Vietnam & After

Antiwar movement V. Military G.I.'s

"While the antiwar movement sought to force alliances with GI's and military veterans, those efforts were strained by class inequalities built into the draft system" (Patriots, p.264).

The antiwar movement and GI's were fighting the "struggle of their times" and had more in common then they realized. They were both fighting against anarchy and for democratic principles. The antiwar movement was fighting to protect the GI from going to war and the GI's were angry with the antiwar men who were privileged enough to evade the draft. It was a monumental leap for the antiwar movement when Vietnam Veterans Against the War, began to protest with the movement. It bridged the gap between them and gave validity to the movements antiwar message. John Kerry's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also helped the movement calling the war the "biggest nothing in history."

What did you do in the Class, War Daddy?

"The one moral issue that was within our control was whether we would actually participate-we woul be forced to kill and we could solve that issue as easily by getting a deferment as by passing the time in jail" I find it quite fascinating how social class and structure was the key factor in the draft of Vietnam.  It was not fair that poor whites and black died and the upper middle class structure was unscathed.

The veterans today, still feel the great sadness because so many comrades died. They talk about the bonds forged with fellow soldiers, the shock of seeing long-haired war protestors when they came home, the guilt they felt about surviving when so many others died, and the way they are still haunted by what they experienced in Vietnam.  This article opened my eyes to the prejudice and unfair system of draft we had.  We should be lucky there is not a draft toay

Join The Military Today! (To Avoid Military Like Activities)

    Tom O'hara was one of the only 15,000 guardsmen and reservists sent off to fight during the Vietnam war.  During the Vietnam war one way to avoid actually going to war was to join the likes of the National Guard.  Since in 1965 President Johnson had decided against mobilizing the National Guard and military reserves it was unlikely that you would see any action since you could no longer be drafted.  Had you been drafted you were sure to see combat.  In the case of Tom O'hara, this was not so.  He had been called for active duty.
    He was a life support specialist.  He describes his tasks as taking care of pilots' parachutes, oxygen masks and helmets.  He also states it was his duty to drive the pilots to their aircrafts, keep their coffee hot, and keep their refrigerators stacked with beer and soda.  He also played Ping Pong whenever possible.

"Maybe i was just depressed and pissed off, but when
I was in Vietnam, I generally didn't like
and of the people.  The officers were arrogant pricks
and the enlisted people were dull and uninteresting."

"I didn't want to go to Vietnam but i didn't have tremendous
philosophical opinions about it."

    Tom O'hara has a very cynical view when it comes to Vietnam Vets.  He sees many undertaking various protests and thinks that people are using moral's to cover up the real reason they don't want to go.  No one wants "some asshole to berate you, go over, and get shot at." 
    Although Tom O'hara was called to serve, he was in my opinion lucky.  He was not drafted and did not see much if any real combat.  Many of his duties were simple and very mundane.

   

   

John Kerry: Testimony of a Veteran

On April 22, 1971 Vietnam War veteran and current Massachusetts State Senator John Kerry gave a testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, an organization formed by Vietnam Vets who had a strongly opposed the United States agenda in Vietnam.

Kerry's testimony covered a wide range of topics, all aimed to point out the wrongdoings and injustices that were occuring in Vietnam. Kerry spoke in detail regarding the conduct of U.S. soliders and their actions towards the Vietnamese people, which included rapings, extreme means of torture, random killings, poisoning of food, and the razing of villages. Kerry also discussed the emotional and physical struggles that Vietnam Veterans were facing as a result of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. These veterans were taught to deal with situations in a violent matter while constantly being given the chance to die for the "biggest nothing in history", according to Kerry. The veterans have returned home with mixed feelings of anger and betrayal because not only did the they feel that they were lied to about what Vietnam really was like and the mystical war against Communism that the government fed, but they also believed that they were used in the worst possible fashion by the government, which nobody had understood to that point. The veterans were "ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia", as Kerry put it. 

 Kerry cited a quote by then Vice President Spiro Agnew that said, "Some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse". In translation, Agnew was simply trying to glorify the heroic U.S. soliders in Vietnam while putting down those who opposed and demonstrated against the war. Kerry responded by saying,

"It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam"

As a part of that mystical war that the government portrayed about Vietnam, the veterans were angrey because they found that Vietnam was not only a Civil War, but most of the citizens didn't know the difference between Communism and democrac and would have much preferred being left alone because they were not going to be free under democracy or communism either way. Kerry went on to ellaborate about the local Vietnamese people, and how the government and army alike took measures to de-humanize the Vietnamese people any chance they got and how success was measured by glorifying body counts.

