By James Webb
The rapidly disappearing cohort of Americans that endured the
Great Depression and then fought World War II is receiving quite a send-off
from the leading lights of the so-called 60s generation. Tom
Brokaw has published two oral histories of "The Greatest Generation"
that feature ordinary people doing their duty and suggest that such conduct
was historically unique.
Chris Matthews of "Hardball" is fond of writing
columns praising the Navy service of his father while castigating his own baby
boomer generation for its alleged softness and lack of struggle. William
Bennett gave a startling condescending speech at the Naval Academy a few years
ago comparing the heroism of the "D-Day Generation" to the
drugs-and-sex nihilism of the "Woodstock Generation." And
Steven Spielberg, in promoting his film "Saving Private Ryan," was
careful to justify his portrayals of soldiers in action based on the
supposedly unique nature of World War II.
An irony is at work here. Lest we forget, the World War
II generation now being lionized also brought us the Vietnam War, a conflict
which today's most conspicuous voices by and large opposed, and in which few
of them served. The "best and brightest" of the Vietnam age
group once made headlines by castigating their parents for bringing about the
war in which they would not fight, which has become the war they refuse to
remember.
Pundits back then invented a term for this animus: the
"generation gap." Long, plaintive articles and even books were
written examining its manifestations. Campus leaders, who claimed
precocious wisdom through the magical process of reading a few controversial
books, urged fellow baby boomers not to trust anyone over 30. Their
elders who had survived the Depression and fought the largest war in history
were looked down upon as shallow, materialistic, and out of touch.
Those of us who grew up on the other side of the picket line
from that era's counter-culture can't help but feel a little leery of this
sudden gush of appreciation for our elders from the leading lights of the old
counter-culture. Then and now, the national conversation has proceeded
from the dubious assumption that those who came of age during Vietnam are a
unified generation in the same sense as their parents were, and thus are
capable of being spoken for through these fickle elites.
In truth, the "Vietnam generation" is a misnomer.
Those who came of age during that war are permanently divided by different
reactions to a whole range of counter-cultural agendas, and nothing divides
them more deeply than the personal ramifications of the war itself. The
sizable portion of the Vietnam age group who declined to support the
counter-cultural agenda, and especially the men and women who opted to serve
in the military during the Vietnam War, are quite different from their peers
who for decades have claimed to speak for them. In fact, they are much
like the World War II generation itself. For them, Woodstock was a side
show, college protestors were spoiled brats who would have benefited from
having to work a few jobs in order to pay their tuition, and Vietnam
represented not an intellectual exercise in draft avoidance, or protest
marches but a battlefield that was just as brutal as those their fathers faced
in World War II and Korea.
Few who served during Vietnam ever complained of a generation
gap. The men who fought World War II were their heroes and role models.
They honored their father's service by emulating it, and largely agreed with
their father's wisdom in attempting to stop Communism's reach in Southeast
Asia.
The most accurate poll of their attitudes (Harris, 1980) showed
that 91 percent were glad they'd served their country, 74 percent enjoyed
their time in the service, and 89 percent agreed with the statement that
"our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in
Washington would not let them win." And most importantly, the
castigation they received upon returning home was not from the World War II
generation, but from the very elites in their age group who supposedly spoke
for them.
Nine million men served in the military during Vietnam War,
three million of whom went to the Vietnam Theater. Contrary to popular
mythology, two-thirds of these were volunteers, and 73 percent of those who
died were volunteers.
While some attention has been paid recently to the plight of
our prisoners of war, most of whom were pilots; there has been little
recognition of how brutal the war was for those who fought it on the ground.
Dropped onto the enemy's terrain 12,000 miles away from home,
America's citizen-soldiers performed with a tenacity and quality that may
never be truly understood. Those who believe the war was fought
incompetently on a tactical level should consider Hanoi's recent admission
that 1.4 million of its soldiers died on the battlefield, compared to 58,000
total U.S. dead.
Those who believe that it was a "dirty little war"
where the bombs did all the work might contemplate that is was the most costly
war the U.S. Marine Corps has ever fought - five times as many dead as World
War I, three times as many dead as in Korea, and more total killed and wounded
than in all of World War II.
Significantly, these sacrifices were being made at a time the
United States was deeply divided over our effort in Vietnam. The
baby-boom generation had cracked apart along class lines as America's young
men were making difficult, life-or-death choices about serving. The
better academic institutions became focal points for vitriolic protest against
the war, with few of their graduates going into the military. Harvard
College, which had lost 691 alumni in World War II, lost a total of 12 men in
Vietnam from the classes of 1962 through 1972 combined. Those classes at
Princeton lost six, at MIT two. The media turned ever more hostile.
And frequently the reward for a young man's having gone through the trauma of
combat was to be greeted by his peers with studied indifference of outright
hostility.
What is a hero? My heroes are the young men who faced the
issues of war and possible death, and then weighed those concerns against
obligations to their country. Citizen-soldiers who interrupted their
personal and professional lives at their most formative stage, in the timeless
phrase of the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, "not
for fame of reward, not for place of for rank, but in simple obedience to
duty, as they understood it." Who suffered loneliness, disease, and
wounds with an often-contagious élan. And who deserve a far better
place in history than that now offered them by the so-called spokesman of our
so-called generation.
Mr. Brokaw, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Spielberg, meet my
Marines.
