creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
14 Jun 2013
Permanent Washington's Backlash to Edward Snowden

Whether in celebrity culture or in our Facebook-mediated interactions, we live in the age of the human being … Read More.

7 Jun 2013
Rethinking American Exceptionalism

"American exceptionalism" is perhaps the most misunderstood phrase in politics. If, like the Merriam-… Read More.

31 May 2013
Washington's Fairy Tales

As social media accelerates the velocity of political news, fact-free stereotypes and reductionist shorthand … Read More.

The Legend of the Spat-Upon Veteran

Comment

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.

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. Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

21 Comments | Post Comment
I have to take issue with David Sirota's editorial today. He claims that there is no evidence that Viet Nam vets were mistreated by the public when they came home. He says there's no photographic evidence. News flash, David: people didn't carry cameras everywhere back then and there were no cell phones to take pictures with either. Digital didn't exist and film was too expensive to use indiscriminately. I KNOW vets who came home to taunts and jeers. I know one who had a woman change her airplane seat to avoid sitting next to a man in uniform.
Sirota wants to change how history is written. He needs to wait until people who were there are dead and gone before he can get away with it.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Dogula
Fri Jun 1, 2012 10:31 AM
Re: Dogula Dogula, you are the one trying to rewrite history. I am a combat veteran of Vienam (rifleman with the 101st Airborne Division w/ 70% service connection for shrapnel injuries). I agree with Mr. Sirota's article 100%. I have heard over and over about vets being spit on but it never happened to me or any vet I know. This doesn't mean it didn't happen to a few people, but it was sure not the norm. If someone had spit on me or my peers, we would probably have done our best to kill them. It is people like you who glorify war that keep the war machine going, grinding out the money for fat cat big businessman. You sound like a wannabe warrior to me.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Joe Andrews
Fri Jun 1, 2012 12:06 PM
Joe Andrews, thanks for your sevice.
I'm glad you weren't treated poorly because you deserve the same respect as Vets who have come before and have gone after.
But, with respect, I'm with Dogula.
I recall ROTC recruiters being forcably evicted from the Student Union at my school, their materials set afire.
And Vietnam Vets coming home to heckles and catcalls of "Baby Killer" after Mi Lai.
There are photos of these events.
Ordinarily, Sirota might be excused as being too young to remember.
But I've read his '80s book -- revisionism is a chronic obsession with him.
Comment: #3
Posted by: oddsox
Fri Jun 1, 2012 1:59 PM
Re: oddsox
There is another version of the 'spitting' slander in No Country for Old Men. Don't remember exactly but towards the end of the movie there is a reference to a returning GI who is set upon by hippies. Am I correct?
Comment: #4
Posted by: Michael Elias
Fri Jun 1, 2012 3:27 PM
Re: Joe Andrews Amen,Brother!
Comment: #5
Posted by: Frederic Wright
Fri Jun 1, 2012 6:56 PM
I was in the US military from 1963 to 1972 and I didn't hear of the 'spitting on GIs' until years later. Mostly the stories centered around hippies at airports. The only strange people I ever saw there were the 'Harry Krishnas'. My observation is that most civilians didn't care one way or the other.
Comment: #6
Posted by: richard c brown
Sat Jun 2, 2012 10:17 AM
Sir, you dream up your LEFTIST Propaganda, 40 years later and paint a unfair, libelous article that defames my Fellow Veterans. Shame on your Leftist RANT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. I am not surprised you dreamed up this article. Just one more INSULT to veterans.
Try going to a Veterans Hospital and interview thirty or fourth RVN combat Veterans. You may hear things you will not print, because they do not fit your LEFTIST rant.
Good Luck
Comment: #7
Posted by: vperl
Sat Jun 2, 2012 10:48 AM
vperl--Ranting is defined as "to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" and I do not see this in Mr Sirota's article. Nor do I see defamatory language. However, your post has the feel of a 'rant.' As I remember, the Viet vets that came home all hairy were defamed most by the crew-cut factory workers and not the weak-kneed hippies in college campuses. To some factory workers, the hairy vets were considered "losers" and were very open-mouthed and ham-fisted about their opinions.
Comment: #8
Posted by: tomBrown
Sat Jun 2, 2012 12:50 PM
Among Boston Irish, there is a claim that there used to be in store windows a sign "NINA" no irish need apply [for job] an done can even buy a faux antiguqe copy of such a sing
last time I looked, there was notone contemporary example of such a sign
seems sort of similar
Comment: #9
Posted by: ezra abrams
Sat Jun 2, 2012 6:04 PM
I've been protesting war and other injustices for years and years, beginning with Korea and McArthur's designs on China. There are always those who will equate dissent with disloyalty; this predates US involvement in Viet Nam by several wars. It's pretty much government policy, originating (probably) with an insecure J. Edgar Hoover wishing to make himself important. It began with the war on the Wobblies, the Bonus Army, through the first Red Scare, Executive Order 9066, General MacArthur (again; he was at Anastasia Flats), Tail Gunner Joe, Korea... and then Viet Nam. It is US domestic Policy, now hardened into the Patriot Act and "Homeland Security" (who btw actually do wear jack boots and charge into your house).
I think Mr Sirota is driven by something other than a desire to write the truth.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Mrrphh
Sat Jun 2, 2012 10:26 PM
I came back from SE Asia in 1972 via Travis Air Force base eventually to Treasure Island Naval Station in San Francisco no less, and never did I hear or experience any violent behavior from the general population over the entire two weeks it took me to muster out of the military.
I have always felt since first hearing of the "spitting" myth years after I got out that it was nothing more than a fabricated story used to support the War during a time when the effort to subdue the region was beginning to be understood as an imperial resource grab masked as the "Domino Effect." We would see the same tactic over the following decades to either consolidate access to resources or markets, or to install "friendly" governments viz Chile, Central America/ Caribbean , and Africa.
The fall of Saigon was a devastating blow to the military industrial/ business complex, the power of the lie repeated until believed is the road to recovery from a time when our troops and War effort to a time when we see our troops in the most honored light, free from the atrocities suffered by our Vietnam "hero's."
And the cash flows unabated to our imperial projects.
Comment: #11
Posted by: benlomand
Mon Jun 4, 2012 4:07 AM
Re: oddsox

