Legacy of Discord: Voices of the Vietnam

¶ … Legacy of Discord: Voices of the Vietnam War by Gil Dorland, published by Brassey's Inc., Washington.

The book was written in 2001, twenty-five years after the end of the Vietnam War, by a former military man, Gil Dorland. Dorland graduated from the U.S. Military Academy, served in two Vietnam tours, and received the Distinguished Service Cross for his service to his country. He now works as a screenwriter and an independent film producer in Hollywood (Biographical information from (www.brasseys.com).

The book was intended to present some sort of understanding of the causes and motivations behind the Vietnam War through interviews with eighteen people representing a variety of - often contradictory - viewpoints: interviews were conducted (by Gil Dorland) with Peter Arnett, Le Ly Hayslip, John McCain, Tom Polgar, Norman Swarzkopf, and William C. Westmoreland, amongst others (www.brasseys.com) i.e., with people who were responsible for planning the war, people who fought in the war, people who fought against the war, and also people who reported the war (www.brasseys.com).

The publishers have described the book as of great historic importance, for those veterans, students and others who seek to understand the complex causes, and interpretations of the war (www.brasseys.com).

The book takes the form of a series of interviews with key figures in the Vietnam War, some of whom were mentioned above. The interviews were conducted by Gil Dorland, who also provided an objective, concise, very informative, introduction to each interviewee, setting them in context within the framework of the book, which is to assemble a diverse array of opinions about the Vietnam War, from a variety of conflicting sources, in one collection, in order that readers can draw their own conclusions from what is presented within.

General themes arise during the book, including: incrementalism, McNamara, micromanagement of the action, and relationships with the Vietnamese army, and Dorland did not pull any punches with his questioning, with questions including: 'What lessons should we, as Americans, have learnt from Vietnam?', 'Should members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have resigned in protest?', 'Did the U.S. consider using tactical nuclear weapons?'. Dorland's determination to 'get to the bottom of' what happened in Vietnam, and also his objectivity throughout the book are both impressive, considering his background, which includes military training and combat for his country.

On the whole, Dorland's style throughout is very much to inform his readers, with as little bias as possible, and he brings a refreshing new approach to the study of this sensitive area of American history. The quality of his writing, though, is questionable, although this minor criticism does pale into insignificance, due to the quality of the material that is presented here. The material is mostly presented in a narrative form, divided into sections according to interviewee: a more serious criticism is that I found that Dorland tried to include autobiographical details within the text rather too often, which often distracted from the purpose of the book, which is to present an unbiased set of interviews with key players in the conflict, in order that readers draw their own conclusions from the many perspectives presented.

The main aim of the book, from my point-of-view, is as stated above: to provide a diverse range of opinions, based on interviews with key players. The style that Dorland invoked to fulfill this aim fitted well with the aim, and overall, the book fulfilled Dorland's stated aim.

Aside from the minor complaints made above, the book is a very informative and provocative account of the Vietnam War. There are, however, complaints that could be leveled at the book: for instance, that the evidence presented by interviewees was not entirely truthful. We, as readers, as children of this American foreign policy gone wrong, are asked to put our faith in some of the key players of the war, to believe that they will tell us the truth about their view of events in and surrounding the war: whilst the interviews presented are full of candor, it is a matter of debate as to whether these people can be trusted to tell the truth, and whether we can ever use such sources to base opinions of such events upon.

As for the manner in which the evidence was presented: the book was very well organized, and very easy to read (despite the unnecessary autobiographical references), and the organization of the sections, demarking 'types' of interviewee, was very well done, so that the information flowed well, and understandably, without unwittingly guiding or leading readers towards one particular opinion. In this respect, the organization of the book lends itself very well to the overall 'unbiased' feeling of the book. The organization was very logical, in those terms, for someone who reads the book with an open mind, with a view to forming their own opinion about the events relayed (i.e., for someone reading the book how it was intended to be read).