Statistics on the
Vietnam War
Norbert Cheri - US Air Force Vietnam Veteran "Of the 2,709,918 Americans who served in Vietnam, less than 850,000 are estimated to be alive today, with the youngest American Vietnam veteran's age approximated to be 54 years old." So, if you're alive and reading this, how does it feel to be among the last 1/3rd of all the U.S. vets who served in Vietnam?
I don't know about
you guys, but kinda
gives me the chills,
considering this is
the kind of
information I'm used
to reading about
WWII and Korean War
vets.
So, the last 14 years, we are dying too fast, only a few will survive by 2015, if any. If true, 390 VN vets die a day. So, in 2190 days from today, if you're a live Vietnam veteran, you are lucky... in only 6 years. These statistics were taken from a variety of sources to include: The VFW Magazine, the Public Information Office, and the HQ CP Forward Observer - 1st Recon April 12, 1997. STATISTICS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN UNIFORM AND IN COUNTRY VIETNAM VETERANS:
CASUALTIES:
The first man to
die in Vietnam was
James Davis, in
1958. He was with
the 509th Radio
Research Station.
Davis Station in
Saigon was named
for him.
Hostile deaths:
47,378
Non-hostile deaths:
10,800
Total: 58,202
(Includes men
formerly classified
as MIA and Mayaguez
casualties). Men
who have
subsequently died of
wounds account for
the changing total.
DRAFTEES VS. VOLUNTEERS:
RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND:
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS:
DRUG USAGE & CRIME:
WINNING & LOSING:
HONORABLE SERVICE:
INTERESTING CENSUS STATISTICS &THOSE TO CLAIM TO HAVE "Been There":
The Department of Defense Vietnam War Service Index officially provided by The War Library originally reported with errors that 2,709,918 U.S. military personnel as having served in-country. Corrections and confirmations to this erred index resulted in the addition of 358 U.S. military personnel confirmed to have served in Vietnam but not originally listed by the Department of Defense. (All names are currently on file and accessible 24/7/365). Isolated atrocities committed by American soldiers produced torrents of outrage from anti-war critics and the news media while communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any media mention at all. The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy. Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while communists who did so received commendations. From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers. - Nixon Presidential Papers. Any man or woman who may be asked in this century what they did to make life worthwhile in their lifetime....can respond with a great deal of pride and satisfaction, "I served a career in the United States Military" 
General Vo Nguyen
Giap
Ken Milenovic
General Giap was a
brilliant, highly
respected leader of
the North Vietnam
military. The
following quote is
from his memoirs
currently found in
the Vietnam war
memorial in Hanoi :
'What we still
don't understand
is why you
Americans
stopped the
bombing of Hanoi
. You had us on
the ropes. If
you had pressed
us a little
harder, just for
another day or
two, we were
ready to
surrender! It
was the same at
the battle of
TET. You
defeated us! We
knew it, and we
thought you knew
it. But we were
elated to notice
your media was
helping us. They
were causing
more disruption
in America than
we could in the
battlefields. We
were ready to
surrender. You
had won!'
General Giap has
published his
memoirs and
confirmed what
most Americans
knew. The
Vietnam war was
not lost in
Vietnam -- it
was lost at
home. The same
slippery slope,
sponsored by the
US media, is
currently
underway. It
exposes the
enormous power
of a Biased
Media to cut out
the heart and
will of the
American public.
A truism worthy
of note: ... Do
not fear the
enemy, for they
can take only
your life.
Fear the media,
for they will
destroy your
honor.
The Star
Spangled Banner
Terry Roderick Papa
Co Ranger Vietnam
1969-70
“So, with all the
kindness I can
muster, I give this
one piece of advice
to the next pop star
who is asked to sing
the national anthem
at a sporting event:
save the vocal
gymnastics and the
physical gyrations
for your concerts.
Just sing this song
the way you were
taught to sing it in
kindergarten —
straight up, no
styling. Sing it
with the constant
awareness that there
are soldiers,
sailors, airmen and
Marines watching you
from bases and
outposts all over
the world.
Don’t make them
cringe with your
self-centered ego
gratification. Sing
it as if you are
standing before a
row of 86-year-old
WWII vets wearing
their Purple Hearts,
Silver Stars and
flag pins on their
cardigans and you
want them to be
proud of you for
honoring them and
the country they
love — not because
you want them to
think you are a
superstar musician.
They could see that
from the costumes,
the makeup and the
entourages. Sing
“The Star Spangled
Banner” with the
courtesy and
humility that tells
the audience that it
is about America,
not you.”
The Last Six
Seconds
Lt General John
Kelly, USMC
One can hardly
conceive of the
enormous grief held
quietly within
General Kelly as he
spoke.
On Nov 13, 2010, Lt
General John Kelly,
USMC gave a speech
to the Semper Fi
Society of St. Louis
, MO. This was 4
days after his son,
Lt Robert Kelly,
USMC was killed by
an IED while on his
3rd Combat tour.
During his speech,
General Kelly spoke
about the dedication
and valor of our
young men and women
who step forward
each and every day
to protect us.
During the speech,
he never mentioned
the loss of his own
son. He closed the
speech with the
moving account of
the last 6 seconds
in the lives of 2
young Marines who
died with rifles
blazing to protect
their brother
Marines. "I will
leave you with a
story about the kind
of people they are,
about the quality of
the steel in their
backs, about the
kind of dedication
they bring to our
country while they
serve in uniform and
forever after as
veterans.
Two years ago when I
was the Commander of
all U.S. and Iraqi
forces, in fact, the
22nd of April 2008,
two Marine infantry
battalions, 1/9 "The
Walking Dead," and
2/8 were switching
out in Ramadi. One
battalion in the
closing days of
their deployment
going home very
soon, the other just
starting its
seven-month combat
tour. Two Marines,
Corporal Jonathan
Yale and Lance
Corporal Jordan
Haerter, 22 and 20
years old
respectively, one
from each battalion,
were assuming the
watch together at
the entrance gate of
an outpost that
contained a
makeshift barracks
housing 50 Marines.
The same broken down
ramshackle building
was also home to 100
Iraqi police, also
my men and our
allies in the fight
against the
terrorists in Ramadi,
a city until
recently the most
dangerous city on
earth and owned by
Al Qaeda.
Yale was a dirt poor
mixed-race kid from
Virginia with a wife
and daughter, and a
mother and sister
who lived with him
and he supported as
well. He did this on
a yearly salary of
less than $23,000.
Haerter, on the
other hand, was a
middle class white
kid from Long Island
. They were from two
completely different
worlds. Had they not
joined the Marines
they would never
have met each other,
or understood that
multiple Americas
exist simultaneously
depending on one's
race, education
level, economic
status, and where
you might have been
born. But they were
Marines, combat
Marines, forged in
the same crucible of
Marine training, and
because of this bond
they were brothers
as close, or closer,
than if they were
born of the same
woman.
The mission orders
they received from
the sergeant squad
leader I am sure
went something like:
"Okay you two
clowns, stand this
post and let no
unauthorized
personnel or
vehicles pass." "You
clear?" I am also
sure Yale and
Haerter then rolled
their eyes and said
in unison something
like: "Yes
Sergeant," with just
enough attitude that
made the point
without saying the
words, "No kidding
sweetheart, we know
what we're doing."
They then relieved
two other Marines on
watch and took up
their post at the
entry control point
of Joint Security
Station Nasser, in
the Sophia section
of Ramadi, Al Anbar,
Iraq .
A few minutes later
a large blue truck
turned down the
alley way-perhaps
60-70 yards in
length-and sped its
way through the
serpentine of
concrete jersey
walls. The truck
stopped just short
of where the two
were posted and
detonated, killing
them both
catastrophically.
Twenty-four brick
masonry houses were
damaged or
destroyed. A mosque
100 yards away
collapsed. The
truck's engine came
to rest two hundred
yards away knocking
most of a house down
before it stopped.
Our explosive
experts reckoned the
blast was made of
2,000 pounds of
explosives. Two
died, and because
these two young
infantrymen didn't
have it in their DNA
to run from danger,
they saved 150 of
their Iraqi and
American
brothers-in-arms.
When I read the
situation report
about the incident a
few hours after it
happened I called
the regimental
commander for
details as something
about this struck me
as different.
Marines dying or
being seriously
wounded is
commonplace in
combat. We expect
Marines regardless
of rank or MOS to
stand their ground
and do their duty,
and even die in the
process, if that is
what the mission
takes. But this just
seemed different.
The regimental
commander had just
returned from the
site and he agreed,
but reported that
there were no
American witnesses
to the event-just
Iraqi police. I
figured if there was
any chance of
finding out what
actually happened
and then to decorate
the two Marines to
acknowledge their
bravery, I'd have to
do it as a combat
award that requires
two eye-witnesses
and we figured the
bureaucrats back in
Washington would
never buy Iraqi
statements. If it
had any chance at
all, it had to come
under the signature
of a general
officer.
I traveled to Ramadi
the next day and
spoke individually
to a half-dozen
Iraqi police all of
whom told the same
story. The blue
truck turned down
into the alley and
immediately sped up
as it made its way
through the
serpentine. They all
said, "We knew
immediately what was
going on as soon as
the two Marines
began firing." The
Iraqi police then
related that some of
them also fired, and
then to a man, ran
for safety just
prior to the
explosion. All
survived. Many were
injured, some
seriously. One of
the Iraqis
elaborated and with
tears welling up
said, "They'd run
like any normal man
would to save his
life." "What he
didn't know until
then," he said, "and
what he learned that
very instant, was
that Marines are not
normal." Choking
past the emotion he
said, "Sir, in the
name of God no sane
man would have stood
there and done what
they did." "No sane
man." "They saved us
all."
