t support sufficient to allow both stability and some degree of openness" (Boettiger, 1968, p. 119).
Scalapino also points out that the Vietnam War was a symbolic test of American resolve in the global battle for hearts and minds being waged with the Soviet Union in the ongoing Cold War struggle.
As Scalapino writes, "Vietnam is a major test of American institutions and American political behavior. Can our people endure a long, complicated, intricate game . . . In an age when the peace of the world depends upon establishing some political equilibrium in Asia, and fostering the type of socioeconomic programs that will make that equilibrium viable, do we have the patience and the sophistication to take a leading (but not solo) role?" (Boettiger, 1968, p. 119).
Rostow points out, in his defense of the American involvement in Vietnam, that the United States had a legal responsibility to fulfill its treaty obligations to Vietnam and to the region, a responsibility which was also clearly moral, and which reflected on the nation's commitments to other nations and regions around the world.
As such, the American obligation to Vietnam required that the United States stand up and be counted as the leader of the Free World, or simply lie down and let the Soviet Union and Communism control the world without argument.
Therefore, Rostow writes, "We are honoring a treaty which committed us to 'act to meet the common danger' in the face of aggression by means of armed attack' in the treaty area. And this commitment is also being honored by Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Thailand --- as well as by the remarkable action of South Korea, which was not bound by treaty in this matter" (Boettiger, 1968, p. 127).
In other words, if little South Korea is willing to put the lives of its men on the line in the defense of South Vietnam, then how can the United States, bound by treaty, refuse to do the same?
Norman Podhore...