A Monument to Pain

VIETNAM VETERANS never captured the hearts or minds of the American people, but earlier this month they demonstrated both their pride and hurt in an attempt at emotional revisionism through architecture The Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, dedicated last week, tries to accomplish what few in the United States were and are willing to do--honor Vietnam veterans for fighting a national war without adding the ever-present, damning asterisk that the U S neither wanted nor won that conflict.

The dedication of the monument conveys two messages. The first is something those of us who were not there cannot come close to understanding an indication that Vietnam vets can face up to and even take pride in what happened to them The second message is more simple it is time--albeit very late--that the nation, too, treat the Vietnam vet as a winner who deserves as much compassion and honor as veterans of more popular wars Ideally, then, the monument's unveiling can serve as the turning point in how Americans look at the Vietnam War and its survivors.

The war, however horrific, produced very changed men and women who served out of dedication to protecting the same American rights and values that others used to condemn the fighting. There are important initiatives that the government must continue in order to address the economic, social, and physical suffering the vets have encountered as a result of their service, but just as important is that the veterans and their families be able to come out of the closet and claim the pride they deserve for their efforts and the efforts of their 57,939 colleagues who never returned

It was to be expected that organizing anything to do with the Vietnam War would draw fractious sniping After debates in Congress finally ended last year in permission to build the monument, the proposed design came under fire. When the structure envisioned by first-year Graduate School of Design student Maya Y. Lin was finally completed, some argued that the understand black marble was not "heroic" enough and perpetuated the post-war shame of the veterans, so designers agreed to add the traditional large bronze figure of three soldiers and a flag. Then another group raised objections to the victory-V shape of the monument, which to some underlined the ambiguity of the war

However, those petty grievances were put aside when the critics realized that a display of Vietnam War pride was an achievement not to be obscured by intramural squabbling. Rather, it should be a signal to Americans--both friends and foes of the war--to put aside intellectual battles of more than a decade ago and begin to realize that the war left real people who would like some real support.

THOUGH ACCEPTANCE by their fellow citizens has to be the vets' first goal, help from the government must follow. It was a nice gesture to have Caspar W. Weinberger '38 at the dedication ceremonies, questioning the intensity of the U.S commitment to win the Vietnam War, but actively helping those veterans who suffered from that half-speed effort is another matter. President Reagan in the ceremony praised Vietnam veterans for fighting in "a just cause," but he and his administration have showed little willingness to investigate the possible health hazards to veterans.

On a more concrete level, the Federal government must begin authoritative testing of Agent Orange, a lethal defoliant which was aerially sprayed on the Vietnamese jungle during the war. The deadly toxin dioxin, the active ingredient of Agent Orange, has been linked to cancer in Vietnam vets and birth defects among their children. In addition, some have argued that Agent Orange has been responsible for Delayed Stress Syndrome, a mental disturbance many vets have faced since the war. Efforts must be made along federal and state level's to see whether Agent Orange is indeed as dangerous as feared. If so, the government must take responsibility to help remedy the effect of its past negligence. Dr. Matthew M. Meselson, Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences and one of those send to Vietnam to monitor the defoliant in 1970, testified this month in front of a Massachusetts State panel that the federal government should begin widespread medical testing of those vets exposed to Agent Orange to define the problem and work towards the cure.

Another constructive show of support for Vietnam veterans would be to take a fresh look at the Veterans Administration (VA) and the responsiveness of the government to Vietnam veterans in general Robert V. Nimmo, who just resigned as director of the VA, had been widely considered a disaster, but Vietnam veterans' groups have also complained that VA job training and rehabilitation funds have been underreported and misdirected by the VA's overburdened bureaucracy. Since Vietnam vets as a group have little pull as a constituency, politicians who are vets themselves--such as Sen. Larry Pressler (R.S.D.) and State Representative Thomas Vallely (D-Boston)--have necessarily taken the initiative in proposing and forming committees to look into such problem. Vallely, for example, sparked a Massachusetts panel on veteran concerns.

The building of the monument, though a step forward, demonstrates the same problem. Vietnam vets made the plans, raised the money, organized the parade, and eventually oversaw the dedication themselves. No one else would do it for them. It is time, however, for someone else--namely the U.S. public and government--to do a little for Vietnam veterans.