Dialog on Kerry & Vietnam (Round 2)
[W's comments in gold; Owens (from NR) in blue; mine in black.]
The points made in this essay [Owens in NR] (several re-made from the previous one) seem persuasive to me; as yet I've seen nothing that contradicts them.... Or do we just disregard the evaluation of the nuremberg prosecutor?
"American atrocities in Vietnam were, with the exception of My Lai, committed by individuals or small groups. All were in violation of standing orders and rules of engagement that were, according to Telford Taylor, a critic of many aspects of U.S. Vietnam policy and formerly a prosecutor at Nuremberg, "virtually impeccable."
When Taylor concluded that standing orders and rules of engagement in Vietnam were "virtually impeccable" he was not paying them a compliment, but rather lamenting that international law had not evolved since Nuremgberg to deal with the realities of strategic bombing. As a careful student of the law, Taylor had to conclude that no Nuremberg principles were violated by official US policy, but he believed, stated, and passionately argued in writing that air strikes in "free strike zones"and the US military strategy of attacking southern villages were indeed "unlawful."
Though had to concede it wasn't "illegal," he called the 1972 bombing of Hanoi "immoral and senseless." He also believed that certain top US officials were guilty of war crimes: after returning from a trip to Vietnam to inspect bombing damage in the North, Taylor was asked by a reporter on national television if McGeorge Bundy (National Security Advisor) could be judged guilty of war crimes under international law. Taylor replied "yes, of course."
Again, as a careful student of the law, Taylor did not think that official US policy constituted a war crime, and he doubted that any domestic court could "reasonably be expected to pass judgment on the legality of our Vietnam policies" But he believed that some of those policies were immoral nonetheless. (Other scholars have argued, contra Taylor, that formal US policy did constitute war crimes under international law.) Finally, and especially damning to Owens' argument is that the book that Owens quotes from (Taylor's Nuremberg and Vietnam) was written before the illegal US bombings of Cambodia were revealed.
"As I observed in an article for the February 23 issue of National Review, the atrocity claims that served as the basis for Kerry's 1971 testimony have never been confirmed, and many have been disproved."
Wrong. While some testimony of the sort has been disproved, none of the Winter Soldier testimonies has been disproved, and the Nixon administration certainly had the motive to do so at the time.
[Owens quoting Lewy] "What about war crimes and violations of the law of war? "Using [the] Nuremberg guidelines, it is very difficult to support the claim that U.S. conduct of the Vietnam War was characterized by the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity. The U.S. action was generally within the guidelines of the positive law of war; excesses and violations were usually treated as such."
Yes, but as I referred to above in my discussion of Taylor, that says more about how the Nuremberg guidelines were woefully inadequate to deal with the realties of a Vietnam War than about the probity of US conduct. And it is doubtful that the majority of "excesses and violations" ever came to light in a court.
"Consider the old charge that the U.S. employment of firepower in Vietnam constituted a violation of the law of war. In fact, I have observed, "the use of firepower does not per se violate the law of war."
Straw man. Only pacifists made the argument that Owens calls "the old charge." Taylor and most Vietnam critics, including dozens of active and former high level military officers and former cabinet members, did not claim that firepower "per se" was the issue, but things like "free-fire zones," "body-count" reckoning, the use of CN, Napalm, Agent Orange, etc.
Owens repeats the claim that Kerry slandered his "band of brothers," but as I have pointed out in an earlier post Kerry's condemnation is directed towards the policies, strategies and tactics--not the ordinary soldier. As Gary J. Bass, who studies human rights and war crimes at Princeton put it, "He's fixing blame very carefully and very self-consciously on the political leadership at the highest levels." Bass explains further "He's not saying the problem is we just have a bunch of Calleys; he's saying these are good people who are being forced to carry out policies that drive you toward killing civilians. If you set up a policy of free-fire zones, that's a policy that's subject to abuse. It's a policy that has no standing in international law."
Owens states that Kerry contributed to the view of veterans as "dysfunctional losers." But I'd argue that the US government is responsible for that, by putting them into an immoral and confusing war, and then not adequately dealing with them when the returned en masse with problems. A recent report finds that 1/3 of homeless Americans are veterans, 1/2 of whom are Vietnam vets. And see my section below, "Soldier Morale."
