World War I Begins....

              Although the incident that sparked the beginning of World War I actually took place on June 28th, today, July 28th is the anniversary of the start of the Great War.  On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austria-Hungary throne, and his wife were assassinated by a Serbian nationalist in Bosnia.  This incident is often thought as the beginning of World War I.  While it sparked the Great War, the beginning of World War I could not have actually started until war was declared, which happened exactly one month later, on July 28, 1914, when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia , followed within the week by the five major powers in Europe - Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and Belgium .  It was 100 years ago today that the Great War began.  It is only fitting that we take a few moments today to remember this momentous event as it was one of the deadliest conflicts in world history, involving at least 27 countries (as that's how many were mentioned as associated with either the Allied or Associated Powers in the Treaty of Versailles), and causing the death of more than 16 million people globally. May we never again experience a global war and its devastating effects.

Honoring the Babe

Mostly remembered for his home run records as a New York Yankee outfielder, Babe Ruth's start was far from Yankee Stadium and, for that matter, far from the outfield.  Ruth actually started as a pitcher for the Yankee rivals.  100 years ago today, July 11, Babe Ruth made his major league debut with the Boston Red Sox as a left-handed pitcher.  Babe's journey, though, was unexpected and, at the time, not even welcomed.  The Babe was comfortable in his role with his native Baltimore, pitching for a first-place Orioles team in the International League.  The team, however, sold the three best prospects to the American League, specifically to the Boston Red Sox, due to poor attendance at the Orioles' games.  Those players, Ruth, Ben Egan, and Ernie Shore, boarded an overnight train to Boston on the evening of July 10, 1914.  Ruth joined the Red Sox the next day and pitched seven innings earning a 4-3 win over the Cleveland Naps. But, his hitting debut was far from the legend we know today.  Ruth actually went hitless in his two at-bats, including a strike-out at his first major league plate appearance.  Hard to believe that the Babe was only 19 years old in his major league debut, but, he was certainly everything legends are made of, even if that legend built more slowly than the myth would allow us to believe.  In fact, Ruth was pulled from his second major league start after getting hit hard by the Tigers and, afterwards, sat on the bench for almost a month.  But, by July, he was pitching again, but his powerful batting career started even more slowly.  Ruth  did not hit his first major league home run until the following season, at the Polo Grounds off Yankee pitcher Jack Warhop on May 6, 1915.  Ruth was slowly transitioned to an outfielder after proving that he had a powerful bat so that the team would not have to wait for his turn in a pitching rotation, and in 1918, he tied the major league home-run record at 11, and, the following year set the single season home run record at 29.  Ruth was sold to the Yankees in December of 1919 and that is when his transition to  full-time outfielder was complete.  In 1920 he hit a staggering 54 home runs as a New York Yankee and a Yankees legend was born.  It was not until 1961 and Roger Maris that anyone threatened the Babe's home run record, proving how powerful Ruth really was.  It certainly is fitting that the Yankees deem their stadium "The House That Ruth Built."

On this Day in History.....The King of Rock -n- Roll Begins His Path to Superstardom

For Elvis fans, this is an important day in history.  Sixty years ago on July 5, an unknown 19-year-old boy recorded a song that changed his life.  In Memphis-based Sun Studios, Elvis Presley recorded "That's All Right (Mama)," a bluesy song written by Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup.  Little did Elvis know that his quest to record a song in the summer of 1953 as a birthday gift for his mother would literally change his life.  Elvis came into Sun Studios and recorded "My Happiness" and "That's When Your Heartache Begins."  A year later, Sun Records producer Sam Phillips remembered Elvis as a white singer who could sing "black" rhythm and blues and knew that this was the key to breaking through new trends in the music industry.  Phillips called Elvis in to a recording session, but the session did not go well. Phillips could not recapture the "magic" he heard in Elvis' voice during the first recording in the summer of 1953. During a break in recording, Elvis was messing around with the musicians and played a faster version of the familiar "That's All Right" and Phillips, overhearing the jam session, knew that was the sound he was looking for.  "That's All Right" was released to a Memphis radio station a few days later and sparked enough interest for a regional release a couple weeks later.  "That's All Right" did not become a national best-seller, but it put Elvis on the path to stardom.  After the regional success of "That's All Right," Elvis recorded "Heartbreak Hotel" which became the first of many number ones on Billboard's pop singles chart. Interestingly, Elvis' only intention was to give his mother a unique birthday gift, and that gesture unwittingly introduced the world to the smooth and effortless voice of Elvis Presley while changing the direction of the music trends and giving birth to rock -n- roll.

