Vietnam ? Metamorphosis Of A Nation Essay, Research Paper

VIETNAM ? METAMORPHOSIS OF A NATION

” Rejoice O young man in thy youth…” (Ecclesiastics). This quote begins the movie, Platoon, and serves as an ironic comment on what is to follow. Both the interviews in the text and the movie, Platoon, attempt to explain a significant human experience, one that was essentially a metamorphosis for many who took part in it. Vietnam was crucial to all who experienced it. The one constant thing is change.

Each of the people interviewed, explained the changes they went through. Some were drafted, some enlisted, most entered Vietnam with a naive, youthful attitude. They were hardened, their souls rapidly aged. Most left, having changed drastically in their attitudes toward our involvement as a country, as well as their own personal involvement. Many despised the protesters at home, and ended up despising the Vietnamese people.

Chris Tucker (Charley Sheen) was the focus for change in the movie. He was surrounded by stock characters from whom he could take or leave whatever they had to offer. He was the one to watch, the moral center of the film whose experience would explain it all for us.

The film is told from his point of view. He wanted to live up to what his grandfather did in World War I and what his father did in World War 2, just as Mike, one of the interviewees, felt he had an obligation to live up to his family’s heroics (Wheeler/Becker 273). And, just like Mike, Chris Tucker dropped out of college to do so. Chris Tucker jumped into the war not fully knowing what to expect. He vomits at his first sign of violent death, and can hardly keep up on his first search and destroy mission. But after some exposure to the war he feels as if he were born of two fathers. One, whose morals have not been pillaged and burned by his exposure to death. And one who embraces death and kills without guilt.

The character of Sgt. Barnes (Tom Berringer) in Platoon, represented what was worst in the range of reactions to the hell that is war. Sgt. Barnes displays vicious, unexplained wounds on his face. He makes no attempt to hide these. From one view he looks normal, from another he looks positively robotic. He is literally mean as a snake. These are the exact words that MM uses to describe himself. He says he “freaked a little,…the Army objected to the way I started taking enemy scalps and wearing them on my pistol belt” (Wheeler/Becker 278). Both of these characters are alike in their violent reactions to their war experience. While that seems redundant, war of course is violent, both these reactions were extreme. Sgt. Barnes ends up dead, shot by his own man. MM is at loose ends without a job, restless, (Wheeler/Becker 279).

The soldiers in this war were not supported in many ways that soldiers in other wars were. They definitely did not have the support of the American people judging from the interviewees’ experiences; “It was worse when I got home. I came back into the Los Angeles airport and was spit on and called a baby killer and a mother raper” (Wheeler/Becker 275). They also did not have the support of the people whom they were trying to help, the South Vietnamese. This was illustrated in the movie and expressed by the interviewees, simply put, “The Vietnamese hated us’ (Wheeler/Becker 278).

The South Vietnamese were caught between a rock and a hard place. If they associated with American soldiers they would be punished by the Vietcong. If they associated with the Vietcong they would be punished by the Americans, as was the village in the movie. It was their country and they had everything to lose.

One device used in the film, Platoon, was portraying the American soldiers as being very extreme. They were either psycho baby-killers or total cowards who would hide under a dead soldier to avoid battle. The in-the-middle normal soldiers portrayed in the movie seemed like very weak characters. Well, in a sense you could consider Elias somewhat normal. But, look at what happened to him. He was betrayed by his own man, shot and left for dead because he was morally opposed to murder. I think Oliver Stone wants you to believe that the war turned people into monsters and if you were not strong enough, or weak enough, to be changed, your chances of survival were very slim.

It is obvious that the war changed the lives of the veterans interviewed, one admits that even a backfire from a car scares him (Wheeler/Becker, 279). Although the war certainly had a great effect on them, I don’t think it was as drastic as the effect it had on Chris Tucker. He went into the war a caterpillar and emerged a butterfly with fangs and a grenade launcher.

One major similarity between the interviewees experience and the movie was the use of drugs. I assume it was to escape the insanity of the war, to try to forget a bad thing by using another. “I used pot to keep all of that stuff out of my mind (Wheeler/Becker 275).” Chris Tucker and the majority of his platoon used marijuana. It was portrayed as a kind of peaceful thing because the soldiers who seemed to have a serious case of blood lust did not use it. The use of drugs in the U. S. escalated after the war, and became a continuing social problem that plagues us today.

Another theme that both Platoon and the interviews touch upon is the class divide. Chris Tucker says “…why should only poor kids go to war?” That is met with the reply that, “it takes someone rich to think like that.” He describes the soldiers in his platoon as the bottom of the barrel, guys nobody cares about. He also says they are the best he’s ever seen. They are the heart and soul, the poor and unwanted, but fighting for our society and freedom. Mike, in the interview, referred to protesters as people who had a daddy on the draft board ( Wheeler/Becker 274). Eugene, another interviewee, states that, “…Vietnam was a money-making thing. We were fighting over there to protect rubber and oil businesses” (Wheeler/Becker 281). Certainly, as long as student deferments were used, it could be legitimately argued that there was a definite distinction between those who could afford college (and get good grades) and those who could not or chose not to.

I believe that Vietnam had an enormous impact on America. It most definitely altered America’s image of itself. No longer were we unstoppable, impossible to defeat. Never again will we be led blindly into war. The American people are going to question anything that puts American lives at stake. Before committing American lives to war politicians are going to have it hanging over their heads, is this going to be another Vietnam? Does the possible end justify the means? The means being American lives, American youth. If that end is only American credibility then I do not believe that it does.

Our nation has changed in important ways and learned valuable lessons because of the Vietnam experience. One hopes we will never again fight without the national will to win. An incremental approach is dangerously ineffective. We must not sacrifice lives to “send messages.”

War is always a human failure and should be a last resort. Before we engage in war, we should have a clear national security interest, defined and obtainable objectives, plans for the application of all military force necessary to reach those goals, an exit strategy, and leadership willing to mobilize popular support. We can not police the world, but America must remain willing to sacrifice when and where necessary. It is the price of our freedom and our way of life.

34b