PBS Vietnam War Documentary – Response to Episode Three

Episode Three, entitled “The River Styx,” covers the period of January 1964-December 1965. The episode reflects some of the really positive contributions of the film and some very troubling tendencies, particularly if they persist in other episodes, that reflect the film’s profound failings.

            The most important positive contribution of the film, as viewed in these initial three episodes, is that it candidly and courageously portrays the utter awfulness of war. There are scenes that reveal the capacity, willingness and even inclination of those fighting for whatever side or cause to commit unspeakable violence and scenes with equal honesty show the horrendous consequences and toll in human suffering.

This truth about war is portrayed powerfully enough that some persons watching the film may well conclude that no matter what the calling or cause we won’t go to war ever again. While there’s no evidence that Burns and Novick have come to this conclusion themselves or wish that others would there is power and meaning in much of the film’s footage that presses us in that direction.

            Another very positive and powerful effect of the film is experienced in some of the visuals and interviews with American veterans and with Vietnamese veterans, including Vietnamese who fought on opposite sides. It’s clear that one of Burns’ and Novick’s major goals for the film is to honor veterans of the war, even as the film presents a preponderance of evidence, if sometimes in confusing ways, that the war should never have happened. One other important positive take-away is that while the film’s documentary footage realistically depicts what it was like for those fighting the war, the film is very clear in holding high level political leaders responsible for the decision to go to war and for decisions about how to fight it.

            This leads me to what so far is a serious failing of the film. From the start of this project and in the enormous publicity campaign about the film, Burns and Novick have emphasized that this film is not just about the war, but about how the war deeply divided America, and that these divisions continue to haunt us today. Obviously, the divisions over the war were between real flesh and blood persons, even sometimes different persons within the same family, all with real personal stories. In the first three episodes, while there have been a number of stirring photos and warm personal portrayals of men who fought in the war, some movingly presented along with their families, there’s been only one of a man, Bill Zimmerman, who fought against the war. So far, Americans who opposed the war are portrayed anonymously as participants in protests, e.g. Teach-Ins and the SDS March on Washington, etc. I fear this serious imbalance will continue in future episodes.

           The film acknowledges the secrecy and lies high government and military officials regularly practiced to keep the American people in the dark about what was happening and about major impending decisions about how to pursue the war. Indeed, by 1965 Secretary of Defense McNamara apparently had concluded that the war was unwinnable, but still supported sending a much larger number of Americans to fight because he lacked the courage to go public and because, like President Johnson, he believed "losing was not a politically acceptable option."

The film details the complexity of the actual situation surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin incident, though in a way that doesn’t make it explicitly clear that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which authorized the American war was based on a lie. More Americans knowing that earlier might have helped prevent the US invasion of Iraq, which also was based on a lie. Knowing it now can help us prevent future wars.

            In focusing as much as it does on the military dimensions and battles in the war, the film fails to help us adequately understand what was happening politically in Vietnam. Episode Three reveals the increasingly repressive nature of the Saigon regime of Ngo Dinh Diem and references the role of the Buddhist opposition movement, including the self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc, in contributing to Diem’s eventual end. Hopefully, coming episodes will focus more attention on the growth of this so-called “Third Force” peace movement and how Vietnamese involved in it related to Vietnamese who supported the Communist-led National Liberation Front.

By so far not including more photos and personal stories of Americans who opposed the war, the film fails to help us understand what was happening politically in America.  In 1965, appalled by what they knew the U.S. was doing in Vietnam and inspired by Thich Quang Duc, three Americans, each with her or his own personal story, immolated themselves as a protest against the war.  March 16 - Alice Herz an eighty year old grandmother in Detroit; November 2 - Norman Morrison, a Baltimore Quaker and father, on the grass under the Pentagon office window of Defense Secretary McNamara; and November 9 – Roger LaPorte,  a twenty-two year old former Roman Catholic seminarian, in front of the United Nations headquarters in New York.