Ambivalence About Violence - A Reflection on Vietnam

Ambivalence about Violence

The Vietnam War is a much-debated subject due to the discussion of its necessity, the value of human life, and the people who had to decide if it was worth fighting. Throughout our class discussion about the war it is apparent that politicians, families and other Americans felt strongly about the war in some aspect. However, what about the ambivalent Americans? In order to understand how some felt indifferent about the war, I decided to interview my father who is a natural born Swiss citizen that had American citizenship since 1957. I found it worthwhile to interview my father because although he is proud to be an American, it surprised me that he did not feel strongly about the war in any way or about any war since then. Since he is a supporter of the death penalty, I thought that he would have been pro-government in the issue of the Vietnam War. However throughout our phone discussion it was surprising to me that my father did not feel any particular way about the war. He understood why people were protesting and he understood why the government tried to do it, but it almost seemed like my father was worse than the average pro-Vietnam War American because he just felt indifferent. It was also surprising to talk to my father about the Vietnam War because I never really discussed it with him before and listening to him talk about the anti-war sentiments and the pro-war stance of the government reminded me of the current debate on Iraq and how I want to decide how right or wrong the current situation is.

I first opened up with a question to my father about how he felt about violence. He responded by saying that violence is necessary to punish those who have committed crimes and without it there would not be anything to hold people back from breaking rules and trying to resolve personal problems. It was interesting to see how adamant my father was about using violence not as the only way to solve problems but as a viable method of resolving conflict. When I tried to counter his argument about the “necessity” of violence by asking him about the validity of violence in helping resolve long-term issues of unrest or violence, my father answered by saying he did not believe our world was one in which we could live peacefully since everyone is motivated by personal greed or goals. Although I know I am an idealistic person and that I do believe some of the most difficult global problems could be solved if time and patience were devoted to it, my father has a different viewpoint. He believes that there cannot be any effective push towards resolving problems without an effective international regulatory body such as the U.N. Yet he points towards evidence such as the violent conflicts such as Kosovo to show that an international governing body was not effective in resolving a situation so needing of international help. I tried to argue against that by pointing out that the U.N has so far been able to prevent the U.S. from going to war and that if the U.N. had not existed, then we might have gone to war months ago. Yet my father was quick to point out that the U.S. now seems determined to go to war with or without U.N. support, technically showing another “failure” of an international system.

We then got into the discussion of the Vietnam War. I realized that I never discussed the war with my father so when he actually described it, I was taken aback by how much pain there seemed to be in the country during the 60s. My dad was in Washington for a visit in 1967 and he remembered the protests and how a lot of young people were so upset at the government (my father was 32 at the time):

My Dad: “It was so shocking to see so many people against their own government. Coming from Switzerland I thought that the U.S. was a place where if the masses were unsatisfied then the government adhered to that and adjusted their political policy. However in this case it seemed that the government wasn’t going to listen to anyone and just did what they wanted to do.”

Me: “But you didn’t feel strongly about the war, especially after seeing how the government wasn’t listening to the masses?”

My Dad: “In my opinion, the war was deemed the only effective way the government could resolved the Vietnam issue and Americans were reacting because this was a case where the government was not effective

When my dad was describing the protests that he saw in person and on the news, it made me think about the current situation in Iraq. Hearing about the protests in the 60s instantly reminded me of the protest on Feb 15th in New York. I happened to be home for that weekend and since I live only a few blocks from the protest route it amazed me to see so many people walking through and shouting for the government to not go to war. My parents said the New York protest is the first one they had seen in a long time that could rival the protests in the 60s, which prompts me to question the validity of this war just like others had done years ago in the same fashion. My original thoughts being in the School of Foreign Service were similar to my father’s in how I thought war might be the only way to resolve the issues that we face against a predator such as Saddam Hussein. However, unlike the governments before me, I thought about the long-term implications of such an aggressive use of force. As I told this to my father he instantly replied back, “Well, what if Saddam really is funding Al Qaeda and another World Trade Center attack happens?” However I countered his statement with “What if he isn’t? We don’t really know unless we accept what the government tells us and that is not a convincing way of telling me that war is just. If we attack and there was no real reason to, then not only do we lose out on the sympathizers but we also lose the people who were on the fence about who is right in this conflict.” Although I can understand the point that my father is trying to make, especially in light of the personal losses my family had sustained in 9/11, it still does not convince me that the short term “benefits of war” (in our modern day example Saddam being removed from power) outweigh the long-term repercussions (i.e. more cultural conflict, the surge of religious fundamentalism, the increasing divide between Christians and Arabs).

So how can I as a college student and a half believer in war come to grips with the current dilemma that I face about war and how bothered I am by my father’s indifference? Although I know I still cannot be completely against the notion of war, listening to my father try and justify his indifference about the Vietnam War leads me to the conclusion that war in that case didn’t cause any long-term benefits to Americans or to anyone else. As long as there are people still out there who not only are against war but who are also indifferent about the morality and values of human life that must be thought of when war is proposed will only show the senselessness of that major violent act. Yes, I am one of those people who believed that the Second World War did cause long-term benefits; from my interview with my father I believe I belong more on the side that is anti-war with Iraq. That does not necessarily mean that I will be anti-war in general, but this conflict will lead only to more conflict whereas a prevention of war will only lead to more efforts towards peace.