Is there sufficient evidence in Sources A to F to explain why there was an anti-was movement in the United Statesduring the late 1960's and early 1970's?

Source A:

 This source is taken from a book published in 1992, nearly 20 years after the war ended.  The source speculates about the experience of the soldiers that were sent to Vietnam and their intelligence.  It mentions the length of a tour of duty and how long soldiers were likely to be in Vietnam before they were killed.  Although this extract contains facts about the soldiers that went to Vietnam, there is not enough evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement.

Source B:

This source is a photograph which was taken of napalm victims during the Vietnam War.  This photograph was not just published in America, but throughout the world, which showed people exactly what was happening in Vietnam.  The photograph shows two young children running down the road and one, a little girl, has no clothes on.  In the background there are photographers also taking pictures.  This source shows how terrible weapons were being used that did not only injure or kill the enemy, but were also hurting innocent civilians. This photograph led to anti-war protestors singing a song – ‘Hey, Hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?’  This source shows enough evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement.

Source C:

This source is a report written by an American journalist in 1970, while the war was still being fought.  The writer tells of the experiences of American soldiers in Vietnam and what happens when there is a guerrilla attack on them.  It goes on to ask questions about how they should retaliate and gives the alternatives that the Americans have open to them.  All of these alternatives would involve the killing and injuring of innocent civilians, as the Americans did not know exactly who the guerrillas were that they were fighting.  This source shows evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement.

Source D:

This source is a cartoon, published in 1967 in a British magazine.  It shows men on a wooden train, breaking it up to fuel the engine.  On the sides of the carriages are the words ‘Great Society’.  This is meant to show how President Johnson’s war policy was affecting the American society.   It shows that people were having to make sacrifices to pay for the war in Vietnam and gives a British point of view of how they saw the Vietnam War.  Although this source shows that the anti-war movement was not only in America, but was more widespread, there is not enough evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement.

Source E:

This source is taken from a speech by Robin Day, a British BBC commentator, to a seminar of the Royal united services institution in 1970.  There would have been members of the British armed forces in the audience.  The source describes how Americans had been able to see pictures from the war on their televisions at home.  It claims that this fact had made Americans more anti-war than anything else.  It states that the full brutality of the war can bee seen and that ‘blood looks very red on the colour television screen’.   This source contains enough evidence to explain why there was an anti-war movement.

The sources show how the young American soldiers were more likely to be killed in the first six months than at any other time.  The sources also show  how the war was seen as more of a reality to ordinary Americans as they were able to see coverage from Vietnam on their televisions and read stories and see photographs in their newspapers.  The sources show how innocent civilians, including children, were being killed and injured during the war and not just the guerrillas.  In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence in sources A to F to explain why there was an anti-war movement in the United States during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.