<


11. THE 1970s: AMERICA DIVIDED

NIXON ... AND VIETNAM

CONTENTS

Vietnam

The Kent State Massacre (May 1970)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

The Pentagon Papers

 Détente – and the full withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam

Nixon's re-election (November 1972)

The 1973 Paris Peace Accords

The textual material on this webpage is drawn directly from my work
        America's Story – A Spiritual Journey © 2021, pages 337-343.
VIETNAM

During those first years of Nixon's first term as president America would find itself heavily focused on one huge political issue: Vietnam.  Johnson's efforts to make Vietnam the showcase of his resolve to block any and all advances by Communism not only had blown up in his face, it had turned the American nation into a deeply divided society – with two American sub-communities feuding bitterly with each other over this issue:  the Vets – and their new champion, Nixon – versus their Boomer youth – and the Boomers' champions, the American intellectuals.

The very idea of Vietnam had become a matter of major political crusade – not that both sides wanted different goals.  Both sides wanted America out of Vietnam.  But the two sides differed greatly – even violently at times – as to the manner of that departure.  Vets were hoping that there would be some way to leave behind in Vietnam some measure of accomplishment achieved by all the blood and social agony America had expended in trying to "do the right thing" in Vietnam.  But the Boomers wanted out now, yesterday even, and they did not care how an immediate departure would leave Vietnam itself.  They were very angry about having been called to do pointless killing in Vietnam and they could see no reason to stay a day longer there.  They wanted out now – and any voices calling for any other approach to the problem they were willing to turn out in huge numbers to protest, shout down, and confront violently if need be.

Being able to pull any kind of success out of the Vietnam misadventure would not be easy.  But Nixon – who had promised America to "bring the boys home" – would attempt to effect an American departure – yet at the same time leave behind some kind of pro-American legacy.  His goal was to force North Vietnam to back away from its support of the South Vietnamese Viet Cong guerrilla fighters – and get Russia and China to back away from their support of North Vietnam – so as to make it more likely that North Vietnam would have to yield to Nixon's game plan.

But first he would have to make it clear that although America would be transferring ground operations over to the South Vietnamese military (the "Vietnamization" of the war), he would continue to offer American air cover – a strategy in which America would hold a distinct advantage over its Vietnamese adversaries.  The Viet Cong had used non-uniformed guerrilla fighters in opposing clearly-identified American troops to great military advantage.  But America had its own realm of distinct military advantage:  air power.  And, as a political Realist, Nixon intended to go at the Vietnam challenge using fully that distinct advantage.  Thus he immediately ordered a new round of B-52 bombing raids in Vietnam – in anticipation of the withdrawal of 60,000 troops scheduled to take place by the end of that first year (1969) – the first round in the withdrawal of the 550,000 American troops stationed in Vietnam.  The plan was for a 15-step troop withdrawal, to be completed by the end of 1972.

B-52 Stratofortress on bomb run over North Vietnam

But there was still ground-laying to be done in Vietnam at the same time.  Peace negotiations between North and South Vietnam had long been dragging on in Paris – a nervous South Vietnam facing a still aggressive North Vietnam.  Nixon decided to act – in order to strengthen the position both on the ground and at the peace table by ordering a withering assault (April 1970)  on the Ho Chi Minh trail – a military supply route running just inside the Cambodian border next to South Vietnam by which the North brought tons of military supplies south to the Viet Cong.  This was something that Johnson had avoided doing, supposedly so as not to drag a neutral Cambodia into the conflict.  But Nixon was not slowed up by the fiction of Cambodian neutrality.  In any case, the assault was highly successful – and crippled rather severely the Viet Cong effort in the South.

THE KENT STATE MASSACRE (MAY 1970)

Of course to the Boomer crusaders, such strategic matters were of no great interest ... or anyway beyond their political comprehension as crusading Idealists.  Boomer protests broke out all over the country against Nixon's "expansion" of the war effort in response to this actually quite carefully limited raid into supposedly neutral Cambodia.

Such "Fascist Imperialism" was exactly the enemy that Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) leaders needed to energize their movement – and focus was turned on the campus of Kent State University, where the SDS organized a huge protest, including the burning to the ground of the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) building on campus.  


   
The burning ROTC building at Kent State University – May 2, 1970

However two days later, when the SDS leaders called for yet a wider protest on the central campus, protesters now found themselves faced by the Ohio National Guard – which had been called out to protect the campus from just such protests.  Shots suddenly rang out, and four students were killed and nine wounded – some protesters, some just observers of the event and some just students crossing campus to get to another class.  A major tragedy, one that would shake the nation, had just taken place: the Kent State Massacre.

Ohio National Guardsmen at Kent State University campus
May 4, 1970

National Guardsmen firing on students at Kent State University

Jeffrey Miller killed at Kent State


"Hard Hats" react to a Kent State memorial demonstration in
New York City with a protest of their own – May 1970

VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR

Even though the American military draw-down in Vietnam was continuing on schedule, it would never be fast enough for some Americans – and in April of 1971 Vietnam Veterans gathered in Washington to protest the war, some even standing on the U.S. Capitol steps and throwing away their military medals as a sign of their disgust at the continuation of the war.

