Vietnam by Mary McCarthy

Vietnam Reviews

• 
  Donna Davis

  Vietnam , an impassioned journalistic effort by Mary McCarthy originally published during the US war against Vietnamese freedom fighters, is a once-stirring piece of research that, while worthwhile as a period piece or for specific types of historical research, is in general terms too dated to be of great interest to most readers. Instead, it speaks to the innocence and disbelief Americans with no axe to grind in Southeast Asia felt when they came to grips with the actual facts regarding the war, and how many responded after becoming enlightened.
  
  Thank you once and twice, first to Open Road Integrated Media, and next to Net Galley, for allowing me to read the DRC in exchange for this honest review.
  
  In many ways, the American mindset can be divided into two contemporary periods: one before the Vietnam War, and one after it. Before the war against working people in Vietnam commenced, Americans by and large trusted their government and believed what its political leaders said was true. As layer upon layer of lies was peeled away from the startling nugget of truth at the core of this conflict, many people—in particular, the youth of the USA and around the world—were outraged at the many ways in which they had been deceived. Most of those smooth-faced but indignant youth are grandparents now, and most have learned never to believe something is true just because a politician—even the president of the USA—says so.
  
  McCarthy wrote this book during the metamorphosis of the American public from the former condition to the latter.
  
  McCarthy went to Vietnam as a member of the press, and was astonished by both what she saw, and by the things that were told her. In 1967, when this book was written, the military leaders she interviewed told her that roughly ten percent of the population, or 1.5 million people, had become refugees, “casualties of war”, because the bombing had destroyed their homes and defoliated large swaths of jungle. It was unclear to me whether they were speaking about all of Vietnam or only South Vietnam; her time there seems to have been spent entirely, or mostly, inside the city of Saigon, which had become so Americanized that there were more English-speaking Caucasians there than Vietnamese.
  
  At times, her outrage is sufficiently scathing to take this reviewer back to that time. I was just a kid, but the white-hot rage in the streets is hard to forget, even so.
  
  In describing her visit to Saigon, she speaks about the ways in which officers and GIs alike regarded a hospitalized child, a victim of the bombing: because they showered her with candy, dollar bills, had photographs of themselves taken with her, and brought her toys, they considered her to be a very lucky tyke indeed. They made reference to her owning more dolls than Macy’s, and one soldier said fondly, “That girl is so spoiled.”
  
  This type of rationalization, the notion that after wounding and possibly orphaning a child with bombs that destroyed her village and left her full of shrapnel, she had become “so spoiled”, is characterized by McCarthy as “Pharisee virtue”, a phrase I found startlingly eloquent.
  
  There are other moments when she appears a bit confused, and appears to be unconsciously using the terminology of the very military and government forces that she opposes. My own youngest child is half Asian, and when I read an expository sentence in which McCarthy referred to the local children as “slant-eyed”, I almost dropped my reader. What the hell? She refers to the Vietnamese policeman that works for the US army as a “small Vietnamese policeman”, and from context, I got the distinct impression that he was not noticeably smaller than other Vietnamese men, and that in fact his size had nothing to do with anything. If she were still alive today, I would advise the author to check her terminology, and then check her own assumptions about what “normal” looks like. It appears she was carrying around some ingrained racism that came out despite her finest intentions.
  
  One more strange factor here was her reference to the uniforms worn by the National Liberation Front, (otherwise referred to pejoratively as the “Viet Cong”, a term she uses freely), as “black pajamas”. Did McCarthy not understand that this was an expression used by the US military which was intended to demean Vietnamese fighters by suggesting they did not know how to design a uniform? Vietnam is a very warm place, and it’s humid as hell, which is why they used lightweight cloth to make uniforms. The jungles were dark and virtually impenetrable, and this is why black was a really good choice of uniform color. Pajamas are something one sleeps in. The Vietnamese soldier didn’t get a lot of sleep, and he did not fight wearing sleeping apparel.
  
