The phrase \u201cVietnam Times\u201d was recently used by someone involved in an incident that made the various national news services. (Quite predictably, the incident initially was rotated markedly and rapidly counterclockwise \u2013 e.g., to the left, as viewed from above \u2013 thanks to our \u201coh so impartial\u201d news media.) And I\u2019m fairly sure the term wasn\u2019t used by the individual to refer to some foreign publication; I can\u2019t find any evidence of a \u201cVietnam Times\u201d in searching the Internet.<\/p>\n
While I won\u2019t be discussing that particular incident, one thought did occur to me. That thought was: \u201cWell, just when were those \u2018Vietnam Times\u2019 that guy is talking about, anyway?\u201d<\/p>\n
It turns out that is actually a fascinating and complex question. To paraphrase an impeached former POTUS who on his last full day in office acknowledged professional misconduct, agreed to a 5 year suspension of his law license, and was fined $25,000 in a deal to avoid possible later prosecution<\/i><\/a>: \u201cIt depends on what the definition of the word \u2018times\u2019 is.\u201d<\/p>\n So let\u2019s look at the possibilities. They\u2019re more numerous than you might think.<\/p>\n I. Dates for the Vietnam War<\/u><\/p>\n One possibility is that the guy is using the term to refer to the Vietnam War. So to begin with, let\u2019s look at the Vietnam War itself. <\/p>\n Even though Vietnam wasn’t a declared war, those dates should still be unambiguous, right? I mean, we had a campaign medal for that conflict \u2013 the Vietnam Service Medal. So since the criteria for that campaign medal is pretty cut and dried, date-wise, that \u201canswers the mail\u201d there. Doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n In a word: no. It turns out that neither the original or the later-extended Vietnam Service Medal\u2019s eligibility window include all recognized US military deaths occurring in the Vietnam War and appearing on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, AKA \u201cthe Wall\u201d. Those dates also don’t cover the entire period of official US military involvement in Vietnam.<\/p>\n The Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) was originally authorized for service within the defined AOR of the Vietnam Conflict (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand and specified surrounding waters) for those who deployed there to support combat operations in Vietnam between 4 July 1965 and 28 March 1973 (inclusive). Prior to that date, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) was originally awarded for service in Vietnam between 1 July 1958 and 3 July 1965. <\/p>\n At some point after the establishment of the VSM in 1965, those who had received the AFEM for service in Vietnam were allowed (1) to elect to retain their AFEM or (2) could choose to remove it and receive the new VSM as a replacement. However, DoD policy required those who served in Vietnam during both periods to wear the VSM for Vietnam service only; they were required remove their AFEM for Vietnam service whether they wanted to or not. <\/p>\n A similar extension of VSM eligibility also occurred for participants in the evacuation of Saigon, Operation Frequent Wind. While participants in that operation were originally awarded the AFEM, the operation was later declared to be the final campaign of the Vietnam War. Like those serving in Vietnam early, Frequent Wind participants were later given the option to exchange their AFEM for the VSM. Both of these extensions of VSM eligibility are discussed in prior editions of DoDM 1348.33, Volume 2<\/i><\/a>, in entries concerning the AFEM and VSM as late as 2015. (Unfortunately, the 2016 edition of DODM 1348.33, Volume 2, now omits mention of the VSM, apparently regarding the VSM as obsolete.)<\/p>\n So, that settles it? Dates of eligibility for the VSM \u2013 either through initial award or later exchange for the AFEM \u2013 should cover the entire Vietnam War, right?<\/p>\n Again: in a word, no. Because using those dates would omit a fair number of wartime participants who served in Southeast Asia (SEA) in support of US operations in Vietnam, or who served in two operations generally considered to be a part of the overall Vietnam Conflict in SEA. It also wouldn\u2019t include over 2 1\/2 years of formal US military involvement in Vietnam – or all US military personnel lost in Vietnam and memorialized at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, either.<\/p>\n First: while US involvement in Vietnam technically ended on 28 March 1973, some US forces remained in both Thailand and Cambodia supporting US efforts in Vietnam until 15 August 1973. Those troops were authorized the AFEM<\/i><\/a>, and legitimately supported the initial end of US involvement in Vietnam. However, those individuals are not<\/u> authorized to exchange that AFEM for the VCM. Using VSM eligibility dates omits their actions in support of Vietnam – which in turn means you’re not telling the complete story of the war.