|
It has been said that
"Old men start wars and young men fight them." To the extent
that foreign policies are developed by politicians and then enforced by
men and women of the military this is certainly true. Historically, during
every war in our history as the young at home watched former classmates
returning with horrible wounds or in flag-draped coffins they have asked
the tough questions "Why?" and "For what purpose?" In
that, the Defining Generation was not unique. What did make the youth of
the 1960s different from past generations was that their voice of dissent
became so large and so active it could not be ignored.
Such dissent is not
specific to the young; in every war a small minority in older generations
has risen in opposition to war as well. Perhaps nowhere was this more true
than during the Vietnam war, a conflict that seemed to drag on endlessly
with no clear objective to be achieved. In past wars youthful anti-war
activists were easily dismissed as young and naïve, the older as
pacifists or anti-imperialists who were out of touch with reality. In the
early days of intervention in
Vietnam
that approach worked well, but soon crumbled against aging voices of
reason.
The term "Vietnam
War protester" immediately conjures a range of stereotypical images:
young, sandal-clad, long haired liberal college students; or, drugged out
young hippies with flowers and peace signs painted on their faces; or,
long-haired and bearded young veterans of that war wearing green military
fatigues. In fact some of the first to voice their opposition to the war
were military men of the older generation, including active-duty generals
who had served honorably in the World War. In the mid--50s General Matthew
Ridgeway and Lieutenant General James Gavin both warned President
Eisenhower of potential problems when he proposed and then initiated
intervention, and both left the army with misgivings about foreign policy
before the first American advisors were sent to Vietnam. They continued to
argue effectively against the war thereafter, albeit with some reservation
as retired generals. Military officers and especially general officers
generally do their best even in retirement to remain apolitical in the
public's view. One who did not was a hero and icon of the Greatest
Generation. Even as Dr. Martin Luther King had served to lead
America
's young in their Civil Rights movement, General David Shoup, U.S.M.C.
(Retired) became the experienced leader of a youthful anti-war movement.
David Shoup was born
December 30, 1904
, the product of humble roots and the son of a farmer in Battleground,
Indiana
. In 1926 he graduated from
DePauw
University
with a degree in mathematics and an ROTC degree, the latter leading to a
distinguished career in the U.S. Marine Corps. After serving as an
observer with the Army on New Georgia in the Pacific at the beginning of
World War II, he was assigned to the 2d Marine Division and was a key
planner for the American landings on
Betio
Island
on Tarawa Atoll. It was the second Pacific offensive of the war, after the
bitter but successful landings at
Guadalcanal
in August 1942. Shoup himself had concerns about the amphibious assault,
noting to one correspondent, "The first wave will get in okay, but if
the Amtracks fail we'll either have to wade in with machine guns shooting
at us, or the Amtracs will have to run a shuttle service between the beach
and the end of the shelf." His words and worries were insightful.
When Colonel Shoup took his Marines on the offensive on
November 20, 1943
, the Amtracks failed and he with his Marines waded ashore under heavy
fire.
Tarawa
was a huge American military success, thanks in large part to the
commander who personally led for 60 hours without sleep and despite wounds
to his leg. In a 76-hour fight for an island only about 1 square mile,
1,056 Americans were killed and 2,292 were wounded. Four Marines were
awarded Medals of Honor for their heroism at
Tarawa
. Colonel David Shoup was the only one of them to survive to wear it.
Shoup received his
first star in 1953 and became a Major General in 1955. On
August 12, 1959
, President Eisenhower nominated Shoup for the highest post a Marine could
hold at that time, Commandant of the Marine Corps. Shoup received his
third star two months later and became a four-star General on
January 1, 1960
, when he assumed his duties as the Corps' 22nd Commandant. He was only
the third Commandant of the Marine Corps to wear the Medal of Honor, and
only one other recipient of our nation's highest military honor has served
in that post to date.
General Shoup was a
fiercely independent commander, a man of his convictions who while
remaining apolitical publicly, was quick to share his mind with the Chiefs
of Staff or the President himself. During the Cuban crisis of 1962
President Kennedy summoned his closest advisors, the Chiefs of Staff and
top military commanders to a meeting to discuss the option of mounting an
invasion of
Cuba
, a map of which stood on an easel at the front of the room. It is said
that General Shoup walked to the map, placed a transparent acetate bearing
the image of Tarawa (9 square miles in all) over it, and the disparity in
size was quickly evident…Tarawa was just a speck. Shoup then proceeded
to enumerate how, against 4,500 Japanese he had lost so many Marines for
that small speck and questioned how many lives would be lost trying to
take
Cuba
against which they would face a 150,000-man army. His vivid example put
such a planned invasion into context with its cost, and the idea was
scrapped in favor of diplomacy, which did work--saving many lives. General
Shoup was never a "yes" man, and it was such open honestly that
made him one of John F. Kennedy's favorite generals.
