Almost thirty years after the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, there is still a considerable amount of debate and controversy concerning our failure to win the war. There are no widely accepted answers to this question. Roland Spector makes a valiant attempt at trying to answer this question with his book After Tet.
Spector, who was a U.S. Marine attached to the III Marine Corps Amphibious Force in South Vietnam in 1968-69, offers compelling evidence which indicates that the turning point of the war took place during the nine months in 1968 following the Tet offensive and President Johnson's announcement that he would halt most of the bombing of North Vietnam and would not seek re-election. This was a period of some of the most intense fighting of the war. It was a period of great disarray for the American forces. They were growing increasingly frustrated with their South Vietnamese ally "with all its chronic weakness and corruption, (who) would weather the storm but emerge with its fatal flaws intact and as unchangeable as ever" (25). Spector also paints a vivid picture of the inner turmoil of the U.S. troops, who were not only plagued by growing frustration and discontent on the front but also by strife back home.
Spector deserves to be commended maintaining a considerable amount of emotional distance in his documentation of combat. As a Marine stationed in the northern provinces of South Vietnam, it is highly likely that he either took part in combat or at least witnessed the gruesome aftermath of battle. His accounts are devoid of prejudice or emotion and thoroughly documented. He is able to provide a vivid and realistic portrayal of some brutal battles without resorting to gore or sensationalism. The battles reported are at times quite harrowing, but Spector does not aim to shock the squeamish or titillate the bloodthirsty.
Nevertheless, the stories of combat will arouse many emotions from even the most remotely patriotic reader. One can't help but feel frustrated and fearful for these overwhelmingly young troops campaigning in "temperatures (that) could often exceed 100 degrees" or braving the torrential wind and rain of the monsoons(47). Not only did they were they forced to face an enemy that could be incredibly difficult to identify, but they were thrust into an environment that was incredibly hostile. Not only did they have to worry about the heat or the monsoon, but "mosquitoes, leeches, and red ants ... seemed to thrive everywhere in Vietnam" (48). There were also high numbers of poisonous snakes and hungry rats. Last but not least, there was the elephant grass "eight to fifteen feet high, so thick as to cut visibility to one yard, possessing razor sharp edges. Then try to imagine walking through it while men all around you are possessing automatic weapons and trying to kill you" (47). Spector never forces the reader to accept a "you are there" scenario, but I couldn't help but be drawn in with his vivid descriptions of the environment.
Spector effectively conjures up a vivid portrayal of the South Vietnamese government, exposing many of their faults and shortcomings. But he never points an accusatory finger at the South Vietnamese, who were "by 1965 ... openly and directly moving towards a military dictatorship" (95). Instead, he cites a wealth of sources who overwhelmingly agree that a vast majority of the high ranking officials in South Vietnam were incompetent, nepotistic and driven more by the prospect of graft rather than defense of their own country. They "did not want the war to end - not while it was protected by half a million troops and a golden flow of money"(299). All of these factors led to the festering frustration of the troops. They were trapped in a miserable tropical environment, fighting an enemy whose unorthodox methods were a perfect counter to their own command's strict adherence to convention, supporting an ally who "had learned ... too little about how to fight" and were troubled by the clashes back home (116). For the first time in the war, many soldiers began to question the war's motives. Cracks were bound to surface.
It is well documented that "out in field blacks and whites got along a whole lot better than in the units that was way back" and "that the greater the degree of danger and discomfort for the combatants, the greater the racial harmony and solidarity" (259). "The closer life in the rear approximated life in the United States, the more likely it was to mirror stateside racial tensions as well" (257). Racism was not the ugly aspect of life abroad that surfaced due to the culmination of fear, boredom, frustration and loneliness. "More and more GIs were turning to drugs" such as marijuana and heroin (276). Spector shows several surveys taken, which claim incidents of drug abuse ranging from 30-75 % of the troops. Spector is neither scornful nor sympathetic towards this dilemma, forcing the reader to draw his own conclusions on this and many other issues.
Even though Spector was himself a combatant during the time documented, he is able to do a masterful job at remaining dispassionate with his text. He is ableto provide a well-crafted history and does not cloud or distort the text with personal feelings. Instead of using personal experiences to add shadow and light to the work, he employs a wealth of resources. The finished text is able to provide a fine source that provides an accurate reflection of our vets' hopes, fears and struggles.
I suppose my only complaint is that Spector only gives a cursory acknowledgment or fails to mention the thousands of servicemen in Thailand, the troops secretly inserted in Laos and Cambodia and the sailors stationed in the East China Sea during this period. All of these men were in harm's way and all deserve mention. Nevertheless, this was a very enjoyable and informative read.