40 years ago today
Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, fell 40 years ago today. The picture above was actually taken the day before, also the last two Americans killed in the war in Vietnam, Charles McMahon and Darwin Judge were killed forty years ago yesterday when the North Vietnamese regulars shelled Tân Son Nhut Airport;
The Vietnamese call the date April 30th “Reunification Day”, but the United States should call it “Abandonment Day”. By the articles of the Paris Accords, the US had a responsibility to prevent the fall of the South Vietnamese government, but the country and the politicians were weary of the war and just let it tip over to the Communists instead of making good on our promises. The fall of the South Vietnamese government was followed by the establishment of reeducation camps and years of terror culminating in the mass exodus of “boat people” from the country.
Communist Vietnam tried to prove the justification of the “Domino Theory” that led the US into that war in the beginning when they tried to invade Laos in the late 70s, but they were turned back by Chinese troops.
58,000 Americans died as a result of their participation in the war in Vietnam, about 18,000 were draftees, 5900 were Reservists, 101 were National Guardsmen, 8 were women – 1 woman was KIA. 2.6 million Americans served within the borders of Vietnam from January 1, 1965 to March 28, 1973. Another 50,000 had served there before 1965. About 7500 were women. More than 2300 Americans were Missing In Action at the end of US participation in hostilities in Vietnam.
Category: Historical
The “official” death toll from Vietnam is 58,220. And with one exception, it includes only military personnel who died in Vietnam between 1 November 1955 and the Mayaguez Incident on 15 May 1975. (The sole exception is the guy – also in the US military – who murdered the first official Vietnam War casualty, TSgt. Richard B. Fitzgibbon Jr, USAF. That individual died later the same night when he fell off a balcony while attempting to evade arrest, and is IMO justifiably NOT included on the list of official Vietnam War dead. I’m intentionally not naming him here.)
However, that list is IMO at least 224 names short. At least 224 additional US citizens died at the hands of our enemies while working for the US government in Vietnam or while otherwise providing support for the war effort in-country. Those individuals are not listed among the 58,220 “official war dead”.
Here’s the breakout of those “unofficial” 224 dead. Please note that it’s likely not complete, so 224 is a lower bound on the actual number.
US Merchant Marine: 56 sailors
CIA: 17 employees
USAID: 37 employees
Air America (CIA “contractors”): 30 employees
American Journalists (they were there with official USG permission): 22
US civilian female volunteers/employees, including the C5A “Operation Babylift” crash: 59
Civil Air Transport, 1954, while supporting Dien Bien Phu: 2
And, finally: LTC A. Peter Dewey, US Army/OSS – killed by Viet Minh forces in an ambush vic Saigon in 1945
For anyone interested, a few additional details on the above can be found here:
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=43182
While remembering the end of US involvement in Vietnam today, if time permits maybe take a minute to remember the 224+ additional Americans who died while supporting the war in Vietnam, but who are otherwise not recognized as “official” war dead. They too died in this nation’s service.
Good observation, much appreciated.
Thanks for the information you provided….IN LOVING MEMORY FOR ALL WHO DIED PROTECTING US..and your all the reason I lived a lawful life. R.I.P.
It’s heartbreaking for a loved one to die in war, but on the “last” day! My God!
RIP, shipmates.
I was watching the PBS special on the fall of VN a couple of nights ago and they brought up something that had never occurred to me:
The North Vietnamese were genuinely afraid of Nixon and what he would do if they didn’t agree to a peace deal, which is what finally got them to sign the treaty. And they behaved themselves – more or less – right up until Nixon resigned in August of 74. Once that happened they realized that there was nobody within the US government who would care about what happened to Vietnam and that was the impetus for the conventional invasion that began in early 1975.
At each stage of the conventional war, the North would stop and wait for a US reaction, expecting threats of bombing or other actions, and when it was apparent that wouldn’t come from the US, that was the “green light” they needed.
It’s hard to say what might have happened had Nixon not resigned. I could certainly see him ordering a massive aerial bombing of Hanoi and other areas and that might have been enough to cause the North to re-think their plans.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it would have ultimately been successful. Even if Nixon hadn’t resigned in 74 all that would have done is push the NVA timetable back 2 years to 1977 when Nixon would have been out of office one way or another, and from everything I’ve read about the South Vietnamese government, even an additional 2 years would not have helped them establish the legimitacy they would need to fight off the Communist attack from the North.
