Gallipoli good, Vietnam bad

An attempt to find common ground amongst Veterans in the recent debate about Australia's role in the Vietnam War (1962-72)... The article below received enormous feedback on the www.onlineopinion.com.au website


http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9187
Gallipoli good, Vietnam bad
By Sasha Uzunov - posted Tuesday, 21 July 2009

Don Tate, Vietnam Veteran and author of The War Within, has made explosive claims that his unit was ordered to dispose of the bodies of enemy soldiers killed during Australia’s most controversial war by blowing them up. This debate has split the Vietnam veteran community.

The purpose here is not to agree or disagree with Tate’s book or to pick sides but to find common ground between the two warring factions, who both have a democratic right to present their case and evidence. No doubt there will be those who view the Vietnam War as immoral. But the cold hard reality is that no war in history has ever been nice and/or neat. Nasty things happened during World War I, II, Korea and so on.

Overall, Australia’s military had an impeccable record in Vietnam. There was no US-style My Lai massacre of innocent Vietnamese. Hypothetically speaking, it is one thing to blow up the bodies of dead enemy and another to kill innocent villagers.

There are those in the media who have a romantic notion of Gallipoli - a military operation during World War I that was a failure but which established Australia’s Anzac Legend - but who have condemned Vietnam.

We are also forgetting the Viet Cong communist massacre of innocent Vietnamese civilians during the battle of Hue in 1968 at the time of the Tet Offensive. And that many thousands of Vietnamese fled by boat to Australia post 1975, after the communist takeover.

Earlier this year, I remember sitting down to watch the evening news and saw a touching scene of the most recent Victoria Cross winner, Trooper Mark Donaldson, of the elite SASR meeting with World War II recipient Edward “Ted” Kenna, who has now sadly passed away. It was one generation of brave Anzacs passing on the torch to another. It reminded me of a famous drawing of an old War I digger handing over the mantle to a World War II digger.

It got me to think: who is the person who decides which war is “good” and which war is “bad” and should or should not be part of the Anzac legend? Donaldson, serving in Afghanistan, was the first to win the Victoria Cross in 40 years since the last winner, Keith Payne earned his in Vietnam.

To call Vietnam immoral would be insulting to Australian Vietnam veterans and the 501 who died there. It would be a slap in the face for Long Tan heroes Dave Sabben and Bob Buick; it would be insulting to Coral/Balmoral hero Neil Weekes and Operation Ivanhoe hero Gary McKay, who is a famous author in his own right. Moreover, it would denigrate Keith Payne, Victoria Cross winner for bravery in that war.

It would also be a kick in the guts for Tate, who was wounded in action in Vietnam. It would be offensive to the thousands of Vietnamese who now make Australia home after escaping communist tyranny.

Ray Martin, born 1944, the hugely popular Channel 9 personality and reporter, built a rapport with the Veteran community and even offered to use his then program, Midday with Ray Martin, to champion a Welcome Home March in 1987 for Vietnam Vets. In 2004 I interviewed Ray Martin by asking him:

… you’ve been a big supporter of the Anzac Legend over the years. Considering your enthusiasm and passion for the Anzac legend, could you explain why you didn’t volunteer for military service in South Vietnam? (1962-72). Don’t journalists who report on war have a professional and moral obligation to undertake some form of military training, much in the same way we require doctors, lawyers and mechanics to be "trade tested"?

Martin responded (by fax on November 15, 2004):

"I found your fax offensive, but I’ll answer it. Being a patriot, eulogizing the Anzac legend etc doesn’t require anyone to volunteer to fight a senseless, immoral war. Even Peter Cosgrove [then Chief of the Defence Forces] has acknowledged that Vietnam was wrong.

Your nonsense about ‘moral obligations’ to serve in the ADF [Australian Defence Forces], irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the war, is just that nonsense. I support everyone of our troops who put their lives on the line. But that doesn’t require everyone else to sign up, every time Canberra decides to go to war. Being a patriot doesn’t mean you blindly accept what the pollies [politicians] want. You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to disagree."

Martin provides no evidence to back up his assertion that Vietnam was immoral. For the record, General Cosgrove called the Vietnam War a mistake because it was militarily un-winnable not immoral, much in the same way that famous WWI correspondents Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett and (Sir) Keith Murdoch called Gallipoli a disaster at the time.

