Myths &
Misconceptions: Vietnam War Folklore
by Michael
Kelley
July 1998
"
Carlyle said 'a
lie cannot live.' It shows he did not know how to tell
them."
--
Mark Twain
Myth #1: Most Vietnam Veterans Saw
Combat
Myth #2:
Living Conditions For the Average US
Soldier Were
Very
Difficult &
Uncomfortable
Myth #3: The Average Age of Soldiers Killed In Vietnam
Was 19 Years
Myth #4: The Americans Never Lost
a Major Battle
Myth #5: Casualties Were a High Percentage of Those
Who Served
Myth #6: Black American Soldiers Suffered Inordinate
Casualty Rates
Myth
#7: Between 58,000 and 200,000 Vietnam
Veterans Have
Committed Suicide Coming
Home
Myth #8: 30% of the Homeless are Vietnam
Veterans
Myth #9: Some 800,000 Vietnam Vets Suffer PTSD:
Post
Traumatic
Stress Disorder
Myth #10: Vietnam Was a War Fought By Draftees
While W.W. II
Was
Primarily Fought By Volunteers
Myth #11: Combat In World War II Was More Intense Than
In
Vietnam
Myth #12: American Soldiers Were Fond of the South
Vietnamese and
Held a Deep Hatred for the Enemy
Myth #13: Enlisting in the Military Was a
Patriotic Gesture
It is likely the
American War in Vietnam produced as many myths and
misunderstandings about the reality of the experience as
any other war in our history.
While that may be true,
it does not alter the fact these myths and
misconceptions distort the truth in ways that affect the
historical record and judgments formed about that war.
In some cases, the distortions are of epic proportions
and serve as often to discredit the reputation of the
Vietnam veteran as much as they might inflate
it.
From a personal
perspective forged by my own life as a combat
infantryman during the Vietnam War, and as tempered by
over 28 years as a Vietnam Veteran advocate, I have
grown increasingly perplexed by the frequent and often
unchallenged bending of fact common to Vietnam war
recollections and the evolving legacy of statistical
data related to Vietnam veteran post-war behavior. Truth
often gets lost in the shuffle and many of us remain
either too complacent or too ignorant of the facts to
correct the record.
It is common practice to
lay the blame at the feet of the press, and certainly
the media can shoulder its fair share of blame for its
frequent failure to verify what are obviously
exaggerated and preposterous claims yet broadcast as
fact. The press should also be called to task for an
equally disturbing predisposition to
seek its
material from lips of the most gaudily dressed and
vocally demonstrative individuals at any gathering of
veterans.
That said, the media is
often only the messenger.
The sad fact is that the
origin of most myths about the Vietnam experience
originate among Vietnam Veterans themselves. It is also
often the case that Vietnam veterans sincere in their
belief of the folklore often unwittingly become its most
zealous advocates and, in that sense, their own worst
enemies.
Although the vast
majority of these veterans are honest, hard-working and
productive members of society, a fair number are also
charlatans of the highest caliber. It is a fact that
many who served in Vietnam but never saw combat there
are ashamed of that fact even though they should not be.
As a result, it is not uncommon for some to pursue
self-aggrandizement through frequent embellished bending
of the truth.
Understanding such
behavior, however, is far less important than
recognizing it.
In that regard I offer
this: as a general rule, it has been my observation that
true combat vets rarely talk about their experiences or
embellish their stories and, in most situations, the
degree of veracity of the storyteller is inversely
proportional to the degree of the intrepidity which the
storytellers attributes to himself. Never completely
trust anyone whose war stories sound incredible in any
way, or who paint themselves as heroic.
It is paradoxical of the
combat experience that those who taste it rarely wish
the experience on anyone, while those who do not often
spend their lives in envy of those who have--the late
Admiral Boorda being perhaps the most visible
manifestation of this phenomenon. But whatever the
psychology, truth often takes a severe beating in the
bargain.
There are also more than
a few phony vets who never set foot in Vietnam or
perhaps never even in the military, yet know enough
about the subject and how
to manipulate the press
such that they emerge accomplished and well-published
frauds. The vast potential of the internet, as well as
the ever-growing body of published memoirs, now provide
such a wealth of material that it is becoming
increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction.
While on the one hand these resources help expose
frauds, they at the same time arm good liars with
facts
that lend authenticity to
fabrication.
It is not my intent here
to disparage those not involved in actual combat. We
were all part of the same team and combat by itself is
no measure of the effort or sacrifice of any man or
woman who served in Vietnam.
It is a fact that many
infantrymen saw relatively little combat (the author
among them) and it is likely some rear echelon troops
saw more combat and/or endured more hardship than many
of us out busting the bush (though certainly in fewer
numbers). But the truth is the truth, and that is all I
hope to reveal.
It is an indisputable
fact that the vast majority of all actual contacts with
the enemy were suffered by maneuver elements (i.e.,
Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Aviation support and other
units involved in direct contact with those soldiers out
in the jungle, carrying a rifle and looking for
trouble). For the Army at any rate,
it is a fact that
more than 70% of all casualties were suffered by the
maneuver battalions and that casualties and discomfort
were much rarer among those who served in rear areas
(the large, well-protected bases that littered the
Vietnam landscape) than among those breaking trail in
the bush.
No apology is necessary
for that reality, nor will I make excuses for the fact
that much of what follows may highlight the infantryman
while minimizing the suffering of rear echelon support
troops. The simple truth is that as a general rule, life
in the rear was very much safer and very
much more comfortable than in was in the bush or
out in the rice paddies. There is no question about
that.
