Guy's Books and Thoughts

Here are a few more notes from my pastor friend (mentioned below) in response to my questions about Vietnam:
Dear Guy, as I have said in my other e-mail notes to you, I was assigned to the South Vietnamese Army. As such I lived on the economy. This means that I lived with, ate with, and fought with the people of South Vietnam. They are wonderful people who longed for freedom and loved us for our unselfish service to them. You can still see and hear this when you talk with the Vietnamese who fled Vietnam and came to America.

When my time came to leave Vietnam and come home the helicopter brought my replacement in the middle of a firefight. I handed him my radio, gave him the coordinates, gave him a rifle because he had none. Within 24 hours I was in the U.S. getting fitted for my clean class A uniform and being "de-briefed". I was told to get home as fast as possible and change my clothes.

A dramatic change had taken place while I was overseas - I became the bad guy! We were told that we would be accosted, verbally or physically. Therefore we were to be careful. While in Vietnam I had the opportunity to travel to many different places and meet many men from different units. None had ever been involved with or witnessed any atrocities by the U. S. In all my travels I only met one individual who was taking drugs and he was never allowed to carry out any duties or responsibilities. It is a shame that stereotype is still being shown today.

A pastor friend adds offers his thoughts on my Steinbeck post:

Steinbeck's account of Viet Cong terrorism is accurate. I was stationed in the Mekong Delta in the southernmost part of Vietnam. I was fortunate to be assigned to the military assistance Command (MACV). There were sixteen of us and we were attached to the South Vietnamese army.

We were eye witnesses to the brutality of the communists. I remember responding to an attack in Can Tho. On arriving there we discovered that a hospital was targeted and many civilians were killed and wounded.

On another occasion a friend and I were walking down a street when we heard an explosion. When got to the scene we discovered a jeep in which a terrorists (VC) had thrown a satchel charge. The young father had been blown clear, his young wife was and child were incinerated. The baby was still breathing but was burnt inside and out and without hope. These were the kind of people we were fighting then and these are the kind of people we are fighting today in Iraq.

In Vietnam the people were wonderful and so too are the people of Iraq and the Muslim world. It is the terrorists we fight and not the people. President Johnson micro-managed the war in Vietnam and made decisions based on politics. President Bush allows the military to manage war on terrorism in the field.

I was able to see much of the III and IV Corps in Vietnam (just north of Saigon to the southern tip.) And in all my travels to many different basses I only saw one individual who used marijuana or any other drugs. He was not allowed to go into the field or handle any duties of responsibility.

Ruth Hayhoe and Pearl Buck

While I have not read Pearl Buck's MY SEVERAL WORLDS, I did run accross a biography on her written about 1982. I guess one can draw some comparisons and contrasts between her and Ruth Hayhoe.

Both started in mission work. But both moved on to other careers, Pearl Buck moved on to writing while Ruth moved on to academics specifically Comparative Education. Pearl Buck moved away from her Christian upbringing towards agnosticism. Ruth, while leaving her strict sect of Christianity, remained in the Christian fold. It is interesting to see the contrasting ways the Chinese govt (PRC) regarded Pearl Buck and Ruth Hayhoe. The PRC rejected Pearl Buck's application to visit in 1972 saying that what she had written was slanderous. By contrast the Chinese govt. has been very receptive to Ruth, who is openly Christian. She was even recently awarded an honorary doctorate from Shanghai. One would have assumed that the PRC would be more receptive to an agnostic like Pearl Buck over a Christian like Ruth. But I understand that the Chinese value Ruth's contribution to the field of education. Ruth has even used some of her own money to help support the education efforts in China.

I think the fact that someone is seen as contributing to their society makes a difference to the PRC. Philip Wang told me that the Chinese govt used to regard his father, the scholar Wang Yun Wu, as a war criminal. Now they say his good points outweigh his bad points and that he was "used" by Chiang Kai Shek. I guess it also helps the Mr. Wang is supporting schools in Mainland China in his father's name. BTW I saw a mention of Wang Yun Wu in a book entitled THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE by Mr. Kindaichi. Mr. Kindaichi cites Wang Yun Wu's Chinese language dictionary and Japanese written words which have made their way into the Chinese language.

I suppose one might draw a parallel between adversaries they have faced, but I would not really say it is the same thing. Ruth had to deal with and eccentric who caused her much grief, the "colonel." The "colonel" was supposedly smuggling Bibles into Mainland China, but Ruth had her doubts about his operation. Were the Bibles really getting to Mainland China? Eventually Ruth quit the "colonel's" organization against his objections. Though the "colonel" caused Ruth much grief, he opened up a whole new world to her, in that he encouraged her to learn Mandarin in addition to the Cantonese she mastered. Ruth left mission work and switched to academics.