So the result would have been the same but just 2 years later.
Worst case January 20, 1977…. when the world became able to get away with anything, since the US had just become a paper tiger.
Martinjmpr: postwar interviews with some of the North Vietnamese leadership and other documents made public indicate North Vietnam was originally targeting spring 1976 to take over Vietnam (the Soviets had mostly cut off aid, but they had enough material stockpiled to allow a major offensive). The plan for 1975 was to take the northern provinces only. However, when those northern provinces fell far earlier (and easier) than expected in winter/early spring 1975, they decided to “go for broke”.
I’m not sure that much would have been different had Nixon tried to “ride it out” after Watergate and successfully avoided being tossed. IMO Congress in that case would have simply done what it did in reality – e.g., refused to appropriate any $$$ to fund operations in Vietnam, and probably passed a law forbidding further US involvement. Watergate irrevocably neutered Nixon politically.
However, I agree that it’s a very different story if Watergate never happened. Then the “madman theory” would have been operative until Jan 1977, and North Vietnam would have extended their timeline accordingly. North Vietnamese leaders were indeed taking the “long view” of the conflict. Hell, by 1975 they’d been fighting to unify Vietnam for about 30 years (and arguably much longer than that). Two additional years wouldn’t have meant squat to them.
Hondo: I’m a pretty voracious history reader, it helps that my dad (who served 4 tours in Vietnam himself) is a retired history professor who taught college classes on the Vietnam war and has a large library. A few years back he decided to start downsizing so he told all of us kids that we could take any book we wanted with the stipulation that we were NOT allowed to bring it back! Needless to say, I did my best to loot his book collection.
I finished “A Bright Shining Lie” last year and have just started “Vietnam at War” by Phillip B. Davidson, which starts at the end of WWII. I’ve also read down-in-the-weeds accounts like SLA Marshall’s difficult-to-read “Ambush” and “Bird” (seriously, the guy has a weird writing style, so many details it’s hard to understand what’s going on) and Robin Moore’s “Green Berets at War” to more “overview” stuff like Barbara Tuchman’s “The March of Folly.”
The more I read the more I come to the conclusion that there was never a way to have won the Vietnam war. The government we were supporting was simply never a viable or legitimate government, it was just a series of power-mad kleptocrats who never enjoyed the support of the Vietnamese people.
Under such circumstances it’s understandable that the communists – as nasty as they could be – were always a more preferable alternative to most of the Vietnamese civilians and in such an environment it simply isn’t possible to achieve a political “victory”, no matter how many military victories were achieved (and there were a LOT of them.)
The American military fought well – even brilliantly at times – but there was never really a chance of achieving a true political “victory” in Vietnam, and that’s the real tragedy. It was a lost cause from the beginning.
It may be true that the RVN government was never legitimate but it always puzzles me as to why, whenever there were refugees, they always went south instead of north.
Well, first off, I don’t know that that’s true. If refugees fled to Communist controlled territory, how would we know? After all, that is, by definition, area where we had no control.
But to the extent that it is true I assume it was actually part of the strategy. Getting people to flee South serves the NVA purposes in two ways: It unburdens the North of the responsibility for feeding and housing them, which relieves pressure on their meager resources, and it overburdens the South, which strains and weakens it.
Understand I’m not saying the commies were the good guys, I’m saying that if I was a VN peasant, the commies probably looked like the lesser of two evils.
The fact that they were able to wrap themselves in a nationalist flag certainly helped them. At the time of the war the nationalist leanings of the Viet Minh/Viet Cong were characterized as simply a disguise to dupe nationalistic Vietnamese into supporting a Communist insurgency. But history has pretty much put the lie to that story, if anything the Nationalist adopted Communist rhetoric and practices to garner the support of the USSR and PRC and once they got what they wanted, the relationship withered away.
In truth I think it’s fair to say that the Chinese and Russian Communists used the Vietnamese to their ends, and the Vietnamese did the same with the Russians and the Chinese. It wasn’t so much a fraternal commie brotherhood as it was a mutually beneficial co-exploitation.
