Statue of Liberty or Oppression: Vietnam Veterans Against the War and anti-Imperialism

List of Abbreviations

FBI                              Federal Bureau of Investigation

MACV                        U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam

RU                              Revolutionary Union

U.S.                             United States of America

VVAW                       Vietnam Veterans Against the War

VVAW-AI                  Vietnam Veterans Against the War- Anti-Imperialist

VVAW-WSO             Vietnam Veterans Against the War-Winter Soldier Organisation

VFP                             Veterans for Peace

Introduction

‘The reason we chose the Statue of Liberty is that since we were children, the statue has been analogous in our minds with freedom and an America we love. Then we went to fight a war in the name of freedom. We saw that freedom is a selective expression allowed only to those who are white and maintain the status quo. Until this symbol takes on the meaning it was intended to have, we must continue our demonstrations all over the nation of our love of freedom and America.’

-Tim McCormick, Vietnam Veteran against the War and Member of the Liberty 15[1]

Fig.1. Seizing the Statue of Liberty 1971: Three Days With A Lady[2]

Between the 27^th and 29^th of December 1971, 15 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) were able to barricade themselves inside the Statue of Liberty in order to protest against the war in Vietnam. The event immediately became major news. When the Liberty 15 finally left the Statue one veteran stated proudly, ‘Did we succeed? Of course, we did. We got the war back on Page One, where it belongs.’[3]

McCormick’s declaration to the New York Times clarifies the purpose of the Liberty 15’s activism to the American public. McCormick asserts that the Statue is a symbolic representation of the United States and its founding principles of Liberty, Equality and self-determination. McCormick laments however that the war they participated in has shown them that their country has forgotten or never had the principles the Statue represents. The declaration was a nationwide call to all Americans to recognise their antiwar stance as patriotic in the hope that others would realise the need to end the war as a means of correcting national priorities.

            Fig.2. VVAW Takeover of the Statue of Liberty, June 1976[4]

In June 1976 VVAW used the same stunt except this time with a different plea. As Figure 2 shows one of their banners publicised the slogan: ‘We've Carried The Rich For 200 Years, Let's Get Them Off Our Backs.’ This slogan was used by the July 4^th Coalition who wanted to mobilise the masses against the oppressive capitalist class.[5] The slogan articulated the protestors’ Marxist view that the United States had never been about liberty but capitalist oppression. The 1976 protest did not garner the same media exposure as the Liberty 15. In fact when the protesters eventually vacated the landmark their activism was tagged onto a bigger story in the New York Times under the headline, ‘It Was a Day for Tourists in the Big City.’[6] Their protest was perceived to be an inconvenience.

Both of these stunts illustrated how bold VVAW could be in trying to get its message and image across to the American people and that their outlook was susceptible to change. As the upside-down flag in Fig.1 shows, the Liberty 15 felt their nation was in distress, with a government going against everything it stood for. The banners in 1976 advocated the idea that the United States had always been a nation of capitalist oppression.

These events provide an interesting insight into the internal struggles within VVAW between patriotism and radicalism. Indeed one of the legacies of VVAW is that it split into two different organisations after the Vietnam War; VVAW, Inc and Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (VVAW-AI). The VVAW, Inc website warns visitors that VVAW-AI is, ‘an obscure, ultra-left sect, designed to confuse people in order to associate themselves with VVAW's many years of activism and struggle.’[7] However as historian Andrew Hunt points out, VVAW-AI was established in 1978 by veterans like Joe Urgo, a member of VVAW since 1970, which indicates the group did have some stake in VVAW’s legacy.[8]

                   The whole issue of anti-imperialism has been with VVAW since its conception, even if it wasn’t mentioned overtly. After all, the patriotic calls made by the Liberty 15 alluded to the United States’ fight for self-determination from the British Empire and that Americans should ideally oppose all forms of imperialism. The flip-side to this is the idea that the United States has an inherently capitalist-imperialist system and therefore should be vehemently opposed. VVAW-AI continues to stress this point and makes its anti-American stance clear by working under the slogan ‘We Are All Outlaws In The Eyes Of Amerikkka.’[9]

                   This dissertation will analyse the issues of taking an anti-imperialist stance and how in the case of VVAW it fitted in with or influenced its organisation, identity and image. Throughout the narrative I seek to demonstrate that VVAW was able to successfully use concepts of anti-imperialism to analyse U.S. foreign policy and articulate their opposition to certain aspects of it. However I will also show how using anti-imperialism as a basis for the organisation proved unrealistic and in fact disruptive.

                   There have been several extensive studies into VVAW such as Hunt, Nicosia and Moser all of which supply useful information into how VVAW was formed and how it operated. Stacewicz’s collection of oral histories from former and current VVAW members provides excellent access into the internal debates over imperialism and how they played a part in the organisation’s split. Both VVAW and VVAW-AI maintain archives of their publications from over the years on their websites, providing an insight into how the movement articulated its stance and image. There are also FBI files that have been released which document the Bureau’s surveillance of the movement, which took particular interest into how the movement operated and how radical it was.

                   The narrative of this dissertation is structured chronologically; from before the founding of VVAW to the present day. The first chapter refers to the things that influenced VVAW’s ideology and structure by describing the established notions of imperialism and looking at the state of American society before VVAW came into existence. The next three chapters are split in accordance with Andrew Hunt’s framework of the organisation’s history; the second chapter is dedicated to the time in which VVAW was a small forum for antiwar veterans, the third chapter accounts for their development into a mass movement and the fourth chapter looks at how VVAW tried to find a permanent basis for their organisation.[10] The fifth chapter will start at the time in which VVAW split into two organisations and then follow their progress into the present day as a means of assessing what purpose these organisations continue to fulfil.

Chapter 1- The foundations of VVAW

Since its founding the United States has maintained an ambiguous and complex stance against imperialism that has been primarily informed by republican principles. As Buzzanco notes, the ideology of republicanism has a fairly flexible understanding of imperialism; one that condemns formal empires but allows unrestrained expansion and foreign intervention for any number of reasons.[11] Moser states that this republican legacy has endured: 'Much of American political culture was produced by the conflict between the "warring ideals" of empire and republic.’ Moser also believes that, ‘this divided consciousness structures the American character itself.'[12] In his review of imperialist histories of the United States Kramer states:

‘Within republican thought, empire is a warning, a lexical alarm bell signalling that a moral-political boundary is about to be crossed. Because of this, the cry for empire is most commonly heard in American political discourses in secular jeremiads against over-concentrated, overextended, or corrupting power. From the outset, it is meant to be self-liquidating: if its invocation succeeds, it prevents the collapse of republic into empire then quietly retires.’[13]

 Kramer notes that this lexicon tends to only find its way into popular usage in periods of intense political-ethical turmoil, particularly in instances of U.S. military intervention in international affairs.[14] The republican ideology of expansion and imperialism would be central to the antiwar movement’s rhetoric but would also be culpable for muting criticism about American intervention in the first place.

The United States emerged from the Second World War as the capitalist superpower in the Cold War struggle against communism. In pursuing a policy of containment the United States sought to use political and military means as a way of imposing its ‘geopolitical as well as economic hegemony over major political, economic and social developments throughout the Third World.’[15] The vast majority of Americans accepted this policy during the early Cold War years, leading to criticisms about U.S. foreign policy being marginalised due to the prevailing fears about communism’s threat to the international liberal political and economic system.[16]

This popular consensus would be shaken by the United States’ experience in Vietnam which ‘amplified awareness of race, class and imperial politics of war, the military and American society.’[17] According to Kolko the move away from the imperial consensus occurred spontaneously during the Americanisation of the Vietnam War due to the fact the U.S. intervention was being justified with ambiguous reasons and it did not help but hindered the many political, economic and social desires of the American people. Kolko says this was the foremost factor that drove the majority of people to join the antiwar movement, because they saw no way of benefitting from it.[18] Many antiwar activist leaders began to take on the discourse that had previously been marginalised, that the United States’ Cold War obsession of maintaining order coercively went against national values and institutions.[19] This republican discourse would eventually become a principal argument for the ‘doves’ in Washington, with Senator Fullbright expressing his dismay that America had, ‘betrayed its own past and its own promise.... of free men building an example for the world. Now... it sees a nation that seemed to represent something new and hopeful reverting to the vanity of past empires.’[20] The idea that the United States was contradicting its own values in Vietnam was certainly a mainstream conviction within the antiwar movement and therefore many in the movement would stress this in order to portray their protest as patriotic.[21] Such views were bound to be subconscious but also served as a means to construct a credible image that was non-partisan and patriotic because they related antiwar activism to the United States’ own interests and traditions.

Alternative critiques of U.S. foreign policy were utilised by mass movements during this time. The influential New Left scholarship gave the anti-imperialist elements of the antiwar movement a means of analysing U.S. foreign policy within an economic framework, one that emphasised corporate interests as a major factor in policy-making decisions. A literature of institutional American racism and colonialism re-emerged as an analytically inferior but by no means less functional form of expression for activists and scholars within social movements that opposed racism and supported Third World Liberation movements.[22] Such perspectives certainly played a major role within contemporary social movements, but rarely found their way into conventional American thought.

