Missing the Political Realities

By Thomas Bianchi, with comment by Nate Macon

Unaddressed Justification and Background

[1] We Were Soldiers does an outstanding job of re-visioning the Vietnam War. It also takes into account the heroism of the American soldier, specifically Col. Hal Moore, prior to the societal distress caused by the Vietnam War. This focus, although a great representation of the American spirit, results in a direct lack of addressing the reasons why we are fighting. David Ansen explains in his movie review, "In We Were Soldiers the question of whether we should have been in Vietnam in the first place is never asked.” The issue of America’s moral responsibility to lay out justification behind the constant and ongoing bloody battle scenes is never clearly explored. Aside from a brief explanation by two random military superiors, we are expected as viewers to believe in the cause of these horrific battle scenes.

[2] We Were Soldiers opens up with a gruesome ambush scene revealing the French presence in Vietnam long before America even intervened. The scene is dated by journalist and narrator Joseph Galloway as June 1954, in the same location Moore and his men will be heading. The scene is set eleven years earlier than the main time frame of the movie. Once the opening scene is over, the movie fast forwards to Fort Benning Georgia eleven years later. We see two unknown officials briefly explain how the US Army will be adopting a new plan using helicopters to leap into and out of battle. They decide within a short fast-paced walk down a hallway that they will choose Col. Moore based on his past resume of testing experimental parachutes. A deeper dive into Moore’s past and exactly how he was chosen for the job could have been a useful segment to the movie. Especially since he is the protagonist. We Were Soldiers fails to bring up Moore’s previous education. Moore began his military career at West Point in 1945 and attended many other schools and universities, such as Command and General Staff College, to advance his knowledge of military affairs. He gained experience in the Korean War as a Major and was assigned to the Pentagon as chief of research and development. It would have been great to see the movie explore Moore’s past experiences and such because it would have created and established a well structured spotlight on him. Instead, the glorification feels somewhat forced and unaddressed.

Romantic Light during a Nightmare

[3] The main motive at work during the production of We Were Soldiers is an admirable one. To portray sincere praise and testimony to the sacrifices our troops made. Director Randall Wallace never strays far from this idea. A.O. Scott would agree, as he writes in his review, “[the film] insists on the honor and rectitude of the men who fight, and on portraying their loyalty to one another in an almost romantic light.” Scott sees We Were Soldiers as an idealistic approach in the way it tries to perfect a dedication to the soldiers while it simultaneously treats war as a “nightmare.” This treatment as a “nightmare” promotes a further lack in justification. Too much focus on the intense battle scenes just increases the argument of lacking proper validation.

Intense Battle Scenes Increase Poor Justification

[4] Randall Wallace's movie has a lot in common with Black Hawk Down. It is a brutally graphic depiction of warfare, and it concentrates on the fighting. With this, We Were Soldiers leaves out very little details in revealing the horrors that occurred in the Ia Drang Valley. The movie is a very accurate representation of the fighting and provides a full sense to the viewer. However, the viewer does not get a sufficient backdrop to the start of the war and specifically this battle. The movie leaves out how America became involved in Vietnam during the year 1954 when the French Army was knee-deep giving aid to the State of Vietnam in Saigon. The French army’s failures at Dien Bien Phu resulted in the communist independence of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Resulting from the Gulf of Tonkin incident and government treaties as well, America’s interest in fighting overseas in Vietnam would increase significantly. We become forcefully involved in what the French army, in the opening scene, could not finish. The escalation happened after Dien Bien Phu when President Lyndon Johnson provided Gen. William Westmoreland a “blankcheck” to call upon as many soldiers and equipment as he thought was necessary. We Were Soldiers leaves most of these details out or only touches on them briefly. I think the approach of seeing these intense battles without any form of justification creates an issue.