Martinjmpr: I have to agree in part, and disagree in part. The “agree in part”: I absolutely agree that Vietnam was a war the US never should have fought in the first place. In the 1950s and 1960s, the US had no strategic interest at stake in Vietnam – until we committed our national prestige. By the early 1960s, there was no longer a “monolithic Communist Block” due to the Sino-Soviet split. Further, Vietnam was never in danger of falling under “Chinese domination”. By the mid 1900s, they’d been fighting the Chinese to regain and/or maintain their independence for more than two thousand freaking years. Ho Chi Mihn summed up the Vietnamese attitude towards China best when he acquiesced to French reoccupation of Vietnam in 1945, when it was suggested that they ask for Chinese assistance. I’m pretty sure this is accurate, but I’m working from memory. He said: “You fools! Do you forget your history? The last time the Chinese were here, they didn’t leave for 200 years. Better to sniff French sh!t for a decade than to eat Chinese sh!t for a century!” Vietnam was also so far away from the USSR that it would have been difficult for the Soviets to do much for them. The most likely result would have been another Yugoslavia – an independent Communist state friendly to the USSR, but not dominated by them. And had we played our cards right we might have been able to supplant the Soviets as their primary ally over time. Yes, our military fought magnificently in Vietnam. But it was a war that IMO never needed to be fought in the first place. We had absolutely nothing at stake there until we drew a (IMO) hugely misguided “red line in the jungle” there. However, once we’d committed, we had to follow through. Unfortunately, we found an enemy with a stronger will and higher tolerance for pain than our own – because while for us Vietnam was at best a peripheral thing, for them it was the most important thing in the world. The “disagree in part”: even… Read more »
Addendum: and to add insult to injury, LBJ got us in to Vietnam in a big way through stealth and lies. If you haven’t read now-LTG H. R. McMaster’s Dereliction of Duty, I’d recommend that one too. Fair warning: you’ll be so pissed at times reading it you’ll want to punch a wall – hard. But it’s a work anyone interested in US policy and war needs to read.
Actually, both parties are at fault for our involvement in Vietnam – Johnson didn’t want to hear the Republicans blame him for the “loss of Vietnam” like he’d heard them blame Truman for “losing China” his whole political career. That’s why he used any excuse he could to get involved in the ground war. “Any excuse” turned out to be the Gulf of Tonkin Incident – however much of that story is true.
Yes, the Vietnam War was the result of party politics.
Well, John – as I recall, the ramp-up in Vietnam started under Kennedy (there were less than 1,000 US advisers in Vietnam when Eisenhower left office; there were 16,000 there when he was assassinated ). And as I recall the Southern Democrats in the early/mid 1960s were generally even more in favor of going to war in Vietnam than was the GOP – and the Democratic Party held both houses of Congress from 1955-1981. Plus, as I recall it was a then-young Senator named Robert Dole who introduced the resolution repealing of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the Senate.
But other than those, yeah.
My point is that US involvement in Vietnam had bipartisan support, and had it until about TET. Implying that the GOP “pressured LBJ into the war” is inaccurate. LBJ went there willingly, and both parties signed on to the effort – until TET.
Of course some in both parties would have made political hay with the issue had the US stayed out – and LBJ would have caught as much flack from conservative Southern Dems as he would have from the GOP. But all that shows is that LBJ was not only scheming and mendacious; he was also willing to put political gains above the national good.
The man consciously got us into a war for no good reason. And he timed it to avoid causing any electoral fallout – holding himself out as a moderate while painting Goldwater as a “warmonger”, while privately at the same time telling the Joint Chiefs, “Just get me elected – then you can have your war” (or words to that effect; and yes, that’s been documented to have actually occurred). And he then proceeded to engineer it via stealth, getting almost 185,000 troops involved by the end of 1965. At that point, we were so deeply involved that it was too damn late for any discussion.
Regrettably, IMO putting political considerations above US national interests seems to have been the norm from his party ever since. But that’s just my opinion.
The best explanation I ever heard for our involvement was to buy time for India to develop their nukes. That actually made sense to me. Can’t remember just who said that, maybe McNamara, in a speech given at my college circa 1968. It wasn’t a widely discussed thing then or now.
Don’t think so, OWB. As I recall, from the mid-1950s through the 1970s India was very friendly towards the USSR. We regarded both the PRC and the USSR as enemies at the time Vietnam was spinning up. We didn’t start seriously playing one against the other until the early 1970s.
