American foreign policy under President Lyndon B. Johnson centred on Vietnam’s escalation, military actions, strained alliances, rising public dissent, and his eventual political decline.
Reasons for Escalation
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964)
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964 acted as a catalyst for deeper American involvement in Vietnam. After reports (later contested) that North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox and a second destroyer, Johnson seized the opportunity to gain congressional support for greater military intervention.
Resolution passed on 7 August 1964, with near-unanimous congressional approval.
It granted Johnson broad powers to “take all necessary measures” to repel attacks and prevent further aggression.
This effectively gave the president a free hand to escalate military operations without a formal declaration of war.
Domino Theory and Containment Policy
American Cold War strategy was heavily influenced by the Domino Theory—the belief that the fall of one Southeast Asian nation to communism would lead to the spread of communism throughout the region.
Johnson inherited this worldview from predecessors Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.
Containment policy, devised to limit the spread of communism, made Vietnam a symbolic battleground.
Failure in Vietnam was seen as undermining America’s credibility in global leadership.
Johnson’s Personal Convictions
Johnson feared being the president who “lost” Vietnam:
He believed withdrawal would embolden the Soviet Union and China.
Domestic political pressure, especially from Republican critics, made any sign of weakness politically damaging.
Advisors like Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy reinforced the case for escalation.
Military Developments
Operation Rolling Thunder
In March 1965, the Johnson administration authorised Operation Rolling Thunder, a sustained bombing campaign against North Vietnam.
Aimed to weaken North Vietnam’s resolve and disrupt supply lines to the Viet Cong in the South.
Continued until late 1968, dropping millions of tonnes of bombs.
However, it failed to cripple North Vietnam’s war effort and often strengthened the enemy’s determination.
Ground Troop Deployment
Bombing alone proved insufficient, leading to a dramatic increase in American ground forces:
March 1965: First combat troops—3,500 Marines—landed at Da Nang.
By end of 1965, troop levels rose to around 184,000.
At the peak in 1968, over 536,000 American personnel were stationed in Vietnam.
Search-and-destroy missions became standard practice, seeking to engage the enemy directly and inflict high casualties.
The Nature of the Conflict
American military strategy focused on attrition—wearing down the enemy through superior firepower.
This led to high civilian casualties and widespread destruction.
The guerrilla tactics of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army frustrated American conventional warfare methods.
Terrain and jungle warfare placed American soldiers at a tactical disadvantage.
Impact on Relations with Western Allies
NATO Allies and Growing Criticism
Johnson’s aggressive Vietnam policy strained relations with key allies:
Many NATO members were sceptical, seeing Vietnam as a regional civil conflict, not part of the broader East-West Cold War struggle.
Western European leaders like French President Charles de Gaulle openly criticised the war, calling for US withdrawal.
The conflict diverted American resources and attention away from Europe, raising fears of weakened defence against the Soviet threat in Europe.
International Reputation
The extensive bombing and civilian suffering damaged America’s moral standing.
Neutral countries and even some allies questioned the legitimacy and effectiveness of US actions.
Johnson faced diplomatic isolation at various international summits, as Vietnam overshadowed other foreign policy concerns.
Increasing Public Opposition
The Role of the Media
Vietnam was the first televised war:
Graphic images of wounded soldiers, civilian casualties, and combat operations were broadcast nightly.
The Tet Offensive in 1968 further fuelled scepticism about official reports of progress.
Journalists like Walter Cronkite expressed doubt about victory, influencing public sentiment.
Body Counts and the Credibility Gap
American military leaders often measured success through body counts—the number of enemy soldiers killed.
This focus appeared callous and disconnected from real progress.
As casualties mounted, Americans grew disillusioned with the lack of clear victory.
The credibility gap widened—meaning the gap between government claims and reality as perceived by the public:
Official statements often claimed the war was being won.
Contradictory media reports and images eroded trust in the Johnson administration.
Protests erupted on university campuses and major cities, becoming a prominent feature of 1960s America.
Anti-War Movement
By the late 1960s, opposition coalesced into a formidable anti-war movement:
Draft dodging and draft card burnings became symbolic acts of resistance.
Massive protests, like the 1967 March on the Pentagon, drew tens of thousands.
Prominent figures, including Dr Martin Luther King Jr., publicly denounced the war, linking it to civil rights and poverty issues at home.
Johnson’s Declining Approval and Decision Not to Run for Re-election
Erosion of Political Support
As the war dragged on with mounting casualties and costs, Johnson’s once formidable political capital deteriorated:
Escalating war expenditures fuelled inflation, undermining his domestic programmes like the Great Society.
Both hawks (who wanted victory at all costs) and doves (who demanded withdrawal) criticised his policies.
By 1967, public opinion polls reflected widespread disillusionment with his handling of Vietnam.
The Tet Offensive and Political Fallout
The Tet Offensive of January 1968 was a turning point:
Despite being a military failure for the Viet Cong, it shocked the American public.
The scale and coordination of the attack contradicted official claims that the enemy was weakening.
Johnson’s approval ratings plummeted to record lows.
Withdrawal from the 1968 Presidential Race
Facing deep divisions within his own party and an unexpectedly strong challenge from anti-war candidate Senator Eugene McCarthy, Johnson made a historic announcement:
On 31 March 1968, he declared he would not seek re-election.
He simultaneously announced a partial bombing halt and called for peace negotiations with North Vietnam.
Johnson spent his final months in office striving for a negotiated settlement, but by then, his political influence was greatly diminished.
While Johnson’s domestic legacy remains tied to civil rights and social reform, his foreign policy is inextricably linked to the Vietnam quagmire:
His decisions deepened US involvement in what became an unwinnable conflict.
