Two Questions for VietNam Veterans

[Mike03]

1. Did you, or could you, ever forgive Robert McNamara when he expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness for his crimes of VietNam?

2. Why do some VietNam veterans come out of that experience as Republicans? I know a person here in town who went through total HELL in VietNam, and he is still very right wing in spite of it all, as is John McCain. I just don't understand how anyone who has been through the total and complete hell of war like that can trust a Republican president or government. There is probably something obvious I'm missing, but it just seems so incongruous.

Thanks for your opinions. I have always had a sense of reverence for anyone who went through this experience of VietNam; it must have been truly horrendous.

ON EDIT: I'm sorry: These were not intelligent or thoughtful questions. I apologize. If I could delete this post without jeopardizing so many good replies, I would. Sorry...

[TahitiNut]

1. I don't suppose you ever heard of "Johnson's War"??

How can you ask a question regarding "forgiving" a DEMOCRAT and then wonder how some Viet Nam veterans choose to be Republicans? Doesn't one question suggest at least one plausible answer to the other?

I've never been either a Republican or a Democrat ... but I've always been a liberal. Just because I'm a Viet Nam veteran doesn't mean we're the product of some cookie-cutter. The persistent presumption that a demographic must be somehow homogenous is an ethical and intellectual defect. People are individuals (whether we like it or not). Whether we like to affiliate and inherit our opinions or paint others with broad brushes, it's never either wise or intellectually valid.

[Mike03]

5. I apologize.

I don't have that wide a perspective on that era as I probably should have. You are right that Johnson escalated the war...of course. But I would just point out, in my own defense, that it is the right wing bastard maniacs on the radio right now who are saying that Liberals and Dems are to blame for always cutting and running in wartime.

[TahitiNut]

12. It's more than just the Viet Nam war.

The most consistent error I see many younger folks make regarding that recent history is the presumption that today's political alignments are similar to then. Nothing could be further from the reality.

There were CONSERVATIVES in the Democratic Party ... even more than today. The "Southern Demcrats" were more than just the Dixiecrats and Zell Miller is far more consistent with them than Jimmy Carter.

There were LIBERALS in the Republican Party ... far, far more than today, as we've lurched to the right by huge degrees since the 70s. "Rockefeller Repubkicans" were regarded as "liberal" and the far right (the "John Birchers") were seen as "fringe." Today, they share the mainstream Republican attitudes and don't really stand out at all.

The battle for the "heart and soul" of the Democratic Party - McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, et. al. - was (apparently) lost and the corporate wing has been mostly in control. The New Deal Democrats of the 40s, 40s, and 60s are now regarded by most as soon-to-be-dead-and-buried. This is, at least, true at the "establishment" level if not at the rank-and-file level. Unfortunately, the sounds of battle between these two constituencies are often misinterpreted by the majority of us on the other side of the fog ... and the "reports" from the fron lines are re-framed for us by folks with agendas.

Back to those days ... the war protests targeted the Democrats mostly. Not all protestors were "liberal." For some, especially later, it was a rite of passage - the in-thing to do and a good way to get laid. The ones who tried to get laid and failed seem to be Republican talking heads today.
:shrug:

[kentuck]

2. You may be confusing Vietnam veterans with Vietnam protesters...

here at home. Much like the occupation of Iraq, Vietnam had many conservatives, the kind that despised Jane Fonda-types. It's a different rationalization process that many go through. Not all Vietnam veterans were against the war and not all of them smoked marijuana. (As a personal observation, out of maybe 100 GI's in my unit, we had about 6 that "turned on".) So, I would say that personal beliefs about Vietnam and Vietnam veterans may not match up with the reality.

[Mike03]

3. Yeah, you make total sense

Good points. Maybe I should not have made this post.

[MadMaddie]

8. No don't apologize - it's a valid question and it allows our

Vietnam Vets to share with us their perspective. This is the kind of exposure that some of us that were too young to understand the varying mindsets and all of the forces pushing and pulling against each other during that time.

It takes guts to ask a question that is controversial.

I want to thank the Vietnam vets for sharing their experiences.

[Submariner]

4. Inside the Vietnam War on National Geographic channel tonight

8:00 PM EST. New 3 hr documentary.

1. - No.

2. - Many of the vets I know are right wing are simply from Red states, born conservatives and will just die that way. They like to identify with WWII and Korean War vets, and as a peace-nik that couldn't happen back in the day.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. That was a harrowing documentary.

I came away with a fresh understanding of the emotional toll the war took. I had a friend back in San Francisco who survived the seige of Khe Sanh. I know now why it was so hard for him to smile.