**********
It is the Swifties who are opening up the can of worms, who are violating the uneasy agreement to leave the divisive questions of Vietnam alone. If Owens is correct in his assessment of their overall strategy, then the questioning of Kerry's heroism is simply a tactical prelude to a full bore attack on his 1971 Senate testimony. Kerry used his Vietnam service to argue that as one who served he knows better, is better qualified, to judge how, when, and under what circumstances to send men into battle. Military leadership and the demonstration of bravery on the battlefield have been important components of deciding political leaders since Pericles. That's hardly an invitation to debate anew the details of the Vietnam War. If anyone is trying to reopen the Vietnam wound again for political purposes, it's the Swifties, not Kerry.
Richard Holbrooke puts it all nicely:
"His personal saga embodies the American experience in Vietnam. First he was a good hero in a bad war -- a man who volunteered for duty in the Navy and then asked for an assignment on the boats that were to ply the dangerous rivers of Vietnam -- when most of his college-educated contemporaries (including George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton) -- found easy ways to avoid Vietnam. Then, carrying shrapnel in his thigh, he became an eloquent but moderate member of the antiwar movement."
"John Kerry introduced his Vietnam record into his campaign because it is a central part of who he is. But stirring up the embers of our Second Civil War was not his intention. Younger people I have talked to tell me that this past week it seemed to them nothing more than a silly, irrelevant argument about a distant war; to a certain extent, I agree. All those who served in Vietnam put their lives at risk, and at this distance from the war they all deserve respect. Those of us who survived should show younger Americans that we learned something from the war; John Kerry clearly did, but the same cannot be said of his Swift boat critics. To have a sterile debate about the minutiae of his service, when the basic facts of his heroism are undeniable -- and while Americans are again in a war that seems to have no exit -- is particularly grotesque."
**********
THE VIETNAM WAR WAS SINGULARLY BRUTAL ON CIVILIANS
In WWI, the total number of Civilian Casualties was 10.74% of the total casualties (106,000 GIs died; 8 million civilians died).
In WWII the civilian casualties were approximately 410,000, or 50.62% of the total (400,000 GIs died; add to the civilian total the 8 million Holocaust; and add 17 to 60 million civilian causality estimates worldwide).
In the Vietnam War, civilian casualty estimate is 340,000, or 85.74% of total casualties (56,000 GIs died; 200,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died; 1,000,000 North Vietnamese soldiers died."
WAR CRIMES & LIES
General William Westmoreland once characterized the killing of Vietnamese civilians this way: "It does deprive the enemy of the population, doesn’t it?"
Here's Assistant Secretary of Defense John McNaughton speaking in 1966:
"Destruction of locks and dams, however-if handled right-might . . . offer promise. It should be studied. Such destruction doesn't kill or drown people. By shallow-flooding the rice, it leads after a time to widespread starvation (more than a million?) unless food is provided-which we could offer to do "at the conference table."
In September 1973, a former government official in Laos, Jerome Doolittle, wrote in the New York Times:
"The Pentagon's most recent lies about bombing Cambodia bring back a question that often occurred to me when I was press attaché at the American Embassy in Vientiane, Laos.
Why did we bother to lie?
When I first arrived in Laos, I was instructed to answer all press questions about our massive and merciless bombing campaign in that tiny country with: "At the request of the Royal Laotian Government, the United States is conducting unarmed reconnaissance flights accompanied by armed escorts who have the right to return if fired upon."
This was a lie. Every reporter to whom I told it knew it was a lie. Hanoi knew it was a lie. The International Control Commission knew it was a lie. Every interested Congressman and newspaper reader knew it was a lie....
After all, the lies did serve to keep something from somebody, and the somebody was us."
SOLDIER MORALE
"Fragging," a name for the killing of officers by subordinates, was so high that the Pentagon reported 209 instances of it in one year (1970). Several underground GI papers sprang up that listed "bounties" for fragging certain officers perceived to be especially brutal or reckless.
American B-52 pilots began to refuse to follow orders during the bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong around Christmas 1972.
Deserters increased from 47,000 in 1967 to 89,000 in 1971. In that same year, 177 of every 1,000 soldiers were classified as "absent without leave." 563,000 GIs received less than honorable discharges. In 1973, 1 out of 5 discharges was "less than honorable."
INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
They're main findings are here. It was chaired by Bertrand Russell and included Sartre and other Lefty intellectuals so you can dismiss it if you like, but at least read it, since I've now read very carefully Mackubin Thomas Owens, who writes for NR, teaches at the Naval War College, and has a frightening haircut.