<\/p>\n Second: the evacuation of Phnom Penh (Operation Eagle Pull) and the Mayaguez Incident are generally considered to have been part of the larger Vietnam Conflict. However, while participants in those two operations are indeed authorized the AFEM, unlike participants in Operation Frequent Wind they cannot<\/u> exchange that AFEM for the VSM. And like postwar support efforts in Thailand and Cambodia from late March to mid-August 1973, both operations are outside the VSM eligibility period.<\/p>\n Further, certain US military casualties that occurred in Vietnam and elsewhere are memorialized on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial \u2013 but those individuals have never been authorized award of the VSM. As I noted in this previous article, the first two US military personnel killed in Vietnam whose names appear on The Wall predate eligibility for the AFEM for Vietnam \u2013 and thus are ineligible for award of the VSM via exchange. The same is true for those lost during the Mayaguez Incident. (No US lives were lost during Operation Eagle Pull in Cambodia.)<\/p>\n So, since VSM eligibility dates won\u2019t cut it \u2013 how about we just use date of first killed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and date of last killed? Wouldn\u2019t that do it?<\/p>\n Well, one could make that argument. But it turns out that even that scenario has issues. <\/p>\n For starters, US forces were extracted under fire from Koh Tang Island at the end of the Mayaguez Incident. The tactical situation was confused; due to that confused tactical situation three Marines inadvertently were not extracted<\/i><\/a> (the tactical situation also precluded recovery of the bodies of those believed to have been KIA). Those three Marines were later determined to have been captured alive; some time after being captured they were each executed by the Khmer Rouge. <\/p>\n Unfortunately, it appears that the precise date of their deaths may not be known with certainty (the last two appear to have been executed somewhere between 2 and 3 weeks after 15 May 1975; the first appears to have been executed fairly quickly after capture). Establishing the correct end date for this scenario is thus problematic.<\/p>\n Second, DoD today considers the start of formal US military involvement in Vietnam to be the establishment of the US Military Assistance Advisory Group – Vietnam (MAAG-V) on 1 November 1955. This preceeds the first acknowledged US military death in Vietnam that appears on the Wall by several months.<\/p>\n Third: as I\u2019ve discussed in this previous article<\/i><\/a>, actual US involvement in Vietnam long predates the first acknowledged Vietnam War military death in 1956. In fact, the first death of a US military member due to the action of Communist forces in Vietnam occurred in late September, 1945 – not long after the end of World War II. <\/p>\n Additional US lives were lost between then and that first acknowledged US military death of the Vietnam War in 1956. These were individuals supporting the French during their war in Indochina under CIA auspices (Civil Air Transport pilots and possibly some other individuals). Using first killed and last killed from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial omits these individuals from consideration. I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s really legitimate; they too died in SEA performing duties for the US government while supporting allied military forces engaged in conflict in Vietnam. YMMV.<\/p>\n Finally, during the latter part of World War II itself OSS troops gave support to Ho Chi Minh and his forces<\/i><\/a> (who were at the time allied with the US in opposing the Japanese). This includes, on at least one occasion, advising the Viet Minh on-site during combat operations against Japanese occupation forces. And as noted earlier, the first US soldier to die in Vietnam was OSS. He was killed by Viet Minh forces (possibly by accident due to being mistaken for a French soldier) during September, 1945. <\/p>\n All in all, defining both the beginning and end of the US \u201cVietnam War\u201d is not an easy task. US military involvement in Vietnam substantially predates DoD\u2019s \u201cofficial\u201d start date of 1 November 1955 \u2013 which in turn predates the earliest possible date at which someone could qualify retroactively for the VSM by over 2 1\/2 years. Plus, all of the \u201cofficial\u201d end dates (there seem to be several plausible candidates, ranging from as early as the 28 March 1973 date specified in the Paris Peace Accords to 7 May 1975) for the Vietnam War appear to omit the Mayaguez Incident.<\/p>\n In short: there doesn\u2019t seem to be one clear, logical, and accepted definition for the dates of the US \u201cVietnam War\u201d. The dates you choose rather seem to depend on what criteria you want to use.