[Mike03]

6. Nevermind--this was a stupid fucking post.

I need to remember: Never, ever ask anything about the VietNam war. That is some sacred thing that I was born after and am not entitled to know anything about.

[Lasher]

10. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Your curiosity is a good thing and I appreciate it. Worse it would be if nobody wanted to know.

[Journeyman]

7. I often walk to my local lake. . .

there to create portraits of all the principal actors and the assistants: McNamara, Bundy, Rustow, Rusk. With great care I etch their faces in the lake slime. Later, in the night, animals come to appraise my work and to urinate.

It may please some to forgive or forget, but I remember everything.

Robert McNamara worked for Democrats. How did anyone return capable of belief in anything?

[TahitiNut]

9. "How did anyone return capable of belief in anything?"

Exactly! :applause:

:patriot:

[jaysunb]

11. 40 years later

I don't have the heart or the time to spend emotional capitol on that period of my life. BUT, after I got home in 1966 and the conflict heated up, I had very hard feelings toward the entire Administration. Names and ranks weren't very important...it was all of them.

When McNamara's book came out a few years ago, I read the synopsis in the paper and forgot about it. Just like I knew ( from nothing more than common sense ) that GWB was lying about Iraq, I knew back then that it was all deception and bullshit. I didn't need to read the confession.

As to your second question, then, just like now, the military ranks were filled with the poorest or least informed young men and women. The most passion ant and ardent soldiers were those who had racists and strong nationalistic feelings that were easy to manipulate. Their reasons for joining the military were based on many factors that mirror todays volunteer Army. They came from what we now refer to to as the " red States" that were collectively pissed off with the civil rights movement,hippies and uppity Blacks and this quaint notion about something called "automation" that threaten their "way of life." They joined in droves, and their return to "the world" was insured to put them in the red column.

On the other hand, I was drafted...very much against MY life plan...as were millions of others. This group was a lot more likely to be better educated and hold vastly different views of the world around them. And, like me, felt no pain in joining the protesters and continuing my personal fight for equal rights.

I want to be clear that, my opinion is just mine. I'm sure other Vets have their own take on their own experiences and observations. There were many who had my same path that became Republicans as soon as they got married and started their families. And, others who were in it for the sex and dope all along, just went home to where their heart always was.

Finally, it's important to remember that back in those days, the Republican Party was simply about greed. The hate was added along the way. ( see third paragraph for a clue to who provided the hate.) There's still a war going on based on who went, who protested, who lost the war and who caused more people to die.

This is why we need to "turn the page on my generation."

[Mike03]

13. Well, they Hate Jane Fonda too...

My question isn't that crazy, is it?

The Repukes and warmongering talking heads blame the Dems for our socalled losing in Vietnam, and they point the finger at war protestors like Jane Fonda, not at the people like JFK, Johnson, McNamara, etc... Aren't they just being duplicitous and disingenuous?

They cannot have their cake and eat it too, can they?

[PsN2Wind]

15. Few of those vets I knew

considered Jane Fonda as a simple "war protestor".

[TahitiNut]

16. Jane Fonda is a different deal ... I still can't stand her.

It's NOT about protesitng the war. It's NOT about expressing sympathy for the North Vietnamese people.

It's about posturing herself on an ANTI-AIRCRAFT BATTERY - and making a game of shooting at Americans. That's not "ANTI" war ... that's "PRO" war. That's NOT what a pacifist does.

Much of her behavior was consistent with that. Her radio broadcasts took on the patina of Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally. They WEREN'T pacifist ... they were hostile.

Joan Baez was a pacifist and protestor ... and when the Vietnamese Boat People needed support, she was there. Jane WASN'T.

There's a BIG difference between being a pacifist - anti-war - and being a combatant wannabe showing hostility to one side and lack of REAL compassion for the victims.


The more INTENSE aspect of what Jane came to symbolize is the sense of BETRAYAL that the majority of Viet Nam veterans felt. Jane was a pin-up ... Barbarella. She was the "girl back home" - the symbol of what most guys counted down the days for. Her behavior was like a huge "Dear John" letter. She became emblematic of the wife or girlfriend that was sleeping with another guy when the veteran came home - betrayal.

For many of us, that's not trivial.

_____________________________________________

This isn't the first time I've bothered to try to explain this. Perhaps it SHOULD be the last. After all, the typical reaction is to regard the viewpoint I've expressed as "wrong-headed" or "baggage" ... something to "get over." That reaction is usually self-serving and dismissive of experiences that the person fails (or doesn't even try) to comprehend. It's easier to dismiss and ignore rather than seek to walk a mile in those shoes. Frustrating.

