‘In war, no one wins or loses. . . . Only those who have never fought like to argue about who won and who lost.” – Bao Ninh, former North Vietnamese Soldier, interviewed in the recently released PBS documentary from Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, “The Vietnam War.”
With The Vietnam War, Burns and Novick take us into the space between winning and losing. The film presents the conflict as it actually happened through the eyes of as many people as possible – American and Vietnamese, soldiers and protesters, spies, diplomats and family members.
By making us proximate with the lived experiences of all these participants, the film punctures the differing narratives that we carry about the war and challenges us to arrive anew at a more complete understanding of what the war meant for us as a nation and as individuals.
In doing so, the film gives explicit permission for all those alive during the Vietnam era to speak openly about their experiences.
The film’s many interviewees acknowledge the silence they felt compelled to uphold following the war as one of its most damaging and searing consequences.
As I did not live through the Vietnam era, I lack the personal experience to fully appreciate why we avoided meaningful public discussion. I understand there were a multitude of factors at play, with confusion and uncertainty about what actually happened and what the vocabulary should be to talk about the war.
But as the documentary makes clear, we shied away from talking to each other and as a result, scars deepened and differences in perspective and experience petrified into fault lines that still snake through our country’s civic fabric.
We risk a similar sequence of events with the war in Afghanistan.
After 16 years of war, and the sacrifices of many thousands of Americans and their families, we still rely on a vague and expansive war authorization passed in 2001.
We have attempted differing deployment levels and tactics in Afghanistan, but we have avoided substantive debate over the war’s purpose, objectives and strategy.
As a consequence, the war in Afghanistan is taking on elements of what happened with Vietnam, with Afghanistan becoming a defining, life-altering experience for thousands of Americans that we do not talk about as a country.
And as with Vietnam the gap between how politicians talk about the war and the actual situation on the ground grows wider.
In President Donald Trump’s August address to the nation announcing the deployment of additional personnel to Afghanistan, in which he used the word “win” six times, he defined victory as “attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaida, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”
Tough language – and President Trump is far from the first political leader to speak this way – but such rhetoric is completely detached from the realities of the conflict.
President Trump talks about winning and victory as if there will be some grand battle in the future where the Taliban, ISIS and all insurgent groups are roundly defeated and lay down their arms. The probability of such an outcome is close to zero, as anyone who has served in, studied, reported on or otherwise actually engaged in the effort would affirm.
But by perpetuating this rhetorical absolutism, we box ourselves out of meaningful dialogue about what our true objectives are in Afghanistan and what our strategy should be to realize those goals.
It may be uncomfortable to talk about Afghanistan as our conventional vocabulary around war is discordant with our nation’s experience in that country, but that makes it all the more imperative for us to force a national discussion.
We can see in The Vietnam War just how quickly misunderstandings and disagreements about the nature and purpose of a war can harden into visceral disputes that divide us for decades.
Sens. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, and Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, have introduced a bill that would enable such a national debate about Afghanistan.
Senate Joint Resolution 43 would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in the war against al-Qaida, the Taliban and ISIS, require congressional approval to add countries or groups to this set of entities against which action can be taken via the AUMF, and mandate that Congress provide re-authorization for continued military action at least every five years.
Bringing this legislation to full consideration in Congress would compel our political leaders – and through them our entire nation – to revisit how we talk about Afghanistan.
We have already confronted and overcome many of the ghosts of Vietnam. The public’s reception of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, has been remarkable. I have personally experienced the depth of gratitude and respect shown to veterans by all Americans, irrespective of whether they agree with the wars themselves, and I know this reflects a hard-earned lesson for our country.
This is a powerful demonstration of how we are able to learn from our history to create shared values and norms that strengthen our country.
So, let’s watch The Vietnam War and come together as communities to honor and acknowledge the many ways that our country experienced that conflict.
In doing so we may find the resolve to reinvigorate our nation’s discussion about Afghanistan and ask Congress to vote on the proposal from Sens. Flake and Kaine. The longer we delay such a public examination, the more our shared understanding of the conflict will atrophy, with lasting damage to our civic strength and the health of many of our fellow citizens.
(Dan Vallone is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer. He lives in Concord.)