 There was also a more radical element of the antiwar movement which adhered to more overtly Marxist writings such as Maoism, which made declarations and prophesies against the economic and bureaucratic oppression of the peoples of the world by capitalist-imperialism, ‘chiefly by U.S. imperialism’.[23] To have such views at the height of the Cold War would be regarded treasonous by the majority of Americans and could simply be dismissed as enemy propaganda.

The radical politics of the 1960s initially endeavoured to empower people by encouraging them to help construct a civil society based around a more decentralised social and political system.[24] The New Left’s concept of a ‘participatory democracy’ was an idea taking root in the United States. This concept provided an alternative to the current top-down, elitist political system by making sure everybody’s voice was significant in the decision-making process. These principles sought to revitalize American society and democracy, which is why many in the antiwar movement saw ‘participatory democracy’ as an appropriate means to organise their activism because it encouraged people to speak out against the war[25] However, many in the New Left began to lose faith in this non-violent means of protest due to their inability to work within the liberal system to change things, especially the United States’ policy in Indochina. Alternative and more glamorous forms of activism and thinking were taken up by members of the youth movement by the late 1960s. Marxist-Leninist revolution, militant resistance and the global youth rebellion became callings for many who regarded non-violent methods of empowerment to be naive. While some people became more revolutionary the majority of society became more concerned with law-and-order in response to the militancy of extreme activists like the Weather Underground.  This led to revolutionary radicals and the youth movement becoming politically and socially marginalised in what was ‘an inherently anti-revolutionary atmosphere.’[26] Contemporary progressive writers like Michael Lerner criticised elements of the antiwar movement who seemed, ‘bent on making itself appear irrelevant to the vast majority of the people.’ While Lerner suggests that the multi-issue stance of the majority of the demonstrators may have disrupted a coherent message he reserves most of his criticism for the minority who tried to militantly confront the U.S. imperialist system, which only served to discredit and divide the movement.[27] The two extremes of activism both had their problems; opponents could refuse to listen to the non-violent moderates and the militancy and fanaticism of radicals gave them a reason not to listen.

Chapter 2- Vietnam Veterans Against the War

One of the incentives for Americans to serve in the military is their patriotic belief that they can emulate the American citizen-soldier of the American Revolution and Civil War. Moser defines the ‘citizen-soldier’ as a free man who, ‘leaves peaceable pursuits behind and departs on an honourable mission. Empowered by the nation’s ultimate sovereign- the people- the citizen-soldier fights to create or defend freedom and democracy from calamity.’[28] Tom Wetzler speaks for many of the Americans who enlisted to serve in Vietnam, saying most chose to go in order to, ‘find something to justify faith that what the United States was doing was right and just and good, that the people in Vietnam would like us being there.’[29]  However, Jan Barry realised from his experiences in Vietnam that he was actually part of a, ‘palace guard for a police state’ interfering in what was a ‘civil war’[30] Moser states that for many who desired to be citizen-soldiers: 'Vietnam often acted as a powerful solvent upon these expectations.'[31] The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was a delusional experience for many citizen-soldiers and would form the basis for their activism against it.

As a citizen-soldier, Barry believed that the reason for the United States’ involvement in the war was because people did not know the truth. Barry remembers that he and other GIs in Vietnam alleged this began with policymakers like McNamara and other ‘higher-ups’ who, ‘did not want to know that we were not making this wonderful progress and that basically we were supporting a dictatorship that had no popular support.’[32]  This would provide the impetus for VVAW, to represent a perspective on the war that was not informed by government policymakers and military strategists.

Fig.3 ‘Vietnam Veterans Against the War’, April 1967[33]

Hunt observes that while veterans like Donald Duncan and Veterans for Peace (VFP) had emerged before VVAW to protest the war they had so far been unable to shift the media focus away from the veterans who supported the war, partially due to their inferior numbers and a lack of government assistance.[34] At an antiwar demonstration in New York on the 15^th April 1967, a handful of Vietnam veterans marched at the front of a formation containing around 2,000 members of VFP while holding a banner that read ‘Vietnam Veterans Against the War.’ As Fig.3 shows, they dressed in formal military dress in order to visually maintain the authorative influence their status as veterans granted them. Jan Barry recollects how the hostile pro-war onlookers who previously jeered civilian antiwar marchers were suddenly left bemused by the presence of these Vietnam veterans. Barry remembers that this experience led to him politely refusing to join VFP telling them: ‘I thought that we would make more of an impression upon people, we’d have a better ability to articulate to people what’s going on in Vietnam, if we stand as a Vietnam veterans’ organisation.’[35] The six Vietnam veterans who established VVAW took their name from the banner that brought them together.

                 

 

Fig.4. Above: Insignia of U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV). Right: Insignia of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).[36]

Fig.4 includes a picture of the group’s original and current insignia, which was designed during VVAW’s first meeting. The VVAW’s website says that the insignia was designed, ‘to expose the lies and hypocrisy of U.S. aggression in Vietnam as well as its cost in human lives.’[37] While such retrospective statements can be made assertively after years of revelations about the American involvement in Vietnam it is debateable whether the original VVAW members felt the government was deliberately misleading the people, for instance Barry’s statement about the ‘higher-ups’ focuses on their self-denial. By any means VVAW knew that some of the things being used to justify the war were untrue and they used their insignia to allude to this. Their insignia parodied the insignia of the MACV which originally symbolised the U.S. military aggressively pushing back any Communist infiltration into Vietnam from China. Members of VVAW knew the U.S. military was not protecting the Vietnamese from invasion but was instead trying to ‘save’ Vietnam from itself. They therefore replaced the sword with a helmet atop an upside-down rifle, the international symbol of soldiers killed in action, as a representation of all those who had fallen as a result of fallacies such as these.[38]

VVAW’s 1971 book called The New Soldier said that the organisation was originally, ‘more interested in putting across their ideas through the media than in building a big organisation.’[39] Barry notes that while their numbers were small their status as Vietnam veterans ‘got you in the door’ of public debates.[40] There were internal disagreements about whether to focus their activism on a national or local level. However, members of VVAW were able to appear in debates with the State Department and on television, while also going out to educate people in their local area.[41] Like Barry many of the original members of VVAW believed that the main reason that this war was being allowed was that the electorate did not know the truth. Dave Braum asserted his belief in the democratic system as a means of ending the war, saying it could work, ‘to vote out people who can't work with reality and elect those who can.’[42] They therefore saw it as their civic duty to use their status as witnesses to the war to make honest arguments against it as a means of influencing the public’s consciousness.

            Barry recollects that VVAW leaders tried to ensure their arguments maintained authority by insisting, ‘that people who were going to speak on behalf of the organisation had to do the research and know what they’re talking about.’[43] Barry recalls that in his own research he came to the conclusion that the United States was turning South Vietnam into, ‘an economic colony.’[44] This kind of economic analysis made the United States appear to be a source of capitalist-imperialist exploitation which was an argument often taken up by the radical left. Making arguments along these lines would distort the image VVAW were trying to project.  The original members of VVAW were determined to take a centrist line in order to avoid the radical extremes that had hindered the rest of the antiwar movement, especially those of the radical left. Braum stated his dismay that the, ‘bulk of publicity’ was being given to, ‘radical and irresponsible elements’ who were discrediting the reputation of the vast majority of the antiwar movement who did not seek radical change but merely an end to the war.[45] Barry understood how alienated the radical left was, saying they set, ‘up barriers between the movement and the people.’[46] VVAW felt their status and reputation could help bring the media focus on the antiwar movement back to the moderate majority.

It is for this reason that many of the initial public statements made by VVAW reiterated the patriotic perspective of the antiwar movement; by focusing on the harm the war was doing to American men and ideals. When defining their principles they expressed their belief in American democracy and felt that their aspiration to immediately end the war and get ‘our buddies’ home was the ‘highest patriotism.’[47] On 19^th November 1967 the New York Times published a full-page advertisement of VVAW, one in which they stressed their opposition based on their republican ideals: ‘We are veterans of the Viet-Nam war. We believe that this “conflict” in which our country is now engaged is wrong, unjustifiable and contrary to the principle of self-determination on which this nation was founded.’[48] Hagopian points out that while such declarations were nothing new they now ‘carried the weight of tested patriotism’ due to the fact they were stated by veterans of the war.[49] This republican understanding of anti-imperialism helped VVAW project a patriotic stance because they were saying their protest was being made in order for their country to correct a mistake.