A Vietnam Vet tossing his Bronze Star on the Capitol steps as 
the conclusion of Operation Dewey-Canyon III - April 23, 1971

Vietnam Vets protesting the war during the Operation 
Dewey-Canyon III

They also were invited to speak before a Democratic Party controlled Congress about their concerns – most notably a young (27) Lieutenant John Kerry, who was brought in by Senator Kennedy to describe the shocking behavior of fellow soldiers in Vietnam – and the depravity of American officers who covered up – even supported – such behavior:

... not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day to day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

Kerry spared no detail in describing the gruesome behavior – which he personally did not actually witness (he served in Vietnam only four months), which under American law therefore made his testimony mere hearsay:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the Mall at Dewey Canyon III
April 21, 1971

Vietnam Vet Lt. John Kerry 
(future Massachusetts senator, Democratic Party presidential
candidate and Secretary of State) testifying in the U.S. Senate 
about all the war crimes committed in Vietnam by fellow U.S. 
soldiers - April 21, 1971

This act of "shaming"[1] his fellow soldiers would not only bring considerable public attention to Kerry but open his way eventually to service as Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor (1983-1985), following that as U.S. Senator (representing Massachusetts, alongside Kennedy), and finally even the Democratic Party presidential candidate in 2004.  However the last achievement would be undercut greatly when a number of men who had served in Vietnam came out in protest against Kerry's own service medals, claiming that some were most undeserved – damaging considerably the Kerry campaign.  But Kerry would make a grand political comeback when President Obama appointed Kerry as his Secretary of State (during Obama's second presidential term, 2013 through 2016).  Such are the enormous social rewards that come from the simple anti-Fascist act of shaming America.

[1]The "shaming" of America became for the Boomers (and their offspring) a kind of ideological vaccination supposedly protecting them from falling victim to the Fascist disease of patriotism – a disease supposedly rampant among their Vet parents.  Being visibly anti-patriotic or as Boomers termed the matter, anti-Fascist – for patriotism and Fascism were the same thing in the Boomer lexicon – Boomers participated eagerly in protest marches, the burning of flags, even the burning down of ROTC buildings, for instance.  To them, participation in such group action was a popular way of evidencing just such immunity to "blind patriotism" – of manifesting a high degree of personal nobility.  Thus Kerry’s shaming of his fellow soldiers before Congress stood him out as a person of enormous integrity and nobility.  That’s how things worked in those days (and generally since then): to be able to shame America in some form or fashion automatically elevated a person to political sainthood.

THE PENTAGON PAPERS

Another event that same year (1971) pointed to the passion rather than the logic behind the forces working against the President – even as Nixon continued to follow his program of strategic withdrawal from Vietnam.  In June The New York Times published a long series of full-length articles revealing a secret document (which became known as The Pentagon Papers) that had been put together in 1967 at the request of Johnson's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara – who simply wanted to know the details of exactly how America fell into the Vietnam crisis in the first place.  The published document revealed the deception Johnson had engineered – particularly in his manipulating the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to march Congress and the American people off to a war in Vietnam that Johnson wanted badly (basically to prove himself to be a stronger foreign policy president than Kennedy had been).  It also revealed the hand that President Kennedy had in the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem in 1963.

These  revelations of treachery in high places – which
pointed to the Johnson rather than Nixon administration –
became more arrows in the quiver of the anti-Establishment
youth and their adult sympathizers

Daniel Ellsberg (right) and John Vann (center) with Vietnamese
village official – 1965  (At this time a superhawk, Ellsberg later
reversed his position as he assembled policy papers for 
McNamara – which he leaked to Neil Sheehan of the New 
York Times:  The Pentagon Papers)

The nation was shocked – angered actually – by the knowledge that American presidents had played the American people so deceptively – especially Johnson.  But oddly enough, the anger – which should have fallen largely on Johnson – was instead cleverly redirected by Nixon's enemies at Nixon himself, who actually had no part whatsoever in the Vietnam deception.  Democrats did not bother to point out that most of this scandal was a result of the (bad) political choices of the two previous Democratic presidents ... but instead stressed the point that such behavior was a natural outflow of the office of the presidency itself, an office which had become intoxicated with its political powers.  Thus to the Liberals of the Democratic Party – and its followers in the world of media, higher education, and bureaucratic professionalism – The Pentagon Papers clearly underscored the grave dangers to American democracy and American personal liberties posed by the "imperial presidency" – which Nixon clearly exemplified.  Certainly therefore, America needed to do something to curb such presidential imperialism – meaning, the ability of Nixon to effectively conduct the office of U.S. presidency.  Presidential power needed to be trimmed back – drastically.

DETENTE – AND THE FULL WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS FROM VIETNAM

Meanwhile, Nixon had been delivering on his promise to pull U.S. troops from Vietnam.  By the spring of 1972 he had reduced the number of troops there to only 6,000 – most of these now serving simply as advisors to the South Vietnamese army.