I doubt we’d have consciously assisted a primary ally of the USSR in getting nukes while the USSR was also supporting Vietnam to at least as large a degree as was China. If McNamara ever made that claim, I think he was engaging in a bit of historical revisionism to justify his actions in Vietnam. McNamara was a huge behind-the-scenes enabler of LBJ getting us into Vietnam through deceit.
I just don’t remember India being all that friendly with Russia, although there were significant agitators making that attempt. And the whole East and West Pakistan thing. Many of the folks were just “anybody but the British.” The movers and shakers I don’t remember being anything but solid US allies who were able to keep the rest of the factions under control.
Most of this “memory” is from an Asian history course back then and the guests we had, and were able to query on the topic. Given the era, we spent a great deal of time focused on SE Asia.
Jonn: sorry if my reply to your comment above was a bit sharp. LBJ getting us into Vietnam by stealth – and doing so by “end running” the historical role of Congress and the American public in such a decision – is something that disgusts me to this day, and I tend to get a bit vocal about it. No offense intended.
I haven’t read Summer’s book but it looks interesting, I’ll have to check it out.
Having said that, I still don’t think it would have worked for a few reasons.
Geographically, Korea is very different from Vietnam first and foremost in that Korea is a peninsula surrounded by water. Once you get the MDL secured all you need is a good navy and it would be damn near impossible for the North to infiltrate any significant number of men or supplies South.
By contrast, Vietnam has a huge Western border, most of which is impenetrable jungle. “securing” that border in any meaningful sense is hopeless. Had we done as you suggested there’s nothing that would have prevented the NVA from simply flanking the secured area to the West. Were we prepared to go all the way to Burma? I don’t think so.
But more significantly, the North knew that all they had to do was out-wait us. IIRC we started “peace negotiations” in 1967 (actually, I believe there were ongoing peace negotiations going back to at least 1953 – 54 if not earlier.) IOW by 1967 the North knew that we were looking for an exit, and that our commitment wouldn’t last. LBJ’s deployment of half a million troops was supposed to provide overwhelming military force that would give the South “Breathing room” and allow them to establish a legitimate government. Instead, the various SVN governments continued their plunder of US aid, VN national wealth and of course the settling of personal political scores, to the detriment of the SVN people.
The ROK government, while not a model of tolerance or democratic ideals, at least enjoyed the support of a large portion of the ROK population, which is something that the RVN government was never really able to say, at least not truthfully.
Martinjmpr: not sure the outflank argument is practical if US forces extend along the Mekong to vic Vientiene, Laos. If I recall correctly, the Pathet Lao never controlled western Laos – the Souvanna government was able to hold that. Further, going around the Northern US flank there (or farther north) means traversing Thailand to get to South Vietnam. Thailand was an ally, and would have assisted militarily in preventing that. (They sent troops to South Vietnam during the war to assist us.) Plus, doing that would at least double the length of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Regarding waiting us out: yes, that’s a distinct possibility. But had we been able to keep the total deployment (and the casualties) to a lower level, the US public might well have supported the war for a much longer period. Summers’ proposal kept the number of US troops involved much lower than we saw after 1965. And lest we forget, other than Ia Trang US casualties didn’t really “take off” in Vietnam until 1966. At the end of 1965, we’d lost 2,344 KIAs in Vietnam – 1,928 of those occurring in 1965, when our year-end strength there was approx 184,300. That’s about 5 KIA daily, which is indeed bad – but the US public of the day might (or might not) have supported that level of casualties for a protracted period of time (it was a much more anti-Communist era prior to Vietnam). My guess is the public would not have supported that indefinitely, but would have done so well past when they ceased doing so (1968) – maybe long enough for the US to force a settlement. http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#date http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm My take on what I’ve read about the South Vietnamese population during the war was that they pretty much simply wanted to be left alone and not be screwed with – by either side. But when forced to pick between the NVA/Viet Cong and the US/their “Saigon puppets”, for many nationalism won out over the foreign concept of “democracy” (not exactly something pre-1950s Asia was famous for). Seems to me that removing the… Read more »
I like your reading list. You may also consider “The Betrayal” by William R. Courson, LtCol, USMC (Ret.). It is out of print but I believe you can still pick up a copy on Amazon fairly cheap. I just saw it for $11.62, or it may be in your Dad’s library.
