If today the Vietnam war is viewed as a "mistake" in the US why is there so much venom against Jane Fonda?

Some of us believed in an American President's pledge that "... Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more."

While many of the more extreme actions attributed to 'Hanoi Jane' have been debunked, others are well-documented. When cases of torture began to emerge among POWs returning to the United States, Fonda called the returning POWs "hypocrites and liars." She added, "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." On the subject of torture in general, Fonda told The New York Times in 1973, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture... but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie." Fonda further stated that the POWs were "military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to the law." Similarly, her 'photo op' on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft gun is undeniable. Her actions with Donald Sutherland and 'The FTA Show' as they attempted to foment dissent at US military bases are also well-documented.

Fonda was a mediocre actress whose best effort at that point had been 'Barbarella'. She willingly offered aid to this country's enemies at the expense of American GIs solely for the notoriety that might rekindle her lackluster career. She has never apologized; she merely offered a feeble excuse for her treasonous actions. In as much as Title 18, USC,lists no statute of limitations for treason, she should still be tried, convicted, and sentenced even today. America has spawned no greater traitor than 'Hanoi Jane'. The actions of Arnold, Burr, and Wilkinson pale in comparison; at least they served before they sold America out.

Some may forgive. I won't. Some may forget. I never will.

I enlisted in the US Army in January,1967, with my draft notice in my hand. I retired as a Sergeant Major in 1993. I served in Vietnam in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. Regardless of what anyone else's views might be, I made my decision over 40 years ago: I went. I'd go again.

Sgt Major B,

First of all, thank you for your lifetime of service. I did one hitch in the USAF, 70 -74, 1973 I was in Thailand servicing B-52s and KC135s. As such, I was technically a REMF and a VietNam ERA Vet but not a VietNam Vet. I didn't earn that title and I won't presume to use it.

I recognize the quote from Pres. Kennedy's inauguration speech at the beginning of your post. Later in his speech he says, "To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom..."

The initial reason for the war that we eventually got tangled up in was, for the VietNamese, a war to throw off the colonial rule of France. During WW2, the Vet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh, fought alongside the Allies to defeat the Imperial Japanese forces in SEA. In the power vacuum left at the end of WW2, Ho Chi Minh was a key figure in establishing a provisional gov't and announcing VietNam's Declaration of Independence from France. He concurrently sent a letter to Pres. Truman asking him to support VietNam's bid for freedom. Not military or economic aid, just US support.

Pres. Truman chose, instead, to support France in it's campaign to reclaim VietNam as a French colony. This occurred in 1945. Most historical accounts of US involvement in VietNam begin in the 1950s, and the letter to Truman was classified until sometime in the 70s, so it doesn't appear in most of those accounts. Given these facts, I find Pres. Kennedy's words incredibly ironic. If the US/Pres. Truman had initially chosen to support VN in "throwing off one form of colonial rule" (the French), I believe it likely that France would not have followed through with their efforts to retake VietNam. The conflict we call the VietNam War would not have happened. And VietNam would have become a valuable US ally.

Pres. Kennedy's other words above: "But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom..." seems strangely prophetic in that the VietNamese people eventually won their freedom even though the largest, strongest, most advanced nation in the world opposed them.

Those are my thoughts, conclusions and reasons for them regarding the War. And while I don't share your strength of feeling about Jane Fonda's actions, I do believe she crossed the line.

In all honesty, there was more than enough blame to go around for several administrations, Democrat and Republican. There's been more than one claim that Ho Chi Minh attempted to see Woodrow Wilson during the treaty negotiations ending WWI. Despite his claim to the moral high ground, Wilson caved in on nearly all of his fourteen points when dealing with Clemenceau and LLoyd George. Virtually the same lofty goal of self-determination was promised in the Atlantcic Charter in 1941 and then forgotten in an effort to prop up France. Rather than sieze the opportunity to follow through on our commitment, Truman supported the French effort with money, material, and in 1950, an American Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), Indochina, was formed to administer the support program.