The Legacy of Vietnam and Political Fallout

            The American government suffered greatly because of the Vietnam War, which tarnished President Lyndon B. Johnson’s image and caused Americans to lose faith in the cause.  Although a military success for U.S. forces, the psychological loss was a major problem for President Johnson after the American public witnessed firsthand footage of the daily fighting in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive as news crews brought the fighting into the living rooms of American families.  Forever changing the romantic views of warfare, the realities of war disillusioned the American public.  Atrocities such as My Lai also became public, furthering the American views that the U.S. soldiers were unnecessarily murdering innocent civilians on a daily basis. It was less important to the public that the My Lai Massacre was the exception rather than the norm, it was proof positive that Americans were "baby killers."  Firsthand footage and the news stories of these atrocities furthered the American public's loss of faith in the U.S. government's stance in Vietnam and helped to turn the tide from support to protest.

            President Nixon only furthered the Americans distrust of the U.S. government when he promised to bring peace, but instead expanded the War into Cambodia and further pressured North Vietnam by intensifying the bombing in that region as well.  In addition, Nixon caused further distrust when he involved his staff in the Watergate scandal, believing he was above the law because he was President, but only hurting his public image and forcing him to come to a conclusion in the Vietnam peace talks by conceding points he would not have budged on before. 

            Vietnam left in its wake unanswered questions, especially that of the U.S. as a worldwide leader and self-dubbed world policeman.  When should the U.S.  intervene in a foreign dispute?  If we look to the history of the Vietnam War, this becomes even more complicated, but had U.S. leaders understood the goals of the Viet Minh, they may have made better decisions regarding U.S. involvement.  As a far as the American legacy in Vietnam itself, one cannot help but look at the damage the United States unleashed at the expense of the Vietnamese:  Agent Orange, the Strategic Hamlet Program, the loss of lives of civilians and military alike.  Does the United States really have the right to force capitalism and democratic ideals on other countries?  And at what cost?  It is questionable if the United States leadership has really haven’t learned anything from the mistakes made in Vietnam, especially if we look at the situation that the U.S. has currently found itself in within the scope of the Middle East.  If anything, the U.S. needs to look at the parallels of the Vietnam War and the War on Terror and see that they are making some of the same mistakes, sacrificing American lives in a situation that may not be theirs to fight.

The Legacy of Vietnam through Popular Film

            Movies also tried to capture the uniqueness of the Vietnam War, especially films like Platoon which tried to show the atrocities that were perceived to be an effect of the War itself, causing innocence to be shattered and evil to conquer good.  Although atrocities did occur during the Vietnam War, like the My Lai Massacre which paralleled the incident in Platoon where the soldiers murdered innocent civilians, this misrepresented the U.S. soldier in Vietnam.  The portrayal of soldiers as murderers jaded by war merely fed stereotypes instead of representing reality.  

   Films like Rambo took another view, trying to convey the mistreatment of the Vietnam veteran by the U.S. government.  However, Rambo also fails to get it right because it also feeds the stereotypical wronged Vietnam veteran bent on revenge.  However, both films do succeed in portraying both the inner conflict of the soldier himself and the public’s distrust of the American government which stemmed from the Vietnam conflict, and is a major element in the legacy that was Vietnam.

