Bing West says, " The only way to secure the top of South Vietnam was to maneuver through Laos and hit the North Vietnamese from their rear." And he gets it about right. It wasn't just the top of South Vietnam, it was all of South Vietnam. The Combined Action Platoons fought bravely and did achieve tactical success. Their bravery, dedication and tactics were a footnote in the history of a war defined by incompetent leadership and strategic failure. The Vietnamese in South Vietnam did want to live under Communist rule. They wanted to live in peace. The CAPs offered the villagers a path to defeating the VC but only senior leadership could offer the South Vietnamese people a path to defeating the NVA and establishing a democracy.
If one reads even a small portion of the 47-volume study known as the Pentagon Papers, one finds that this article is the product of wishful thinking, on stilts.
My question is whether the German soldiers in WWII also served with honor, or the Japanese in WWII, or the various members of various warlords in Iraq or the Taliban, etc, etc. Their leaders, though misguided, thought their cause noble. Why do we act nobly but not them.
I guess it is my country right or wrong, but not for "enemy" combatants who are definition evil and without any redeeming moral virtue .
I really cringe when I shop and see "made in Vietnam." I cringe not because any animosity towards Vietnamese, but because it reminds me of the many Americans and Vietnamese who died in a conflict just a few decades before and with whom now we have normalized our relationship as though that devastating conflict never occurred. How many of those that died or were disabled or displaced could have discovered some new cures for diseases or made the world a better place, and for all their children that were never born who likewise would have made the world a better place. These incessant wars make no sense.
If instead of paying for a war we merely gave the other side the money spent on bombs, lost lives, etc.. both countries and for sure all combatants would have been better served. It is truly absurd, but just chalk what I said to my naivety.
2
I was there. We lost to the best army on earth. We were a mess. Short of atomic bombs we could not have beaten them in a thousand tears. I like bing but his facts and figures are a yarn. Bing ought to let it go.
4
The suppression of the Veit Cong insurgency was a success. The war was otherwise a strategic failure. The real enemies were North Vietnam, Red China and the Soviet Union (aka Russia). Without the political will to cutoff the invasion and supply routes through Laos, the strategic situation was problematic, especially after the US abandoned the South Vietnamese -- who were actually the South Vietnamese and the ethnic minorities -- Khmers (the historic Cambodian owners of southern-most "Vietnam"), ethnic Chinese and others who had zero interest in being part of North Vietnam's Vietnam. With the Laotian road open and America gone, the North Vietnamese made short work of the Khmers, South Vietnamese and others. The ethnic Chinese became the boat people ... since there was no place for them in a Vietnam for the "Vietnamese."
They walked the rounds in on us
methodically adjusting the range
just like we'd been trained to do.
TANKS! Sweet Mary! Mother of God!
They have TANKS!
-- Rue Sans Joie -- 1972
Meanwhile, General Bone Spurs was avoiding Sexually transmitted diseases.
10
The author writes:
‘Gerald Ford’s secretary of defense, James Schlesinger, wrote to our troops after Saigon fell, “Your cause was noble; your dedication was determined’.
This is where many might disagree. Many don’t think the “cause” of Vietnam was noble. Quite the opposite. It was an illegal and immoral war which the government tried to convince people was “noble.”
Regrettably, they often succeeded.
9
Incredible how many essays The Times publishes in this column aimed at whitewashing the Vietnam War. We fought to maintain France's colonial hold over a country whose people hated them. We fought to maintain a massively corrupt government illegally established after France agreed to leave Vietnam and hold elections, elections that were never held. Our government knew full well that we could never win that war, that support for the Vietcong and for Ho Chi Minh was widespread. That's what came out in the Pentagon Papers.
So please don't tell me about how proud veterans are, or should be, about fighting this war. It was a horrible mistake, a brutal conflict fought against nationalists who were trying to oust foreign powers, and regain sovereignty for themselves.
It is truly sad that the editors of The Times are trying to sanitize this war in the minds of Americans half a century after the fact.
8
How old are you? There were 14 M Vietnamese who either lived in SVN or moved there to not live under a communist system. They were not only nationalists. The SVN were nationalists too. 2 M have come here and they have flourished. Vietnam now has a market economy. But no adverse media and one party.
5
The idea of invading Laos to "cut " the trail was a illusion drawn up on some JCS study group "grease board" before the era of power point. There is no more inhospitable AO to air support and tac air than the Lao-Vietnam border. One would have establish dozens of FSB's and LZ's with interlocking fire to support the company size elements on patrol because sometimes the weather in that area ( ie very low cloud cover and constant drizzle) severely hampers tac air and resupply. Westy wanted at least 250,000 extra troops for this. Can you say another 20,000 KIA or so with this approach and 60 % increase in the already enormous cost of the war. I shudder to think at the number of additional helicopter and air crew shot down in that endeavor- 5086 out 11,200 helicopters that were employed in the war were shot down. General Giap had contingency plan for invasion of Laos and northern Vietnam and increased by ten fold the number of trails in 67-70 widening out the scope, also Ho and Giap were ready to accept Chinese combat divisions in the north to free up more troops to counter and they would merely retreat into strong points underground and in caves hitting american forces at the time and place of their choice. The American logistical tail would be long depending on air supply and the NVA's short with the NVA experts on the terrain of hidden caves and streams in the AO. How much time did Johnson or Nixon have to "defeat" the NVA? Giap had all the time in the world.
4
This is nothing more than feel-good anecdotal nonsense. Even the title is intolerably naive. Sure. That's why we actually won the Vietnam war, a war that was unwinnable from the beginning because the Vietnamese didn't want us nor the French nor the Japanese before us.
