Article image
David Sirota
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Sunday 3 June 2012
“It’s undeniable that chronic underfunding of the Veterans Administration unduly harmed Vietnam-era soldiers.”

The Legend of the Spat-Upon Veteran

Article image

Out of all the status-quo-sustaining fables we create out of military history, none are as enduring as Vietnam War myths. Desperate to cobble a pro-war cautionary tale out of a blood-soaked tragedy, we keep reimagining the loss in Southeast Asia not as a policy failure but as the product of an America that dishonored returning troops.

Incessantly echoed by Hollywood and Washington since the concurrent successes of the Rambo and Reagan franchises, this legend was the central theme of President Obama's Memorial Day speech kicking off the government's commemoration of the Vietnam conflict.

"You were often blamed for a war you didn't start, when you should have been commended for serving your country with valor," he told veterans. "You came home and sometimes were denigrated, when you should have been celebrated. It was a national shame, a disgrace that should have never happened."

It's undeniable that chronic underfunding of the Veterans Administration unduly harmed Vietnam-era soldiers. However, that lamentable failure was not what Obama was referring to. As the president who escalated the Vietnam-esque war in Afghanistan, he was making a larger argument. Deliberately parroting Rambo's claim about "a quiet war against all the soldiers returning," he was asserting that America as a whole spat on soldiers when they came home — even though there's no proof that this happened on any mass scale.

In his exhaustive book entitled "The Spitting Image," Vietnam vet and Holy Cross professor Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by antiwar protestors, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.

For instance, Lembcke notes that "a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, 'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly." Meanwhile, the Veterans' World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the antiwar protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans "finish(ing) their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation's purposes."

In the face of such data, why would the current president nonetheless repeat the apocryphal myth about spat-on Vietnam veterans? Because — facts be damned — it serves a purpose: to suppress protest and perpetuate the ideology of militarism.

This objective is achieved through the narrative's preposterous assumptions.

Metaphorically, if not explicitly, the mythology equates antiwar activism with dishonoring the troops; implies that such protest is kryptonite to the Pentagon's Superman; and therefore insinuates that America loses wars not when policies are wrong, but when dissent is tolerated.

As political memes go, this 30-year Vietnam storyline has been wildly successful, helping presidents silence opposition to the Iraq War, the continued Afghanistan occupation, our expanding drone wars, and, of course, our ever-increasing defense budgets.

Yet, as much as the propaganda is cast as a genuflection to veterans, it's anything but. For one thing, it ignores the fact that the many troops enlist specifically to defend our freedoms — among them the freedom to dissent. Additionally, in manufacturing falsehoods out of the painful Vietnam experience, it insults many Vietnam vets by writing their opposition to that war out of history. Unchecked, the mythology ultimately uses the revised history of yesteryear's soldiers to vaporize the very dissent that might prevent tomorrow's soldiers from facing another Vietnam-like quagmire.

That's not respectful or supportive of veterans - it's the opposite.

Copyright Creators.com


Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT David Sirota

David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado.

Top Stories

12 comments on "The Legend of the Spat-Upon Veteran"

woetopoe

June 06, 2012 3:37pm

There's a reason WW11 is still "romanticized" on film, in books, during speeches,etc. It was the "last" war this nation won. It was the "last" war this nation actually fought to "preserve our freedoms." Each successive and ensuing conflict since then has been waged to maintain and expand the tentacles of "empire." The United States has military installations in 136 countries. We spend more money on "defense" related expenditures than our closest 10 competitors combined. We are now, even as I write, vastly expanding our presence in the far East, even negotiating a new alliance to place military air fields in...Vietnam. The only "freedoms" we send men and women off to die or be injured in are the freedoms to act irresponsibly, as empire's perdurably do. And if a "little" collateral damage happens in our "holy quest" so be it...after all, we're never allowed to forget...God Blesses America.

Mary Bell Lockhart

June 03, 2012 4:16pm

You're reading too much into what he said, David. He didn't refer to the "spat-upon-as-they-returned" myth and he didn't accuse anti-war protestors of being responsible. When I heard him say this, I immediately thought of the way John Kerry was "swiftboated" and Max Cleland was attacked and both of these were attacks from the extreme right. And, as others verified here, vets were spat upon, but it was not when they came home. It was when they dared join the anti-war protests and they were attacked by the militarist extreme right. My brother had the same experience. When he came home he was treated well until he spoke out against the war. Then his service was denigrated, not by fellow anti-war activists, but by the militarist right.

Western Sage

June 03, 2012 4:04pm

There is much to commend this article... except its premise. As a Vietnam combat veteran, I can add a bit of realism to the discussion. Most Vietnam veterans were welcomed home formally or informally with respect and deference, tempered with a little apprehension about what the war might have done to our psyches. But by the lat 1960s a large segment of our population was sick to death of the Vietnam War and angry that it was still going on -- don't believe the nonsense about Afghanistan being our longest war, the first US "advisors" went into Vietnam in September 1950 and the last combat troops left in March 1973. A significant number of Vietnam veterans WERE publicly insulted and many WERE spit upon. The revisionist history here is that such things never happened or that they were few and far between and therefore insignificant.

