarify that qualifier and

possibly.

I need to word in the

exception in with the
qualifier.
Find secondary sources.

I need to continue to
expand on what evidence
is given. Also find
secondary sources.
I like the way the
argument is set up,
having the objections
come after each
evidence is presented.
Figure out a way to add
my rebuttals after the
objections all in one
paragraph.
Find those secondary
sources.
N/A

Clarify the paraphrasing

so it reads smoothly.
Finish it.

Action Statement: I want to get some feedback as far as the flow of the paper. I believe that
the argument works well. I do not mean to narrate the war, but rather point out specific
times in the war where my argument is relevant.