So, what point are you trying to make.
Do you think this article vaguely important or interesting.
Vietnam was a screw up. Generally speaking the soldier's morale was low, their training poor, and our top leadership was clueless.
This doesn't mean there weren't some outstanding soldiers and that
some of the leadership had some clue of they were doing.
And even if our soldiers had low morale and some did questionable
or wrong things. They still were OUR soldiers and we were the ones who sent to do a hard task by the president (s) [who was duly elected by the American public]. So the true responsiblity rests on the shoulders of the American public. The lesson to be learned is not to run away from wars- that's basically got us into the mess. Some of the lessons were, have well trained soldiers, have good miltary leadership, don't have politicans running the war- let the miltary leadership make miltary decisions, have the politicans make the political choices. And politicans shouldn't get our miltary into a situation, then abandon them, because the politicans decided they can't stand the political heat.
The other lesson learnt, was that the anti-war movement was generally a bad thing- it damaged soldier morale and aided the enemy- and very probably prolonged the war, and evenually played a role in losing the war.
Doesn't mean there wasn't good things in regard to anti-war movement.
But you can't say our miltary was wrong and anti-war movement was right. But, that is a no brainer. Most of anti-war was composed to the useful idiots, led by the clueless with most of them all on drugs and majority under 30 years old (of course, I'm being redundant: clueless & under 30 are about the same thing:).