And you can thank former Senator Edward M. “Ted” Kennedy for blocking funding.
I read this yesterday and Did Not Know….that famous photo of the helicopter and people lining up to board was NOT the embassy in Saigon.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us/vietnam-saigon-evacuation-anniversary/
“At about 2:30 p.m., 41-year-old Caron unintentionally starred in one of the most famous photographs of the Vietnam War. It happened because CIA air officer Oren “O.B.” Harnage asked Caron and co-pilot Jack “Pogo” Hunter to pick up “the deputy prime minister and his family.”
United Press International’s Hugh van Es photographed Caron and Hunter’s chopper perched atop Saigon’s Pittman Building, about a half-mile from the embassy. In the picture, Harnage is seen standing on the roof, helping evacuees climb a ladder to get on board. The iconic photograph has come to symbolize the chaos and desperation of that day.
Yep. That was indeed the Pitmann Building, located at 22 Gia Long Street, Saigon. That location was where USAID employees and the CIA Station Chief lived in Saigon. I seem to remember reading that it wasn’t originally planned as an official pickup zone during Frequent Wind, but Air America said “screw that” (or words to that effect) and used it anyway. (smile)
As of a few years ago, Bob Caron was still alive and kicking. He autographed a copy of that picture for me. Hunter and Harnage are gone.
Seeing that picture reminds me of the future follow-ons to the musical “Miss Saigon” – “Miss Baghdad” and “Miss Kabul.” All you need to do is swap out the Huey for either a CV-22 or a UH-60.
I was serving back in the states this day 40 years ago. It was a stand down day for me after 72 hours on duty in a missile silo. I watched this unfold on the big 3 media networks at the time. (No cable news then.) I just remember sitting alone in the small trailer outside the base where we lived, while my wife was at work and resting my head in my hands and quietly sobbing for the longest of time. Almost uncontrollably and for the life of me, with all my understanding, I could not seem to quell the tears. Tears for the memories it brought back. Tears for the fond thoughts of those I had known and lost. Tears for the hollow, empty feeling it left deep in my gut and soul about what it had all been. What had it been for? If we were to give it away like that. What did that say to the thousands lost and the few of those whom I called friends and brothers? Then I remembered those I knew who had died or were wounded. They served, suffered and died for me, for others in my squad, platoon and company. Not for Johnson or the President of South Vietnam. But for each other. So WE could come home, no matter what. Politics were an often groused about, but not in the fight. In the engagements, it was about me, my brothers and our lives, period. No politics, no socioeconomic factors, no large end game, regional world strategies. It was all about right there and right then. Only about making it to the end of that patrol alive and back to base camp or just to a safe place to eat and perhaps sleep for a while. I understand a bit more now at my age about the politics of what happened. They do not comfort me anymore now than they did then. The politicians then, playing with American lives like so many cheap, plastic chess pieces are like the politicians now doing the same thing. So today, the Vietnamese… Read more »
And may God bless you Sparks for all the b love you showed your brothers and sisters and expressing it by baring your soul.
OC
Public television–you know, the tax-supported television that used to broadcast artsy stuff such as ballet–is currently running a “show” called “The Draft.” It repeats all of the old lies about only poor, black kids being sent to Vietnam and makes heroes of a couple of old bastards who burned their draft card. I paid good money for my TV so I was able only to watch for about 5 mins one time and two the next. I’m guessing that Hanoi Jane and Joan Baez just had to be in there somewhere. How in the name of all that is holy can the same bullshit lies be continued to be told and delivered as truth?
I was six years old when this happened. My father, who retired from the USAF in 67 and was fortunate to have never gone to Vietnam, came home from work and went straight to the TV. I believe John Chancellor and David Brinkley did the NBC evening news together at the time. As we watched the news footage my father turned to me and said “this is why I retired.” It was many years later that I understood what he meant regarding the loss of the American publics willpower to defeat an enemy.
I’ll always remember that photo. It’s seared into my brain! I remember watching it on the news and thinking, “what a waste of my time” spending a year in that shithole, for what?
I will say the year I spent in Vietnam made me grow up in a hurry!
