I am perfectly serious, and your account does little to answer my question. Political gain? Vietnam became a volatile issue, and since the electorate was mostly following the political leadership, and ultimately wanted to wrap things up, it was just as likely that one could gain by supporting withdrawal. Remember, Nixon won on Vietnamization and his "secrete plan" to get us out, once again showing his brilliance in positioning himself on both sides of the issue.
Contractors? I daresay that they would have made as much on urban renewal contracts, without the risks, as they did in Vietnam. If their interests prevailed, we should have expanded the War on Poverty, not the war in Vietnam.
Officers? This was a very civilian- run war. Johnson picked targets to bomb back in Washington. The misgivings of the military were mainly centered around the insufficiency of strategy to achieve the objectives, or, to put another way, the fact that the war was not run on sound military principles.
Anyway, none of this has to do with my point, which is that there were no clearcut vested interests dictating the original commitment to Vietnam, on the Chomskey-esque "corporate interest" paradigm. |