Doctrine of Credibility

“According to the doctrine of credibility, the United States was engaged in a global public-relations struggle in which a reverse in any part of the world, no matter how small, could undermine the whole structure of American power.”

Taken from Patriots, this is a quote from Jonathan Schnell who was in Vietnam as a journalist and graduate student from Harvard. Schnell’s oral history will include key phrases such as “psychological basis” and “nuclear policy” which attest to the significance of what he refers to as the Doctrine of Credibility.

I would like to state my personal political observations as well as correlate the historical significance of the past versus the present under this Doctrine. Firstly, many right-wing bloggers state that three quarters of all institutions of higher education have a ‘liberal bias.’ Don’t worry Prof. Mattson, I won’t report you! Also, by ‘liberal bias’ I’m sure what they must mean is looking at the facts, whether those facts are celebratory of America, or are not.

I took a 20^th century history course at Suffolk Community last spring and at that time I thought I had figured out my political stance. I read Marx, I read about student revolutionaries like Mark Rudd and Tom Hayden, and I read original works by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Vaclav Havel. In other words, I’m in the political spectrum of the ‘dirty leftist academic Marxist no-good non-conformist pinko sympathizer…’ etcetera.

My ‘liberal bias’ was a result of being exposed to uncontested facts like regime change. Diem is just one example. There’s Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala…. okay the Soviets had their bit of nastiness too, occupying Hungary and Czechoslovakia… and the transfer to industrialized communism under Mao was brutal. Look, I’m not taking sides. Ultimately I might ask even more liberal (uh-oh!) sociological/philosophical questions about factors of human nature like greed and aggression or if power is inherently corrupt.

So, what am I getting at? Has taking a course on Vietnam caused me to shift even further to the left? No. On the contrary, this is my first more in-depth course, not a survey course like the 20^th century course I took. A deeper investigation leads me to conclude that I’m not going to vilify government officials like McNamara or any of the presidents. No one is perfect, and with the exception of true warmongers like Curtis Lemay, I doubt they were anti-humanistic. I decided to believe in their well-intentions no matter how misguided we can see them to be in hindsight. Just as we look at history in a sort of macro-context, these historical figures acted within their micro-context.

Although reneging on the commitment in Vietnam was legitimately seen as a threat to national security, I think today’s situation with Iraq is different. The world is becoming more globalized, people are seeing less of a ‘Foreign Other’ and more of themselves in others. I believe that some extent of national security will still be tied to credibility, but credibility will mean diplomatic-relations and not continual engagement in war.

As a stinking-liberal, I have one more thing to say: the American Empire must absolve itself of its crimes against humanity by not celebrating a fairytale version of its history. Next, I’m going to lean slightly toward a pragmatic-rightwing stance and say: if that is even a possibility, and to maintain social cohesion in a society dependant on exploiting others and their resources for a standard of living, then it will surely be a long-evolving process.

MLK's Moral Vision

"If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam."

Dr. King is not only a civil rights hero and peace advocate, he had a moral vision for what he considered a sick society.  In his speech titled "Declaration of Independance from the war in Vietnam" he noted that there are a lot of sad ironies.  One example is the blacks who fought for American while fighting for rights in America.  Another irony was the premise of the war itself, defending the so-called democracy for the Vietnamese.  In Dr. King's view, to "save the soul of America" it must come to see these things; give up Western arrogance for a moral vision which is healthy for all.

Why Naplam? Because America Is Out Of Ideas...

