In his article describing the status of the US Army near the end of the Vietnam War, Robert Heinl highlighted issues concerned with escalating incidents of sedition, the increasingly strained relationship between Soldiers and organizational leaders, and an overall climate that seemed to foster criminal activity. His critique painfully painted a picture of the US Army as it reached a deplorable state of discipline and readiness. The question then begs, what were the proximate causes that enabled this downward spiral? After further analysis, it appears the majority of these problems can be contributed to three proximate causes: the promotion of sedition through external groups and actors, the failure to address internal dissention throughout
…show more content…
Organizations receiving outside assistance and endorsement became emboldened to promote dissention throughout the ranks. Heinl provides examples of GI dissent organizations and underground newspapers working to undermine leadership throughout installations and overseas in Vietnam . He also notes these activities were not only embraced by the lower enlisted, but by members of the officer corps as well. The Concerned Officers Movement went so far as to file a lawsuit against the Defense Secretary in an attempt to support their “right” to oppose the war . Again, military leadership appeared powerless to stop these efforts due in part to legal constraints. Possibly, the most damaging internal factor damaging the army was the parallel command structure that existed in some organizations. Heinl focused on the 4th Mechanized Division’s Enlisted Men’s Councils to highlight this fact. Here, a SPC4 with direct connection to the division commander enjoyed an ability to voice the concerns of the enlisted soldiers throughout the formation . This “union-like” organization effectively undermined the traditional chain of command as commissioned and non-commissioned officers had essentially lost their voice, and therefore control . Now, how could an Army, suffering from these significant …show more content…
In retrospect, given the Vietnam War’s unpopular status among the American people, combined with multiple ongoing social upheavals within the country, we should not too surprised at a poor outcome when a population drafted out of this society collided with Army values. Surely, throughout history, the armed services ebbs and flows in terms of readiness and discipline. But, what contributed to the disgraceful incidents transpiring near the end of the Vietnams War must have been a combination of a whole host of factors. And, throughout his article, Heinl characterized these factors to be outside interference with the services, internal strife; both of which were magnified through the social tidal waves pouring over the
Organizations receiving outside assistance and endorsement became emboldened to promote dissention throughout the ranks. Heinl provides examples of GI dissent organizations and underground newspapers working to undermine leadership throughout installations and overseas in Vietnam . He also notes these activities were not only embraced by the lower enlisted, but by members of the officer corps as well. The Concerned Officers Movement went so far as to file a lawsuit against the Defense Secretary in an attempt to support their “right” to oppose the war . Again, military leadership appeared powerless to stop these efforts due in part to legal constraints. Possibly, the most damaging internal factor damaging the army was the parallel command structure that existed in some organizations. Heinl focused on the 4th Mechanized Division’s Enlisted Men’s Councils to highlight this fact. Here, a SPC4 with direct connection to the division commander enjoyed an ability to voice the concerns of the enlisted soldiers throughout the formation . This “union-like” organization effectively undermined the traditional chain of command as commissioned and non-commissioned officers had essentially lost their voice, and therefore control . Now, how could an Army, suffering from these significant …show more content…
In retrospect, given the Vietnam War’s unpopular status among the American people, combined with multiple ongoing social upheavals within the country, we should not too surprised at a poor outcome when a population drafted out of this society collided with Army values. Surely, throughout history, the armed services ebbs and flows in terms of readiness and discipline. But, what contributed to the disgraceful incidents transpiring near the end of the Vietnams War must have been a combination of a whole host of factors. And, throughout his article, Heinl characterized these factors to be outside interference with the services, internal strife; both of which were magnified through the social tidal waves pouring over the