The New York Times has a news article today that’s ostensibly about concerns the Pentagon is engaged in historical revisionism in a recent attempt to honor Vietnam veterans. Any legitimate concerns, however, are outweighed by the fact the article gives a prominent megaphone to radical liberal activists whose opinions on how Vietnam vets should be honored are dubious at best. Here’s how the article begins:
Now the Pentagon — run by a Vietnam veteran, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — is planning a 50th anniversary commemoration of the Vietnam War. The effort, which is expected to cost taxpayers nearly $15 million by the end of this fiscal year, is intended to honor veterans and, its website says, “provide the American public with historically accurate materials” suitable for use in schools.
Tom Hayden? As in, Jane Fonda’s ex-husband Tom Hayden? You would be hard pressed to find anyone less qualified—and more offensive to veterans—to comment on this matter. When you start listing the others objecting to the Pentagon’s efforts it starts to seem like a bunch of liberal activists launching a peacenik nostalgia reunion tour:
Clearly, this group of activists is approaching the issue from a very left-wing perspective. Ellsberg’s historical significance is undeniable, but since the release of the Pentagon Papers he’s been alligned with a lot of far-left groups such as the “Campaign for Peace and Democracy,” which is also supported by the likes of Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. Simply saying Korb was an “assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan” is flat out misleading. It makes it sound like the group has a bipartisan tinge, when Korb is currently a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the most prominent progressive think tank in Washington. Finally, Peter Yarrow? Aside from being an aging baladeer, I don’t grasp what weight his opinion carries here. (And I can’t help but feel the Times would fail to mention that Yarrow is a convicted sex offender if he weren’t a beloved figure of the left.) When I suggested it was a nostalgia tour for anti-war activists, I wasn’t kidding. The Times says as much:
Further, many of the complaints seem minor or are in the process of being corrected:
The team has already changed some facts: After Nick Turse, the author of a book on Vietnam, noted the My Lai Incident reference in a February article on the website TomDispatch, the language was revised to read, “American Division Kills Hundreds of Vietnamese Citizens at My Lai.” It still does not use the word massacre.
I seriously doubt the Pentagon is foolish enough to think that it can whitewash the facts of My Lai, which are politically charged and well known. As for John Kerry’s supposedly revelatory testimony, this cannot be said enough — his version of the events in Vietnam and his very brief service there are politically loaded, as well as rife with innacuracies and untruths. The media have worked very hard to dismiss this as “swiftboating,” but there’s simply no denying that his infamous “Christmas in Cambodia” story and many of his other specific claims are untrustworthy at best.
Now some other prominent historians and academics are quoted as having concerns this project, and I hope the Pentagon is responsive to legitimate criticism, includes a range of perspectives, and is quick to correct any inaccuracies. I have no doubt the project could be improved and would benefit from outside input. The issue may well merit some press coverage. But it is appalling that the Times would give so much ink and credibility to notorious activists such as Hayden whose core complaint—”they object to having the military write the story”—seems more ideological than factual.