What we didn't know
at the time, and
only learned a
couple of days later
after I wrote a
summary and
submitted both Yale
and Haerter for
posthumous Navy
Crosses, was that
one of our security
cameras, damaged
initially in the
blast, recorded some
of the suicide
attack. It happened
exactly as the
Iraqis had described
it. It took exactly
six seconds from
when the truck
entered the alley
until it detonated.
You can watch the
last six seconds of
their young lives.
Putting myself in
their heads I
supposed it took
about a second for
the two Marines to
separately come to
the same conclusion
about what was going
on once the truck
came into their view
at the far end of
the alley. Exactly
no time to talk it
over, or call the
sergeant to ask what
they should do. Only
enough time to take
half an instant and
think about what the
sergeant told them
to do only a few
minutes before: "let
no unauthorized
personnel or
vehicles pass." The
two Marines had
about five seconds
left to live.
It took maybe
another two seconds
for them to present
their weapons, take
aim, and open up. By
this time the truck
was half-way through
the barriers and
gaining speed the
whole time. Here,
the recording shows
a number of Iraqi
police, some of whom
had fired their AKs,
now scattering like
the normal and
rational men they
were-some running
right past the
Marines. They had
three seconds left
to live.
For about two
seconds more, the
recording shows the
Marines' weapons
firing non-stop, the
truck's windshield
exploding into
shards of glass as
their rounds take it
apart and tore in to
the body of the
son-of-a-bitch who
is trying to get
past them to kill
their
brothers-American
and Iraqi-bedded
down in the barracks
totally unaware of
the fact that their
lives at that moment
depended entirely on
two Marines standing
their ground. If
they had been aware,
they would have
known they were safe
because two Marines
stood between them
and a crazed suicide
bomber.
The recording shows
the truck careening
to a stop
immediately in front
of the two Marines.
In all of the
instantaneous
violence Yale and
Haerter never
hesitated. By all
reports and by the
recording, they
never stepped back.
They never even
started to step
aside. They never
even shifted their
weight. With their
feet spread shoulder
width apart, they
leaned into the
danger, firing as
fast as they could
work their weapons.
They had only one
second left to live.
The truck explodes.
The camera goes
blank. Two young men
go to their God. Six
seconds. Not enough
time to think about
their families,
their country, their
flag, or about their
lives or their
deaths, but more
than enough time for
two very brave young
men to do their
duty.into eternity.
That is the kind of
people who are on
watch all over the
world tonight-for
you.
We Marines believe
that God gave
America the greatest
gift he could bestow
to man while he
lived on this
earth-freedom. We
also believe he gave
us another gift
nearly as
precious-our
soldiers, sailors,
airmen, Coast
Guardsmen, and
Marines-to safeguard
that gift and
guarantee no force
on this earth can
every steal it away.
It has been my
distinct honor to
have been with you
here today. Rest
assured our America
, this experiment in
democracy started
over two centuries
ago, will forever
remain the "land of
the free and home of
the brave" so long
as we never run out
of tough young
Americans who are
willing to look
beyond their own
self-interest and
comfortable lives,
and go into the
darkest and most
dangerous places on
earth to hunt down,
and kill, those who
would do us harm.
God Bless America ,
and SEMPER FIDELIS
I'm just
Sayin'
by Joe Schmidt
The state of
Wisconsin has gone
an entire deer
hunting season
without someone
getting killed.
That's great.
There were over
600,000 hunters.
Allow me to restate
that number. Over
the last two months,
the eighth largest
army
in the world - more
men under arms than
Iran; more than
France and Germany
combined - deployed
to the woods of a
single American
state to help keep
the deer menace at
bay.
That pales in
comparison to the
750,000 who are in
the woods of
Pennsylvania this
week. Michigan 's
700,000 hunters have
now returned home.
Toss in a quarter
million hunters in
West Virginia, and
it is literally the
case that the
hunters of those
four states alone
would comprise the
largest army in the
world.
The point? America
will forever be safe
from foreign
invasion with that
kind of home-grown
firepower.
Hunting -- it's not
just a way to fill
the freezer. It's a
matter of national
security.
Veteran to
Veteran
by Chuck Pelligrini
US Navy Medic
Veteran
When a Veteran
leaves the 'job' and
retires to a better
life, many are
jealous, some are
pleased, and
others, who may have
already retired,
wonder if he knows
what he is leaving
behind, because we
already know.
1. We know, for
example, that
after a lifetime
of camaraderie
that few
experience, it
will remain as a
longing for
those past
times.
2. We know in
the Military
life there is a
fellowship
which lasts long
after the
uniforms are
hung up in the
back of
the closet.
3. We know even
if he throws
them away, they
will be on
him with every
step and breath
that remains in
his life. We
also know how
the very bearing
of the man
speaks of what
he was and in
his heart still
is.
These are the
burdens of the
job. You will
still look
at people
suspiciously,
still see what
others do not
see or choose to
ignore and
always will look
at the rest of
the Military
world with a
respect for what
they do; only
grown in a
lifetime of
knowing.
Never think for
one moment you
are escaping
from that
life. You are
only escaping
the 'job' and
merely
being allowed to
leave 'active'
duty.
So what I wish
for you is that
whenever you
ease
into retirement,
in your heart
you never forget
for one
moment that you
are still a
member of the
greatest
fraternity
the world has
ever known.
NOW! Civilian
Friends vs.
Veteran Friends
Comparisons
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Get upset if you're
too busy to talk to
them for a week.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Are
glad to see you
after years, and
will happily carry
on the same
conversation you
were having the last
time you met.
------------------------------
---------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Have never seen you
cry.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Have cried with you.
---------------------------------------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Keep your stuff so
long they forget
it's yours.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Borrow your stuff
for a few days then
give it back.
------------------------------
-------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Know a few things
about you.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Could write a book
with direct quotes
from you.
---------------------------------------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Will leave you
behind if that's
what the crowd is
doing.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Will kick the
crowd's ass that
left you behind.
---------------------------------------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Are for a while.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Are
for life.
----------------------------------------------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Have shared a few
experiences...
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Have shared a
lifetime of
experiences no
citizen could ever
dream of...
---------------------------------------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Will take your drink
away when they think
you've had enough.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Will look at you
stumbling all over
the place and say,
'You better drink
the rest of that
before you spill
it!' Then carry you
home safely and put
you to bed...
--------------------------------
--------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Will talk crap to
the person who talks
crap about you.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Will knock the hell
out OF THEM for
using your name in
vain.
---------------------------------------------------
CIVILIAN FRIENDS:
Will ignore this.
VETERAN FRIENDS:
Will forward this.
----------------------------------------------------
A veteran - whether
active duty,
retired, or
reserve- is someone
who, at one point in
their life, wrote a
blank check made
payable to 'The
Government of the
United States of
America ' for an
amount of 'up to and
including my life'.
From one Veteran to
another, it's an
honor to be in your
company. Thank you.
The Legacy
of Tinian Island,
South Pacific Ocean
by Guy Anhorn RVN
Class of 1968
Tinian is a
small island,
less than 40
square miles, a
flat green dot
in the vastness
of Pacific blue.
It is still used
today as
training
for Marine
amphibious
landings.
In this aerial view
you notice a slash
across its north end
of uninhabited bush,
a long thin line
that looks like an
overgrown dirt
runway. If you
didn't know what it
was, you wouldn't
give it a second
glance out your
airplane window.
On the ground,
you would find
that the runway
isn't dirt but
tarmac and crushed
limestone, abandoned
with weeds sticking
out of it. Yet this
is arguably the most
historical airstrip
on earth. This is
where World War II
was won. This is
Runway Able.
On July 24,
1944,
30,000 US Marines
landed on the
beaches of Tinian.
One was a marine
carrying a flamer
thrower, my
step-father,
Corporal Thomas
Francis Cotter
a combat engineer of
the 8th Regiment,
2nd Marine Division.
Late in the
afternoon of August
5, 1945, a B-29 was
maneuvered over a
bomb loading pit,
then after lengthy
preparations, taxied
to the east end of
North Field's main
runway, Runway Able,
and at 2:45am in the
early morning
darkness of August
6, took off.
The B-29 was piloted
by Col. Paul Tibbets
of the US Army Air
Force, who had named
the plane after his
mother,
Enola Gay.
The crew named the
bomb they were
carrying Little
Boy. 6˝ hours later
at 8:15am Japan
time, the first
atomic bomb was
dropped on
Hiroshima.
Three days later, in
the pre-dawn hours
of August 9, a B-29
named Bockscar (a
pun on "boxcar"
after its flight
commander Capt. Fred
Bock), piloted by
Major Charles
Sweeney took off
from Runway Able.
Finding its primary
target of Kokura
obscured by clouds,
Sweeney proceeded to
the secondary target
of Nagasaki, over
which, at 11:01am,
bombardier Kermit
Beahan released the
atomic bomb dubbed
Fat Man.
16 hours after the
nuking of Nagasaki
on August 10, 1945
at 0300hrs, the
Japanese Emperor
without his
cabinet's consent
decided to end the
Pacific War.
This is where World
War II ended with
total victory of
America over Japan .
It was a moment of
deep reflection.
Most people, when
they think of
Hiroshima and
Nagasaki , reflect
on the numbers of
lives killed in the
nuclear blasts - at
least 70,000 and
50,000 respectively.
How many more
Japanese and
Americans would have
died in a
continuation of the
war had the nukes
not been dropped ?