The Allies of which Australia was a member ended up winning WWI. The “Free World,” of which Australia was a member together with the United States, lost Vietnam in 1975 but won the Cold War against communism in 1989. Robert McNamara, the architect of the US war in Vietnam, later admitted the war was a mistake. Respected commentator Dr Gerard Henderson has made the brilliant point, missed by many but so obvious:

"As a consequence of Watergate, [US President] Nixon and his successor Gerald Ford, under pressure from Congress, walked away from the US commitment to provide military supplies to the anti-communist regime in South Vietnam. This contributed to the conquest of South Vietnam by communist North Vietnam, which was supplied by the (then) Soviet Union. "

Australia and the United States entered the Vietnam War in 1962 and pulled out in 1972 because of internal political pressure without losing a single battle. For three years an underdog ragtag South Vietnamese military managed to hold off the Communist North until 1975. If Gallipoli is seen as a romantic failure why not the three-year valiant struggle by our allies the South Vietnamese with their backs against the wall? Be that as it may, the Martin mantra is that Gallipoli was good, but Vietnam bad.

This is an introduction to Martin’s story for 60 Minutes about Gallipoli (April 21, 2001):

"Eight thousand, seven hundred and nine Aussie soldiers were killed at Gallipoli, but now 10 times that number of Aussie tourists make their pilgrimage each year. Most of them are about the same age as the soldiers who died there. As Ray Martin reports, it's a phenomenon, almost a rite of passage - young Australians in search of our history, and perhaps in search of themselves. "

The tone is reverential for Gallipoli but not for Vietnam. Why? Gallipoli was a military failure that cost more than 8,000 Australian lives and was fought in someone else’s backyard, Turkey.

One of the reasons why Australia’s Vietnam War was seen as immoral comes from media perceptions that have been now discredited, in particular the infamous, exaggerated Viet Cong Water Torture story that never was but brought fame and fortune to newsman John Sorrell in 1968, who later became Director of News at Channel 9 in Melbourne. The Sorrell story inflicted enormous psychological damage.

Gary McMahon, a two-tour Vietnam Veteran, tells of a mate who was:

“Absolutely destroyed later in his life about the lies and insinuations that came from the bullshit in that report. I served two tours of duty, saw a lot of action and cannot recall one incidence of anything more than an Aussie kicking an enemy body or spitting on one. Like that whole war though everything was misreported, misanalysed, misunderstood and so on.”

I tried to contact Sorrell when he was still alive: he died earlier this year. In a democratic society, we should be able to debate national legends and myths and taboo subjects. As far as I know, no one, including the media, holds copyright on the Anzac Legend. It belongs to everyone.

Vietnam for better or worse will remain Australia’s most controversial of wars for the simple fact it was the first television war, unlike Gallipoli.

REMEMBRANCE DAY-- REMEMBERING ALL

Vietnam is part of the Anzac legend forged on the shores of Gallipoli in 1915.

REMEMBRANCE DAY-- REMEMBERING ALL --

Vietnam part of the ANZAC Legend forged at Gallipoli

ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8135&page=0

Remembrance Day: remembering all

By Sasha Uzunov - posted Monday, 10 November 2008

Recent road works in Gallipoli have uncovered the remains of soldiers killed there in 1915 during World War I. Australians from all walks of life have expressed concern about our diggers’ last resting place being disturbed.

All of this tells us that the ANZAC legend has been embraced by nearly all of the community and is alive and well. But with Remembrance Day (November 11) tomorrow we need to include those from the Vietnam War as part of this legend, this ethos. It seems there are those who still make a “distinction” between Gallipoli and Vietnam, even though there are similarities.

The Gallipoli campaign, fought on the shores of Turkey and starting on April 25, 1915, involved Australian soldiers being sent to invade a foreign state, the Turkish Ottoman Empire, and ease the pressure on our then ally Russia.

The Vietnam War (1962-72), once again, saw Australia send troops to a foreign country to aid our allies, the United States and South Vietnam, then fighting off communist takeover from its northern counterpart.

However, prominent journalist Ray Martin, who veterans over the years have thanked for his enthusiasm and passion for keeping the ANZAC legend alive in the media, views the Vietnam conflict differently:

"Being a patriot, eulogising the ANZAC legend etc doesn't require anyone to volunteer to fight a senseless, immoral war. Even Peter Cosgrove [then Chief of the Defence Forces] has acknowledged that Vietnam was wrong.

"I support every one of our troops who put their lives on the line. But that doesn't require everyone else to sign up, every time Canberra decides to go to war.

"Being a patriot doesn't mean you blindly accept what the pollies [politicians] want."

Now compare this to the introduction to Ray’s story for 60 Minutes about Gallipoli (April 21, 2001):

Eight thousand, seven hundred and nine Aussie soldiers were killed at Gallipoli, but now 10 times that number of Aussie tourists make their pilgrimage each year. Most of them are about the same age as the soldiers who died there.

As Ray Martin reports, it's a phenomenon, almost a rite of passage - young Australians in search of our history, and perhaps in search of themselves.

The tone is reverential for Gallipoli but not for Vietnam. Why this disconnect? The circumstances are almost the same except that Vietnam was a counter-insurgency war and shown on television.