Photos of of vets beiong called child-killers?

How does that work?

Opposing ROTC equals treating returning vets with hostility?

Wow. Talk about revisionsism
Comment: #12
Posted by: Joe C Boston
Mon Jun 4, 2012 5:02 AM
Does it matter?
The failure to win in Vietnam - spittin' hippies aside - is blamed on protestors and a lack of support for the military at home.
The failure to win in Iraq and Afghanistan can't be blamed on protestors so it's going to be blamed on what? A government that wouldn't let the military take its gloves off? The lack of a draft? Or the fact that most people at the mall couldn't give a shit?

What if it gets blamed on military incompetence?
Comment: #13
Posted by: Popsiq
Mon Jun 4, 2012 5:28 AM
Re: Mrrphh What you have written in your last line sounds to me like a non sequitur, as though Mr. Sirota is engaged in some kind of inside baseball. Perhaps he is not antiwar enough? But all he is saying as far as I can tell is that a myth promoted by pro-war people in government, and in government propaganda in the form of movies, the "ingratitude" of the public for military service shown by spitting, has become an urban legend so established that a sitting President can now reference it so show his militarist street cred. It's plain that all Sirota is saying is that peace has no chance when dissent is demonized as anti-vet.
Comment: #14
Posted by: musings
Mon Jun 4, 2012 5:31 AM
Here's an idea! Why don't you suit-up, load your weapon and spend a tour in Afghanistan, or Iraq? Oh that's right! You're too busy digging-up a bunch of meaningless crap to write about. You speak of myths, and legends. I suppose you think the Holocaust was a "myth', or a "legend". There are some things you should just leave alone Mr. Siorta, especially since you chose not to participate in, or rather, run and hide from. I really can care less what you think the point of this article is, to me, it's just another load of pointless crap aimed at suggesting veterans are 3rd class citizens spilling lies to develop a wide-spread conspiracy claiming being spat upon. Really? Our country is falling apart at the seams, and all you can think of to write is this? Idiot! Thank you for completely wasting our time and bringing a 40-year old issue to the surface again. You are a moron.
Comment: #15
Posted by: calvin0707
Mon Jun 4, 2012 11:02 AM
I returned from a tour of duty in Vietnam January, 1967 and landed at SeaTac International Airport. The plane proceeded past the terminal to the end of the tarmac where we were deboarded. We were greeted by an Army Major who told us that we were not to go into the terminal in uniform becauuse there were protesters in the terminal and that there would be trouble. He said that our best bet was to put on civilian clothing and act like we were not soldiers. Most of us did what the Major requested us to do, but the "wonderful"reception we received on returning home will forever remain on my mind.
Mr. Sirota, you are VERY misinformed.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Wyatt Earp
Mon Jun 4, 2012 11:09 AM
Wyatt Earp:
:
You have told us that on your return from the Vietnam war you were warned by an Army Major to change to civilian clothes and act like you were not a soldier because there were "protesters in the terminal and that there would be trouble," and that most of the soldiers you were with followed the Major's advice. Were you one of the soldiers who hid their identities in fear of possible disrespect from anti-war hippies in the terminal? Did you see any protesters when you passed through the terminal? Did you see any of your comrades spit upon? If you could honestly relate that you had seen these things, you might have some grounds for telling Mr. Sirota that he is "VERY misinformed."