Yet that was not
all. It's not just
that the nukes
obviated the US
invasion of Japan ,
Operation Downfall,
that would have
caused upwards of a
million American and
Japanese deaths or
more. It's that
nuking Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were of
extraordinary
humanitarian benefit
to the nation and
people of Japan .
A cliff on the
nearby island of
Saipan tells the
story why. Saipan
is less than a mile
north of Tinian.
The month before the
Marines took Tinian,
on June 15, 1944,
71,000 Marines
landed on Saipan
facing 31,000
Japanese soldiers
determined not to
surrender.
There were also one
or two thousand
Korean "comfort
women" (kanji in
Japanese), abducted
young women from
Japan 's colony of
Korea to service the
Japanese soldiers as
sex slaves.
Within a week of
their landing, the
Marines set up a
civilian prisoner
encampment that
quickly attracted a
couple thousand
Japanese and others
wanting US food and
protection. When
word of this reached
Emperor Hirohito he
became alarmed that
radio interviews of
the well-treated
prisoners broadcast
to Japan would
subvert his people's
will to fight.
Emperor issued an
order for all
Japanese civilians
on Saipan to commit
suicide. The order
included the promise
that, although the
civilians were of
low caste, their
suicide would grant
them a status in
heaven equal to
those honored
soldiers who died in
combat for their
Emperor. That is why
the precipice in the
picture is known as
Suicide Cliff, off
which over 20,000
Japanese civilians
jumped to their
deaths to comply
with their fascist
emperor's desire,
mothers flinging
their babies off the
cliff first or in
their arms as they
jumped. Corporal
Cotter witnessed
this and it has
affected him to this
day.
Anyone reluctant or
refused, such as the
Okinawan or Korean
slaves, were shoved
off at gunpoint by
the Jap soldiers.
Then the soldiers
themselves proceeded
to hurl themselves
into the ocean to
drown off a sea
cliff afterwards
called Banzai
Cliff. Of the
31,000 Japanese
soldiers on Saipan ,
the Marines killed
25,000, 5,000 jumped
off Banzai Cliff,
and only the
remaining thousand
were taken prisoner.
The extent of this
demented fanaticism
is very hard for any
civilized mind to
fathom - especially
when it is devoted
not to anything
noble but barbarian
evil instead. The
vast brutalities
inflicted by the
Japanese on their
conquered and
colonized peoples of
China , Korea , the
Philippines , and
throughout their
"Greater East Asia
Co-Prosperity
Sphere" was a
hideously depraved
horror.
And they were
willing to fight to
the death to defend
it. So they had to
be nuked. The only
way to put an end to
the Japanese
barbarian horror was
unimaginably
colossal destruction
against which they
had no defense
whatever. Nuking
Japan was not a
matter of justice,
revenge, or it
getting what it
deserved. It was
the only way to end
the Japanese
dementia.
And it worked - for
the Japanese. They
stopped being
barbarians and
started being
civilized. They
achieved more
prosperity - and
peace - than they
ever knew, or could
have achieved had
they continued
fighting and not
been nuked. The
shock of getting
nuked is
responsible.
We achieved this
because we were
determined to
achieve victory.
Victory without
apologies. Despite
perennial liberal
demands we do so,
America and its
government has never
apologized for
nuking Japan.
Hopefully, America
never will.
You can leave the
military, but it
never really leaves
you
By Ken Burger The
Post and Courier
Thursday, March 4,
2010
Occasionally, I
venture back out to
the air base where
I'm greeted by an
imposing security
guard who looks
carefully at my
identification card,
hands it back and
says, "Have a good
day, tech sergeant."
Every time I go back
onto Charleston Air
Force Base it feels
good to be called by
my previous rank,
but odd to be in
civilian clothes,
walking among the
servicemen and
servicewomen going
about their duties
as I once did, years
ago.
The military, for
all its flaws, is a
comfort zone for
anyone who has ever
worn the uniform.
It's a place where
you know the rules
and know they are
enforced. A place
where everybody is
busy but not too
busy to take care of
business.
Because there exists
behind the gates of
every military
facility an
institutional
understanding of
respect, order,
uniformity,
accountability and
dedication that
becomes part of your
marrow and never,
ever leaves you.
Reading uniforms
Personally, I miss
the fact that you
always knew where
you stood in the
military, and who
you were dealing
with. That's because
you could read
somebody's uniform
from 20 feet away
and know the score.
Service personnel
wear their careers
on their sleeves, so
to speak. When you
approach each other,
you can read their
name tag, examine
their rank and, if
they are in dress
uniform, read their
ribbons and know
where they've
served.
I miss all those
little things you
take for granted
when you're in the
ranks, like breaking
starch on a set of
fatigues fresh from
the laundry and
standing in a
perfectly straight
line that looks like
a mirror as it
stretches to the
endless horizon.
I miss the sight of
troops marching in
the early morning
mist, the sound of
boot heels thumping
in unison on the
sidewalks, the bark
of sergeants and the
sing-song answers
from the squads as
they pass by in
review.
Hurry up and wait
To romanticize
military service is
to be far removed
from its reality,
because it's very
serious business,
especially in times
of war.
But I miss the
salutes I'd throw at
officers and the
crisp returns as we
crisscrossed on the
flight line.
I miss the smell of
jet fuel hanging
heavily on the night
air and the sound of
engines roaring down
runways and
disappearing into
the clouds.
I even miss the
hurry-up-and- wait
mentality that
enlisted men gripe
about constantly, a
masterful invention
that bonded people
more than they'll
ever know or admit.
I miss people taking
off their hats when
they enter a
building, speaking
directly and clearly
to others and never
showing disrespect
for rank, race,
religion or gender.
Mostly I miss being
a small cog in a
machine so complex
it constantly
circumnavigates the
Earth and so simple
it feeds everyone on
time, three times a
day, on the ground,
in the air or at
sea.
Mostly, I don't know
anyone who has
served who regrets
it, and doesn't feel
a sense of pride
when they pass
through those gates
and re-enter the
world they left
behind with their
youth.
NEWSWEEK: Right
Wing: Mosque at
Ground Zero is a
"Slap in the Face."
Plans for the construction of a mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero are prompting outrage in the blogosphere, but the emotional reaction appears to falling on deaf ears. The Cordoba House project, according to CNN, calls for a 15-story community center that would include a performance-art center, gym, swimming pool, and a mosque. So far there seems little indication the city will do anything to appease those opposed to it. 
Heroes of
the Vietnam
Generation
By Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb The rapidly disappearing cohort of Americans that endured the Great Depression and then fought World War II is receiving quite a send-off from the leading lights of the so-called 60's generation. Tom Brokaw has published two oral histories of "The Greatest Generation" that feature ordinary people doing their duty and suggest that such conduct was historically unique.
Chris Matthews of
"Hardball" is fond
of writing columns
praising the Navy
service of his
father while
castigating his own
baby boomer
generation for its
alleged softness and
lack of struggle.
William Bennett gave
a startling
condescending speech
at the Naval Academy
a few years ago
comparing the
heroism of the
"D-Day Generation"
to the drugs-and-sex
nihilism of the
"Woodstock
Generation." And
Steven Spielberg, in
promoting his film
"Saving Private
Ryan," was careful
to justify his
portrayals of
soldiers in action
based on the
supposedly unique
nature of World War
II. An irony is at
work here. Lest we
forget, the World
War II generation
now being lionized
also brought us the
Vietnam War, a
conflict which
today's most
conspicuous voices
by and large
opposed, and in
which few of them
served. The "best
and brightest" of
the Vietnam age
group once made
headlines by
castigating their
parents for bringing
about the war in
which they would not
fight, which has
become the war they
refuse to remember.
Pundits back then
invented a term for
this animus: the
"generation gap."
Long, plaintive
articles and even
books were written
examining its
manifestations.
Campus leaders, who
claimed precocious
wisdom through the
magical process of
reading a few
controversial books,
urged fellow baby
boomers not to trust
anyone over 30.
Their elders who had
survived the
Depression and
fought the largest
war in history were
looked down upon as
shallow,
materialistic, and
out of touch. Those
of us who grew up,
on the other side of
the picket line from
that era's
counter-culture
can't help but feel
a little leery of
this sudden gush of
appreciation for our
elders from the
leading lights of
the old
counter-culture.
Then and now, the
national
conversation has
proceeded from the
dubious assumption
that those who came
of age during
Vietnam are a
unified generation
in the same sense as
their parents were,
and thus are capable
of being spoken for
through these fickle
elites.
In truth, the
"Vietnam generation"
is a misnomer. Those
who came of age
during that war are
permanently divided
by different
reactions to a whole
range of
counter-cultural
agendas, and nothing
divides them more
deeply than the
personal
ramifications of the
war itself. The
sizable portion of
the Vietnam age
group who declined
to support the
counter-cultural
agenda, and
especially the men
and women who opted
to serve in the
military during the
Vietnam War, are
quite different from
their peers who for
decades have claimed
to speak for them.
In fact, they are
much like the World
War II generation
itself. For them,
Woodstock was a side
show, college
protestors were
spoiled brats who
would have benefited
from having to work
a few jobs in order
to pay their
tuition, and Vietnam
represented not an
intellectual
exercise in draft
avoidance, or
protest marches but
a battlefield that
was just as brutal
as those their
fathers faced in
World War II and
Korea.
