I initially posted this on a history blog but it cut the comment short. This is responding to a remarkably fallacious article about Vietnam and Kerry.
It is hard to know where to begin when addressing the many fallacies in the article.
First, I should comment that I am a Vietnam Veteran and I also attended some of the peace rallies. In 2004, as a result of hearing, for the first time, John Kerry’s 1971 Senate "testimony," I became an activist and worked at a national level against Kerry. In that capacity I came to know some of the Swift Boat activists including John O’Neill, although I worked in a parallel organization, Vietnam Vets for the Truth.
For much more information on Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, see Swift Vets and POWs for Truth site (did you know that the POWs joined the "right wing" swifties?).
So here we go…. I’ll start with the Swift Boat veterans, and then address other myths.
What brought me to this site was: "These are memories of the Vietnam conflict which the political right sought to suppress with the infamous Swift Boat campaign attacking Kerry’s military record.
The Swifties were not "the political right" and the political right could hardly control them, although it did ultimately benefit from their activities. I hope readers of this blog can understand the logical distinction.
The SBVT (Swifties) was founded when Swift Boat veterans discovered that Kerry was running for president and citing his combat record. Many Swift Boat vets did not want their service to be associated in any way with John Kerry.
A number of the members were Democrats, and others independents. John O’Neill wanted Edwards to be president - hardly a "right wing" choice. Thus the group wanted to derail his nomination, leaving the field open to other Democrat nominees.
Thinking their collective condemnation would be enough to expose and defeat him, they held a press conference before the nomination was locked up (see the web site). In this historic (but very poorly covered) event, every single person who had ever been in Kerry’s Vietnam chain of command, up through Admiral Zumwalt (CINCPAC, represented by his veteran son), denounced Kerry as unfit to command the military.
This was an unprecedented event: the unanimity of Kerry’s former commanders, and their willingness to all come to a press conference and present their condemnation. Veterans normally do not go public to criticize each other. In addition, many others who had served with Kerry - especially his fellow boat commanders who worked most closely with him - condemned him. To characterize this as a right wing attempt to do anything is to put the cart before the horse.
Yes, the actions of the SBVT benefited Bush. But that was a consequence, not an intent. The idea that the Swift Boaters were part of some right wing plot is pure fantasy. If you knew the people, and understood the circumstances, you would never believe such tripe! The right wing came in late in the game - the veterans early and for non-partisan reasons.
When the press conference failed to even be reported by some media (such as the AP) and was given poor treatment by others, O’Neill and historian Dr. Corsi wrote a book to break through the media Iron Curtain. The rest is well known history.
……………..
Another falsehood is that during the war there was a significant soldier "resistance." This is a nice fantasy, but few soldiers wanted anything to do with "resistance" movements. The draftees wanted to survive and get out. The draftees were greatly outnumbered by the volunteers, who believed in the war and their duty. Polls taken recently show that over 75% of those who fought in Vietnam would do it again - hardly an indication that dissatisfaction was widespread, or that they felt the war was unjust. They would go back into the danger, the heartbreak, the terrible conditions of the jungle - three quarters of them!
Likewise, "soldiers of conscience" were rare, because few had done or seen anything to trouble their conscience. I know a large number of proud Vietnam vets, and not one has ever mentioned atrocities committed by them or other Americans.
It is telling that when the draft ended, so did any significant anti-war movement in the United States. This suggests (as does my personal experience with those in the movement) that the driving force behind the masses (as opposed to the relatively few ideologues) was avoidance of military service, pure and simple. I don’t condemn those who didn’t want to serve in a murky situation like Vietnam - almost all of my friends found a way to avoid Vietnam - but historians (and this blog is history related, apparently) should not confuse self interest with idealism as motivation for the vast majority of protesters. It was also a fact that anti-war protests were a lot of fun - I know, I was there (not as a protester, but for the hell of it).
……………
It is a sad fact that all warfare will result in some atrocities - no military force can always control every soldier - but it is important, for those who care about reality, to recognize which reported actions are typical, and which are rare exceptions. Atrocities in ‘Nam by US forces were very rare, contrary to John Kerry’s assertions, just as they are today in Iraq. Unmentioned by too many critics of the US was the enemy’s explicit policy of torture and atrocities - especially against village leaders. If you want to see atrocities by US forces, look farther back to "the great war" - World War II - where we carpet bombed cities (as did all sides).
The myth of widespread atrocities was given national prominence by John Kerry in his Senate testimony - testimony made after he had conferred with the enemy’s leaders in Paris, and in which he supported exactly all of their demands. He also cited the so-called "Winter Soldier" investigations, which were in reality classic guerilla theater.
Those "testifying" at WS were hardly credible. However, because of the testimony, congress demanded investigations, and several took place. Not one of the Winter Soldier charges could be verified. However, through the investigation it was discovered that most of the "witnesses" were not Vietnam combat Veterans, had exaggerated their service, were imposters (investigators found some who supposedly had testified but, it turns out, had never even been to Detroit - their identities had been stolen) or had not been in a time/location to observe what they "testified" to. This is all well documented.
We met one of these "witnesses" in 2004, and he asked our collective forgiveness for his lies. He said he had been a confused young man, and had been prompted on what to testify by organizers of the "investigation" including specifically John Kerry. His story is not unusual, as has been amply documented.
It is a shame, after all these years, that this terrible slander of the American soldier and America itself - "Winter Soldier" and John Kerry’s Senate testimony - is still believed and repeated. It is testimony to the desperation of the aging left that they must continue to uphold these myths in order to justify their own actions of the past.
……….
A minor point: the "spat upon" returning soldier is hardly an urban myth. Just among my circle of friends is a soldier who was spat upon at San Francisco Airport while traveling in uniform. He was returning, not from Vietnam, but Okinawa. But spat upon he was. Oh, and on Jan 20, 2005, in Washington, D.C. I observed a Vietnam Veteran spit on by an anti-war protestor - it still goes on.
It may be pleasant, or guilt relieving, or something, to imagine that soldiers were treated well by the protesters, but it is utter nonsense. Soldiers were reviled by anti-war movements everywhere. I had a math professor who refused to allow ROTC students in his classes (he didn’t know that I was spending some of my weekends flying in Navy war planes…heh heh). Soldiers who wore their uniforms were always subject to rude treatment.
………
It is also not mythology that the war was lost at home - whether you want to characterize it as treason or not, and no matter whom you want to blame it on. South Vietnam remained relatively free (i.e. a somewhat repressive authoritarian regime, as opposed to the totalitarian communist regime in the North) years after the last US combat soldier left - it was able to defend itself against the North. There was no significant resistance movement within the south - as was shown so clearly by the failure of the citizens of the South to rise up and join the VC during the Tet Offensive of 1968 (much to the surprise of General Giap).
It was only when Congress forbade already promised military supplies and an air support umbrella (only used once, but ready as a threat) that the North was able to successfully invade and conquer the south - with, I would add, a heavily armed conventional army - more tanks that Patton ever commanded, for example - and not through any popular or guerilla movement. Prior to that, the North had tried a heavy invasion once, and was beaten back by ground troops composed solely of South Vietnamese, with the aid of US air power.
NOTE: Comments are broken on this blog. Please post any responses back at the original aricle!