
Fall of Saigon, 50 Years On
Commentary
Fifty years ago, on April 30, Americans were glued to their television sets. Flickering screens showed frightened civilians pushing their way up a rickety rooftop stairway, desperately trying to climb aboard one of the last departing helicopters.
On April 30, 1975, Saigon fell to the communist armies of North Vietnam, just two years after the Paris Peace Accords and the departure of American forces. The event still polarizes the American public. According to a
The Vietnamese diaspora are less conflicted, still referring to it as '
Despite the US military retreat two years earlier, this final, chaotic, terrifying scene was a black eye to a nation that had never lost a war. Korea and the War of 1812 ended with treaties, but neither was an outright defeat. The image of a helicopter on a rooftop certainly ended the myth of American invincibility, earned from the capitals of Europe to the coasts of Japan.
Despite that day's bleak visuals,
Related Stories
5/6/2025
4/17/2025
After nearly two decades of intervention, the public and both political parties had tired of the conflict. The war began under President Eisenhower, intensified with Kennedy and Johnson, and finally ended with Nixon's treaty falsely declaring 'peace with honor.' In a last-ditch effort to prevent Saigon's fall, President Ford asked Congress for financial aid, but the measure failed. South Vietnam paid the price.
Hundreds of thousands were sent to
In an odd quirk of fate, even the victorious communists eventually made peace with capitalism, decades later. In 2001, their new economic plan enhanced the role of the private sector, leading to significant economic growth. By 2007, Vietnam had joined the World Trade Organization, and regularly ranks as one of the
Looking back at the entire conflict, fingers can't be pointed at one president, one party, or one event. With hindsight, however, many lessons are apparent.
The Fall of Saigon is what happens when government overreach extends into war-making without clarity, conviction, or constitutional constraint. Congress never formally declared war, violating the very framework the Founders established to avoid foreign entanglements. Instead of empowering military experts on the ground, politicians micromanaged from D.C., all the while keeping a twitching eye on public opinion. The war actually was won in the paddies and jungles of Southeast Asia, but was definitively lost in the marble halls of Congress and the editorial offices of the press.
Vietnam birthed the modern anti-American Left, which interpreted the war not as a failure of execution, but as an indictment of the American experiment itself. From lecture halls to Hollywood, the narrative of America as an imperial oppressor took root. The result was a generation of political leaders, academics, and cultural elites who questioned not just foreign policy, but the very legitimacy of American leadership.
The Left used Vietnam as a political cudgel, bearing much of the moral blame for what followed. When progressive politicians refused to honor America's commitments, millions were left to suffer under a totalitarian regime. The American political establishment—dominated by a post-Watergate liberal consensus—chose to disengage rather than finish what Democrats had helped start. But Republicans hardly emerge with honor either.
Paired with Nixon's resignation, Vietnam deepened a national distrust of government, if not outright contempt. The 'Vietnam Syndrome' took hold, fostering cynicism, defeatism, and a hesitance to project American power even when justified. The public's skepticism of military action became deeply ingrained—sometimes wisely, often reflexively.
The tragedy today is that our leaders still haven't learned. In 2021, we watched the Fall of Kabul unfold in eerily similar fashion. Afghans clung to airplanes as the Taliban marched on the capital, again showing America breaking her promises. These bookends of defeat—Saigon and Kabul—share a common thread: political leaders who would rather 'end wars' than win them, and bureaucratic inertia that prizes optics over outcomes.
Both tragedies severely eroded America's credibility. Our failure in Vietnam was followed by the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Our chaotic retreat from Kabul was followed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's hard to see either of these as coincidental.
Going forward, politicians in both parties shouldn't extend military interventions into multi-decade affairs. Voters may tolerate a quick strike and even a brief occupation. But they consistently turn against wars that outlast presidencies. There's something especially dark about seeing a 20-year Afghanistan veteran serving alongside his son or daughter in Kandahar.
