I'm reading The People's History of The Vietnam War (2003) and it says that America never apologised for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, because, 'to do so would be to admit what had been done in the war' (p.231). The book says that to admit what had happened would expose them to numerous consequences: such as compensation for the victims of Dioxin (both in Vietnam and America); and that they would have to admit guilt for the attrocities they were trying to pin on veterans (through media coverage of false stories about public disgust for veterans, especially those who opposed the war). And that they did this so that in the future they could still gain public support for future wars that required ground-troops: 'now that most people knew the war was a mistake and wrong, the blame was being dumped on the GIs' (p. 229).
In essence, to admit to such a heinous act as mass-poisoning, whether intentional or not, would be to admit that the command structure supported brutality, wanted a lot of kills, and that the macabre actions of some soldiers (ear-trophies, mass-killings of innocents,...etc.) was the direct result of the orders of their superiors and not some entrenched desire of the individual soldier to kill for gratification.
So, my questions are: did America ever apologise for Agent Orange since this book was published? I know it is helping in a cleanup, but did it ever actually say 'sorry'? Is it justifiable to link this refusal to apologise (up until publication) with shifting the blame of war-crimes onto the GIs? And, is public opinion still against the GIs as 'baby-killers', or do people accept that the government was to blame for the Vietnam war?
I'd also love to hear people's opinions on this book in general, and how accurate it is in all areas.
Sorry for the amount of text and thank you in advance for all those who respond. If anything is unclear about what I've written, please let me know :)
I can't be sure. Yes, I believe the Americans did feel sorry for the use of Agent Orange but in the 1960s during the Vietnam War, they were waging war against the enemy and were fighting the enemy where there was no clear distinguishment between enemy combatants and non-combatant civilians. Every bush or tree made a good hiding place by communist insurgents for a high casualty ambush among the American troops. The Americans thought it would be easier if they simply defoliate the trees and bushes in order to deny the enemy cover. Unfortunately, they did not known that Agent Orange contained deadly effects to humans that we see later on after the Vietnam War ended.
A little known fact that the British were actually the first to employ herbicides and defoliants (similar to Agent Orange) during the Malayan Emergency for the exact same reason the Americans in Vietnam did: To deny the insurgents to use bushes and trees as perfect positions to ambush their enemies. The Americans used the British example as a precedent for its use against communist insurgents in Vietnam.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk told President JFK that:
The use of defoliant does not violate any rule of international law concerning the conduct of chemical warfare and is an accepted tactic of war. Precedent has been established by the British during the emergency in Malaya in their use of aircraft for destroying crops by chemical spraying.
So basically, based on the British use in Malaya, the Americans thought that they should use defoliants to Vietnam in order to deprive the insurgents as they thought it would be effective. In the 1950s and early 1960s, Agent Orange was not considered to be poisonous to humans as it only applied to plants and crops. Agent Orange was not considered a chemical weapon because a weapon is meant to inflict physical and mental damage to man-made structures and humans and Agent Orange did not qualify under that definition.
As for compensation, that's a pretty tough. Sure, the Americans in Vietnam did use Agent Orange in a callous way but it wasn't like they wanted to poison human beings. They did not support poisoning humans because by doing so, people could easily argue that Agent Orange could be considered a chemical weapon (but not in practical terms). The 1949 Geneva Conventions stated that:
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of [grave breaches of these Conventions].
Unfortunately, none of the 1949 Geneva Conventions actually covered the use of herbicides and defoliants in warfare. The only analogy people apply to Agent Orange was the 1925 Geneva Protocol but that only covered chemical and biological weapons, not herbicides and defoliants. So there was no international law that forbade the use of herbicides and defoliants in warfare during the Malayan Emergency and during the Vietnam War. That's why Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange were denied to receive compensation by U.S. courts on the basis that there was no international law at the time. If we don't have a law that prohibited the killing of parachuting enemy pilots, then the states cannot be held liable for damages committed by its combatants against these specific type of persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
As for the GIs being blamed for the Vietnam War, most of the Americans blamed their own government, not the soldiers. Don't blame the messenger, blame the manager that sent them in the first place. Don't blame the soldiers, blame the politicians that sent them in a war faraway from their homeland. In the 1960s, the people at the time were strongly anti-war and not only blamed the politicians but also blame the troops. They felt the troops were just as much responsible for damage as their own politicians so they chose to blame them both which is totally misguided and stupid. Soldiers don't make the rules, politicians do, period. We should be glad they fought and died in effort to preserve world peace then come back and was spat upon by the very same people they were sworn to defend. The late 1960s and the 1970s was a bad time for everyone, the military was mostly affected. In the 1980s, that was gone and there was strong support for the military again.
What happened to the people who were exposed to Agent Orange was horrible but to use it to make up lies as propaganda against another country is stupid and revisionism because it sets a precedent that it's ok to lie about the facts to make the other side bad. But if you or someone willy-nilly lies about a lot of things, then yes it is bad. If a person lies to protect their own bad character. Such as: "No I wasn't out clubbing and drinking last night." when a person actually was and they have a worried parent or relationship partner. That's why we have facts for a reason.