Severian
12th July 2006, 11:20
All the foregoing facts – and mean more dire indicators of the worse kind of military trouble – point to widespread conditions among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by the French Army’s Nivelle mutinies of 1917 and the collapse of the Tsarist armies in 1916 and 1917.
It is a truism that national armies closely reflect societies from which they have been raised. It would be strange indeed if the Armed Forces did not today mirror the agonizing divisions and social traumas of American society, and of course they do.
Read the whole article (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html#0)
This is a historic document. It was published in 1971 in the Armed Forces Journal.
Col. Heinl describes how the Vietnam War and widespread opposition to that war among young people in the U.S. were threatening to cause the collapse of the Armed Forces. The U.S. government prevented this from happening, basically by withdrawing its soldiers from any major ground-combat role in Southeast Asia after 1971.
The forms of antiwar resistance which Heinl complains of include: killing officers, refusal of orders, "search and evade" tactics, defection to the "VC", wearing peace signs, 144 antiwar newspapers written and edited by soldiers, legal defense efforts, suing the military, weapons theft and sabotage, and desertion.
He emphasizes that GI dissent is supported by veteran and civilian organizations, and a product of the deep opposition within U.S. society generally. As in the quote above, or his conclusion:
But many a thoughtful officer would be quick to echo the words of BGen Donn A. Starry, who recently wrote, "The Army can defend the nation against anything but the nation itself."
Or – in the wry words of Pogo – we have met the enemy, and they are us.
Discussion?
It is a truism that national armies closely reflect societies from which they have been raised. It would be strange indeed if the Armed Forces did not today mirror the agonizing divisions and social traumas of American society, and of course they do.
Read the whole article (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/Vietnam/heinl.html#0)
This is a historic document. It was published in 1971 in the Armed Forces Journal.
Col. Heinl describes how the Vietnam War and widespread opposition to that war among young people in the U.S. were threatening to cause the collapse of the Armed Forces. The U.S. government prevented this from happening, basically by withdrawing its soldiers from any major ground-combat role in Southeast Asia after 1971.
The forms of antiwar resistance which Heinl complains of include: killing officers, refusal of orders, "search and evade" tactics, defection to the "VC", wearing peace signs, 144 antiwar newspapers written and edited by soldiers, legal defense efforts, suing the military, weapons theft and sabotage, and desertion.
He emphasizes that GI dissent is supported by veteran and civilian organizations, and a product of the deep opposition within U.S. society generally. As in the quote above, or his conclusion:
But many a thoughtful officer would be quick to echo the words of BGen Donn A. Starry, who recently wrote, "The Army can defend the nation against anything but the nation itself."
Or – in the wry words of Pogo – we have met the enemy, and they are us.
Discussion?