The policy of Vietnamization during the Vietnam War illustrates a pivotal turning point in the military and foreign policy during the turbulent Cold War Era.

“The Vietnam War (1955-1975) traces its roots to the colonization of Vietnam by France in the late 19th Century.” (Pritzker Military Museum and Library).

 The war in the country of Vietnam popularly known as the Vietnam War is a prime example of the proxy wars that took place in the Cold War era between the two superpowers: the United States which backed South Vietnam and the USSR which supported communist North Vietnam. But US President Richard Nixon began troop withdrawals in 1969 to end the US involvement in the Vietnam War, the policy came to be known as the policy of “Vietnamization.” This essay will look at the policy of “Vietnamization” during the Vietnam War which illustrates a pivotal turning point in military and foreign policy during the turbulent time of the Cold War era, thus highlighting the shifting interests of the superpower while undermining the indigenous population in the face of asymmetric circumstances.

In the year of 1941, the Viet Minh Party was founded by Ho Chi Minh, who was a revolutionary communist leader and opposed French and Japanese rule. France which the United States backed in the Indo-China War soon saw its defeat by Viet Minh and led to the end of French rule in the region. This conflict led to the Geneva Accord in 1954 which devised a 17th parallel that distinguished the military forces of the French from the Viet Minh. The North of the line was now North Vietnam, which was under the control of the Vietnamese Communist Party led by Ho Chi Minh. On the South of the line was South Vietnam which was now under the control of the Emperor of Vietnam Bao Dai who gained control after the French transferred most of the power to the South Vietnam State. (Spector, Britannica)

While Vietnam was divided into two by the Geneva Accord the rest of the Southeast Asian Nations, also saw a transition from colonial to a state with an independent status.  Conflict and tension started to occur between communist and non-communist movements in countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia. The non-communist government of the region supported South Vietnam and saw its existence as a barrier against communism in the region. This region of Southeast Asia was also internationally important to many. Consequently, the United States formed the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) which pledged to prevent the spread of communism in the region. However, the Vietnam conflict played into Cold War superpower rivalries, where the US gave economic and military aid to South Vietnam while the USSR and China gave a similar kind of aid to North Vietnam.

The intervention of the US was a gradual process and was supported by the idea of containing communism, supporting non-communist governments, and aiding democracy. But soon the US policy in the region became a major controversy, as the large-scale military intervention in eastern Cambodia took place, it broke the silence to the public about the intentions of the US. Looking at all this, “In November 3 the president offered a strategy based upon the twin approach of negotiation and Vietnamization” (Johnson, 629).

 The policy of Vietnamization was accompanied by the withdrawal of the US troops and the ability of the US to disengage in war even if negotiations failed. “The Nixon administration was thus committed to the public rhetoric of mutual withdrawal with North Vietnam.” (Miller, 4)

 What it seemed to carry out was a unilateral US troop withdrawal but it claimed that the South Vietnamese Troops were replacing the US troops.

This was also the period when the US was close to its presidential elections thus this withdrawal had to be quick enough for the election of Nixon and to gain the support of the public in the US. This strategy of Vietnamization thus showcases “the “decent interval” thesis: withdrawal was not a strategy for securing US interests, but for accepting defeat gracefully, in a politically affordable manner.” (Miller, 7)

 This eventually allowed Nixon to showcase that he brought peace and ended the role of the US in Vietnam, which the past presidents were unable to do, thus making it a centrepiece for his re-election.

 Nevertheless, looking at the policy of Vietnamization from the South Vietnam perspective we observe that “By far the widest loophole of the Vietnamization program was its failure to provide the South Vietnamese Army with enough time for an overall improvement.” (Miller, 11).

 This can be understood by understanding the psychology of the South Vietnamese troops after the withdrawal, who felt betrayed, abandoned, and even accused the US of breaking its commitments and promises. This eventually can be seen as contributing to the loss of unit cohesion in the conflict's final months. The policy also brings the question of whether it is really “Vietnamization” because at its core the policy advocates for the interest of the US but rejects the idea of the Vietnamese, showcasing the character of “Americanization” which includes a stronger American self-interest and compromising with the indigenous population of the region.

Finally, as seen above through the case study of the Vietnam War and the Policy of Vietnamization, we often view the superpowers as flag bearers of peace, stability as well as human rights. In addition, upholding the law is often built on a foundation of self-interest, thus disregarding others and what they are supposed to stand for. One may argue that the power structure and the mechanism for accountability have changed since the 1970s, and may have to reconsider. The prime example remains the US involvement in Afghanistan which has often been justified as bringing peace, stability, and democracy to the region but instead, the US decided to exit the 20-year-long war, without achieving anything. Moreover, the power in Afghanistan is now in the hands of the terrorist group ‘Taliban.’ Thus, this brings the question of “With Great Powers Come Great Responsibility?” The phrase often attributed to Spiderman focuses on one who has great power and should bear significant responsibility to use the power for the greater good. In conclusion, the policy of Vietnamization highlights the decision to find a military solution for the war in a highly political and social conflict, due to shifting interests, which undermined the indigenous circumstances and population of the region.

  “Origins of the Vietnam War.” Origins of the Vietnam War | Pritzker Military Museum & Library | Chicago, 

https://www.pritzkermilitary.org/explore/museum/past-exhibits/faces-war-photography-front-lines-vietnam/origins-vietnam-war

 Spector, Ronald H. “Vietnam War.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc., 9 Mar. 2024, 

 Johnson, Robert H. “Vietnamization: Can It Work?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 48, no. 4, 1970, pp. 629–47. JSTOR, 

 Miller, Paul D. “VIETNAMIZATION, 1966-1973.” Withdrawal Deadlines In War: Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Atlantic Council, 2020, pp. 4–12. JSTOR,  

http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24664.4

Vietnamization: The Shifting Interest and Responsibilities of the Great Power

0 Comments