So, Just When Were “Vietnam Times”, Anyway?

The phrase “Vietnam Times” was recently used by someone involved in an incident that made the various national news services. (Quite predictably, the incident initially was rotated markedly and rapidly counterclockwise – e.g., to the left, as viewed from above – thanks to our “oh so impartial” news media.) And I’m fairly sure the term wasn’t used by the individual to refer to some foreign publication; I can’t find any evidence of a “Vietnam Times” in searching the Internet.

While I won’t be discussing that particular incident, one thought did occur to me. That thought was: “Well, just when were those ‘Vietnam Times’ that guy is talking about, anyway?”

It turns out that is actually a fascinating and complex question. To paraphrase an impeached former POTUS who on his last full day in office acknowledged professional misconduct, agreed to a 5 year suspension of his law license, and was fined $25,000 in a deal to avoid possible later prosecution: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘times’ is.”

So let’s look at the possibilities. They’re more numerous than you might think.

I. Dates for the Vietnam War

One possibility is that the guy is using the term to refer to the Vietnam War. So to begin with, let’s look at the Vietnam War itself.

Even though Vietnam wasn’t a declared war, those dates should still be unambiguous, right? I mean, we had a campaign medal for that conflict – the Vietnam Service Medal. So since the criteria for that campaign medal is pretty cut and dried, date-wise, that “answers the mail” there. Doesn’t it?

In a word: no. It turns out that neither the original or the later-extended Vietnam Service Medal’s eligibility window include all recognized US military deaths occurring in the Vietnam War and appearing on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, AKA “the Wall”. Those dates also don’t cover the entire period of official US military involvement in Vietnam.

The Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) was originally authorized for service within the defined AOR of the Vietnam Conflict (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand and specified surrounding waters) for those who deployed there to support combat operations in Vietnam between 4 July 1965 and 28 March 1973 (inclusive). Prior to that date, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) was originally awarded for service in Vietnam between 1 July 1958 and 3 July 1965.

At some point after the establishment of the VSM in 1965, those who had received the AFEM for service in Vietnam were allowed (1) to elect to retain their AFEM or (2) could choose to remove it and receive the new VSM as a replacement. However, DoD policy required those who served in Vietnam during both periods to wear the VSM for Vietnam service only; they were required remove their AFEM for Vietnam service whether they wanted to or not.

A similar extension of VSM eligibility also occurred for participants in the evacuation of Saigon, Operation Frequent Wind. While participants in that operation were originally awarded the AFEM, the operation was later declared to be the final campaign of the Vietnam War. Like those serving in Vietnam early, Frequent Wind participants were later given the option to exchange their AFEM for the VSM. Both of these extensions of VSM eligibility are discussed in prior editions of DoDM 1348.33, Volume 2, in entries concerning the AFEM and VSM as late as 2015. (Unfortunately, the 2016 edition of DODM 1348.33, Volume 2, now omits mention of the VSM, apparently regarding the VSM as obsolete.)

So, that settles it? Dates of eligibility for the VSM – either through initial award or later exchange for the AFEM – should cover the entire Vietnam War, right?

Again: in a word, no. Because using those dates would omit a fair number of wartime participants who served in Southeast Asia (SEA) in support of US operations in Vietnam, or who served in two operations generally considered to be a part of the overall Vietnam Conflict in SEA. It also wouldn’t include over 2 1/2 years of formal US military involvement in Vietnam – or all US military personnel lost in Vietnam and memorialized at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, either.

First: while US involvement in Vietnam technically ended on 28 March 1973, some US forces remained in both Thailand and Cambodia supporting US efforts in Vietnam until 15 August 1973. Those troops were authorized the AFEM, and legitimately supported the initial end of US involvement in Vietnam. However, those individuals are not authorized to exchange that AFEM for the VCM. Using VSM eligibility dates omits their actions in support of Vietnam – which in turn means you’re not telling the complete story of the war.

