"More than half the combat deaths in Vietnam occurred after Richard Nixon was elected on a promise to bring the war to an end, and after the American people had already decided that they did not want one more soldier to die in Vietnam"

The quote by Raul Grijalva highlights a poignant and crucial viewpoint on the Vietnam War, contextualizing it within political and social dynamics of the United States throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. This period was marked by substantial public disillusionment with the extended conflict, exacerbated by a belief in political pledges that were, in numerous methods, viewed as unfinished.

Firstly, by discussing that "more than half the battle deaths in Vietnam took place after Richard Nixon was elected", Grijalva underscores the paradox between political rhetoric and military truths. Nixon campaigned in 1968 on the pledge of attaining "peace with honor" and ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam. His election was, in part, an action to the growing anti-war belief and the desire amongst the American populace to see a reduction in conflict-related casualties.

However, despite these promises, the extension and escalation of the war method, through measures such as the expansion of battles in Vietnam and surrounding nations like Cambodia, led to a considerable number of American and Vietnamese casualties. The declaration about "combat deaths" implicitly critiques the lag in between policy guarantees and their implementation, or perhaps the contradiction of political actions throughout wartime under Nixon's administration.

Moreover, the latter part of the quote--"the American individuals had already chosen that they did not desire one more soldier to die in Vietnam"-- reflects a society facing the human cost of war. By the late 1960s, prevalent protest movements, media coverage showing the ruthless truths of the conflict, and occasions like the My Lai Massacre had dramatically shifted popular opinion. The American public's growing opposition to the war positioned pressure on political leaders to speed up withdrawal and review U.S. diplomacy choices.

In essence, Grijalva's quote is a critique of the harshness between political guarantees and subsequent actions, as well as a reminder of the complex and frequently terrible interaction between war policy, management, and public belief. It functions as a historic reflection on the responsibility politicians bear in aligning their guarantees with their real governance, particularly in matters of war and peace.