This paper examines the recent debate between historians Keith Taylor and Robert Buzzanco over the interpretation of the Vietnam War and considers the implications of the debate for the future of Vietnam War studies. Miller analyzes Taylor and Buzzanco's differences over the origins and evolution of the war, and finds that both historians rely too heavily on the Cold War to explain the motives and actions of leaders and groups who participated in the conflict. The paper concludes with a proposal to reconceptualize the war as a contest among the multiple ways of thinking about modernization.