1969 was an odd year to be in Vietnam. Second only to 1968 in terms of
American casualties, it was the year made famous by Hamburger Hill, as well as
the gut-wrenching Life cover story showing pictures of 242 Americans who had
been killed in one average week of fighting. Back home, it was the year
of Woodstock, and of numerous anti-war rallies that culminated in the
Moratorium march on Washington. The My Lai massacre hit the papers and
was seized upon the anti-war movement as the emblematic moment of the war.
Lyndon Johnson left Washington in utter humiliation.
Richard Nixon entered the scene, destined for an even worse
fate. In the An Hoa Basin southwest of Danang, the Fifth Marine Regiment
was in its third year of continuous combat operations. Combat is an
unpredictable and inexact environment, but we were well led. As a rifle
platoon and company commander, I served under a succession of three regimental
commanders who had cut their teeth in World War II, and four different
battalion commanders, three of whom had seen combat in Korea. The
company commanders were typically captains on their second combat tour in
Vietnam, or young first lieutenants like myself who were given companies after
many months of "bush time" as platoon commanders in the Basin's
tough and unforgiving environs.
The Basin was one of the most heavily contested areas in
Vietnam, its torn, cratered earth offering every sort of wartime possibility.
In the mountains just to the west, not far from the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the
North Vietnamese Army operated an infantry division from an area called Base
Area 112. In the valleys of the Basin, main-force Viet Cong battalions
whose ranks were 80 percent North Vietnamese Army regulars moved against the
Americans every day. Local Viet Cong units sniped and harassed.
Ridgelines and paddy dikes were laced with sophisticated booby traps of every
size, from a hand grenade to a 250-pound bomb. The villages sat in the
rice paddies and tree lines like individual fortresses, crisscrossed with the
trenches and spider holes, their homes sporting bunkers capable of surviving
direct hits from large-caliber artillery shells. The Viet Cong
infrastructure was intricate and permeating. Except for the old and the
very young, villagers who did not side with the Communists had either been
killed or driven out to the government controlled enclaves near Danang.
In the rifle companies, we spent the endless months patrolling
ridgelines and villages and mountains, far away from any notion of tents,
barbed wire, hot food, or electricity. Luxuries were limited to what
would fit inside one's pack, which after a few "humps" usually
boiled down to letter-writing material, towel, soap, toothbrush, poncho liner,
and a small transistor radio.
We moved through the boiling heat with 60 pounds of weapons and
gear, causing a typical Marine to drop 20 percent of his body weight while in
the bush. When we stopped we dug chest-deep fighting holes and slit
trenches for toilets. We slept on the ground under makeshift poncho
hootches, and when it rained we usually took our hootches down because wet
ponchos shined under illumination flares, making great targets. Sleep
itself was fitful, never more than an hour or two at a stretch for months at a
time as we mixed daytime patrolling with night-time ambushes, listening posts,
foxhole duty, and radio watches. Ringworm, hookworm, malaria, and
dysentery were common, as was trench foot when the monsoons came.
Respite was rotating back to the mud-filled regimental combat base at An Hoa
for four or five days, where rocket and mortar attacks were frequent and our
troops manned defensive bunkers at night. Which makes it kind of hard to
get excited about tales of Woodstock, or camping at the Vineyard during summer
break.
We had been told while training that Marine officers in the
rifle companies had an 85 percent probability of being killed or wounded, and
the experience of "Dying Delta," as our company was known, bore that
out. Of the officers in the bush when I arrived, our company commander
was wounded, the weapons platoon commander wounded, the first platoon
commander was killed, the second platoon commander was wounded twice, and I,
commanding the third platoons fared no better. Two of my original
three-squad leaders were killed, and the third shot in the stomach. My
platoon sergeant was severely wounded, as was my right guide. By the
time I left, my platoon had gone through six radio operators, five of them
casualties.
These figures were hardly unique; in fact, they were typical.
Many other units; for instance, those who fought the hill battles around Khe
Sanh, or were with the famed Walking Dead of the Ninth Marine Regiment, or
were in the battle of Hue City or at Dai Do, had it far worse.
When I remember those days and the very young men who spent
them with me, I am continually amazed, for these were mostly recent civilians
barely out of high school, called up from the cities and the farms to do their
year in hell and then return. Visions haunt me every day, not of the
nightmares of war but of the steady consistency with which my Marines faced
their responsibilities, and of how uncomplaining most of them were in the face
of constant danger. The salty, battle-hardened 20-year-olds teaching
green 19-year-olds the intricate lessons of the hostile battlefield. The
unerring skill of the young squad leaders as we moved through unfamiliar
villages and weed-choked trails in the black of night. The quick
certainty when a fellow Marine was wounded and needed help. Their
willingness to risk their lives to save other Marines in peril. To this
day it stuns me that their own countrymen have so completely missed the story
of their service, lost in the bitter confusion of the war itself.
Like every military unit throughout history we had occasional
laggards, cowards, and complainers. But in the aggregate, these Marines
were the finest people I have ever been around. It has been my privilege
to keep up with many of them over the years since we all came home. One
finds in them very little bitterness about the war in which they fought.
The most common regret, almost to a man, is that they were not able to do more
for each other and for the people they came to help.
It would be redundant to say that I would trust my life to
these men. Because I already have, in more ways than I can ever recount.
I am alive today because of their quiet, unaffected heroism, such valor
epitomizes the conduct of Americans at war from the first days of our
existence. That the boomer elites can canonize this sort of conduct in
our fathers generation alone constitutes a conscious, continuing travesty.
HOME