[PsN2Wind]

14. I'm a VietNam ERA vet not VietNam vet

Huge difference there. I went to college with a lot of VietNam vets and they were as diverse as the general population in their politics. Former Marine friend, hard core right wing, former Special Forces friend, very much liberal. Although, there were very few VietNam vets I knew that didn't hate Jane Fonda.
Check my sig line.
Edited to capitalize Marine before I get my ass kicked.

[speedoo]

17. My answers..

1. While I appreciate MacNamara's remorse, I can never forgive him for his actions in prosecuting the war.

2. TahitiNut's answer is a good one. I would add that even Democrats like John Kerry and other VietNam vets who voted to support Bush in invading Iraq either never learned the lessons of Vietnam, or they chose to ignore them, for whatever reason most... likely political expediency.

We are all subject to persuasion and pressures as individuals. I was brainwashed into hating the "gooks" while my ship was enroute to Vietnam, so I was pretty much your RW hawk. But when I returned home and had time to examine the peace movement in 1968, I turned around 180 degrees in a matter of months and became a very active member of the peace movement. I was open to new information and facts, some are not.

[UTUSN]

19. No need for apology. In fact, I'm grateful for your interest. Some don't care.

There is this cafeteria-"Hispanic," by the name of Ruben NAVARRETTE who is rewarded with a column and a CNN web spot for being Hispanic, or alternate-Hispanic or something. That is, he does not represent the core Hispanic views on things, believes in the "cafeteria" mode where you are supposed to pick and choose from the parties for what, supposedly, suits you. This means he has supported Shrub on, basically, racial grounds, claiming that Shrub has nominated more Hispanics and Blacks to high positions. This would be, like, three or four, while cutting back programs or not implementing programs that would help MILLIONS of minority individuals. He was creaming himself over Gonzo GONZALEZ, claiming he should be approved by the Senate withOUT heaving vetting JUST BECAUSE he is Hispanic, that NAVARRETTE would be watching him and would hold him accountable if he screwed up. Hah!1 it was like O.J. scouring the golf courses for the real killers!1

Anyway, this NAVARRETTE also claims to speak for his generation, which would be, what, 30s or 40s? And he has said in his columns that he is TIRED of hearing from Boomers and about Vietnam, that Iraq is "a new war with new enemies"!1 He mocked KERRY with the phrase, "while KERRY was RUNNING AROUND THE JUNGLES..." (other people were doing other things). So the point of all this is, thanks for not being an ignorant NAVARRETTE, who is blithely unimpressed with SANTAYANA's "condemned to relive history" concept.


So, to #1: No. Never. May he drift in eternal Hades.

to #2: jaysunb in Post #11 says what I think, about the under-educated factor, but since there was a draft, this would tend to be mitigated, since the draft cut through all socio- economic groups.

But here's the mentality: In 2002 I met a vet who had just started getting his cash benefits after being homeless. I started in on my usual attacks on Shrub, and he said he has never voted and never will, but that he liked Shrub BECAUSE SHRUB "gave" him his benefits. It took a couple of later talks before I thought to ask him when his benefits started, and he said, 2000. It's obvious to us here that the occupant of the WH is not individually responsible for this dude's case status, but I was trying to use HIS terms. So I said, "Shrub wasn't the president in 2000. CLINTON was." This applies to the wingnuttiness of some of these dudes.


I don't share the general detestation of LBJ. In everything else besides Vietnam he accomplished more of the Dem agenda than anybody since FDR. And I don't share the adoration of McGOVERN. His top theme was ONLY Vietnam. And he was pie-in-the-sky, deafened by the cheering crowd, unable to be shrewd and a true fighter. If he had been a street fighter, he would have USED his distinguished military record in his argument. A vignette of him is a reporter's having seen him at the urinal, gingerly holding his fly open and staring rigidly at the ceiling----literally OUT OF TOUCH!1

As for Jane FONDA, I'm not a big movie-goer, but one of hers is about the only movie I have ever walked out of, and it was BEFORE her Vietnam days. It was "Barefoot in the Park" and she was a whining, screeching banshee, and that was that. She has gone through so many changes--legacy kid, sexpot, dependent sex object, activist, fitness flogger, corporate wife---- but my bottomline about her is her empty rich-kid's craving for her father's attention, both by begging for it and by rebelling. People who go from one extreme of the political or whatever spectrum are just lost. To me her Vietnam stance was just one more endless search for herself.


Thanks again for not being NAVARRETTE.