Ken Burns and Vietnam Revisionism

https://bracingviews.com/2017/09/20/the-vietnam-war-a-tragic-mistake/

I haven't watched the Ken Burns series on Vietnam and there's a good chance I won't bother with it. Why not? Because despite all the hype and praises heaped upon it I expected it to be more or less as the author of this link has described it.

Burns is only going to go so far in criticising the United States. Tied to the Establishment he's not going to risk burning his bridges with PBS, the educational mandarins and the host of foundations and corporations that promote and fund works such as his.

Will there be self-criticism? Yes, indeed but only within a certain limited capacity. I think the author of the blog post says it well. Vietnam can be portrayed as a tragic mistake but that's as far as it goes. When cast that way there can be a degree of blame and culpability laid upon the planners, orchestrators and executors of the war. The crime is one cast in the euphemistic categories of negligence, misguided zeal and perhaps even the prioritisation of the political over the lives of both soldier and civilian. To many this is criminal enough but such criticism will never strike at the heart of the system, it will never question the architect's commitment to American idealism or the ideals themselves.

While Vietnam, like almost all conflicts is mired in complexities, the truth is, it was a crime... a crime of mass murder built on lies.

Was that the intent from the beginning? Probably not, though that motive could be applied to some actors...both at its initiation and throughout its duration. That too is another lesson with regard to war. People wage it for different reasons and motives.

While many conservatives view the media as subversive and contributing to the failure of the policy and objectives, the truth is that for the bulk of the conflict the media was collaborative. Since its conclusion the corporate media has been a vital or essential component in the promotion of what might be described as the Vietnam Myth. The history has been re-written, the cause glorified and through its myriad of misleading reports, documentaries and movies the vast majority of the public has come to what can only be described as a gross misunderstanding of the massive criminal outrage that was America's involvement in Indochina.

But what of the common soldier? Should they not be granted respect, even praise? Despite the deception flowing from the Pentagon and even from the media were not their motives pure? Were they not fighting for an ideal?

These assumptions are fairly easily challenged. While our academics and pundits are more than happy to wrestle with tough questions such as 'collective guilt' when it comes to the German people and those drafted into the Wehrmacht, such concepts and categories are all but forbidden when it comes to discussing American conflicts. The soldier is sacrosanct because his role is always tied to American idealism.

The truth is, US conduct in combat post-World War II has become increasingly brutal. The public is largely ignorant about what really happened (in terms of Allied conduct) not only in World War II, but certainly in Korea, Vietnam and the wars of our present generation. Many will consider it outlandish, deranged and irresponsible to even compare US military conduct to that of the Third Reich. Such juxtapositions are out of bounds, verboten and deemed offensive.

That this is the case is hardly shocking but a thorough examination of US policy and conduct and a little reflection on ideas, consequences, policies and indeed the mindset of Germans in World War II, will lead to a deeper understanding, one that reveals the truly pernicious and horrific nature of US militarism.

Indeed the crimes of the Germans, Soviets, and Chinese Maoists are greater than that of the US, at least in terms of body count. Yet, the US is not all that far behind and as its reign has been longer, the multi-generational consequences of its actions has yet to be fully felt or understood.

How culpable was the draftee sent to Indochina or Korea? The discussion is not honest because the American public cannot acknowledge what those wars were, what was their nature and true objective. Maybe it's easy with Nazi Germany because its aggression can be described as 'naked'. Other Empires such as the British and American are masked and obscured and thus their almost equal brutality is able to be cast in a different light. The Hitlerian project was predicated on speed and was despite all its propaganda fairly open about what it intended to do.

The other evil empires of history, especially the Western or Liberal empires of the modern era (UK, France, USA etc.) have tended to wield their crushing swords with a little more finesse and they are more careful   to hide the stench of gore with a perfume of lies.

How culpable is the American soldier in Indochina? The question needs to be answered in the same way one looks at a draftee in the Wehrmacht. Not everyone was part of the Einsatzgruppen or the Phoenix Program death squads. The American public has not even begun to reckon with or understand what Phoenix was. In fact it has continued to the present day under different names and incarnations. Its leaders and orchestrators have risen to the pinnacles of power. They are murderers pure and simple, monsters as sadistic as Himmler and bureaucrats as blood-soaked as Eichmann.

I realise not every GI was involved in the dirty business. They were all part of the war machine to some extent, as was I during the Imperialist wars of the 1990s. I too have blood on my hands. I too was propagandised by the US government even while I wore its shameful uniform. And yet even then I knew better or at the very least was questioning what I was seeing and being told.

Am I culpable, guilty of murder and the crimes of militarism? Yes, though my guilt is not as great as that of others.

Not every Nazi soldier was deemed a war criminal. It would be both unrealistic and unjust to have equated participation (often forced) with the totality of the regime's crimes.

The same is true with regard to Vietnam.

But there is one critical difference and its one I have mentioned on numerous occasions. It's one thing to have gone, to have been drafted at eighteen and to have felt you were serving your country. Middle class values tend toward social conformity and there was a real shame in not going when called upon to do so.

It's one thing to say you went and then to move on with your life. The decades of reflection should (if a conscience is present) lead to regret, shame and anguish... and indeed some have felt these things. I can respect the man who goes through this process.

What I cannot respect is the man who puts stickers on his car, walks around with 'Vietnam Veteran' shirts and hats and is proud to say he participated in that conflict. I know many of that generation would not have dreamed of doing that until after 9/11 and the massive propaganda campaign to all but deify American soldiery. Part of this campaign was the rehabilitation and revision of the Vietnam narrative. Previous to this it was really only the POW/MIA campaign that was aggressively pushed by those associated with the war. Today, it's quite different.

I do not respect these men who more than forty years after the war don their memorabilia and strut about thinking they are due praise and respect. I see them as criminals, men without consciences, indeed baby- killers. I see them as the equivalent of proud ex-soldiers of the Wehrmacht, wicked and twisted men blind to the evils of the regime they served, blind to the crimes they both participated in and sanctioned.

Of course many who actually experienced combat up close do not want to re-live the war. All too often those seeking attention are little more than poseurs. For all I know they were cooks and logistics people who never fired a gun. They may have even been aware of the brutality of body-count policies, massacres and US concentration camps. They may have spent the war stacking boxes while listening to the Rolling Stones and then hanging out in the bars and whorehouses that became the warp and woof of the soldier's daily life.

But their ignorance is no excuse. No one would wink at such expressions of troop solidarity were it to be applied to the veterans of conflicts in other lands. How would Americans react to meeting a Russian proudly donning an Afghan War Veteran hat? I think most, if they're even aware of the Russian War in the 1980's would be a little offended that someone would want to celebrate what was in reality a brutal and murderous campaign. Imperialist wars shouldn't be celebrated.

And yet the Soviet campaign was no more imperialist than the US wars in Indochina. And the US campaign was far more murderous.

If you watch the Ken Burns film, at least keep these things in mind.

Additionally I recommend this article by John Pilger. I read his article after I wrote this piece. His comments while perhaps even more blunt than mine are nevertheless accurate. For Pilger it's personal, he was there and reported on it in the midst and turmoil of the lies. You can tell he's genuinely offended by the Burns effort and rightly so.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-killing-of-history/