They deserve compassion despite fighting for the wrong side on behalf of the mafioso Nguyen Van Thieu and the genocidal invaders from the US.
1
These were tough broads. The Viet Cong had snipers who were women. Marine Carlos Hathcock tells a great story about double tapping a female sniper from 2000 yards in his documentary. She got what she deserved.
4
The Soviet Union had women snipers during WW2 that were more deadly than America's celebrated snipers.
Here's the website of the Women's Museum in Hanoi. It honors the women who fought in the 'American war'. http://www.baotangphunu.org.vn/
You'll find no museum in Vietnam that features (or even mentions in a positive light) soldiers that fought for the south, regardless of gender.
2
The winners write the history....
I was an embed with Golf CUPP (Combined Unit Pacification Program), 2nd Bn. 5th Marines in Vietnam. Marine squads combined with Vietnamese Popular Forces (PFs) had day positions in tiny hamlets (called vils) and night positions in ambush sites around the around the vils with no bunkers or barbed wire. Platoon headquarters did have a bunker housing a platoon leader, platoon sergeant, a radioman and at night an assistant radioman as an extra rifleman.
The bunkers were guarded by PFs and were under frequent attack. One bunker was protected by Popular Self-Defense Forces, teenage boys and girls. The bunker was attacked and the boys and girls repelled the Viet Cong.
The bunkers were guarded by PFs and were under frequent attack. One bunker was protected by Popular Self-Defense Forces, teenage boys and girls. The bunker was attacked and the boys and girls repelled the Viet Cong.
2
America's original sin --
Encouraging and helping the French try to re-establish their rule in Viet Nam.
France was a failed state.
Japan took over Viet Nam.
The U.S. defeated Japan.
The U.S. owed France nothing -- at least not in Asia.
Encouraging and helping the French try to re-establish their rule in Viet Nam.
France was a failed state.
Japan took over Viet Nam.
The U.S. defeated Japan.
The U.S. owed France nothing -- at least not in Asia.
3
I'm not sure the American goal was to help France per se. But in any case, the attempt to re-establish the French colonial government makes it hard to believe that the goal was to support democracy in Vietnam.
2
France recognized the independence of South Vietnam in 1949 and withdrew from Vietnam completely in 1953, almost a decade before US involvement.
Rather, before overt US involvement. We were knee deep in Vietnam long before the Marines went ashore on national tv.
Because war is all about the guys. The women and children, and elders in the zone, or back home - are not important. Its all about the guys. Wars are for guys, and (most) guys are for war.
Its one reason why wars are still the go-to for guys to settle disputes. If women were considered, if their lives were important to guys - we'd put them in less danger.
Its all part of the Bro' code that is so prevalent in todays culture, which seems to even be a part of the current White House hyper-masculinity...and one of its memes, and we all know it..."Bro's before (xxx)!" You all know the term. And Wars are part of what Guys, Bro's are about.
(Re; the hyper-masculinity displayed in this WH. IMO, I can not think of a group of men (excluding men like Kelly) who are less representative of the better ideals of true masculinity. I'm in full agreement with David Brooks column today.)
Its one reason why wars are still the go-to for guys to settle disputes. If women were considered, if their lives were important to guys - we'd put them in less danger.
Its all part of the Bro' code that is so prevalent in todays culture, which seems to even be a part of the current White House hyper-masculinity...and one of its memes, and we all know it..."Bro's before (xxx)!" You all know the term. And Wars are part of what Guys, Bro's are about.
(Re; the hyper-masculinity displayed in this WH. IMO, I can not think of a group of men (excluding men like Kelly) who are less representative of the better ideals of true masculinity. I'm in full agreement with David Brooks column today.)
3
There is no way to whitewash the atrocities committed on Vietnam such as the Napalm, Agent Orange and 3 million killed. Until the perpetrators are tried for war crimes the American public will continue to believe myths about the US foreign policy such as the fights for democracy and human rights. Most of all a war crimes trial would be a respect for the dead, wounded, those afflicted with birth defects and the aggrieved.
4
Unfortunately, it's too late for trials. Virtually all of the people responsible for that war are long gone. But one thing that did not survive that war was any illusion that we were fighting, then or now, for democracy or human rights. I cannot imagine anyone still believing that there were any such high motives for our attack on Iraq. We've come a long way, and the ideals that were a part of WWII--even Korea--are gone.