<\/p>\n II. Dates for the Vietnam Era<\/u><\/p>\n OK, so maybe the guy was talking about the “Vietnam Era?” Can we define the Vietnam Era any more cleanly? Unfortunately, the answer to that question also seems to be no. All of the easily-identifiable candidates for such a definition have issues.<\/p>\n One possibility would be to use the Vietnam National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) period<\/i><\/a>. Unfortunately, that has problems \u2013 it begins on 1 January 1961 and ends on 14 August 1974. It thus doesn\u2019t cover over 4 years of early \u201cofficial” US involvement in Vietnam (1 November 1955 to 31 Dec 1960). Since a number of US military personnel died in Vietnam during this period and have been included on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, obviously the dates defining a \u201cVietnam Era\u201d logically also should include that period. It also fails to include Operation Eagle Pull, Operation Frequent Wind, and the Mayaguez Incident \u2013 all of which are generally regarded as parts of the Vietnam War. So IMO this isn\u2019t exactly a good candidate.<\/p>\n A similar problem exists with using the Paris Peace Accord end date. While DoD officially has declared 1 November 1955 to be the beginning of \u201cofficial\u201d US military involvement in Vietnam (the date of the establishment of the Military Assistance Advisory Group \u2013 Vietnam), the Paris Peace Accords specify a date of 28 March 1973 as the end of US involvement. This obviously has issues, in that also omits Operation Eagle Pull, Operation Frequent Wind, and the Mayaguez Incident.<\/p>\n The CFR definition of the Vietnam Era (CFR 3.2f)<\/i><\/a> is IMO even worse. The CFR defines two different \u201cVietnam Eras\u201d \u2013 28 February 1961 through 7 May 1975 for those serving in Vietnam proper, and 5 August 1964 through 7 May 1975 for all others. Other than being unwieldly and confusing because it’s a dual definition, it too omits years of early official US military involvement in Vietnam – 5 1\/3 years in one case, and over 8 3\/4 years in the other. It also fails to include the Mayaguez Incident.<\/p>\n Similarly, the now defunct definition of the period of eligibility for Vietnam Era GI Bill Benefits<\/i><\/a> also appears unsatisfactory \u2013 but for the opposite reason. That definition required an individual to (1) serve on active duty during the period 1 February 1955 to 31 December 1976 (dates inclusive), and (2) serve not less than 180 days on active duty. This means that the VA definition of \u201cVietnam Era\u201d allowed someone to enter active military service more than a full year after the Mayaguez Incident<\/i> and still qualify as a \u201cVietnam Era\u201d veteran for Vietnam Era GI Bill Purposes. It also means a individual could end active duty military service more than 3 months before the establishment of MAAG-V (the formal beginning of US military involvement in Vietnam) and qualify. Yeah, that was indeed policy. Policy in this case was ludicrous. <\/p>\n Finally, all of the above definitions fail to account for US involvement in Vietnam during the latter part of World War II and during the French Indochina War. While US involvement in Vietnam during that period was low-key and often clandestine, it was NOT nonexistent.<\/p>\n Bottom line: defining the \u201cVietnam Era\u201d is no different than defining the dates for the \u201cVietnam War\u201d. All of the multiple “official” definitions have issues. Here again, the dates you use pretty much depend on what criteria you choose. <\/p>\n III. \u201cVietnam Times\u201d<\/u><\/p>\n So, what do we mean by \u201cVietnam Times\u201d? Hell, I dunno; you tell me. It seems like that kinda depends on however you want to define it \u2013 to include \u201cmake it up as you go\u201d. Any number of dates arguably can be used to define \u201cVietnam Times\u201d \u2013 beginning as early as the first US OSS troop deploying to Vietnam during World War II (early or mid-1945) and ending as late as the end of the VA\u2019s eligibility period for Vietnam Era GI Bill benefits (31 December 1976). Without further clarification, it\u2019s impossible to tell what someone means by that phrase.<\/p>\n But I will say this much: IMO, anyone using that expression is being needlessly and inexcusably imprecise. Whether they\u2019re doing so due to stupidity, accidentally, or with deliberate intent to deceive . . . I can’t say.<\/p>\n —–<\/p>\n Postscript<\/u>: as commenter PJS noted below, the Vietnam CIB Period (which I\u2019d forgotten about while writing the article) adds another plausible but nonsensical possible end-date candidate to the list for \u201cVietnam Times\u201d. The Army\u2019s Vietnam Conflict CIB Period begins on 2 March 1961 and ends on 31 March 1994<\/del> 10 March 1995<\/i><\/a> \u2013 or for a period of somewhat over 43<\/del> 44 years<\/u>. So if you really wanted to stretch it, one could claim \u201cVietnam Times\u201d started during the latter part of World War II \u2013 and ended over 3<\/del> 4 years after the last shot was fired during Desert Storm. (smile)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"