Quite frankly,
politically-correct efforts to gloss over the reality of
what it was like to be a soldier in Vietnam are wearing
very thin indeed, and it is high-time we gave up the
fiction and returned to some factual frames of
reference.
Fact
#1?
Most Vietnam Veterans Saw
Combat:
Actually, the opposite is true; only a
relatively small percentage were ever involved in
combat. In fact, it is likely less than 30% of all who
served there ever saw combat of any sort during their
war.
Although the ratio of
combat to support troops varied over time, as a general
rule there where approximately 10 troops supporting
every soldier carrying a rifle in the field. At the
height of the war in 1969, there were roughly 540,000
troops in Vietnam. Of that total, only perhaps 60,000
were-rifle carrying, front-line soldiers. At any given
point, perhaps less than 40,000 of that 60,000 were
actually in the field, at risk and seeking contact with
the enemy. Minor wounds, disease, R&R, leaves,
training, administrative needs, rear assignments and
legal proceedings kept perhaps 25% of an infantry
company out of the line on a continual basis. During
much of the war, Long Binh, regarded as the largest
American facility, was staffed by over 100,000 US troops
(that is roughly 20% of the entire US troop commitment
at the height of our involvement!), of whom only a very
small fraction (5-10%?) were assigned to a direct combat
role. It was basically a self-contained city
distinguished only from its stated-side counterparts by
the lack of an underground sewage system and the miles
of barbed wire that encircled it. And Long Binh was but
one of hundreds of other permanent US military
installations in Vietnam, several of which were
similar in size and amenities. Tan Son Nhut Air Base,
was the busiest airport in the world for much of
the war; busier than either Chicago's O'Hare or New
York's JFK. Other major bases of substantial size
included Phu Bai, Bien Hoa, Pleiku, An Khe, Quang Tri,
Cu Chi and the ports of Saigon, Da Nang and Cam Ranh
Bay, to name a few.
At page 259 of
Son Thang, An American War Crime, author
Gary Solis points out that: "More than 448,000 marines
served in Vietnam, although far fewer actually saw
combat. One study asserts that no more than 71 percent
of Vietnam veterans saw any combat at all. Combat itself
may be defined on a sliding scale." Though life in the
infantry was often intensely demanding both physically
and emotionally, actual combat, fighting with the enemy,
was actually relatively rare. In fact, on average most
infantry companies made contact with the enemy no more
than two or three times per month. For many,
particularly those working in mountainous terrain,
contact was even less frequent. Fatigue, boredom,
physical discomfort and loneliness were the most
common characteristics of infantry life; terror and
death were only its occasional
companions.
Fact #2?
Living Conditions For
the Average US Soldier Were Very Difficult &
Uncomfortable:
Again, though
conditions varied over time and by occupation, the
opposite was typically the case for the majority of
those who served in-country. As a general statement, it
is fair to say that between 1965 and 1967, living
conditions were quite primitive. In those early years of
US involvement, base sites were being chosen and
developed by engineers, so tent living and Spartan
lifestyles were
the rule. Once most major
facilities were completed, the focus shifted to
providing leisure time activities and comfort
enhancements for the soldier.
For the most part, the
75-80% who never saw combat of any sort led lives
comparable to, if not better than, stateside duty. In
fact, it is little understood that there were a
significant number of perks associated with combat zone
duty not available to assignments elsewhere in the
world.
A high percentage of
Vietnam vets (perhaps 40%?) volunteered or even
re-enlisted to remain in or return to the combat zone.
Some did it over and over. Two, three and four tours
were not uncommon and the author personally knows an Air
Force NCO who spent six years in-country. Even a
significant percentage of the infantry volunteered to
extend their tours because they preferred combat life to
stateside duty, though there were other reasons for
extending as well, getting an "early-out" being one of
them, and fear of returning being another. One added
bonus was the additional $65 per month Combat Pay to
which any enlisted person serving in the combat zone was
entitled. Even though the majority were at much less
risk than true combat soldiers, they received the same
combat pay. As a general rule, advancement in rank was
also much faster and much easier than in
non-combat zone duty. Rules and regulations were relaxed
in the combat zone. "Boot polishing," boot licking,
physical training, marching drill and other military
formalities were rarely enforced or as onerous as they
were elsewhere. Of no small importance is the fact
virtually everyone was armed and dangerous. As a result,
otherwise contentious or obnoxious officers and NCOs
were generally much better behaved in the combat zone.
Those who risked men's lives needlessly or abused
privilege of rank often found themselves at the wrong
end of an M-16 or Fragmentation grenade. In fact,
some 800 such "fraggings" were reported during the war,
though it is likely the number was much higher. In some
rare cases, rewards were offered informally for the
dispatch of an officer or NCO perceived as particularly
despicable. The highest rumored offering was for
the life of General Melvin Zais, the commanding
general of the Army's 101st Airborne Division
responsible for ordering the costly and very
controversial attack of Hamburger Hill in 1969.
Recreational facilities were often elaborate and
prolific: snack bars; steak houses, basketball courts;
swimming pools, gyms; theaters, Clubs; R&R beach
center (such as China Beach, Eagle Beach; Red Beach,
Vung Tau, among others); BX facilities with heavily
discounted items; PACEX mail-order services for all
sorts of goods at heavy discount; access to extremely
low cost alcoholic beverages at clubs and BXs; showers;
walk-in medical and dental facilities; comfortable and
sometimes air-conditioned quarters; ubiquitous U.S.O.
entertainment (mostly Korean, Australian and US lounge
lizard acts) and etc., etc. & etc. For those so
inclined, access to the world of sexual pleasure was
effortless, cheap and far removed from the normal
constraints of family and neighborly influence. At the
height of the war for example, over 56,000
registered prostitutes were working alongside US
troops in Saigon alone. That is 56,000 not including the
amateurs! For those so inclined, access to high quality,
extremely low cost drugs (including alcohol) was
abundant and of low risk. Dealing could be a very
lucrative avocation; and even when discovered,
punishments were generally lighter than elsewhere.
