When John Kerry and Chuck Hagel climb Capitol Hill seeking Senate confirmation of their Cabinet nominations, John McCain’s ring is the one they must kiss. McCain is effectively sponsoring the Democrat Kerry but promises tough questions for Hagel, the maverick Republican who may well challenge Pentagon orthodoxies. The real heat, though, comes from the still smoldering ruin of the Vietnam War, which set the three on career paths that now intersect.
In the late 1960s, Hagel had just completed a tour leading infantrymen in combat when Kerry took the controls of his Swift boat — while McCain languished in a Hanoi prison. The unfinished character of the long ago war is revealing itself yet again. Even as each of these boomer politicians is entering what may be the last chapter of his political life, each man’s authority on national-security issues rests on his Vietnam experience.
Comments
This comment has been removed.
Contrary to the myth of Carrols argument, which was a unacknowledged crucible in his own life, North Vietnam's war crimes made the US look like neophytes. ( however anecdotal and undocumented Kerry s accusations were) I encourage readers to read http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.1.GIF These figures also do not account for the millions killed by Cambodia and other " freedom fighters" of sixties delusions.
US war crimes are well documented. Viet Cong lack of uniforms led to mass execution of civilians. Agent orange and three times the bombs dropped in WW2 by both sides were our gift to So. Vietnam, who we were "protecting." Gratuitous killing of whole villages made the Nazis look like amateurs.
Don't let the facts deter you. "Finally, we can turn to democide. That for North Vietnam involved in the early years a terror devoted to eliminating non-communist nationalists, anti-communists, and those who were pro-French (lines 266 to 275). Once the war against the French was almost over Hanoi turned to destroying and rebuilding the rural economic and power structure. This period, from 1953 to 1956, is very significant and the estimates are very confused. I have accordingly outlined in the table all the estimates associated with it so that the mode of calculation and associated subtotals for this period can be clearly distinguished." But then there was also those who died in prison or at forced labor from 1945 to 1956. One estimate of 500,000 dead (line 335) from President Nixon, which may have been based on secret intelligence estimates, cannot be accepted without some publicly available confirming information or similar independent estimates. Based on other estimates of the prison/camp population I assumed a 50,000 camp population per year and an unnatural death rate of 2 percent per year, on par with the Chinese rate4 and much lower then for the Soviet gulag.5 This gives me a low of 24,000 dead (line 336). There is not enough information to estimate a high or mid number. Then also there were the POWs from the French Expeditionary Force that were killed. Based on the sources,6 I only dare estimate this number at 13,000 (line 341). Putting together all these consolidations and calculations, I figure that for the years 1945 to 1956 the Vietnamese communists likely killed 242,000 to 922,000 people (line 347). Above this range I show two other estimates of these dead (lines 344 and 345), one at 700,000 and the other at 500,000 dead. Both are contained within the range at which I arrived.Other democides by North Vietnam (lines 454 to 459) include the wanton killing of refugees, shelling of Saigon civilian areas, and killing of American and South Vietnamese POWs. Moreover, the North Vietnamese were heavily involved in Cambodia and also committed democide there (line 451)" The estimated range of refugees killed in one case (line 454) may seem relatively high but is probably conservative. Of the 200,000 refugees that fled the Highlands offensive by the North in March 1975, only 45,000 made it to Tuy-Hoa. Many of the 155,000 missing were killed by North Vietnamese troops; others were captured."
John Kerry haunts me.
I for one am tired of that bloody war still being open for debate. As a veteran of it, it all seems fairly clear to me. The war was BS, the policies behind it were ill thought out and badly prosecuted. The war itself served no useful purpose, as wars seldom do. Redemption, an interesting question. I don't think the US or the Vietnamese or myself for that matter can ever find any real redemption. It was by and large an ugly war that lacked any moral structures. I think to a great extent it gutted the morality of my own youth and gutted this nations sense of its own righteousness. All in all to sad a tale in America's history to tell in a comment.
I don't think Carrol's argument is so much a "myth" as it is simply something that those who did not serve there or those not old enough to remember simply find to be some distant blur in America's past. While learning from history is important it is to me tiresome to hear the same old arguments regarding that war. In the long run the only redemption possible is the same for the nation as it was for those who served there, forgive ourselves the mistake and move on.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Hugh Thompson of Georgia, who used his helicopter to stop the massacre at MY Lai, recieved death threats, hate mail, dead animals at his door for thirty years. Kerry, a brave man who served under fire and had the guts to appear before congress to tell the truth was a victim of character assasination by a group of billy-bobs in Texas to promote a fool who couln't even show up for his air gaurd duties. I guess these people didn't move on.
Carroll still wants to protest the VietNam War and demand that we show some "moral humility", whatever that is. He would like us to believe that Vietnam defines who these men are. Based on that, should we assume that Carroll is the person he was over 40 years ago? A person who conveniently became a priest in 1969, then quit in 1974, shortly after US involvement in Vietnam ended? Absolutely not.
It appears from this article, that the only one stuck in the Vietnam time warp is Carroll himself.
Things have come to a sorry state when political appointees must pass muster with this superannuated gasbag McCain. He's just another of the Republican party's obstructionists.
Anyone who would pick Palin as a VP can't be wrapped too tight.
Interesting. Good word, that superannuated, however, it does not apply. McCain is far from being incapacitated by age. Probably on your best day, and his worst day, he would make you look like a fool. Have you checked your wrapper today?
