Why did the U.S. get involved in the Vietnam War?
367582
The main excuse that each president used at that time was the cold war belief that if another small country fell under the control of the Soviet Union, it wouldn't be long before all the countries in that region, and ultimately the entire world would be under communist rule.
656522
The Vietnam War or Second Indochina War (also known colloquially as Vietnam or Nam as well as the American War in Vietnam) 1 was a conflict between the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN, or North Vietnam), allied with the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN, or South Vietnam), and its allies — notably Australia, Korea, and the United States. US combat troops were involved from 1965 until the official withdrawal in 1973. The war ended on April 30, 1975 with the military conquest of the South by the North.\n\nSummary\nThe Vietnam War began after a very large-scale division of Vietnam into two countries with a de-militarized zone (DMZ) between them. As Maurice Larkin notes, crumbling under the economic strain of the war and fearful of the tide of opinion (which had now turned decisively against further fighting for control in Indochina), the French, under Pierre Mendès-France, simply 'passed the parcel bomb' on to the Americans, slipping out of the back door, so to speak. The Vietnam War ostensibly began as a civil war between feuding governments. Being Western-oriented and perceived as less popular than Hồ Chí Minh's northern government, the South Vietnamese government fought largely to maintain its governing status within the partitioned entity, rather than to "unify the country" as was agreed to at the Geneva Conference. Fighting began in 1957 with the U.S. and Soviet-Chinese involvement, and would steadily escalate from there. The conflict spilled over into the neighboring countries of Cambodia and Laos. North Vietnam did not respect the independence or borders of either country.\n\nThe Geneva partition was not a natural division of Vietnam and was not intended to create two separate countries. But the South government, with the support of the United States, blocked the Geneva scheduled elections for unification. In the context of the Cold War, and with the recent Korean War as a precedent, the U.S. had feared that a unified Vietnam would result in a Communist government under Hồ Chí Minh, either freely or fraudulently.\n\nThe South Vietnamese government and its Western allies portrayed the conflict as based in a principled opposition to communism —to deter the expansion of Soviet-based control throughout Southeast Asia, and to set the tone for any likely future superpower conflicts. The North Vietnamese government and its Southern affiliated organization (NLF) viewed the war as a struggle to reunite the country and to repel a foreign aggressor —a virtual continuation of the earlier war for independence against the French. While North Vietnam used nationalist propaganda, its party doctrine denounced the very concept of nationalism and any form of unity other than rule by the party.\n\n\n\n\n\nFrance had gained control of Indochina in a series of colonial wars beginning in the 1840s and lasting until the 1880s. At the Treaty of Versailles negotiations in 1919, Hồ Chí Minh requested participation in order to arrange more freedom for the Indochinese colonies. His request was rejected, and Indochina's status as a colony of France remained unchanged. During World War II, Vichy France had collaborated with the occupying Imperial Japanese forces. Vietnam was under effective Imperial Japanese control, as well as de facto Japanese administrative control, although the Vichy French continued to serve as the official administrators until 1944. In that year, the Japanese overthrew the French and humiliated the colonial officials of the state in front of the Vietnamese population. The Japanese then began to encourage nationalist activity among the Vietnamese. Late in the war, Japan granted Vietnam nominal independence. After the Japanese surrender, Vietnamese nationalists expect to take control of the country and organize a socialist dictatorship. The Japanese army in Indochina attempted to assist the Viet Minh in their goal by keeping French soldier
1030280
After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK did not want to make another mistake with the communists and ordered financial and military assistance to support the South Vietnamese army (ARVN). Military assistance was limited to equipment and advisors until Johnson took over and ordered combat troops to take over fighting from the ARVN forces after the Tonikan incidents.
626846
frustrating situation and rising resentment. I can't think of any other nations who supported the vietnam war, that was the problem. Drugs didn't have anything to do with vietnam, it was a domestic issue.
786132
The USA is obsessed with the concept of world dominance. It has refused to  learn from history and its experience in Vietnam. It could not prevent Vietnam from being a communist  state. It had fueled Afghanistan crisis and now trying to dose it off. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will not be that easy and the change of guard in White House will have least impact on taking such a decision.
543018
To contain communism.  That is how we got involved in the Korean and Vietmanese wars.  President Truman also got the civil rights movement going after WWII.  Maintaining our status as a superpower and stopping Russia was our primary concerns.
616173
the soviets and americans wanted to spread communism and democracy respectively and wanted to prevent the other from spreading their ideologies. this led to the cold war.
611886
1. The USA was getting an absolute humping.\n2. errrr that's it really.\n\nThe Vietcong were hamering the USA and so the USA pulled out and left South Vietnam to face the onslaught alone.\n\nAll the US citizens were seeing on a daily basis were rows of body-bags being loaded onto planes.\n\nEventually the USA admitted that enough was enough and pulled out.
213033
The key difference is that there was no moral justification for our invasion of Vietnam.  We betrayed ourselves and not unlike Iraq entered into a war of choice based on false evidence. \nIn WWII, there actually was a REAL enemy who declared war on the United States from Asia and Europe .\nWW II was winnable, Vietnam was not. Both were costly, only one war was the US right to be involved in.  It was not Vietnam.
944475
I was drafted for the Vietnam War.  They didn't call it a war then, they called it a "police action."   I asked, the same question, "WHY?"  \n\nI think the answer was, "Because we CAN."