  McCarthy is not always blind regarding the power of terminology however: she points up the fact that napalm, which had been made even more horrific in that it now adhered to things (and flesh) while burning, had been name-changed to “Incinderjell”, making it sound like a children’s dessert. Officials could publicly state that napalm was no longer in use, because now it was called something different. Likewise, defoliants were referred to as “weed killer”.
  
  The only photographs are of the author.
  
  For those that want to travel back to the time when Johnson was president and America’s youth were waking up to the fact that the US government did not always behave in accordance with its stated democratic ideals, this is a good work to drop into your reader. It’s very brief, and you can finish it in a weekend.
  
  I also recommend this work to students and other researchers looking at this volatile and transformational period in American history. Since she personally went to Saigon while the war was being fought, her own experiences constitute a primary document, and in such a case, I would not rate this book a 3 star work, but rather 4 stars.
  
• 
  Matthew Barlow

  This is a book that once again has me split. It is clearly a damning indictment of the US in Vietnam, but is written in a style that is tiresome to read.
  
  Written during the mid-late 60s the essays that McCarthy presents predates the commonly perceived view of the war, specifically the war as it played out, both in country and on the international stage, following the Tet Offensive. McCarthy shows the hypocritical behavior of the US government in in its practice of fighting a "dirty" war, all well presenting a humanitarian face to the world. McCarthy points out that the US claim of widespread refugee aid was a lie since these so called refugees moved not of their own accord, but were gathered up by the US in an attempt to create idealized hamlets in which free market economics could flourish and Western ideals take hold.
  
  Additionally McCarthy reveals the interactions between service personal, civilians, the ARVN, and the VC. Far and away from the racist hate usually associated with this era McCarthy shows a feeling of mutual respect between all sides, one that undoubtedly became polluted as the war stagnated and killing became more indiscriminate.
  
  McCarthy is quick to point out the US government's manipulation of media and public perception to paint enemy action as terrorist activities, even when engaged against legitimate military targets. Additionally the military and its leaders covered up US actions that caused civilian casualties, either by supressing numbers or justifying military necessity. This ranges from the "pacification" of villages (euphemism for slaughter) the "defoliation" of stretches of crop and forest areas (napalm and Agent Orange), and the wide-spread bombing of South Vietnam.
  
  McCarthy ends by examining the pressure on LBJ to end the war, but shows the difficulties of doing so, in which South Vietnam would be left crippled and would fall (as it eventually did) or the troops would be encircled and massacred in incidents reminiscent of the Dunkirk evacuation.
  
  McCarthy's first person eye witness account of her trips to Vietnam are not my favorite type of writing, especially knowing the end result of the war and troubles to come. This being said it serves as a powerful document that shows frustration with the war even in its early stages.
• 
  Titus Hjelm

  Fascinating contemporary account of the war. The first chapters sound (mock?) neutral, simply showing how little sense the war made to anyone, really. In the end McCarthy comes out with a keen critique. As always, she writes beautifully--like this: 'The attempt on part of the Americans and their local star pupils to turn this into a war of ideas is something to make the angels, if there are any, dry their tears and laugh'.
• 
  Devin

  #38
• 
  Joseph Spuckler

  Vietnam by Mary McCarthy is an interesting look at the Vietnam War at its height. I was expecting an all out attack on the war, but instead, I received something very different. There is no doubt McCarthy is against the war. She is very clear on the subject.
  
  McCarthy attacks the government's bureaucrats, but strangely holds a soft spot for the men, or boys as she calls them, who are fighting the war. She dealt with a number of Marines in country and was taken back by their honesty. When she asked about land redistribution and what is being done about it, the bureaucrats stumble and fumble trying to fit ready-made answers to the question. A Marine Colonel interrupts with "Absolutely nothing." She talks to corpsmen and navy doctors who treat the civilian population. They explain the work they do and the referrals they make but do not understand there is no hospital space for their patients.
  
  
  McCarthy also speaks of her anti-war position. By this time, no one really supports the war, but like Johnson said, "But, we are there." So even though the pro-war position sits on their mountain of errors, they look down on those who oppose them. How does one bring home 452,000 military personnel? Do we abandon those in Vietnam the risked their lives supporting America? Is communism any better than corruption?
  