Shoup had considered
the debate over
America
's role in
Southeast Asia
during the discussions of the late 1950s and came to a conclusion averse
to intervention. In 1960 he carried these views into the hierarchy of the
military establishment, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As such he found himself often at odds with both his comrades and more
importantly, the Presidential Administration. When Lyndon Johnson became
President after the assassination of John Kennedy, his "voice of
dissent" was not as respected and appreciated as it had been under
Kennedy. One month later on
December 31, 1963
, he retired from the Marine Corps.
Buoyed by the beliefs
of comrades like Gavin and Ridgeway that validated his own concerns
however, General David Shoup refused to become another old soldier fading
away. Concerned that his country was losing its standing in the world he
broke with precedent and tradition to attack the escalation of the war in
Vietnam
, even before offensive ground troops were committed in 1965.
Shoup's early overt
activism stemmed from the changing philosophy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
after his departure. Reflecting on the period in a 1969 article titled
"The New American Militarism" for Atlantic
Monthly he wrote: "For years up to 1964 the chiefs of the armed
services, of whom the author was then one, deemed it unnecessary and
unwise for
U.S.
forces to become involved in any ground war in
Southeast Asia
. In 1964 there were changes in the composition of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and in a matter of a few months the Johnson Administration,
encouraged by the aggressive military, hastened into what has become the
quagmire of
Vietnam
."
The sacrifice his voice
of dissent cost him personally was immeasurable. Among the general public
in those early days most men and women who had fought aggression and
genocide in World War II saw the Vietnam war as an equally noble cause. Of
them he wrote: "As they get older, many veterans seem to romanticize
and exaggerate their own military experience and loyalties. The policies,
attitudes and positions of powerful veterans' organizations such as the
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and AMVETS, totaling over 4
million men, frequently reflect this pugnacious and chauvinistic tendency.
Their memberships generally favor military solutions to world problems in
the pattern of their own earlier experience, and often assert that their
military service and sacrifice should be repeated by the younger
generation." General Shoup therefore took his case to a new
generation, the young men and women who might be called to fight that war
whom he noted, "Don't get their total education from the boilerplate
newspapers."
From the time Shoup
retired in 1964 until 1966 troop strength in
Vietnam
rose from 23,300 to 385,300 and the war went from the back page to front
page headlines. Faced with ever increasing possibilities that they might
be conscripted into service to fight in a country few of them knew much
about,
America
's young began asking serious questions. Most felt that the answers they
were receiving from
Washington
,
D.C.
were evasive, slanted, or even blatantly false. On
May 14, 1966
, General David Shoup (Retired) addressed many of these concerns at the
10th Annual Junior College World Affairs Day at
Pierce
College
in
Los Angeles
. He spoke to their idealism, to their confusion about world affairs, and
to the war in
Vietnam
in specific terms that immediately raised the ire of the Johnson
Administration. "Remember," he reminded them, "under our
form of government, civilians always have, and always will--and they
should--tell the military when to begin and when to stop war."
Speaking of an older
generation that supported the war while being themselves confused about
its value and objective he said, "These same people that place
students in the category of the confused are just as confused, always have
been and always will be. They've simply suffered more years of it and have
accepted it as the normal state of man. And thus they are mistakenly
surprised that young students are confused."
As to the
Administration's Domino Theory and argument about the critical importance of
preserving democracy in Vietnam he said, "You read, you're televised
to, you're radioed to, you're preached to, that it is necessary that we
have our armed forces fight, get killed and maimed, and kill and maim
other human beings including women and children because now is the time we
must stop some kind of unwanted ideology from creeping upon on this
nation. The people we choose to do this to is 8,000 miles away with water
in between. I believe there's a record of but two men walking on water and
one of them failed."
In his most damning
statement about the war, which would resurface repeatedly to both cheers
by the young and scorn by the older, noted: "I don't think the whole
of South East Asia, as related to the present and future safety and
freedom of the people of this country, is worth the life or limb of a
single American…I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty,
bloody, dollar-crocked fingers out of the business of these nations so
full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of
their own. That they design and want. That they fight and work for."
Others who would later
echo similar sentiments were attacked as being anti-American. "It has
somehow become unpatriotic to question our military strategy and tactics
or the motives of military leaders," he told the students at
Pierce
College
. One year before retiring while speaking as Commandant, Shoup had given
the word "patriotism" his own definition, "It is said that
patriotism is the love of country. I think it is the love of the things
about your country that you don't want to see lost--that you want to see
perpetuated--and you're willing to sacrifice to ensure it." His
leading role placed the Johnson Administration at a disadvantage--how do
you discredit a World War II combat veteran, a Medal of Honor Recipient
who achieved 4-star rank, and who was former Commandant of the Marine
Corps. Trashing the reputation of college kids was one thing, trying to
discredit General David Shoup was entirely something else.
As many of
America
's young answered challenges like those issued by General Shoup they
organized themselves like no anti-war movement prior to their time had
done. In 1967 the cause was further bolstered when six veterans of the
Vietnam War established an organization for other returning anti-war
veterans, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). General Shoup
became something of a mentor to these soldiers who had seen the war
personally, and come away from it to speak their minds.
The movement slowly
began gaining credibility, even among those of the older generation as the
Vietnam War dragged into its eighth year and casualties topped 30,000.
