Brian M Downing
Every war draws upon myths of past conflicts. World War One drew upon the myths of the Civil War. Vietnam did the same with the myths of World War Two, at least until they lost their vitality. And during the present war in Iraq, our first war of any duration since the early seventies, both sides of the issue have conjured up various myths from the Vietnam War.
Supporters of the war are deeply committed to their position, in part due to the powerful myths that animate them. In the decade after the fall of Saigon, several myths about the war coalesced, especially in rural and small town America. As the pain of the war eased and wounded beliefs healed, the war underwent reinterpretation, from arrogant folly to honorable effort. Ronald Reagan called it a “noble cause” during the 1980 presidential campaign – a remark that appalled many but also played upon local sentiments that had lain silent since the war.
Respect for the military and especially for service in wartime regained its pre-Vietnam potency out in the country and in small towns (but languished elsewhere). War was simply part of our world; future ones must be fought with greater dedication and perseverance. Vietnam could have been won had it not been for civilian meddling and unpatriotic elements on the home front. A reverent view of Vietnam veterans reemerged, reflected in and furthered by the construction of The Wall and by the acclaimed film Platoon. The eighties saw a string of “vengeance” films in which veterans go back to Southeast Asia, usually to find MIAs. They rescue comrades, win an ersatz victory, and restore America’s honor. It all played in Peoria.
These views gelled in parts of the country and became a critical part of the identity of what became known as Red America. They announce themselves today in the “see it through” ideology set forth by the administration and conservative media, and in the belief that those who oppose the war are lacking in civic if not moral virtue. More disconcertingly, GIs indicted for murder in Iraq are endowed with a “noble soldier” aura. They are defended as merely having done their duty in a difficult war that most people back home do not understand but that somehow they do, though most have remained safely a-bed. (This, a dispiriting echo of sentiments heard during Lt Calley’s court martial.)
Myths found among opponents of the war are more equivocal and conflicting, hence weaker. The war in Iraq has brought about the re-emergence of a strident antiwar movement. Many prominent figures in the 60s movement have reprised their roles and recreated the theater of protest, and younger people have eagerly joined the troupe. Young and old see the 60s movement as a people united, whose passionate actions brought an end to the war in Vietnam and can do the same today.
But the antiwar movement peaked in 1970, when large numbers of protesters marched on Washington, and dwindled thereafter. The heavy bombing of the North in late 1972 failed to mobilize the faithful, as had the incursion into Cambodia two years earlier. The war continued until 1973, when all American troops finally left Vietnam. After that, the US continued to fund and arm South Vietnam for another two years, until the North finally conquered it.
Today, moderate opponents of the war in Iraq are mindful of the excesses of the old antiwar movement. And without broader participation, the theater is neither compelling nor well attended. They remember that the passions of the time damaged many friendships and families; that part of the movement degenerated into violence and even to terrorist groups such as the Weathermen; and that many demonstrations were given to naive sentimentalization of the Viet Cong and to churlish vilification of GIs. Opponents today are so wary of the last point that criticism of the military (say, for failing to foresee a quagmire in Iraq or recognize the growing insurgency years ago) is only rarely undertaken.
So the war goes on – at least in part because pro-war myths are more deeply believed in and more unitary than are antiwar ones. Seeing the rhetoric and symbols of the debate over the war is a bit like having to watch a remake of a movie that never should have been made in the first place. There are new actors, but the old ones, inept and aging ungracefully, appear in cameos. There are a few plot twists here and there, but one suspects that the ending, which is too long in coming, will be as disappointing as the original’s.
Copyright 2008 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.