Refighting Vietnam in the History Books: The Historiography of the War

Abstract

Given the burgeoning literature devoted to it, the Vietnam War is surely a contender with the Civil War for the title of America's most studied conflict. It has attracted an enormous amount of academic attention and continues to absorb the energies of many scholars. At the most recent meeting of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, Vietnam featured in almost a fifth of the conference panels. Lavish attention, however, has not led to scholarly consensus. Indeed, the war continues to generate vigorous disagreement among historians, as well as the wider public. This ongoing debate testifies not only to the kind of differences in interpretation that are part and parcel of the study of history but also to the extraordinary passions that the conflict still arouses nearly thirty years after the fall of Saigon. Disagreements about the war have revolved around several key issues. The first concerns the origins of America's intervention in Southeast Asia—why did the U.S. become involved in Vietnam? Walt Rostow, an adviser to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, once chided the maker of a documentary for asking what he called this “sophomoric” and “goddamn silly question” (1). Historians, however, have not found it so easy to dismiss. Why was Washington prepared to expend so much blood and treasure to defend a relatively small piece of territory, thousands of miles from America's shores? Was the U.S. commitment necessary, or a terrible mistake? The second issue concerns the outcome of the conflict. Why, in spite of the enormous power at its disposal, was the U.S. unable to preserve an independent South Vietnam? Would different military tactics have altered the outcome, or was the war simply unwinnable? Finally, scholars have sought to divine the larger meaning of the conflict and draw lessons from it. For example, did Vietnam illustrate the folly of U.S. intervention overseas, especially in the cause of nation building, or merely demonstrate the need for better strategy and leadership next time around? This kind of exercise has inevitably become caught up in contemporary political debates. From Central America in the 1980s to the present-day Middle East, the “lessons” of Vietnam have served as a point of reference for arguments about the merits of U.S. involvement overseas.