Talk:Vietnam syndrome

Stabbed in the back ARGGHH!!!

The article gave the impression that pro-Vietnam-war people made specific reference to the "Stabbed in the back" theory about Germany in World War I, or used the phrase "Stabbed in the back" themselves. There are no citations supporting this, and as far as I can tell, the comparisons to World War I are instead made by those opposed to the Vietnam war. Instead, I moved reference to "Stabbed in the back" to the "See also" section. Andjam 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This article also gives the impression that 1) the entire American public was against the Vietnam War (which is untrue) and 2) that the 'Vietnam Syndrome' is used in reference to the American public, when it's actually directed towards American leftists and liberals. I believe some major editing is in order. 69.58.249.133 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The term has been used far more broadly. See for instance the way it is used in Reagan's 1980 speech and Nixon's 1985 bookFairlane75 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the "Stabbed in the back" reference is not really relevant, and appears to be an attempt at guilt by association. I suggest removing it completely. Also, this article is of very poor quality in its present form and desperately needs work. I will tweak it here and there as time permits, but someone else will have to revise it substantially. --Varenius 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted the reference to the "stab-in-the-back" issue because it was a term used as far back as the late 1960s, in a Time article. It was a term of public debate and thus deserves to be mentioned.Fairlane75 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

polemic

This article appears to me to suffer a rather suggestive bias; at the least, it is repetitive, and ought to be given another round of Wikification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.123.71 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2006

Feel free to modify the article yourself! Also, what specific problems do you see that need fixing? -Phoenixrod 06:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tags

I've added two tags to the article: weasel words and not citing sources. I've tried to mark spots in the article that use weasel words like "many pundits". I think the above comments are related. -Phoenixrod 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also added a rewrite tag. I think some of the material here can be saved, so it's not necessarily a "complete" rewrite that's needed, but substantial work is necessary. --Varenius 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the example related to Bosnia in which Hoolbroke sued president Clinton that hes too hesitating to intervene in Bosnia, since the UN Court of justice verdiced there was not aggression and any invasion was denied. The example actually suggested that the prompt US intervention was needed, which i found biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoblaster (talk • contribs) 02:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Somalia

Withdrawal of US forces from Somalia was already planned months in advance with the Battle of Mogadishu occurred. This article makes the incorrect (and POV-laden) assertion that the withdrawal occurred because of the US casualties. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, like MSM news analysis claimed to contribute to Vietnam Syndrome, while infact supportive of the Vietnam War

According to the book Manufacturing consent, many large news stories and reporters were infact still very supportive of the Vietnam war.(and the larger indochina war) Even those claimed to be have the lowest opinions of it in "studies" like Big Story from Peter Braestrup from Freedom_House. Even to the point of chastizing the media for negativity while it was being more optimistic than many government sources.88.159.79.223 (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is completely written from the perspective of war hawks and only quotes proponents for war, using biased terms like "malaise" and presenting the term like an actual syndrome rather than a term coined by conservatives. Opencooper (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. For example, the sentence "their [NVN] unsustainable casualty count would not have survived a protracted engagement in the absence of major American political interference and Communist funded anti-war propaganda in the United States which eroded popular support for the conflict."

The assertion about the casualty count is not only polemical but speculative in the extreme, not to mention completely unsubstantiated. Further, what is "political interference" in a war? I was under the impression that the military was under civilian control in the US. Lastly, the bit about "communist-funded" is simply a slur. Newmann Noggs (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"On Loving the Vietnam Syndrome"

This blog-entry by Richard Falk could provide some of the needed material to balance the article. The Weinberger Doctrine (article) has unfortunately similar shortcomings, but is at least available. And there is more.... Ai24 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)