Finally, for those possessed by even more relaxed moral
standards, a strong bug of free enterprise and access to
US supply depots, black market trading was a very busy
and rewarding sideline. Some US personnel even sold
stolen weapons on the black market, weapons that
eventually ended-up in the hands of the
enemy.
Fact #3?
The Average Age of
Soldiers Killed in Vietnam Was 19
Years:
This widely accepted urban myth probably
owes its life the popular song, "Nineteen" released in
England during the 1980s. According to the
Department
of Defense Combat Area Casualty File
(CACF), the actual average age of the war's 58,000+ dead
was 23.11 years. Given that that group represents a very
substantial statistical sample, 23.11 is probably quite
close to the average age
of all who served in
Vietnam.
Fact
#4?
The Americans
never lost a major battle:
This myth owes its origins to semantics
and ignorance more than rational analysis. It completely
ignores the fact the enemy waged a guerrilla war
dependent on hit-and-run tactics designed to avoid US
overwhelming fire superiority. Proponents of this myth
rely on the antiquated yardsticks of conventional war
theory as their crutch; i.e., whomever holds the ground
when the shooting stops is the victor. But viewed in the
light of the actual tactics employed there, it is fair
to say the Americans lost many battles.
While it is true that US
troops held the ground at the close of most battles, the
enemy ordinarily chose the moment of disengagement after
exhausting any strategic importance the site may have
held. And, more often than not, the battlefield was
abandoned by the Americans within hours of the enemy's
withdrawal. The enemy almost always surrendered
territory as soon as it had exploited its full potential
for punishing, embarrassing and frustrating US
troops.
In Vietnam, Victory might best be measured by
whether a force achieved its objectives in any given
operation. On those terms, the NVA/VC may have succeeded
much more often than the Americans; consider the fact
that 85% of
all contacts were initiated by the
enemy. Even measured in conventional terms, the
Americans lost a significant number of battles. The
first major engagement
of the war in the valley
of the Ia Drang River, November 1965, involved a
staggering defeat at clearing called LZ Albany. There,
an entire US battalion of
the 1st Cavalry
Division (2d/7th Cav) was virtually annihilated when it
stumbled into an NVA regiment. Of 400 men in the US
unit, some 155 were killed and 121 wounded in just a few
short hours of combat. Victory was certainly not on the
lips of any American lucky enough to survive that
conflagration. Other battalion sized losses were
suffered by the Marines in 1966/67 near the DMZ. On July
2, 1967, during Operation Buffalo two companies of the
1st Battalion, 9th Marines were ambushed by an NVA
regiment. Only a single platoon of the eight engaged
survived to tell the tale. It is unlikely many of those
few men considered themselves victors. Company and
platoon sized losses were quite common throughout the
war, and since most of the war was fought at the company
and platoon level, it seems fair to say the enemy won
its fair share of battles. It is also true that more
than a few heavily defended US firebases were overrun
and left smoldering by sharp enemy strikes lasting only
a few hours. In those attacks, the NVA/VC often
succeeded totally in their
objective.
Fact #5?
Casualties were a high
percentage of those who served:
An
estimated 2.7 million men & women served in the
combat zone. DOD figures indicate that about 58,168 died
there and 303,678 suffered wounds. At face value, these
figures suggest that roughly 2.15% died in combat and
11.2% were wounded.
Closer analysis provides
a somewhat different picture. Of the 58,168 who died,
about 10,475 were listed as non-hostile, i.e. the result
of disease accidents, homicides and etc. Therefore, the
actual fatality rate due to combat was
closer
to 1.7%.The wounded in action statistics
are the most misleading. They suggest more than one in
ten of all who served in Vietnam were wounded. The
actual percentage is far less. The Department of Defense
bases its 303,678 wounded total on the number
(incidence) of wounds reported during the war.
DOD's
figures show 153,303 wounds (not mortal)
requiring hospitalization and 150,332 wounds not
requiring hospitalization. However, it is very important
to understand that it was not uncommon at all for
individual soldiers to be wounded two, three, four and
even more times during their tour or tours in-country.
In other words, the actual number of separate
individuals who were wounded had to be
significantly lower than 303,678. Based on his own
experience, the author would feel comfortable in
estimating that as many as 50% of the 303,678 awards
were multiple. If that is true, then only about 151,500
separate individuals were wounded during the war. From
that perspective, only perhaps 5.6% of the total
Vietnam veteran population ever suffered actual wounds.
The oft repeated assertion that there were no fronts and
that as a result everyone was in constant danger is
greatly exaggerated. Of 47,000 Battle deaths, roughly
75% were suffered by maneuver Battalions (Infantry,
Armor Artillery and Aviation units attached to ground
forces). After subtracting that 75% from 47,000, we are
left
a remainder of 11,750 deaths that include Air
Force and Navy combat pilots. Subtract the Navy's 1,631
combat deaths and the USAF's 1,739 combat deaths and the
net total deaths suffered by support troops roughly
approximates 8,380. Of the 2.7 million who served in the
combat zone, approximately 80% were not directly
involved in combat of any sort; therefore 2.16 million
non-combat troops suffered 8,380 hostile deaths. That
means only three tenths of 1% of rear echelon troops
were killed (8,380 divided by 2,160,000 = .003) by
hostile action.