I’m no authority on anything, but I understand that we lost Vietnam the same way the British lost the American Revolution. Just as the silk-suited lordships at Whitehall in 1783 decided “yes, we can win the war, but the effort just isn’t worth the cost to His Majesty’s Government” so too did our silk-suited lordly politicians at the White House decide that, “yes, we can win this war, but…” you all see where I am going with this, right?
Granted, the causes of the two wars were different. There are many, many differences. But the idea is the same. As HM Queen Elizabeth II said about the American Revolution: “We lost the American colonies because we lacked the statesmanship to know the right time and the manner of yielding what is impossible to keep.”. I suspect that we Americans lost Vietnam the same way.
Can’t really argue with your thought process there. Of course, we did have to work hard to win all the battles while still giving the war away in Viet Nam.
I have no memories of these events having an impact on myself and my few fellow VN vets at that time. I was stationed in Germany with an Army Air Defense Artillery Battery on an Air Force base. The world events news we received was through AFN-TV and the Stars & Stripes, so I’m sure it had been censored and watered down. I think at that time there were only four of us (out of 105) in the battery who had been to VN and for the most part it had no real effect on business as usual. Just my perspective these many years later.
But as many others have said: May God rest the souls and families of those who perished and may all those who are still missing be returned.
@ CLAW 131:
32d Army Air Defense Command?
Spangdahlem Air Force Base?
Me, too, BEFORE going to Viet Nam!
I was in the 11th Air Defense Signal Battalion, based in Kaiserslautern.
Nifty, huh?
I met a lot of really good people there.
B-2/56 ADA 32nd AADCOM Landau, Germany 67-68
VN 69-70
JRM, I know we’ve discussed this before, but just to refresh your memory:
B Btry 6/56 ADA, 32d AADCOM, Bitburg Air Base, 74-77, AFTER Vietnam.
I know, if you spit real hard from Bitburg with a good wind at your back, you can hit the ATC tower over at Spang.
Back when “Vietnam Chic” started (circa 1981 or so) I remember seeing T-shirts or maybe bumper stickers that said something like:
“Vietnam 1967: We were still winning when I left.”
I remember thinking it was humorous at the time, but I don’t think I ever anticipated that I’d need a shirt like that some day.
“Afghanistan 2003: We were winning when I left.” 😀
I wonder if there was a British version of that back in th 18th century?
“Boston 1777 – we were winning when I left”
Was it “40 years” ago today, that SGT Pepper and the Band began to play?
Word on the ‘Gan. And Iraq.
I saw this on the evening news and mumbled something like ‘what was it all for?’
This is a subject that I really don’t know the right words to express what I feel, for I’m not even certain what it is that I felt when I saw this on television. At the time, I was a Cavalry Scout at Fort Hood, Texas, living in Post Housing (Walker Village – – – , is it still there?) with my new bride, Bonnie. That was MY war, MY one great opportunity to be a part of United States history. Yet, MY Country, my own United States of America, broke their promise, betrayed their allies, and allowed this to happen. How am I supposed to feel, after all that? There was combat in the old Republic of Viet Nam, but I seldom think of it. I was a “REMF” (Oh, how I hated that term!), “in the rear with the gear”, a Field Radio Relay and Carrier Equipment Repairman (MOS 31L20). I prefer my happier memories of R&R in Japan and Australia, my two (02) thirty-day leaves to go home for Christmas, and to visit the land of Israel (which was also when I completely circled the globe), religious retreats at China Beach in Da Nang, and touring downtown Saigon. I loved flying around in those C-130’s, Uh-1’s, CH-47’s, and the C-7. I loved always having the security of a fully loaded M-16 in my hand, and sleeping with all of my equipment, ready and able to respond at the slightest irregularity. After my years of adolescent Hell, torture, incarceration, terror, danger, and deprivation, it was REALLY nice to have money in my pocket, and that good looking uniform to wear! Currently, as an old disabled war veteran, I love having medals to wear on my civilian clothing (as per AR 670-1:30-6) at appropriate occasions, although I admit to being embarrassed that I don’t have any war stories to tell about how I got them. Oh, don’t get me wrong. Military service in the old Republic of Viet Nam was dangerous, even if you were a “REMF”, spending your time “in the rear with the gear”. American soldiers deliberately… Read more »
One thing that serves as a consolation was, years after the war, my participation in a group of Mormon Viet Nam veterans who clandestinely worked to assist Mormon Vietnamese left behind when Saigon fell.
