US imperialism - direct control or indirect control?

Which method of management did the US use to imperialize Vietnam - direct or indirect? According to my book, it states that it is direct, but does not explain why. Can anyone please clarify for me what exactly direct control and indirect control are, and which did the US use to imperialize Vietnam? US imperialism - direct control or indirect control?
The term imperialism is a misnomer when applied to America.





For many hundreds of years, the crowned heads of Europe, like England and France, took turns around the world trying to conquer it all in the name of this or that king.





The world became accustomed to thinking of all invading armies as ';imperialist';, and spreading ';imperialism'; because that actually was happening.





America has never been a monarchy, so the term is not correct. Still, people insist upon using it. People who were not born here use it because they are accustomed to using it. People who simply hate America use it because for them, it's a derogatory term.





Having said all that, America did not, in fact, ';Imperialize'; Viet Nam. What some Americans did do was fight against the advance of Communism, and for a Democracy for the Vietnamese people.





At the same time, some Americans hated America and started screaming ';Imperialism!';, and other derogatory things.US imperialism - direct control or indirect control?
Direct control implies actually going physically to the place, taking over things, and running them, like Iraq. Indirect control is doing things like manipulating their economy by changing outside influences or getting other countries to threaten or try to control them. I don't think you'll find much agreement with your book about Vietnam being an imperialistic war. It was a situation we were slowly drawn into(you do know we first went in during the Eisenhower administration?) and all we wanted was to fight Communists. We never had any control of Vietnam as a whole, only tiny pieces of it. And it had no resources like oil that we wanted.
I'd say that the U.S. was not the primary imperialist of Vietnam: France was. However, insofar as we used our power and influence to try to influence Vietnam, we participated in imperialism there too, although to a lesser degree.





It is direct because the U.S. literally enforced its will on Vietnam (or at least tried to). Indirect imperialism, I'm guessing, is when countries are influenced into conforming to or serving the wishes of the imperialists for some political or economic incentive or to avoid some political or economic ill. But id doesn't get much more direct than sending your military in to get your bidding done!
Well...





the US didn't ever really ';run'; Vietnam. Even during the war, the South Vietnamese still had control. However, that was relatively limited.





The South Vietnamese asked the US to help them out... something many people forget.





So I would say they didn't really have control at all. Don't listen to everything text books say, they're usually there to encourage you to do your own research.
First and foremost, the US simply assumed the framework established by the French. Long story short, in intervened in, what in would have been without the context of the cold war, been a civil war. The US backed(and fought alongside) the strongest anti-communists in their war against their rivals. Therefore it was indirect.
I don't know if its for school, but if it is then its scary that it implies this. Whether the US was imperializing is a matter of opinion. Seems to me we were trying to stave off advances form other countries doing the imperializing.