Fact #6?
Black American Soldiers
Suffered Inordinate Casualty Rates:
Overall casualty rate statistics do not
support this assertion. Table 12 of the US Census
Bureau's 1999 Statistical Abstract of the US (on
the Internet at: www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec01.pdf)
tells us that between 1960 and 1980, Blacks Americans
expressed as a percentage of the total US population
averaged approximately 11.13%. According to the Combat
Area Casualty File (the "CACF," available on the
Internet at: http://www.no-quarter.org/html/crunch.html),
a comprehensive database that allows the user to search
the entire Vietnam Wars casualty data in by any field or
combination of fields one might care to employ, the
numbers are: Of the entire 58,177 who died in
Vietnam, including both officers and enlisted men, 86%
were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were
other races. According to CACF data: 7,265 was
the total number of Black American deaths, which is
12.5% of the total dead (CACF "Race" field entry
is "N" with all other fields blank) 17, 672 was
the total number of Draftee deaths (all races), which is
30.4% of the total dead (CACF "Component" field
entry for Selective Service is "Y" with all other fields
blank) 2,387 was the total number of Black
Draftee deaths, which is 13.5% of total Draftee
dead ("N" in CACF "Race" field plus "Y" in "Component"
field with all other fields blank). By contrast, in the
introduction to his widely-circulated and well-regarded,
Bloods-An Oral History to the Vietnam War by Black
Veterans, author Wallace Terry states that "In the
early years of fighting, Blacks made up 23 percent of
the casualties." While that assertion may or may not be
true, Mr. Terry does not specify what he meant by the
early years of the war, nor does he cite a source for
that claim, so it is impossible to verify its accuracy.
Terry goes on to say that by his return to Vietnam in
1969, as a reporter with Time magazine, "Black
combat fatalities had dropped to 14 percent, still
proportionately higher than the 11 percent which Blacks
represented in the American population. "In other words,
where Terry implies that somewhere between 14 and 23
percent of all combat fatalities in Vietnam were
suffered by Black Americans, but the truth of the matter
is that the actual overall total percentage was
12.5%, a figure only slightly higher than
Black Americans' average 11.13% percentage of
the US population during the same period. What is more,
though it is widely believed by many, including Terry,
that Black Americans were inordinately "victims" of the
Selective Service System (the Draft), the actual data
shows us that 13.5% of all Draftee deaths were
Black Americans, a figure only slightly greater than
their percentage of the US population. (Frankly, the
author expected that percentage to be higher but is
thankful the actual percentage suggests that
institutional racism was not woven into the fabric of
the military as much by the Draft as some claim it to
have been.) According to the Combat Area Casualty File,
50,273 enlisted men (those other than officers)
were killed and distributed by race as
follows:
| |
White |
Black |
Native
American |
Asian |
Unknown |
|
# |
42,490 |
7,115 |
219 |
343 |
106 |
| % |
84.52% |
14.15% |
.044% |
.068% |
.021% |
During the war, Black
Americans comprised roughly 12% of the US population and
Whites 80.3% (the term Caucasian or White includes all
Hispanics here). Although the Black casualty rate was
slightly higher than their percent of population, in
some respects it is surprising the disparity was not
much greater. In the 50's and early 60's, the US
military was regarded as one of the few American
institutions offering real opportunity to the poor and
disadvantaged of the era, and our Black poor embraced
that potential in numbers reflecting their disadvantaged
economic position in our culture. As a result, Blacks
may have comprised as much as 20% or even more of Army
personnel at the start of the Vietnam War and their
participation steadily edged downward to about 15% of
the military by 1971 (a reduction likely the result
Black Americans' growing disenchantment with the war and
the perception of a disproportionate burden being
shouldered by Blacks). What is perhaps most interesting
about the Black American casualty rate in Vietnam is not
that it was slightly higher than their percent of the US
population, but rather that it was actually lower
than the
overall percentage of Blacks in the
military. - 12.5% of the total deaths versus
an
estimated average of between 15-20% of the military for
the period
1964-1973. It is also a fact that Whites
suffered a higher casualty rate than their
percentage of the military - 84.52% of the casualties v.
approx 75% participation in the military). It is the
author's belief that the disparity reflects the fact
that for economic reasons, a high percentage of Black
Americans enlisted (rather than being Drafted) for
longer enlistments and the job opportunities those
longer enlistments offered. In other words, by
enlisting, one could gain access to training and jobs
apart from the Infantry and the dangers it entailed (if
drafted, there was perhaps as much as a 90% likelihood
an assignment to the infantry and its exponentially
higher casualty risks would result).
It is also true that the
apparent disproportionate Black casualty rate
experienced in the early years of the war reflected many
factors other than racism. For one thing, it reflected
the fact that at least prior to 1967, Black Americans
volunteered for infantry and airborne units at much
higher rates than their percentage of population. In
other words, while their casualty rate may have been
disproportionate at first, that fact reflected their
actual representation in the infantry and airborne,
not that they were being pushed to the fore of
combat while non-Blacks were being held back.
Why Blacks were so
disposed may have its roots in cultural norms of the era
where manhood and machismo were important measures of
respect in Black
and Hispanic cultures, and
where the degree of risk taken was an important
yardstick. It should come of no surprise that in the
higher risk professions of the military, many people of
every color often thought they would find the respect of
their peers and their own self respect as
well.
