Vietnam Revisited, Part Two

Vietnam Revisited, Part Two

San Francisco; Taylor, Mich.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

San Francisco; Taylor, Mich.

A response to Nick Turse’s “A My Lai a Month” [Dec. 1; “Letters,” Dec. 29]: The Mekong Delta is the most populous area of Vietnam. While serving as infantrymen with the Ninth Division, encountering civilians was a daily occurrence while “on the line” in the Delta. Treatment with respect, and at times kindness, was not uncommon. Our battalion, sometimes attached to Col. Ira Hunt’s brigade, operated in Kien Hoa and Dinh Tuong provinces. The idea of “body count” was common throughout the US forces during the Vietnam War, but there was no heavy emphasis on this from our commanders. Most “contact” took place along rivers and heavily wooded areas, where Vietcong secreted their activity.

There was a dusk-to-dawn curfew in Vietnam. We often went on night river ambush patrols to engage enemy activity. It wasn’t often we encountered night river traffic, which we would engage. It was believed that if one knew of such a curfew and lived where one would be killed by venturing out at night, one did not do so. The times we did intercept and engage sampans was very late at night, hardly the time one would be late from market. And even at that, there were times we held fire because of the obvious chance for civilian error.

No doubt civilians were at times caught in the crossfire of a fight, and if resistance was heavy, “support” was usually requested, and that is likely why every one of the many hundreds of homes we were in had a bunker. But the idea that there was a full-blown concerted effort in place to kill wantonly for “body count,” indiscriminately, is absolutely foreign to our experience, and probably most others. We are deeply offended by the allegation and its broad implication against the men we served with and the Ninth Infantry Division.

JOHN CARNEY, Sp4, C Co, 3/39th, 9th Inf Div., August 1968-February 1969

KENNETH BEHELER, Plt Sgt., C Co, 3/39th, 9th Inf Div., September 1968-July 1969


Turse Replies

New York City

I thank John Carney and Kenneth Beheler for, however obliquely, acknowledging that civilian casualties resulted from the American war in Vietnam, the pervasiveness of the “idea of ‘body count'” and the frequent intrusions of US troops into the homes, and lives, of Vietnamese trying to survive in the ravaged Mekong Delta. Indeed, the fact that many of the hundreds of homes they searched had shelters attests to the frequency and intensity of the bombing and shelling in and around villages. Unfortunately, these bunkers could not always stand up under US bombs and shells. I’ve spoken to too many survivors from the Delta whose relatives were killed when their bunkers collapsed.

No one can deny the great deal of individual variability in the experience of US troops who served in Vietnam, especially those involved in an operation as large and long as Speedy Express. The fact that the allegations Carney and Beheler take issue with arose from fellow US veterans attests to that. But certainly many troops never committed or witnessed any atrocities.

I was especially struck by the writers’ recounting of night ambushes on the Delta’s waterways. In my web-only sidebar, “The Vietnam Exposé That Wasn’t,” I recounted Alex Shimkin’s discovery of the mass killing of civilians resulting from sampans that were likely out after curfew. Further, the main whistleblower in “A My Lai a Month” actually wrote about civilians killed “in the early morning when the Vietnamese might be going to work in the fields or to market.” He wrote, “I asked my platoon leader about this and he said it was OK to zap them if they move during curfew. But he couldn’t answer if they knew it was curfew.” I note that Carney and Beheler write only that “there were times we held fire” when civilians were spotted. There were, of course, those other times.

NICK TURSE

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x