Is Kerry a proud war hero or angry antiwar protester?
Vetting the Vet Record
— Mackubin Thomas Owens is an NRO contributing editor and a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He led a Marine infantry platoon in Vietnam in 1968-1969.
NRO
<font size=4>
John Kerry, we know, is running against John Kerry: his own voting record. But there is another record that John Kerry is running against, and this has to do with his very emergence as a Democratic politician: Kerry, the proud Vietnam veteran vs. Kerry, the antiwar activist who accused his fellow Vietnam veterans of the most heinous atrocities imaginable.
John Kerry not only served honorably in Vietnam, but also with distinction, earning a Silver Star (America's third-highest award for valor), a Bronze Star, and three awards of the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat as a swift-boat commander. Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. According to the indispensable Stolen Valor, by H. G. "Jug" Burkett and Genna Whitley, "Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. 'I thought of him as a rather normal vet,' a friend said to a reporter, 'glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.' Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political ambitions called him a 'very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue.'" Apparently, this good issue would be Vietnam.
Kerry hooked up with an organization called Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Two events cooked up by this group went a long way toward cementing in the public mind the image of Vietnam as one big atrocity. The first of these was the January 31, 1971, "Winter Soldier Investigation," organized by "the usual suspects" among antiwar celebrities such as Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and Kennedy-assassination conspiracy theorist, Mark Lane. Here, individuals purporting to be Vietnam veterans told horrible stories of atrocities in Vietnam: using prisoners for target practice, throwing them out of helicopters, cutting off the ears of dead Viet Cong soldiers, burning villages, and gang-raping women as a matter of course.
The second event was "Dewey Canyon III," or what VVAW called a "limited incursion into the country of Congress" in April of 1971. It was during this VVAW "operation" that John Kerry first came to public attention. The group marched on Congress to deliver petitions to Congress and then to the White House. The highlight of this event occurred when veterans threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the Capitol, symbolizing a rebuke to the government that they claimed had betrayed them. One of the veterans flinging medals back in the face of his government was John Kerry, although it turns out they were not his medals, but someone else's.
Several days later Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His speech, touted as a spontaneous rhetorical endeavor, was a tour de force, convincing many Americans that their country had indeed waged a merciless and immoral war in Vietnam. It was particularly powerful because Kerry did not fit the antiwar-protester mold — he was no scruffy, wide-eyed hippie. He was instead the best that America had to offer. He was, according to Burkett and Whitley, the "All-American boy, mentally twisted by being asked to do terrible things, then abandoned by his government."
Kerry began by referring to the Winter Soldiers Investigation in Detroit. Here, he claimed, "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did, they relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
This is quite a bill of particulars to lay at the feet of
the U.S. military. He said in essence that his fellow
veterans had committed unparalleled war crimes in Vietnam
as a matter of course, indeed, that it was American policy
to commit such atrocities.
In fact, the entire Winter Soldiers Investigation was a
lie. It was inspired by Mark Lane's 1970 book entitled
Conversations with Americans, which claimed to recount
atrocity stories by Vietnam veterans. This book was panned
by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as
supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular
demonstrated that many of Lane's "eye witnesses" either
had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the
capacity they claimed.
Nonetheless, Sen. Mark Hatfield inserted the transcript of the Winter Soldier testimonies into the Congressional Record and asked the Commandant of the Marine Corps to investigate the war crimes allegedly committed by Marines. When the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview the so-called witnesses, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they may have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans. Guenter Lewy tells the entire study in his book, America in Vietnam.
<font size=5>
Kerry's 1971 testimony includes every left-wing cliché
about Vietnam and the men who served there. It is part of
the reason that even today, people who are too young to
remember Vietnam are predisposed to believe the worst
about the Vietnam War and those who fought it. This
predisposition was driven home by the fraudulent
"Tailwind" episode some months ago.
<font size=4>
The first cliché is that atrocities were widespread in Vietnam. But this is nonsense. Atrocities did occur in Vietnam, but they were far from widespread. Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried.
But even Daniel Ellsberg, a severe critic of U.S. policy
in Vietnam, rejected the argument that the biggest U.S.
atrocity in Vietnam, My Lai, was in any way a normal
event: "My Lai was beyond the bounds of permissible
behavior, and that is recognizable by virtually every
soldier in Vietnam. They know it was wrong....The men who
were at My Lai knew there were aspects out of the
ordinary. That is why they tried to hide the event, talked
about it to no one, discussed it very little even among
themselves."