Also, I’m very briefly mentioned in two (02) military history books, now out of print, the “101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION ‘SCREAMING EAGLES'”, by Colonel Robert Jones (Deceased), and, “SAINTS AT WAR: KOREA AND VIET NAM”, by Robert C. Freeman and Dennis A. Wright.
Hey, I never expected to be mentioned in a history book, or to be awarded any medals.
People say bad things about President Lyndon Baines Johnson, but it was his administration that made it possible for me to become a soldier in the United States Army.
Also, he has been quoted as having great admiration for the Mormon missionaries.
There are some good comments in this thread, and FWIW it might be useful to pass along that those of us who were in country late in the war used to have the same, often heated, discussion. In general, the key points broke down somewhat like this: Why Are We Here? – The domino theory was one reason, and when you think about it has actually proved Viet Nam to be somewhat of a success in that there wasn’t much, if any, of a further spread of communism in Southeast Asia. Another reason was that Viet Nam was rich in raw materials such as rubber, iron ore, and potential oil deposits in the South China Sea. It’s why the French were there in the first place. Could We Have Won? – The two sides to this were that Viet Nam was either a lost cause from the jump, or that things would have been different if the American military had been allowed to let the dog off the leash. There were some good examples of how the latter might have been true based on some, at the time, restrictive ROE. Corruption In Saigon – This was partly true, but actually mostly applies to the cabal leading up to the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem in ’63. There wasn’t that much evidence that later Saigon control had a tendency to grossly alienate the population with, for example, persecution of the Buddhists. A United Viet Nam Is Logical – It never seemed to me this was particularly true because of the historic regional contrasts in the Vietnamese culture. There were some distinct non-minor differences between the industrial North, the agrarian South, and the center of learning in Hue. Nixon’s Vietnamization Failed – This always seemed to be very true, and a lot of it had to do with the differences in motivation between the NVA and ARVN. There were a few exceptions, but in general the ARVN, for whatever reason, had a real problem being able to engage. In my own experience as an advisor, the ARVN intel people I worked with… Read more »
George Santayana: “Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Reading many of the erudite comments on this thread, and elsewhere, and watching what I can on TV the past few days leads me to propose a sort of corollary to what Santayana observed.
Simply remembering the past is just a start. Agreeing on what the past really was, so it seems, is a much greater hurdle.
The whole Vietnam experience (read also as history?) is STILL prompting he said/she said debates. It’s the difference between macro and micro writ large.
Myself… I still feel a bit bit uncomfortable even mentioning that I served. Anywhere but here. The divide twixt pity and respect confuses me.
Thanks again Jonn.
MSN provides a gallery of photographs from that time. If any of you recognize any of the Marines or soldiers, please say so.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vietnam-photos-that-defined-the-war/ss-BBiSED9
“MAY DAY! MAY DAY!”
(Just wanted to get a head start on tomorrow.)
My most memorable May Day was when I was in the Third Grade at Spring Lake School in Spring Lake, North Carolina.
Mama used khaki material to make me a fringed American Indian costume.
A May Pole was set up in front of the school, with all of our parents and teachers in the audience, as we youngsters, each holding a streamer, went around the May Pole, with me stealing the show by doing an Indian war dance, which the cheering crowd loved and applauded.
Earlier, I stated that I seldom think about my combat experiences.
Well, one misconception that a lot of folks have about us guys who were “in the rear with the gear”, is that we never saw combat.
It ain’t true.
One time, I was at the Vet Center in Salt Lake City, casually sitting around and taking part in a discussion of some sort.
A guy spoke up (I was friends with he and his brother, both of whom were in Viet Nam, both of whom were in Special Forces, and both of whom are now deceased from Huntington’s Chorea)and said,
“I didn’t know you were in a firefight.”
Well, until he said that, I didn’t know it either, for I never thought about it.
Some things, I should never talk about, for when I do, it’s always a mistake.
Remember when I mentioned the attempt on my life by unknown fellow soldiers?
There were MAJOR racial problems between Black and White, and serious illegal drug use everywhere, even OPENLY using heroin.
Most of the time, I was either terrified or bored.