But he had also been busy on the larger world stage – working to improve East-West relations – but also with an eye on helping smooth America's exit from Vietnam.  He had sent Kissinger off to China to explore the possibilities of improved Chinese-American relations – a diplomatic initiative helped by the fact that Chairman Mao had been moderated greatly in his political behavior by the grand failure of his Cultural Revolution – allowing the more sensible Chinese Foreign Minister Chou En-lai (Zhou Enlai) to take a stronger hand in shaping Chinese foreign policy. 

Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Henry Kissinger in China

Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai discussing diplomatic possibilities

Kissinger’s good-will visit includes a tour of the Great Wall of China

And having once been the militant anti-Communist congressman (in the late 1940s) no one could fault Nixon as being soft on Communism.  And thus it was that in February of 1972 Nixon himself flew to China to follow up on the program of improving relations with China.  The 25-year American boycott of mainland China had come to an end.

With the way open, he and Pat Nixon make the journey
themselves the following  February (21-28, 1972) to mark an 
official shift in American policy toward China

The Nixons visiting China's Premier Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai) [left]

Nixon, the former Commie hunter, now toasting 
Chou En-lai in Beijing – February 22, 1972

Nixon in China

Nixon at the Great Wall of China

With Mrs. Nixon at the Great Wall of China

Nixon meets with Mao Zedong in Beijing – February 1972

But at the same time Nixon took the same diplomatic line toward Soviet Russia – just three months later (May 1972) flying to Moscow to open talks with Soviet Premier Brezhnev about the possibility of working together to bring the arms race under some kind of control.  The reception in Moscow was highly positive. 

Nixon and Brezhnev during Nixon’s visit to Moscow – May 22-30, 1972

Nixon and Brezhnev during Nixon’s visit to Moscow

Nixon and Kissinger during their visit to Moscow

Actually, Nixon and Kissinger were playing the Realpolitik game – playing to the weaknesses of their Cold War adversaries – knowing full well that China and Russia, though both being Communist nations, were bitter rivals on the stage of world diplomacy.  Cutting back on the tensions (popularly termed a détente)[2] between America and these two nations would strengthen both Russia's and China's hand in their mutual rivalry.  But this assistance from America would come at a cost: Nixon intended to link (the policy of "linkage") these improved East-West relations with some kind of understanding that America now expected both countries to back away from their support of Nixon's adversaries in North Vietnam.

[2]The French word détente, means a relaxing or backing down.

NIXON'S RE-ELECTION (NOVEMBER 1972)

For the upcoming national elections, the Democratic Party had nominated the professorial senator from North Dakota, George McGovern – loved passionately by the Boomer youth who saw him as crusading hero against the vile Vietnam policy of Richard Nixon (McGovern had in 1970 and 1971 sponsored congressional legislation calling for an immediate termination of all American involvement in Vietnam).  However by 1972 the American voters – still largely drawn from the Vet Middle Class – saw Nixon, not McGovern as the true American hero, and in the November election returned Nixon to the White House with the fourth largest majority of all presidential elections.[3]  The Boomers (and their intellectual mentors) were humiliated.  Middle America (termed by Nixon as the "Silent Majority") was jubilant.


President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew
on inauguration Day – January 1973

But all that pro-Nixon enthusiasm did not however alter the makeup of Congress itself – with both the House and Senate remaining under a Democratic Party majority and thus control.  Consequently, the battle lines between the Republican White House and the Democratic Congress would merely harden because of the 1972 national elections.

[3]Nixon received 60.7% and McGovern 37.5% of the popular vote; the electoral college vote went 520 votes for Nixon against a mere 17 votes (14 from the very Liberal Massachusetts and 3 from equally Liberal Washington, D.C.) for McGovern.

THE 1973 PARIS PEACE ACCORDS

With support for his presidency thus confirmed by the November elections – and some kind of understanding worked out with the Russians and Chinese – Nixon now moved more boldly to bring some kind of acceptable conclusion to the long and painful Vietnam episode.  The peace discussions between the North and South Vietnamese representatives meeting in Paris had dragged on long enough – with neither side willing to move to an agreement.  Nixon decided it was time to break the stalemate – and proceeded to show a doubting South Vietnam and a sneering North Vietnam that he was serious when he had stated that although American military presence on the ground was coming to a close, America's interest in protecting South Vietnam's integrity through the use of American air power was not.  During the next month after the elections, Nixon directed a massive air assault on Vietnam's capital at Hanoi and its major port city of Haiphong.  This time the Vietnamese got the message – and in January (1973) both sides came to an agreement about the sovereign rights of each other's government – under the understanding that America intended fully to enforce the agreement with its own air power if that sovereignty were violated. 

Vietnam peace agreement signing - Paris, 27 January 1973

While Nixon's enforced peace in Vietnam made great sense in terms of international Realpolitik, it was a policy greatly weakened by one key fact:  the Democrats in Congress were in no mood to support Nixon's success in any field of endeavor – and would do everything in their power to embarrass and handicap Nixon's ability to conduct "imperialistic" American foreign policy.  This would soon become quite apparent.


   
Go on to the next section:

Nixon's Chaotic Second Presidential Term

  Miles H. Hodges