http://uwesiemon.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-wrong-side-won.html
I have written before about Uwe Siemon-Nietto who is a
semi-frequent guest on Lutheran Public Radio's Issues Etc. Along with John
Warwick Montgomery, Siemon-Nietto often provides what might be described as the
view from Europe.
The Confessional Lutheran Issues Etc. is a popular radio and
internet programme and yet I am frequently appalled by some of the voices they
air. While the network ostensibly presents itself as moderate and reasonable
and avoiding the extremes, in reality Lutheran Public Radio (LPR) grants a
platform to many voices on the Far Right and not a few of them have been caught
in blatant deceit – in other words they're people that have no place on a
Christian radio programme.
Siemon-Nietto is probably one of the more moderate voices but
sadly that doesn't make his analysis any more accurate.
As of late Issues Etc. has been running pieces engaged in the
theme of Cold War reminiscence – voices recalling what life was like under
communism. I suppose in their distorted understanding of the present hour they
find parallels between Biden's DNC and the political factions and regimes of the
Cold War epoch – and thus find them pertinent. I would find it laughable except
for the fact that large and growing numbers take these analogies seriously and
so in this case, Issues Etc. is contributing to the ignorance that reigns
within Evangelical and even Confessional circles – especially concerning
questions of 'Marxism' and the like. The term is thrown about like candy but
rarely is used in any kind of accurate or historical context. One doesn't need
to be a fan of Biden or the DNC to condemn these caricatures. They serve a
political interest but they do not serve the truth.
I stumbled upon Siemon-Nietto's blog in which he reflects on
the Vietnam War. I was hardly surprised to find his take on the events a case
of what must be called less than Christian interpretation. It fits a Right-wing
mindset but it's not compatible with the truth and therefore it is in the final
analysis un-Christian.
The wrong side won we're told. A New Testament viewpoint
would posit that no matter which side won it would be wrong. There was no moral
choice in that war. No matter the outcome it was wrong.
Reminiscent of a PBS documentary dealing with the fall of
Saigon, Siemon-Nietto chooses to focus on the heroism of American soldiers in
attempting to get their allies out of South Vietnam in 1975. As with PBS, he
has chosen to ignore the context, the criminal and deceitful foundations and
conduct of the war, the corruption and murder that dominated the puppet regime,
and the devastating barbarism that marked America's bellicosity in the
Indochina theatre. Torture, assassination, concentration camps, unprecedented large-scale
indiscriminate bombing campaigns, rape, mass murder, body counts, and a legacy
of toxicity that is still producing large-scale and nightmarish birth defects,
deformities and premature death – the hard truth (that no one wants to hear) is
that the US behaved in a manner that is only rivaled or surpassed by some of
the worst and most brutal regimes in history – groups like the Mongols and the Nazis.
US conduct was that bad, a sequel to its monstrous conduct in Korea which must
be understood if one hopes to discern the rise of the Kim dynasty, the nature
of its dictatorship, and its cult of personality.
If you're scoffing or shaking your head then you've not
seriously looked into the war. You're not going to get the truth by watching a
Ken Burns video or even a Hollywood film. The truth is too brutal even for
Hollywood. You have to dig deeper and the truth is disturbing to say the least.
It wasn't a war as much as it was a pre-meditated crime of vast scope and
complexity that covers the thirty years from 1945-1975. And in terms of the
larger Indochinese theatre, the crimes perpetrated by the United States would
continue into the 1990's.
There was real tragedy in the deaths that came in the wake of
Saigon's collapse. Yes, many died and yet many who died were not exactly innocent.
They (or their parents) had chosen to collaborate with a corrupt and brutal imperialist
project – a regime that was imposed and backed by outside powers that had stolen
the country, later partitioned it (utilising a divide and conquer strategy), and contrary to
the official narrative, absolutely suppressed democracy. The 'heroes' rescuing
them were part of the larger abomination. The crisis was one born of their recklessness
and the result was the violence they birthed in the destruction of a country
and virtually an entire society. If one understands what was done then the
response of the North Vietnamese in the aftermath of Saigon's fall was actually
somewhat restrained.