While machismo may have
been a significant factor contributing to high
percentages of Blacks in the combat arms of the
military, it is important not to dismiss genuine
patriotism as well.
It was certainly the
case that many Blacks joined the infantry and airborne
units of the US military out of a true sense of
patriotic zeal. In fact, most of the men who fought in
Vietnam grew up in the John Kennedy era, an era in
which
patriotism and genuine concerns for duty, honor
and country were instilled in
and professed by
many of those who served. The pervasive cynicism and
turn
toward the "me first syndrome" that infected
later generations did not exist to any significant
degree early in the war, and for those who did not live
through that era, I am certain it is very difficult to
understand or appreciate just how significant those
influences were between 1962 and 1968.
While Black Americans
may have Drafted in numbers somewhat disproportionate to
their percentage of the population at the beginning of
the war, draft reform reversed that inequity starting in
about mid-1967. In the early 60's, students entering
college became eligible for student deferments and,
until reform measures were enacted, could enjoy their
2-S deferment almost without restriction as long as they
remained in college. When the obvious inequities were
quantified, public outcry resulted in a revamping of the
Selective Service system
in '67, after which
college deferments were vigorously limited and
regulated.
It would seem reasonable to conclude
that Selective Service laws were not intentionally
designed to discriminate against Blacks, or any other
minorities, as some have argued, because in my opinion
the early Draft disparity was more the result of
economic rather than racial bias. Draft laws simply
favored the wealthy. CACF searches were further refined
to explore the ratio of hostile versus non-hostile
deaths among Black Americans to see if there might be
any disparity in that category. Of the 58,177
Vietnam war dead listed in DOD stats for the Vietnam War
located on the Internet at: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/m01/SMS223R.HTM,
10,799 Americans are
said to have died
from non-hostile causes such as accidents, normal
mortality, murder, suicide and so on. That is, roughly
18.56% of our war dead were recorded as having
been the result of non-hostile causes. The CACF file
was
then searched by Race "N", and for each
category of non-hostile death causes, with all other
fields blank.
"CASTYPE": The CACF
categorizes casualties primarily as hostile or
non-hostile in the "CAS1" field (and further within each
type in subsequent CAS2 and CAS3 fields). For the
primary "CAS1" field, in sequential searches, C1, C2,
C3, D5, and D6 were entered per the following listed
categories found in the CACF.txt descriptive legend
linked within the CACF search page. The results of each
search are also listed:
C1 = NON-HOSTILE,
Died Of Other Causes = 1,079
C2 = NON-HOSTILE, Died
Of Illness/Injury = 287
C3 = NON-HOSTILE, Died While
Missing = 178
D5 = NON-HOSTILE, Missing, Returned =
0
D6 = NON-HOSTILE, Now Missing = 0
Total NON-HOSTILE, Black
American deaths = 1,544
Black American
non-hostile deaths expressed as a percentage of total
non-hostile deaths is then 1,544 divided by 10,799,
which yields a figure of 14.56%, where the
expected figure should approximate 18.6%.
What that finding means,
is difficult to say. It does seem to suggest that Blacks
may have been exposed to combat slightly more than
non-blacks, but then other non-malicious factors
contributed to that circumstance as discussed
above.
It is also curious to
note that Asian Americans suffered casualties far below
their percentage of population. That may have been the
result of cultural influences limiting Asian American
interest in the military and of a conscious military
policy to limit their exposure in the combat zone. It is
my understanding the military was concerned American
Asians might be mistaken for the enemy by our own troops
and made a conscious effort to limit their assignments
to jobs within the combat zone (Caution: possible myth
in its infancy?). Oddly enough, the most blatant
discriminatory aspect of Draft is often simply
overlooked altogether. It is
a fact that only
men were required to register for the Draft and
subjected to conscription. Sexual discrimination then
was both total and socially acceptable during the
war.
Fact #7?
Between 58,000 and
200,000 Vietnam Veterans Have Committed Suicide Coming
Home:
Though it has been widely
reported that more VN veterans have committed suicide
than died in the war, not a shred of verifiable data has
ever been published to support such a preposterous
assertion. What scientific explorations of Vietnam vet
mortality have been undertaken all indicate the Vietnam
vet suicide rate is only very slightly higher overall
than that occurring in the general population. Since
1967, roughly 603,200 male suicides have been reported
in the US. If the 150,000 Vietnam vets suicide figure
were accurate, then fully 25% of all male
suicides in the US since 1967 have been committed by
Vietnam veterans! One in four male suicides in the
US since 1967 has been a Vietnam Veteran, even though
Vietnam veterans constitute only 2% of total US
male population. Males commit 85.1% of all
suicides in the US, and if the mythical rate was true,
then 1% of the US population is committing 21% of all
suicides. In that case, one of every five suicides in
the US would be a Vietnam Veteran. Do either of these
estimates seem plausible? The National rate of suicide
is about 1.11% of all US deaths. The mythical rates of
popular folklore tell us the VN vet suicide rate falls
somewhere between 15% and 50% of all VN veteran
mortality. The in-country suicide rate for US Army
personnel during the war was reported by the Department
of the Army as nine tenths of 1% (.934 of 1%, actually).
