Reading Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning brought me back to the feeling I had in High School upon reading a book simply titled "Nam." I suppose that my fascinations to buy and read that book stemmed from the fact that my friends' fathers and friends of my parents' sons had gone to Vietnam and yet none of them really talked about it when they returned... even when asked.

One of my friends' fathers told only one story, that of patrolling in the forest and the `Three Step Snake.' If it bit you, you would be dead in three steps. His telling only of the flora and fauna of Vietnam left me wondering what had happened in Vietnam. I had become interested in history as a child through military history. But Vietnam was almost so close to me that I could touch it. I saw it on the nightly news, as well as the local SF Bay Area protests. I had watched the last helicopter leave from the US embassy on the news. So what about three step snakes. What about the people I wondered... I also wondered how `we lost' and bought a book describing various sequences of battle but the men I met or knew never talked about it.

Eric Bergerud's book tells that story from the position of the 25th Infantry Men's perspective. The use of both officers and enlisted is appreciated. Though Sheehan's book is well written, I grew annoyed at his failure to give the names of the NCOs that supported Vann and his intel and ops officers. That neglect seems to perpetuates the thinking that somehow they are less qualified to comment... OK for fodder, not worth remembering their names and their sacrifices. Bergerud not only counters such a notion, but embraces the enlisted man's view.

The way in which the book structures similar experiences gives one a deep sense of appreciation for these Soldiers (hopefully regardless of one's personal position on the Vietnam War.) These are not men telling triumphalist embellishments, or `there I was' stories. Though Platoon was based on a real attack, there are some things a film of Platoon's sweep cannot convey. Some of the things that film can't always do even with a narration are like the feeling a soldier has. The GI's telling of the lack of comprehension of what was going on didn't mean they didn't sense that they were being used. But his recollection of the Colonel's speech about being rewarded and decorated only becomes clear after the fact. They had been the bait. (Bergerud, 154.) The Soldier does not go on to mention however, that the awards and decorations for many that stood in that formation listening to the colonel's speech would only be awarded and decorated posthumously.

In light of this speech by the colonel, the scene of vets at anti-war rallies in Washington DC throwing their medals back with looks of anger, anguish, bitterness, and despair resonates at an even deeper level. However, as strategy goes, the tethered goat tactic was successful. In many ways, the crucified Elias character in Platoon was the only way the film could represent the potential sacrificial victims.

I also appreciated the highlighting of the petty parochialism of the units that made up the 25th Division. The artillery units' shooing of the infantrymen from their water buffalo (The water tank truck) is completely real. It is also understandable that the infantry are somewhat dismissive of the comparatively easy life led by the Air Force units (see 173.) Of course at least within the 25th Division these units' parochial tendencies evaporate immediately after the attack on `Burt' establishes the bond of brotherhood. (This attack is at the end of the movie "Platton".)

One preference I would have had would have been that Mr. Bergerud designated the rank of the Soldiers at the time that their stories pertain to. He does usually do the formal citing of retired officer ranks, but there seem to be many of the enlisted whose ranks are never mentioned other than a Sergeant here and there. I also believe there was room for some analysis.

The portions speaking to the lack of career NCOs and the decline of discipline is also worth highlighting. As the Soldier who observed the phenomenon noted, many of the instantly promoted men were fine leaders in combat, but the absolute breakdown in military discipline and an increase in unacceptable behavior rose sharply until the final pull out of US forces.

Bergerud's perspective on Tet was also worth reading as it challenged my notion of what had happened. In retrospect, though I believe American war planners in the Pentagon were mad with blood lust, and like their presidential aministrations, they couldn't conceive of the possibility of defeat. Yet it seems that the Tet truly had sapped the fighting strength of the Popular Front forces. In that light, it seems that the idea of a weakened VC as turning into a victory could be understood. One hears Colonel Mathieu's voice (Battle of Algiers) coming through the soldier discussing the `no-fire zone.' Mathieu tells about how he had requested a `free hand' in Algeria but was denied. Oliver Stone served in the 25th Infantry Division. Stone's character, SSGT Barnes, also complained of those in Washington "trying to win this war with one hand tied to their balls" as soldiers of the 25th sustained fire but had to wait for permission to return fire into that `no-fire zone' around Saigon. (Bergerud, 172.) These voices are those of soldiers. They couldn't know that even if the VC's war fighting ability had been greatly reduced, the people were still not inclined to support the corrupt Saigon government, just as the Algerian people no longer wanted the French even though the NLF cells had been crushed. (See the movie Battle of Algiers.)

If Marilyn Young's book "The Vietnam Wars" provides an overview of historical factors and policies and politics, we see America's involvement in Vietnam through her work at 30,000 feet. Neil Sheehan's book "Bright Shining Lie" with its histories and examination though the life of John Paul Vann gives us a Helicopter view at 2,000 feet. Bergerud's work is on the ground where the American Soldiers fought and died (and for some it was worse, to survive, with all its horror.)