VVAW felt their image could help add weight to McCarthy’s campaign to be the Democratic candidate for the 1968 Presidential election. Like VVAW McCarthy sought to shift the public’s perception of the antiwar movement from militantly anti-American to patriotic. McCarthy was held in high regard by antiwar liberals, who naturally saw him as the man to return the priorities of the United States back to the progressive ideals that most Americans had hoped for at the beginning of the decade. Several VVAW leaders shared this view, publicising an advertisement that declared McCarthy as, ‘the man most able to lead the country out of war in Viet-Nam and to unite the country to meet the challenges at home.’[50] However, the Democratic convention in Chicago was a very dispiriting event for antiwar liberals after McCarthy was defeated and the antiwar faction of the Democratic Party was suppressed by the majority.[51] Jan Barry recalls the affect the convention had on members of VVAW: ‘People went out there, saw what happened, and said, “The hell with it. If this is the way things are going in this country, I’m not going to participate.” A lot of people dropped out.’[52] While some members became politically apathetic other members called for assertiveness and dynamism in order to make their voice heard. The Los Angeles chapter co-ordinator James Boggio wrote to the national office in New York, encouraging them to join the revolution: ‘When I bellow for revolution I’m merely suggesting that our dear ol’ Viet-Nam Vets group re-invigorate, degenerate, scramble, and mutilate its archaic format of the past... and that we begin RIGHT NOW to do our thing where it’s at!’[53] Joe Urgo also recalls his frustrations at this ‘very quiet, intellectual protest group’ saying, ‘it wasn’t up in your face.’[54]

Urgo was part of a new generation of veterans that was younger, more working-class oriented and had experienced a much more savage war. Unlike their predecessors, whose antiwar stance was based on an intellectual understanding of American foreign policy, this generation of veterans came out in opposition to the war due to a heartfelt sense of having been ‘lied to and brainwashed and used’[55] VVAW would become a force for the antiwar movement again, but not in the same way its founders intended it to be.[56]

Chapter 3- New Winter Soldiers

After pledging to achieve ‘peace with honour’, many Americans supposed that Nixon would wind down American involvement in Indochina. However the expansion of the war into Cambodia dashed any optimism for a quick peace and reinvigorated the antiwar movement.[57] The killings at Kent State also made many realise that the war was not going to remain a minor issue within American society. John Kniffin remembers how he feared that the events at Kent State set a precedent for things to come, ‘Our country was going to be a military dictatorship, and the same kind of crap that I participated in was going to come home to roost. That scared the shit out of me.’[58] Two poems from the VVAW’s book Winning Hearts & Minds provide concise representations of the frustrations many VVAW members had at the conduct of the U.S. war effort. First there is Robert C. Hahn’s ‘Viet-Nam’ poem which ends with the following stanza that shows how all the anguish Vietnam was witnessing was the result of false rhetoric:

‘Enslaved in the name of freedom;
You watch invader kill invader,
You watch your children die,
Watch the others speak of peace,
Suffer sorrows without cease.’[59]

Charles M. Purcell’s ‘The Walk’ articulates another form of frustration:

            ‘Take the war out of the T.V.s and put it in the

complacent streets
 Kick Amerika awake 
Before it dies in its sleep.’[60]

It is clear that antiwar veterans were becoming more desperate about the need to end America’s war in Vietnam, a war that was based on lies and being allowed to continue due to the public’s indifference. Purcell alludes to there being a need for antiwar protest to move away from trying to persuade people via intellectual reasoning and towards forcing them to confront the issue. Upon joining VVAW in 1970, Joe Urgo and Al Hubbard had stressed a need to turn this nationwide intellectual group of 1500 antiwar veterans into a mass movement.[61] These veterans understood that what VVAW needed most of all was publicity.  

Fig. 5 Operation RAW, September 1970[62]

A protest march in September 1970 called Operation RAW was VVAW’s first attempt to get their message imprinted on the American psyche. As Fig.5 shows the marchers used guerrilla theatre as a means of dramatizing ‘the dehumanizing aspects of the war.’ This involved re-enacting some of the everyday horrors many of them experienced in Vietnam. While a local newspaper reported how many locals were disgusted by what they saw the VVAW’s public relations man pointed out that wasn’t the point: ‘We didn't expect the people to be happy with us. But at least we've started them talking about the war.’[63] VVAW was resolute in its commitment to bringing the realities of the war back to the home-front whether the public liked it or not.

In the wake of media revelations about atrocities like My Lai, antiwar activists expressed frustration at the government’s attempts to isolate these crimes and scapegoat individuals.[64] VVAW sought to counter this in January 1971 by sponsoring the Winter Soldier Investigation, an event that involved 109 veterans providing testimonies to the atrocities they had witnessed, some of which were featured in a documentary film. Ensign states that in terms of political discourse these, ‘courageous testimonies helped to destroy one of the Pentagon’s most treasured myths- that we had an honourable purpose in Vietnam.’[65] Another legacy of the investigations was VVAW’s attempt to give their mass movement an enduring image and identity.

The documentary alludes to the fact that many veterans were beginning to see issues beyond the U.S. government’s denial of Indochinese self-determination that were embedded in American society and history. One Veteran said that after he returned from Vietnam his outlook on everything had profoundly changed: ‘somebody hit me with a baseball bat I’ve been asleep.’ Other veterans tried to pin-point factors within American society that facilitated the atrocities in Vietnam. Members of VVAW would no longer restrain their words in order to protect the illusion that the United States was exempt from dishonourable deeds. Towards the end of the documentary two testimonies make this stance clear. Scott Camil states that he has come to the conclusion that American goals in Vietnam were imperialistic, saying the United States’ presence there wasn’t about helping the people but about pursuing its, ‘own economic gains and political power.’ Another veteran received a standing ovation from the audience and other participants for stating that the United States’ brutal expansionism into Vietnam was nothing new, saying it is the same thing as, ‘the Indian wars a hundred years ago.’[66] The Winter Soldier Investigation underlined a view that members of VVAW would maintain; that contrary to its high founding ideals the United States was not automatically exceptional.

VVAW was not trying to state that their perspective was now anti-American. The documentary film covering the investigations opened with the words of Tom Paine:

‘These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.’[67]

By opening with this quotation VVAW was showing the audience it was attempting to build a new image based around the idea of the ‘Winter Soldier.’ The idea of the ‘citizen-soldier’ formed the basis for the Winter Soldier image; of soldiers sacrificing their freedom in order to fight for justice. While earlier members of VVAW had performed the role of ‘citizen soldiers’, it wasn’t until the Winter Soldier Investigations they actually began to build a sustained identity around the idea. The reason for this was because VVAW was beginning to see multiple issues that contradicted the United States’ founding principles. Their new identity as Winter Soldiers reminded them that beyond antiwar activism they had a civic duty to help in, 'a restructuring of priorities that will make this nation what our forefathers intended it to be.'[68] This was the statement VVAW leaders used to raise awareness about their next event, Dewey Canyon III.

Dewey Canyon III was the name given by VVAW to their protest in Washington in April 1971. The New Soldier book states that this protest was planned in response to the indifference that the American government, media and public had shown towards VVAW so far.[69] The protest therefore sought to amplify what VVAW had already been articulating by making their point at the centre of political power, which ensured they could not be ignored by the government or the media. As Goldberg reported, VVAW no longer simply suggested that their voice had more authority: ‘They didn’t come as respectable citizens politely asking for an end to the war. They demanded it.’[70] This was down to the fact this new group of veterans felt more urgent about needing to help the antiwar cause and as a mass movement they were more confident that their voice carried a lot of weight. As veteran John McDonald stated the Nixon administration and the pro-war Americans could not ignore them: ‘Demonstrators are easy to put down. But we’re vets... and they’ve always had such faith in their vets.’[71] McDonald’s point would prove to be prophetic as attempts by the Nixon administration to disrupt their protest failed.[72] By going to Washington VVAW sought to maximize the psychological potential of their status in order to make people reconsider the arguments of the antiwar movement.

VVAW raised multiple points in Washington that it raised verbally and symbolically. As Fig.6 shows veterans came dressed in their fatigues rather than in formal clothing. This was done to impress upon people that the war was not just something they knew about but something they had experienced, thereby intensifying the emotional and authorative connection they had to the antiwar cause.

                                                  Fig.6 Ask a veteran[73]

Fig.7 and Fig.8 are just two examples of the hundreds of veterans who threw their medals away on the steps of Congress. These images show it was an emotionally charged event in which veterans displayed sorrow as a result of their war experiences or directed their anger towards the government that sent them to it. These veterans threw their medals in order to make the point that their service in Vietnam was not something they or their country should be proud of, a point one veteran articulated when he declared, ‘Here's my merit badges for murder...from the country I betrayed by enlisting in the Army.’[74] Once again while the act of returning medals in protest was nothing new, VVAW understood how much impact returning them publicly en-masse would have on the public.[75] The event would be imprinted on peoples’ minds and showed observers just how strongly they opposed the war as they emotionally hurled their words and their medals at the government that sent them to war.  VVAW had come to realise that simply being a Vietnam veteran against the war wasn’t enough to get fellow Americans to listen to them. Therefore imagery and raw emotion were utilised in order to reinforce their identity and to show people just how bad this war was for their country and its fighting men.

