why did congress not declare war against Vietnam?
109101
I would venture to guess they did not want a show down with the Soviet Union or China at the time. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was enough to justify escalating the war without a declaration.  You would think that sending 50,000 amercian boys and soldier girls to their deaths would've justified a declaration of war, but who am i to raise that argument.
758475
The American government decided that the Communism that was spreading into Viet Nam from China was unacceptable. They went in to try to stop it. The south of the country sided with the Americans in wanting to have democratic government. The north wanted to be Communist like their Chinese cousins. The war was fought. America lost and needed to evacuate quickly before being overrun by communist forces in 1975, abandoning their former allies (only SOME of whom were evacuated with them). South Viet Nam was converted to communism and absorbed into one country.\n\nAny of this sound familiar?
270201
1-There is no superpower (China and Soviet Union) actively supporting the insurgency through supplies and the regular army of a client state. In Vietnam, much of US Military policy was developed with the idea of defeating the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, while not drawing the Soviet Union into a larger war. For instance, the US resisted direct attacks or even laying of underwater mines in the harbor of Hai Phong in North Vietnam because the sailors on the Russian cargo ships might be killed. Many of the army units from Europe had been removed to Southeast Asia, leaving US security vulnerable elsewhere. The President today, by contrast, seems to be looking for a reason to begin direct military action against Iran and Syria, believed to be the main supporters of the Iraq insurgency.\n\nSecond, because the insurgency represents a wide, semi-cooperative coalition instead of a massed hierarchy, this war has no enemy chain of command for the American military to either interdict or to negotiate with. The United States was able to carry on (granted often ineffective because of the lack of commitment from the enemy side) intermittent peace talks in Paris with the Soviet Union, North Vietnam and even some representation of the Viet Cong leadership. That opportunity, even if it were welcome by the US which it is not, does not exist in this war. After the Tet Offensive, of course, the Viet Cong was so disrupted that they ceased to be even a semi-independent force.\n\nC-That should get you started.
510925
The U.S. was totally not prepared for a war like Vietnam. If you've seen the movie Platoon, then you know that the troops had to fight in the jungle, definitely something they were not trained to do. Even though the US has learned guerrilla warfare from Korea, they were not ready for it to the extent of Vietnam. The government underestimated the Vietnamese capabilities and also did not realize that Russian and Chinese support of Vietname would be so detrimental to US.
370927
While technically the United States withdrew from Indochina in 1973 as a means of taking peoples' minds off of Watergate and potential impeachment, the American military had basically been fighting the war on auto-pilot without any actual plan for winning the war since at least 1968 and perhaps earlier. With such a constant drain on the national will and the national economy without any new ideas from either administration involved, defeat was inevitable.
535810
There was no official start to Viet Nam war. It started back in about 1954 for the United States, that is about the time that the French pulled out. They had come to the conclusion that it was to costly and a lost cause. We sent advisers in at first. Kennedy continued with the advisers and Johnson Sent in the most troupes to actually fight the war that was about 1964 or 1965 Nixon got us out of there finally about 1973 or 1974, those are as close as I can come to dates from memory.
226352
I like Dave R's answer. \nWhat troubles me is not so much that someone did or did not serve in Vietnam. Most (but not all) of those who have served in war seem to have a healthy reluctance to commit troups again unless the effort is just and with clear objectives, so it can be helpful to have had that experience.\nHowever, presidents can be effective or ineffective regardless of prior service experience. Whether you're a liberal or conservative, you should be able to recognize that presidential success or failure has not been determined by their past military service--or lack of it.\nWhat deeply troubles me is the extent to which partisans use military service as a political weapon. If an opponent had a solid service record, call it into question. If a candidate did not serve, claim that service is irrelevant. \nWhat should be relevant is the truthfulness of the candidate in openly describing his past.\nThen I'd love to see candidates deal with real issues in ways that go beyond sound bites. Unfortunately, this is not what we are getting in this age.
651077
It can't be called a war because Bush never asked Congress for a war resolution. It is a military operation. \n\nThe problems with it as a military operation are the result of poor planning by leadership at the highest levels, not the troops on the ground.\n\n"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. Months later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"  -Tom Delay\n\nHe said that about Clinton sending troops to Bosnia, but is equally as true today. To say that 10 years ago and then call people saying the same thing now "anti-American" just shows how much of a "flip-flopper" he is.\n\nTwo George W. Bush quotes for you Republicant's to chew on:\n"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." \n\n"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."\n\nIt's amazing how hypocritical they can be when the shoe is on the other foot.
634706
U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not begin in the 1960's or even the 1940's, but in 1845. That's right -- 1845. In that year the people of Da Nang arrested a French missionary bishop for breaking local laws. The U.S. commander of "Old Ironsides" (the U.S.S. Constitution) landed U.S. Navy and Marines in support of French efforts to reclaim their missionary. Mad Jack Percival, the ship's captain, fired into the city of Da Nang, killing 3 dozen Vietnamese, wounding more, and taking the local mandarins hostage. He then demanded that the Catholic Bishop be freed in exchange for his hostages. The Vietnamese were unimpressed. They refused his demand and waited. "Mad Jack" got tired of waiting, released his hostages, and sailed away leaving the Bishop behind.\n\nDuring WW11, US and Vietnam fought against the Japanese. After the end of World war, Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination.\nHowever, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. \nAmerican policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina.\nAccording to international agreement, Vietnam was to be temporarily divided into north and south, with free elections to take place nationwide in 1956. Even before the French were out, the U.S. was moving in.\n\nFrom there on the US involvement in Vietnam increased and so called vietnam war started.