  
  What I admire about McCarthy's position is that she learns from her experience. She still opposes the war but recognizes that many in the military believed they were honestly doing the honorable thing. Of course there are exceptions. On Marine Colonel, she met set up a relocation camp and in its center was a huge bronze $. This Marine could very well have been the fictional Colonel Walter E. Kurtz. McCarthy came to respect those in the military on the ground and despised the bureaucracy behind the war and formulas and their false intellectualism.
  
  I am not a supporter of the war. I remember older kids in my neighborhood disappearing in the draft while I was growing up. I remember some returning home and others not returning and a gold star in their parents front window. The war was a dividing time in American history and for a journalist opposed to the war to recognize that some truly believed they were doing good is something worth noting.
• 
  Beth

  Earlier this year I read The Group - my curiosity about Mary McCarthy was piqued (I am not sure how I ended up reading The Group). Anyway, I have been researching the early 1970s for another project and wanted something contemporary about the conflict in Vietnam.
  
  It is very interesting to hear the perspective of a reporter was on the ground, who already had thoughts and feelings about the war. Some of the language reflects the 1967 publication, but otherwise very interesting perspective.
  
• 
  Sharon

  Stunning::::
  
  A brilliantly written evisceration of American policies, politics, SNAFUs and wrongheadedness in the Vietnam War. The author pulls no punches and is unapologetically critical of all she observed as a reporter. The first few pages jolted me with her plain speaking criticism, but found that as I continued, I found myself nodding in agreement. A good read,
• 
  Vel Veeter

  This book is a kind of savage takedown of the myth-making involved in US war mongering. There’s a lost art presented that many Americans have sort of forgotten in the ways in which we salivate over military service (not that dissimilar to the way many many people salivate over the police). Don’t ever forget that Nixon killed 100,000s of people to win an election and take the heat off her crimes and Bush killed 1,000,000 to retroactively justify intelligence snafus and ideology. This book reminds us that all US wars, even the “good ones,” just like almost all wars have ever been, are failed imperial projects. And so the winning against enemies is both true and untrue at the same time.
  
  Mary McCarthy though takes no prisoners. She’s not shy about the war crimes committed by individuals and the brainwashed ideologies of those who are fighting (she targets officers in this), as well as the general psychological warfare of ensnaring other cultures in capitalism (read: debt):
  
  “The American taxpayer who thinks that aid means help has missed the idea. Aid is, first of all, to achieve economic stability within the present system, i.e., polit- ical stability for the present ruling groups. Loans are extended, under the coun- terpart-fund arrangement, to finance Vietnamese imports of American capital equipment (thus AIDing, with the other hand, American industry). Second, aid is education. Distribution of canned goods (instill new food habits), distribution of seeds, fertilizer, chewing gum and candy (the Vietnamese complain that the G.I.’s fire candy at their children, like a spray of bullets), lessons in sanitation, hog- raising, and crop rotation. The program is designed, not just to make Americans popular, but to shake up the Vietnamese, as in some “stimulating” freshman course where the student learns to question the “prejudices” implanted in him by his parents. “We’re trying to wean them away from the old baiter economy and show them a market economy. Then they’ll really go.” “
  
  And another:
  
  “The war does not threaten our immediate well-being. It does not touch us in the consumer-habits that have given us literally our shape. Casualty figures, still low, seldom strike home outside rural and low-income groups—the silent part of society. The absence of sacrifices has had its effect on the opposition, which feels no need, on the whole, to turn away from its habitual standards and
  
  practices—what for? We have not withdrawn our sympathy from American power and from the way of life that is tied to it—a connection that is more evident to a low-grade G.I. in Vietnam than to most American intellectuals. “
  I think my point here is that all of this sounds mighty familiar to me. The rhetoric never changes except that there’s been a concerted effort to valorize service to such a degree that criticizing war efforts is seen as criticizing the service people. And I think deep down that’s the most cynical shit we do as a country.