As the post-WWII Cold War order recedes, the United States can no longer serve as the worldwide cop on the beat. Instead, Washington should craft a principled but limited foreign policy, rooted in national security. Promising much beyond that will result in more broken promises, foreign aggression, and human suffering. And many, many more Saigons.
From the
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Skift
an hour ago
- Skift
Junk Fees, Airport Security, No Tax on Tips: 7 Travel Bills in Congress We're Tracking
Although travel isn't at the top of Congress' agenda, lawmakers in Washington are discussing several bills that would impact the industry. Travel and tourism isn't at the top of Congress' agenda, which this month is dominated by debate over the President Donald Trump-backed 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill. But that doesn't mean that lawmakers aren't attempting to make laws that would directly affect the hotel, lodging, air travel, and cruise industries. Here are seven such federal bills to watch heading into the summer: 1: Hotel Fees Transparency Act of 2025 Introduced by Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), this bipartisan bill targets 'unfair and deceptive advertising of prices for hotel rooms and other places of short-term lodging.' Bill co-sponsors include Reps. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Russell Fry (R-S.C.), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), Craig Goldman (R-Texas), Eugene Vindman (D-Va.) and André Carson (D-Ind.). The bill mandates that hotels and short-term rental providers must: Display the 'total services price, if a price is displayed, in any advertisement, marketing, or price list wherever the covered services are displayed, advertised, marketed, or offered for sale.' Disclose 'the total services price at the time the covered services are first displayed to [an] individual and anytime thereafter throughout the covered services purchasing process.' Disclose before a final purchase 'any tax, fee, or assessment imposed by any government entity, quasi-government entity, or government-created special district or program on the sale of covered services.' The bill passed the U.S. House on a voice vote in April. The U.S. Senate is now considering the measure. There, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has introduced a Senate version of the Hotel Fees and Transparency Act of 2025, which is co-sponsored by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Shelley Moo
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who's in charge? CDC's leadership 'crisis' apparent amid new COVID-19 vaccine guidance
WASHINGTON (AP) — There was a notable absence last week when U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a 58-second video that the government would no longer endorse the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children or pregnant women. The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the person who typically signs off on federal vaccine recommendations — was nowhere to be seen. The CDC, a $9.2 billion-a-year agency tasked with reviewing life-saving vaccines, monitoring diseases and watching for budding threats to Americans' health, is without a clear leader. 'I've been disappointed that we haven't had an aggressive director since — February, March, April, May — fighting for the resources that CDC needs,' said Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as CDC director under the first Trump administration and supported Kennedy's nomination as the nation's health secretary. $9.2 billion-a-year agency without leader as nomination awaits The leadership vacuum at a foremost federal public health agency has existed for months, after President Donald Trump suddenly withdrew his first pick for CDC director in March. A hearing for his new nominee — the agency's former acting director Susan Monarez — has not been scheduled because she has not submitted all the paperwork necessary to proceed, according to a spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who will oversee the nomination. HHS did not answer written questions about Monarez's nomination, her current role at the CDC or her salary. An employee directory lists Monarez, a longtime government employee, as a staffer for the NIH under the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. Redfield described Kennedy as 'very supportive' of Monarez's nomination. Instead, a lawyer and political appointee with no medical experience is 'carrying out some of the duties' of director at the agency that for seven decades has been led by someone with a medical degree. Matthew Buzzelli, who is also the chief of staff at the CDC, is 'surrounded by highly qualified medical professionals and advisors to help fulfill these duties as appropriate,' Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson said in a statement. Adding to the confusion was an employee-wide email sent last week that thanked 'new acting directors who shave stepped up to the plate." The email, signed by Monarez, listed her as the acting director. It was was sent just days after Kennedy said at a Senate hearing that Monarez had been replaced by Buzzelli. The lack of a confirmed director will be a problem if a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic or a rapid uptick in measles cases hits, said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota. 