Early in 1968 over the Vietnamese New Year, called "Tet," the
North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong launched a massive offensive. Over
night they simultaneously struck at more than 100 cities including 36
provincial capitols and
Saigon
. More than 1,500 Americans and nearly 3,000 ARVN were killed and 15,000
wounded. Still it was a stunning military victory for
United States
forces which quickly routed the Communists, killing some 45,000. When
questioned about that event General Shoup replied, "If I had to go
through another one of these Tet holidays winning streaks, I didn't know where I could take it or
not." Much of the American public felt the same way and the slow
erosion of support for the war back home became a watershed.
On
March 20, 1968
, General Shoup was called to testify before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations Chaired by Senator William Fulbright. A powerful
Southern Democrat who had opposed the Bay of Pigs invasion under Kennedy
and then the 1965 American military action in the Dominican Republic. He
had began questioning the Vietnam War as well and held a series of
televised hearings beginning in 1966. That same year he also published The
Arrogance of Power, in which he attacked the justification of the
Vietnam War placing himself at odds with President Johnson, also a
Southern Democrat.
Before the Committee
General Shoup began by noting that he was privileged to testify
"without any fear of reprisal whatsoever except being called a
dissenter, a traitor, and being accused of giving aid and comfort to the
enemy."
Senator Albert Gore of
Tennessee
assured him that he was not alone in such derision responding "You
(are about to) have company!" While General Shoup, an extraordinary
hero born of the Greatest Generation had indeed been called as much and
worse, growing opposition in Congress to the war in Vietnam put him in
good company, or perhaps it was the reverse that was true. Indeed most
members of the Committee, to some extent, shared his views.
"It is ludicrous
to think that just because we lose in
South Vietnam
that very soon somebody is going to be crawling and knocking at the doors
of
Pearl Harbor
," Shoup testified with candor. "As far as I know the Armed
Forces objective in South Vietnam is not to defeat the Armed Forces of
North Vietnam, but rather their objective is to rid this country, rid
South Vietnam, of these interlopers, so-called, from the north and any
others who have developed in the south…Our actions are limited to
unlimited escalation in the South Vietnam area, because we have no
objective as far as I know to defeat the armed forces of the enemy…North
Vietnam is the aggressor and the United States is the aggressor."
Speaking to the
Administration's efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese
people he stated bluntly, "Instead of winning the minds and hearts of
their people, we have rather closed their minds and broken their
hearts."
Eleven days later
President Johnson shocked the nation when he announced that he would not
run again for the office of the President. It was said that almost
immediately Senator Fulbright received a telegram which simply said,
"Mission Accomplished. Shoup." With LBJ out of the way his Vice
President Hubert Humphrey sought the Democratic nomination. He was
challenged by Eugene McCarthy and a strong anti-war movement. Despite
growing unrest however, there remained in the voting public (over age 21)
enough support for the war to validate the status quo. In the end Humphrey
ran against Republican nominee Richard Nixon who appealed to a
"silent majority" of conservatives that despised the hippie
movement and the anti-war demonstrations. Promising "peace with
honor" he eked out a 1% popular vote majority over Humphrey and a
solid 301 to 191 elector majority to become President.
President Nixon's
"peace with honor" was undefined and became something of an
exercise in futility. He initiated what he called "Vietnamization of
the War" in which offensive operations were gradually turned over to
the ARVN forces. Still, it seemed that the war dragged on and young
soldiers continued to come home in coffins. In November 1969 a
half-million mostly-young marched on
Washington
,
D.C.
to protest the war. Meanwhile more and more returning
Vietnam
veterans joined the VVAW and unrest continued. When Nixon authorized
American forces to cross from
South Vietnam
into
Cambodia
in 1970, despite dwindling
U.S.
troop strength, it was perceived as continued escalation. On
May 4, 1970
, just four days after Nixon announced the Cambodian incursion, an
anti-war demonstration at
Kent
State
University
in
Ohio
resulted in a confrontation between protesters and members of the National
Guard. In a melee that followed the Guardsmen opened fire killing four and
wounding nine. It was a tragedy for which Nixon would forever take the
blame.
As new leadership
sprung up among the young and inside the VVAW General Shoup became less a
spokesman and more of a quiet mentor. He remained especially close to VVAW
leadership as they organized and protested in the early '70s through
Congressional hearings, public demonstrations, and in the media. In 1975
after nearly all American troops had departed Vietnam Saigon fell. At last
an old soldier was able to fully retire.
General Shoup passed
away on
January 14, 1983
, unceremoniously and with little of the news coverage and attention due a
Medal of Honor recipient and former Commandant of the Marine Corps. Even
today, when people talk of the anti-Vietnam War movement, Shoup is
overlooked. For many veterans it is almost shameful to bring up the
subject, as if tying such a man to the radical anti-war movement is
somehow a sacrilege. In fact General David Shoup was his own man, a man of
strong conviction and the courage to voice those convictions. He was a
leader in the minority viewpoint in opposition to much of what he had
stood for all his life. He was indeed a man of great courage.
|