Few who served
during Vietnam ever
complained of a
generation gap. The
men who fought World
War II were their
heroes and role
models. They honored
their father's
service by emulating
it, and largely
agreed with their
father's wisdom in
attempting to stop
Communism's reach in
Southeast Asia. The
most accurate poll
of their attitudes
(Harris, 1980)
showed that 91
percent were glad
they'd served their
country, 74 percent
enjoyed their time
in the service, and
89 percent agreed
with the statement
that "our troops
were asked to fight
in a war which our
political leaders in
Washington would not
let them win." And
most importantly,
the castigation they
received upon
returning home was
not from the World
War II generation,
but from the very
elites in their age
group who supposedly
spoke for them. Nine
million men served
in the military
during Vietnam War,
three million of
whom went to the
Vietnam Theater.
Contrary to popular
mythology,
two-thirds of these
were volunteers, and
73 percent of those
who died were
volunteers. While
some attention has
been paid recently
to the plight of our
prisoners of war,
most of whom were
pilots; there has
been little
recognition of how
brutal the war was
for those who fought
it on the ground.
Dropped onto the
enemy's terrain
12,000 miles away
from home, America's
citizen-soldiers
performed with a
tenacity and quality
that may never be
truly understood.
Those who believe
the war was fought
incompletely on a
tactical level
should consider
Hanoi's recent
admission that 1.4
million of its
soldiers died on the
battlefield,
compared to 58,000
total U.S. dead.
Those who believe
that it was a "dirty
little war" where
the bombs did all
the work might
contemplate that is
was the most costly
war the U.S. Marine
Corps has ever
fought-five times as
many dead as World
War I, three times
as many dead as in
Korea, and more
total killed and
wounded than in all
of World War II.
Significantly, these
sacrifices were
being made at a time
the United States
was deeply divided
over our effort in
Vietnam. The
baby-boom generation
had cracked apart
along class lines as
America's young men
were making
difficult,
life-or-death
choices about
serving.
The better academic
institutions became
focal points for
vitriolic protest
against the war,
with few of their
graduates going into
the military.
Harvard College,
which had lost 691
alumni in World War
II, lost a total of
12 men in Vietnam
from the classes of
1962 through 1972
combined. Those
classes at Princeton
lost six, at MIT
two. The media
turned ever more
hostile. And
frequently the
reward for a young
man's having gone
through the trauma
of combat was to be
greeted by his peers
with studied
indifference of
outright hostility.
What is a hero? My
heroes are the young
men who faced the
issues of war and
possible death, and
then weighed those
concerns against
obligations to their
country.
Citizen-soldiers who
interrupted their
personal and
professional lives
at their most
formative stage, in
the timeless phrase
of the Confederate
Memorial in
Arlington National
Cemetery,
"not for fame of
reward, not for
place of for rank,
but in simple
obedience to duty,
as they understood
it." Who
suffered loneliness,
disease, and wounds
with an
often-contagious
elan. And who
deserve a far better
place in history
than that now
offered them by the
so-called spokesman
of our so-called
generation. Mr.
Brokaw, Mr.
Matthews, Mr.
Bennett, Mr.
Spielberg, meet my
Marines. 1969 was an
odd year to be in
Vietnam. Second only
to 1968 in terms of
American casualties,
it was the year made
famous by Hamburger
Hill, as well as the
gut-wrenching Life
cover story showing
pictures of 242
Americans who had
been killed in one
average week of
fighting. Back home,
it was the year of
Woodstock, and of
numerous anti-war
rallies that
culminated in the
Moratorium march on
Washington.
The My Lai massacre
hit the papers and
was seized upon the
anti-war movement as
the emblematic
moment of the war.
Lyndon Johnson left
Washington in utter
humiliation. Richard
Nixon entered the
scene, destined for
an even worse fate.
In the An Hoa Basin
southwest of Danang,
the Fifth Marine
Regiment was in its
third year of
continuous combat
operations. Combat
is an unpredictable
and inexact
environment, but we
were well led. As a
rifle platoon and
company commander, I
served under a
succession of three
regimental
commanders who had
cut their teeth in
World War II, and
four different
battalion
commanders, three of
whom had seen combat
in Korea. The
company commanders
were typically
captains on their
second combat tour
in Vietnam, or young
first lieutenants
like myself who were
given companies
after many months of
"bush time" as
platoon commanders
in he Basin's tough
and unforgiving
environs.
The Basin was one of
the most heavily
contested areas in
Vietnam, its torn,
cratered earth
offering every sort
of wartime
possibility. In the
mountains just to
the west, not far
from the Ho Chi Minh
Trail, the North
Vietnamese Army
operated an infantry
division from an
area called Base
Area 112. In the
valleys of the
Basin, main-force
Viet Cong battalions
whose ranks were 80
percent North
Vietnamese Army
regulars moved
against the
Americans every day.
Local Viet Cong
units sniped and
harassed. Ridgelines
and paddy dikes were
laced with
sophisticated booby
traps of every size,
from a hand grenade
to a 250-pound bomb.
The villages sat in
the rice paddies and
tree lines like
individual
fortresses,
crisscrossed with
the trenches and
spider holes, their
homes sporting
bunkers capable of
surviving direct
hits from
large-caliber
artillery shells.
The Viet Cong
infrastructure was
intricate and
permeating. Except
for the old and the
very young,
villagers who did
not side with the
Communists had
either been killed
or driven out to the
government
controlled enclaves
near Danang.
 We had been told while training that Marine officers in the rifle companies had an 85 percent probability of being killed or wounded, and the experience of "Dying Delta," as our company was known, bore that out. Of the officers in the bush when I arrived, our company commander was wounded, the weapons platoon commander wounded, the first platoon commander was killed, the second platoon commander was wounded twice, and I, commanding the third platoons fared no better. Two of my original three-squad leaders were killed, and the third shot in the stomach. My platoon sergeant was severely wounded, as was my right guide. By the time I left, my platoon I had gone through six radio operators, five of them casualties. These figures were hardly unique; in fact, they were typical. Many other units; for instance, those who fought the hill battles around Khe Sanh, or were with the famed Walking Dead of the Ninth Marine Regiment, or were in the battle of Hue City or at Dai Do, had it far worse. When I remember those days and the very young men who spent them with me, I am continually amazed, for these were mostly recent civilians barley out of high school, called up from the cities and the farms to do their year in hell and he return. Visions haunt me everyday, not of the nightmares of war but of the steady consistency with which my Marines faced their responsibilities, and of how uncomplaining most of them were in the face of constant danger. The salty, battle-hardened 20-year-olds teaching green 19-year-olds the intricate lessons of the hostile battlefield.
The unerring skill
of the young squad
leaders as we moved
through unfamiliar
villages and
weed-choked trails
in the black of
night. The quick
certainty when a
fellow Marine was
wounded and needed
help. Their
willingness to risk
their lives to save
other Marines in
peril. To this day
it stuns me that
their own countrymen
have so completely
missed the story of
their service, lost
in the bitter
confusion of the war
itself. Like every
military unit
throughout history
we had occasional
laggards, cowards,
and complainers. But
in the aggregate,
these Marines were
the finest people I
have ever been
around. It has been
my privilege to keep
up with many of them
over the years since
we all came home.
One finds in them
very little
bitterness about the
war in which they
fought. The most
common regret,
almost to a man, is
that they were not
able to do more for
each other and for
the people they came
to help. It would be
redundant to say
that I would trust
my life to these
men.
Because I already have, in more ways than I can ever recount. I am alive today because of their quiet, unaffected heroism. Such valor epitomizes the conduct of Americans at war from the first days of our existence. That the boomer elites can canonize this sort of conduct in our fathers' generation while ignoring it in our own is more than simple oversight. It is a conscious, continuing travesty. Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb was awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and Bronze Star medals for heroism as a Marine in Vietnam. His novels include The Emperor's General and Fields of Fire.
Why would
anyone need to
lie about having
been in Vietnam?
Washington Post
Article by Henry
Allen
2010-05-20
O,the stained
souls, the
small-hours
doubts, the
troubled manhood
of so many
American men who
didn't go to
Vietnam when
they could have
-- the strange
guilt they seem
to feel when
they confront
Vietnam
veterans.
 Strange: There were some cheaters and liars, but all that most of them did was exercise their legal rights, in the manner of Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut attorney general and Democratic Senate candidate -- five deferments, then a safe stateside slot in the Marine reserves.
They had a right
to avoid the
draft with
academic
deferments,
occupational
deferments and
medical
deferments
obtained from
doctors noted
for their
artistry in
taking X-rays of
dangerous
deformities.
They were entitled to get married and sire a child that could bring them a 3-A hardship deferment. Couldn't these men argue that they had a moral obligation not to fight in an immoral, pointless war? Wasn't it true that "winners go to Harvard, losers go to Vietnam," as the wisecrack had it? The case can be made that these men -- often upscale and educated, the sort of people who are supposed to lead this country -- acted legally and even honorably in using their social status and intelligence to stay out of Vietnam. But the stains and doubts linger. Vietnam veterans who don't care whether somebody served have had to sit through plaintive confessions. "I got a high number in the draft lottery," the non-servers say in a tone of remorse. "You lucked out," veterans say, but the lucky ones are not consoled. To prove they couldn't have gone even if they'd wanted to, men have been known to pull up their shirts to show the scars from youthful back surgery. "They fused all those vertebrae." So many confessions. Pathetic. It was 40 years ago. Forget about it. "I was going into officer training but then I got a full scholarship to Oxford." "Good for you," the veterans say. But the scholars are not consoled. Of course, Blumenthal didn't get in trouble for confessing he had ducked Vietnam but for lying that he hadn't, for saying that he'd served there. What demon haunts him and others like him? What inconsolable regret provoked these desperate lies? He didn't have to claim he'd been in Vietnam. He already had the résumé to be a shoo-in candidate. Rich kid, Harvard (editor of the Crimson), reporter at The Washington Post, Yale Law School (editor of the law journal), almost two decades as attorney general, the perfect knowledge-class candidate of the kind favored by modern Democrats. (In looks, however, he does bear an unsettling resemblance to disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.) Bill Clinton not only dodged the draft but lied to do it, and still we elected him president over a World War II combat flier -- though Clinton never lied about having been in Vietnam. George W. Bush spent his war flying fighters over Texas and still defeated Al Gore, who had served in Vietnam. Then Bush beat John Kerry, a wounded and be-medaled Vietnam veteran. Dick Cheney's military record -- he got five academic deferments -- didn't seem to hurt his political career, and he was bold enough to say to a Washington Post reporter: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
Of course none
of them lied
about having
been in Vietnam
-- a
catastrophically
stupid thing to
do, a fact that
is easily
checked. What
would propel
Blumenthal to do
such a thing?