Second: the evacuation of Phnom Penh (Operation Eagle Pull) and the Mayaguez Incident are generally considered to have been part of the larger Vietnam Conflict. However, while participants in those two operations are indeed authorized the AFEM, unlike participants in Operation Frequent Wind they cannot exchange that AFEM for the VSM. And like postwar support efforts in Thailand and Cambodia from late March to mid-August 1973, both operations are outside the VSM eligibility period.

Further, certain US military casualties that occurred in Vietnam and elsewhere are memorialized on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial – but those individuals have never been authorized award of the VSM. As I noted in this previous article, the first two US military personnel killed in Vietnam whose names appear on The Wall predate eligibility for the AFEM for Vietnam – and thus are ineligible for award of the VSM via exchange. The same is true for those lost during the Mayaguez Incident. (No US lives were lost during Operation Eagle Pull in Cambodia.)

So, since VSM eligibility dates won’t cut it – how about we just use date of first killed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and date of last killed? Wouldn’t that do it?

Well, one could make that argument. But it turns out that even that scenario has issues.

For starters, US forces were extracted under fire from Koh Tang Island at the end of the Mayaguez Incident. The tactical situation was confused; due to that confused tactical situation three Marines inadvertently were not extracted (the tactical situation also precluded recovery of the bodies of those believed to have been KIA). Those three Marines were later determined to have been captured alive; some time after being captured they were each executed by the Khmer Rouge.

Unfortunately, it appears that the precise date of their deaths may not be known with certainty (the last two appear to have been executed somewhere between 2 and 3 weeks after 15 May 1975; the first appears to have been executed fairly quickly after capture). Establishing the correct end date for this scenario is thus problematic.

Second, DoD today considers the start of formal US military involvement in Vietnam to be the establishment of the US Military Assistance Advisory Group – Vietnam (MAAG-V) on 1 November 1955. This preceeds the first acknowledged US military death in Vietnam that appears on the Wall by several months.

Third: as I’ve discussed in this previous article, actual US involvement in Vietnam long predates the first acknowledged Vietnam War military death in 1956. In fact, the first death of a US military member due to the action of Communist forces in Vietnam occurred in late September, 1945 – not long after the end of World War II.

Additional US lives were lost between then and that first acknowledged US military death of the Vietnam War in 1956. These were individuals supporting the French during their war in Indochina under CIA auspices (Civil Air Transport pilots and possibly some other individuals). Using first killed and last killed from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial omits these individuals from consideration. I’m not sure that’s really legitimate; they too died in SEA performing duties for the US government while supporting allied military forces engaged in conflict in Vietnam. YMMV.

Finally, during the latter part of World War II itself OSS troops gave support to Ho Chi Minh and his forces (who were at the time allied with the US in opposing the Japanese). This includes, on at least one occasion, advising the Viet Minh on-site during combat operations against Japanese occupation forces. And as noted earlier, the first US soldier to die in Vietnam was OSS. He was killed by Viet Minh forces (possibly by accident due to being mistaken for a French soldier) during September, 1945.

All in all, defining both the beginning and end of the US “Vietnam War” is not an easy task. US military involvement in Vietnam substantially predates DoD’s “official” start date of 1 November 1955 – which in turn predates the earliest possible date at which someone could qualify retroactively for the VSM by over 2 1/2 years. Plus, all of the “official” end dates (there seem to be several plausible candidates, ranging from as early as the 28 March 1973 date specified in the Paris Peace Accords to 7 May 1975) for the Vietnam War appear to omit the Mayaguez Incident.

In short: there doesn’t seem to be one clear, logical, and accepted definition for the dates of the US “Vietnam War”. The dates you choose rather seem to depend on what criteria you want to use.

II. Dates for the Vietnam Era

OK, so maybe the guy was talking about the “Vietnam Era?” Can we define the Vietnam Era any more cleanly? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no. All of the easily-identifiable candidates for such a definition have issues.