The Vietnam War Soldier's Poetry

The poetry written about the Vietnam War displayed conflicts felt by the soldiers who lived through the experience. For example, this line from "Saigon Cemetery" by D.C. Berry, a medical officer who served in Cam Ranh Bay:  “Something to make a tongue tough enough to taste the full flavor of beauty and grief” oozes conflict as the words “beauty” and “grief” are at odds with each other within the same line. However, the poetry in general appears to try to convey to the American public the realities of the war, revealing that the American public was generally oblivious to the internal conflicts experienced by our soldiers. The analogy that “war is hell” has been used before, but the poem, “A Bummer” actually states that hell would be a better place to be than on a rice farm in Vietnam: “If you have a farm in Vietnam And a house in hell Sell the farm And go home.”  Furthermore, in the poem “Imagine,” we can clearly see the author attempting to relate the experiences of the war to the American public. Although they asked the questions, “what had it been like,” the author struggles with relating that information effectively.  In reality, the gap between those who lived through the experience and those who did not cannot be completely bridged. The poetry is an attempt for those to understand, but, again, the conflict appears in this gap.

Although in a war, the obvious conflict is between the two ideologies and/or nations fighting within it, but the Vietnam War also brought new and unforeseen problems that had never been faced before. The fact that the American public was either oblivious to the war or completely against the United States’ participation in the war was a new concept. Soldiers who were drafted and served in Vietnam were faced with their own inner conflict regarding the morality of the war which was compounded by the fact that much of the public who cared at all believed the United States did not belong in Vietnam. In addition, the veterans who had served in World War II and even in the Korean conflict were struggling with a new style of warfare which was not only frustrating but often-thought of as immoral. These conflicts brought about much psychological challenges for these soldiers, which can be best understood through their literature. However, the difficulties these soldiers faced can never be completely understood by someone who did not live through it, but the literature can provide some psychological insight into the problematic issues faced by those involved in the Vietnam War  if the audience is conscious enough to look for these clues.

Vietnam and the Popular Novel

 Many popular culture pieces were created about the Vietnam War, from movies, television series, books, novels, poetry, and songs, revealing our obsession with trying to understand the conflict. Some of these pieces, especially the novels written by Tim O’Brien, convey the inner conflicts of the soldiers involved in a questionable war, actually getting as close to realism as possible through fiction. Many people could not understand what the soldiers experienced in Vietnam, especially those of the older generation who had lived through World War II with its clear goal to stop the evils of fascism. Vietnam was different in this respect as the goals were misguided and the public was misled, even if unintentionally. 

          Tim O’Brien’s protagonist in If I Die in a Combat Zone he contemplates the idea of departing for Canada instead of reporting for duty when he receives his draft notice. From the first sentence, “The summer of 1968, the summer I turned into a soldier, was a good time for talking about war and peace,” we can see the conflict within O’Brien’s character beginning to build. O’Brien’s character is drafted this summer, and he is clearly against this particular war. Although he states that “since it [the war] was wrong and since people were dying as a result of it, it was evil,” he still doubted his own principles because there were no clear answers as to what Americans were fighting for and what the end result would bring for Vietnam, or America for that matter. He is, therefore, not just conflicted because he is being asked to fight in a war he does not support, but he questions his own values and ethics regarding this war. Summing up his internal conflict, O’Brien’s character states, “The war, I thought, was wrongly conceived and poorly justified. But perhaps I was mistaken, and who really knew, anyway?”

   

      Tim O’Brien also related the conflicts within the American soldier through his character Paul Berlin in Going After Cacciato. Berlin was sent to Chu Lai’s Combat Center, but he had “never heard of I Corps, or the Americal, or Chu Lai.” In fact, several times, Berlin admits he is “lost.” Although he was probably “lost” in the directional sense, it would appear he was lost in the emotional sense as well. Berlin seemed to be torn between being a member of the American public back on the mainland and being a U.S. soldier in a foreign country. “The homefront” as Berlin called it when he wrote to his father from Chu Lai, seemed to be “a nice unfrightened” place, a place he would rather be. He again repeats to his father that he is “a little lost.” Although he follows orders and learns from the Combat Center, it becomes obvious that Berlin is not entirely at peace with his being a soldier fighting a questionable war in a strange place.