Vietnamese Perspective

[5] However, the movie does a good job explaining the Vietnamese motive and perspective. It clearly shows how they used the first battles of the war as tests to determine how to beat Americans in battle. Specifically, they wanted to experience such of our air-attacking capabilities as air strikes and napalm. Wallace introduces and includes Lt. Gen. Ngyuen Huu Ann of the Northern Vietnamese sufficiently and appropriately. We Were Soldiers does a good job revealing the enemy’s strategy. The Vietnamese wanted to defeat the Americans by getting up close enough to “grab them by the belt buckle.” This would neutralize air support and fire power. It was for this reason that the Vietnamese decided to continuously send troops to try and gain leverage over the American positioning.

Overlooked Disadvantage

[6] A rather important aspect to Col. Moore and his soldiers’ efforts in Vietnam that seems to be overlooked is how they were completely understrength. This was a significant problem for Moore that was very briefly explored in the movie. President Johnson at the start of the war would not declare a state of emergency. This meant that soldiers who were currently serving and those who were on reserve did not have to extend their tours of duty into the start of the Vietnam War. According to Moore, “Any soldier who had sixty days or less left to serve on his enlistment as of the date of deployment must be left behind.” A typical battalion at maximum capacity contains 750 soldiers. Moore’s battalion was cut down to 450 when this happened. When LBJ came on television and made the announcement that he was going to send troops to Vietnam, he essentially sent Moore’s battalion in completely understrength. The entire 1st Cavalry Division lost 160-75 men who trained with Moore for fourteen months in preparation, including officers. The fact that he’d lost almost a third of his readily trained men seems to be an issue but the fact that the movie barely touches upon this is an even bigger issue.

Conclusion

[7] In We Were Soldiers we see the purpose behind the Vietnam War and why the American soldiers end up in the jungles somehow get lost. The purpose gets lost behind the intense battle scenes and the strong focus on dramatic effect. The main dramatic effect offered in this movie is the heroic bond created between the soldiers. Jamie Russell explains the central issue well: “We Were Soldiers fails to find the right balance between depicting the grisly hellishness of the battlefield and examining the political realities behind America's involvement in such vicious fire fights.” Such political realities as why we traveled to Vietnam, why Moore was chosen for the job, why the men were sent understrength, and what started it all are never addressed. These central concepts do not make an appearance but could have been very valuable in understanding the war better and making We Were Soldiers a complete account. (see comment by Nate Macon)

Comment

Nate Macon 3/31/15

Overall, Tom's essay raises some excellent points, and I find myself nodding in agreement. Certainly a missing piece in the entire film is the political justification for sending such courageous men into harm’s way. It’s addressed briefly with the footage of Lyndon Johnson’s television address: “We intend to convince the communists, that we cannot be defeated by force of arms.” Of course, hitting on this issue too much, especially if it included the anti-war protests, would take the focus off the bravery of American forces and raise the question of whether their sacrifices were ultimately in vain.

One potential disagreement I have is whether the fact that Col. Moore’s battalion was understrength should have been addressed more in depth. The discussion Moore had with one of his superiors at the pre-deployment dance highlights the issue. Without President Johnson declaring a state of emergency, the enlistments of Moore’s men won’t be extended, causing him to lose a third of his most experienced enlisted and commissioned troops. While this was clearly a disadvantage, I’m not sure if spending more time on it would be the right move. Adapt, improvise, overcome has been a motto of the Marine Corps, but certainly the Army adopts a similar mantra. The point was made, and, while unfortunate, our troops aren’t in the business of making excuses. Spending more time beyond stating the fact and the reasoning behind it would take something away from the image of the American soldier the movie strives to portray and border on striking a whining tone. It would also focus more on the political aspects of the war, which, as Tom points out, wasn’t a priority in the film. You can almost hear the silent expletive that precedes Moore’s response when hearing about the loss of his trained men: “Politicians.” However, I appreciate Randall Wallace not including that expletive, even though it’s an R-rated film, because it would tarnish Moore’s image as a dutiful soldier who takes the hand he’s dealt and makes the most of it.