Other accounts in the West Point letters capture equally well the ferocity of combat on the cutting edge, as experienced by the junior officers. One lieutenant described his first firefight: ‘The VC opened up with rockets, mortars, and automatic weapons fire. In the next four hours I was to witness a total of eleven APCs [armored personnel carriers] completely destroyed, two 155mm howitzers damaged, and a portion of the perimeter overrun. For some small reason the VC were not able to completely overrun the FSB. During this battle, some 1,400 rounds of artillery, numerous helicopter gunships, and two airstrikes were called for in support. A person did not have a chance to think for himself, everything he did was a natural reaction. There were many heros [sic], and well there should be. If every person in that FSB had not given his utmost, very few, if any personnel would be alive today.’

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in Vietnam Magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

Not every letter dealt with combat, but even those that described the more mundane tasks of war reflected the pride and professionalism of the young leaders. One engineer officer wrote of working on a construction project: ‘ You cannot imagine the pride I took in this project…my one regret is that we rotated out of the DMZ before the finishing touches could be complete.’ Another lieutenant remembered, ‘While working on Bridge 19-16, myself and my platoon really got to know what it was like to have a goal and to be interested in your work.’ Not every experience described by graduates in the bush was positive. One new arrival in Vietnam confessed: ‘Being an adviser, especially to the ARVN elite, can best be described as frustrating. Most of the field grade officers have been fighting this war for 15 years or more and feel they do not need advice. Be this as it may, they definitely make mistakes. And yet, as an adviser, I have no direct control over their actions.’

While officers often found problems to complain about, many closed their letters with sentiments similar to those expressed by Captain Peter Bentson, a 1963 graduate of West Point. Before being wounded in the closing weeks of the aftermath of the 1968 Tet Offensive, Bentson wrote: ‘The pride of serving your country, the satisfaction of knowing you are doing your share in defending democracy, and the recognition of the people who work for you all add to make the military service a truly rewarding and challenging profession. I only wish I could tell each cadet how differently I view the Army since I have served in Vietnam, as compared to how I viewed the service while I was a cadet.’

Peter Bentson returned to Vietnam for a second tour, and was killed in action on July 9, 1972. Bentson’s sentiments were not unique. To many, the education of war gave the academy’s motto, ‘Duty, Honor, Country,’ a meaning that could never be found in a classroom.

Later in the conflict, however, the tone of the letters began to change. In 1971 an officer wrote: ‘I am very disturbed by the state of discipline in U.S. troops, even though they do a grand job when bound together by a common threat, the enemy. However, I worry about what will happen when the enemy is not visible or is absent, as in training areas in the U.S. or Europe. I don’t think the present state of discipline will hold up.’

That disturbing commentary signaled the nadir of the U.S. Army. The unpopularity of the war, plummeting morale, the drawdown of the force, aging equipment, disillusioned officers and the decline of the noncommissioned officer corps were taking their toll on the institution.

Together, the West Point letters offer a remarkable story. They do not fully describe the experience of the war, nor would it be reasonable to expect that they could. As historian Jeffrey Clarke wrote: ‘Throughout the conflict, different levels of enemy activity necessitated different responses from region to region and even province to province. It is almost impossible to generalize on the nature of the war based on personal experiences.’ Nevertheless, this collection of correspondence does suggest a common theme that cannot be ignored. The junior officers who penned the West Point letters were made of the same stuff as the lieutenants and captains who fought at Cantigny, Mortain, Buna and Inchon. For many, their first tour in Vietnam was indeed an adventure, albeit a demanding, trying and, on occasion, terrifying experience. But they were without question dedicated and serious professionals. The Adventure Board was a small but appropriate legacy of their service.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to