Editor’s Note (Part I):
This is Lyndon B. Johnson’s second mention on our Wall of Shame, and Richard Nixon already has three. That tally alone speaks volumes about the chaotic and deadly nature of the Vietnam era. It wasn’t just a military quagmire—it was a time of deep moral reckoning. Americans fought and died overseas while marching in the streets at home for civil rights. The collision of those two crises—war abroad, struggle at home—created a national wound that never fully healed.

When Johnson inherited the Oval Office after JFK’s assassination, he also inherited a simmering conflict in Southeast Asia. Rather than scale back, he turned up the heat with gusto.

Following the Gulf of Tonkin incident—which remains a murky episode at best—Johnson pushed for a resolution that gave him sweeping powers to wage war without a formal declaration from Congress. What followed was a massive escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Troop numbers skyrocketed from 16,000 advisors to over 500,000 combat personnel. The death toll mounted. Cities burned. Trust in government plummeted.

Johnson sold the war as necessary to stop the spread of communism, invoking the domino theory. What he really did was knock over the dominoes of his own presidency and the public’s faith in Washington. He fed the country a steady diet of optimism while hiding the true cost of the war in blood and billions.

LBJ also believed he could launch his ambitious “Great Society” programs alongside the war—trying to fund Medicare, civil rights advancements, and anti-poverty initiatives while burning cash in the jungles of Southeast Asia. It didn’t work. The war drained the economy, divided the nation, and undercut the very programs he hoped would define his legacy.

Johnson didn’t run for re-election in 1968. Vietnam had broken his presidency—and arguably the country, too.

Editor’s Note (Part II):
Johnson’s miscalculation became a textbook case of what happens when hubris, ideology, and politics collide. His belief that America could sustain both a “Guns and Butter” economy—funding social programs and war simultaneously—collapsed under the weight of reality. The Vietnam War exposed the limits of American power and the truth-deficient spin of the political elite. We were lied to then, just as we are being lied to now.

When reviewing the Vietnam era, it becomes painfully clear: America has survived in spite of the dumbasses we elect as President. This series isn’t about tearing down historical figures just for fun—it’s about keeping current failures in perspective. Johnson, Nixon, and others made disastrous choices. And yet the country endures. Whether we’ll survive today’s leadership… that’s the real question.

Summary of the Tonkin Gulf Incident

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, occurring in August 1964, was a pivotal event that escalated U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The incidents involved alleged attacks on U.S. naval vessels by North Vietnamese forces, which were subsequently used as a justification for military engagement. Official narratives, however, have come under scrutiny, revealing a complex interplay of military operations, miscommunication, and political motivations.

On August 2, 1964, the USS Maddox was attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats while on a Desoto patrol in international waters. This engagement was clear-cut and confirmed by various sources. However, it was the subsequent events on August 4 that would lead to widespread controversy. During a second alleged attack, the Maddox and the USS Turner Joy reported coming under fire, leading to retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam. Communications and radar data from that night indicated confusion, with many reports suggesting that the destroyers were firing at phantom targets rather than actual enemy vessels.

Recent declassified documents indicate that what the U.S. forces perceived as an attack on August 4 may not have occurred at all. Lieutenant Commander John J. Herrick, in charge of the Maddox, later expressed doubts about the encounter, suggesting that the apparent torpedo attacks were results of equipment malfunction and the crew’s misinterpretation of sonar data. Despite these early indications of error, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara used the perceived attacks to rally support for retaliatory strikes and influence Congress towards the approval of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted extraordinary military powers to the President.

Vietnamese officials have consistently maintained that the U.S. narrative of the events during the Gulf of Tonkin incident was exaggerated and misleading. They assert that their naval forces were responding defensively to alleged U.S.-backed attacks along their coastline, particularly the covert South Vietnamese operations known as OPLAN 34A. These operations had involved South Vietnamese forces conducting commando raids on North Vietnamese positions, which the North interpreted as acts of aggression.

Vietnam’s official stance asserts that the U.S. misrepresented the incidents to justify its military involvement in Vietnam. This narrative was consistent with how the North Vietnamese viewed their engagement in the conflict, framing it as a defensive struggle against foreign aggression rather than an unprovoked attack.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident has since emerged as a case study in the manipulation of intelligence and information for political gain, raising questions about the ethics of military engagement and the responsibility of government officials to provide accurate information to Congress and the public. Historians argue that the Tonkin Resolution effectively initiated the escalation of U.S. military operations in Vietnam, leading to a long and costly conflict.

This is the same type of misdirect orchestrated by the George W Bush Administration to justify invading Iraq.

APA Citation

Paterson, P. (2008). The truth about Tonkin. Naval History, 22(1). Retrieved from https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin