Now three episodes in. So well done. It's like going back in time. Learning so much of which I wasn't aware at the time. Was pretty much against this war at the time, but not with great conviction. This validates most of the protests in my mind.
9
- Thread starter Nittany Ned2
- Start date
Like the tapes of JFK, but maybe more so, the tapes of LBJ and his advisors are devastating.
How difficult it is to admit mistakes, let alone failure.
How difficult it is to admit mistakes, let alone failure.
5th Battalion 7th Cav, January to July of 70! I got an early out to attend PSU! Supposedly you were to spend another couple of years as an active reserve, however, the total disdain for esprit de corps and the rebellious attitude among returning grunts made it easy for the reserves to prefer that we not be around, so I never had to do it. I was a mere 17 when we took Shakey's hill in May of 70 in Cambodia and I got my first purple heart. Stopped the bleeding and a day or two of antibiotics and back we were. I have enough led in my body that I have to inform TSA when I go thru security but it has zero affect as I can and do anything physical. Our company was down to less than 50. Among our losses, company commander, platoon and squad leaders. Normally you were inserted via about six ships that would go back and forth until your company was all in. I guess it was shock and awe, as we went in with 64 ships in the air at one time. It was quite awesome actually! I assume it was the entire battalion. We then walked out crossing the Song Bay River I believe. One of our men started across with a heavy rope. The current swept him hundred of yards down stream. Anyway, it was tied up on both sides and we crossed neck deep at times holding unto the rope. We actually became a crack unit by circumstance. When I first arrived we found and neutralized an NVA communication center, then later that month we were ambushed (often a daily occurrence) and we had a bunch of NVA kills and so it went. They would find a "hot" area and we would be inserted there, more kills, more hot spots! Ate lots of ice cream the battalion commander (full bird Edmonds who became a general, probably in part because of us) would bring out to reward us. One time I'm devouring his ice cream (had to accept a headache in VNam or you would be drinking it) and he walks up to me and says, "Soldier, if you make a career of this, you'll have three regrets. When you lose a comrade, have to leave your family or think, 'I risked my life for that piece of shit?'" I share this type of info, but with my PSU friends I lived with and my wife and children (the sons anyway) I've shared details!
My brother was stationed at Khe Sanh at that time. You probably used that as a launch base. He was a mechanic for the Second Armored. We toured Khe Sanh a year ago in January and had a great time. The people could not have been more kind and supportive. We were often stopped and asked if we would pose for pictures with them. Our driver, as it turned out, was the son of a SVA Colonel who spent two years in "re-education camp" after the fall.
My brother remembered events that he hadn't remembered in 4 decades. We had some fun recounting them. You ice cream story reminded me of a story my bro remembered while there. A certain Colonel's jeep broke down and he needed it for something the next day. My brother told him if you can get the part, I'll get it working. They chopped in a part in an hour and in the second hour, the jeep was fixed. Two days later someone delivered a dozen frozen t-bone steaks to him.
Either way, thanks for your service!
In last nights episode McNamara said the war was lost, more specifically we couldn't win the war, in 1965. I think of all the boys, on both sides, lost after that year, and for what!
And it was in December 1967 that Walt Rostow, LBJ's National Security Advisor, asked John Paul Vann if the war would be over in six months. "Oh, I think we'll be able to hold out longer than that."
well, I haven't watched the show so take it FWIW. Is the show giving world-wide context? At the time, there were two super powers (US, USSR) and one emerging (china). There was a global war for influence relative to democracy versus communism/socialism. South America and the Caribbean were being over run. VN was simply an extension of Korea. It was a proxy war regarding democracy versus socialism/communism.
Having visited Vietnam, they were not happy about the war. But in 2016, they felt that the war softened what would have been a human rights disaster in the region (see Cambodia and Pol Pot).
So VN was simply part of the larger, global war. I think one can argue we lost VN. But one also, then, has to yield that we won the global war. We've had relative peace since 1945 and our generation is very fortunate to have lived in such good times.
So, given the contest, VN was simply a "battle" in the global war. Often, you lose specific battles, dies on certain hills as part of the larger strategy. VN was an awful setup situation and sapped valuable resources and lives. But overall, it was a success in eroding our enemies ability and will to wage global war and spread communism. And, if you've ever visited a communist or recently communist country, you'll understand how fortunate we all are that those kids gave their lives for us.
Absolutely it's giving global context. If anything these early episodes have been more global context than anything else.
The battle (Ia Drang) covered at the end of episode three is the main focus of We Were Soldiers the Mel Gibson movie from about 15 years ago. It's an excellent movie, not too over the top about our involvement over there, but also respectful of the soldiers that did the actual fighting (starts in the US and coveres the wives throughout). Sam Elliott plays the Sargent major who gives the journalist Galloway a rifle during the battle and he's fantastic in that Sam Elliott way. Based on Hal Moore and galloway's similarly-titled book.
The battle (Ia Drang) covered at the end of episode three is the main focus of We Were Soldiers the Mel Gibson movie from about 15 years ago. It's an excellent movie, not too over the top about our involvement over there, but also respectful of the soldiers that did the actual fighting (starts in the US and coveres the wives throughout). Sam Elliott plays the Sargent major who gives the journalist Galloway a rifle during the battle and he's fantastic in that Sam Elliott way. Based on Hal Moore and galloway's similarly-titled book.
All I can say is "Thank you for your service, bravery and, for sharing with us"!!
I wasn't even in grade school yet by the time the war ended. The first thing I remember about learning about Vietnam is a paper I did in high school about the problems the vets encountered after coming home which was pretty eye opening. This was before all the "Welcome Home" concerts that I remember in the mid to late 80s when it seemed the public sentiment about the soldiers seemed to turn. To me, the only real thing I knew about the war is that politics prevented us from winning it. This series is very eye opening around the finer details of what really went on and I am learning a lot.
How did politics prevent us from winning?
I know virtually nothing about Vietnam, but had always assumed it was an unwinnable war?
Another something about Vietnam is it was the last war that really was fought on the ground, in jungles, with soldiers in some really, really horrible conditions. Humping in the Vietnam jungle for days on end and then ending up back at semi-fortified home base with little to no modern amenities with some bad Army rations is not 'today's' war but a generation ago war. Now-a-days. Soldier go out more for a 24-72 hour mission armed to the teeth and then go back to a heavily fortified base with AC, computers, TV, and good food. Not downplaying today's soldiers, just noting the vast difference.
Interesting that in that sequence they showed the same photo of Rick Rescorla twice, the same one that appeared on the cover of Galloway's book. That he was written out of the movie is a crime. Great man and an even better friend.
Not really. The asymmetric wars that get the headlines here today are not ones that involve taking and holding territory. But if you take a look at the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, they bear similarities to Vietnam. Same is true of the Second Gulf War.
Yup, because at that stage of the war the NVA wasn't deploying much artillery. Fast forward 2-1/2 years later to Khe Sanh and it was a vastly different story. Mr. Charles and the NVA were masters of tactics and making do with what they had.
Here's an interesting link on the perspective of a Viet Cong soldier on American war movies.
http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...about-vietnam-war-i-learned-as-viet-cong.html
http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...about-vietnam-war-i-learned-as-viet-cong.html
Interesting point. There was never any talk, at least not publicly, during the Viet Nam War of US ground forces crossing the DMZ and invading the North, as they had done in Korea. Wonder if it would have changed anything, not that the American people would have accepted it at any stage of the conflict..
(How did politics prevent us from winning?
I know virtually nothing about Vietnam, but had always assumed it was an unwinnable war?)
It is the politics of war that make them unwinnable. You can never truly win a war unless you put boots on the ground in the homeland of the enemy and own their soul (WW2 European Theater) or you drop atom bombs on their cities and the horror of it all forces them to give up (WW2 Pacific Theater).
We were not going to do either of these with North Vietnam for many reasons but either action would have caused the Chinese to react and retaliate and we were not willing to risk that and fight the Chinese especially since we did exactly that in Korea only a few decades earlier and that did not turn out well resulting in a DMZ with two countries.
So Vietnam was a holding action hoping to wear down the NVA and force another negotiated settlement with two Vietnams separated by a DMZ. I knew that in 1968 as a 23 year old Lieutenant so everyone must have known it. So how did we manage this holding action?
My strategy was to protect my human assets at all costs and to "kill at a distance" all enemy assets with my Dusters, Quads, Field Artillery as an FO, and other weapon systems. This allowed me to protect my men the best I could and still accomplish the mission winning every battle with fire power superiority.
Keep in mind that in many instances this was a "Sergeants War" fought by small units out on their own.
My Duster command was 8 Dusters, a few Quad 50 trucks and some Searchlight jeeps, spread out in various spots in the Central Highlands each one on its own with its own mission. I kept two Dusters as a mobile squad running highway 19 in the Central Highlands from An Khe to Pleiku and up Highway 14 from Pleiku to Kontum and then to Dak To. The mission was highway security, convoy escort, strong point security and to react to any hot spot where heavy fire power was required.
My Battery Commander was located in Pleiku and was never with me. The Battalion was located 100 miles away along the coast and I was never there nor met anyone from the Battalion except the Chaplain who came out when someone was killed. I lost two men early and "kill at a distance" eliminated any more KIAs in my units. I was 23, my "sergeants" were younger. I put sergeants in quotes because I didn't have any real sergeants, only privates and SP4s.
We were not part of an actual Army Division or other official unit. We were in First Field Force Vietnam which was something like a Corp. I was attached to the 4th Division which was headquartered in the Central Highlands near Pleiku but I never received instruction from them directly. I had a mission statement and managed to that agenda. We were basically out there on our own; it was a Sergeant's War.
I know virtually nothing about Vietnam, but had always assumed it was an unwinnable war?)
It is the politics of war that make them unwinnable. You can never truly win a war unless you put boots on the ground in the homeland of the enemy and own their soul (WW2 European Theater) or you drop atom bombs on their cities and the horror of it all forces them to give up (WW2 Pacific Theater).
We were not going to do either of these with North Vietnam for many reasons but either action would have caused the Chinese to react and retaliate and we were not willing to risk that and fight the Chinese especially since we did exactly that in Korea only a few decades earlier and that did not turn out well resulting in a DMZ with two countries.
So Vietnam was a holding action hoping to wear down the NVA and force another negotiated settlement with two Vietnams separated by a DMZ. I knew that in 1968 as a 23 year old Lieutenant so everyone must have known it. So how did we manage this holding action?
My strategy was to protect my human assets at all costs and to "kill at a distance" all enemy assets with my Dusters, Quads, Field Artillery as an FO, and other weapon systems. This allowed me to protect my men the best I could and still accomplish the mission winning every battle with fire power superiority.
Keep in mind that in many instances this was a "Sergeants War" fought by small units out on their own.
My Duster command was 8 Dusters, a few Quad 50 trucks and some Searchlight jeeps, spread out in various spots in the Central Highlands each one on its own with its own mission. I kept two Dusters as a mobile squad running highway 19 in the Central Highlands from An Khe to Pleiku and up Highway 14 from Pleiku to Kontum and then to Dak To. The mission was highway security, convoy escort, strong point security and to react to any hot spot where heavy fire power was required.
My Battery Commander was located in Pleiku and was never with me. The Battalion was located 100 miles away along the coast and I was never there nor met anyone from the Battalion except the Chaplain who came out when someone was killed. I lost two men early and "kill at a distance" eliminated any more KIAs in my units. I was 23, my "sergeants" were younger. I put sergeants in quotes because I didn't have any real sergeants, only privates and SP4s.
We were not part of an actual Army Division or other official unit. We were in First Field Force Vietnam which was something like a Corp. I was attached to the 4th Division which was headquartered in the Central Highlands near Pleiku but I never received instruction from them directly. I had a mission statement and managed to that agenda. We were basically out there on our own; it was a Sergeant's War.
Burns's documentary is a solid piece of work but can't hold a candle to what I believe is easily the best Vietnam flick ever, and for my money, maybe the best war movie of all time: Dear America, Letters Home From Vietnam. If you can watch that thing without crying, then you're a tougher man than I.
Vietnam, I think, was a tragic mistake. Our guys fought as well and as bravely as Americans have ever fought -- anywhere at any point in U.S. history. In fact, they never lost a battle. Moreover, they were fighting, as Reagan later said, in service to a noble cause: opposition to the Communist totalitarians whose "victory" was to bring untold horror to Southeast Asia.
But the people on the ground were let down -- betrayed -- by their government and the elites who devised a strategy that would not let them win. The ultimate irony (and tragedy) is that now, decades later, the children of those same working-class men who were pointlessly sacrificed in Vietnam are being betrayed again by the children of the same privileged and clueless elites responsible for their defeat. Not to get overly emotional about it, but I hope, God forgive me, that the latter group burns in Hell.
Vietnam, I think, was a tragic mistake. Our guys fought as well and as bravely as Americans have ever fought -- anywhere at any point in U.S. history. In fact, they never lost a battle. Moreover, they were fighting, as Reagan later said, in service to a noble cause: opposition to the Communist totalitarians whose "victory" was to bring untold horror to Southeast Asia.
But the people on the ground were let down -- betrayed -- by their government and the elites who devised a strategy that would not let them win. The ultimate irony (and tragedy) is that now, decades later, the children of those same working-class men who were pointlessly sacrificed in Vietnam are being betrayed again by the children of the same privileged and clueless elites responsible for their defeat. Not to get overly emotional about it, but I hope, God forgive me, that the latter group burns in Hell.
Northern I CORP, Con Tien, Charlie Deuce, Rock Pile (bad place) - Armor 69-70.
READ MCMASTER'S DOCTORAL THESIS. Explains a lot!!
READ MCMASTER'S DOCTORAL THESIS. Explains a lot!!
The narrator for this series is actor Peter Coyote and I think he's been terrific. Incredibly, he did not read the scripts in advance of performing the narrations.
First off, I thank those of you who served. I was a high school junior when the war ended in '75. I remember this tumultuous period but then again, some of the events are sketchy. The recounts of personal experience, the trials and tribulations, help to bring it all home. My hat is off to you.
Regarding Episode 4 tonight, I am struck to learn LBJ didn't know the existence of Le Duan until 1966! Duan was named party leader back in1960, thereby leaving Ho Chi Minh as a figure head. Second, and of this much I am convinced, McNamara's desire for reports and statistical analysis helped lose the war. The dude suffered from what we call in the office, 'analysis paralysis'. Third, LBJ's active involvement in Rolling Thunder helped accomplish two things, simultaneously: 1) it kept China and Russia out of the war and 2) it helped lose the Vietnam War. LBJ was cautious. He knew North Vietnam had a secret treaty for Chinese intervention but we did not know what the flashpoints were. Lastly, officers-on-the-ground differed in opinion with leadership over what the war was about. Officers closest to the action saw it as a war for Vietnamese independence whereas command rejected the notion. Even after an independent investigation by the Rand Corp. came to the same conclusion! So as early as 1965 our leaders thought the war was unwinnable. In the eyes of the Vietnamese the whole nature of the beast changed on 8 March 1965 when the Marines landed at Da Nang. From that point forward we were no better than the French. We were colonialists.
I thank you.
So had our leaders ended the war in 1965 as the Burns' documentary suggests (more than once) then 55,876 American lives would've been spared. But no, getting re-elected was somehow more important.
The Rockpile and that valley are beautiful today. In fact, Rt. 9 is a really nice ride.
Some of my HS coaches fought over there. One in particular was nuts. He would beat players up in practice. If we had more like him over there we would have won.
Everyone has an opinion - here is article from one that was there.
Subject: Be Skeptical of Ken Burns documentary: The Vietnam War
Be skeptical of Ken Burns’ documentary: The Vietnam War
by Terry Garlock (Terry Garlock was a Cobra helicopter gunship pilot in the Vietnam War)
Some months ago I and a dozen other local veterans attended a screening at the Woodruff Arts Center in Atlanta - preview of a new documentary on The Vietnam War by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. The screening was a one hour summation of this 10-part documentary, 18 hours long.
The series began showing on PBS Sunday Sep 17, and with Burns’ renowned talent mixing photos, video clips and compelling mood music in documentary form, the series promises to be compelling to watch. That doesn’t mean it tells the truth.
For many years I have been presenting to high school classes a 90 minute session titled The Myths and Truths of the Vietnam War. One of my opening comments is, “The truth about Vietnam is bad enough without twisting it all out of shape with myths, half-truths and outright lies from the anti-war left.” The overall message to students is advising them to learn to think for themselves, be informed by reading one newspaper that leans left, one that leans right, and be skeptical of TV news.
Part of my presentation is showing them four iconic photos from Vietnam, aired publicly around the world countless times to portray America’s evil involvement in Vietnam. I tell the students “the rest of the story” excluded by the news media about each photo, then ask, “Wouldn’t you want the whole story before you decide for yourself what to think?”
One of those photos is the summary execution of a Viet Cong soldier in Saigon, capital city of South Vietnam, during the battles of the Tet Offensive in 1968. Our dishonorable enemy negotiated a cease-fire for that holiday then on that holiday attacked in about 100 places all over the country. Here’s what I tell students about the execution in the photo.
Enemy execution by South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police, 1968
“Before you decide what to think, here’s what the news media never told us. This enemy soldier had just been caught after he murdered a Saigon police officer, the officer’s wife, and the officer’s six children. The man pulling the trigger was Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police. His actions were supported by South Vietnamese law, and by the Geneva Convention since he was an un-uniformed illegal combatant. Now, you might still be disgusted by the summary execution, but wouldn’t you want all the facts before you decide what to think?”
The other one-sided stories about iconic photos I use are a nine year old girl named Kim Phuc, running down a road after her clothes were burned off by a napalm bomb, a lady kneeling by the body of a student at Kent State University, and a helicopter on top of a building with too many evacuees trying to climb aboard. Each one had only the half of the story told by news media during the war, the half that supported the anti-war narrative.
Our group of vets left the Ken Burns documentary screening . . . disappointed. As one example, all four of the photos I use were shown, with only the anti-war narrative. Will the whole truth be told in the full 18 hours? I have my doubts but we’ll see.
On the drive home with Mike King, Bob Grove and Terry Ernst, Ernst asked the other three of us who had been in Vietnam, “How does it make you feel seeing those photos and videos?” I answered, “I just wish for once they would get it right.”
Will the full documentary show John Kerry’s covert meeting in Paris with the leadership of the Viet Cong while he was still an officer in the US Naval Reserve and a leader in the anti-war movement? Will it show how Watergate crippled the Republicans and swept Democrats into Congress in 1974, and their rapid defunding of South Vietnamese promised support after Americans had been gone from Vietnam two years? Will it show Congress violating America’s pledge to defend South Vietnam if the North Vietnamese ever broke their pledge to never attack the south? Will it portray America’s shame in letting our ally fall, the tens of thousands executed for working with Americans, the hundreds of thousands who perished fleeing in overpacked, rickety boats, the million or so sent to brutal re-education camps? Will it show the North Vietnamese victors bringing an influx from the north to take over South Vietnam’s businesses, the best jobs, farms, all the good housing, or committing the culturally ruthless sin of bulldozing grave monuments of the South Vietnamese?
Will Burns show how the North Vietnamese took the city of Hue during the 1968 Tet Offensive, bringing lists of names of political leaders, business owners, doctors, nurses, teachers and other “enemies of the people,” and how they went from street to street, dragging people out of their homes, and that in the aftermath of the Battle of Hue, only when thousands of people were missing and the search began did they find the mass graves where they had been tied together and buried alive?
Will Burns show how America, after finally withdrawing from Vietnam and shamefully standing by while our ally was brutalized, did nothing while next door in Cambodia the Communists murdered two million of their own people as they tried to mimic Mao’s “worker paradise” in China?
Will Burns show how American troops conducted themselves with honor, skill and courage, never lost a major battle, and helped the South Vietnamese people in many ways like building roads and schools, digging wells, teaching improved farming methods and bringing medical care where it had never been seen before? Will he show that American war crimes, exaggerated by the left, were even more rare in Vietnam than in WWII? Will he show how a naïve young Jane Fonda betrayed her country with multiple radio broadcasts from North Vietnam, pleading with American troops to refuse their orders to fight, and calling American pilots and our President war criminals?
Color me doubtful about these and many other questions.
Being in a war doesn’t make anyone an expert on the geopolitical issues, it’s a bit like seeing history through a straw with your limited view. But my perspective has come from many years of reflection and absorbing a multitude of facts and opinions, because I was interested. My belief is that America’s involvement in Vietnam was a noble cause trying to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia, while it had spread its miserable oppression in Eastern Europe and was gaining traction in Central America, Africa and other places around the world. This noble cause was, indeed, screwed up to a fare-thee-well by the Pentagon and White House, which multiplied American casualties.
The tone of the screening was altogether different, that our part in the war was a sad mistake. It seemed like Burns and Novick took photos, video clips, artifacts and interviews from involved Americans, South Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, civilians from south and north, reporters and others, threw it all in a blender to puree into a new form of moral equivalence. Good for spreading a thin layer of blame and innocence, not so good for finding the truth.
John M. Del Vecchio, author of The 13th Valley, a book considered by many Vietnam vets to be the literary touchstone of how they served and suffered in the jungles of Vietnam, has this to say about Burns’ documentary:” Pretending to honor those who served while subtly and falsely subverting the reasons and justifications for that service is a con man’s game . . . From a cinematic perspective it will be exceptional. Burns knows how to make great scenes. But through the lens of history it appears to reinforce a highly skewed narrative and to be an attempt to ossify false cultural memory. The lies and fallacies will be by omission, not by overt falsehoods.”
I expect to see American virtue minimized, American missteps emphasized, to fit the left-leaning narrative about the Vietnam War that, to this day, prevents our country from learning the real lessons from that war.
When we came home from Vietnam, we thought the country had lost its mind. Wearing the uniform was for fools too dimwitted to escape service. Burning draft cards, protesting the war in ways that insulted our own troops was cool, as was fleeing to Canada.
America’s current turmoil reminds me of those days, since so many of American traditional values are being turned upside down. Even saying words defending free speech on a university campus feels completely absurd, but here we are.
So Ken Burns’ new documentary on the Vietnam War promises to solidify him as the documentary king, breathes new life into the anti-war message, and fits perfectly into the current practice of revising history to make us feel good.
Perhaps you will prove me wrong. Watch carefully, but I would advise a heavy dose of skepticism.
-----------------------------------------
Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City, GA. He was a Cobra helicopter gunship pilot in the Vietnam War.
Subject: Be Skeptical of Ken Burns documentary: The Vietnam War
Be skeptical of Ken Burns’ documentary: The Vietnam War
by Terry Garlock (Terry Garlock was a Cobra helicopter gunship pilot in the Vietnam War)
Some months ago I and a dozen other local veterans attended a screening at the Woodruff Arts Center in Atlanta - preview of a new documentary on The Vietnam War by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. The screening was a one hour summation of this 10-part documentary, 18 hours long.
The series began showing on PBS Sunday Sep 17, and with Burns’ renowned talent mixing photos, video clips and compelling mood music in documentary form, the series promises to be compelling to watch. That doesn’t mean it tells the truth.
For many years I have been presenting to high school classes a 90 minute session titled The Myths and Truths of the Vietnam War. One of my opening comments is, “The truth about Vietnam is bad enough without twisting it all out of shape with myths, half-truths and outright lies from the anti-war left.” The overall message to students is advising them to learn to think for themselves, be informed by reading one newspaper that leans left, one that leans right, and be skeptical of TV news.
Part of my presentation is showing them four iconic photos from Vietnam, aired publicly around the world countless times to portray America’s evil involvement in Vietnam. I tell the students “the rest of the story” excluded by the news media about each photo, then ask, “Wouldn’t you want the whole story before you decide for yourself what to think?”
One of those photos is the summary execution of a Viet Cong soldier in Saigon, capital city of South Vietnam, during the battles of the Tet Offensive in 1968. Our dishonorable enemy negotiated a cease-fire for that holiday then on that holiday attacked in about 100 places all over the country. Here’s what I tell students about the execution in the photo.
Enemy execution by South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police, 1968
“Before you decide what to think, here’s what the news media never told us. This enemy soldier had just been caught after he murdered a Saigon police officer, the officer’s wife, and the officer’s six children. The man pulling the trigger was Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnam’s Chief of National Police. His actions were supported by South Vietnamese law, and by the Geneva Convention since he was an un-uniformed illegal combatant. Now, you might still be disgusted by the summary execution, but wouldn’t you want all the facts before you decide what to think?”
The other one-sided stories about iconic photos I use are a nine year old girl named Kim Phuc, running down a road after her clothes were burned off by a napalm bomb, a lady kneeling by the body of a student at Kent State University, and a helicopter on top of a building with too many evacuees trying to climb aboard. Each one had only the half of the story told by news media during the war, the half that supported the anti-war narrative.
Our group of vets left the Ken Burns documentary screening . . . disappointed. As one example, all four of the photos I use were shown, with only the anti-war narrative. Will the whole truth be told in the full 18 hours? I have my doubts but we’ll see.
On the drive home with Mike King, Bob Grove and Terry Ernst, Ernst asked the other three of us who had been in Vietnam, “How does it make you feel seeing those photos and videos?” I answered, “I just wish for once they would get it right.”
Will the full documentary show John Kerry’s covert meeting in Paris with the leadership of the Viet Cong while he was still an officer in the US Naval Reserve and a leader in the anti-war movement? Will it show how Watergate crippled the Republicans and swept Democrats into Congress in 1974, and their rapid defunding of South Vietnamese promised support after Americans had been gone from Vietnam two years? Will it show Congress violating America’s pledge to defend South Vietnam if the North Vietnamese ever broke their pledge to never attack the south? Will it portray America’s shame in letting our ally fall, the tens of thousands executed for working with Americans, the hundreds of thousands who perished fleeing in overpacked, rickety boats, the million or so sent to brutal re-education camps? Will it show the North Vietnamese victors bringing an influx from the north to take over South Vietnam’s businesses, the best jobs, farms, all the good housing, or committing the culturally ruthless sin of bulldozing grave monuments of the South Vietnamese?
Will Burns show how the North Vietnamese took the city of Hue during the 1968 Tet Offensive, bringing lists of names of political leaders, business owners, doctors, nurses, teachers and other “enemies of the people,” and how they went from street to street, dragging people out of their homes, and that in the aftermath of the Battle of Hue, only when thousands of people were missing and the search began did they find the mass graves where they had been tied together and buried alive?
Will Burns show how America, after finally withdrawing from Vietnam and shamefully standing by while our ally was brutalized, did nothing while next door in Cambodia the Communists murdered two million of their own people as they tried to mimic Mao’s “worker paradise” in China?
Will Burns show how American troops conducted themselves with honor, skill and courage, never lost a major battle, and helped the South Vietnamese people in many ways like building roads and schools, digging wells, teaching improved farming methods and bringing medical care where it had never been seen before? Will he show that American war crimes, exaggerated by the left, were even more rare in Vietnam than in WWII? Will he show how a naïve young Jane Fonda betrayed her country with multiple radio broadcasts from North Vietnam, pleading with American troops to refuse their orders to fight, and calling American pilots and our President war criminals?
Color me doubtful about these and many other questions.
Being in a war doesn’t make anyone an expert on the geopolitical issues, it’s a bit like seeing history through a straw with your limited view. But my perspective has come from many years of reflection and absorbing a multitude of facts and opinions, because I was interested. My belief is that America’s involvement in Vietnam was a noble cause trying to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia, while it had spread its miserable oppression in Eastern Europe and was gaining traction in Central America, Africa and other places around the world. This noble cause was, indeed, screwed up to a fare-thee-well by the Pentagon and White House, which multiplied American casualties.
The tone of the screening was altogether different, that our part in the war was a sad mistake. It seemed like Burns and Novick took photos, video clips, artifacts and interviews from involved Americans, South Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, civilians from south and north, reporters and others, threw it all in a blender to puree into a new form of moral equivalence. Good for spreading a thin layer of blame and innocence, not so good for finding the truth.
John M. Del Vecchio, author of The 13th Valley, a book considered by many Vietnam vets to be the literary touchstone of how they served and suffered in the jungles of Vietnam, has this to say about Burns’ documentary:” Pretending to honor those who served while subtly and falsely subverting the reasons and justifications for that service is a con man’s game . . . From a cinematic perspective it will be exceptional. Burns knows how to make great scenes. But through the lens of history it appears to reinforce a highly skewed narrative and to be an attempt to ossify false cultural memory. The lies and fallacies will be by omission, not by overt falsehoods.”
I expect to see American virtue minimized, American missteps emphasized, to fit the left-leaning narrative about the Vietnam War that, to this day, prevents our country from learning the real lessons from that war.
When we came home from Vietnam, we thought the country had lost its mind. Wearing the uniform was for fools too dimwitted to escape service. Burning draft cards, protesting the war in ways that insulted our own troops was cool, as was fleeing to Canada.
America’s current turmoil reminds me of those days, since so many of American traditional values are being turned upside down. Even saying words defending free speech on a university campus feels completely absurd, but here we are.
So Ken Burns’ new documentary on the Vietnam War promises to solidify him as the documentary king, breathes new life into the anti-war message, and fits perfectly into the current practice of revising history to make us feel good.
Perhaps you will prove me wrong. Watch carefully, but I would advise a heavy dose of skepticism.
-----------------------------------------
Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City, GA. He was a Cobra helicopter gunship pilot in the Vietnam War.
Similar threads