The war’s financial, human, and political costs reverberated throughout American society for years to come.
His successor, Richard Nixon, would inherit the complex task of extricating the US from Vietnam while managing its global consequences.
This chapter in American history highlights the limits of Cold War-era policies and the deep social divisions that foreign interventions can create.
FAQ
Johnson’s advisors played a crucial and often decisive role in the escalation of the Vietnam War. Key figures included Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk, both staunch advocates for increased military involvement. McNamara, once sceptical, came to believe that a steady increase in military pressure would force North Vietnam to negotiate, underestimating the enemy’s resilience. Military commanders like General Westmoreland consistently requested more troops, arguing that victory was within reach if only they had sufficient numbers. The Joint Chiefs of Staff largely supported escalatory measures, rarely providing strong dissenting voices. National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and other high-ranking officials reinforced the Cold War mindset, framing Vietnam as a crucial front in the battle against communism. Johnson’s own lack of foreign policy experience made him heavily reliant on these advisors, leading to decisions based more on consensus within his inner circle than genuine consideration of alternative diplomatic or political solutions.
America’s domestic economic context significantly influenced Johnson’s Vietnam policy, though it complicated his aims. Johnson inherited a growing economy but also an ambitious domestic programme in the form of the Great Society. Funding the War on Poverty alongside an expensive overseas conflict placed immense pressure on the federal budget. Initially, Johnson resisted raising taxes or cutting domestic spending, fearing political backlash and wanting to avoid jeopardising his social reforms. Instead, he opted to finance the war through deficit spending. This contributed to rising inflation, which began to erode public confidence in his administration’s economic management. Business leaders and economists criticised the “guns and butter” approach, warning it was unsustainable. By 1967, inflation was becoming a political issue, fuelling wider dissatisfaction with Johnson’s presidency. Ultimately, the economic strains undermined both the war effort and domestic programmes, creating a situation where financial concerns became intertwined with mounting public and congressional opposition to continued military involvement in Vietnam.
The anti-war movement under Johnson evolved from isolated voices of dissent to a widespread, organised national protest movement by the late 1960s. Initially, opposition came from a small group of pacifists, intellectuals, and left-wing activists, often dismissed as unpatriotic or fringe elements. However, as media coverage exposed the brutal realities of the war, more mainstream Americans began to question its purpose and morality. University students were among the most vocal; organisations like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) held teach-ins and large demonstrations on campuses nationwide. Draft resistance also became a powerful tool of protest, with young men publicly burning draft cards and some fleeing to Canada. Religious leaders, civil rights activists, and cultural figures lent credibility to the cause, broadening its appeal. By 1967–1968, the movement staged massive protests in major cities, such as the March on the Pentagon. This evolution signalled a profound shift in public opinion, making continued escalation politically hazardous for Johnson.
Johnson’s conduct during the Vietnam War played a pivotal role in eroding American trust in government institutions. Central to this was the “credibility gap”, the growing disconnect between official statements and the realities reported by journalists and returning soldiers. Johnson’s administration repeatedly assured the public that progress was being made and victory was near, while media coverage starkly contradicted these claims. The revelations of misleading information, such as exaggerated enemy body counts and minimised casualty figures, intensified public scepticism. The release of the Pentagon Papers after Johnson’s presidency confirmed that successive administrations, including his, had systematically misrepresented the situation in Vietnam. This betrayal of trust had far-reaching consequences, fostering a more cynical and questioning attitude toward government pronouncements. It set the stage for later disillusionment during the Watergate scandal under Nixon. For many Americans, Vietnam under Johnson marked the beginning of a persistent sense of doubt about the honesty and integrity of political leaders and institutions.
The Tet Offensive, launched in January 1968, was a coordinated series of attacks by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces against major cities and military bases across South Vietnam. Though a military failure for the communists, resulting in heavy casualties and no lasting territorial gains, it was a profound psychological and political shock for the United States. American leaders had assured the public that the enemy was weakened and the war was nearing a successful conclusion. The scale and intensity of the offensive exposed the fragility of these claims. Media coverage of battles in places like Saigon and Hue showed Americans that the enemy could strike anywhere, undermining faith in government reports. Politically, the offensive forced Johnson to abandon the narrative of imminent victory and to halt the bombing of North Vietnam above the 20th parallel to encourage peace talks. It directly influenced Johnson’s decision not to seek re-election and shifted US strategy toward de-escalation and eventual withdrawal, fundamentally altering the course of the war.
Practice Questions
Explain why President Johnson escalated American involvement in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968.
Johnson escalated US involvement in Vietnam due to Cold War pressures, belief in the domino theory, and a commitment to containment. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave him wide powers to expand military action. Influential advisors reinforced fears that losing Vietnam would damage US credibility worldwide. Domestically, Johnson feared appearing weak to Republican critics and risking political defeat. He also misjudged the effectiveness of bombing and troop deployment, believing greater force would secure victory. These factors combined to trap Johnson in a costly conflict, deepening America’s entanglement despite growing public and international criticism.
How significant was media coverage in increasing public opposition to the Vietnam War under Johnson?
Media coverage was highly significant in turning American public opinion against the Vietnam War. Graphic television reports brought the brutal realities of combat and civilian suffering into people’s homes. The focus on body counts and the discrepancy between official statements and on-the-ground reporting widened the credibility gap, eroding trust in Johnson’s administration. Iconic moments, like the Tet Offensive, contradicted claims of imminent victory and heightened scepticism. While other factors like rising casualties and the draft also fuelled opposition, the media played a vital role in mobilising protests and shaping anti-war sentiment across the United States.