One possibility would be to use the Vietnam National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) period. Unfortunately, that has problems – it begins on 1 January 1961 and ends on 14 August 1974. It thus doesn’t cover over 4 years of early “official” US involvement in Vietnam (1 November 1955 to 31 Dec 1960). Since a number of US military personnel died in Vietnam during this period and have been included on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, obviously the dates defining a “Vietnam Era” logically also should include that period. It also fails to include Operation Eagle Pull, Operation Frequent Wind, and the Mayaguez Incident – all of which are generally regarded as parts of the Vietnam War. So IMO this isn’t exactly a good candidate.

A similar problem exists with using the Paris Peace Accord end date. While DoD officially has declared 1 November 1955 to be the beginning of “official” US military involvement in Vietnam (the date of the establishment of the Military Assistance Advisory Group – Vietnam), the Paris Peace Accords specify a date of 28 March 1973 as the end of US involvement. This obviously has issues, in that also omits Operation Eagle Pull, Operation Frequent Wind, and the Mayaguez Incident.

The CFR definition of the Vietnam Era (CFR 3.2f) is IMO even worse. The CFR defines two different “Vietnam Eras” – 28 February 1961 through 7 May 1975 for those serving in Vietnam proper, and 5 August 1964 through 7 May 1975 for all others. Other than being unwieldly and confusing because it’s a dual definition, it too omits years of early official US military involvement in Vietnam – 5 1/3 years in one case, and over 8 3/4 years in the other. It also fails to include the Mayaguez Incident.

Similarly, the now defunct definition of the period of eligibility for Vietnam Era GI Bill Benefits also appears unsatisfactory – but for the opposite reason. That definition required an individual to (1) serve on active duty during the period 1 February 1955 to 31 December 1976 (dates inclusive), and (2) serve not less than 180 days on active duty. This means that the VA definition of “Vietnam Era” allowed someone to enter active military service more than a full year after the Mayaguez Incident and still qualify as a “Vietnam Era” veteran for Vietnam Era GI Bill Purposes. It also means a individual could end active duty military service more than 3 months before the establishment of MAAG-V (the formal beginning of US military involvement in Vietnam) and qualify. Yeah, that was indeed policy. Policy in this case was ludicrous.

Finally, all of the above definitions fail to account for US involvement in Vietnam during the latter part of World War II and during the French Indochina War. While US involvement in Vietnam during that period was low-key and often clandestine, it was NOT nonexistent.

Bottom line: defining the “Vietnam Era” is no different than defining the dates for the “Vietnam War”. All of the multiple “official” definitions have issues. Here again, the dates you use pretty much depend on what criteria you choose.

III. “Vietnam Times”

So, what do we mean by “Vietnam Times”? Hell, I dunno; you tell me. It seems like that kinda depends on however you want to define it – to include “make it up as you go”. Any number of dates arguably can be used to define “Vietnam Times” – beginning as early as the first US OSS troop deploying to Vietnam during World War II (early or mid-1945) and ending as late as the end of the VA’s eligibility period for Vietnam Era GI Bill benefits (31 December 1976). Without further clarification, it’s impossible to tell what someone means by that phrase.

But I will say this much: IMO, anyone using that expression is being needlessly and inexcusably imprecise. Whether they’re doing so due to stupidity, accidentally, or with deliberate intent to deceive . . . I can’t say.

—–

Postscript: as commenter PJS noted below, the Vietnam CIB Period (which I’d forgotten about while writing the article) adds another plausible but nonsensical possible end-date candidate to the list for “Vietnam Times”. The Army’s Vietnam Conflict CIB Period begins on 2 March 1961 and ends on 31 March 1994 10 March 1995 – or for a period of somewhat over 43 44 years. So if you really wanted to stretch it, one could claim “Vietnam Times” started during the latter part of World War II – and ended over 3 4 years after the last shot was fired during Desert Storm. (smile)

Category: Historical, Who knows