When I came back from Viet Nam, nobody spit on me.
But, someone did throw a beer bottle at me from a passing car, another car tried to run me down when I was walking along on the side of the highway, and of course, I got told over and over again about what a fool I was for being a soldier and serving in Viet Nam.
No, when I think of Viet Nam, I think about my trip to Israel, and visiting Australia, Thailand, and Japan.
I think about being a soldier, young, with money in my pocket, traveling the world, dancing with girls, having a Bronze Star on my chest and a “Screaming Eagle” on my right shoulder.
I volunteered to be in Viet Nam, and I’m glad I did it.
If you want something to ruin a pleasant experience, try being a soldier in Viet Nam, on R&R to Japan, and at an evening social affair, overhearing a French Canadien teenage female discussing her opposition to American soldiers being in Viet Nam, and how, “Communism isn’t so bad.”
She was probably a professional Communist agitator, there in Japan to distract and entice all us lonely American G.I.s, don’t you reckon?
Whole lotta long winded stuff going on here. Giap told an interviewer back in 2005 that if Nixon would made one more bombing run over NV, it would have been over for them(NV).
Do believe I stated so here: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=37836&cpage=1#comment-965509
Since the time and date of that post, it appears that historians are busy editing history with revised bullshit like a cat scratching in a litter box. I just finished Google-fuing Giap and his 2005 interview with I think Vietnam Magazine…
And by the way, I wasn’t old enough to serve there until 1974. However, having had an older brother who served in the 3/9/3 Marines and researching everything I could about them, I also ran across some really neat info that made me even prouder of our US troops service in the RVN, meaning those that served with honor.
https://youtu.be/cIFATDe9dsw
https://youtu.be/OkM0HlMbH0I?list=PL3813801A0D5B3700
My NAM Tour was 69-70, Army, 183rd Recon Airplane Co., 1st Avn Bge, 2 Corps. Ive just completed scrolling comments on this blog, sure wish I had seen more posts from my Nam Brothers.~~~~~~. Today is a sad day for my Nam family, for We Gave So Very Much Of Ourselves and left so much behind. All branches of our military Performed w/pride and heroism and resolve. For those that say we lost, I chafe hearing or reading those words. We did not lose. We simply Were Not Allowed To Finish The Job !!! I was wounded less than 2 weeks In-Country. When asked if I wanted my Purple Heart, my reply was no. I graduated from Woodlawn High in 67 & wounded 19 May 69. By that time, Woodlawn had 4 sons dead. 3 blown up by mines & 1 killed by a sniper. My folks sure didnt need to read some Army release to local media of their boy. I enlisted, served my 3, got out, married, bought a home thru the VA.fathered & raised 2 successful kids, retired from USPS. Life has been good. Ive been w/the same woman 45 years. None of my post Arm life would have been possible if not for the Army & Gods hands. From my discharge in 71 & into September 02, a void in my life existed & not realized? That late night in September 02, the phone rang, it was long distance? Caller asked if my name was Mark M.! followed w/questions only a soldier would know! That call, filled an unknown void for my Army Brothers had found me just 2 weeks prior to our 1st Company Reunion!! I reunited w/those men at Ft. Rucker, Alabama, home to Army Aviation & where all our crewmen & pilots trained. For so long I felt something was wrong w/me, the tears, night sweats, nightmares, short temper at little thiings, wary of my surroundings, a need to be safe. The Sunday of our final day @ Rucker, our memorial service was held on the parade field, followed by a flight of… Read more »
[…] Of The Year” Under Fire For Child Abuse, Caving To White Supremacy This Ain’t Hell: 40 Years Ago Today Weasel Zippers: Hillary’s Position On Indian Nuke Deal Changed After Influx Of Donations […]
I am a Vietnam veteran U.S. ARMY 1968 1969
I did my whole tour at LZ Oasis in the CH.
I was a premier guard for the year.
My best friend was killed in 1970 .He was a Marine his name was Tommy Riley from Bayside New York. I loved that guy and I still miss him today.So as far as I am concern that whold country of Vietnam can go fuck them selfs
I’ve posted this before but I’ll say it again.. “Vietnam Veteran, Proud To Have Served. Ashamed Only Of The Congress and The Support Of The American People! SSG US Army 66-70,Vietnam 69-70”