RE-FIGHTING VIETNAM

When John Kerry presented himself as a decorated war hero based on his service in the Vietnam War, it probably became inevitable that 30-year-old conflict would emerge as an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Read the statements by the swarm of veterans speaking out either for or against Mr. Kerry and his stint as a Swift boat skipper dodging Viet Cong fire in the canals of the Mekong delta, and you’ll find diametrically opposite views of the young Navy lieutenant’s behavior in the stress of battle. Some, as presented at the Democratic National Convention, tell of his courage and decisiveness and compassion under fire. Others call him cowardly, erratic, lying and self-centered as (they claim) he manufactured a record that would support his political ambitions.

But underlying their comments on the specifics of his combat behavior is a resurgence of the old national debate over whether the U.S. intervention in a remote civil war was justified or a terrible mistake. The renewed debate also questions whether the American forced withdrawal – with soldiers and diplomats escaping from a rooftop by helicopter as Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops closed in on Saigon – was truly an American defeat or a military victory that went sour because of anti-war critics like Mr. Kerry had become.

Actually, the U.S. intervention in Vietnam grew out of two misconceptions. The other side was seen as agents of a Sino-Soviet communist bloc bent on world domination, while it really was an anti-colonialist nationalistic movement. And a succession of U.S. presidents warned that an American withdrawal would lead to the fall of other governments in the region in a “domino effect” that never happened.

The dispute over Mr. Kerry’s wartime conduct, like the dispute over President Bush’s record as a member of the Air National Guard, bears on the question of which man would make the better commander in chief in a time of unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continuing threats of further terrorist attacks against the United States. The Kerry dispute is getting fresh impetus from publication of a book titled “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.” It has jumped to No. 1 on the Amazon list.

Efforts to discredit Mr. Kerry hit a snag when The Boston Globe quoted Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott, retired, as recanting a recent sworn statement saying he did not believe that Mr. Kerry deserved the Silver Star. Mr. Elliott later said The Globe had misquoted him and an anti-Kerry group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released another affidavit from him repeating his initial accusation.

In the wartime incident, Lt. Kerry spotted an enemy soldier armed with a rocket launcher, jumped off his boat, chased the man down and shot him. Cmdr. Elliott, who was Lt. Kerry’s commander and recommended him for the Silver Star, told reporters at the time, “The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage.” His later affidavit said Lt. Kerry had shot the man in the back and did not deserve the decoration. The Globe stands by its story quoting Cmdr. Elliott as saying, “I still don’t think he shot the guy in the back. It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words.”

And so it goes. Arguments about Mr. Kerry’s war record and Mr. Bush’s alleged AWOL episode in the Air National Guard can be expected to go on until Nov. 2.