As a Marine (and
Vietnam veteran
of no
distinction
whatsoever),
I've run into
men who told me
they'd been in
the Marines,
too. Always
happy to meet a
fellow Marine,
I'd ask what
unit they served
in. "Oh, I was
in . . . the
173rd . . ."
Except there is
no 173rd in the
Marine Corps.
I've felt
embarrassed for
them and
wondered how
empty their
lives were that
they'd tell such
a lie. Jim
Lehrer, PBS
anchorman and
former Marine,
wrote a pungent
little novel,
"The Phony
Marine," about
this quirk in
the male ego.
Once I listened to a former war-zone correspondent who was eager to demonstrate that his time under fire was the same as a soldier's. He said: I'd get up in the morning and face the decision of whether I should head out where it was really dangerous. But soldiers don't get to decide. They don't have choices. That's part of the hell of war. The fact is that regardless of whether a war was moral, justified, won or meaningful, having served in one -- particularly in combat -- confers prestige. Harvard and Yale and social connections are nice, but at 3 o'clock in the morning you find yourself outranked by high school dropouts whose names are on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial. Not in the eyes of the world, but in your own eyes. What a withering stare it must be for some men, that they'll shame themselves far worse than they were shamed before, by telling a lie. Henry Allen, who won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 2000, was a Post editor and reporter for 39 years.
Vietnam:
Looking Back - At
The Facts
K. G. Sears, Ph.D.
mrken @saigonnet.vn
One reason America’s
agonizing perception
of "Vietnam" will
not go away, is
because that
perception is wrong.
It’s out of place in
the American psyche,
and it continues to
fester in much the
same way battle
wounds fester when
shrapnel or other
foreign matter is
left in the body. It
is not normal
behavior for
Americans to idolize
mass murdering
despots, to champion
the cause of
slavery, to abandon
friends and allies,
or to cut and run in
the face of
adversity. Why then
did so many
Americans engage in
these types of
activities during
the country’s
"Vietnam"
experience?
That the American
experience in
Vietnam was painful
and ended in long
lasting (albeit
self-inflicted)
grief and misery can
not be disputed.
However, the reasons
behind that grief
and misery are not
even remotely
understood - by
either the American
people or their
government.
Contradictory to
popular belief, and
a whole lot of
wishful thinking by
a solid corps of
some 16,000,000+
American draft
dodgers and their
families /
supporters, it was
not a military
defeat that brought
misfortune to the
American effort in
Vietnam.
The United States
military in Vietnam
was the best
educated, best
trained, best
disciplined and most
successful force
ever fielded in the
history of American
arms. Why then, did
it get such bad
press, and, why is
the public’s opinion
of them so twisted?
The answer is
simple. But first a
few relevant
comparisons.
During the Civil
War, at the Battle
of Bull Run, the
entire Union Army
panicked and fled
the battlefield.
Nothing even
remotely resembling
that debacle ever
occurred in Vietnam.
In WWII at the
Kasserine Pass in
Tunisia, elements of
the US Army were
overrun by the
Germans. In the
course of that
battle, Hitler’s
General Rommel (The
Desert Fox)
inflicted 3,100 US
casualties, took
3,700 US prisoners
and captured or
destroyed 198
American tanks. In
Vietnam no US
Military units were
overrun and no US
Military infantry
units or tank
outfits were
captured.
WW II again. In the
Philippines, US Army
Generals Jonathan
Wainwright and
Edward King
surrendered
themselves and their
troops to the
Japanese. In Vietnam
no US generals, or
US military units
ever surrendered.
Before the Normandy
invasion ("D" Day,
1944) the US Army
(In WW II the US
Army included the
Army Air Corps which
today has become the
US Airforce) in
England filled its
own jails with
American soldiers
who refused to fight
and then had to rent
jail space from the
British to handle
the overflow. The US
Army in Vietnam
never had to rent
jail space from the
Vietnamese to
incarcerate American
soldiers who refused
to fight.
Desertion. Only
about 5,000 men
assigned to Vietnam
deserted and just
249 of those
deserted while in
Vietnam. During WW
II, in the European
Theater alone, over
20,000 US Military
men were convicted
of dissertation and,
on a comparable
percentage basis,
the overall WW II
desertion rate was
55 percent higher
than in Vietnam.
During the WW II
Battle of the Bulge
in Europe two
regiments of the US
Army’s 106th
Division surrendered
to the Germans.
Again: In Vietnam no
US Army unit ever
surrendered.
The highest ranking
American soldier
killed in WW II was
Lt. (three star)
General Leslie J.
McNair. He was
killed when American
war planes
accidentally bombed
his position during
the invasion of
Europe. In Vietnam
there were no
American generals
killed by American
bombers.
As for brutality:
During WW II the US
Army executed nearly
300 of its own men.
In the European
Theater alone, the
US Army sentenced
443 American
soldiers to death.
Most of these
sentences were for
the rape and or
murder of civilians.
In the Korean War,
Major General
William F. Dean,
commander of the
24th Infantry
Division, was taken
prisoner of war
(POW). In Vietnam no
US generals, much
less division
commanders, were
ever taken prisoner.
During the Korean
War the US Army was
forced into the
longest retreat in
its history. A
catastrophic 275
mile withdrawal from
the Yalu River all
the way to Pyontaek,
45 miles south of
Seoul. In the
process they lost
the capital city of
Seoul. The US
Military in Vietnam
was never compelled
into a major retreat
nor did it ever
abandon Saigon to
the enemy.
The 1st US Marine
Division was driven
from the Chosin
Reservoir and forced
into an emergency
evacuation from the
Korean port of
Hungnam. There they
were joined by other
US Army and South
Korean soldiers and
the US Navy
eventually evacuated
105,000 Allied
troops from that
port. In Vietnam
there was never any
mass evacuation of
US Marine, South
Vietnamese or Allied
troop units.
Other items: Only 25
percent of the US
Military who served
in Vietnam were
draftees. During WW
II, 66 percent of
the troops were
draftees. The
Vietnam force
contained three
times as many
college graduates as
did the WW II force.
The average
education level of
the enlisted man in
Vietnam was 13
years, equivalent to
one year of college.
Of those who
enlisted, 79 percent
had high school
diplomas. This at a
time when only 65%
of the military age
males in the general
American population
were high school
graduates.
The average age of
the military men who
died in Vietnam was
22.8 years old. Of
the one hundred and
one (101) 18 year
old draftees who
died in Vietnam;
seven of them were
black. Blacks
accounted for 11.2
percent the combat
deaths in Vietnam.
At that time black
males of military
age constituted 13.5
percent of the
American population.
It should also be
clearly noted that
volunteers suffered
77% of the
casualties, and
accounted for 73% of
the Vietnam deaths.
The charge that the
"poor" died in
disproportionate
numbers is also a
myth. An MIT
(Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology) study of
Vietnam death rates,
conducted by
Professor Arnold
Barnett, revealed
that servicemen from
the richest 10
percent of the
nations communities
had the same
distribution of
deaths as the rest
of the nation. In
fact his study
showed that the
death rate in the
upper income
communities of
Beverly Hills,
Belmont, Chevy
Chase, and Great
Neck exceeded the
national average in
three of the four,
and, when the four
were added together
and averaged, that
number also exceeded
the national
average.
On the issue of
psychological
health: Mental
problems attributed
to service in
Vietnam are referred
to as PTSD. Civil
War veterans
suffered "Soldiers
heart" in WW I the
term was "Shell
shock" during WW II
and in Korea it was
"Battle fatigue."
Military records
indicate that Civil
War psychological
casualties averaged
twenty six per
thousand men. In WW
II some units
experienced over 100
psychiatric
casualties per 1,000
troops; in Korea
nearly one quarter
of all battlefield
medical evacuations
were due to mental
stress. That works
out to about 50 per
1,000 troops. In
Vietnam the
comparable average
was 5 per 1,000
troops.
To put Vietnam in
its proper
perspective it is
necessary to
understand that the
US Military was not
defeated in Vietnam
and that the South
Vietnamese
government did not
collapse due to
mismanagement or
corruption, nor was
it overthrown by
revolutionary
guerrillas running
around in rubber
tire sandals,
wearing black
pajamas and carrying
home made weapons.
There was no
"general uprising"
or "revolt" by the
southern population.
Saigon was overrun
by a conventional
army made up of
seventeen
conventional
divisions, organized
into four army
corps. This totally
conventional force
(armed, equipped,
trained and supplied
by the Soviet Union)
launched a cross
border, frontal
attack on South
Vietnam and
conquered it, in the
same manner as
Hitler conquered
most of Europe in WW
II. A quick synopsis
of America’s
"Vietnam experience"
will help summarize
and clarify the
Vietnam scenario:
Prior to 1965; US
Advisors and AID
only
1965 - 1967; Buildup
of US Forces and
logistical supply
bases, plus heavy
fighting to counter
Communist North
Vietnamese invasion.
