President George W Bush’s actions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in reaction to 9/11 should not be or have been a surprise given the historical precedent in the United States of militarily action when threatened, as exemplified by the invasion of Vietnam. The realization that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, coupled with the fact that 16 years later the US continues to have a strong military presence in the Middle East, leave many people questioning the motives behind the so called ‘war on terror’ and wondering why we invaded in the first place. However, the United States has a long history of deploying military operations in places where it feels threatened. There are many similarities between Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 and Lyndon B. Johnson’s deployment of troops in Vietnam during an era of McCarthyism and fear of communism.
The end of the 1940’s through the 1950’s is a period of American History known as McCarthyism or the second red scare, in which Americans across the country were plagued by fear of the threat of communism and the growing amount of communism in the world. From this fear came the ‘domino theory’ which suggested that “a communist government in one nation would quickly lead to communist takeovers in neighboring states, each falling like a perfectly aligned row of dominos” (History.Com, Domino Theory). This theory was applied to Vietnam, with many politicians believing that if Vietnam were to fall to communism, most of the rest of asia would fall as well, and that the security of America would be at risk. Lyndon B. Johnson thus sent troops into Vietnam in order to help the Vietnamese protect themselves against communist forces and ensure that Vietnam would not be taken over. He undertook these actions because of the believed threat of communism towards the US and the hysteria of the American people in regards to communism.
On September 11th 2001, a terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda killed roughly 3,000 Americans by crashing planes into the twin towers, pentagon and attempting to crash another plane somewhere in D.C. This attack struck at the hearts of Americans across the country who feared more attacks on US soil by terrorist organizations. Nine days after this attack President Bush called for a ‘war on terror,’ focusing the efforts of the US military towards the Middle East in order to end terrorism and squash any terrorist organizations. Troops were deployed in Afghanistan where the Taliban were located, and Iraq, where there was questions as to whether Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Regime were aiding Al-Qaeda and creating weapons of mass destruction.
In both instances, America and the American people felt threatened by outside forces and ideologies and the government reacted to that fear by invading the countries that contained the threat. Some might argue that Bush’s reaction to 9/11 differs from Johnson’s reaction to communism due to the fact that terrorism was a physical threat to the United States while communism was a perceived threat. However, in both instances, the security of the United States was believed to be under attack. The necessity for the United States to prevail against threats, whether on US soil or against an ideology, is the key to understanding both the war on terror and the Vietnam War. In class we talked about national security, or the idea that the government needs to protect the borders of its state from outside threats. This was considered to be important because there is an idea that national security is necessary for human flourishing and that it is the role of the government to provide security for its citizens. The reactions of Bush and Johnson were important because they were fulfilling one of the key roles of the state by protecting it from external threats, whether physical or perceived. Given this historical precedent of undertaking military operations in order to defend the country, one can easily understand why the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan post 9/11.
I thought the point that you made about he perceived threat that communism would take over and the threat of more terrorist attacks was a great connection into the reasons why troops were dispatched. This domino theory that you talked about can be seen with both of these which shows how quickly fear can take over and hysteria will allow for many different possibilities to be thought of. Both presidents went into the conflicts trying to stop this domino effect and I would say that the national security point at the end summed up this point exactly.
ReplyDeleteThe connection you made between Bush's "war on terror" and the US's response to the spread of communism was very interesting. I know many people, myself included, who question if Bush made the right decision about getting heavily involved in the Middle East; but based on the presiding conditions, his decision becomes more clear. I find it fascinating how McCarthyism spread like wildfire in the US, and ushered in an era of hysteria, hypervigilance, and false accusations. I sometimes wonder if the US did not get involved in places like Vietnam, if communism would have spread across more of Asia (domino theory); but that is something we will never know.
ReplyDeleteI like the comparison between the "Red Scare" and the War on Terror. I think this is a creative connection while both points serve the same purpose that the United States will act upon any threat to security whether it is a threat to identity or to physical invasion. Also, your last paragraph is strong as it blends these two different periods/threats into a common thread about American security. The sentence "The necessity for the United States to prevail against threats, whether on US soil or against an ideology, is the key to understanding both the war on terror and the Vietnam War" is a very accurate statement that essentially encompasses the sentiment behind any American president, whether it is Bush (a Republican) or Johnson ( a Democrat). Regardless of an executive with more realist or liberal approaches, the ultimate goal is to protect national security and US borders. Possibly, this could be something that could be more explored--does political identity bring about different goals of security for a political leader?
ReplyDelete