My Lai was an extreme case, but anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation. But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos, spiritedness and righteous anger. In the Iliad, it is thumos, awakened by the death of his comrade Patroclus that causes Achilles to leave sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans.
But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai.
But My Lai also must be placed within a larger context. The NVA and VC frequently committed atrocities, not as a result of thumos run amok, but as a matter of policy. While left-wing anti-war critics of U.S. policy in Vietnam were always quick to invoke Auschwitz and the Nazis in discussing alleged American atrocities, they were silent about Hue City, where a month and a half before My Lai, the North Vietnamese and VC systematically murdered 3,000 people. They were also willing to excuse Pol Pot's mass murderer of upwards of a million Cambodians.
The second cliché is that is that Vietnam scarred an entire generation of young men. But for years, many of us who served in Vietnam tried to make the case that the popular image of the Vietnam vet as maladjusted loser, dehumanized killer, or ticking "time bomb" was at odds with reality. Indeed, it was our experience that those who had served in Vietnam generally did so with honor, decency, and restraint; that despite often being viewed with distrust or opprobrium at home, most had asked for nothing but to be left alone to make the transition back to civilian life; and that most had in fact made that transition if not always smoothly, at least successfully.
But the press could always find the stereotypical,
traumatized vet who could be counted on to tell the most
harrowing and gruesome stories of combat in Vietnam, often
involving atrocities, the sort of stories that John Kerry
gave credence to in his 1971 testimony. Many of the war
stories recounted by these individuals were wildly
implausible to any one who had been in Vietnam, but
credulous journalists, most of whom had no military
experience, uncritically passed their reports along to the
public.
I had always agreed with the observation of the late Harry Summers, a well-known military commentator who served as an infantryman in Korean and Vietnam, that the story teller's distance from the battle zone was directly proportional to the gruesomeness of his atrocity story. But until the publication of the aforementioned Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and its History, neither Harry nor I any idea just how true his observation was.
In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans. They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.
Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his
or her salt could have done: he used the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) to check the actual records of
the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their
stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug
abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was
astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran"
who cried on camera about his dead buddies, about
committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic
action in combat that led him to the current dead end in
his life, was an impostor.
Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some
1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent
examples of the Vietnam veteran as dysfunctional loser,
had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been
in the service. Others, had been, but had never been in
Vietnam.
Stolen Valor made it clear why John Kerry's testimony in
1971 slandered an entire generation of soldiers. Kerry
gave credence to the claim that the war was fought
primarily by reluctant draftees, predominantly composed of
the poor, the young, or racial minorities.
The record shows something different, indicating that 86
percent of those who died during the war were white and
12.5 percent were black, from an age group in which blacks
comprised 13.1 percent of the population. Two thirds of
those who served in Vietnam were volunteers, and
volunteers accounted for 77 percent of combat deaths.
Kerry portrayed the Vietnam veteran as ashamed of his
service:
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own
memories of that service as easily as this administration
has wiped their memories of us. But all that they have
done and all that they can do by this denial is to make
more clear than ever our own determination to undertake
one last mission, to search out and destroy the last
vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to
conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this
country these last ten years and more, and so when in 30
years from now our brothers go down the street without a
leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we
will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a
filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where
America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped
it in the turning.
But a comprehensive 1980 survey commissioned by Veterans'
Administration (VA) reported that 91 percent of those who
had seen combat in Vietnam were "glad they had served
their country;" 80 percent disagreed with the statement
that "the US took advantage of me;" and nearly two out of
three would go to Vietnam again, even knowing how the war
would end.
Today, Sen. Kerry appeals to veterans in his quest for the
White House. He invokes his Vietnam service at every turn.
But an honest, enterprising reporter should ask Sen. Kerry
this: Were you lying in 1971 or are you lying now? We do
know that his speech was not the spontaneous, emotional,
from-the-heart offering that he suggested it was. Burkett
and Whitley report that instead, "it had been carefully
crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam
Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it."
<font size=5>
But the issue goes far beyond theatrics. If he believes
his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans
was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his
Vietnam service. Who can be proud of committing war crimes
of the sort that Kerry recounted in his 1971 testimony?
But if he is proud of his service today, perhaps it is
because he always knew that his indictment in 1971 was a
piece of political theater that he, an aspiring
politician, exploited merely as a "good issue." If the
latter is true, he should apologize to every veteran of
that war for slandering them to advance his political
fortunes.
<font size=3>
nationalreview.com |