         

Because this was a strange place, and the war was not fought on the traditional “front,” the war itself was confusing causing more conflicts within the soldiers, even those who had been veteran soldiers and defended their country in war without question. For example, Beaupre in David Halberstam’s One Very Hot Day found himself negatively comparing Vietnam to World War II. He found “the endless walking each day… with nothing done, nothing seen, nothing accomplished, nothing changed, just hiking each day with death, taking chances for so very little, wondering if he were going to be sold out, wondering whom you could trust” an extremely frustrating problem that he had not faced in World War II. This clearly causes conflict within Beaupre because he does not have a concrete moral sense as to the success or failure of each day within the context of the war. Beaupre sums this up with the statement, “Yes was no longer exactly yes, no was no longer exactly no, maybe was more certainly maybe.”

           

Even in the early, gung-ho literature of The Green Berets conflict was prevalent from the old style of warfare to the new, questioning morality and the American value system. Lieutenant Colonel Train was an officer in the Special Forces division, which engaged in an unorthodox warfare style within the early years of the Vietnam conflict. As a matter of fact, Robin Moore made a statement regarding the change in warfare style: “President Kennedy’s awareness of the importance of this facet of the military had made unconventional or special warfare experience a must for any officer who wanted to advance to the top echelons.” Train, although an officer in Special Forces, represents the more traditional value system of warfare, and “did not accept wholeheartedly the doctrines of unconventional warfare.” Moore's foil character, Kornie, on the other hand, embraces the Special Forces doctrine of unconventional warfare and even crosses the line in order to get things done. The conflict between these two characters easily represents the changes about to come in a new style of warfare in Vietnam and the difficulties soldiers, especially veterans, faced when immersed in the Vietnam War.

         

These are merely a few of many novels written in the wake of Vietnam, the most well-known of which is Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried, which has become a new classic of sorts, read in high school classrooms, helping the public understand that what the grunts "carried" was far more than the physical equipment, but, rather, the conflict itself. The Things They Carried is a personal favorite and a must-read in order to understand the Vietnam soldiers' experience as much as possible having not lived through it ourselves.

The Legacy of Vietnam

            Each conflict in our nation’s history has left a legacy in its wake.  The American Revolution was a fight for freedom from imperialist England; the Civil War was a fight about slavery, pitting brother against brother; World War I was fought to make the world safe for democracy; World War II was a fight to protect the world from Hitler and fascism.  But why did we fight the Vietnam War?  This conflict was different from those wars past, as the underlying cause of our involvement is not as clear and concise, especially in light of the fact that our leadership mistakenly believed at the time that we were fighting to protect the world from Communism when in fact the Vietnamese fight was for independence and unity.  From the beginning of the U.S. involvement, the policies were unclear and our goals and achievements were misconstrued and misrepresented.  The legacy left by the Vietnam conflict, then, is the tragedy of misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

            The next few entries will explore how we, as Americans, try to reconciled the legacy of Vietnam with the reality, a reality that could not be distinguished from fantasy.  Many different types of pop culture offerings tried to justify American involvement in Vietnam while others merely sought to heal the wounds and bring closure.  What worked?  What didn't? And what changed Americans' perception of the Vietnam War? Further, what was real?  And what furthered the fantasies?  Pop culture has fed a popular memory of the Vietnam War which influences how Americans view that war, even today.  

Cambodia repatriates remains believed to be of 3 missing American soldiers from Vietnam War

Typically, I have not been posting a link to another story in this space, but this story deserves to be shared.  There were hundreds of Americans listed as "Missing in Action" during the Vietnam War and, specifically, 90 of those were listed as MIA during the Cambodian campaign, of which only 37 have since been located, recovered, and identified.  This leaves over fifty families awaiting news of what happened to their loved ones who served in the Cambodian campaign during the Vietnam War.  Perhaps the discovery of the remains of these three will be able to provide closure to three families who have waited way too long for answers.  Remember, it does not matter whether you were a "hawk" or a "dove," whether you protested or served, whether you agreed or disagreed with the war itself, these men answered the call of duty and served their country when asked.  They deserve our respect and our thanks.  Please keep them and their families in your thoughts as the process of identification moves forward.