1968 - 1970;
Communist
"insurgency"
destroyed to the
point where over 90%
of the towns and
villages in South
Vietnam were free
from Communist
domination. As an
example: By 1971
throughout the
entire populous
Mekong Delta, the
monthly rate of
Communist insurgency
action dropped to an
average of 3
incidents per
100,000 population
(Many a US city
would envy a crime
rate that low). In
1969 Nixon started
troop withdrawals
that were
essentially complete
by late 1971.
Dec 1972; Paris
Peace Agreements
negotiated and
agreed by North
Vietnam, South
Vietnam, the
Southern Vietnamese
Communists (VC, NLF
/ PRG) and the
United States.
Jan 1973; All four
parties formally
sign Paris Peace
Agreements.
Mar 1973; Last US
POW released from
Hanoi Hilton, and in
accordance with
Paris Agreements,
last American GI
leaves Vietnam.
Aug 1973; US
Congress passes the
Case - Church law
which forbids, US
naval forces from
sailing on the seas
surrounding, US
ground forces from
operating on the
land of, and US air
forces from flying
in the air over
South Vietnam, North
Vietnam, Cambodia
and Laos. This at a
time when America
had drawn its Cold
War battle lines and
as a result had the
US Navy protecting
Taiwan, 50,000
troops in South
Korea and over
300,000 troops in
Western Europe
(Which has a land
area, economy and
population
comparable to that
of the United
States), along with
ironclad guarantees
that if Communist
forces should cross
any of those Cold
War lines or Soviet
Armor should role
across either the
DMZ in Korea or the
Iron Curtain in
Europe, then there
would be an
unlimited response
by the armed forces
of the United
States, to include
if necessary, the
use of nuclear
weapons. In
addition, these
defense commitments
required the annual
expenditure of
hundreds of billions
of US dollars.
Conversely, in 1975
when Soviet armor
rolled across the
international
borders of South
Vietnam, the US
military response
was nothing. In
addition, Congress
cut off all AID to
the South Vietnamese
and would not
provide them with as
much as a single
bullet.
In spite of the Case
- Church
Congressional
guarantee, the North
Vietnamese were very
leery of US
President Nixon.
They viewed him as
one unpredictable,
incredibly tough
nut. He had, in
1972, for the first
time in the War,
mined Hai Phong
Harbor and sent the
B-52 bombers against
the North to force
them into signing
the Paris Peace
Agreements.
Previously the B-52s
had been used only
against Communist
troop concentrations
in remote regions of
South Vietnam and
occasionally against
carefully selected
sanctuaries in
Cambodia, plus
against both
sanctuaries and
supply lines in
Laos.
Aug 1974; Nixon
resigns.
Sept 1974: North
Vietnamese hold
special meeting to
evaluate Nixon’s
resignation and
decide to test
implications.
Dec 1974: North
Vietnamese invade
South Vietnamese
Province of Phouc
Long located north
of Saigon on
Cambodian border.
Jan 1975: North
Vietnamese capture
Phuoc Long
provincial capitol
of Phuoc Binh. Sit
and wait for US
reaction. No
reaction.
Mar 1975; North
Vietnam mounts
full-scale invasion.
Seventeen North
Vietnamese
conventional
divisions (more
divisions than the
US Army has had on
duty at any time
since WW II) were
formed into four
conventional army
corps (This was the
entire North
Vietnamese army.
Because the US
Congress had
unconditionally
guaranteed no
military action
against North
Vietnam, there was
no need for them to
keep forces in
reserve to protect
their home bases,
flanks or supply
lines), and launched
a wholly
conventional
cross-border,
frontal-attack.
Then, using the
age-old tactics of
mass and maneuver,
they defeated the
South Vietnamese
Army in detail.
The complete
description of this
North Vietnamese
Army (NVA) classical
military victory is
best expressed in
the words of the NVA
general who
commanded it.
Recommended reading:
Great Spring Victory
by General Tien Van
Dung, NVA Foreign
Broadcast
Information Service,
Volume I, 7 Jun 76
and Volume II, 7 Jul
76. General Dung’s
account of the final
battle for South
Vietnam reads like
it was taken right
out of a US Army
manual on offensive
military operations.
His description of
the mass and
maneuver were
exquisite. His
selection of South
Vietnam’s army as
the "Center of
gravity" could have
been written by
General Carl von
Clausewitz himself.
General Dung’s
account goes into
graphic detail on
his battle moves
aimed at destroying
South Vietnam’s
armed forces and
their war materials.
He never once, not
even once, ever
mentions a single
word about
revolutionary
warfare or guerilla
tactics contributing
in any way to his
Great Spring
Victory.
Another Aspect - US
Military battle
deaths by year:
Source of these
numbers is the
Southeast Asia
Statistical Summary,
Office of the
Assistant Secretary
or Defense and were
provided to the
author by the US
Army War College
Library, Carlisle
Barracks, PA 17023.
Numbers are battle
deaths only and do
not include ordinary
accidents, heart
attacks, murder
victims, those who
died in knife fights
in barroom brawls,
suicides, etc. Those
who think these
numbers represent
"heavy fighting" and
some of the
"bloodiest battles"
in US history should
consider the fact
that the Allied
Forces lost 9,758
men killed just
storming the
Normandy Beaches;
6,603 were
Americans. The US
Marines, in the 25
days between 19 Feb
45 and 16 Mar 45,
lost nearly 7,000
men killed in their
battle for the tiny
island of Iwo Jima.
By comparison the
single bloodiest day
in the Vietnam War
for the Americans
was on 17 Nov 65
when elements of the
7th Cav (Custer’s
old outfit) lost 155
men killed in a
battle with elements
of two North
Vietnamese Regular
Army regiments (33rd
& 66th) near the
Cambodian border
southwest of Pleiku.
Parallel
Point
During its Normandy
battles in 1944 the
US 90th Infantry
Division, (roughly
15,000+ men) over a
six week period, had
to replace 150% of
its officers and
more than 100% of
its men. The 173rd
Airborne Brigade
(normally there are
3 brigades to a
division) served in
Vietnam for a total
of 2,301 days, and
holds the record for
the longest
continuous service
under fire of any
American unit, ever.
During that (6 year,
3+ month) period the
173rd lost 1,601
(roughly 31%) of its
men killed in
action.
Further Food
For thought
Casualties tell the
tale. Again, the US
Army War College
Library provides
numbers. The former
South Vietnam was
made up of 44
provinces. The
province that
claimed the most
Americans killed was
Quang Tri, which
bordered on both
North Vietnam and
Laos. Fifty four
percent of the
Americans killed in
Vietnam were killed
in the four
northernmost
provinces, which in
addition to Quang
Tri were Thua Thien,
Quang Nam and Quan
Tin. All of them
shared borders with
Laos. An additional
six provinces
accounted for
another 25 % of the
Americans killed in
action (KIA). Those
six all shared
borders with either
Laos or Cambodia or
had contiguous
borders with
provinces that did.
The remaining 34
provinces accounted
for just 21% of US
KIA. These numbers
should dispel the
notion that South
Vietnam was some
kind of flaming
inferno of violent
revolutionary
dissent. The
overwhelming
majority of
Americans killed,
died in border
battles against
regular NVA units.
The policies
established by
Johnson and McNamara
prevented the
American soldiers
from crossing those
borders and
destroying their
enemies. Expressed
in WW II terms; this
is the functional
equivalent of having
sent the American
soldiers to fight in
Europe during WW II,
but restricting them
to Italy, France,
Belgium, Holland,
etc., and not
letting them cross
the borders into
Germany, the source
of the problem.
General Curtis LeMAY
aptly defined
Johnson’s war policy
in South Vietnam by
saying that "We are
swatting flies in
the South when we
should be going
after the manure
pile in Hanoi."
Looking back it is
now clear that the
American military
role in "Vietnam"
was, in essence, one
of defending
international
borders. Contrary to
popular belief, they
turned in an
outstanding
performance and
accomplished their
mission. The US
Military was not
"Driven" from
Vietnam. They were
voted out by the US
Congress. This same
Congress then turned
around and abandoned
America’s former
ally, South Vietnam.
Should America feel
shame? Yes! Why? For
kowtowing to the
wishes of those
craven hoards of
dodgers and for
bugging out and
abandoning an ally
they had promised to
protect.
The idea that "There
were no front
lines." and "The
enemy was
everywhere." makes
good press and feeds
the craven needs of
those 16,000,000+
American draft
dodgers. Add either
a mommy or a poppa,
and throw in another
sympathizer in the
form of a girl (or
boy?) friend and
your looking at well
in excess of
50,000,000 Americans
with a need to
rationalize away
their draft-dodging
cowardice and to, in
some way, vilify
"Vietnam" the very
source of their
shame and guilt.
During the entire
period of the
American involvement
in "Vietnam" only
2,594,000 US
Military actual
served inside the
country. Contrast
that number with the
50-million plus
draft dodging
anti-war crowd and
you have the answer
to why the American
view of its Vietnam
experience is so
skewed.