2
This entire series has been moving, enlightening, brilliant, and heartbreaking.
It has reminded some of us why we loathed Nixon and Kissinger for prolonging the agony.
It has reminded some of us why we loathed Nixon and Kissinger for prolonging the agony.
5
The responses to this article reflect the wide range of viewpoints on the Vietnam experience. My experience after writing a senior thesis comparing the post WWII experience of Vietnam dealing with the French and Indonesia and its experience with the Dutch and as a civil affairs officer in 1969-70 left me with the notion that it is impossible to construct a simple narrative about Vietnam or our involvement in the war.
8
We have forgotten those who have helped us in in every war we have ever fought, period. The list would run of this page. The only ones we haven't forgotten are those who could provide strategic, or natural resources. Others who have risked their all for us, such as the Montagnards, who now live in fear, hiding, since we abandoned them in Vietnam. They offered us no resources except their lives.
7
"They watched in fear as their husbands and brothers were arrested and sent to re-education camps"
I think that just about sums up why they are not remembered like the untold thousands of males that were systematically murdered or used as cannon fodder.
I think that just about sums up why they are not remembered like the untold thousands of males that were systematically murdered or used as cannon fodder.
5
They weren't forgotten in Vietnam. I went back visiting (USMC '66-/68) and visited the Women's Museum in Hanoi. Quite impressive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Women’s_Museum
2
Because women, half the population, are just a freak show to the other half. Nothing new about that.
4
Huh? A comment like this does nothing to dispel the impression.
2
These ongoing stories of Vietnam have moved ever so gradually into the realm of revisionist history, not regarding the individual stories but the general record of the Vietnam War, itself. There was nothing heroic about what the south did (or its enablers) in taking up arms against their countrymen and Ho Chi Min. This war was nothing but an imperialist attempt by France and later the US to bully and destroy and bifurcate a country that was for all intent and purposes destined to be one. And to highlight a few thousand women who assisted the Americans, South Koreans, and others in this endeavor does no one any favors in understanding the history of this period.
11
Maybe its because they were traitors to their country. I don't hear a lot about the participation of German women in WW II either
4
These women surely deserve to be revered and honored.
It only makes one wonder why the USA continues to disrespect our female citizens be not requiring them to register for the draft, as our young men are required to do. If a man fails to register, he can be charged with a crime, and is also ineligible to receive many state and federal benefits.
There's no draft now, of course, but why should only our young males face forced military service? The Obama administration, at the end of the 2nd term, came forth and supported female registration, as do all the female service members I have asked about it.
It only makes one wonder why the USA continues to disrespect our female citizens be not requiring them to register for the draft, as our young men are required to do. If a man fails to register, he can be charged with a crime, and is also ineligible to receive many state and federal benefits.
There's no draft now, of course, but why should only our young males face forced military service? The Obama administration, at the end of the 2nd term, came forth and supported female registration, as do all the female service members I have asked about it.
6
During the Vietnam War, I was angry that my opposition to the war didn't count as much as a man's because I didn't risk prison for it. We won't have equality until we have opportunity of risk and responsibility as well as of opportunity.
5
You are among the minority in my experience, Maureen, except for the women who have served or are serving in the military. I recall mentioning in the '70s the notion of women being subject to the draft, and never had one woman agree with the idea, not even the strongest feminists. That continues to be the case today, among both men and women.
1
40 years have passed. Ask again.
The author is correct, but the reference to "They watched in fear as their husbands and brothers were arrested and sent to re-education camps" reminds us how little publicity was given to the repressive measures taken by the North Vietnamese after their victory. America wanted to forget the Vietnamese disaster; the dovish portion of the media was unwilling to cover it after denying such repression would happen and the hawks could no longer sell the idea that the likelihood of a postwar bloodbath justified prolonging the bloodbath of the war that was destined to fail.
It was yet another tragic outcome of the terrible mistakes by JFK, LBJ, the generals and everyone else involved.
It was yet another tragic outcome of the terrible mistakes by JFK, LBJ, the generals and everyone else involved.
12
And don't leave out Nixon who won the election by telling South Viet Nam to not sign a peace treaty with LBJ and the war dragged on and thousands more died.
