But then again, such roles are not limited to the aforementioned but rather transverse into the involvement of many presidents in the war in Vietnam that marked the history. Body The role that President Dwight D. Eisenhower played in the Vietnam War is the strengthening of the Vietnam nation by means of fabricating a form of government that will eventually promote the welfare of the people and those that have been affected by war. Against the revolutions that are significant of modernity, there was the prophetic stream of Marxism in the Vietnam War. With increasing steps towards rationalism, much went against it because rationalism was very hard to hold. With increasing fury people turned increasingly against such rationalism. This will be explained in the essay as rebellion will be explained in terms of a greater pull against rationalism so far as it interfered with progressions towards legitimacy. As Marx writes in The Gundrisse: `In this society of free competition, the individual appears detached from the natural bonds etc, in which earlier historical periods make him the accessory of a definite and limited human conglomerate` (Marx, 1978, p.221). There is in modern strife a religious impulse towards rebellion under such limiting conditions. This religious impulse was carried by romanticist thinkers like Matthew Arnold in that they saw the technocratic apparatuses of a modern rational society destroying something of the spectacular miracle of religion.
That the removal of religion was something tragic and in due course something many people could not endure that very well. This was a tendency that suffocated many people because they could not stand it. In the rebellion of the parties to the war, much was costly because prices were impacted and reasoning was skewed as attested by John Kennedy. Yet there were legitimate actions taken by the mighty Israeli state to block all such efforts towards revolutionary agitation and attempts to ward of a modernity of extreme rationality. From its beginnings, the Vietnamese state has been a state caught in the webs of dependency. Caught without an adequate bureaucracy and system of administration, dependency on other nation for war was pre-eminent and in many ways, and it still is. As stated, economic survival therefore depended on transfers from Vietnam of taxes collected from other nations and on aid from donors (Khan, 2004, p.13). The movements of goods and people to the outside world and even within its own territories had to go through multiple controlled checkpoints that could be opened or closed depending on the satisfactory performance of the police in the perspective of delivering security (Khan, 2004, p.13). Though this deliverance of security may have been a deep desire, the manageability of this deliverance was simply unavailable and the taxes for this security simply not enough and never enough. This may be partially due to the unfortunate trend that security is managed by the infliction of terror. When Stalin reached, the ability to manage security he did it in such a wave of crimson and brutality that such security was unfeasible in itself unless horrible combinations were acclimated to the population (Parrish, 1996). What Stalin achieved was the greatest security for such a long time but the terror directed at his own people was so grave that words cannot speak of their error. From secret police to a violence that was so awful and so brutal that guns were alarming to people and knives silenced all too many from strife. On this note, perhaps the Vietnam exertion of rebellion was to prevent the state from conforming exactly to brutal standards of regimentation, regulation, and extreme, rationalization. Johnson and Nixon, on the other hand, trained various members of the military in order to promote a just and humane society. That domestication was certainly needed but that perhaps internal crime was suffocated so extremely that extreme perversions of outward expression appeared. To the harm and greater endangering of the Vietnam state, it was very ironic. It must be understood that the State should promote a just and dynamic social order. This is accomplished through policies that provide adequate social services. Every society must ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty. Hence, it means all people not just the aristocratic few. The goal is to reduce the political and economic power of the privileged few by equalizing widely differing standards and opportunities for advancement and to raise the masses of the people from their poverty to a qualitative life worthy of human dignity. With the eradication of mass poverty being experienced of a nation, the State solves at the same time a chain of social problems that comes with it; social unrest, breakdown of family systems, diseases, ignorance, criminality, and low productivity. Policies must only be created to promote social justice in all phases of national development. In the fulfillment of this duty, the State must give preferential attention to the welfare of the less fortunate members of the community—the poor, the underprivileged and those who have less in life for the benefit of the whole nation.