'CDC is a crisis, waiting for a crisis to happen,' said Osterholm. 'At this point, I couldn't tell you for the life of me who was going to pull what trigger in a crisis situation." An acting director rarely seen, and stalled decisions At CDC headquarters in Atlanta, employees say Monarez was rarely heard from between late January – when she was appointed acting director – and late March, when Trump nominated her. She also has not held any of the 'all hands' meetings that were customary under previous CDC chiefs, according to several staffers. One employee, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media and fears being fired if identified said Monarez has been almost invisible since her nomination, adding that her absence has been cited by other leaders as an excuse for delaying action. The situation already has led to confusion. In April, a 15-member CDC advisory panel of outside experts met to discuss vaccine policy. The panel makes recommendations to the CDC Director, who routinely signs off on them. But it was unclear during the meeting who would be reviewing the panel's recommendations, which included the expansion of RSV vaccinations for adults and a new combination shot as another option to protect teens against meningitis. HHS officials said the recommendations were going to Buzzelli, but then weeks passed with no decision. A month after the meeting ended, the CDC posted on a web site that Kennedy had signed off on recommendations for travelers against chikungunya, a viral disease transmitted to humans by mosquitos. But there continues to be no word about a decision about the other vaccine recommendations. Controversial COVID-19 vaccine recommendations bypassed CDC panel The problem was accentuated again last week, when Kennedy rolled out recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine saying they were no longer recommended for healthy children or pregnant women, even though expectant mothers are considered a high-risk group if they contract the virus. Kennedy made the surprise announcement without input from the CDC advisory panel that has historically made recommendations on the nation's vaccine schedule. The CDC days later posted revised guidance that said healthy kids and pregnant women may get the shots. Nixon, the HHS spokesman, said CDC staff were consulted on the recommendations, but would not provide staffer's names or titles. He also did not provide the specific data or research that Kennedy reviewed to reach his conclusion on the new COVID-19 recommendations, just weeks after he said that he did not think 'people should be taking medical advice' from him. 'As Secretary Kennedy said, there is a clear lack of data to support the repeat booster strategy in children,' Nixon said in a statement. Research shows that pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness, mechanical ventilation and death, when they contract COVID-19 infections. During the height of the pandemic, deaths of women during pregnancy or shortly after childbirth soared to their highest level in 50 years. Vaccinations also have been recommended for pregnant women because it passes immunity to newborns who are too young for vaccines and also vulnerable to infections. Nixon did not address a written question about recommendations for pregnant women. Kennedy's decision to bypass the the advisory panel and announce new COVID-19 recommendations on his own prompted a key CDC official who works with the committee – Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos – to announce her resignation last Friday. 'My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,' she wrote in an email seen by an Associated Press reporter. Signs are mounting that the CDC has been 'sidelined' from key decision-making under Kennedy's watch, said Dr. Anand Parekh, the chief medical adviser for The Bipartisan Policy Center. 'It's difficult to ascertain how we will reverse the chronic disease epidemic or be prepared for myriad public health emergencies without a strong CDC and visible, empowered director,' Parekh said. 'It's also worth noting that every community in the country is served by a local or state public health department that depends on the scientific expertise of the CDC and the leadership of the CDC director.'

Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
How Can Congress Keep American Jews Safe?
Your editorial 'The Intifada Comes to Boulder' (June 3) rightly states that the recent violent attacks against American Jews, in Colorado and Washington, 'are intended to terrorize the Jewish diaspora.' You advise that this will get worse 'if it isn't denounced by all political sides.' That's true, but it mustn't be the end of the discussion. Republican and Democratic politicians have condemned these heinous attacks. What the American Jewish community needs now are concrete steps to keep us more safe and secure. Congress has underfunded the Nonprofit Security Grant Program—the largest federal program to support security at synagogues and other Jewish sites—administered by the Department of Homeland Security. For 2025, Congress appropriated $275 million for NSGP grants. Last year more than $900 million in applications were submitted. Congress should appropriate at least $500 million for NSGP grants for the coming year.