Missy Allen

Professor Gold
POLS 1100

The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam

Ive chosen to write about two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and well known historian,
Barbara Tuchman. One of her lesser known books, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam
gives a gave a great example of some of the many things learned throughout the semester of this
politics class.
Despite Tuchman never having formal education as a historian, she refused to let that
stop her from writing several fantastic books. Tuchmans views on the war are well presented.
The passion she had for writing and for history showed in all of her writing. She did ample
research and formed a solid, cohesive argument disregarding any bias she may have had against
the war. She guides her readers through the text with descriptive terms and an unconventional
presentation of the events that occurred.
In chapter four, Married To Failure, its clear that regardless of whether or not she was
bias, she wrote to educate and not to persuade. Tuchman wrote that there were instances where
Kennedy and his administration saw the probable outcome of their actions regarding the war but
disregarded to that foresight. The men appointed to office were men who were scholars, who
needed to appear tough. She believed that the Kennedy administration enforced questionable war
tactics. Several points are made about what she considered to be selfish nature of President
Kennedy. She wrote that although he had several opportunities to pull out of Vietnam, he ignored
them. It was her opinion that this was due to his fear that if he did it would make him appear
weak and he would face criticism from his right-wing peers. Tuchman felt The United States

involvement in Vietnam was highly unnecessary and brought far more harm than good. I too,
agree with the belief that the United States war in Vietnam was not necessary. Despite the
charismatic nature, dashing looks and heroic service as a naval captain that had easily won
Kennedy the presidency, he failed America by letting such a folly happen. However, the results
that came from it in terms of mass movements stemming from protests on civil rights and rightto-know journalism getting recognized are possibly the only good that came from it.
Americans kept foretelling the outcome, seeing the truth in what was happening, and
then, failing to act in reference to their foresight. Two weeks before Kennedys inauguration,
Eisenhower briefed him on a plan to fight the Castro-regime, and free Cuba from Communism.
Kennedy was faced with the decision to approve the plan and with the pressure of the policies
already in place he gave it his go-ahead. At that point it appeared easier to carry through with it,
rather than call it off. The Castro-regime was described as well organized, on guard, alert and
ready for combat as opposed to the combined, sloppy, efforts of the CIA and Cuban exiles who
lacked the sufficient means and were over-confident in their procedures. Fidel Castro was
well supported by his men, and more popular than the exiles the United States were seemingly
supporting. The administration had underestimated their opponent, a mistake that Kennedy
would make more than once in his time in office. He was well aware that if the Vietnam War was
turned into a white mans war they would lose as the French has lost ten years prior. The
American failure to see the significance of the Frenchs loss is a perfect example of seeing the
truth in what would happen, but then making decisions that disregard and contradict the truths.
Tuchmans argument about Americas failure to act appropriately according to their
foresight is a logically coherent argument. Tuchmans supporting evidence came, from a variety
of sources to back up her claim about Americas foolishness regarding the Vietnam War. She had

Missy Allen
Professor Gold
POLS 1100

the amazing ability to discuss the events that occurred in a colorful, and interesting way while
somehow managing to keep all of the facts, and including the research that she does in a fluid
manner. This further strengthens her arguments because the ability to take such convoluted
events and present them so clearly and interestingly without losing any of the factual value
shows an amazing understanding and interpretation of any events that occurred.
As Tuchman acknowledges, there were several instances where Kennedy is aware of
certain truths but failed to act accordingly. His decision to follow through with the plan presented
to him by Eisenhower shortly before entering office, because it was easier to do that than to call
it off is foreshadowing of the decisions that he would make during the Vietnam War. This
indicates that his focus was mostly on keeping the right wing happy as well as well as other
powerful elites among with his own private agenda, rather than consider the well being of the
public. This unfortunately has been an act shown in many of the countries recent presidents. The
disastrous loss, in The Bay of Pigs was a perfect example of how failure to assess the enemy
correctly by Kennedy ultimately tarnished his name as well as followed him into the Vietnam
War.
Kennedy knew in both situations that it would be better to cut their losses and pull out
however his right wing affiliates persuaded him to do just the opposite.
David Schoenbrun, a reporter for CBS, confronted Kennedy about the realities of the loss
suffered by the French ten years prior, to only get a disturbing response from the president:
Well, Mr. Schoenbrun that was the French. They were fighting for a colony, for an ignoble
cause. Were fighting for freedom, to free them from the communists, from China, for their
independence. It appeared then, that Kennedy didnt realize the French and America both

largely shared the same skin color and that it would be best left to the Vietnamese to fight off the
Viet-Cong militant regime.
Kennedy and his administration continued the misrepresentation of what was happening
in the war which created a lot of upset in the press. Reporters were doubtful and more and more
undesirable stories were printed. The press war had started to have an effect on Kennedy.
However he refused to let that sway him on his choice to continue the war. He was once quoted
as saying ...To pull out now, would be to give Vietnam to the Communists! Once again,
proving Tuchmans argument that Kennedy was selfish and that his personal interests came
before the countries. Fatefully, on November 22, 1963 President Kennedy was assassinated while
in Dallas, Texas. While this did end the Kennedy administration it did not end the Vietnam War.
Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson took his place.
In The Democratic Debate, the chapter dedicated to mass media depicted several
similarities in how they presented the Bush administrations approach to controlling public
opinion through media. Just as Kennedy wanted to control the publics opinion and gain their
confidence for the war, President Bush practiced the same tactics. The Bush administration
claimed war with Iraq was critical due to their alleged W.M.D. even though none were ever
found. Bush was able to convince through public opinion that this war was crucial and even after
a public admission that no W.M.Ds were found, many citizens of America still believed they
existed there. Barbara Tuchman presents an excellent argument in her novel The March of Folly:
Marriage to Failure. She believed that the Kennedy administration was what she would describe
as willy-nilly with their tactics implemented in the war and even though they were aware of
the folly of their policies, they proceeded with them because it was easier to do so than to call
them off completely. She states this war a war by the executive with no congressional

Missy Allen
Professor Gold
POLS 1100

authorization. Although some may argue that she is bias because she was an anti-war protester,
her research was thorough and her argument was well presented. Her astute observations and
ability to correlate incidences in the Kennedy administration were effective in presenting her
argument. I enjoyed how the text had a rather empirical quality to it ridden with plenty of well
gathered research. After reading her writing I feel more educated about the context she wrote
about as well as interested in exploring it further on my own.