923500
War of 1812, Mexican war of 1846-48, Spanish War 1898, World War I, and World War II.  I dont have a source just what I have learned throughout my life and in college, congress never declared war in any other conflict, they were just actions by president, but look it up on Wikipedia.  We never declared war in the Revolution so the person before me is wrong.  We declared independence and we had to fight for it, we did not declare war( at least not formally) because they were factions in out government that wanted to reconcile with Britain.  I do think the congress declared war on the barbary pirates but im not sure.
867473
Bush could not have declared war - only Congress can declare war. He could have asked them to declare war, but that's really not been how America has done things for the past 50 years. If the president asks Congress for funding and authority to use force, and they grant it, then that's our declaration of war.\n\nAs for the ousting of the Taliban and Saddam, yes, it was unquestionably the correct thing to do. The reasons they were right are the reasons the President and his administration gave years ago when they sought Congressional and UN approval, those remain valid today.
687160
A war is a prolonged engagement between two military powers.  For example, I consider Vietnam a war because the US and the South Vietnamese militaries were fighting the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese militaries.  Same with the current Iraq War, two forces, prolonged engagement.  An example for a conflict is the Somalia incident back in 1991 (remember Blackhawk Down?)  Warlords over threw Somalia's government and the US and allies went in for humanitarian aid.  It was a reletively short engagement, making it a conflict.  Thats how I define wars from conflicts, but I suppose the official way is whether or not Congress declares war. (If they do, its a war.  if not, its a conflict)
623309
No president has ever declared war, as they do not have the authority to declare war. That is Congress' job. However, there has never been a declaration of war since WWII. Korea was a UN deal. Johnson asked for, and got an extremely generous power from Congress in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. He was given complete authority to conduct any military action he felt necessary to 'retaliate' for a supposed attack on American ships, including the power to determine when action was no longer necessary. Interestingly, he used that power to conduct a little war in Vietnam in which many more American troops were killed than anything we have seen recently.\nPresidents since then have asked for, and generally received, similar powers. Yes, Clinton had more troops deployed in more areas. Before jumping all over Bush, you might look at how many Democrat senators and representatives readily signed on to the last resolution authorizing the president to conduct whatever measures he felt necessary to conduct military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
1069676
Hard to say. But presumably, Kennedy would have been more cautious than LBJ regarding Vietnam. I doubt he would have gone the route of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the subsequent massive escalation, but that's hard to prove. Without the massive escalation, no protests, no hippie-dippie idiots, etc.\n\nIt would have been very different.
51833
Because they were actually waging war against their favorite enemy. No, not the vietnamese but the soviets. During the war, vietnam was divided into two. the northern part wanted to have a communist government, the bottom half wanted a democratic one. Though, it was the vietnam war, it was actually more of a US - USSR war. it can be remembered that Soviet Union (USSR, now mainly Russia) was a communist government while the US believed democracy. And so ever so often their ideologies would clash in wars like this. But the vietnam war was certainly more than about belief, it was also the newest world event for a military arms fashion show. The north was "backed" by the soviets and the south by the Americans. This was an oppurtunity for them to showcase their advancement in warfare. Each side were eager to show to each other and to the world their "impressive" toys and guns and thus informally crown who among the two was the stronger world power. Of course, neither would easily surrender but in the end the americans retreated and the south was captured by the north. Now, the vietnam war is always glorified by the USA as a symbol of their continued struggle for democracy in the world but in truth in that war as it now with iraq, the US was merely showing off their deadly jewelry even if it means meddling with the internal affairs of other countries leaving them in destruction.
999971
There's a fundamental weakness in your question that most of those answering don't get or see.  It's that this isn't a Congressionally sanctioned war...Congress never Declared War on Iraq therefore the governance of Gitmo is purely for the Bush, of the Bush, and by the Bush regardless of how the Supremes rule.  I for one applaud the ruling but without that Congressional Declaration of War its a moot point.\n\nSo far as three branches of government go, we've got em...know that Congress didn't directly sanction Bush's actions by Declaring War officially.  And the Supremes ruled against him despite not having official jurisdiction for the same reason.
596780
TO your first question, write to your congress person and senator.  Also talk to as many people as you can and encourage them to do the same.  Constitutionally, only COngress can declare war.  The Bush adminstration blindsided congress, ignored UN, went ahead to "enforce" UN resolution without UN's approval.  Congress now recognizes that to be the case, but they will need to be reminded.  Therefore, write, and get as many people to write to remind them of their duties to put Presidential power in check.\n\nTO your second question, the result of another US unilateral attack will be \n1. many death\n2. more terrorist attacks in countries with Muslim population, and\n3. terrorist incidents in the US\nfor several generation to follow.