A different perspective on Vietnam http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=5b9b0ba9-1e89-4493-8b5e-af03dacaa0bc
Published on 3/25/2009 Paul Choiniere Editorial Page Editor Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4306 This was a first. On Tuesday evening I sat in the Blaustein Hall at Connecticut College and listened to author Mark Moyar describe some of the conclusions he had reached about the Vietnam War based on his own research. I've listened to numerous historical lectures, but this was the first time I was listening to a historian describe something they never experienced but I did, albeit indirectly. Moyar, who was addressing the Southeastern Connecticut Committee on Foreign Relations, delivered his points with the emotional detachment of an academic whose knowledge of the era comes from the documents he reviewed. A professor at the United States Marine Corps University, Moyar was born in 1971. That year Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret summary of U.S. participation in the Vietnam War, to the New York Times. They revealed how much the government had been lying and keeping from the people the carpet bombing in Laos and Cambodia, the U.S. backing of the violent overthrow and murder of South Vietnam leader Ngo Dinh Diem. The administration of President Nixon stopped publication for a time, but the freedom of the press prevailed when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the news media. I had my first stirrings that I might want to go into politics, or journalism. I was too young, barely, to experience the war firsthand, but an older brother was drafted, served, and was forever changed. When the war ended with the chaotic fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, I was a freshman in college. I greeted the news with mixed emotions relief that a war that had so divided the country was over, sadness that so many died in a losing cause. Moyar could not know, at an emotional level, the anger among the young about the military draft for that unpopular war or how bitter and deep was the divide between those who opposed the war and those who supported it. For me "Vietnam" causes a visceral reaction, for Moyar and his generation of historians it is an academic pursuit. He is the author of "Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War 1954-1965." Well researched, it is revisionist history. Moyar's controversial conclusions include his belief that that a quick Vietnam defeat would have caused a series of neighboring countries to fall to the communists. In other words, his research backs the "domino theory," dismissed by the vast majority of historians. He defends Diem, seen my most historians as a ruthless despot, and describes him as an effective, transitional leader. Supporting the coup against Diem was a key reason for eventual U.S. defeat, Moyar contends in a unique take on the war. He dismisses Pulitzer-prize winning journalist David Halberstam as a dupe of the communists and blames his reporting for undermining support for the war and encouraging the overthrow of Diem. The communists also manipulated Vietnam's Buddhist monks, whose peaceful protests brought world attention to Diem's religious persecution of them, argues Moyar. It makes for fascinating reading. But I don't buy it. The war was a mistake. The soldiers served bravely, but their sacrifice was unnecessary. The Buddhists were persecuted. The news reporting was courageous and largely accurate. The dominoes did not fall. Yet it is interesting that having been part of history, even if indirectly, I now get to read about it from someone who wasn't. . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sixties-L" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sixties-l?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