7
I am currently reading Hue 1968 by Mark Bowden, and he goes into the crimes committed by the North Vietnamese after their victory. Anybody interested in how things have developed after the war could read the news from Radio Free Asia (http://www.rfa.org/english/) which contains a lot of news about Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos as well as other regional countries.
2
Christopher, Hue 1968 is excellent, but I did think Bowden gave the crimes during the battle and after the war too little coverage.
US involvement in VietNam was about as unselfish an act as one can imagine. There was no oil, nor anything else to be gained.
The aim was to give enough time and room for the development of democracy in South Vietnam --- similarly to South Korea, where US sacrifice bore fruit.
(Although some posters hereabouts --- in the interest of "peace" --- seem quite willing to see North Korea destroy that progress, )
Battlefield success is one thing: Far more important is how you treat the defeated after. Germany and Japan were given new life by the US.
The victorious Viet Cong butchered and abused countless of their fellow countrymen BEFORE they came to their senses.
What Vietnam experiences today exactly what the US was fighting for: a normal developing country that grants more and more freedom to its citizens.
Pretty soon, Vietnamese will be about as free as citizens of today's Russia.
The aim was to give enough time and room for the development of democracy in South Vietnam --- similarly to South Korea, where US sacrifice bore fruit.
(Although some posters hereabouts --- in the interest of "peace" --- seem quite willing to see North Korea destroy that progress, )
Battlefield success is one thing: Far more important is how you treat the defeated after. Germany and Japan were given new life by the US.
The victorious Viet Cong butchered and abused countless of their fellow countrymen BEFORE they came to their senses.
What Vietnam experiences today exactly what the US was fighting for: a normal developing country that grants more and more freedom to its citizens.
Pretty soon, Vietnamese will be about as free as citizens of today's Russia.
11
Incorrect. The oil and seabed minerals in the South China seas were well-known back into Ike's Admin, as well as the in-country resources of bauxite, and rare earths.
"Holding the fort against communist encroachment" was but one (specious) goal. The technologies to exploit the off-shore resources were nascent in the 50s and 60s, but the US energy giants knew that it was only a matter of time.
"Holding the fort against communist encroachment" was but one (specious) goal. The technologies to exploit the off-shore resources were nascent in the 50s and 60s, but the US energy giants knew that it was only a matter of time.
11
Nonsense. Vietnam was an effort to further US ideology under the name of democracy, a type of democracy that favors the freedoms of the rich.
8
I'd also heard that from some geologist friends I acquired when I returned to school after my "excursion" to SE Asia. Whatever the "reason," it seemed specious to a lot of us vets.
2
I took a 1 semester course on the Vietnam War in college back in the late 80's, and I came to the conclusion that the entire conflict, from the early beginnings in the 1920's, to the French occupation until the mid-50's, through our involvement was a tragedy of monumental proportions.
Two little-known facts convinced me:
1) the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence is nearly verbatim of our own;
2) Ho Chi Minh came to FDR for help in forming a new nation of Vietnam out of the ashes of the French colony, to which FDR agreed. That agreement died with FDR and all Harry Truman saw was that Ho Chi Minh also visited the USSR hoping to get the same assurances from another Allied nation. Truman cast HCM as a "Communist" even though the US and USSR were both allies fighting the same fascist governments.
By backing the French, whom the Vietnamese saw as oppressors, we chose sides very poorly, and resulted in the tragedy of later decades.
I'm glad we are reconciling with Vietnam...the US and Vietnam have interests with more in common than apart.
Two little-known facts convinced me:
1) the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence is nearly verbatim of our own;
2) Ho Chi Minh came to FDR for help in forming a new nation of Vietnam out of the ashes of the French colony, to which FDR agreed. That agreement died with FDR and all Harry Truman saw was that Ho Chi Minh also visited the USSR hoping to get the same assurances from another Allied nation. Truman cast HCM as a "Communist" even though the US and USSR were both allies fighting the same fascist governments.
By backing the French, whom the Vietnamese saw as oppressors, we chose sides very poorly, and resulted in the tragedy of later decades.
I'm glad we are reconciling with Vietnam...the US and Vietnam have interests with more in common than apart.