"Not one village was ever retaken by the Viet Cong." That is sheer nonsense. It is a claim without any factual basis. We didn't lose the war, and the Viet Cong don't didn't fight us for over a decade because those in the hamlets were on our side. Quite the contrary.
4
Hold on there, Mr. West. You can't just drop the name Orson Swindle without a little background. For starters, how long after that incident was Capt. Swindle shot down?
One reader replied to my post by writing:
" 'The only solution is to institute a universal draft,' but you 'refused to serve when drafted.' Do they teach logic out there in Oakland?"
I support the draft for several reasons.
1/ Everyone should have skin in the game, if we are going to go to war. Such will increase the degree to which Americans think about the necessity for the war before simply acting. This is especially necessary for Presidents and Members of Congress.
2/ We should not be "outsourcing" our wars primarily to the poor looking for jobs.
3/ It will keep "endless" wars, such as the current one in Afghanistan, in the public consciousness, hopefully providing an impetus to defining the war's end game strategy.
4/ Mandatory service asserts that the flip side of the rights and privileges of being an American consists of responsibilities and obligations.
5/ A draft will guarantee ongoing opposition to wars that are of dubious interest or necessity.
My own choice was mostly a result of 5/. I paid a real price for my decision (details irrelevant here), and that is as it should have been. A choice to oppose our government on principle, whether a draft or anything else, should not be easy. What we need more of is a sense of America as a collective enterprise, not a collection of individuals or polarized "tribes."
Keep in mind that real opposition to the Viet Nam War didn't really ramp up until drafted, white, middle-class guys started coming home in body bags.
5
Bing West's story is precisely an example of what is needed to help those who refused on principle to go to Nam understand and appropriately respect those who chose differently.
Unfortunately, a country and government that sent so many young men and women off to war, did not do right by them when they returned. But, with the exception of World War II, that seems to be true of all our wars.
A line by Roger Cohen in his currently running column (Trump in the Web of Pax Technica) states, "...the generals around [Trump] are driven more by prudence than testosterone. Unlike the bone-spur president, they know war." And therein lies much of our current military problems ranging from policy to respectful and quality treatment of our vets. The only solution I see is to institute a universal draft, guaranteeing that wars will be considered before being fought, that all Americans will have skin in the game one way or another, and that veterans will be treated appropriately.
I refused to serve when drafted. For that I paid a significant price, and that is as it should be. There should be no free lunch, especially in times of war. Who knows, with an in-place draft, perhaps a Congress will actually do its Constitutionally mandated duty and declare war, something it has not done since 1941, not with Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, nor with "minor" efforts in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and other places many Americans are unlikely to be able to find on a map.
3
What I find disheartening is that it appears (from the small number of comments) how few people have read this story.
Forty years after World War I, American society and its politics had "gotten over it."
Forty years after World War II, American society and its politics had "gotten over it."
Forty years after the Korean War, American society and its politics had "gotten over it."
Forty years after the Viet Nam War, as a society, as a culture, as a political entity, as suffering people, we have yet to "get over it."
Americans, especially those too young to have experienced the national trauma, need to hear these stories. Kudos to the Times for trying to help the understanding and healing processes with its year-long series on the subject. And kudos as well as personal thanks to Bing West for opening yourself up in this public forum. I hope it helps with your own healing.
4
One aspect of all of this that has been missing in various essays I've read is the actual history of what is now Viet Nam.
The Vietnamese have been "king of the hill" is SE Asia almost since 12 century CE. They fought the Mongol Empire (think Kublai Khan) to a standstill in the 13th century. They fought the French beginning in the mid-19th century (with a time out to fight the Japanese) till 1954. Then the Americans. And the Vietnamese won. Slowly, inexorably Viet Nam became an independent nation.
The story of how Ho, et al. "became" communists is another story that began with the 1919 Treaty of Paris and the Allies refusal to honor US President Wilson's 14 Points, Point V of which said "A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined."
None of the victorious Allies would meet with Ho. Only the Russians, now Soviets, would offer any kind of aid. "The enemy of enemy is my friend."
6
Sometimes me thinks that people who didn't serve in Vietnam and didn't seriously study the war ought to keep their opinions to their inner circle.
2
General Lew Walt, III MAF commander in Viet Nam, initiated and backed the successful CAP program. For this, Walt and the Marines were often belittled by Westmoreland and some senior Army and DOD staff for preferring to caudal to Viet Namese peasants rather than fight the enemy.
2
Bing West's story is precisely an example of what is needed to help those who refused on principle to go to Nam understand and appropriately respect those who chose differently.
Unfortunately, a country and government that sent so many young men and women off to war, did not do right by them when they returned. But, with the exception of World War II, that seems to be true of all our wars.
A line by Roger Cohen in his currently running column (Trump in the Web of Pax Technica) states, "...the generals around [Trump] are driven more by prudence than testosterone. Unlike the bone-spur president, they know war." And therein lies much of our current military problems ranging from policy to respectful and quality treatment of our vets. The only solution I see is to institute a universal draft, guaranteeing that wars will be considered before being fought, that all Americans will have skin in the game one way or another, and that veterans will be treated appropriately.
I refused to serve when drafted. For that I paid a significant price, and that is as it should be. There should be no free lunch, especially in times of war. Who knows, with an in-place draft, perhaps a Congress will actually do its Constitutionally mandated duty and declare war, something it has not done since 1941, not with Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, nor with "minor" efforts in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and other places many Americans are unlikely to be able to find on a map.
3
Mr. West,
I find great parallels with your experience in Vietnam to what our current forces endure, their placement in outposts next to the borders of the enemy thus guaranteeing their consistent slaughter.
At the start of the Vietnam War the power elites already had the interviews of captured enemy soldiers, who made it clear they were going to see their country unified as one or die trying. Over a million did. The Rand Corporation gave Johnson and McNamara the answer they weren't looking for.