A major, 1987, CDC study of Vietnam era mortality
concluded that VN vets suffered a 17% higher mortality
rate than non-Vietnam era vets of the same age,
but only during the first five years after returning
from the war. After the first five years home the rates
were the same. In separate reviews of the CDC's
findings, the American Medical Association and the New
England Journal
of Medicine both concluded that
during the first five years after returning from the
war, VN vets were 65% more likely to commit suicide than
individuals of the same age group in the general
population (both also noted the rate dropping to the
national rate after the first five years). The
national suicide rate was 1.11% of all deaths at the
time and therefore the indicated suicide
rate
(1st five years only) for VN vets was 1.83% of all VN
vet deaths (simply 1.11 x 1.65). Veterans
Administration disability claim data appears to indicate
that as of 1996, a total of roughly 363,000 VN vets
(including those KIA) had died from all causes. The
mythical rates would have us believe somewhere between
20% and 50% those deaths should have been from suicide.
Even if the VN vet rate had remained constant at 1.83%
of all deaths since the war, the AMA/NEJ/CDC predicted
total would be less than 13,000 as of 1997.
Patients of the VA Veterans Outreach Program (provides
psychological counseling to VN & other vets), some
of the most emotionally damaged survivors of the war,
suffer
a suicide rate that almost precisely
matches the national 1.11% of all deaths rate. In 1997,
the Australian Department of Veteran's Affairs published
a comprehensive report on Vietnam veteran mortality
(Mortality of Vietnam Veterans - The Veteran Cohort
Study available on the Internet at: www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/mortal1.htm)
that covered all Australian male Vietnam veteran deaths
from the end of the war until December 31, 1994. It is
perhaps the most important study of Vietnam veteran
mortality to date. This exhaustive study found
nothing to suggest that the risk of suicide was higher
among its war veterans than among the general male
population. Of particular interest is the fact the
Australian researchers were able to identify the entire
Australian Vietnam veteran population (59,036) and to
verify the current status of 57, 231 of those
veterans! Of that 57,231 total, 3,840 died during or
after the Vietnam War. Those figures are of great
importance because they show the total mortality of
Australian Vietnam veterans between 1965 and December
1994 was 6.71% of that population (3,840 divided
by 57,231); our first, clear, hard and direct look at an
actual Vietnam veteran population's overall
mortality. Applied to our own 3.1 million Vietnam
veteran population, the Australian data suggests our
total mortality (including KIA) should have been about
208,010 veterans as of January 1, 1995. Subtract the
58,000 KIA and the indicated total of US Vietnam
veterans who died after returning from Vietnam would be
only 150,010 as of that date. If the Australian
experience reasonably mirrors our own (and it is
difficult to imagine why it would be significantly
different) and the 150,000 suicide total is fact, then
100% of all US Vietnam Veterans deaths are the
result of suicide and of no other cause. Application
of the Australian Cohort Study data to our own VA's
363,000 total mortality estimate suggests a US total of
10,781 suicides. When applied to its own predicted total
of 150,010 US post-war Vietnam veteran deaths as of
January 1, 1995, it suggests a total US Vietnam Veteran
suicide figure of only 4,455. There is unwarranted
arrogance in the presumption trauma is the exclusive
property of the combat soldier. Trauma is prevalent at
all levels of society, and civilian life is laced with
tragedy and violent death in doses comparable to, if not
greater than, that of the combat soldier. In 1967
alone, for example, deaths by car accident in the
US about equaled the total number of US troops who died
in ALL of the Vietnam war! In 1990 alone, 38,866
Americans died of gunshot wounds (accidental and
homicide), while in 1995, more than 20,000 were
murdered by firearms alone. Either figure is
greater than the number of US soldiers who died from
gunshot wounds in ALL of the Vietnam War, where only
18,452 died from that cause!
Fact #8?
30% of the
Homeless are Vietnam Veterans:
There should
be serious doubt regarding the veracity of this oft
repeated but otherwise unsubstantiated claim. Like the
suicide myth, it appears to owe its origins more to
folklore than fact.
Its inherent flaw is the
vague and widely varying definition of the word
"veteran." The press tends to regard anyone who served
in the military as a veteran. That is an incorrect and
misleading usage of the term in its formal sense.
Technically speaking, to be a Vietnam veteran, one must
have served within both the geographical and
chronological boundaries specified in the Presidential
order defining the Vietnam combat zone. Unfortunately,
it is common to hear the terms "Vietnam vet" and
"Vietnam era vet" used interchangeably. The former saw
service in the actual combat zone (and is therefore a
Vietnam veteran) while the other merely served in the
military outside the combat zone during the same period.
Now it certainly may well be that 30% of the homeless at
one time served in the military, but to suggest 30% of
the homeless are "Vietnam veterans" is another matter
altogether. And while I have little doubt 30% of the
homeless might claim to be Vietnam veterans,
their motives for doing so may reflect the desperate
nature of their circumstance more than their allegiance
to the truth.
No doubt some hope the
tag will be rewarded with sympathy and support of one
form or another. That is simply a matter of survival.
Consider also this: just how could such a statistic ever
be accurately measured in the first place? Do the
homeless routinely carry their military discharge papers
(DD-214 form) in a back pocket? That seems highly
unlikely. But how else could any researcher be certain
such a claim was truthful unless a DD-214 was available
to verify the claim?
It would be wise to
scrutinize any report of homeless veteran status. Ask
how
the word "veteran" was defined for the
study and also how veteran status was verified. While
the author has not conducted any serious study into this
particular topic, he was nonetheless able to find the
text of a comprehensive, 1996, New York State study on
the internet that yields some surprising statistics that
should disquiet the notion that 30% of the homeless are
Vietnam Veterans.
The site is located at:
http://dhcr.state.ny.us/pol/pubs/html/cpassess.htm,
and
is entitled:
"New York State
Division of Housing & Community Renewal -
Consolidated
Plan - I. Housing and Homeless
Needs Assessment."