If commentators praise Gallipoli but condemn Vietnam is that not a contradiction? If you condemn Vietnam should you not criticise Gallipoli?

The Gallipoli campaign was fought more than 93 years ago and there are no more veterans still alive. Vietnam, on the other hand, is still a tangible, living memory for the men of Ray Martin’s generation who came to young adulthood in the mid 1960s.

The way I see it, if you support the ANZAC legend and Gallipoli, you need to support the Vietnam War. The two are connected.

Victorian Premier John Premier said on Vietnam Veteran Day (August 18, 2008) at Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance that it was time that Vietnam was accepted as part of the ANZAC legend.

Perhaps Ray should pay attention to Premier Brumby’s sentiments on Remembrance Day, November 11.

Another politician in the news over Gallipoli is Paul John Keating, Australia’s Prime Minister from 1991-96. He has been at it again. Letting go with recent comments at a book launch that would guarantee media exposure. His latest outburst is about the relevance of visiting Gallipoli.

Funny that during Keating’s prime ministership his criticism of Gallipoli was mute.

How could we forget Keating’s moving comments about the Unknown Soldier, brought back from the World War I French battlefield to finally rest in Canberra, in 1993?

"We do not know this Australian's name and we never will. We do not know his rank or his battalion. We do not know where he was born, or precisely how and when he died. We do not know where in Australia he had made his home or when he left it for the battlefields of Europe. We do not know his age or his circumstances - whether he was from the city or the bush; what occupation he left to become a soldier; what religion, if he had a religion; if he was married or single. We do not know who loved him or whom he loved. If he had children we do not know who they are. His family is lost to us as he was lost to them. We will never know who this Australian was."

Then again during his time in office he sent Australian troops to Somalia, Cambodia and Rwanda in an attempt to act tough on the international stage.

Since leaving politics not once has he expressed any concern for the soldiers he sent into combat. We know that the Rwanda mission in 1994 was flawed from the beginning, with inadequate rules of engagement for our troops caught in the genocide between two rival ethnic groups in the heart of Africa. No wonder that some who returned from that hell hole suffer from PTSD, having been forced to witness massacres.

Nor can we forget Keating’s cynical political use of the Kokoda Track battle from World War II. However, Keating did lose a relative during World War II, as did a large number of Australians.
Keating, who was born in 1944, did not volunteer to fight in Vietnam but using the ANZAC legend or for that matter sending others into combat for political gain is nothing new. The unfortunate thing is that there are many in the Australian media who refuse to scrutinise our leaders and experts.

They are, in effect, letting these people off the hook. This will continue because some commentators see themselves as future government advisors or spin doctors on big fat salaries. It is not in their interests to rock the boat.

(end)

KEATING'S SHORT MEMORY

Keating was eager to send Australian troops to Rwanda, Africa in 1994

but there was no criticism of Gallipoli back then. (Photo courtesy of Ken Pedler)

KEATING’S SHORT MEMORY
By Sasha Uzunov

Paul John Keating, Australia’s Prime Minister from 1991-96, has been at it again. --letting go with comments that would guarantee media exposure. His latest outburst is about the relevance of visiting Gallipoli.


Funny that during Keating’s Prime Ministership his criticism of Gallipoli was mute. But then again during his time in office he sent Australian troops to Somalia, Cambodia and Rwanda in an attempt to act tough on the international stage.


Since leaving politics not once has he expressed any concern for the soldiers he sent into combat. We know that the Rwanda mission in 1994 was flawed from the beginning with inadequate rules of engagement for our troops caught in genocide between two rival ethnic groups in the heart of Africa. No wonder that some who returned from that hell hole suffer from PTSD, being forced to witness massacres.


Nor could we forget Keating’s moving comments about the Unknown Soldier, brought back from the WWI French battlefield to finally rest in Canberra, in 1993:


“We do not know this Australian's name and we never will. We do not know his rank or his battalion. We do not know where he was born, or precisely how and when he died. We do not know where in Australia he had made his home or when he left it for the battlefields of Europe. We do not know his age or his circumstances - whether he was from the city or the bush; what occupation he left to become a soldier; what religion, if he had a religion; if he was married or single. We do not know who loved him or whom he loved. If he had children we do not know who they are. His family is lost to us as he was lost to them. We will never know who this Australian was.”


Nor can we forget Keating’s cynical political use of the Kokoda Track battle from World War II. However, Keating did lose a relative during WWII, as did a large number of Australians.


Keating, who was born in 1944, did not volunteer to fight in Vietnam but using the Anzac legend or that matter sending others into combat for political gain is nothing new. The unfortunate thing is that there are many in the Australian media who refuse to scrutinise our leaders and experts.


They are in effect letting these people off the hook. This will continue because some commentators see themselves as future government advisors or spin doctors on big fat salaries. It is not in their interest to rock the boat.


(end)