By JAMES CARROLL
New York Times News Service
When John Kerry and Chuck Hagel climb Capitol Hill seeking Senate confirmation of their Cabinet nominations, John McCain’s ring is the one they must kiss. McCain is effectively sponsoring the Democrat Kerry but promises tough questions for Hagel, the maverick Republican who may well challenge Pentagon orthodoxies. The real heat, though, comes from the still smoldering ruin of the Vietnam War, which set the three on career paths that now intersect.
In the late 1960s, Hagel had just completed a tour leading infantrymen in combat when Kerry took the controls of his Swift boat — while McCain was in a Hanoi prison. The unfinished character of the war is revealing itself again. Even as each of these politicians is entering what may be the last chapter of his political life, each man’s authority on national-security issues rests on his Vietnam experience.
But Vietnam’s place in American self-understanding is unique, a matter not only of past trauma, but of present denial, and the future’s looming challenge.
The party-transcending bond between Kerry and McCain goes back to their service in the early 1990s on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. Their joint probe punctured the Rambo-movie myth that U.S. prisoners were still being held in jungle cages. The senators’ work enabled Bill Clinton to end the punitive trade embargo against Vietnam and normalize diplomatic relations — steps a supposed draft-dodger president could not have authorized without cover from two war heroes. At last, America stopped thinking of itself as the Vietnam War’s main victim.
But that was an incomplete accounting, since the renunciation of victimhood did not lead to an embrace of moral responsibility. Kerry came to prominence as the veteran who challenged a Senate committee in 1971, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” That question kept the focus on American suffering, but Kerry’s testimony actually emphasized brutality inflicted on the Vietnamese. It included veterans’ admissions of widespread rape and mutilation, of random shootings of civilians. Kerry stridently denounced U.S. “war crimes … not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers.” In what was taken at the time as withering criticism of American conduct, Kerry declared that U.S. bombing and enemy terrorism had “ravaged equally.”
In fact, with dead Vietnamese counted in the millions, there was no equality in the ravaging. Vietnam smolders in the American conscience because, while widely acknowledged as a “mistake,” it even now has yet to be confronted as the crime it was. Kerry himself stopped speaking of it in any such terms, but this incomplete ethical reckoning is the subtext of his public life. The same is true of McCain and Hagel. A criminal war made them what they are.
Now, in a turn of fate, Hagel and Kerry take major responsibility for national security just as the nation’s foreign preoccupation swivels back to Asia for the first time since the Vietnam era. Warnings abound, especially from conservative Republicans, of a new Cold War with China. Will the ignorant paranoia that fueled American militance against Hanoi be reignited? In 1971, Kerry mocked that mindset, saying, “The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands.” Today, McDonald’s has taken over China, where it opens new restaurants almost daily. However contentious the U.S.-China rivalry becomes, that emblem of the new global economy suggests the dangerous absurdity of Cold War thinking.
Hagel and Kerry are similar proponents of what is taken to be Vietnam’s main lesson: the importance of “avoiding quagmires.” But while we have accepted this modicum of self-interested pragmatism, we still look at our own motives uncritically. This hubris is evident today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Self-criticism is the point. America’s national security leaders must know of the country’s capacity not only for mistakes, but also for crimes. The quest for post-Vietnam redemption will be concluded only by unprecedented displays of American restraint and moral humility.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.