In Exhibit 11,
Homeless Statistics Compiled from Local Consolidated
Plans, can
be found the appendix "1995
Homeless Subpopulations." Item number 7 of that appendix
provides a compilation of veteran homeless statistics
for New York City:
"7.
Other (Homeless
Veterans)
Of the total single
homeless population in New York City (6,492),
approximately 17% (1,075) are veterans. The men's
single shelter system in New York City establishes the
veteran population to be approximately 20 percent
(1,056) of the total population. The women's single
shelter system, also in New York City,
recognizes
a veteran population of
approximately 2 percent (19) of the total.
A
recent report from Westchester County indicated that,
as of November 30, 1995, 711 homeless single
individuals utilized the County's emergency shelter
system, 149 or 20 percent of whom were homeless
veterans."
Note that the total
veteran homeless population in 1995 for NYC was
estimated
at between 17%, and 20% of all
homeless. That 17%-20% range embraces the entire
veteran population, including anyone who served
in the military in peacetime or in any prior period of
war, including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf War and so
on.
Certainly Vietnam
Veterans represent something less than the total number
of homeless veterans in New York City based on those who
claimed to be veterans, so for a fact, in 1995 at any
rate, the Vietnam Veteran population in NYC was had to
be significantly less than 17%. Just exactly how much
less than 17% is difficult to say, but if we presume
that for all practical matters the WWII and Korean War
vets are too old for the homeless lifestyle and make up
only a very small fraction of the total, then we can
make a better guess.
The approximate ratio of
Vietnam Era veterans to actual Vietnam veterans is
roughly 4 to 1, or in other words, Vietnam vets are
about 20% of all those who served in the military during
the Vietnam war. If the entire 17% figure unearthed by
the NYC study had included only Vietnam War and
Era vets, then we could estimate that something less
than 4% of the homeless in NYC were Vietnam Veterans at
that time.
But it is also true that
17% figure includes all military veterans from
the period between 1973 and 1995, another 20 years of
Americans who served in the military" It would seem fair
to speculate that given what we know, the total number
of Vietnam vets that were homeless in NYC back in 1995
might even
be less than 2%!
Fact
#9?
Some 800,000 Vietnam Vets Suffer PTSD,
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
-
800,000 may suffer
PTSD, but whatever the trauma might be, for
most
of those it could not have been the
result of combat.
- Estimates are that less than
400,000 Vietnam veterans served in the Infantry and
the Infantry suffered the vast majority of all
casualties and serious trauma.
There is unwarranted
arrogance in the presumption trauma is the exclusive
territory of the combat soldier and therefore combat
stress is the source of most PTSD. Trauma is prevalent
in all levels of society and civilian life is laced with
tragedy and violent death in doses comparable to, if not
greater, than that of the combat soldier. In 1967
alone, for example, deaths by car accident in the
US equaled the total number of US troops who died in ALL
of the Vietnam war!
In 1990 alone, 38,866 Americans
died of gunshot wounds (accidental and
homicide),
while in 1995, more than 20,000 were murdered by
firearms alone.
Either figure is greater than the
number of US soldiers who died from gunshot
wounds in
ALL of the Vietnam War, where only 18,452 died from that
cause!
It would seem fair to speculate that PTSD is
probably as common to civilians as
it is to
soldiers.
Fact #10?
Vietnam Was a War
Fought By Draftees While W.W. II Was Primarily Fought By
Volunteers:
Oddly enough, the
opposite appears to be true. About 70% of those who
died
in Vietnam were volunteers, while roughly
70% of those who died WWII were draftees. (only 17,425
of Vietnamís 58,000 KIA were
draftees).
Fact
#11?
Combat In World
War II Was More Intense Than In
Vietnam:
It is likely true that combat
during WWII was on average much more intense during the
actual period of time individual units were exposed to
combat. However, overall casualty rates and duration of
individual exposure to actual combat were higher in the
Vietnam than WWII.
Overall casualty rates
in Vietnam were actually 2 1/2 times greater than those
suffered in WWII.. 92 Army & Marine Infantry
Divisions fought in WWII. They suffered an average of
roughly 1,600 battle deaths per division. Roughly 10
Army and Marine Divisions fought in Vietnam and averaged
4,600 deaths per division. Most WWII American Infantry
division combat time was less than one year. In fact,
the combat exposure of most US units can be measured in
months rather than years. Consider the fact that, with
the exception of the North African/Italian campaign,
American units did not enter the war in Europe until
June, 1944, and that campaign was over by June 1945.
Apart from a few Army Divisions which fought for more
than a year in the Pacific, actual combat exposure
during the Marine island hopping campaign between 1942
and 1945, is measured in months. While extremely violent
an bloody, fighting in WWII was restricted to relatively
short periods of time. The United States Marine Corps in
the Pacific during WWII was in actual combat for a
period of less than one year (<200
days?) and
suffered fewer total casualties than it did during the
5-6 years it
was in
Vietnam.
Fact #12?
American Soldiers Were
Fond of the South Vietnamese and Held a Deep Hatred for
the Enemy:
It is by no means my intention to
offend readers of Vietnamese ancestry, but some of what
will be discussed here may be very unpleasant for them
hear.
What will be said are generalizations
based on my actual observations of American soldiers
attitudes and behavior in Vietnam. There were
exceptions
to these generalizations certainly,
many exceptions in fact, but this report is an honest
attempt to quantify what I saw and experienced first
hand.
