An urban myth has developed in recent
years, about the supposed vituperation
of Vietnam veterans by the anti-war movement
of that time. This has been accepted as
gospel by many people who should know
better - to those who were there at the
time, it is a mischievous fiction. We
know that the peddlers of urban myths
like to amplify and embellish them in
new and outrageous dimensions. Recent
comments by Greg
Barns ("Nothing green or peaceable
in silly gestures",
The Australian, 10 April 2003)
provide a degree of proof that there are
a lot of porkies being told on this issue.
Barns is too young to have personal knowledge
of the anti-Vietnam war movement, so he
should be more circumspect about ponderously
telling us to "remember … its grave
mistake". Apparently on the basis
of a few anecdotes from veterans, he is
able to confidently claim that the anti-war
movement "condemn(ed) our military
personnel", and "the consequences
are with us today in the form of thousands
of mentally and physically scarred Vietnam
veterans".
Excuse me? The protesters are responsible
for the post-war traumas, the inadequate
government response, the toxic chemicals,
and the shame and guilt about Vietnam
throughout Australian society? Well, why
stop there? Why not add on responsibility
for the suicide rate of veterans' childen
being three
times that of the general community?
Advertisement
The Vietnam anecdotes repeated at this
time of year actually put a different
complexion on the cause of the "consequences"
Barns refers to. Aundry Beck, 53, of Sydney,
was interviewed by Jonathan King ("Bonds
of Duty and sacrifice span a century of
proud service", The Australian,
25 April, 2003). Aundry bashed up protesters
who threw blood on him but that was the
least of his battles. "The worst
was seeing my mates blown apart on a night
exercise at Nui Dat by friendly fire from
a New Zealand battery which stuffed up
behind us." After that, "nothing
ever mattered again".
I suspect that veterans felt socially
excluded because their families and workmates
were muted on their return and were not
open in discussing what happened in a
divisive war that the majority of Australians
came to see as wrong. The "don't
talk about the war" syndrome also
affected previous generations of veterans
- no doubt the emotional satisfaction
of being on the winning side is a big
compensation.
Rather than protesters being the source
of their problems, many Australian veterans
blame their plight on a government that
used them with reckless disregard, then
discarded them after use. In the US, disaffected
veterans seized the Statue of Liberty
at one point to show their anger with
their government, and thousands protested
against the war.
The Australian recently reported
("Trauma tests for all troops",
25 April, 2003) that all Australian soldiers
returning from the Gulf will be screened
for post-traumatic stress disorder, with
an estimated 30 per cent of our troops
likely to suffer from sleeplessness, flashbacks,
anxiety or irritability. According to
a treating psychiatrist, "the military
culture historically has tended to look
at mental health problems as a sign of
weakness, but I think that's changing".
This will be the first time every returning
member of a military operation has been
psychiatrically assessed - draw your own
conclusions about the concern for soldiers'
welfare shown by governments.
As a participant in scores of marches,
meetings and rallies in the latter years
of the "dying regime" of Billy
McMahon (1971-2), I never heard the suggestion,
from a public platform or in print, that
soldiers were the guilty party, or that
protesters should vent their spleen on
them. The fact of conscription - "the
lottery of death" - meant that military
inductions were a focus of protest activity
but the soldiers were always seen as pawns
in the slaughter, not targets for vilification.
Groups such as Save
Our Sons and the Draft
Resisters' Union tried to reach out
to soldiers and counsel them individually,
with some success. Who would deny there
were slanging matches occasionally, or
even expressive behaviour at public protests?
But nothing went beyond this.
Vietnam was a formative period for a
generation of Australians, affecting values
and beliefs for years afterwards. Now
that conservativism occupies the commanding
heights of our institutions, and the scope
of public discourse is narrowed, the Right
wants to rewrite history and hide the
moral bankruptcy they showed at that time.
Discrediting the opponents of that war
is a useful start.
Advertisement
In his article (written after the military
victory in Iraq), Greg Barns is quick
to impugn the motives and practices of
many in the movement against the Iraq
war. Unless he is just a former Howard
adviser who wants to come in from the
cold, he should take his own advice to
the protesters: target the government,
don't turn on the activists in the front
line.