Document – Lyndon B. Johnson, “Why Americans Fight in Vietnam” (1965)

Abstract and Keywords

The American leader most associated with American involvement in Vietnam was President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973). In his speech “Why Americans Fight in Vietnam” (1965), he attempted to explain to the American people why the United States needed to undertake a difficult, dangerous, and expensive endeavor. But three years later, with his popularity at its lowest point, President Johnson announced that he would not seek a second term as president, and he retired to his Texas ranch in 1969.

Lyndon B. Johnson, “Why Americans Fight in Vietnam,” in The Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, volume 1, 172 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1966), 394–99.

Document

Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure. This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason and the waste of war, the works of peace. We wish that this were not so. But we must deal with the world as it is, if it is ever to be as we wish.

The world as it is in Asia is not a serene or peaceful place. The first reality is that North Viet-Nam has attacked the independent nation of South Viet-Nam. Its object is total conquest. . . . And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to their government. And helpless villages are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.

The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. Over this war—and all Asia—is another reality: the deepening shadow of Communist China. The rulers in Hanoi are urged on by Peking. This is a regime . . . which is helping the forces of violence in almost every continent. The contest in VietNam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes.

Why are these realities our concern? Why are we in South Viet-Nam?

We are there because we have a promise to keep. Since 1954 every American President has offered support to the people of South Viet-Nam. We have . . . made a national pledge to help South Viet-Nam defend its independence. And I intend to keep that promise.

We are there also to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Berlin to Thailand are people whose well-being rests in part on the belief that they can count

on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America’s word. The result would be increased instability, and even wider war.

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia—as we did in Europe—in the words of the Bible: “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further.” . . .

There are those who wonder why we have a responsibility there. Well, we have it there for the same reason that we have a responsibility for the defense of Europe. World War II was fought in both Europe and Asia and when it ended we found ourselves with continued responsibility for the defense of freedom.

Our objective is the independence of South Viet-Nam and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves—only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.

We will do everything necessary to reach that objective and we will do only what is absolutely necessary. . . . We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement. . . . We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery—the will to endure as well as the will to resist.

I wish it were possible to convince others with words of what we now find it necessary to say with guns and planes: armed hostility is futile. Our resources are equal to any challenge because we fight for values and we fight for principle, rather than territory or colonies, our patience and our determination are unending.

Review

1. List the reasons provided by Lyndon Johnson that the United States must fight in Vietnam. What parts of his argument can be traced to Cold War considerations and to the general views behind containment? What other factors seem to shape his views?
2. Johnson concluded, “The central issue of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next.” Do you agree with this assertion?