However, In Afghanistan there is no overarching sense by either the Taliban or Afghanis to do the same. Why would they? The United States has incentivized corruption in the government, contractors, and allies. For one, American contractors hire the same subcontractors to yield the same dismal results. Our "allies" the Pakistani intelligence ISI receive billions from America to do exactly what truly begs the question. Build new mansions for Al Qaeda's leadership---in Pakistan? Perhaps.
Pakistan doesn't want peace America's billions is addictive, and it uses the Taliban to foment terrorism against India; thus guaranteeing a heightened security state where we know from our experience, our rights are diminished and torture is welcomed. Perhaps we should raise the limit in how much cash Afghanis elites can take out of their country? The only remaining issue is, before we leave, who is going to be the last American to die in Afghanistan?
2
The CAP Marines were so good that the Vietnamese Army in Cambodia used the same tactics to keep the Khmer Rouge from terrorizing hamlets in Cambodia. Cambodian Defense Minister Gen. Tie Bahn relied on the villagers the Vietnamese had trained to keep the Khmer Rouge out of the hamlets when the Vietnamese Army withdrew in 1989.
The CAPS were great but a lesser known group, the CUPP Marines (Combined Unit Pacification Program) performed the same duties but didn't have a "home" or cots. They slept in the paddies, the streets, the hootches and relied on near constant movement to avoid being pinned down. One of the finest Marines, and C.O. of Golf CUPP, Second Battalion, Fifth Marines, Captain (Col. Retired) Robert Tilley died of war-time wounds recently. Somehow America has supplied such men and women to fulfill the duty their country requires.
4
The heroes of the Vietnam era are those that fled to another country, lived underground in the US, or went to jail rather be involved in a war of imperial aggression. The ethical refused to be involved in a war that resulted in the slaughter of millions of civilians. Having served in Vietnam should be a source of shame rather than pride for US soldiers.
4
Karl from Amsterdam wrote: "Having served in Vietnam should be a source of shame rather than pride for US soldiers." I must respectfully disagree. I suggest that those who conceive of and apply such broad stereotypes upon the 2.7 million American men and women who served in Vietnam do them a grave injustice. But, it appears that most haters still hate, and continue to ignore the nuance of history.
3
Well, Karl, the rich white kids had access to draft counseling and could evaluate the alternatives. The rest of us were not so lucky. Many of my college friends were able to avoid serving. I guess I was too dumb to figure it out. I was really good at anything I put my hand to and I knew I would be really good at killing people. Which is why I didn't do it.
The Coast Guard was pretty much the military, but I did get to save a few people's lives, mostly fishermen and women. And of course after I got out I grew my hair out and never told anyone I had served.
But now I am an old man and I think I did OK. I didn't hurt anyone and I helped a lot of people.
G'day to you and Amsterdam
3
Ed Connor replies to my post by writing:
" 'The only solution is to institute a universal draft,' but you 'refused to serve when drafted.' Do they teach logic out there in Oakland?"
Ed, I support the draft for several reasons.
1/ Everyone should have skin in the game, if we are going to go to war. Such will increase the degree to which Americans think about the necessity for the war before simply acting. This is especially important for Presidents and Members of Congress.
2/ We should not be "outsourcing" our wars primarily to the poor looking for jobs.
3/ It would keep "endless" wars, such as the current one in Afghanistan, in the public consciousness, providing an impetus to defining the war's end-game strategy.
4/ Mandatory service asserts that the flip side of the rights and privileges of being an American consists of responsibilities and obligations.
5/ A draft will guarantee ongoing opposition to wars that are of dubious interest or necessity.
My own choice was mostly a result of 5/. I paid a real price for my decision (details irrelevant here), and that is as it should have been. A choice to oppose our government on principle, whether a draft or anything else, should not be easy. What we need more of is a sense of America as a collective enterprise, not a collection of individuals or polarized "tribes."
Keep in mind that mass opposition to the Viet Nam War didn't really ramp up until drafted, white, middle-class guys started coming home in body bags.
6
As a Vietnam Veteran. I gave a five-minute talk during the last session of our "War and Peace" lecture series and made the same point about bringing back the draft. Somewhat surprisingly, it was received at least with at least polite curiosity. The fact that the military establishment opposes a draft is enough reason on its own to suggest that the draft is a very good idea. An active draft would lead to less war, not more, for the reason you point out. I agree with your other points and respect the position you took. My country owes me no more than I am willing to do for my country.
6
I think that the details of your decision are relevant here. Let's not be coy: tell us the price that you paid for refusing the draft. Inquiring minds want to know. Prison? Exile? Having to learn how to speak Canadian? Was your graduate student stipend reduced? Give it to us straight and quit the strip tease.
FYI: I dodged the draft too: served in the USCG, but could have been sent to VN-many were.
These Marines acted honorably, and with a savvy understanding of building relationships, which may have exceeded top brass or Washington's understanding of local people's attitudes.
However, the political and high end military decisions that led to them being there are totally divorced from the honorable personal service of individuals.
Throughout the military , some believed in an overarching mission which was sufficient reason to be involved; some thought it was a joke; and there were all levels of opinion in between.
The reasons FOR going to war are not derived during battle or on the ground; they found in researching history and analyzing how and why a country decides to go to war -- especially when we are not talking about home defense. Schlesinger's saying that the "cause was noble" was more self-serving for the architects of the Vietnam War at that point than it was praise for the troops: what or whose cause? Are we talking about the stated or underlying causes? Keep in mind the cynical torpedoing of peace talks by Nixon/Kissinger in order to favor Nixon's election.
Troops ARE serving the country; it doesn't alway mean that their country's use of their skills has been for the highest purposes.
3
what is an insurgent?....someoe defending their country agsint an occupying/invading foriegn nation. the US has no right or reason to be in vietnam/iraq/afghanistan....if iraqi's invaded the US, killed a million people, occupied and tortured people for 10 years...americans would be insurgents
3
Thank you Capt. West for sharing your story of success in the larger sea of confusion. At 15, in 1968, I could not understand why the US was engaged in Vietnam. After my freshman year in college, with a draft number of 241, it appeared I would not be drafted for service, unlike some of my peers. Traveling home from college that spring, I met two veterans from Vietnam, who appeared to me to be as confused as I was regarding our involvement in Vietnam. I have the utmost respect for those who served and disdain for those who perpetuated the lie of our continued involvement. Our soldiers did their duty, too bad our leaders didn't.
10
"Seeing that we weren’t rich or better armed and yet took higher risks than other troopers, the villagers gradually welcomed us into their thatched homes."
Stockholm syndrome: noun
feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor.
"In Vietnam, we lacked commitment."
"The total tonnage of bombs dropped over North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos came to about 8 million (about four times the tonnage used in all of WWII).
Summary of Vietnam War - w w .home.earthlink.net
home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/Vietnam.htm
8
It's sad to see how many readers are unable to comprehend what this essay is actually about. Instead, they use it to launch into naive puerile political polemics, with little or no understanding of the Vietnam War and/or its history.
The bureaucrats and generals bungled their way into an Asian Civil War, fighting on the "wrong" side for a corrupt Saigon government created by French and American ignorance. Ho Chi Minh, on the other hand, actually cared more about the peasant on a water buffalo in rice paddies than lining his pockets. Brutality was common to both sides, for a civil war is the worst kind of warfare (as Americans should know well from our own history).
The CAC/CAP program was uniquely successful in "winning the hearts and minds" of the villagers they trained and lived with. It is notable CAP Marines are now welcomed by those same villagers 50 years later. It's seriously doubtful Americans will be welcomed the same way in Afghanistan or Iraq similarly in 2053.
The CAP concept was a refinement of lessons learned in Nicaragua and Haiti by astute Marine officers, while the Green Berets used a similar program. They were a stark contrast to Westmoreland, who adhered to the "Search and Destroy" and "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" tactics that were destined for failure.
Mao wrote, "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." CAP Marines and Green Berets took away that capability in a futile war.
17
Excellent points, but winning in a village is tactical the strategic effort, driven by an enemy who was willing to bleed more than we were was always going to overcome these small American victories. I agree that "Search & Destroy" and "Free Fire Zones" were ineffective and in my view were essentially war crimes that undermined whatever "good" we did, the end state was always going to be the same, a unified Vietnam. I agree we will not be welcomed back in 40 plus years like Mr. Bing and his brave colleagues are to this day.. I've visited Vietnam both in the Saigon (the locals still call it Saigon) and Hanoi and to a person everyone was very kind and welcoming.
3
"The only way to secure the top of South Vietnam was to maneuver through Laos and hit the North Vietnamese from their rear."
In point of fact, there's no reason to think that this strategy would have worked either. The issue in Vietnam was not a lack of strategic brains or of money or of will or of ammunition or bravery or courage. The issue was that the US was assisting an ignoble cause.
7
It's often speculated that America should learn something from wars and smaller conflicts that keep us from making the same mistakes again. Clearly that is not true as we align ourselves with the wrong sides in the Middle East, continue the longest undeclared war in our history, and expect the outcomes to be different.
Since it appears that there are many readers of these columns who were not of age or who missed these lessons, maybe it's time for NYT to republish the known story of the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. Do it before President Trump (or his hidden puppet master Bannon) concocts a Sea of Japan or South China Sea incident to draw us into another cycle of endless war.
11
Can you make a comment without mentioning Trump?
West provides a moving description of a piece of a complicated picture. But it is only a piece – one that becomes absorbed in the larger picture when one steps back to take it in. It is a picture that looks different from every angle you view it from.
West quotes James Schlesinger who wrote to the American troops after Saigon fell, “Your cause was noble; your dedication was determined.” The same could be said of the thousands who fought and resisted the war effort and refused to go.
Another piece of the picture looks like this. It shows the thousands of soldiers who went to Viet Nam with misgivings or the thousands who went for what they thought was a noble cause and then quickly realized the cause was tainted. These are men whose goal each day was not a soaring vision of freedom, but simply to survive – and then do it again the next day. And throughout this piece of the picture you can see a brutal human tragedy in the faces of all of those who never made it back, or those who returned physically and psychologically maimed.
West quotes the village teacher Ho Chi who wrote to the family of one of the kindergarten Marines. He said “I hope someday we will all have peace and Charity.” But that will never happen as long as we have disingenuous politicians who feed well-intentioned men and women into the jaws of the war machine for less than noble causes.
8
I remember the horrors of the Vietnam War being the main staple of the nightly news. Night after night. I wonder if the same were true about our continued fighting in Afghanistan the will of the people would force an end to that conflict as well.
We really do get our news sanitized nowadays so that we don't rise and protest what our government is doing with our taxpayer dollars. Same playbook for the tax law. Do it under cover so there will be minimal conflict. It's just wrong.
10
Moving an army of 550,000 troops plus support is not cheap. On the nightly news, there should be a running dollar sign ... with a bell that rings at every million dollar increment, which was (at that time) about every two minutes.
2
A truism: people would get along if only their governments didn't go to war.
What punishment is there for bad government? Losing an election? Is that enough?
4
Finally a little bit of the truth of the value of our efforts in Viet nam.
3
There were several times that the US forces got the farmers of South Vietnam on the ball and able to resist the VC and NVA. This was one of those times. All those farmers wanted was to farm their land. Land that too often was owned by some absentee landlord who treated the farmers like sharecroppers.
A little land reform could have done a lot of good, but that threatened the rich in Saigon and what little tax base the South depended on.
The same could be said of 62-65 when Green Berets did an excellent job of do the same thing as this report states.
The same could have happened in the late 50's. The North was busy herding everyone into Soviet style 'collectives' and not able to do much about South Vietnam.
In every time period, the South Vietnam government screwed over the peasants and took any aid money the US sent. Corruption destroyed South Vietnam. Corruption fueled by the US and no one in the South Vietnamese government was ever held accountable. Well, no one who mattered anyway.
The bravery and dedication of units like the 'Kindergarten Marines' is present in almost every US solider. They did what the US government wanted them to do and then the higher ups abandoned the effort. Corruption and shortsightedness are recipe for disaster.
5
West writes: "The only way to secure the top of South Vietnam was to maneuver through Laos and hit the North Vietnamese from their rear. But Washington wouldn’t allow it." I disagree, and I think this is one mistake that Washington did not make. Had American troops maneuvered through Laos and "hit the North Vietnamese from their rear", they would have been attacked from all sides in both Laos and southern North Vietnam. They would be been drawn into warfare throughout North Vietnam; eventually, they would have been advancing upon Hanoi (and beyond, to the Chinese border...). Wielding enormous military power, they would surely have succeeded in killing many North Vietnamese (i.e., more than they were already killing with the bombing of the North) and destroying the North's infrastructure, but they would not thereby have won or even ended the war. People in Washington, for all their errors, hubris and blindness, understood that this would be disastrous -- even if grunts around the DMZ did not.
2
An interesting episode, as are most written by Nam veterans. As I was reading this, I got to wondering just how often the United States has been involved in a war. So, I did a search on the Internet. The results startled me.
America Has Been at War 93% of the Time – 222 out of 239 Years – Since 1776
https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222...
5
If you add in all the colonial and Indian wars in the 17th and 18th centuries prior to 1776, the numbers are even more startling.
1
A welcome change from the Progressive mantra that the US soldiers were all babykillers and the VC/NVA saints. For the US military and political leadership, however, my contempt knows no bounds.
5
The vast majority of those who opposed the war also rejected the "baby killer" mantra. It has also been true for millennia that war is brutal and therefore brutalizes. The young, relatively innocent Americans who fought there did not remain so after a stint in the field. All sides got their hands dirty, some more than others, which would include the hapless SVA. As for "sainthood" for the North, anyone who bothered to look into Vietnamese history after 1940 and America's involvement there after 1945 saw the fiction of South Vietnam, and the claims of legitimacy of the North, however dictatorial, as fair. The various whoppers to justify our involvement still astound.
1
That's a "progressive" value only in Sean Hannity's perversion of the term. Say regressive, OK? Gun bless you.
1
"In Vietnam, we lacked commitment." Really, 575 thousand troops, dropping four and a half times as many bombs as in all WW2. Amazing what you can get yourself to believe.
12
In high school in southern California and later in college, it was the high school dropouts who joined the army and the marines. A good friend of mine, Mike Reese, quit high school at 16, lied about his age, and joined the Marines in 1962. Those of us who could read, and read between the lines of nationalist pro-war propaganda, Vietnam was a mistake from the start, and that was in 1945, first, and 1954, second. A huge rolling mistake. You can blame it on the post-WW2 arms industry, or stupidity, or anti-Communist fear.
I cannot accept the 'heroic' stories of war, partly because they leave out mention of the brothels in Saigon, the gang rapes in the rice paddies, and the cold-blooded murders of defenseless Vietnamese women and children. For every My Lai reported (and it was just barely reported), there were another 100 smaller My Lai's.
Count this American out of the warmonger's self-congratulations. Until they are honest about all that happened, about the strategic stupidity, about the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident, about the century-long quest of the Vietnamese for independence from France-Japan-China-US, about the heroism of the Vietnamese in the face of continuous invasions, about the failure of the Truman administration to even read the pleas from Ho Chi Min, about the civilian kill-ratios, count me out. It is true the grunts didn't manufacture this tragedy, but they made it possible. The Americans who resisted this militarism are the real heroes.
8
I guess, then, that you never served.
Their opinion of how you people fought that war - and bear in mind Australians were, at that time, the pre-eminent jungle fighters - is vastly different to how a marine sees things.
please explain.
We pulled out of Vietnam in 1973 not 1972. The Christmas bombing was December of 1972.
4
Thanks for printing this great series and allowing the readers to experience a seminal episode in America's history through the eyes of those few that lived it.
3
“Your cause was noble; your dedication was determined.” This is half right. The dedication of the author and thousands of his comrades was certainly determined, undergirded by admirable courage. But the cause was not noble. The "cause" was preserving feudalism: sacrificing 53,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to support a corrupt clique of landlords. That's why we lost. We were on the wrong side of history.
6
Vietnam was not lost in Washington DC nor on the battlefield. Vietnam was lost in Saigon. Political infighting, religious oppression, and corruption in the South Vietnamese leadership doomed our efforts from the outset.
8
Ambassador and former General Maxwell Taylor saw that as early as spring 1965 when things were just getting cranked up. Since the JFK managed Diem coup, Taylor had seen seven more coup attempts, about half of them successful. And yet...and yet...we persisted.
1
Well... considering how many dollars, lives and bombs we sent to Vietnam. I'm not sure what kind of "commitment" the author believes would have been required. Individual bravery never excuses a mistake. There are so many places that we should never have been and should not be. Instead of glorifying war we could be emphasizing peace......merry christmas and all.....
5
This is another in a series of thought-provoking essays that always come back to the same question that may be as old as war itself – “How do you honor good men who fought and died in a bad cause?” Schlesinger could not be more wrong – at the time or now – that Vietnam was a noble cause. It was an ill-considered, poorly devised strategic blunder by an arrogant and overbearing nation that cost millions of lives for goals that even today remain ephemeral and indecipherable. The courage, dedication, and service of the ordinary soldiers who served were real and yet remain forever enmeshed in the larger picture of the war. We should honor the soldiers even as we hold the political and military leaders who created this horrible mistake with utter disdain and contempt.
3
The "lack of commitment" line is one pushed by people who can't acknowledge that the war was ill-fated from the start, and largely replicated the failed approach of the French.
6
Thanks, Captain West, for sharing your story and more importantly for what you've done for our nation. I've been privileged to know many fine soldiers in my years in the Army for whom I have undying respect, and had I known any marines I'm sure I would feel the same way.
But I'm weary with America's wars of empire. It seems to me there's no way to "win," and what really happens is that the most desperately poor people in this world are the ones to suffer. And of course, our own fine young men and women are left scarred physically and emotionally, or killed. All the while, well-meaning elites who set our policy rarely if ever feel the sting of personal sacrifice.
The Quaker meeting house down the road from me has a big sign outside that says "There is no way to Peace. Peace is the way." I think they're right. It's the only way except when we're absolutely forced into armed conflict.
7
The French colonialism that entangled Viet Nam was followed by naive intervention by the US. The fact remains that we fought the wrong war. Had there been a deeper purpose and savvier politics, there could have been a better outcome.
All those who took up the fight for honor's sake and those who had no choice - some who suffered wounds, some who lost their lives, some who were gravely challenged by the experience - had faith in a system that gamed them wrongly.
Before a single American boot hits the ground anywhere in the world; conscious, realistic, and uncompromised goals must be set before our men and women in uniform are asked to put their lives on the line for us.
6
"The French colonialism that entangled Viet Nam was followed by naive intervention by the US. "
Correct. One wonders how many US political leaders and military strategists studied Dien Bien Phu and the circumstances that led to total defeat of French forces.
1
It occurred to me then and still vexes me today. If we had spent less than 10% of the total spent on making war, and devoted it to infrastructure and economic development all of us would have been better off. The ordinary Vietnamese people only wanted to be left alone and given the opportunity to live their lives in peace and raise their children. It was not too much to ask. I witnessed first hand what better roads and bridges and the like could do for the economy; what a simple hardstand pad on which to dry rice could do for a farmer. Yet we gut funding for our State Department and economic aid programs in favor of an even greater military budget. It is too bad our President did not witness first hand the futility of war, he maybe would have had a different perspective had he survived it.
6
A well written article on a war that never should have happened and its comparison to the same blunders we have made again in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.
The Marines and troops who fought in Vietnam were mostly heroes who were sent to fight and too often die for no purpose.
Sadly, we keep repeating our tragic mistakes.
5
Every year several thousand Vietnamese are killed and injured by unexploded munitions Americans left behind when we left. There was no good or just part of that war. It was a wanton act of killing perpetrated to protect American business interests and against the concerted will of the Vietnamese people, north and south. We went to Vietnam to take away the right of the people there to determine their own destiny and were justly humiliated in the attempt.
Millions of Vietnamese heroically gave their lives opposing the American invasion force and more die every year from what we left behind when we slunk away in defeat. There is no good or just legacy to the war and any attempt to fashion one for the brutal machine of American imperial power should be treated with contempt.
Because we've apparently learned virtually nothing from our follies of the past century and are determined to go adventuring around the world, again and again, for no better reason to sate the greed and bloodthirst of a ruling elite that grows more enfeebled and bloated by excess with every passing year.
58
Peter, you have no idea about what really happened in Viet Nam. What I witnessed was unceasing brutal terrorism from Ho Chi Min lead factions from the North upon the South in so many horrible and bloody ways that I will not relive to make a point. What I want to say is I knew many dedicated Viet Namese that fought and died or their country. History will document the flawed causus belli - but none should disparage or doubt the courage and commitment of the men and women who fought there.
3
Thousands of people killed today in Viet Nam are victims of American munitions certainly sounds like a Hollywood calculation or at best, a percolation of the old left rhetoric------we have much to learn from our failed efforts to be the world's policeman, however, exaggeration and distortion play a small role in that learning.
1
"What I witnessed was unceasing brutal terrorism from Ho Chi Min lead factions from the North upon the South in so many horrible and bloody ways"
There was much brutality on both sides. Neither the North nor the South are innocent of such brutality. Sadly, the brutality by the South was against the South Vietnamese people, something that reduced enthusiasm for the South Vietnamese government and national armed forces (which were different from the P.F. forces discussed in the article) and made the North less unacceptable. To most peasants (as opposed to city dwellers in places like Saigon) living where the war was mostly fought the difference in brutality between the two sides made little difference ... they were on the receiving end either way.
1
A moving tribute to Marines whose courage and dedication achieved much in a fatally flawed cause. Lack of commitment on the part of either the civilian or military leadership was not the problem. The war lasted longer than WWII, cost 58,000 American lives and consumed vast quantities of resources. These facts suggest a commitment disproportionate to the importance of the conflict to American security.
But the US supported a government which enjoyed little support among its own people. Also, American strategy, with its emphasis on widespread bombing, use of defoliants and frequent mistreatment of the Vietnamese, alienated the people we sought to help. This was not a war we could win without obliterating the country.
50
"....this was [another] war we could not win without obliterating the country."
4
Bing West's story is precisely an example of what is needed to help those who refused on principle to go to Nam understand and appropriately respect those who chose differently.
Unfortunately, a country and government that sent so many young men and women off to war, did not do right by them when they returned. But, with the exception of World War II, that seems to be true of all our wars.
A line by Roger Cohen in his currently running column (Trump in the Web of Pax Technica) states, "...the generals around [Trump] are driven more by prudence than testosterone. Unlike the bone-spur president, they know war." And therein lies much of our current military problems ranging from policy to respectful and quality treatment of our vets. The only solution I see is to institute a universal draft, guaranteeing that wars will be considered before being fought, that all Americans will have skin in the game one way or another, and that veterans will be treated appropriately.
I refused to serve when drafted. For that I paid a significant price, and that is as it should be. There should be no free lunch, especially in times of war. Who knows, with an in-place draft, perhaps a Congress will actually do its Constitutionally mandated duty and declare war, something it has not done since 1941, not with Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, nor with "minor" efforts in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Grenada, Panama, and other places many Americans are unlikely to be able to find on a map.
39
I was drafted in 1969 and although, like you, I did not believe in the war, I could not reconcile my own fate with that of who ever would be called up to take my place if I somehow wriggled out of it. I chose combat medic as my MOS and my sole mission while I was in Vietnam was to help young Americans get home alive. There was little I could do for the vietnamese people though, and that is my single regret. My choice was the best one for me, and although since that time I have learned much about just how wrong and unnecessary that war was, how absolutely destructive for everyone involved, I would not change it. I feel now that my choice was the best of the few choices I had then, but I hold no contempt for anyone who chose otherwise.
2
"The only solution is to institute a universal draft," but you "refused to serve when drafted."
Do they teach logic out there in Oakland?
2
Ed Connor who replys to my post by writing:
" 'The only solution is to institute a universal draft,' but you 'refused to serve when drafted.' Do they teach logic out there in Oakland?"
Ed, I support the draft for several reasons.
1/ Everyone should have skin in the game, if we are going to go to war. Such will increase the degree to which Americans think about the necessity for the war before simply acting. This is especially necessary for Presidents and Members of Congress.
2/ We should not be "outsourcing" our wars primarily to the poor looking for jobs.
3/ It will keep "endless" wars, such as the current one in Afghanistan, in the public consciousness, hopefully providing an impetus to defining the war's end game strategy.
4/ Mandatory service asserts that the flip side of the rights and privileges of being an American consists of responsibilities and obligations.
5/ A draft will guarantee ongoing opposition to wars that are of dubious interest or necessity.
My own choice was mostly a result of 5/. I paid a real price for my decision (details irrelevant here), and that is as it should have been. A choice to oppose our government on principle, whether a draft or anything else, should not be easy. What we need more of is a sense of America as a collective enterprise, not a collection of individuals or polarized "tribes."
Keep in mind that real opposition to the Viet Nam War didn't really ramp up until drafted, white, middle-class guys started coming home in body bags.
1
A minor point, perhaps, but we didn't leave the country in '72. We left in early '73.
13
We could also say that the German soldiers who invaded the Soviet Union "showed courage and sacrifice." But for what? Many millions of Russians were slaughtered by the Nazi invasion.
And over a million Vietnamese were killed by the American invasion.
There is nothing "honorable" in fighting for an unjust cause. The writer claims that the problem with the war was the US government's "lack of commitment," which is a revistionist cover for the fact that the US had no business being there in the first place.
Vietnam was not just a "horrible mistake." It was a deliberate action by the US ruling class, using lies to fool the American public in order to further its own interests in Southeat Asia.
Just like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As human beings we have a choice. And I think we can agree that soldiers and marines are human beings. Individual courage is not an excuse to justify actions that in their very nature are harmful and should never have been taken. My thanks are for those who refused to fight.
86
What did Southeast Asia look like in 1964? Laos had effectively been ceded to the Pathat Lao. A small but growing communist insurgency was running in Thailand and Cambodia. Both countries were afraid of the Vietnamese.
Indonesia under Sukarno was becoming fodder for the vaunted, but not real 'international communist conspiracy'. The Philippines were fighting another communist/Islamic insurgency.
The US lacked the nuance needed to help each country. So the US did what it knew best, infantry and air power.
Please note that Thailand and Indonesia didn't go communist and that is the only 'victory' that came about in the 60's and 70's.
1
I'm in complete agreement...but if they are due not "thanks," I give honor and credit to those among the many who were suckered to serve by the "elite" (after consuming a lifetime of U.S. 'exceptionalism' propaganda) ... and, particularly to my Brooklyn buddies who, unlike me, served in Vietnam -- the many who returned, and the-far-too-many few who did not.
1
Exactly what economic interests did this country have in southeast Asia in 1963 or so? The war was truly built on lies, blind ideology, ignorance and re-election fears by the political class. Except perhaps for the military contractors, corporate America had little to do with it as they saw that region as a backwater with little to offer or exploit. That would come about thirty years later.
3
Although I was army ROTC in college, I was not privileged to have served.
My respect for those who did; those who fought and died, is beyond measure.
While men like Capt. West deserve our respect and gratitude, our apparent
national passion for regime change and armed conflict does not. We do not need to be the world's policeman. We do not need to spend more on "defense" than the next 8 nations, combined. (used to be 7 until Trump decided to bump it up another 58 billion.) We DO need to fix our domestic infrastructure and educational systems.
What Captain West's story shows is that personal respect for shared values can extend across cultures and national boundaries; but it has to be experience based, not just talked about. Waves of immigrants coming to the US have demonstrated that it takes time and personal engagement.
And still, some haven't gotten the message; starting with the occupant of public housing on Pennsylvania Avenue, in DC. I see this as a failure of our educational system, more than anything.
44
While the US doesn't need to be the World's policeman, someone has to be the Sheriff who gathers up the posse when some one uses chemical weapons or tries to violate the rights of others.
Thankfully, the 'posse' is still working in Afghanistan, but can that 'posse' bear the intended fruit?
1
Its great that the NY Times continues to publish these stories of the Vietnam War, well before my time. Many Thanks!
22
Mr. West,
This is a story I have never heard. Thank you.
jn
USCG, 1966-70
18
Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines don't get to choose which battles to fight but our elected representatives (I won't use the word leadership) need to choose those battles cautiously and responsibly.
21
Our "elected officials" are to an increasing extent purchased by big money, a gross perversion.
Our elected officials who feel war is the answer should be forced to serve, as have ordinary Americans for over a century.
1
Make up your mind. Do you want politicians to be cautious and responsible in waging war or do you want the to leave Capitalism alone? You can't have it both ways
1
A war fought the wrong way, for the wrong reasons, for too long. I was trained mostly by Australian veterans of Vietnam. Their opinion of how you people fought that war - and bear in mind Australians were, at that time, the pre-eminent jungle fighters - is vastly different to how a marine sees things.
22
I, too am proud of my service. I'm particularly proud that when drafted, in 1969 I reported for induction. I could have dodged, but really felt that that would be unfair and that somebody else would go in my place. I was opposed to the war, but came to respect and like the Vietnamese people. In 1970 we knew we were losing the war. I wish we had taken care of our friends instead of condemning them to hardship, escape by boat, and re-education camps. I am insulted that we have elected draft dodgers like Clinton, Bush and Trump to be President.
30
Bush was no draft dodger. He learned to fly a jet, no mean feat by any standard. The Air Guard was called up and pilots often were also. Do a little reading outside your usual list.
1
Let's not forget good 'ol Dick Chaney.
4
Any USAF Reservists who flew in SVN were volunteers. Bush never did such; in fact, by refusing to show up for a mandatory Flight Physical, he voluntarily removed himself from flight status. That was his only "volunteering". Because of his powerful Daddy, the USAF shamefully did not pursue the matter.
1
Although I never had the privilege of serving with Bing West in Vietnam I've known of him for many years and can say, without reservation, that he is truly one of my heroes, both for his valor in the war and his life long pride in the USMC. Fifty years ago, when my unit (Echo Company, Second Battalion, Third Marines) was working up north, one of my fellow enlisted grunts said DMZ should stand for Dead Marine Zone.
18
I thank the fates that my time in service came up before Vietnam. I was never a believer. I guess by 1967 I had matured enough and had a family that I saw things through different eyes. To me the Vietnam war was the beginning of the great divide we are se deeply involved in now.
I'm not taking anything away from my Marine Bros. they went off to war at the behest of a misinformed government and propagandized population to do the job they were trained to do. I don't think there was a chance in a million that we would/could have ever won that miserable war.
It was a mistake of great proportions that we are still dealing with today.
41
Capt. West can be proud of his service. He fought, but to create peace.
As citizens, however, we need to keep in mind the big picture. The Viet Cong were freedom fighters. They drove the French out, and expected to look to America to be their ally. Our government saw nothing but communists, so we tried to take over the French role as colonial power to "prevent the dominos from falling", even if we were not explicitly trying to colonize Viet Nam.
So as much as I may admire Capt. West's personal efforts (and he seems to have conducted himself in an honorable manner), the lesson he seems to be giving is wrong. Yes, if our soldiers treat people with respect, those people will come to respect our soldiers. But no, we should never send our soldiers on a mission that is fundamentally against our values.
114
So, if the VC were "freedom fighters," and they won the war,
would you call Viet Nam a free country now?
When is the next election? Who are the opposition party?
Oh, that's right; there IS no opposition party.
3
Communism is against our values! How the South Vietnamese suffered under the communist regime, as all those do who live and those who died under communism.
2
"When is the next election? Who are the opposition party?"
Parliamentary elections were held most recently in May, 2016. It was not as open an election as one might hope (the criteria to be a candidate are more restrictive than would be optimal), but it is movement in the correct direction. The elected members of the National Assembly then chose the Prime Minister. The Communist Party in Viet Nam is not monolithic, there are competing factions within it. Although there is no opposition party per se, a number of those elected are independent of the Communist Party. Viet Nam, like many other countries in that region, has never been a democracy and applying our standards to such countries is an example of "self-reference criterion."
"Freedom" to those fighters meant opposing colonial powers, whether France or the US, and allowing Viet Nam to rule itself. Since the end of the war Viet Nam has, and continues to, make economic progress and standards of living there are on the increase (the US is one its major export markets). Moreover, the Vietnamese people are, despite the war, quite welcoming of Americans who visit the country, including former member of the US military who fought there.
3
"proud they served our country." Me, not so much. I thought then, and now, that the US engagement in Viet Nam was simultaneously a political, diplomatic and military error. I enlisted because I did not like the other options available at the time.
I am very proud, however, that I did as well as I did under less than optimal conditions and in marginal situations.
USN 1967 - 71
Viet Nam 1968
82
You, apparently blessed with profound insight at a remarkable young age, determined that US engagement in the RVN was "a political, diplomatic and military error." Could you, in your infinite wisdom, as a member of the United States Navy, have possibly understood the courage and sacrifice of these fine young Marines?
21
During the Vietnam years as a young girl listening to my neighbor talk about his experiences in WWII and later following the war on TV--I came to the same conclusion as Hapin. The dead and the news bore it out; it was a horrible, unnecessary and tragic loss. And it doesn't diminish the courage and sacrifice experienced by our soldiers and their families and the people in Vietnam to see that.
62
Hap's views having been shared by many in his peer group, it did not seem so remarkable at the time. One of the tragedies of that war was perceiving the sacrifice of fine young Marines in light of the pointless US military engagement in the RVN.
6