For more information on the story itself, please follow the link to the Star Tribune's story.


"Cambodia repatriates remains believed to be of 3 missing American soldiers from Vietnam War"
http://www.startribune.com/world/253527821.html

Remembering the Challenger

Each generation seems to have a defining moment, an event that is so tragic it stays with that generation, bringing the people together in that instant of shock and mourning.  For my mother, it was the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  In fact, she can still tell you exactly where she was and how she felt when she heard that news that her beloved President had been shot and died in Dallas even though fifty decades have come and gone.  For my daughter, it was September 11^th when the towers fell.  She was only 8 when it happened, but she can still recall the fear, the confusion, and, for the lack of a better word, the terror that befell her and the rest of America as she learned of the tragedy that struck New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on that Tuesday morning in 2001.  I can still remember the terror attacks of 2001 as clear as it was yesterday, but my generation had an earlier defining moment.  Those who lived through the decade of the 1980s will agree that the Challenger explosion was one of the most tragic and memorable moments of that time.  This day, January 28, twenty-eight years ago, the American shuttle orbiter Challenger entered the atmosphere and exploded, killing all seven aboard, only 73 seconds after takeoff.  The crew included a schoolteacher, Christa McAuliffe, who was chosen to join the crew and teach schoolchildren from space, which had never been previously attempted.  The six astronauts and the teacher were forever etched in our memories as heroes tragically taken in that instant 73 seconds after launch.  I can still remember seeing this event unfold live on television, grappling to understand what happened and mourning with the rest of the country.  May the Challenger crew be remembered as heroes of our space program and may their names and contributions live forever.

Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we celebrate another holiday- a day off from work, a day to take advantage of sales, a day the kids are home from school. In short, a three-day weekend. In our often busy lives, we relish the extra day off, an extra weekend day, but do we stop and honor the man who is celebrated today? I hope that most Americans do. Dr. King's message should not be forgotten. It is as relevant today as it was the day he proclaimed his "I have a dream" speech. Dr. King understood the true meaning of humanity, equality, and brotherhood for which the American ideal stood. His dream was that America could truly embody that spirit of freedom and equality. We all should heed his message and honor his legacy today and every day. 

"An individual cannot start living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

American Diplomacy in Vietnam

            How did the United States arrive in the Vietnam quagmire?  Diplomatic policies shaped by world events brought the U.S. into the Vietnam conflict.  However, it is not a very simple formula because there were many complicated shifts in policy based on the U.S. leadership and world conditions.  In order to better understand the U.S. involvement in Vietnam in the late 1960’s, we have to trace the relationship all the way back to the end of World War I and the Versailles Conference.  President Woodrow Wilson proposed self determination as early at 1919 at the peace talks ending World War I but when faced with an actual case of a small territory aiming to regain its independence from a dominating imperialistic Western country, Wilson failed to follow through.  This is actually the beginning of Ho Chi Minh’s quest for freedom as well as the beginning of U.S. domestic policy involving Vietnam.

            Although Ho never mentioned independence in his statement to Woodrow Wilson, Ho was inspired by “Wilson’s famous doctrine of self-determination” (Karnow).  The fact that Wilson refused to see Ho directed Ho’s future quest for independence for it was that moment that turned Ho to the French Socialists for support against colonialism.  This is the first of many misunderstanding that the U.S. leaders affected in policies towards the Vietnamese.

            Following World War II, and FDR’s death, we see a similar slight to Ho from President Harry Truman who saw Ho as a Communist and nothing else.  However, prior to his death, FDR in collaboration with Winston Churchill “pledged ‘to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them’” (Karnow).  Had FDR lived to see the Atlantic Charter implemented after the conclusion of World War II, the U.S. position in Vietnam may have been different, but FDR died and the political shift in policy followed newly appointed President Truman.  Due to the United States’ increasing fear of Communism in general, highlighted by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch hunts within the United States itself and the fall of nationalist China to Communist Mao Zedong and the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, U.S. policy seemed to forbid any support for Ho in his quest for Vietnam’s freedom.  “Containment” became the most important policy in foreign affairs and U.S. diplomacy with Ho was halted.