35
Truly gratifying to read your post. I learned this, and much more at a "Teach-in" at San Diego State College in 1965. Up to that moment, I was planning to do 2 years of college and then apply to the Navy's "NavCad" program.
Since age 13, I'd wanted to fly jets, but I came to realize that the Navy wasn't going to spend a million bucks training me and then say, "Go fly that Phantom for fun." I gave up that dream and it was the right thing to do.
Since age 13, I'd wanted to fly jets, but I came to realize that the Navy wasn't going to spend a million bucks training me and then say, "Go fly that Phantom for fun." I gave up that dream and it was the right thing to do.
1
I think The Pentagon Papers are still in print. This is the government study of the origins of the war which were leaked and printed by The New York Times and Washington Post and which were involved in the Watergate affair.
2
The final telegram that I referred to was sent to Truman not FDR.
The Vietnamese are an extraordinarily brave people. They fought off Gengis Khan (Yes!), the French, the Chinese and the Americans. And yet they are able to put the past behind, and remain very gracious hosts during my several visits there.
31
I too, had a wonderful time visiting Vietnam, indeed very gracious and welcoming. Touring the tunnels and war sites was also very enlightening n learning the bravery and ingenuity required to fight a foe with a far greater technology and destructive capability.
7
Actually, the Vietnamese fought the Mongol Empire of Kublai Khan (founder of the Yuan Dynasty) to draw after three invasions (1258, 1285 & 1287) by the Yuan Dynasty and agreed to pay the Yuan Dynasty a token yearly tribute.
This is not to detract from Vietnamese military capabilities as the Japanese, French and American military forces can testify...
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
This is not to detract from Vietnamese military capabilities as the Japanese, French and American military forces can testify...
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
1
I recommend 'When Heaven and Earth Changed Places' by Le Ly Haslip. An excellent book which gives a picture of the war as seen from the perspective of a Vietnamese country girl growing into adulthood.
14
Not sure what the point is for this article. Is it to "prove" that women should be in combat? Just exactly how significant was the contribution of this extremely small unit to South Vietnam's defense?
I spent 17 months in combat in Vietnam and never heard of this "Daredevil Girls" outfit.
I spent 17 months in combat in Vietnam and never heard of this "Daredevil Girls" outfit.
13
First off, thank you for your service.
"I . . . never heard of this . . ."? Really? Have you heard of everything?
Your claim based on what you did not hear is rather meaningless. You were likely 18, or very young when you were there. You never heard of anything much then. Please accept the possibility that things you never heard of - even today - exist and make a decisive difference in the world.
The point of this article is open for debate. A clear point is to 'report what happened." That, in and of itself, has value. Moreover, it is clear that it quite openly suggests that a military that is not open to bravery of people regardless of gender, gender identity, race . . . is a limited military. It is clear that the Vietnamese people are excellent fighters, and will make excellent future partners. Past is past.
Cheers.
"I . . . never heard of this . . ."? Really? Have you heard of everything?
Your claim based on what you did not hear is rather meaningless. You were likely 18, or very young when you were there. You never heard of anything much then. Please accept the possibility that things you never heard of - even today - exist and make a decisive difference in the world.
The point of this article is open for debate. A clear point is to 'report what happened." That, in and of itself, has value. Moreover, it is clear that it quite openly suggests that a military that is not open to bravery of people regardless of gender, gender identity, race . . . is a limited military. It is clear that the Vietnamese people are excellent fighters, and will make excellent future partners. Past is past.
Cheers.
20
Hi Kalidan -
Actually I was 20 and then 21 while I was in Vietnam but thank you anyway. I was a very observant character back then (I used to refer to myself as a "Combat Tourist" and made it a point to talk to everyone I had a chance to, including an NVA lieutenant all night after we captured him (in French since he didn't speak English and my Vietnamese was very limited)).
My experience in an infantry company keeps me from deducing that women have a role in a combat unit. The primary reason is that young people in a remote, nasty location will form couples, they can't help it. The people lucky enough to be in that relationship will have a primary loyalty and focus on each other. The other young people who do not have someone will resent the lucky few who do.
The effect will be corrosive in an environment that demands cohesion and trust.
Combat is no place at all for distractions.
