I’m working on a history discussion question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

Two commentators are arguing on a political radio show. Dr. James Pacifist (perhaps it is Dr. Jane Realist) states that the military situation in South Vietnam at the end of 1968 proves that the conflict is unwinnable, and has left a lasting stain on President Lyndon Johnson’s administration. Mr. John Warhawk (or is it Senator Randall Real Politic) claims that the average soldier was betrayed by the government and if more troops were sent to South Vietnam that country can still be saved from communism.  

You have been divided into two groups. For this forum, Group A (Last name A-M) will assume the role of an individual endorsing Dr. Pacifist’s stance, while Group B (Last name N-Z) will argue in support of further escalation endorsed by Mr. Warhawk. You do not need to restrict yourself to the moral justification. The arguments for, and against, the United States involvement took many avenues. Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States during the era. While addressing the legacy of the war you can move to more recent decades. While defending your stance be sure to address the effect that ground troops had on the war regarding potential failure or success during combat and how the escalation of troops affected anti-war movement. Finally, be sure to bring in the potential effects the war had on Johnson’s presidency and the legacy of Vietnam.

I am group A.