Fig.7 Medal Thrower[76]

Fig.8 Rusty Sachs throws medals[77]

During Dewey Canyon III, John Kerry served as VVAW’s chief spokesperson at the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In his testimony Kerry reiterated the republican argument that the United States was ignoring its own principle of self-determination by trying to force the issue in a ‘civil war’ against the will of the Vietnamese. However Kerry focused his appeal on the perilous consequences of trying to avoid defeat, ‘How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?’[78] Kerry also publicised their role as Winter Soldiers by saying in his testimony and in the epilogue of The New Soldier that they like other Americans needed to learn from Vietnam in order to turn away from illusions about honourable rhetoric and towards working for justice.[79] The use of republican arguments against the war now served as only part of a wider discourse that the Winter Soldier image had built up, because now rather than just being the mistake it was one of many being made by Americans that distorted their attempts to live up to their nation’s founding principles.

Dewey Canyon III was a defining moment for VVAW and it had many consequences. Jan Barry says that many veterans had hoped their lobbying campaign would convince elected officials about the pressing need for peace but Jan notes that most veterans received a ‘real educational experience’ about the U.S. government as their voices were ignored.[80] According to Urgo the experience 'made the vets more radical.' [81] Whether it did or not the experience certainly undermined many veterans’ faith in the U.S. political system.

All the press attention Dewey Canyon III received led to veterans like Bill Crandell optimistically stating, ‘America was listening.’[82] Dewey Canyon III’s success made VVAW realise the importance of location as well as image in getting their message. Moser claims that the political genius of the antiwar military movement rested in its ability 'to reclaim the "symbolic and rhetorical tools" that justified war' for messages against the war.[83] VVAW achieved this on so many occasions; from their reconstruction of a citizen-soldier image to reclaiming patriotic symbols like the Statue of Liberty and the Battle Green of Lexington in Massachusetts.[84]

VVAW’s image and reputation had certainly been enhanced by the event. According to Barry Romo, VVAW had become, ‘the darling of the peace-movement. It was always "You gotta have a VVAW speaker"...They were always deferring to us.'[85] Mike McCain notes that this exploitation of VVAW went beyond utilising its image as political parties from across the spectrum from Democratic to Progressive Labour tried to use and recruit VVAW members for their activities.[86]

The publicity VVAW received from the event also led to their ranks swelling to 25,000 nationwide.[87] While this boosted VVAW’s reputation and outreach it also made it harder to govern.[88] Pete Zastrow recalls how VVAW had several national objectives which established certain qualifications each chapter had to meet but apart from that each chapter had its own focus, which meant VVAW had a decentralised decision-making process.[89] The national objectives were decided democratically during national meetings of all the chapters in order to ensure the national agenda reflected the will of the entire organisation.[90] However as Truscott reported in 1972, VVAW became increasingly divided after Dewey Canyon III due to its political spectrum widening and because many veterans were averse to any forms of leadership or control because of their military experiences.[91] This is presumably the reason why Mike McCain remembers VVAW as being ‘ultra-democratic’, because it prevented anybody dominating the group. McCain notes that this ‘ultra-democratic’ set-up resulted in a lot of opinions being uttered in meetings that ‘would go on and on and on.’[92]

Ensuring that the organisation maintained a cohesive image and message would therefore prove difficult. This would undoubtedly be a concern for members who hoped VVAW would carry on as an organisation even after the war ended.

Chapter 4- Vietnam Veterans Against?

During August of 1971, VVAW started to publish its own newspaper. The first edition stressed that it was, ‘not intended to be exclusively didactic, rhetorical, dialectical or ideological in its presentation’ and is above all about exposing the truth in order to educate people.[93] This edition also spells out the VVAW’s objectives, stating that while their immediate demand is to end the war in Indochina they also seek to change, ‘the domestic social, political, and economic institutions that have caused and permitted the continuation of war.’[94] VVAW members were firmly committed to their role as Winter Soldiers, which justified any attempts to broaden its perspective and aims. Articles declared a need to actively help the liberation struggles of women, Third World movements and non-White Americans such as the African-American community in Cairo, Illinois.[95] There are also references to the special interests of certain corporations and the ruling class elites in encouraging wars and spreading American imperialism.[96] It is clear there was a growing consensus within VVAW that they needed to take a stance against all forms of oppression, especially imperialism. In fact a year later VVAW declared that all of its objectives and principles, ‘directly relate to the imperialist suppression of the People of the World by the United States government.’[97] Pete Zastrow’s testimony reinforces the impression given by their newspaper articles that while elements of VVAW had become ‘consciously anti-imperialist’ they struggled to collectively define what that meant to the organisation’s future direction due to the fact many points of struggle were being raised all at once.[98]

There were VVAW members who continued to reiterate republican ideals by exclusively blaming the Nixon administration for the United States’ imperialist actions. For instance, one newspaper article stated that despite attempts by elected officials to stop unjust interventions overseas, they were unable to dissuade ‘the Nixon dictatorship.’[99] This was certainly the view Ron Kovic maintained, who recalls that the main political purpose of protesting at the Republican National convention in 1972 was to ‘reclaim America.’[100] Kovic and other veterans used their media exposure in Miami to cry out to the American people that Nixon was a ‘criminal’ who was lying to them in order to commit crimes against humanity.[101]

Other VVAW members developed a different perspective. Bobby Muller remembers that many of those who were seeing multiple problems in American society began to see the war as a ‘symptom’ of a wider issue and therefore became radicalised.[102] Many after all had realised firsthand the impotency or unwillingness of the political system to end the war. Veterans like Barry Romo felt that they needed to see the war as more than simply a contradiction to the republican ideals that encouraged him to serve in the first place. This led him to the conclusion that, ‘If I didn’t change, I would become self-destructive.’[103] Urgo notes this need to change led to him looking for alternative sources of truth, saying that it was this thinking that facilitated his ideological transition to Maoism.[104]

In January 1973 VVAW decided to change its name to Vietnam Veterans Against the War-Winter Soldier Organisation (VVAW-WSO). This was done in order to permit non-veterans to become members. The veterans who advocated this either felt VVAW needed to officially acknowledge their supporters’ contribution to the organisation or because they wanted to turn the organisation into a mass-based anti-imperialist movement that could unite left-wing revolutionaries.[105] Changes to the direction of the organisation divided many members. In 1973 VVAW-WSO’s Great Plains Region raised concerns about the increasing tendency of VVAW-WSO publications to place, ‘overemphasis on Marxist thought and rhetoric’ saying this distorted VVAW-WSO’s public image and purpose: 'VVAW's great appeal has always been its credibility as a veterans organisation and the fact that we do not represent a particular ideology, but are issue oriented.'[106] Indeed, several veterans like John Kerry and Rusty Sachs had already resigned due to an unwillingness to have their activism or image dictated by the increasingly radical orientation of VVAW.[107] Mike Gold and John Lindquist both admit there was legitimacy to claims made by revolutionary Marxists that the United States was imperialist; however they both conclude that to ask themselves or the country to prepare for revolution was too much to ask. Gold notes that many veterans had realised, ‘the belly of the beast- the military’ wasn’t ready to join the cause, which is why most turned their attentions to efforts to ‘rebuild’ and ‘do things in the community’ as a means of doing something constructive that could prepare them to confront other issues.[108] It was veterans like these who saw the broad outlook of the Winter Soldier ideal as the defining principle of the organisation; they did not see it as a means to find another ideology.

Veterans like Urgo and Romo though felt another ideology was what the organisation required in order to give it a focus and a future purpose. Urgo recalls that after years of failing to persuade the political system to end the war, ‘the old leadership ran out of ideas. They stopped hanging around. They didn’t know what to do. What was required was more of an analysis.’[109] Veterans who agreed with such sentiments sought to define the radical and anti-imperialist consciousness that was present in the organisation.  According to an FBI report on a national VVAW-WSO meeting in 1973: ‘Romo indicated that it was the opinion of the National Office that VVAW-WSO needs to progress and grow politically and that an inquiry into Marxist-Leninism was a proper means for such political growth and education.'[110]

Several VVAW-WSO chapters responded to this proposal. For instance, the Buffalo Chapter declared in an investigatory paper that without political education VVAW-WSO would ‘stagnate.’ The paper stated that VVAW-WSO needed to join the broad front against imperialism as a mass organisation. This meant VVAW-WSO would have to concentrate on issues relevant to veterans like ‘amnesty’ appeals, while joining a united struggle against racism and sexism which it describes as the, ‘ideological props for imperialism and exploitative property relations.’ The paper stated that in order to achieve this VVAW-WSO needed to develop a position based on the Maoist principle of ‘social practice’, which meant getting involved in the class struggle and in internal debates.[111] However, the ultra-democratic and decentralised structure of VVAW-WSO meant the organisation lacked a coherent message on plans to overthrow capitalism-imperialism. According to an FBI report the Rochester and Fredonia Chapters wanted the revolution to occur non-violently stating intentions to help create a socialist party as a third-party alternative in the U.S. democratic system.[112] On the other hand, Jill McCain remembers plenty of working-class veterans responding to attempts to involve them in debates over macroeconomics with a blunt, ‘“Fuck you. I don’t care what economic system the United States has.”’[113] This lack of unity concerned veterans like Urgo, who felt that personal traits like ‘individualism’ were major obstacles in the organisation’s struggle against the government.[114]

The Revolutionary Union (RU) described itself as a communist organisation trying to build and lead mass movements to overthrow the worldwide capitalist-imperialist system.[115] The RU would provide VVAW-WSO with a coherent anti-imperialist line, but in order to ensure unity behind their line the RU tried to impose their agenda from the top down.