Pearl Buck's advesary was in the person of J. Gresham Machen. I must say that my sympathies are with Machen. He was concerned about the doctrinal laxity in the Presbyterian Church. The biography on Machen, by Stonehouse, states the Machen's objections to Pearl Buck being a Presbyterian Missionary was doctrinal not personal. Pearl Buck had written that she believed in Jesus whether or not he lived. Eventually both Machen and Buck left the Presbyterian church. On his death Ms. Buck wrote that both of them were shown out of the church, she by the back door and he by the front door. Though she disagreed with him she admired the fact that he stood by his convictions. As an aside, Mr. Machen, was not a dumb hillbilly. A Southerner, yes. But he was educated, cultured and demanding of his students. The late theologian Francis Schaeffer was one of his students. I should also add then when I took a New Testament Greek class, we used Machen's book on Greek. It also turns out that a pastor in a liberal Lutheran denomination used Machen's book when he went to seminary. Actually I would compare Mr. Machen to "Grandma" - - a friend of mine who all call by that name. Machen's admirers refered to him as "Mr. Valiant for truth." "Grandma"- who is a friend of Ruth's - strikes me as a "Ms. Valiant for truth." For she also was concerened about doctrinal laxity in her own denomination.

Well, I'd better end here. I guess I got a bit long winded. I'll have more thoughts in a later post.

An American Soldier by Tommy Franks

I found this an interesting autobiography: the author has lived an interesting life. He was a goofball when he graduated from High School and entered college at the University of Texas, Austin. After a poor performance at the school, he decided
to enlist in the Army. He qualified for cryptography school, but found that was not his interest, in other words not real soldiering. He eventually qualified for OCS and became an officer, specifically a second lieutenant. He served in Vietnam and was wounded three times. He received a serious enough injury to be put in the hospital. So it looks like a legitimate wound not a "John Kerry wound" which could be fixed with a band aid.

[As an aside, I think the swift boat captains should be allowed to express their views. These people where there. Why shouldn't they be allowed to say what they think?].

I found Franks' observations to be interesting. While he does not strike me as that religious, I found his description of being at a dinner with Bush to be interesting. Bush anounced that he was going to pray. General Franks said he was glad that there was a man of faith in the White House. I guess there are no atheists in fox holes. General Franks mentions refering to the verse in Ephesians about putting on the whole armor of God.

As I remember, his commentary about Richard Clarke sort of ties in with Buzz Patterson in his book RECKLESS DISREGARD. Franks said he was warned by someone that Clarke had an exaggerated view of his own importance. He also mentions Clarke
promised a lot of things in the works but was short on specifics or backing up his talk. Patterson in his book puts it bluntly and says that Clarke was a fraud.

Perhaps the coverage on Rumsfeld is somewhat unfair. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq went quicker than critics said it would take. Granted Rumsfeld probably should have a larger troop commitment for occupation, but he should at least be given credit for overrunning the oppostition quickly. Granted the insurgency has not gone away, but one should remember that even after Germany's surrender, there
were a few diehards who persisted on fighting two years after the surrender. Also in the Soviet Union resistance in the Ukraine and the Baltics States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), lasted till about 1954, if I remember correctly.

Apparently Rumsfeld and Franks had a good working relationship. Someone said that Franks made Rumsfeld a better secretary of Defense and Rumsfled made Franks a better general. I guess they challenged each other. I am reminded of the verse in proverbs "Iron sharpens Iron, so one man sharpens another."

Whether or not you agree with General Franks views, I think you will find his story inspiring. It was interesting to see him go from college goofball and dropout to college graduate and four star general. Franks' views of waging war are also interesting - he is someone who has obviously thought alot about his craft.

John Steinbeck,Writer by Jackson Benson

I'd like to look at just one aspect of this book alongside UNFIT FOR COMMAND. One can connect the dots. Steinbeck spent time in Vietnam as a reporter for Newsday
magazine. Steinbeck spent at least six weeks in Vietnam. He also visited Thailand and Laos. I think his overall stay in Southeast Asia was about three to four months.

Steinbeck had a completely different view of the American soldier in Vietnam than Kerry (the Kerry of 1971). Kerry portrayed the American soldiers as barbarians. Steinbeck had a high regard for the soldier, though he had doubts about our policy. He was offended by two misperceptions of the war: 1) that the American soldier was brutal, and 2) that the Viet Cong had the support of the people. Steinbeck viewed the Viet Cong as thugs. An associate said that whenever an incident which reflected badly on the Americans occured, reporters were all over the place; but when an attrocity was committed by the Viet Cong, no reporters were to be found. Steinbeck sent several pictures back home, but the news media would not print the pictures.

This is a thick book. You can purchase it at left, though you may want to browse the book (available at Barnes and Noble for $25). Anyways, pay attention to Chapter L, which I think is located around page 1000 (depending on the edition). This covers much of Steinbeck's time in Vietnam. As Steinbeck noted, in Vietnam the people fled from North to South not vice versa. This chapter makes for informative reading. I think Steinbeck did a more extensive job of investigating Vietnam and Southeast Asia than Kerry. But read the chapter for yourself.

I think the contrast between Steinbeck and Kerry is a powerful one. Steinbeck, (who died in 1968) was NOT a Conservative Republican, but I think he would be highly offended by Kerry's portrayal of the Vietnam veterans and the way he's using them today had he lived.