            Ironically, U.S. policy had entered into an alliance with Ho against a common enemy in the closing years of World War II, the Japanese who were controlling Vietnam since their occupation in March 1945.  The Office of Strategic Services assisted Ho and his followers by providing weapons and arms instruction, as well as the training of Vietnam resurgence effort in exchange for intelligence on the Japanese and help in finding American pilots lost during World War II.  Ho and the O.S.S. were mutually accommodating during this period.  In fact, because of O.S.S. equipment, the Viet Minh were now armed and trained in combat and would use those skills to break free from France, and later from the United States.

            Unfortunately, the alliance did not last for long as U.S. policy shifted toward “containment.”  With this shift, the U.S. entered an alliance with France.  Although the United States disapproved of French tactics, the desire to support its European ally, combined with a growing concern over Communist power in Asia, led first President Truman and later President Eisenhower into close cooperation with the French war effort.  As a matter of fact, the U.S. funded the majority of France’s effort to retain its colony in Indochina.  By 1954, when the Geneva Conference brought a temporary end to fighting in Vietnam, the United States was paying over 75 percent of the French war costs. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy shifted from assisting Ho to assisting the establishment of democracy in the form of the imperialistic France.

            After the fall of Dien Bien Phu and France’s surrender of its reign over Vietnam, U.S. policy shifted toward assisting the non-Communist regime in South Vietnam.  Established by the Geneva Accords in 1954, the area south of the 17^th parallel was governed by Ngo Dinh Diem and the area north was ruled by Ho Chi Minh and would remain as such until the proposed reunification elections were to take place in 1956.  Diem’s regime was supported by the U.S., but was corrupt and authoritative in which he directed violence at anyone he deemed a threat to his administration, including Buddhists and South Vietnamese Communists.  Diem went as far as to refuse to hold the 1956 reunification election and expected backing from his U.S. supporters due to their increasing fear of Communism, which he received.  Presidents from Kennedy to Nixon continued to support the South Vietnamese regimes, even after each one fell because of warring factions, corruption, and internal dissent. 

            Foreign relations were directed by the idea of “containment” which was initiated by President Truman and further defined by President Eisenhower’s domino theory and President Johnson’s warnings that Communism, if not contained in Asia, would “menace ‘the beaches of Waikiki’” (Karnow).   Because of this fear of Communism, the Soviet Union also unwittingly played a key role in the U.S. diplomatic affairs with South Vietnam.  Before the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, “the Soviet Union…showed little interest in Ho Chi Minh”  (Karnow).  However, the U.S. and its fear of the expansion of Communism, inexplicably linked Ho Chi Minh to “a worldwide Soviet plan to dominate the world” (Karnow).  Thus, in 1947, the U.S. under Harry Truman “conceded that Ho’s Communist ‘connections’ might serve the Kremlin’s purposes” (Karnow).  This fear of a strengthening Communist Soviet Union spurred Secretary of State Dean Acheson to state that Ho’s nationalism was irrelevant because Ho was first and foremost a Communist.  Because of this perceived connection with the Soviet Union, the U.S. tightened its grip in an attempt to control Communism in Vietnam in order to prevent Soviet control of Southeast Asia through Ho.  This furthered the commitment to the Saigon regime, regardless of how corrupt or unstable it had been because, in the eyes of the U.S., the fall to the Kremlin would be worse than trying to assist a defective democratic regime.

            Therefore, the U.S. policy towards Vietnam after World War II was directed by fears of Communism and Truman’s policy of containment.  Each President following Truman, all the way through to Nixon, continued to support the Saigon regime because of the fear of losing all of Southeast Asia to Communism and the idea of “containing” Communism everywhere.  From the support given to France in its Indochina war to the U.S. direct involvement in the Vietnam War, “containment” was the key. 

Sources:  Stanley Karnow.  Vietnam:  A History.  Penguin Group, 1997.

a