In 1975 the Buffalo Chapter wrote a letter to all VVAW-WSO regarding the RU. The letter stated that since 1974 the RU had provided VVAW-WSO with, 'new and badly needed ideas' which helped define a, 'basis of unity in a mass organisation such as ours, and the need to understand the relationship between anti-imperialist forces and a revolutionary party firmly rooted in the people.' However the letter goes on to accuse the RU of being ‘opportunistic’ towards VVAW-WSO saying it had deliberately betrayed the democratic principles of the organisation.[116]  The Northern California Chapter pointed out that during the latter half of 1974 RU members and affiliates had begun to attach themselves to small VVAW-WSO chapters or set up brand new ones. These affiliates would not contribute to work within the chapter and would only join so they could get involved in national meetings. The Northern California Chapter alludes to the fact that chapters at national meetings were not represented proportionately based on membership meaning that voting didn’t represent the overall will of the organisation.[117] Bill Davis remembers that several RU members were sent by superiors to see whether his chapter would be inclined towards their line, but when they were met with indifference they never appeared again.[118] These points provide legitimacy to the Buffalo Chapter’s ‘opportunistic’ allegation towards the RU, because it seems the RU used its members to take-over as many chapters as possible so that they could get involved in national meetings in order to push an RU agenda. It seems that they were successful in their attempts because as Bill Davis remembers by 1974 he was the only coordinator inside VVAW-WSO’s National Office that was not also part of RU.[119]

The RU therefore came to dominate the national leadership of the organisation which they used to their advantage. As a national coordinator at the time Pete Zastrow remembers that national newsletters became exclusively RU oriented.[120] A newsletter article from 1975 that describes what VVAW-WSO is gives an indication that the National Office’s understanding of the Winter Soldier is now solely informed by the Marxist revolutionary rhetoric of needing to overthrow the capitalist-imperialist system.[121]

While there were VVAW-WSO members who agreed with the RU’s plan to build an anti-imperialist organisation and with several points they made, they did not agree with their organisational methods. For instance, the Buffalo Chapter agreed with many of the RU’s anti-imperialist aims in an objective sense. However it condemned the RU for deliberately ignoring the importance of ‘social practice’ to VVAW-WSO in order to impose their own pre-determined goals and economic focus on the organisation while marginalising major issues like racism and sexism. They stated that not only did this spread intolerance for differing views but also destroyed the credibility VVAW-WSO once had as a spontaneous mass movement.[122] By 1975, it was this kind of intolerance and subjugation that led to chapters being expelled or leaving due to opposition to the RU line and domination.[123] A National Office report alludes to the fact that veterans were dropping out, but emphasises the point that the organisation is becoming more united by the national program they are trying to implement.[124] This delighted veterans like Urgo who stated that the RU had, ‘the clearest revolutionary analysis and vision of American society and what needed to be done.’[125]

These bold claims were in fact delusional. VVAW-WSO was falling apart with membership levels plummeting and the RU’s attempts to utilise VVAW’s image failed to attract any wider support or publicity to their cause due to the fact these images were now combined with radical agendas that the anti-revolutionary American public had no sympathy for. The 1976 Statue of Liberty protest indicates as such, due to the fact there was no great response by the media or the masses.

Barry Davis recalls his concerns that the RU had begun to dismantle his beloved organisation by taking members to serve as their party cadres or security. Davis notes that despite the decline in the number of veterans, there were chapters like Milwaukee that felt a need to carry on as a veterans group.[126] Divisions between the dogmatic anti-imperialists and the ultra-democratic veterans resulted in unity becoming unsustainable. Annie Bailey remembers that this resulted in veterans having to choose their allegiance, between VVAW and communism.[127] Urgo states that the split was finalised in the summer of 1978, when members decided to join either VVAW,Inc or VVAW-AI.[128] Dave Cline states that many who joined VVAW,Inc had grown highly sceptical of the incorruptibility and utility of Marxist-Leninism.[129] Unlike their former comrades VVAW,Inc did not seek to commit themselves permanently to the anti-imperialist cause.

Coherence or relevance

Since the split VVAW has made many overt attempts to distinguish itself from those who followed the RU and later formed VVAW-AI. In 1978 VVAW published articles condemning the RU’s attempt ‘to take over VVAW through under-handed attacks’ and use VVAW’s image to deceive people.[130] VVAW continues to make this distinction by having a page on their website titled ‘Beware of VVAW-AI.’ This page includes a ruling made in a court case taken up by VVAW, Inc against VVAW-AI in 1980 in order to ensure there could be no confusion between the groups.[131] By contrast VVAW-AI makes no reference to VVAW and simply says it carries on the legacy of antiwar Vietnam veterans and that it continues to be a, ‘part of a network of anti-imperialist veterans who are proud of our resistance to U.S. aggression around the world.’[132] The organisations have had little to do with one another since 1980 and have pursued very different paths.

VVAW-AI continue to state their belief that the United States’ is inherently imperialist, which as Fig.9 shows they aren’t ashamed to hide. VVAW-AI has five ‘points of unity’ which essentially state that the organisation is open to all veterans, reservists, and active duty GIs who want to join their opposition to racism, female subjugation and imperialist wars.[133]

Fig.9 . Front Cover of Storm Warning! , Summer 2009[134]

VVAW-AI’s activities are firmly centred on protesting. Urgo’s testimony suggests this has been the case since the group’s founding. For instance he remembers that they ‘organized against the Rambo films, passing out flyers at movie theatres’ as part of their attempts to counter all the pro-American memories of the Vietnam war which he says was being encouraged by the ‘ruling class.’ Urgo also justifies his attempt to publicly burn the American flag in protest of the Gulf War saying it is, ‘a valuable weapon in the tool bag of every radical and revolutionary as we destroy the American empire of imperialism, exploitation, and war.’[135]  The VVAW-AI’s current website also includes archives of information about protest activities by other groups, showing their continued commitment to working within united front coalitions. Most of the information available concerns efforts to oppose the U.S. military. For instance, there is a petition in support of Bradley Manning, the soldier on trial for passing classified information to WikiLeaks, and a link to a website for ‘anti-military recruiters’ called We Are not Your Soldiers. There is also a link to the Wall Street On the Waterfront movement, who planned to shutdown trading ports on the U.S. West coast in December 2011, which shows that VVAW-AI continues to support militant action against capitalism.[136]

In reviewing the VVAW-AI’s website it is hard not to come to the conclusion that VVAW-AI seems only to exist now as a paper organisation. The only literature VVAW-AI publishes independently is its newspaper called Storm Warning! which hasn’t been published since 2009. Their vague ‘points of unity’ and the unorganised mountain of literature from other organisations suggest that VVAW-AI has lacked any firm direction or new ideas for some time. As Stacewicz points out imperialism in the United States was quickly able to overcome the shock of Vietnam and has only grown more secure socially, politically and militarily over the last three decades.[137] Therefore VVAW-AI’s hackneyed anti-American and anti-imperialist rhetoric has remained exceedingly alienated within American society. In fact even during the worldwide protests against the United States’ ‘war on terror’, the editions of Storm Warning! between 2001 and 2004 were able to pledge their support for the antiwar movement but unable to provide any information about people joining or supporting their group.[138] It seems that their failure to attract any significant support means their only available strategy is to latch onto bigger movements in order to protest against the things it opposes. The lack of a clear strategy and an attractive image in a society where like-minded thinkers are marginalised meant that their ambitions of creating a mass movement of veterans to form part of a revolutionary united front proved fanciful.

Immediately after the split VVAW stressed the need to re-think their objectives and re-affirm their unity, stating in their newspaper that they needed ‘concrete plans for the future’ and urged them ‘CLOSE RANKS!’ The article states there are multiple issues for VVAW to take up in order ‘to do battle with the class that runs this country in order to get the things we need.’ The article mentions issues such as ‘jobs, decent VA care, disability benefits’ and a need to counter attempts by ‘the country's rulers’ to distort the memory of the Vietnam War.[139] By reforming the organisation to be specifically about the needs of Vietnam veterans without referencing an imperialist system the organisation has been able to set out realistic objectives that are applicable to their membership.