However, it is also true that many Vietnam veterans, while remaining proud of their individual service and that of the units in which they served, did oppose the continuation of the war in Vietnam and believed that it should never have been fought. I for one understood completely why so many of my contemporaries opposed the war and demonstrated against it and I had no problem at all with that. Freedom of speech is one of THE most important rights we Americans enjoy. It is also true that the Veterans Administration (federal government) should have done more sooner to help Vietnam veterans and still should.

But I'm just not buying the argument that President Obama latched onto a "myth" to suppress dissent against the war in Afghanistan, because I know it is not a myth. I think he meant what he said and had every right and every justification to say it.

Smiley

June 03, 2012 10:06pm

I went to many of the protests in the '60s and the vast majority of the people around me were Vietnam vets and the brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and best friends of vets and our men and women in the service in Vietnam, none of them were about to put our vets down. We wanted them home and safe. Maybe you saw something, but believe me it was not common.

Gerald W. Vest

June 03, 2012 2:54pm

Thank you for bringing up this comment about our Vietnam vets not being treated with respect by the people. I'm sure manywarriors were blamed for this war, but as a vet and demonstrator against the war and wearing my Eisenhower jacket, we were spat upon for opposing the war. In fact, this was the same period in which the cops and other emergency vehicles put our Flag on all of their vehicles with the respresentation that "Law and Order" was for the returning Vets and anyone protesting the War was against our Country. Is perhaps the same way today with politicians who wave the flag on their lapel. I don't know where this big Lie started, but living in Pittsburgh we honored our Warrriors and Vets while discouraging our Government from continuing this horrendous debacle...just like all of them.

mangosmum

June 04, 2012 4:19pm

As a WAC during Vietnam I was verbally attacked for being in the military. I had to sit for hours on a flight from SF to NYC while on my way to West Point and listen to fellow passengers talk about how evil we were for joining and serving. We were instructed that we could travel out of uniform as so many of us had to put up with these attacks.
I too, protested (out of uniform) for an end to this war and there were many fellow soldiers with me. While there were many who thanked us for our service, there were still others who didn't and who expressed their anger to and at us. For those of you who didn't have that happen to you, I am happy..but it did happen to others of us.
One of the better things to happen as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan wars is that people are now quite verbal in their support for our service even though they don't agree with these wars and want them over with.

BozoAdult

June 03, 2012 1:17pm

It seems that Obama is always promoting one right wing meme or another. I find that a bit curious.

Riconui

June 03, 2012 12:24pm

I can think of no wars that come complete with moral justification. Some are less detestable than others, but none of them can be anointed with moral righteousness of the kind that we routinely bless our military enterprises. One thing seems quite apparent however, once the moral mask comes off, once a combatant nation's inhumanity is exposed, they lose. The British in India, Germany in WW II and the U.S. in Viet Nam and he list goes on and on. There was no reason for these nations to have lost these wars....they won the brunt of the battles and they had superior troop numbers and technological superiority and economic advantages that could not be assailed.....but they lost. If you cannot defend the moral high ground, you lose. Practically an axiom.

Thanks to David for pointing out and (I suspect it won't be the last time) skewering this particularly pernicious myth. Here is why I believe that conservatives are pathologically incapable of appreciating irony; in the defense of our personal liberties, it is imperative to squelch the first one listed in the Bill of Rights...freedom of speech.

ChetDude

June 03, 2012 11:52am

'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly."

I resigned from the Navy in '64 in no small part because I realized that Vietnam and, frankly, all wars were evil enterprises. The previous paragraph was my experience from then through '75. It was the older generation of soon-to-be Raygun supporters who gave Vietnam Vets a hard time, NOT THOSE OF US WHO WERE ANTI-WAR.

It's unfortunate and intellectually lazy of Obama that he finds it useful to perpetuate the bullsh*t myths about treatment of returning Vietnam vets in order to justify his own dirty little wars!

ALL WARS ARE "FOUGHT" FOR THE WRONG REASONS! The sooner we get it through our thick skulls of that Truth and reject those self-serving few who would "lead" us into them, the sooner we can create the kind of world worth living in.

anono

June 03, 2012 11:22am

The only "spitting upon" veterans has been done by the government they served to defend.

danh

June 03, 2012 11:01am

David, thank you so much for writing this.

I think exploiting the war against Viet Nam (which had the side effect of being a war against our soldiers) to promote more wars is a sin worse than blasphemy. It's the moral equivalent of holocaust denial, i think.

What we've never done as a society is even try to understand how we ended up at war against a country so far away, and how we could stick to it despite losing 55,000 of our sons (not to mention our 3 million Vietnamese victims).

I think what we need is some kind of memorial to all the victims of that war, which would include the 3 million Vietnamese, but also the victims of our own families---both the soldiers we forced to try to do this fool's errand, and those who opposed it but were punished for it (e.g., the Kent State 4).

We must never forget.

Jeffrey Hill

June 03, 2012 10:22am

Amerika loses wars when they fight them for the wrong reasons and take the moral low ground.