THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, May 6, 1995 TAG: 9505060389
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 191 lines
THE ISSUE: Last week, we asked readers to address the issues raised by former defense secretary Robert McNamara in his new book, ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam.''
In the book, McNamara, one of the chief architects of the Vietnam War, concludes that the war was a tragic mistake. His confession has reopened a painful period in U.S. history that undermined Americans' confidence in their government and its leaders.
WHAT YOU SAID: Your responses ranged across a wide spectrum of viewpoints about that divisive war and McNamara's role in it, but a central thread ran through most of them. At its core are questions about the morality of the war and about conflicts between patriotism and individual conscience.
Our country, right or wrong.
Richard Slepin of Portsmouth quoted the famous toast delivered by Stephen Decatur, a naval hero of the early 19th century, at a dinner in Norfolk in 1816: ``Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.''
Slepin wrote: ``These are not just words, they are the very lifeblood of our country. If it means anything to you, I am a veteran of World War II and Korea, and did my best to procure a draft card during Vietnam even though I was slightly over-age. That was the only way I could protest the protesters.''
Mary G. Martin of Virginia Beach made essentially the same point in another way: ``I don't think that draftees, or volunteers in the regular or reserve military, can pick and choose their wars. Either loyalty to our country (yes, I'll even say `patriotism') matters or self-interest (i.e., anarchy) prevails.''
Morality matters.
At the other end of the spectrum was B.C. Marshall of Norfolk, who wrote: ``The war protesters were correct. The war was morally wrong, and they bravely stood up to overwhelming pressure to give lip service to a policy developed by tyrants. . . . Yes, McNamara is a war criminal, but he is not the only one, and I think those out there who helped send young Americans to their graves owe the American public an apology.''
George H. Harvey of Virginia Beach wrote: ``Mr. McNamara's admission has surely opened up some painful wounds for many. However, I believe it may - in the long run - save many lives by causing our elected policy-makers to think long and hard before again committing our young men and women to combat.
``As a Navy veteran of 1954-58, I did not see duty in Vietnam. But as the father of a newly commissioned Marine lieutenant and as a born-again Christian, I am vitally concerned that our nation have a truly righteous cause and clear objectives before taking up arms.''
A false issue?
But to some, the moral issue is less clear-cut. Anthony I. Sylvester of Kitty Hawk, N.C., wrote: ``McNamara's attempt to sanctify himself in the belief he is as correct today as he thought himself to be 30 years ago is a great disservice, not only to himself but to the tens of thousands of Americans who stood - and fell - for their country.
``Further, it reopens the false issue of morality stemming from the question of `right vs. wrong' Vietnam policy. No one on either side was morally superior, then or now. War has little to do with morality.''
A recurring theme.
This same core issue - loyalty vs. conscience - was also a central theme of our last conversation, which concerned Republican U.S. Sen. John Warner's refusal to support Oliver North, his party's nominee last year against Sen. Charles Robb, a Democrat.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? We'd like to explore these underlying questions further. Consider:
When the nation goes to war, is it a citizen's duty to support the war effort regardless of questions about whether it is morally right? Is it ``our country, right or wrong?''
Is it proper to apply questions of morality to war? Are there ``good wars'' and ``bad wars?''
Which is the higher obligation when they conflict: loyalty to country or conscience?
How do you weigh the interests of the individual vs. the interests of a larger group (your church, your city, your country)?
Americans see government as moving further away from citizens and see the media as focusing on the sensational instead of the things that matter. With this issue and others, The Virginian-Pilot wants to contribute to a dialogue - with your friends, colleagues or with the newspaper - that moves beyond the polar opposites. We want to create a conversation about how to make public life better in Hampton Roads.
Send comments to: Bill Sizemore, The Virginian-Pilot, 150 W. Brambleton Ave., Norfolk, VA 23510; e-mail us at denj(AT)infi.net (subject: Vietnam); fax us at 446-2531; or post to the news group hr.general at http://www.infi.net/pilot/ MEMO: THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM\ Below are additional excerpts from readers'
responses to Robert McNamara's book, ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and
Lessons of Vietnam.''
Few editorials or letters to the editor I've seen have touched on the
real irony of McNamara's recent confessional. As SECDEF, he was one of
the principal architects of the no-win strategy in Vietnam. Now, he
looks back on his own handiwork and opines the rather needless
squandering of American lives in a war ``we couldn't win.'' This is not
just tragic; it is borderline criminal!