Siemon-Nietto throws out numbers of executions and
imprisonment post-1975. They are tragic but utterly dwarfed by the numbers of
civilians imprisoned, killed, and assassinated by the US war machine, its
proxies and allies. There's absolutely no comparison, but he ignores this
reality.
There is a moral bankruptcy to Siemon-Nietto's reporting and
narrative that cannot be overstated. When coupled with his profession of
Christianity, one is left almost speechless. Clearly his primary allegiance is
not to Christ's Kingdom but to some nebulous form of nationalist Western
Capitalism. It is disheartening to say the least. There's a moral compass but
it has little to do with the New Testament.
He speaks of the trauma endured by Vietnam veterans. Who can
doubt it? Yes, when you invade other countries, kill their children and bomb
away their livelihoods – they shoot back and take revenge. And when they have
inferior weaponry and means to fight, they have no choice but to embrace
guerilla tactics which are a terror to an invading and occupying army. Do we weep
for house burglars who are shot and wounded when caught in the act? They were a
peasant army fighting an industrial war machine. Their primary weapon was their
own bodies and they paid an awesome price – a price beyond what most in the
West would endure let alone conceive.
I empathise with veterans who repent of their deeds and
distance themselves from them. I'm ashamed to say I'm one of them though
thankfully I was not wearing a uniform during the Vietnam era. I do not feel
pity for those who strut and preen and crave accolade and glory for what is
their shame. On one level I can understand young draftees feeling an obligation
to society and nation but their experiences and hopefully their reflections and
further investigations in the wake of their experiences would drive them to a
position of remorse and even shame.
The real heroes were those who were engaged, who were paying
attention and weighing the ethics of what was happening in light of the
narrative, history, and the realities that were being reported by both honest
journalists and those who had been on the ground – even soldiers who returned
and reported the truth of the matter. The real heroes refused to go and in some
cases were forced to flee. Any fool can pick up a gun. It takes courage to take
a stand against your peers, your society, and even your family out of moral
conviction. They can hold their heads high (as it were) because they were
right. History has vindicated them – real history, not the myth narratives
promulgated and perpetuated by the likes of Siemon-Nietto.
Was the fall of Saigon a liberation? That's a tricky
question. As a New Testament Christian I don't buy into the Liberal assumptions
of democracy but for someone who does (like Siemon-Nietto) there's a problem.
It's clear that the majority of the population did support the unification of the
country under the Ho Chi Minh-established regime. For most of them it never was
about communism – a point the Americans struggled (and still struggle) to
understand. The country was in a state of civil war – one largely started and
fueled by the United States. The US (and those who supported it like
Siemon-Nietto) no longer had any moral standing with regard to the question.
Was it liberation? It's not for Siemon-Nietto to say.
Maybe we could say it wasn't a liberation, but the US
withdrawal was right and proper. I realise there were terrible consequences and
Vietnamese Christians would suffer in the decades to come but this was only
exacerbated by the US which opposed Hanoi at every turn. And even after Vietnam
ousted the Khmer Rouge in 1979, Washington under Carter and Reagan continued to
back and support the genocidal Pol Pot. Yes, Christians suffered. In many cases
their suffering was tied to the fact that (tragically and erroneously) their
religious profession and identity was tied to the treacherous and murderous politics
of the West and the so-called Christian nation that was the American Empire.
They were viewed as a fifth column and given US machinations under Diem and
after, the officials in Hanoi (I'm sorry to say) had a reason to fear. Because
of America's actions and the Christians who backed it – the Christian
profession and identity in places like Indochina had lost its true meaning. Taken
as a whole, the war and its aftermath were a farce and a tragedy on almost
every level and yet Siemon-Nietto's commentary is revealed as confused,
theologically vacant, and morally bankrupt.
