we have learned the meaning of aggression elsewhere in the post-war world, and we have met it. If peace could be restored in South Vietnam, the United States will be ready at once to reduce its military involvement. But it would not abandon friends who wish to remain free. It will do what must be done to help them. The choice at the time between peace and continued and increasingly destructive conflict is one for the authorities in Hanoi to make. The United States’ Policy “We were there because we have a promise to keep and that was to keep peace. Since 1954 every American president has offered support to the people of South Vietnam. We have helped to build, and we have helped to defend. Thus, over many years, we have made a national pledge to help South Vietnam defend its independence. And we intended to keep that promise. To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong.” (PFC. Elmore) The U.S. was also there to strengthen world order. Around the globe from Germany to Peking are people whose safety rests in part on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability and even wider war. “The United States’ objective is the independence of South Vietnam and its freedom from attack. The U.S. wanted people of South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way.” (Bowman p. 74)“We did everything necessary to reach that objective and we will do only what is absolutely necessary. There was a point where attacks on South Vietnam were stepped up. Thus, it became necessary for us to increase our response and to make attacks by air. This is not a change of purpose. It is a change in ...