Reading Red Thunder, Tropic Lightning brought me back to the feeling I had in High School upon reading a book simply titled "Nam." I suppose that my fascinations to buy and read that book stemmed from the fact that my friends' fathers and friends of my parents' sons had gone to Vietnam and yet none of them really talked about it when they returned... even when asked.

One of my friends' fathers told only one story, that of patrolling in the forest and the `Three Step Snake.' If it bit you, you would be dead in three steps. His telling only of the flora and fauna of Vietnam left me wondering what had happened in Vietnam. I had become interested in history as a child through military history. But Vietnam was almost so close to me that I could touch it. I saw it on the nightly news, as well as the local SF Bay Area protests. I had watched the last helicopter leave from the US embassy on the news. So what about three step snakes. What about the people I wondered... I also wondered how `we lost' and bought a book describing various sequences of battle but the men I met or knew never talked about it.

Eric Bergerud's book tells that story from the position of the 25th Infantry Men's perspective. The use of both officers and enlisted is appreciated. Though Sheehan's book is well written, I grew annoyed at his failure to give the names of the NCOs that supported Vann and his intel and ops officers. That neglect seems to perpetuates the thinking that somehow they are less qualified to comment... OK for fodder, not worth remembering their names and their sacrifices. Bergerud not only counters such a notion, but embraces the enlisted man's view.

The way in which the book structures similar experiences gives one a deep sense of appreciation for these Soldiers (hopefully regardless of one's personal position on the Vietnam War.) These are not men telling triumphalist embellishments, or `there I was' stories. Though Platoon was based on a real attack, there are some things a film of Platoon's sweep cannot convey. Some of the things that film can't always do even with a narration are like the feeling a soldier has. The GI's telling of the lack of comprehension of what was going on didn't mean they didn't sense that they were being used. But his recollection of the Colonel's speech about being rewarded and decorated only becomes clear after the fact. They had been the bait. (Bergerud, 154.) The Soldier does not go on to mention however, that the awards and decorations for many that stood in that formation listening to the colonel's speech would only be awarded and decorated posthumously.

In light of this speech by the colonel, the scene of vets at anti-war rallies in Washington DC throwing their medals back with looks of anger, anguish, bitterness, and despair resonates at an even deeper level. However, as strategy goes, the tethered goat tactic was successful. In many ways, the crucified Elias character in Platoon was the only way the film could represent the potential sacrificial victims.

I also appreciated the highlighting of the petty parochialism of the units that made up the 25th Division. The artillery units' shooing of the infantrymen from their water buffalo (The water tank truck) is completely real. It is also understandable that the infantry are somewhat dismissive of the comparatively easy life led by the Air Force units (see 173.) Of course at least within the 25th Division these units' parochial tendencies evaporate immediately after the attack on `Burt' establishes the bond of brotherhood. (This attack is at the end of the movie "Platton".)

One preference I would have had would have been that Mr. Bergerud designated the rank of the Soldiers at the time that their stories pertain to. He does usually do the formal citing of retired officer ranks, but there seem to be many of the enlisted whose ranks are never mentioned other than a Sergeant here and there. I also believe there was room for some analysis.

The portions speaking to the lack of career NCOs and the decline of discipline is also worth highlighting. As the Soldier who observed the phenomenon noted, many of the instantly promoted men were fine leaders in combat, but the absolute breakdown in military discipline and an increase in unacceptable behavior rose sharply until the final pull out of US forces.

Bergerud's perspective on Tet was also worth reading as it challenged my notion of what had happened. In retrospect, though I believe American war planners in the Pentagon were mad with blood lust, and like their presidential aministrations, they couldn't conceive of the possibility of defeat. Yet it seems that the Tet truly had sapped the fighting strength of the Popular Front forces. In that light, it seems that the idea of a weakened VC as turning into a victory could be understood. One hears Colonel Mathieu's voice (Battle of Algiers) coming through the soldier discussing the `no-fire zone.' Mathieu tells about how he had requested a `free hand' in Algeria but was denied. Oliver Stone served in the 25th Infantry Division. Stone's character, SSGT Barnes, also complained of those in Washington "trying to win this war with one hand tied to their balls" as soldiers of the 25th sustained fire but had to wait for permission to return fire into that `no-fire zone' around Saigon. (Bergerud, 172.) These voices are those of soldiers. They couldn't know that even if the VC's war fighting ability had been greatly reduced, the people were still not inclined to support the corrupt Saigon government, just as the Algerian people no longer wanted the French even though the NLF cells had been crushed. (See the movie Battle of Algiers.)

If Marilyn Young's book "The Vietnam Wars" provides an overview of historical factors and policies and politics, we see America's involvement in Vietnam through her work at 30,000 feet. Neil Sheehan's book "Bright Shining Lie" with its histories and examination though the life of John Paul Vann gives us a Helicopter view at 2,000 feet. Bergerud's work is on the ground where the American Soldiers fought and died (and for some it was worse, to survive, with all its horror.)