Our politicians tend to be poor students of history and it's often reflected in the decisions they make. Neither are they always deeply committed to promises they've made.

Ho was a communist, yes, but many claim he was a nationalist first. Would he have been 'unaligned' as Tito was in Yugoslavia with a little help from the US? Who can say.

What history has proven is that 'monolythic world-wide communism' was a chimera. The Russians and the Chinese didn't get along that well. The rationale that we needed France as an ally in thwarting communism kinda got kicked to the curb in 1966 when DeGaulle withdrew the French military from NATO. Would the Chinese have crossed into Vietnam if we'd invaded the North? Hard to say, but when they crossed in 1979, the Vietnamese met them head on. Was the 'Domino Theory' correct? Ask the Cambodians and Laotians.

There's a 'v'-shaped black stone wall about 2,000 miles from where I now sit. Of the 58,000 plus names inscribed on its face, more than a platoon's worth are my friends. When they forgive Jane Fonda, so will I.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for...
{...the VietNamese people eventually won their freedom...}
I don't think they did. They just fell to an authoritarian communist regime. Where is the freedom in that?

{even though the largest, strongest, most advanced nation in the world opposed them.}
You know the politics of the war; no bombing here, no bombing there, no free-fire zones, do not lock and load, keep your weapons on "safe", wait for permission to fire, etcetera. Even General Giap said that we were a formidable force but used the anti-war protests to weaken American resolve. And they DID just that.

If we had fought as hard as the vets in WWII, we would have kick their asses so hard that they wouldn't have been able to stand up.

We were up on a knoll one night and had a starlight scope. We saw about 15 VC, about 100 meters out in front of us knee deep in a rice paddy going past us with sacks of rice on their backs that they had just gotten from a village nearby. We had them dead to rights. We had to call in for permission to fire. They said "NO". The guy on the radio (in a rear area) said, "The Vietnamese liaison officer here says that the village chief doesn't want any shooting in his area. Sorry." We were well disciplined and followed orders even though were were mad and sickened by this. None of those VC would have gotten away, they were as good as dead. Open area, couldn't run in that water and easy to observe through the scope.

As it turns out, those same VC attacked us two days later, in the late morning. We, and the Phantoms, killed them all with no losses on our side. Three Phantoms came in with H.E., Napalm and cannon fire. It was beautiful. Afterward, two of the jets flew east and one flew a distance west. The one that flew west banked and came back screeching toward us. He tilted to either side (as a wave to us) and flew east back to the airbase. We clapped and cheered and jumped up and down to show him our gratitude. We will, we thought, live for another day because of these guys. I will always be grateful to them. I wish I could know who they were.

But it wasn't WW2, and I think that is a huge difference.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the politics of that war and the amount of frustration it caused you grunts on the ground. I know there are countless stories similar to the one you've just recounted. I don't say that to demean it. If I had been in country instead of a REMF in Thailand I probably would have close to the same level of frustration.

However, wars are not won solely by technological superiority. I propose that, as long as there was one, freedom loving VietNamese in that country, we wouldn't have won the war. Don't forget, as you agree with most of what I said, we were the invaders of a country committed to wresting their freedom from foreign dominance. They were not a mix of warriors, draftees and LIFERS (yes, I mean Lazy Inefficient etc) lead by a bunch of 90 day wonders. It was their homeland and they were fighting for their own freedom and way of life.

There were two incredibly unfortunate decisions that, I believe, guaranteed that the ultimate end of the War would turn out as tragically as it did/has. The first was Pres. Truman choosing the wrong side to support: French colonialism over VietNamese liberty. The second was Ho Chi Minh subsequently choosing to accept aid from the Soviets. I don't think he realized at the time how much power he would have to cede to them to receive their aid, or how strong was the US resolve to "stop communist aggression".

The longer the war dragged on, and the less people in the US, especially young, educated people (of draft age), saw any direct benefit to the US from the VNWar, the harder it became to sustain the effort. And of course North VN used that negative energy to their advantage. To them it was Total War, not a "Police Action" half a world away, and all was fair.