Johnson made two
monumental Vietnam
blunders. First he
failed to get a
declaration of war,
which he could have
easily had. The Gulf
of Tonkin
Resolution, which
LBJ regarded as the
"Functional
equivalent of a
formal declaration
of war." was passed
unanimously by the
House and there were
only two dissenting
votes cast in the
Senate. This would
have altered the
judicial state of
the nation, exactly
as the Founding
Fathers had
intended. The
Founding Fathers
were all veterans of
the American
Revolutionary War
and knew just how
hard it had been to
maintain public
support during their
war (At one point,
80% of the
"American" people
were against that
War. If the Founding
Fathers had bowed to
public opinion,
today we would still
be British subjects
not American
citizens). A formal
declaration of war
would have allowed
for control of the
press. If Vietnam
had been fought
under WW II
conditions (during
WW II Congress
formally declared
war) folks who gave
aid and comfort to
the enemy, people in
the ilk of Jane
Fonda and Walter
Cronkite, would have
been charged with
treason, tried,
found guilty (their
"treasonous acts"
were on film / video
tape), and then
hanged by the neck
until dead. Second,
LBJ exempted college
kids from the draft.
Presto! The nation’s
campuses immediately
filled with
dastardly little
dodgers and became
boiling cauldrons of
violent rampaging
dissent. The dodgers
knew they were
acting cowardly and
could appease their
conscience only if
they could convince
themselves that the
war was somehow
immoral. Once the
"immoral" escape
concept emerged and
became creditable,
it spread across the
college campuses and
out into the main
streets of America
like wild fire.
Miraculously, acts
of cowardice were
transformed into
respectable acts of
defiance. Anti-war
protests and violent
demonstrations
became the accepted
norm. However, when
one goes back and
scrutinizes those
anti-war
demonstrations, one
quickly finds they
were not really
against the war.
They were only
against the side
fighting the
Communists! This of
course turns out to
be the side which
had the army, from
which the dodgers
were dodging.
Hmmmmm!
Once the draft
dodging gang’s
numbers reached
critical mass, the
media and
politicians started
pandering to those
numbers (with media
it is either
circulation numbers
or Nielsen ratings.
With politicians it
is votes).
Multi-million dollar
salaries are not
paid to people for
reporting the news,
in any form, be it
written, audio or
video. Multi-million
dollar salaries
(e.g., Cronkite) are
paid to
entertainers, stars
and superstars. One
does not get to be,
much less continue
to be, a superstar
unless one gives
one’s audience what
it wants. Once the
dodging anti-war
numbers started
climbing through the
stratosphere it was
not in the media’s
interest to say
something good about
Vietnam to an
audience that was
guilt ridden with
shame and with a
deep psychological
need to rationalize
away the very source
of their burden of
guilt.
A good example of
this number
pandering can be
found in a 1969 Life
magazine feature
article in which
Life’s editors
published the
portraits of 250 men
that were killed in
Vietnam in one
"routine week." This
was supposedly done
to illustrate Life’s
concern for the
sanctity of human
life; American human
life (During WW II
the U.S. Media were
not allowed to
publish the picture
of a single dead G.I
until after the
invasion of
Normandy, D-Day
1944, was
successful). And
furthermore, to
starkly illustrate
the Vietnam tragedy
with a dramatic
reminder (i.e., the
faces staring out of
those pages), that
those anonymous
casualty numbers
were in fact the
sons, brothers and
husbands of
neighbors. In 1969
the weekly average
death toll from
highway accidents in
the United States
was 1,082. If indeed
Life’s concern was
for the sanctity of
American lives, why
not publish the
1,082 portraits of
the folks who were
killed in one
"routine week" on
the nation’s
highways? Then they
could have shown
photos of not only
the sons, brothers
and husbands of
neighbors, but could
have depicted dead
daughters, mothers,
grandmothers, aunts,
babies, cripples,
fools and draft
dodgers as well. No
way. Life knew where
its "numbers" were.
The most glaring
example of the
existence of the
dodging guilt
syndrome can be
found in a statement
made by the ranking
head dodger himself.
When asked for his
reaction to
McNamara’s book In
Retrospect,
Clinton’s
spontaneous response
was "I feel
vindicated." (of his
cowardly act of
dodging the draft).
Clinton is a lawyer
and understands the
use of the English
language very well.
For one to "feel"
vindicated, as
opposed to being
vindicated, one must
first have been, by
definition, feeling
guilty.
The Battle of Xuan
Loc; Mar 17 - Apr
17, 1975 & The End
Xuan Loc was the
last major battle
for South Vietnam.
It sits astride Q.
L. (National Road)
#1, some 40 odd
miles to the
northeast of Saigon
(on the road to Phan
Thiet), and was the
capitol of South
Vietnam’s Long Khanh
province. The NVA
(North Vietnamese
Army) attack fell on
the ARVN (Army
Republic of Vietnam)
18th Division.
On 17 Mar 75 the NVA
Sixth and Seventh
Divisions attacked
Xuan Loc but were
repulsed by the ARVN
18th. On 9 Apr 75
the NVA 341st
Division joined the
attack. After a four
thousand round
artillery
bombardment, these
three divisions
massed, and,
spearheaded by
Soviet tanks,
assaulted Xuan Loc;
but again the ARVN
18th held its
ground. The NVA
reinforced with
their 325th Division
and began moving
their 10th and 304th
Divisions into
position.
Eventually, in a
classic example of
the military art of
"Mass and Maneuver"
the NVA massed
40,000 men and
overran Xuan Loc.
During this fight,
the ARVN 18th had
5,000 soldiers at
Xuan Loc. These men
managed to virtually
destroy 3 NVA
Divisions, but on 17
Apr 75 they were
overwhelmed by sheer
numbers and the
weight of the
"Mass." Before
overrunning Xuan Loc
the NVA had
committed six full
divisions, plus a
host various support
troops.
In the Sorrow of
War, author and NVA
veteran Bao Ninh
writes of this
battle: "Remember
when we chased
Division southern
soldiers all over
Xuan Loc? My tank
tracks were choked
up with skin and
hair and blood. And
the bloody maggots.
And the fucking
flies. Had to drive
through a river to
get the stuff out of
my tracks." He also
writes "After a
while I could tell
the difference
between mud and
bodies, logs and
bodies. They were
like sacks of water.
They’d pop open when
I ran over them.
Pop! Pop!"
The Irony
It’s ironic that in
spite of all the
hype and hullabaloo
about the "Viet
Cong" and the
"American Soldiers"
both were absent
from the final
battles for South
Vietnam. The Viet
Cong had been
bludgeoned to death
(During Tet 1968) on
the streets of the
cities, towns, and
hamlets of South
Vietnam. The
Americans had left
under the terms of
the Paris Peace
Agreements, and then
were barred by the
US Congress, from
ever returning. The
end came in the form
of a cross border
invasion. Two
conventional armies
fought it out using
strategies and
tactics as old as
warfare itself.
A quick word about
the South Vietnamese
government lacking
support from the
people, and of the
so called "Popular
support" for the
Communists. During
the 1968 Tet
Offensive the
Communists attacked
155 cities, towns
and hamlets in South
Vietnam. In not one
instance did the
people rise up to
support the
Communists. The
general uprising was
a complete illusion.
The people did rise,
but in revulsion and
resistance to the
invaders. At the end
of thirty days, not
one single communist
flag was flying over
any of those 155
cities, towns or
hamlets. The
citizens of South
Vietnam, no matter
how apathetic they
may have appeared
toward their own
government, turned
out to be
overwhelmingly
anti-Communist. In
the end they had to
be conquered by
conventional
divisions, supported
by conventional
tanks and artillery
that was being
maneuvered in
accordance with the
ancient principles
of warfare. But
then, as with
mathematics, certain
rules apply in war,
and, military
victories are not
won by violating
military principles.
Note
General Dung’s Great
Spring Victory was
supported by a total
of 700
(maneuverable)
Soviet tanks, i.e.
Soviet armor,
burning Soviet gas
and firing Soviet
ammunition. By
comparison, the
South Vietnamese had
only 352 US supplied
tanks and they were
committed to
guarding the entire
country, and because
of US Congressional
action, were
critically short of
fuel, ammo and spare
parts with which to
support those tanks.
Recommended
Reading
Works by Bao Ninh,
the author of The
Sorrow of War. He
tells of being
drafted into the
North Vietnamese
Army in 1968 and
fighting for nearly
seven years. His
unit lost over 80%
of its men to battle
deaths, desertion
and sickness. In all
those years, he
never once fought
against the
Americans. His war
was strictly a
Vietnamese affair.
Related
Comments
For those who think
that Vietnam was
strictly a civil
war, the following
should be of
interest. With the
collapse of
Communism and the
Soviet Union along
with the opening up
of China, records
are now becoming
available on the
type and amount of
support North
Vietnam received
from China and the
Soviet Block. For
example:
China has opened its
records on the
number of uniformed
Chinese troops sent
to aid their
Communist friends in
Hanoi. In all, China
sent 327,000
uniformed troops to
North Vietnam.
Historian Chen Jian
wrote "Although
Beijing’s support
may have fallen
short of Hanoi’s
expectations,
without the support,
the history, even
the outcome, of the
Vietnam War might
have been
different."
In addition, at the
height of the War,
the Soviet Union had
some 55,000
"Advisors" in North
Vietnam. They were
installing air
defense systems,
building, operating
and maintaining SAM
(Surface to Air
Missiles) sites,
plus they provided
training and
logistical support
for the North
Vietnamese military.
When I asked a well
known American
reporter, who had
covered the war
extensively, why
they never reported
on this out side
Communist support,
his answer was
essentially that the
North Vietnamese
would not let the
reporters up there
and that because "We
had no access to the
North during the
war...meant there
were huge gaps in
accurately conveying
what was happening
North of the DMZ."