721087
Vietnam had effectively been turned into two countries, like North and South Korea.  The war was North Vietnam seeking to conquer the South and reunite the country by force.  The fighting in Iraq is nothing like that.  In Iraq, a few terrorists and religious zealots are trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.  They are funded and supplied from the surrounding countries (Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia), but no other country is trying to conquer Iraq.\n\nIn Vietnam, we were actually fighting another country, North Vietnam.  That is not true in Iraq.\n\nAlthough it was an integral part of the Cold War, the Vietnam War was an actual war unto itself.  The fighting in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror (stupid name, it should be the War on Islamofascism) but is not really a war by itself.  At least not any more.  Iraq fell within three weeks of our invasion.  The currant Iraqi government is our ally.  The fighting is the US-led coalition and Iraq against the terrorists.\n\nUS fatalities in Vietnam were at about 10 times the rate of fatalities in Iraq.  As wars go, the US fatalities in Vietnam were quite low; US fatalities in Iraq are minuscule.\n\nIts not quite true to say there was no coalition in Vietnam.  The South Vietnamese and the Aussies fought there with us, as did the South Koreans.  The French, of course, bugged out.\n\nThe US force in Iraq hovers between 120,000 and 150,000; the force in Vietnam peaked at over 500,000.\n\nDemocrats supported the war in Vietnam while there was a Democratic President, and turned against it when a Republican was elected.  We will see if their principles are just as flexible now if a Democrat wins in 2008.
13305
What an excellent and well timed question, thank you.\n\nMost people believe that the start of the war was a response to North Vietnamese patrol boats firing on the US destroyer USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.  This "attack" was the all the reason needed for the US to "respond" with bombing raids on North Vietnam.\n\nBut, and this is important, there was a report that came out a few days ago that basically states the North Vietnamese did NOT shoot at our destroyer and further the N. Vietnamese had no idea where our destroyer was!
1098602
They are two completely different scenarios.  Vietnam was an action to stop the North from invading the South.  America won every major battle in Vietnam, but arguably lost the war.  Why?  Because we would drive the North only so far and limited our actions against them.  They eventually signed a treaty, only to break it later after we pulled out.  Iraq is different in that we are fighting hostile Iraqi citizens in their own country, and not an opposing country tying to invade.  Vietnam actually had an end strategy, to supress the North into a treaty, which we accomplished momentarily anyway.  In Iraq, the heads of state have no idea what their exit stratigy is.
834786
Vietnam-a complicated war. As a matter of fact, it wasn't called a war for years-it was a "police action" or "conflict". Not a lot of clear answers there.\n\nU.S. military advisors first became involved in Vietnam as early as 1950, when they began to assist French colonial forces. In 1956, these advisors assumed full responsibility for training the Army of the Republic of Vietnam or ARVN. Large numbers of American combat troops began to arrive in 1965 and the last left the country in 1973.\n\nPresidents involved were:\nHarry Truman 1945-1953\nDwight Eisenhower 1953-1961\nJohn Kennedy 1961-1963\nLyndon Johnson 1963-1969\nRichard Nixon 1969-1974\n\n American forces rose from 16,000 during 1964 to more than 553,000 by 1969. (Johnson). The irony here is we couldn't win that guerrilla war with 553,000  troops but thought 100,000 in Iraq would be plenty. Robert McNamara(then Secretary of defense) has since said he believed JFK would have ended the war has he not been assassinated in 1963.  I believe Democrats were a bit fooled by Johnson in that he fought strongly for great civil rights laws(he did do a lot there) back then but on the other hand escalated the war. It was easy for Democrats to believe he was a good man fighting the good fight. \n\n \n\nNixon had continuously campaigned under the slogan that he "had a plan to end the Vietnam War." (Peace With Honor)Unfortunately, no such plan existed and the American commitment would continue for another five years. The goal of the American military effort was now to buy time, gradually build up the strength of the South Vietnamese armed forces, and to re-equip them with modern weapons so that they could defend their nation on their own. This policy became the cornerstone of the so-called "Nixon Doctrine"\n\nSo Nixon finally pulled troops out but dragged his feet for years.Since he was elected largely because he promised to get us out of Vietnam, people were unhappy it took so long. I believe he finally did withdraw to get re-elected. He was re-elected for a 2nd term but resigned because of Watergate. (Watergate was unraveling during the campaign but most people didn't believe he was involved-thought instead it was a left-wing conspiracy). His Vice-President became President and pardoned Nixon soon after. \n\nIt was a tumultous time indeed. Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968 during his Primary run for President.\nThere was a lot of talk that he would certainly be President but \nRichard Nixon was instead. \n\nThere was a lot more to all of this and I'd encourage you to research more-a fascinating time, although very sad. History, politics and life seems interchangeable.
1099887
The US had a presence there since 1950's, even before that if you count the OSS operatives during WWII. Our involvement was to stem the tide of Communism, and also to step in to fill the gap after the French were leaving to comply with the Geneva Accord of 1954. \n     In the context of the times, fighting Communism was a more important and justifiable pretext than oil. \n    It seems apparent that actual motives changed and got muddied as the scope of involvement became lengthy. \n    In the end, US objectives are actually beginning to be realized, and that area of the world moves to more of a self determined free-market based economy. It is a shame that there had to be so much suffering of the general population AFTER US withdrawal to see this come about. \n     I have read memoirs and interviews from former Viet Cong of how they were immediately disenfranchised when the South was overrun, (and they were on the same side as the North, and did much of the dying at the hands of the US!), so one can imagine how bad it must have been for the remainder of the population.
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.
833852
Another Myth Buster!  The British did help the US in the Vietnamese war.  Their help was secretative.  And until recently (late 2005) those documents were classified.  See story: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=74&ItemID=9837