The only friend I had who fought in Vietnam came home in a box, so I never had a chance to ask him how he felt about his homecoming. He was 19 when he was killed. What, exactly, did he die for? All I know is that I have had 44 years of life that he missed out on. I was, and still am, an anti-war hippie. I cannot remember any war protester that expressed any disrespect for American servicemen. Only pity and sympathy. I have also met many Vietnam vets over the years, and not one has told me that he was treated with disrespect on his return except for the treatment he got from the Veterans Administration.
.
I do not think that Mr. Sirota is misinformed. I suspect that you are delusional.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Attila
Mon Jun 4, 2012 2:57 PM
I served as a Marine stationed at Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station , N.C. until my discharge in 1968. In addition to serving as an airbase, it also served as the final duty station for many marines returning from Viet Nam.
During my time there, I and many other marines commuted home on weekends(when duty permitted) or during leave, and I also talked with many of them about what they had seen and done both in Viet Nam and when they returned home.
I never heard any marine talk about any civilian treating them with disrespect, and these guys weren't shy about talking.
I do know that with few exceptions, they wanted to shed their uniforms and traveled in their civilian clothes, not out of fear, but because many were sick of the war and wanted to be accepted by the people at home who by then were also sick of it. Wearing civilian clothes sometimes had negative consequences as when two of the guys I drove home to Newark were searched and briefly detained by the National Guard during the Newark riot in 1967.
I never heard or read anything alleging any spitting on GIs until I saw one of the Rambo movies in the 80's. After that the story seemed to take on a life of its own in the media and was apparently accepted stated as fact with no need to offer or show any evidence.
Comment: #18
Posted by: j attamante
Mon Jun 4, 2012 3:31 PM
I seem to remember a man named John Kerry, who among others, testified at a Congressional hearing and a woman named Jane Fonda who rode on a North Viet Namese anti aircraft gun. See my letter in the Ocala Star-Banner for the rest of my story. You sometimes write interesting columns, but this one and the other on the same subject were way off base. There was much more to the story than a few incidences of spitting. The scene where Forrest Gump was at an anti-war rally in Washington was more true to the times than your columns.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Norman Cates
Tue Jun 5, 2012 7:57 PM
Wow! I've been reading these weekly columns from David Sirota for a long time and I can't remember ever seeing one of his articles generating so many comments! It's almost like people are being directed here by someone who wants to generate a big push-back against this message?

Re: calvin0707 Chill out dude! Why so hateful and angry? Talk about attacking the messenger. If you disagree with what was written, you should just say so instead of personally attacking Mr. Sirota. I've disagreed with him on occasions but I've never resorted to name-calling. I guess that's just what people do when they have weak arguments.

And as far as your comment about Sirota "bringing a 40-year old issue to the surface again", it's not like he just pulled it out of thin air. In case you didn't notice, it was just Memorial Day, and in case you didn't even read his article, President Obama used this 40-year old issue as the central theme of his Memorial Day speech. So that's why he wrote about it.

Also, I don't recall ever seeing you post any other comments so when you accuse Sirota of never writing about important issues affecting our country, you are very mistaken. I can say this as someone who is a frequent commentator on his work for awhile now. Perhaps this is the first time you've read anything he's written?
Comment: #20
Posted by: A Smith
Wed Jun 6, 2012 9:06 AM
It is a compliment to call this person a moron!
Comment: #21
Posted by: Jnator
Fri Jun 8, 2012 9:49 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
Jun. `13
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Ray Hanania
Ray HananiaUpdated 20 Jun 2013
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 20 Jun 2013
Sileo
Tom SileoUpdated 20 Jun 2013

14 Nov 2008 Knowing When To Walk Away

19 Mar 2010 What's the Matter with Democrats?

16 Oct 2009 Good Health Care Policy Makes Good Politics -- And Vice Versa