'Johnson's" war continued into Nixon's and he started what just continued in terms of money being thrown away. Remember this war went to 1975 and financial commitments go way beyond just Vietnam itself and 1968.

From what I have read about LBJ, he didn't want to go to Viet Nam but was afraid of being considered easy on communision. Yes as others have already noted he was a very hard ball politican.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

I'm reading a book on the Cold War right now and LBJ argued that he didn't want to back down to the communists anywhere in the world because so many places were threatened by communism and the USA had made committments to all of them. If Indochina went RED, then what about Latin America? What would the Germans think?

But all those allies were telling LBJ to go slow, take it easy and such.

I think it was domestic politics he was worried most about. He was worried about another China. But tht doesn't make sense. Most people know about China, but Vietnam was some small ountry most people couldn't find on a map

Once Americans were killed at Plieku (sic) Johnson felt he couldn't back down. How many Americans have heard of that attack? How many Americans reember the Lebannon bombing?

Should have cut and run from Nam

Here are the average balance sheets (as a percentage of GDP) for Johnson and Nixon:

Johnson (FY65-69)
Receipts: 18.10
Outlays: 18.98
Balance: -0.88

Nixon (FY70-75)
Receipts: 17.95
Outlays: 19.58
Balance: -1.63

So Nixon just about doubled the Budget Deficit compared to Johnson, and most of that was due to extra spending (Outlays). But since the devil is in the details, let's have a look at what areas Nixon cut and what he raised spending on:

Nixon Spending Cuts:
General Science, Space & Technology: -0.39 (54%)
International Affairs: -0.25 (38%)
Agriculture: -0.16 (33%)
National Defense: -2.11 (25%)
Transportation: -0.05 (7%)
Commerce & Housing Credit: -0.02 (6%)

Nixon Spending Increases:
General Government: +0.29 (138%)
Medicare: +0.35 (109%)
Community & Regional Development: +0.14 (93%)
Administration of Justice: +0.07 (88%)
Income Security: +1.01 (75%)
Health: +0.30 (71%)
Education, Training, Employment & Social Services: +0.26 (38%)
Social Security: +0.91 (33%)
Energy: +0.02 (20%)
Veterans Benefits & Services: +0.13 (16%)
Natural Resources & Environment: +0.04 (12%)
Net Interest: +0.13 (10%)

Where do you figure Nixon's spending was wasteful? If anything, I think Nixon's spending levels reflect the full funding of the Great Society programs initiated by Johnson.

You've got to look at the regional situation at the time, Patriot. The Chinese and the Soviets were trying to one-up each other and expand their areas of influence. One or both of them were supporting not only the North Vietnamese, but the Pathet Lao in Laos and, later, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. There was also a Communist insurgency in Thailand. Also, Suharto in Indonesia was becoming steadily closer to China and himself launching aggressive moves into Malaysia.

Given the situation, the US had to make a stand somewhere in Southeast Asia if it wasn't going to be forced out of the region. Vietnam - situated where it was with easy access to martime supply access - seemed like the place to do that. By drawing a line at the DMZ, the US was signalling it's resolve to it's allies in the region and bolstering the anti-communist elements.

What if the US had backed away from Vietnam? Do you think Sukarno would have been confident enough to overthrow Suharto and destroy the Indonesian communist party? Probably not. You would have had an unbroken Communist arc from the Soviet Union to China to Vietnam to Indonesia... and that would have meant that Japan's shipping routes to Middle East oil would have been at the mercy of the Communist bloc - they could have - in turn - forced Japan to take a more neutralist stance in the Cold War. A neutral Japan would have, in turn, compromised the US ability to bolster South Korea and Taiwan.

You see where I'm going here? I think from Johnson's perspective, Vietnam was a crucial lynchpin to the US Pacific strategy. By making a stand there, he bolstered all of the countries that eventually became Asian Tigers in the 80's. Without a US commitment to Vietnam, I don't think you would have seen the same economic dynamism take hold within the region. They probably would have wallowed in stagnant Maoism instead, and the history of the Cold War may have turned out very differently.

Well stated. People look back and say "see no dominoes", but that is primarily because of what happened in Vietnam.

Thanks Takuan... Not only that, but look at where South Vietnam would have probably been today if it had took advantage of the opportunities the US gave it to survive - odds are pretty good it would have become one of the Asian Tigers itself - with a standard of living probably on a par with Malaysia or Singapore. You can't tell me that they've been better off living under Hanoi's heel all of these years.