Why the Vietnam Protests Worked

[NyChe21]

This is a quote from Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance :


"By 1968, fear of the public was so serious that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to consider whether "sufficient forces would still be available for civil disorder control" if more troops were sent to Vietnam. The Department of Defense feared that further troop deployments ran the risk of "provoking a domestic crisis of unprecedented proportions. The Reagan administration at first tried to follow Kennedy's South Vietnam model in Central America but backed down in the face of an unanticipated public reaction that threatened to undermine more importatn components of the policy agenda, turning instead to clandestine terror-clandestine in the sense that it could be more or less concealed from the general public."


Any thoughts?

[Ele'ill]

the US could still have it's military spread thin, with not enough military troops to defend against domestic terrorism, violence, civil disobedience ect... but now the police forces are heavily armed and better trained. The police have taken the place of the national guard, so the national guard can now back up the front line military troops rather than deal with problems at home; or at least that's how I see it.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

In other words: Make them scared that if they don't change their path, blue blood is going to flow in the streets.

[Severian]

I think that's not such a great explanation of what happened in the movement against the Vietnam War. Chomsky doesn't really get the class struggle at all.

First of all, by troops for "civil disorder control" the Joint Chiefs probably meant ghetto riots first and foremost. A lot more troops were needed for that than for dealing with student-centered antiwar protest - really only in May 1970 was the National Guard used against students on a large scale. Other military never that I know of - but regular military were used in the ghettos sometimes I think.

The National Guard wasn't sent overseas much back then. It was a way for rich people to keep their kids out of Vietnam.

I would suggest that one major problem the organized antiwar movement and the campus-centered youth radicalization caused for the ruling class was its effect on the attitudes of young people recruited into the army. The large numbers drafted into the army were not so atypical of their generation, and combined with their experiences in Vietnam this led many to resist the war from within...from "search and evade", to fragging, to support to the organized antiwar movement, to open refusal of orders by whole units.

I think what Chomsky says about Central America is true - public protest, and the memory of Vietnam, dissuaded Reagan from more direct intervention. I just think he's giving a simplistic explanation of the effectiveness of the anti-Vietnam War movement, and I think there's a common mistake of expecting that movement to be repeated in something like the same form....IMO its more likely the forms may be very different, since the anti-Vietnam war movement was shaped by things going on in the class struggle at the time.

[Organic Revolution]

the reason that the demonstrations worked back in the 60's-70's is that all people werent demonstrating in one area at one time but more spread out in mass mobilizations

[antieverything]

First of all, by troops for "civil disorder control" the Joint Chiefs probably meant ghetto riots first and foremost. A lot more troops were needed for that than for dealing with student-centered antiwar protest - really only in May 1970 was the National Guard used against students on a large scale. Other military never that I know of - but regular military were used in the ghettos sometimes I think.
Correct, good point. I don't think in this case Chomsky is actually refering to the protest movement alone...the Joint Chiefs were scared of both unrest in the inner cities and mass anti-war direct action that could potentially shut down the functioning of the nation (the ultimate goal of direct action).


I would suggest that one major problem the organized antiwar movement and the campus-centered youth radicalization caused for the ruling class was its effect on the attitudes of young people recruited into the army. The large numbers drafted into the army were not so atypical of their generation, and combined with their experiences in Vietnam this led many to resist the war from within...from "search and evade", to fragging, to support to the organized antiwar movement, to open refusal of orders by whole units.
I don't think that the anti-war movement influenced the thinking of draftees as much as you make it seem. Potential draftees were, after all, consistantly supportive of the war before they were drafted (an issue of cognitive dissonance, probably)...it was most likely experiences in Vietnam that changed their opinions just as very few of the US troops in Iraq were initially opposed to the war but are now due to what they've seen there.

So, could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by "class struggle" in the context of the anti-war movement?

[Black Radical]

The whole assumption is off in my opinion. The protests didn't work. A war that lasted 9 years wasn't stopped because of protest although they clearly cntributed. There was no end in sight for the war. There was no foreseeable victory and the more the war dragged on and us soldiers dies, the more unrest there would be.

It was a factor but 9 years is a long fucking time to be fighting a war in the modern age. There was real shit going on.

Black Panthers
Malcolm X
Weathermen


I think the govt ha some serious concerns about what might hapen with the black community in this country.

All kinds of radical groups popping up and growing. It wasn't just protests, it was significant portions of the country becoming militant and radical.

That false assumption is what has many in this anti-war movment thinking that these protests can stop the war in Iraq. It takes more than protests to stop a war over the worlds second largest oil supply, and continued super power status (global dominance). Alot more!!!!

Especially with all of these give peace a chance folks. Nobody is scared of them!!

[American_Trotskyist]

OK lets look at the whole "RADICALLIZED" 60s student protests. I Grew up in the suburbs, my Dad went to Berkeley from 66-69 spent three additional years there, same with my mom. The students of there were most often just following the mood, they would claim to be a communist, not knowing anything about communism. They seemed to be reacting to their McCathyist upbrinigs by revolting, but they were influenced by the War. The protests didn't work at all. As Black Radical pointed out, 9 years nothing happened. The only real change comes with a WORKERS movement, along with youth. The workers weren't mobalized and weren't at all approched by the students, they called them Reactionaries, which was true but it only proves the point that they have not interest in revolution or change. There was not real change from the 60s and early 70s. The people of those time went on to professions and joined the Democractic Party, because most weren't conserened about workers rights farther than reform and most didn't know much about socailism. The real threat came from the Black Ghettos. Yes, the capitalist government choose MLK only because they were between a rock and a hard place, a revolution and a reform. Not that Civil Rights have done anything for the minorities, living standards are just as low if not worse now. It did help break down the divsion of labor in many cases. But Malcom X said it the best, "There will always be racism as long as there is Capitalism", or something like that.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:07 PM

First of all, by troops for "civil disorder control" the Joint Chiefs probably meant ghetto riots first and foremost. A lot more troops were needed for that than for dealing with student-centered antiwar protest - really only in May 1970 was the National Guard used against students on a large scale. Other military never that I know of - but regular military were used in the ghettos sometimes I think.
Correct, good point. I don't think in this case Chomsky is actually refering to the protest movement alone...the Joint Chiefs were scared of both unrest in the inner cities and mass anti-war direct action that could potentially shut down the functioning of the nation (the ultimate goal of direct action).
The only "anti-war direct action" that ever got anywhere near that was May Day, 1971 in D.C. - it was rapidly shut down by police and National Guard, and proved nonrepeatable in part 'cause of widespread demoralization among participants.




I would suggest that one major problem the organized antiwar movement and the campus-centered youth radicalization caused for the ruling class was its effect on the attitudes of young people recruited into the army. The large numbers drafted into the army were not so atypical of their generation, and combined with their experiences in Vietnam this led many to resist the war from within...from "search and evade", to fragging, to support to the organized antiwar movement, to open refusal of orders by whole units.
I don't think that the anti-war movement influenced the thinking of draftees as much as you make it seem. Potential draftees were, after all, consistantly supportive of the war before they were drafted (an issue of cognitive dissonance, probably)...it was most likely experiences in Vietnam that changed their opinions just as very few of the US troops in Iraq were initially opposed to the war but are now due to what they've seen there.

I haven't been able to find the numbers on this, but "potential draftees" is another way of saying "young men" (or those without the class privelege to get out of the draft)....regardless of the absolute numbers, I'm pretty sure I remember there was an increase in opposition to the war, including among the younger generation, as time went on. It would be harder to show to what degree the antiwar movement was responsible for this.


So, could you elaborate on what exactly you mean by "class struggle" in the context of the anti-war movement?

One, other social movements going on at the time and previously. For example, the war protests inherited a habit of civil disobedience from the civil rights movement, where the tactic had been effective in producing conflicts between state and federal authorities.

Two, other developments in the world class struggle, first of all the struggle of the Vietnamese themselves. Black Radical's right that it was mostly the Vietnamese themselves who pushed the U.S. out of Vietnam...the antiwar movement in the U.S. and internationally was secondary.

Three, what wasn't going on...the unlike most major radicalizations, it was happening during a period of economic prosperity. One effect was, the labor movement largely stood aside, and many of its officials were outright hostile and pro-war.

New social movements arising at another time under other conditions will take different forms.