A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam. - book reviews

Washington Monthly, Oct, 1988 by Taylor Branch

Since the war, conservatives have attacked the reformers' chief criticisms of Vietnam. Against the claims of Halberstam and others that the war was not worth winning, or, more strongly, that it was unwinnable, they ask what is the price of a treasured cause, and they call in hindsight for a unity that would have made the war winnable. They attack defeatism. In effect, they take advantage of most liberals for refusing to renounce the goal of victory itself. Liberals are afraid to do that, because it would take them close to an endorsement of the other side-the Jane Fonda problem.

Unfortunately, I think, Sheehan overdraws the analogy between Vann and the war, hoping to impeach the war itself with his flaws. Strictly speaking, Vann's character defects never really explain a line of error in Vietnam purpose or strategy. Indeed, as Vietnam recedes into history, liberals and conservatives may both point to Vann as a tragic hero who labored to refine an ugly war to fit a noble cause.

The heart of Sheehan's conflict lies betweeen the good side of Vann and the contrary history that Sheehan discovered in the Pentagon Papers. If Vann's war was just, how did his countly come to fight "On the wrong side," as Sheehan painfully concludes? But if the war came from America's "imperial system," how do we account for the sacrifice and idealism of many Americans who supported the war? The beginning of an answer is that the concepts of empire and democracy are not mutually exclusive, as we are conditioned to believe. From the Romans forward, all empires have claimed to spread the benefits of their system. In fact, idealism appears to be a historical requirement of empire, the psychic grease of expansion.

This was especially true of the 'American imperial system," as sketched by Sheehan. It was the conception of a liberal, more than a banker or industrialist, born of the Progressive Era's ambition to spread a purified democratic experience around the world. Our problem is that we cannot admit any imperial aspects whatsoever in our purpose, even when two million U.S. soldiers were garrisoned around the globe. Lodged in denial, we cannot even begin the essential debate about an American idea of empire and its compatibility with democratic beliefs.

Sheehan leaves many of the war's most difficult issues exposed but unresolved. This is a book of scalding reportage, not interpretation. By capturing within the life of one small obsessive daredevil the essence of something so vast and benumbing as Vietnam, Sheehan has written by far the best single account of the war. My guess is that it will remain so until someone centers a book around a Vietnamese character as resonant as John Paul Vann. Such a feat would add flesh to the missing dimension of the war, while reminding us of the obvious fact that definitive history reads more naturally from the winner's side. Sheehan, to his credit, has stuck with the American losers not only because they are his people but also because there is much to learn when the losing side of a 30-year war is the world's dominant military power.