VVAW continues to identify to the ideals of the Winter Soldier. Their website stresses that it still maintains a purpose in today’s society of, ‘continuing its fight for peace, justice, and the rights of all veterans.’[140] In the latest issue of VVAW’s current newspaper The Veteran, National Coordinator Joe Miller encouraged members to continue their struggle based on relevant matters, signing off his article by saying, ‘Different wars, different issues, same struggles.’[141] John Zutz has been a member since 1980 and testifies that ‘a lot of our work these days is not so much demonstrating as it is the day-to-day things.’ He states that VVAW continues to work as ‘a ground up organisation’ with the remaining chapters working independently or cooperatively on problems like veteran’s benefits, Agent Orange or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Zutz also notes that they have become ‘consultants’ for the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) in helping them get their voices heard when it comes to matters concerning veterans or the U.S. military.[142] The organisation continues to provide a platform for those with opinions on peace and social justice, in order to provide contributors with an outlet and as a means of raising awareness about the lessons from the past and plans for the future. For instance, their current newspaper The Veteran allows members and supporters to publish material that reflects their thoughts on events related to Vietnam or on current affairs relevant to their cause.[143] VVAW can therefore claim to be carrying on the struggle to empower people as a means assuring peace and justice. By concentrating its efforts on matters that are relevant to their members on a national or local scale they can hope to achieve something constructive.

Regarding U.S. foreign policy, VVAW state: ‘We will continue to oppose senseless military adventures and to teach the real lessons of the Vietnam War....This is real patriotism and we remain true to our mission.’[144] It is clear that unlike its VVAW-AI counterpart VVAW has been able to maintain some of its reputation as an antiwar movement due to the fact over 400 veterans joined or rejoined VVAW in the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.[145] Although members stress their patriotic intent it is also clear that several members still seek to utilise their understanding of Marxism when assessing the United States’ priorities. In an article assessing how the Bush administration prioritised the ‘war on terror’ over social justice the article came to the conclusion that it was, ‘crystal clear that this new American Empire is not willing to take care of anyone but the rich of the world.’[146]  However, VVAW members tend not to interpret this as something that is a result of an inherently imperialist U.S. system. As many members did under Nixon they are quick to single-out the special interests of Bush, multinational oil corporations and other neoconservatives as the cause of this imperialist war.[147]  VVAW once again reiterate that such action was only condoned because of ‘lies’ told to the American people during the Bush presidency and stresses the need to tell the ‘truth’ as a means of getting U.S. troops home.[148] VVAW has retained its confidence in the principal of a democratic system elected by a well-informed people as being a force for peace and justice: ‘We must all speak out: we don't want war. It's election year, so surprise your representatives and senators with a visit.’[149] The VVAW’s faith in the republican ideology of anti-imperialism is once again employed as a call to prevent ‘the Oil-Slicked Road to Empire’[150]

Some of the VVAW’s current members used to believe they could overthrow the imperialist system, however almost all have come to realise the reality of the situation. VVAW’s present aims contain no reference to imperialism or revolution because as members like Pete Zastrow note, ‘I don’t think we have a major role to play in the revolution, which isn’t going to come in the next 150 years anyhow.’[151] For several members, it seems the frustrations over capitalist-imperialism are still felt in the context of the modern world, as is evident in Horace Coleman’s latest poem ‘Exit Signs on the Imperial Highway.’ Coleman reflects bitterly on how an indifferent and wilful consensus towards corruption, decadence and ‘belief before reality’ is aiding the further entrenchment of capitalist-imperialism. He is clearly not as optimistic about the utility of republican thought in this context saying the only thing an individual can do is try to avoid the consequences with a ‘spirit of endurance’ or by having ‘good insurance.’ [152]

Coleman’s poem is not a call for revolution but an individual’s reflection on the state of the world. While VVAW-AI tried to base their entire existence on using such levels of analysis in order to articulate a need to mobilise society against the system, members of VVAW realised long ago that their voice carries only a limited amount of weight within the social and political system.

Conclusion

VVAW was set up to be an expert witness to the United States’ intervention in Vietnam. These initial veterans sought to ensure their testimonies would be authorative in the debate over foreign policy by making sure they looked like an upstanding member of the country who spoke coherently and objectively talking about how this war was not in their national interest or character.

During the Nixon administration more soldiers returned from Vietnam disillusioned due to their experiences. For thousands of veterans VVAW served as an established public outlet to get across their shared understanding that this war and all its suffering was not worth it. While their purpose of telling the truth remained the same, the way they expressed it became more emotionally charged. More emphasis was put on what the veterans felt and saw in Vietnam in order to show their concerns were widespread and more urgent. Public events and symbols were used to in order to make their point that the nation had its priorities all wrong. These were utilised in such an overt way in order to make the American people react as opposed to maintaining the indifference that most of the antiwar movement felt had permitted the war.

VVAW’s ultra-democratic structure and its growth led to a diversifying of its outlook and activism.  As the war went on it was only natural that antiwar activists began to look for reasons as to why the United States was participating in what many of them had initially seen to be a worthless cause. The reason many had joined the movement was to say that life and national values were being destroyed for no purpose. Some began to analyse American society in order to find a reason, occasionally referring to alternative sources so as not to simply see the war as a contradiction. Many within VVAW began to understand the war as being fought for special interests; some pointed blame to specific individuals while others saw it as an inevitable symptom of the U.S imperial system.

Over time more members of VVAW began to analyse the United States and not just the war from a Marxist perspective. There were members who felt such thinking could be combined with their own war experiences in order to form an organisation based on anti-imperialism. However the value of such a line proved problematic. Most veterans within VVAW did not care about such in-depth levels of analyses or realised that such radical rhetoric would never be accepted by the elements essential to the revolutionary cause- the people and the military. This perspective was held by people who saw VVAW as a means of confronting concrete issues such as telling the truth about the war and looking after the needs of veterans. Even those who believed in focusing on anti-imperialism were divided as to how to move forward. Many felt that they should respect the will of the individual and the group as a means of learning and progressing their ideas while others felt that in order to ensure coherence and unity VVAW had to follow a strict ideological line that was imposed from the top. The latter strategy was unpopular because most veterans had already experienced the consequences of obedience and came away determined to maintain their individuality.

The internal ideological debate within VVAW eventually came down to being about a need for an organisation that was coherent as opposed to an organisation that was relevant and receptive to its members. Such lines were bound to affect one’s relationship towards the organisation and other members which is why a split was inevitable. VVAW-AI’s dogmatic anti-imperialist and anti-American line has resulted in their appeal being limited and as a result their goals have proved to be unrealistic and ill-defined. Members of VVAW may occasionally refer to U.S. imperialism but this is usually done by individuals who speak to analyse rather than mobilise. While it seems few in VVAW are naive enough to argue that imperialism is a contradiction to what the United States is, it seems most have accepted the futility in directly confronting it. The current VVAW line of fighting for ‘peace, justice, and the rights of all veterans’ gives the organisation the flexibility to remain relevant to its members and appeal to mainstream American society.

Fig. 10 ‘Vietnam Afghanistan’ by Jeff Danziger[153]

Bibliography

Unpublished Primary Sources

America in Protest: Records of Anti-Vietnam War Organizations Part 1: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Microfilm Collection, University of Sheffield Library

John Zutz, online telephone interview by author, transcript in author’s possession, 12 March 2012.

Primary Sources: Newspapers and Periodicals

The First Casualty                               1971-1972

New York Times                                   1967-1976

Ramparts Magazine                             1971

Saturday Review of the Arts                 1972

The Veteran                                         1975-2011

Village Voice                                       1968-1971

Winter Soldier                                      1973-1975

Primary Sources: Printed Sources

Mao, Z., Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, 1966)

Thorne, D., and Butler, G. (eds.), The New Soldier: by John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against The War (New York, 1971)

Kovic, R., Born on the Fourth of July (2^nd Edition, New York, 2005)

Rottmann, L., Barry, J., and Paquet, B.T. (eds.), Winning Hearts & Minds: War Poems by Vietnam Veterans (New York, 1972)

Primary Sources: Miscellaneous

Operation Last Patrol [documentary], directed by Frank Cavestani and Catherine Leroy (Frank Cavestani, 1972)

Winter Soldier Investigation [documentary], (Winterfilm Collective, 1972)

           

Primary Sources: Internet Sources

Film Archive, http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.co.uk/  (6 March 2012)

Free Bradley Manning: Bradley Manning Support Network, http://www.bradleymanning.org/ (18 March 2012)

Occupy the EGT, http://www.westcoastportshutdown.org/content/coordinated-port-blockade-actions-schedules (18 March 2012)

Operation Rapid Withdrawal, http://www.operationraw.com (13 March 2012)

Sir! No Sir!, http://www.sirnosir.com (15 March 2012)

The Sixties Project, http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Sixties.html (9 March 2012)

UNZ.org, http://www.unz.org (18 March 2012)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War, http://www.vvaw.org/ (20 March 2012)

Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist, http://www.vvawai.org (19 March 2012)

We Are Not Your Soldiers, http://www.wearenotyoursoldiers.org/ (18 March 2012)

Winter Soldier: The Film, http://www.wintersoldierfilm.com (24 February 2012)

Secondary Sources: Books

Buzzanco, R., Vietnam and the Transformation of American Life (Massachusetts, 1999)

Buzzanco, R. and Young, M.B. (eds.), A companion to the Vietnam War (Oxford, 2002)

Cortright, D., Soldiers In Revolt: GI Resistance during the Vietnam War (2^nd Edition, Chicago, 2005)

DeBenedetti, C. and Chatfield, C., An American ordeal: the antiwar movement of the Vietnam era (New York, 1990

Gettleman, M.E., Franklin, J., Young, M.B. and Franklin, H.B. (eds.), Vietnam and America: The Most Comprehensive Documented History of the Vietnam War (2^nd Edition, New York, 1995)

Hagopian, P., The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials and the Politics of Healing (University of Massachusetts Press, 2009)

Hall, S., Rethinking the American Anti-War Movement (New York, 2012)

Hunt, A.E., The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (New York University Press, 1999)

Kolko, G., Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the Modern Historical Experience (New York, 1985)

Lembcke, J., The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam (New York University Press, 1998)

Moser, R., The New Winter Soldiers (New Jersey, 1996)

Nicosa, G., Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans’ Movement (New York, 2001)

Robbins, M.S. (ed.), Against the Vietnam War: Writing By Activists (Maryland, 1999)

Stacewicz, R., Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (Chicago, 1997)

Wells, T., The war within: America's battle over Vietnam (London, 1994)

Winter, J., Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century (Yale University Press, 2007)

Young, M.B., The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990 (New York, 1991)

Zaroulis, N.L. and Sullivan, G., Who Spoke Up?: American protest against the war in Vietnam, 1963-1975 (New York, 1985)

Secondary Sources: Articles

Buzzanco, R., ‘Anti-Imperialism’, Encyclopedia or American Foreign Policy (2002), pp.1-35.

Ensign, T., ‘American War Crimes and Vietnam Veterans’, in Against the Vietnam War: Writing By Activists, (ed.) M.S.Robbins (Maryland, 1999), pp.182-191.

Kaledin, E., ‘Vietnam Comes to Lexington: Memorial Day 1971’, in Against the Vietnam War: Writing By Activists, (ed.) M.S.Robbins (Maryland, 1999), pp.147-54.

Kramer, P.A., ‘Power and Connection: Imperial Histories of the United States in the World’, The American Historical Review 116 (2011), pp.1348-1391.

Prados, J., ‘The Veterans Antiwar Movement in Fact and Memory’, in A companion to the Vietnam War, eds. R.Buzzanco and M.B. Young (Oxford, 2002), pp.403-415.

Tischler, B., ‘The Antiwar Movement’, in A companion to the Vietnam War, eds. R.Buzzanco and M.B. Young (Oxford, 2002), pp.384-402.

---

[1] M.T. Kaufman, '15 Veterans Leave the Statue of Liberty, Claiming a Victory in Takeover', New York Times, 29 December 1971, p.32.

[2] D. Bristow-Carrio, 'Seizing the Statue of Liberty 1971: Three Days With A Lady', The Veteran 29 (Spring/Summer 1999), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=195 (17 March 2012).

[3] Kaufman, ’15 Veterans’, New York Times, p.32; R.D. McFadden, 'War Foes Seize Statue of Liberty', New York Times, 27 December 1971, p.1.

[4] J.W. Anderson, 'VVAW: One Member's Journey Through The Past', The Veteran 27 (Spring 1997), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=275  (11 March 2012).

[5] 'We've Carried The Rich For 200 Years, Let's Get Them Off Our Backs', The Veteran 6 (May/June 1976) http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1587 (4 March 2012).

[6] F.J. Prial, 'It Was a Day for Tourists in the Big City', New York Times, 10 June 1976, p.40.

[7] ‘Beware of VVAW AI’, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (known hereby after as VVAW), http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php (3 March 2012).

[8]A.E., Hunt, The Turning: A History of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (New York University Press, 1999), p.187.

[9] Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (known hereby after as VVAWAI), http://www.vvawai.org/, (18 March 2012).

[10] Hunt, Turning, pp.194-5.

[11] R.Buzzanco, ‘Anti-Imperialism’, Encyclopaedia of American Foreign Policy (2002), pp.1-3.

[12] R. Moser, The New Winter Soldiers (New Jersey, 1996), p.160.

[13] P.A. Kramer, ‘Power and Connection: Imperial Histories of the United States in the World’, The American Historical Review 116 (2011), p.1390.

[14] Ibid., pp.1390-1.

[15] G. Kolko, Anatomy of a War: Vietnam, the United States, and the Modern Historical Experience (New York, 1985), pp.283-6.

[16] R.Buzzanco, Vietnam and the Transformation of American Life (Massachusetts, 1999), pp.28-9.

[17] Moser, New Winter, p.41.

[18] Kolko, Anatomy War, pp.170-5.

[19] C. DeBenedetti, and C. Chatfield, An American ordeal: the antiwar movement of the Vietnam era (New York, 1990), p.9.

[20] Buzzanco, ‘Anti-Imperialism’, p.31.

[21] S. Hall, Rethinking the American Anti-War Movement (New York, 2012), p.131.

[22] Kramer, ‘Imperial Histories’, pp.1388-9.

[23] Mao Zedong, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, 1966), pp.72-81.

[24] J. Winter, Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century (Yale University Press, 2007), pp.153-4.

[25] Buzzanco, Transformation American, p.164.

[26] Ibid., pp.167-173.

[27] M.A. Lerner, ‘May Day: Anatomy of the Movement’, Ramparts 10 (1971), pp.18-24, 42.

[28] Moser, New Winter, p.19.

[29] Quoted in R.Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers: An Oral History of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (Chicago, 1997), p.425.

[30] Quoted in Ibid., pp.90-4.

[31] Moser, New Winter, p.144.

[32] Quoted in ‘History of VVAW’, VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/content/?id=765 (1 March 2012).

[33] 'New York, April 15 1967', Vietnam Veterans Against the War (1967), Sir No Sir Archives, http://www.sirnosir.com/archives_and_resources/galleries/photo_pages/events/vvaw.html (4 March 2012).

[34] Hunt, Turning, pp.7-9.

[35] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.195-6.

[36] ‘The VVAW Insignia’, VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/about/insignia.php  (12 March 2012).

[37] Ibid.

[38] Ibid.

[39]  D.Thorne, and G. Butler, (eds.), The New Soldier: by John Kerry and Vietnam Veterans Against The War (New York, 1971), p.8.

[40] Quoted in ‘History of VVAW’, VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/content/?id=765 (1 March 2012).

[41] Hunt, Turning, pp.18-24.

[42] Quoted in B.G. Chevigny, ‘A Farewell to Arms: “Over There” is Here’, Village Voice, 14 March 1968, p.22.

[43] Quoted in ‘History of VVAW’, VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/content/?id=765 (1 March 2012).

[44] Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers,  p.194.

[45] Quoted in Chevigny, ‘Farewell’, p.56.

[46] Quoted in Ibid., p.56.

[47] Quoted in Moser, New Winter, p.104.

[48] VVAW, ‘Viet-Nam Veterans Speak Out’, New York Times, 19 November 1967, p.67.

[49] P. Hagopian, The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials and the Politics of Healing (University of Massachusetts Press, 2009), p.50.

[50] Hunt, Turning, p.24.

[51] Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.204-5.

[52] Quoted in Ibid., p.204.

[53] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.205.

[54] Ibid., p.207.

[55] Quoted in Ibid., pp.207-212.

[56] Hunt, Turning, p.32.

[57] M.B. Young, The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990 (New York, 1991), pp.245-251.

[58] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.112.

[59] Quoted in L. Rottmann, J. Barry, and B.T. Paquet (eds.), Winning Hearts & Minds: War Poems by Vietnam Veterans (New York, 1972), p.26.

[60] Quoted in Ibid., p.107.

[61] Hunt, Turning, p.39.

[62] ‘Operation Rapid American Withdrawal’, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (1970), Sir No Sir Archives, http://www.sirnosir.com/archives_and_resources/galleries/photo_pages/events/vvaw.html (8 March 2012).

[63] S. Pogust, ‘Is “Disgusting” to N.J. Town’, (1970), Operation Rapid Withdrawal 1970-2005 Exhibition, http://www.operationraw.com/pdfs/drama.pdf (3 March 2012).

[64] Hunt, Turning pp.35-7.

[65] T. Ensign, ‘American War Crimes and Vietnam Veterans’, in M.S.Robbins (ed.) Against the Vietnam War: Writing By Activists, (Maryland, 1999), p.191.

[66] Winter Soldier Investigation [documentary], (Winterfilm Collective, 1972).

