The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 9)

Thom Bateman br> Newport News, Virginia /p> p> FILM HISTORIOGRAPHY br> Re: James Bowman's review of Sir! No Sir! : /p>

It is dismaying to note the extent to which polemics such as James Bowman's review of Sir! No Sir! (Movie Takes, April 27) reflect a highly disingenuous portrayal of the history of the Vietnam era. Besides demonstrating that he missed the basic point of the film itself -- that opposition to American policies in Vietnam was also expressed by its practitioners in the field -- it also reveals the lengths to which commentators will engage in the avoidance or distortion of historical fact in order to promote the assertion that such anti-war activities caused the American public to malign Vietnam veterans as "war criminals."

In all likelihood, the 1971 Winter Soldier hearings received more public attention during the 2004 election campaign than they had in all of the preceding 33 years, seeing as they were: 1), largely boycotted or ignored by the national news media at that time, and 2), heavily overshadowed by the initial verdict of life in prison in the court-martial of Lt. William Calley Jr. that was delivered a month later. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that pundits also conveniently avoid discussing the details of the public's response to that decision, which was in fact overwhelmingly in support of the defendant -- the single individual held legally responsible for the killings at My Lai -- and intensely hostile toward the jurors who had determined his guilt based both upon the evidence and their own combat experience. More telling is the tendency to cite rather than read and judiciously interpret "criticisms" of Winter Soldier, such as Guenter Lewy's admission that he could not recall having actually seen the Naval Investigative Service report which allegedly debunked the testimonies of the participants, but that he was "quite confident the information is authentic."

p>Perhaps most disconcerting is the manner in which Anderson overlooks conventional scholarly interpretations of the war. Even a casual perusal of this literature will reveal that the South Vietnamese leadership and security forces were at times regarded by U.S. diplomats, foreign correspondents and civilian aid workers alike as fascistic, oppressive and war-mongering -- conditions that made its successful defense essentially problematic. That U.S. policy in Vietnam did not make it a priority to introduce a more benevolent and reliable system of government in the South as an alternative to the Communist insurgency betrays the sentiment that our sacrifices were made solely on the behalf of its people. In all, op-ed articles like Bowman's illustrate how journalists will often promote the versions of history that they wish to believe, rather than those based upon sober determinations of fact. br> -- Jason Strakes /p>

topics:
Taxes, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Religion, Environment, Hollywood, Law, Military, Iraq, NATO, Africa