By comparison, at
the peak of the War
there were 545,000
US Military
personnel in
Vietnam. However,
most of them were
logistical / support
types. On the best
day ever, there were
43,500 ground troops
actually engaged in
offensive combat
operations, i.e.,
out in the
boondocks,
"Tiptoeing through
the tulips" looking
for, or actually in
contact with, the
enemy. This ratio of
support to line
troops is also
comparable with
other wars, and
helps dispel the
notion that every
troop in Vietnam was
engaged in mortal
combat on a daily
basis.
The Reason
it all, Hangs Like a
Pall
There always has,
and always will be,
American opposition
to war. The
Revolutionary War
had the highest, 80
percent, and that
was because it was
fought on home soil.
Opposition to WW I
was 64 percent, in
WW II the peak was
32 percent, and in
Korea it was 62
percent. What makes
Vietnam different is
the dodger disaster.
Of the 2,594,000
million US Military
personnel that
served in Vietnam
only about 25
percent, or 648,000+
were drafted.
Compare that to the
16,000,000+ who
dodged, and it works
out to 25 dodgers
for every draftee
who went.
Today, America’s
crocks are crammed
chock-a-block full
of dodgers, and the
crocks of academia
are more fully
crammed than most.
America’s schools
colleges and
universities are
overloaded with
dodgers, who, to
this day have a need
to rationalize away
their acts of
cowardice and have a
compulsion to vilify
the very source of
their guilt,
Vietnam.
The antiwar movement
was akin to a
national temper
tantrum that
eventually engulfed
and then afflicted
the entire nation
with its warped
rational. This
group, fueled and
led by dodgers, were
responsible for
poisoning the
American mind on the
subject of Vietnam
and eventually those
dodging hordes
influenced the
American body
politic to elect a
Congress that
stripped the
soldiers who fought
in Vietnam of their
victories, and voted
to cut and run in
the face of
adversity. To this
day, academia, the
media, the
politicians, talking
heads, and the draft
dodging multitudes
continuously feed
off one another with
their preposterous,
addictive
hallucinations about
"Vietnam" and, this
is done at small
expense, only a
handful of veterans
bear the brunt of
their vicious
absurdities.
The reason "Vietnam"
will not go away is
because the story
the dodging masses
and their cohorts
are perpetuating is
not true, and it
simply sticks in the
craw of the none
dodging population.
Especially the
young. If a teacher
wrote 1 + 1 = 2 on
the black board,
kids going by would
take one look and
forget it. However,
if 1 + 1 = 6 was
there, a certain
portion of the kids
would stop and
question it. Same
with Vietnam. The
supposed "facts"
being taught or
presented just don’t
add up.
Recently I had a
young man ask me
"How come North
Vietnam, which has a
land area smaller
than the state of
Missouri, and had a
population of less
than one tenth the
size of America’s,
could defeat the
modern armed forces
of the United
States?" I answered
"Son, they didn’t."
He came back with
"Then why did my
teachers tell me
that? My answer was
"Son, they are
mostly either draft
dodgers or wannabes
(as in wannabe a
draft dodger but was
too young, the wrong
sex, or?), or their
descendents, or kin
of, or other wise
truck with, the
dodgers. Take this
article, go show it
to them, and then
ask for a detailed
explanation of the
American military
defeat."
Vietnam
Facts vs Fiction
By Capt. Marshal
Hanson, U.S.N.R
(Ret.)
It's time the American people learn that the United States military did not lose the War, and that a surprisingly high number of people who claim to have served there, in fact, DID NOT.
As Americans,
support the men and
women involved in
the War on
Terrorism, the
mainstream media are
once again working
tirelessly to
undermine their
efforts and force a
psychological loss
or stalemate for the
United States. We
cannot stand by and
let the media do to
today's warriors
what they did to us
35 years ago.
Below are some assembled facts most readers will find interesting. It isn't a long read, but it will...I guarantee...teach you some things you did not know about the Vietnam War and those who served, fought, or died there.
Vietnam War
Facts,
Statistics,
Fake Warrior
Numbers, and Myths
Dispelled
9,087,000 (Million)
military personnel
served on active
duty during the
official Vietnam era
2,709,918 Americans served in uniform in Vietnam Veterans represented 9.7% of their generation. 240 men were awarded the Medal of Honor during the Vietnam War
1. The first man to
die in Vietnam was
James Davis, in
1958. He was with
the 509th Radio
Research Station.
Davis Station in
Saigon was named for
him.
2. 58,148 were
killed in Vietnam.
3. 75,000 were
severely disabled .
4. 23,214 were 100%
disabled .
5. 5,283 lost limbs.
6. 1,081 sustained
multiple
amputations.
7. Of those killed,
61% were younger
than 21.
8. 11,465 of those
killed were younger
than 20 years old.
9. Of those killed,
17,539 were married
.
10. Average age of
men killed: 23.1
years.
11. Five men killed
in Vietnam were only
16 years old.
12. The oldest man
killed was 62 years
old.
13. As of January
15, 2004, there are
1,875 Americans
still unaccounted
for from the Vietnam
War.
14. 97% of Vietnam
Veterans were
honorably
discharged.
15. 91% of Vietnam
Veterans say they
are glad they
served.
16. 74% say they
would serve again,
even knowing the
outcome.
17. Vietnam veterans
have a lower
unemployment rate
than the same
non-vet age groups.
18. Vietnam
veterans' personal
income exceeds that
of our non-veteran
age group by more
than 18 percent.
19. 87% of Americans
hold Vietnam
Veterans in high
esteem.
20. There is no
difference in drug
usage between
Vietnam Veterans and
non-Vietnam Veterans
of the same age
group (Source:
Veterans
Administration
Study)
21. Vietnam Veterans
are less likely to
be in prison - only
one-half of one
percent of Vietnam
Veterans have been
jailed for crimes.
22. 85% of Vietnam
Veterans made
successful
transitions to
civilian life.
23. Interesting
Census Stats and
"Been There"
Wanabees:
24. As of the Census
taken during August,
2000, the surviving
U.S. Vietnam Veteran
population estimate
is: 1,002,511. This
is hard to believe
-- losing nearly
711,000 between '95
and '00. That's 390
per day..... a real
stretch of the
imagination.
24. During the 2000
Census count, the
number of Americans
falsely claiming to
have served
in-country is:
13,853,027. By this
census, FOUR OUT OF
FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE
Vietnam vets are
not.
25. The Department
of Defense Vietnam
War Service Index
officially provided
by The War Library
originally reported
with errors that
2,709,918
U.S.military
personnel as having
served in-country.
Corrections and
confirmations to
this index resulted
in the addition of
358 U.S. military
personnel confirmed
to have served in
Vietnam but not
originally listed by
the Department of
Defense. (All names
are currently on
file and accessible
24/7/365).
26. Isolated
atrocities committed
by American Soldiers
produced torrents of
outrage from
anti-war critics and
the news media while
Communist atrocities
were so common that
they received hardly
any media mention at
all. The United
States sought to
minimize and prevent
attacks on civilians
while North Vietnam
made attacks on
civilians a
centerpiece of its
strategy.
27. Americans who
deliberately killed
civilians received
prison sentences
while Communists who
did so received
commendations. From
1957 to 1973, the
National Liberation
Front assassinated
36,725 Vietnamese
and abducted another
58,499. The death
squads focused on
leaders at the
village level and on
anyone who improved
the lives o f the
peasants such as
medical personnel,
social workers, and
school teachers. -
Nixon Presidential
Papers .
Myths
Dispelled
FACT: THE UNITED STATES DID NOT LOSE THE WAR IN VIETNAM, THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE DID. Read on... The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973. FACT: How could we lose a war we had already stopped fighting? We fought to an agreed stalemate. The peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. * It called for release of all U.S. prisoners, withdrawal of U.S. forces, limitation of both sides' forces inside South Vietnam and a commitment to peaceful reunification. *The 140,000 evacuees in April 1975 during the fall of Saigon consisted almost entirely of civilians and Vietnamese military, NOT American military running for their lives. *There were almost twice as many casualties in Southeast Asia (primarily Cambodia ) the first two years after the fall of Saigon in 1975 as there were during the ten years the U.S. was involved in Vietnam ..
*Thanks for the
perceived loss and
the countless
assassinations and
torture visited upon
Vietnamese,
Laotians, and
Cambodians goes
mainly to the
American media and
their undying
support of the
anti-War movement in
the United States.
*As with much of the Vietnam War, the news media misreported and misinterpreted the 1968 Tet Offensive. It was reported as an overwhelming success for the Communist forces and a decided defeat for the U.S. forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite initial victories by the Communists forces, the Tet Offensive resulted in a major defeat of those forces. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the designer of the Tet Offensive, is considered by some as ranking with Wellington, Grant, Lee, and MacArthur as a great commander. Still, militarily, the Tet Offensive was a total defeat of the Communist forces on all fronts. It resulted in the death of some 45,000 NVA troops and the complete, if not total destruction of the Viet Cong elements in South Vietnam. Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered.
The Tet Offensive
succeeded on only
one front and that
was the News front
and the political
arena. This was
another example in
the Vietnam War of
an inaccuracy
becoming the
perceived truth.
However,
inaccurately
reported, the News
Media made the Tet
Offensive famous.
Capt. Marshal Hanson, U.S.N.R (Ret.) Capt. Scott Beaton, Statistical Source
|
|
|
Welcome to the official website of the Westchester County Veterans Service Committee
SERVICE FOR ALL VETERANS
Westchester County
Veterans
Service Committee
Dedicated to the unforgotten
heroes, KIA, MIA, and veterans
who have passed before us.
heroes, KIA, MIA, and veterans
who have passed before us.