It is ridiculous for Siemon-Nietto to speak of North
Vietnam's violation of the 1973 Paris Accord. North Vietnamese diplomat Le Duc
Tho was candid at the time – that the accord did not represent peace. It was a
negotiation regarding American withdrawal. The Nixon administration tried to
spin it in order to save face but in the end that's all it was. The absurdity
(as Tho pointed out) was Kissinger's eagerness to accept the farcical Nobel
Peace Prize in 1973. Tho had the integrity to refuse it. There was no peace or
end to the conflict.
Both South and North continued to fight before the ink was
dry. The only functional meaning of the accord was that the US was getting out.
Apparently Siemon-Nietto (even after more than four decades) is still holding
on to the US propaganda surrounding those events.
Siemon-Nietto (like many on the Right) is upset with Walter
Cronkite and his de-endorsement of the war after the 1968 Tet Offensive. Has
Siemon-Nietto forgotten the propaganda campaign of late 1967, and how the
Johnson administration and William Westmoreland had misled the public? Victory
was at hand. After all the US had built up its force to over a half-million
men. Tet revealed that not only was victory not at hand, but that American
military and political leadership were either deceitful, incompetent or both.
The country was caught in a tragedy, a meat-grinder. More than twenty-thousand
American soldiers had already died and for what? By the time the war ended
seven years later another thirty-five thousand US troops would die, hundreds of
thousands of additional Vietnamese were dead and the conflict's regional repercussions
would lead to millions more deaths. One need not be a fan of Walter Cronkite to
argue that his 'intervention' was not unreasonable and hardly a case of
journalistic malpractice. The American public wasn't getting the story and in
early 1968 the war was at a turning point. Cronkite's controversial move was
actually bold and heroic and in hindsight the tragedy is that he wasn't heeded
and hadn't spoken out sooner. Candidate Nixon would sabotage the peace talks that
year and as president would escalate the war. And after four years even Nixon
admitted defeat.
Siemon-Nietto's theology for Vietnam veterans is bankrupt, a
glossing over of sin and guilt, a justification of crimes. It's no surprise
that he erroneously views Bonhoeffer – a man of dubious Christian profession
killed for his political schemes and machinations – as a Christian martyr.
Siemon-Nietto has confused the Kingdom of Christ with Western Liberalism and he
is not alone, but the consequences are dire and there are few voices out there
willing to challenge this myth and fable.
Vietnam veterans were in many cases 'baby killers'. Many were
directly. Some were even worse. Others were merely part of the machine. So was
I when I unfortunately and lamentably wore the uniform of US forces and was
part of the empire's plans for European consolidation in the 1990's.
Under the false pretense of humanitarian intervention the US
sought to eliminate any hint of resistance to NATO/EU consolidation and even
the whisper of allegiance to Moscow which at that time was broken and largely
undone. The end of the Cold War meant that historical attitudes and alliances
were bound to return. The so-called 'End of History' was a myth and serious
intellectuals knew it. The US was rushing to consolidate the one pocket of
Europe that held the possibility of resistance to US unipolarity- the Balkans
and in particular the Eastern Orthodox Serbian populations. The US moved to
annihilate their influence and crush them. I didn't drop the bombs but I was part of the logistics
machine. I certainly handled the bombs and as a consequence I have blood on my
hands. God has forgiven me but I don't look for theologians to assuage me, nor
do I strut around with a veteran hat or desperate for attention and accolade,
plaster my car with stickers. Repentance must bear fruit and it means
acknowledging the transgression. I claim no veteran's benefits, my medals and uniforms
went into the rubbish bin where they belong, and I walked away ashamed but
grateful for the grace of God.
Siemon-Nietto saw GI's act out their 'vocation' – a
Magisterial Reformation concept not found in Scripture or supported by it. He
views their participation in a murder machine as 'service'. The Scriptures have
something to say about those who call evil good.
I must say this one of the most disappointing and offensive
articles I can remember reading.
For more on Siemon-Nietto and Issues Etc.:
https://pilgrimunderground.blogspot.com/2016/04/issues-etc-and-uwe-siemon-nietto.html