Actually I was 20 and then 21 while I was in Vietnam but thank you anyway. I was a very observant character back then (I used to refer to myself as a "Combat Tourist" and made it a point to talk to everyone I had a chance to, including an NVA lieutenant all night after we captured him (in French since he didn't speak English and my Vietnamese was very limited)).
My experience in an infantry company keeps me from deducing that women have a role in a combat unit. The primary reason is that young people in a remote, nasty location will form couples, they can't help it. The people lucky enough to be in that relationship will have a primary loyalty and focus on each other. The other young people who do not have someone will resent the lucky few who do.
The effect will be corrosive in an environment that demands cohesion and trust.
Combat is no place at all for distractions.
8
"military that is not open to bravery of people regardless of gender, gender identity, race . . . is a limited military"
Indeed! These women should be honored!
The same goes for a military that requires only one gender to register for the draft. There's no draft now, of course, but if a young male fails to register, he faces legal problems, and becomes ineligible for many state and federal benefits. Why should these challenges, along with the prospect of being forced to go to war, fall oil;y to one gender.
Indeed! These women should be honored!
The same goes for a military that requires only one gender to register for the draft. There's no draft now, of course, but if a young male fails to register, he faces legal problems, and becomes ineligible for many state and federal benefits. Why should these challenges, along with the prospect of being forced to go to war, fall oil;y to one gender.
1
The photo above the article says it all. How are you going to win a war with your helpless family in the trenches with you? We didn't win WWII by taking the wife and kids along with us on D-Day.
11
Good lord. How stupid. Per Sir General Rupert Smith this was a war among the people. There were no front lines. The north violated Cambodian and Laotian sovereignty with impunity.
This was probably on the perimeter of a village. The family's house was probably 50 yards from the fighting position. This is hardly a "trench" per WW1.
The tourists to Vietnam now don't see the images of the South Vietnamese defending their sovereignty and freedom.
This was probably on the perimeter of a village. The family's house was probably 50 yards from the fighting position. This is hardly a "trench" per WW1.
The tourists to Vietnam now don't see the images of the South Vietnamese defending their sovereignty and freedom.
2
Maybe if the wife and kids were already on the front lines? If they could have all been evacuated where would they have been sent?
Being a 'Nam vet, I have followed this series closely. But I quit on this one because it is inaccurate to start with. "...northeast of Saigon along the Cambodian border..." is a geographical impossibility. Northeast of Saigon would put you near Nha Trang on the South China Sea. If you don't know your geography, why should I trust what you have to say?
8
willegarre
With all due respect, if you study a map of Vietnam, you see that the country curves from its southern most point toward the northeast and then back again toward the north and northwest and finally toward the north to China.
So, yes, Nha Trang, more distant than Dong Xoai, is ENE of Saigon.
But because of its distance from then Saigon, Phuoc Long Province is technically north, and somewhat east of the capitol, along the Cambodian border.
I spent most of my time in then Long Khanh province in a wide area around then Xuan Loc, east-north-east of Saigon.
The author does a commendable job on the subject of the relationship of women to the ARVN. Quite a few families eventually lived on the sprawling Blackhorse Fire Support Base from and around which my battalion, 2/3/199th, operated. We shared the base with the 18th ARVN Division, many of whose officers wives and families lived with, especially, the unit's officers.
With all due respect, if you study a map of Vietnam, you see that the country curves from its southern most point toward the northeast and then back again toward the north and northwest and finally toward the north to China.
So, yes, Nha Trang, more distant than Dong Xoai, is ENE of Saigon.
But because of its distance from then Saigon, Phuoc Long Province is technically north, and somewhat east of the capitol, along the Cambodian border.
I spent most of my time in then Long Khanh province in a wide area around then Xuan Loc, east-north-east of Saigon.
The author does a commendable job on the subject of the relationship of women to the ARVN. Quite a few families eventually lived on the sprawling Blackhorse Fire Support Base from and around which my battalion, 2/3/199th, operated. We shared the base with the 18th ARVN Division, many of whose officers wives and families lived with, especially, the unit's officers.
14
Look at the map again, my veteran friend. There's no way going northeast from Saigon will take you close to the Cambodian border.