Before serving there,
most US personnel had little or know idea where the
country was located on the globe, much less knowledge of
its peoples' cultures and customs. Fewer still had
even the faintest familiarity with its political,
military and social history. That ignorance was
compounded by the military's serious failure to provide
substantive training in that regard. The average
Infantry soldier had perhaps a total of one or two hours
of training in Vietnamese culture or history. Still
others had no training whatsoever about the country they
would be living and fighting in for at least a year. As
a result, Americans attitudes and behavior reflected and
were disfigured by an abysmal ignorance of the
Vietnamese peoples.
Sadly, I would have to
say that most US troops developed a fundamental distrust
and dislike for the Vietnamese in general; North or
South Vietnamese, it did not matter which. The resulting
coarse, boorish, often arrogant and superior attitudes
evident in the US soldier also did little to endear them
to the Vietnamese. I think it fair to say the Vietnamese
developed a justifiable contempt for the Americans in
return.
Opinions held by US
troops regarding ARVN soldiers were almost universally
negative, if not outright hostile. Vietnamese Army
training was relatively poor and officers gained rank
more as a function of wealth and political influence
than of skill. As a result, ARVN troops appeared lazy
and incompetent by US military standards and relations
between the two forces were uneasy at best. In fact, on
more than a few occasions each intentionally took the
other under fire. For the most part, the ARVN avoided
contact with a religious fervor and was extremely timid
in closing with the enemy once escape was no longer an
option. That lack
of aggressiveness frustrated
and infuriated US troops. Many US soldiers still today
hold the ARVN in great contempt because they appeared
unwilling to fight for the things we held precious; the
things we thought we were there to help them accomplish.
In many instances, ARVNs, RFs/PFs simply refused to
engage the enemy and would let US forces take the brunt
of an engagement whenever possible. Exceptions have been
noted by US troops who served and lived with ARVN units
for extended periods, but by and large, the ARVN was a
poor fighting force by any standard we knew how to
apply. South Vietnamese government officials were
generally despised by the average soldier. Corruption
was prolific and thinly disguised. It was apparent to us
that much of the government was motivated more by greed
than any desire for freedom or national pride. In many
instances, it seemed apparent that South Vietnamese
officials and the general population were playing both
ways, waving the South Vietnamese flag in one hand and
the NLF flag in the other. On the other hand, while the
average US soldier may not have liked the enemy, most
had a grudging or open respect for their fighting
abilities, courage and determination. Many of us were in
awe of the hardships and punishment the enemy
(particularly the NVA and main force Viet Cong) endured
in fighting their war. It was apparent to most of us
that these men and women were exceedingly courageous,
tenacious, resourceful and actually believed in their
cause. By contrast, the ARVN troops appeared to possess
none of those attributes and that startling contrast put
serious questions in our minds about our participation.
More than a few of us carried the uneasy feeling the US
had gone in on the wrong side of the fence. Sadly, an
underlying current of racism and superiority often
governed our attitudes and behavior toward the
Vietnamese. That unfortunate circumstance often colored
our relationship. It also led to many misunderstandings,
stupid mistakes and in some cases to very tragic
consequences.
I will leave this topic with an
example of humor typical of the period and widely
circulated among the US enlisted ranks: "To end this
war, all we have to do is put all the South Vietnamese
on boats in the South China Sea and then nuke the two
countries to a cinder. Then we sink the
boats."
Fact #13?
Enlisting In the
Military Was a Patriotic Gesture:
It is
common knowledge that many minor (and more than a few
major) criminals were given a choice between jail or
military service by judges familiar with the
rehabilitative qualities of military life. Apart from
that aspect of "voluntary" service, the least understood
and most under-reported aspect of the war is that many
men enlisted in the military in order to escape
combat. That is right, joined the military to avoid
combat!
To some extent, that
reality helps explain the high rate of voluntary service
throughout what became a very unpopular
affair.
One way to accomplish
that feat was to join a National Guard or Reserve unit,
only a handful of which were ever called to active duty
during the war. A more common strategy was simply to
enlist for three, four or six years of active
duty
in order to qualify for specialized jobs
that would keep a soldier out of direct combat. That did
not mean a soldier would be spared from serving in a
combat zone, only that his MOS (Military Occupation
Specialty) would keep him out of the shooting. After
experiencing actual combat in Vietnam, it was also not
uncommon for, frightened, sobered or burnt-out
infantrymen to re-enlist or extend their tours in order
to qualify for safer, rear area job. Draftees were
obligated only two years of active duty, and the
military was understandably reluctant to invest
significant resources in training men who would only be
on the job for such a short time. According to Ronald H.
Specter, DOD stats reveal that a draftee's chance of
being sent to Vietnam "were never less that 50% and
sometimes as high as 80%." Perhaps 90-95% were assigned
to Infantry units no matter where they were sent.
Infantry training simply required the smallest
investment and had the highest turnover rates of other
specialties. There was little doubt about it, if someone
who didnít want to be a soldier allowed themselves to be
drafted, the Infantry and its attendant high risk
of death and injury would be their lot. Such people
could either avoid the Draft by whatever means
necessary, or, they could enlist in the military in
order to drastically minimize the odds of becoming an
Infantryman. Having been in the Military and having
served in Vietnam is not necessarily a measure of one's
patriotic fervor. There were probably as many cowards
and charlatans in uniform as there were in the peace
movement.
-- End Of Article
--
By Michael
Kelley
Email: mailto:kelleyc@ix.netcom.com?Subject=Vietnam
Myths Essay
www.vwam.com/vets/m60mike.htm
Copyright
© Michael Kelley. All rights reserved.