[67] Ibid.

[68] Quoted in A. Goldberg, ‘Vietnam Vets: The Anti-War Army’, Ramparts (July 1971), p.13.

[69] Thorne and Butler, New Soldier, p.10.

[70] Goldberg, ‘Anti-War Army’, p.12.

[71] Thorne and Butler, New Soldier, p.38.

[72] Hunt, Turning, pp.104-7.

[73] Thorne and Butler, New Soldier, p.33.

[74] B. Romo, 'Operation Dewey Canyon III: 40 Years Later', The Veteran 41 (Fall 2011) http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1835&hilite=dewey (6 April 2012).

[75] Hunt, Turning, pp.81-2.

[76] Romo, ‘Dewey Canyon’, http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1835&hilite=dewey (6 April 2012).

[77] ‘Still Photos’, Winter Soldier: The Film, http://www.wintersoldierfilm.com/stills.htm (24 February 2012).

[78] ‘John Kerry Testimony at Vietnam War Hearing: Vietnam Veterans Against the War (1971)’, The Film Archive, http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/john-kerry-testimony-at-vietnam-war.html (6 March 2012).

[79] Ibid.; Thorne and Butler, New Soldier, pp.156-166.

[80] Quoted in Goldberg, ‘Anti-War Army’, p.14.

[81] Quoted in Hunt, Turning, p.101.

[82] Quoted in Hunt, Turning, p.116.

[83] Moser, New Winter,  pp.130-1.

[84] E. Kaledin, ‘Vietnam Comes to Lexington: Memorial Day 1971’, in M.S.Robbins (ed.) Against the Vietnam War: Writing By Activists, (Maryland, 1999), pp. 147-9, 151-3.

[85] Quoted in Hunt, Turning, p.120.

[86] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.354.

[87] G. Nicosa, Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans’ Movement (New York, 2001), p.210.

[88] Hunt, Turning, p.119.

[89] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.291.

[90] Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.291.

[91] L.K. Truscott IV, ‘Vietnam Veterans Against the War’, Saturday Review of the Arts 55(1972), pp.20-1.

[92] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.292.

[93] 'Spirit of the First Casualty', The First Casualty 1 (August 1971), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=822, (13 March 2012).

[94]  ‘Objectives of VVAW’, The First Casualty 1 (August 1971), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=897, (13 March 2012).

[95] S. Moore, ‘Lifeline to Cairo’, The First Casualty 1 (August 1971), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=818 , (13 March 2012); ‘Veterans Liberation’, The First Casualty 1(August 1971), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=895, (13 March 2012); ‘Objectives’, Casualty,   http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=897, (13 March 2012).

[96] ‘You Won’t miss Italian Swiss’, The First Casualty 1 (August 1971), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=893, (13 March 2012); S. Roberts, ‘The Pentagon Papers’, The First Casualty, http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=819, (13 March 2012).

[97] ‘VVAW Objectives’, The First Casualty 2 (July 1972), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1198, (13 March 2012).

[98] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.276.

[99] ‘“Vietnam” Now Aborning in Africa’, The First Casualty 1 (October 1971), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=911, (13 March 2012).

[100] R. Kovic, Born on the Fourth of July (2nd Edition, New York, 2005), p.169.   

[101] Operation Last Patrol [documentary], directed by Frank Cavestani and Catherine Leroy (Frank Cavestani, 1972).

[102] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.259.

[103] Quoted in Ibid., p.360.

[104] Quoted in Ibid., p.128.

[105] Quoted in Ibid., p.363.

[106] The Great Plains Region, VVAW-WSO, ‘Proposal’, September/November 1974, America in Protest: Records of Anti-Vietnam War organizations Part 1: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Microfilm Collection (Reel 14, Folder 61).

[107] Hunt, Turning, p.127.

[108] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.260-1.

[109] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.259.

[110] SAC, FBI, Chicago, ‘Vietnam Veterans Against the War-Winter Soldier Organisation-Internal Security’ (known hereby after as VVAW-WSO-IS), Memorandum to Director, FBI, November 5 1973, Microfilm Collection (Reel 14, Folder 61).

[111] Buffalo Chapter, VVAW-WSO, ‘An Investigatory Paper Into the Current Political Struggle Taking Place Within VVAW-WSO’, October 1974, Microfilm Collection, (Reel 1, Folder 4).

[112] SAC, FBI, Buffalo, ‘VVAW-WSO-IS’, Memorandum to Director, FBI, May 28 1974, Microfilm Collection, (Reel 17, Folder 71).

[113] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.356.

[114] Nicosia, Home to War, pp.228-9.

[115] Revolutionary Union, Chicago, ‘What is the Revolutionary Union?’, Microfilm Collection (Reel 1, Reel 1).

[116] Steve Hassett, Buffalo, New York, VVAW-WSO, ‘To All Chapters, Contacts, Regions and the National Office of VVAW-WSO’, June 8 1975, Microfilm Collection (Reel 21, Folder 84).

[117] Northern California Chapter, VVAW-WSO, ‘In a time of Struggle’, An open letter to anti-imperialist forces, August 1975/January 1976, Microfilm Collection (Reel 21, Folder 86).

[118] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.369-70.

[119] Quoted in Ibid., p.373.

[120] Quoted in Ibid., p.372-3.

[121] 'What Is VVAW-WSO?', Winter Soldier 5 (February 1975), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1463 (16 March 2012).

[122] Hassett, ‘All VVAW-WSO’, Microfilm Collection (Reel 17, Folder 71).

[123] Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.383.

[124] SA, Milwaukee, ‘VVAW-WSO Fifteenth National Steering Committee (NSCM)’, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Report to Director, Secret Service, Milwaukee, July 31 1975, Microfilm Collection (Reel 21, Folder 84).

[125] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.371.

[126] Quoted in Ibid., pp.384,387.

[127] Quoted in Ibid., p.386.

[128]Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, p.386.

[129] Quoted in Ibid., pp.386-7.

[130] ‘Editorial’, The Veteran 8 (Fall 1978), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1905 (12 March 2012).

[131] ‘Beware of VVAWAI’, VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/about/vvawai.php (3 March 2012).

[132] ‘About VVAWAI’, VVAWAI, http://www.vvawai.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=10 (6 March 2012).

[133] Ibid.

[134] VVAWAI, ‘New President...New Packaging: same system of imperialism', Storm Warning! 54 (Summer 2009), p.1.

[135] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.412-3.

[136] VVAWAI, http://www.vvawai.org/ (18 March 2012); We Are Not Your Soldiers, http://www.wearenotyoursoldiers.org/ (18 March 2012); 'Coordinated Port Blockade Actions & Schedules', Occupy the EGT, http://www.westcoastportshutdown.org/content/coordinated-port-blockade-actions-schedules (18 March 2012); Free Bradley Manning: Bradley Manning Support Network, http://www.bradleymanning.org/ (18 March 2012).

[137] Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.433-4.

[138] ‘Storming Warning! Archives’, VVAWAI, http://www.vvawai.org/archive/sw/stormwarning.html (13 March 2012).

[139] 'Conference in Chicago: Our Strength Lies in our Unity and Struggle', The Veteran 8 (Spring 1978), VVAW,  http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1928 (16 March 2012).

[140] VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/ (20 March 2012).

[141] J. Miller, 'Coming Home to VVAW', The Veteran 41 (Fall 2011), VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1849 (17 March 2012).

[142] John Zutz, telephone interview by author, transcript in author’s possession, 12 March 2012.

[143] ‘The Veteran’, VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/ (20 March 2012).

[144] 'VVAW: Where We Came From, Who We Are', VVAW, http://www.vvaw.org/about/ (19 March 2012).

[145] VVAW, 'The Struggle Continues', The Veteran 34 (Fall 2004), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=463 (14 March 2012).

[146] B.Romo and J. Miller, 'From the National Office', The Veteran 32 (Fall 2002), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=12 (15 March 2012).

[147] B. Romo, D. Curry and J. Miller, 'On the Oil-Slicked Road to Empire: Are We Really Safer Now?', The Veteran 33 (Spring 2003), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=10 (12 March 2012).

[148] D. Curry, J. Miller and B. Romo, 'Living With Lies', The Veteran 33 (Fall 2003), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=365 (12 March 2012).

[149]B. Romo, D. Curry and J. Miller, 'No War with Iraq No Blood for Oil or Ego', The Veteran 32 (Fall 2002), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=9 (12 March 2012).

[150] Romo, Curry, Miller, ‘Oil-slicked’, http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=10 (12 March 2012).

[151] Quoted in Stacewicz, Winter Soldiers, pp.415-6.

[152]H. Coleman, 'Exit Signs on the Imperial Highway (poem)’, The Veteran 41 (Fall 2011), http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1861 (20 March 2012).

[153] J. Danziger, 'Vietnam Afghanistan (cartoon)', The Veteran 40 (Fall 2010) http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=1784 (20 March 2012).