1
willegarre
I've looked at the map many times, then, and since, and have one in front of me as I write. Directly north of Saigon, near Ap Loc Thanh, one can cross a border into Cambodia. ENE of Ap Loc Thanh, near highway 14 and Dak Song, one can cross a border highway into Cambodia. You may object to Phuoc Long Province being "NE" of Saigon, but it is at worst just NNE of Saigon, for anyone navigating by compass, line of sight, gps, or any other means of navigation and not at all west of Saigon.
More critical is that the author is writing about women in the war, not about my navigation, or yours.
Ms. Stur is correct enough about the location, and quite accurate about her subject, the women of Vietnam.
I've looked at the map many times, then, and since, and have one in front of me as I write. Directly north of Saigon, near Ap Loc Thanh, one can cross a border into Cambodia. ENE of Ap Loc Thanh, near highway 14 and Dak Song, one can cross a border highway into Cambodia. You may object to Phuoc Long Province being "NE" of Saigon, but it is at worst just NNE of Saigon, for anyone navigating by compass, line of sight, gps, or any other means of navigation and not at all west of Saigon.
More critical is that the author is writing about women in the war, not about my navigation, or yours.
Ms. Stur is correct enough about the location, and quite accurate about her subject, the women of Vietnam.
Wars stress societies so severely that they are forced into changes that they've resisted in peace, and would have continued to resist.
In WW2, we had Rosie the Riveter. That could not have happened five years before the war. That is not a one-off, but actually common. For example in WW2 women's roles increased in all the Allied nations. It was only the ideologically driven fascists who resisted even at the cost of the Home Front's contribution to Total War.
The role of women in Vietnam as affected by the War should be examined. We should bring that back home too, and not just as to the role of women, nor just past wars.
What societal changes is the current Long War bringing to us? Do we even see what we are doing to ourselves? Not really. We don't look. We'd deny it if pointed out.
In WW2, we had Rosie the Riveter. That could not have happened five years before the war. That is not a one-off, but actually common. For example in WW2 women's roles increased in all the Allied nations. It was only the ideologically driven fascists who resisted even at the cost of the Home Front's contribution to Total War.
The role of women in Vietnam as affected by the War should be examined. We should bring that back home too, and not just as to the role of women, nor just past wars.
What societal changes is the current Long War bringing to us? Do we even see what we are doing to ourselves? Not really. We don't look. We'd deny it if pointed out.
13
Millions of women in the US entered the workforce in WWI. Capitalism and its fellow traveler, industrialized warfare, index not for gender when it comes to the production of mass destruction.
2
Why were they forgotten? Because they were on the wrong side.
6
On the "wrong side" only if you supported a totalitarian communist terror campaign that ended with more murders and "reeducation camps" and hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees from that nightmare.
Another proof that the so-called "antiwar" movement was really a pro-enemy movement.
Another proof that the so-called "antiwar" movement was really a pro-enemy movement.
7
After all that has been written about the fallacies and failures of a war that was never based upon need but upon the politics involved in the Cold War , it is hardly possible to conclude that these women were on the wrong side.
7
@independent
It would seem there will always be Americans who see virtue and rightness in this war, despite the atrocities we visited upon that small agrarian country -- more ordinance and chemical weapons dropped on it than all of WWII combined, and the lies we told about it.
It's certainly true that, by the time the "American war" (which is what they call it) was lost and the colonial powers (as they saw it) were finally expelled from Vietnam, the winning side was brutal and repressive, among the more miserable regimes on earth.
But you might want to consider, for comparison, the American response to 9/11 -- an immeasurably smaller outrage, not even a pinprick by comparison, and yet we turned the world upside down for it, killing a million Iraq civilians and disrupting the lives of millions more, all over the world.
Is it just possible America was neither hero nor victim in Vietnam?
It would seem there will always be Americans who see virtue and rightness in this war, despite the atrocities we visited upon that small agrarian country -- more ordinance and chemical weapons dropped on it than all of WWII combined, and the lies we told about it.
It's certainly true that, by the time the "American war" (which is what they call it) was lost and the colonial powers (as they saw it) were finally expelled from Vietnam, the winning side was brutal and repressive, among the more miserable regimes on earth.
But you might want to consider, for comparison, the American response to 9/11 -- an immeasurably smaller outrage, not even a pinprick by comparison, and yet we turned the world upside down for it, killing a million Iraq civilians and disrupting the lives of millions more, all over the world.
Is it just possible America was neither hero nor victim in Vietnam?
18