    Was Napalm absolutely necessary for use in Vietnam? I don’t think so. I think it was just an act of inhumane cruelness on behalf of the United States towards Vietnam.
    Before I read the Burning Illusions article, I just assumed napalm was fire that was shot at the enemy; I did not know the true use and power of this chemical. It turns out that napalm is a chemical composition of gasoline, benzene and a chemical that is very sticky called polystyrene. The whole idea of napalm is to harm and destroy and kill people and cities. Well in my opinion there are better less painful ways to do this if you absolutely feel you need to take peoples lives in a war. I think the use of napalm in Vietnam or during any war is a war crime. It is unnecessary.
    The way napalm sticks to people’s clothes, skin and burns to the bone and basically burns them alive is reason enough to not use it ever. I can understand maybe using it to burn down a city, but it is inevitable that within that city, like in Vietnam, there will be civilians who cannot get out of the way in time. A civilian may be able to avoid bombs dropping on their city, but when napalm falls from the sky like rain, I believe it will be much harder to avoid injury or death. And we can see in Vietnam how many innocent people this napalm torched.
    The use of napalm during World War II was said to have been for “strategic bombing”, to take out large cities and their population. I think the use of napalm back then was wrong because innocent people were getting burned alive, its not as if they got hit with a stray bullet and could tend to the wound. They were on fire or suffered serious 3rd degree burns. The suffered shear pain I cannot imagine.
    I think the use of napalm in Vietnam just demonstrates even more how the United States was running out of ideas about how to win Vietnam. I think it was an amateur low move on Americas part, and was not necessary. Even if the napalm was to be used for “strategic bombing” in Vietnam that was already a mistake because the bombers would fly so high up and often miss their intended targets on the ground, often killing hundreds of civilians. The napalm would make this much worse.

ignorance much?!

 

Tom O’Hara is a Vietnam Veteran.   He does not fall under the conventional perception the public has of a Vietnam Vet: “…balding guy with stringy hair, with his hat on, and his fatigues…” (Appy 327)  He would not dare to put himself in that category.  In fact, he claims that being sent off to Vietnam had no effect on him whatsoever.  With this mindset, he has a hard time believing that “...somehow, this war has traumatized a generation of American men.” (Appy 327)
This statement is a bit extreme to me – perhaps because of what I learned about O’Hara from his story presented by Appy.  O’Hara was sent of to Vietnam – but he was not involved in any direct combat.  Instead, he was in charge of replenishing the pilots’ oxygen masks, parachutes and helmets before and after their missions.  It was also his duty to make sure that the generals had a constant supply of coffee and beer.  Every night he got twelve hours of sleep and watched American television.  He basically lived in “…a three square mile piece of the United States of America…” (Appy 326) 

Today he has a nice job along with a nice family and is fed up with the over excitement surrounding the Veterans.   Well – I was fed up with reading only two pages of his story.  How dare this man who admits to being in a safe place, basically doing a blue-collar job, claim that the effect of the Vietnam war on the soldiers sent is overrated?!  He was never in a foxhole, he never faced an enemy soldier eye to eye, he probably never held a gun in his hands.   How dare he compare his experience to those who trembled with fear not knowing if they were going to survive another day, hour or minute?!  I am more than positive that actual fighting can induce dramatic effects – perhaps had he done some on his own, O’Hara would be signing a different tune.  Just because he was shielded from the horrors does not mean that others did not experience them.  And just because he can sleep at night does not mean that others are able to do the same .. one day or thirty years later. 

King and Acheson Agree?

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam, speech was given at the Riverside Church in the city of New York, April 4, 1967.  Martin Luther King, Jr. was surely the most influential and highly regarded man of peace in the United States during the 1960's. His speech outlines the history of the Vietnamese struggle for national sovereignty and compares it to the African-American struggle for civil rights. He also outlines what the United States needs to do immediately to begin to withdraw from Vietnam.  One of the suggestions he makes reminded me of Dean Acheson's points in NSC-68 to President Truman in 1950. King said,

"We not must engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice.  We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops" (p.215).

Dean Acheson might ague that NSC-68 had the same mission to spread democracy and freedom across the global.

 "Our overall policy at the present time may be described as one designed to foster a world environment in which the American system can survive and flourish.  It therefore rejects the concept of isolation and affirms the necessity of our positive participation in the world community" (NSC-68 p52).

These two men are the bookends of the Vietnam War.  They both believed in the promise of America and in the need to reshape the world as they saw it. So, that America could remain true to its democratic principles. 

      " Maybe I was being unfair, because there were many things reported about the Americans and South Vietnamese that were never reported about the VC and NVA." ( Hearts and Minds, 311)

        When I started reading Hearts and Minds, I found it one of the most interesting things that I have read so far in this class. This quote shocked me because many people don't really know what is going on. For someone to be there at one point and then go back and see everyone is shot and dead is shocking. The fact that it was a sneaky attack is crazy. Eventhough that is what war is about and sneaky attacks are seen for this man to personally see this is amazing. To read something that is reality helps me better understand what this war was about. It came from someone who was actually there.