As operations officer of one of our aircraft carriers on the line
during that conflict, I was appalled at the restrictions placed on our
combat forces. The Pentagon issued daily detailed orders to the carrier
forces specifying what types and numbers, and even locations, of targets
our aircraft were permitted to attack for that day. . . .
We should never, repeat NEVER, commit our American youth to fight a
war we don't intend to win, and we should give our on-scene commanders
enough tactical freedom of action to win it. . . .
As for the draft dodgers, we've had them in every war we've fought
beginning with the American Revolution. They didn't look a bit better in
the Vietnam War. Those of us who served suggest they keep very quiet.
- Capt. John E. Hansen (retired), Chesapeake
A former career Navy helicopter pilot and Vietnam vet, I have strong,
albeit mixed, feelings about Robert McNamara's ``confession'' in his new
book.
I am angry and think he ought to be tried for treason. I further
think that if he is as contrite as he claims, every penny he receives
for his book, appearances or guest editorials ought to be deposited in a
trust fund for the Disabled American Veterans. I join with those critics
who ask where his conscience was in 1967, in 1972, in 1975 and since.
From an historical perspective of Vietnam and its people, we ought
not have entered armed conflict there. . . .
Given that I fiercely opposed (and still do) communism, and sought
the adventure and excitement of combat, I cheerfully volunteered. . . .
Nothing I experienced there changed my views. I was ashamed of the
brutal massacre at My Lai, just as I had been by the violence and terror
of the 1968 Tet offensive so graphically depicted in print and on
nightly TV.
Most of all, I recall how President Johnson and Robert McNamara lied
to the people of our beautiful country time and time again. Today's
wounds of a divided, adversarial, hostile, distrustful populace are
their legacy to us, to our children, to our grandchildren and to coming
generations. . . . I am grateful to God that I have survived a foolish
and bitter time.
- Pete Freas, Portsmouth
The war was not lost on the battlefields of Vietnam. It was lost on
the streets and college campuses of America and at 1600 Pennsylvania
Ave. The shame of the Vietnam War is not with us veterans who served
honorably (without questions) and did our duty to our country; it is
with those Americans who did not support us.
- Lt. Cmdr. Stephen J. Olzinski (retired), Norfolk
I feel that McNamara did the right thing by writing his book.
The war was not winnable given the political restraints imposed on
the military. I, too, wish McNamara had so stated in 1967 - but I
suspect nothing would have changed except to intensify the peace
protests. . . .
McNamara was wrong not to go public earlier, but what about the
military leaders? Where are they now? And more importantly, where were
they then?
- William D. Kimball, Virginia Beach
The Vietnam War was not ``unwinnable.'' Any damn general worth his
salt, given the authority to fight it, could have won it. We had the
best equipment and soldiers in the world but were not allowed to use
them as necessary to win it. Personally, we were never meant to win it
by the powers that be and not the enemy.
That is the SIN and the TORMENT of McNamara and the so-called MEN of
his time. Though he was man enough to admit it NOW, and I admire him for
doing so, only because others may follow to reveal the errors of
politics, power and war, I, for one, cannot forgive him. . . .
Last but not least, government is moving away from the people for ONE
REASON ONLY. It is made up of those who have been there TOO DAMN LONG!
The saying goes, ``Some people can't see the forest for the trees, while
they are in the forest.''
- Lewis A. Ottavi Sr., Virginia Beach
I was a senior in high school in spring '75 when Saigon fell. So I
grew up during the war, but did not serve in it.
For our country to fight a war the government knew we could not win
for eight years after this fact was known is simply unforgivable. The
harm done to the nation as a whole, its citizens and the Vietnamese
people from 1967-75, PLUS the national trauma in dealing with this war
to this date, could have in large part been avoided if we'd made wiser
and earlier decisions to withdraw.
I realize we could not just simply up and leave in a matter of days
in 1967, but it should not have taken eight years either.
Having grown up in a conservative family with a dad who was career
Air Force enlisted, I grew up supporting the war effort. Now I am
convinced our cause was noble, but the way we tried to handle it was all
wrong.
- Randy Everette, Norfolk
KEYWORDS: PUBLIC JOURNALISM VIETNAM WAR PATRIOTISM CONSCIENCE by CNB