When is the Vietnam gang going to retire. This cArroll screed follows a decades old formula of applying Vietnam era "lessons" to public policy questions. That conflict ended in 1973, with the last American troops out in '75. The Cold War ended in 1989 or 1990, depending on which country you focus on. The only thing unfinished about it is writers like Carroll getting print space to regurgitate the repetitious arguments about that era's arguments, whether those be Swift boats or positions held by guys like this Hagel fella. Give it a rest. Yes, history ignored is ignored at one's peril, but dragging history into every political spat involving some person who had experience of some sort during the Vietnam war era is making up a new type of peril.
The last US combat troops left on March 29, 1973, not in 1975. The Marines you saw in 1975 were either part of the Embassy guards, or were in the extraction force during the pullout of the Embassy. The US conducted no combat operations between 1973 and 1975. As for when the "Vietnam Gang" is going to retire? When we get good and darned ready to retire, many Vietnam veterans are not even 65 years old yet. By my calculations, it is entirely possible to be only 58 years old, and be a Vietnam veteran. 2013-1973 = 40, 40+18 = 58.
mali
This comment has been removed.
In how they handle it....If they handle it
"Kitch" Indeed the second Iraq war and Viet Nam had very few similarities. As far as I am concerned people can take any lesson they desire or see from the Viet Nam war. But the men who served there took their own lessons, their own resentments as will the men who served in Iraq and Afghan. One of the big ones is being sick and tired of listening to those who sit at home and pontificate about the glories of war or its necessities. Many of us resent the heck out of the Ted Nugent wannabe's of the world who after dodging the draft now ramble on about their guns and their macho selves now hiding behind some phoney patriotic BS.
I don't want to hear about McCain's, Hagel's or Kerry's character as it relates to that war. Personally when the smoke cleared I found no moral justification for what I did but in the end found no reason nor no person I should have to justify myself too. Not Carroll not anyone else. That war by any measurement was a FUBAR period.
Ahhh, yes, the "glories of war". Somehow, I never quite found the glory during my tours. What I remember most is the "really smart" people smugly telling me how smart they were for having avoided (dodged) the draft. Now that 40 years have passed, that does not seem as popular, I hear about how they "just missed it", or had some "reason" they were not in the military. Mr. Turk, you and I may not see eye to eye on some issues, but I can definitely agree that I am tired of hearing about someone's character as it relates to the war. Frankly, when it comes to politicians, I suspect every last one of their moral characters, what they have done since Vietnam makes them more suspect in my book than what they may have done during Vietnam.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
As a 5 year participant in combat in French Indochina,1964-1968,1971-1972, I have vivid memories of Senator Kerry's statements circa 1971-1972 like the following Q&A.
Crosby Noyes, Washington Evening Star
"Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and ..... Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?"
-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971
“There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, ... are war criminals.”
Unlike Senator Kerry who somehow was awarded 3 Purple Hearts in a 4 month period without any loss of duty time, a Silver Star for shooting a fleeing wounded VC teenager n the back and a Bronze Star for pulling a individual into his boat, I was awarded 2 DFCs, * Air Medals, 10 VSMs, 2 PUCs with V, Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, etc, etc,… and refused to be nominated for an Air Force Cross IMHO Mr Kerry is a traitor and should not be confirmed for the position of Secretary of State.
Having spent two tours myself with the 1st Infantry it is unclear to me how you view Mr. Kerry as a traitor. Are you implying there were no American atrocities? Are you saying to speak the truth is somehow traitorous. Now I may well disagree with the manner in which the statement was made but I can't deny its accuracy and given what you report as your time, I'm not sure you can. Are you saying there was no such thing as "free fire zones", "no burning of villages", no indiscriminate bombing, no use of defoliants that harmed both Vietnamese and Americans.
I would add there were plenty of VC and NVA atrocities but it seems to me beyond the pale to simply what wonderful guys we were. I find nothing traitorous about saying what happened. What happened, sadly happened. I suppose for some there has been a life long need to justify their actions. I don't fall into that group. War is war some worse than others and to admit what was done is not traitorous it is simply honest.
Attaturk, MLuther said nothing about Kerry being a traitor. He did not imply there were no American atrocities. In fact, all he did is post an interview that Kerry gave to a reporter. Only an office seeking politician would make statements that he committed atrocities as did thousands of other soldiers at the orders of superior officers. Of course, that played well with the Massachusetts liberals, it might have gotten him lynched in Texas.
"Kitch" Unless I am misreading this statement from his comment, "IMHO Mr Kerry is a traitor and should not be confirmed for the position of Secretary of State." That seems a fairly clear statement to me.
As to your saying regarding Mr. Kerry,
"Only an office seeking politician would make statements that he committed atrocities as did thousands of other soldiers at the orders of superior officers." By the defintion Kerry used of "atrocity" I have stated the same about my time there. I count the death of women and children as an atrocity. Now I recognize the extremity of that paticular word, but from a purely moral viewpoint they were indeed "atrocities". I, however, unlike as you would say Mr. Kerry, would not try to portray it in some "noble" confession. I refer to it as such as purely a statement of fact.
OOOps I meant "history" sorry "Kitch".
Kitch, Hitchens' 13 comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam are superfluous. These wars were exactly alike in the most imprtant way; neither country posed an existential threat to the United States, nor would they have in the forseeable future. Such a threat is the only legitimate reason to send our young men and women to be killed, and to kill.
To paraphrase Capt. Benjamin Willard .... Don't get out of the boat unless you are willing to go all the way.
While I may not agree that it was "existential" but there was an inherent US interest in Iraq that didn't exist in Viet Nam to the same extent. Oil. However, the powers that be failed to recognize that they would unhinge the power balance when they took Hussein down. So in another sense both were FUBAR's due to short term thinking.
Trash article from a real nut!