members never made it back for interviews.nSixty-five others were found bynNewsweek or contacted the magazinenthemselves after an article on their fellownsoldiers had appeared. These men talkednat considerable length, largely becausenin the decade between their return andnxhe Newsweek reporters’ arrival, no onenelse seemed interested in listening.nAs if in a state of national amnesia,nAjnerican citizens and leaders have preferrednto ignore Vietnam rather than tonconsider the subtitle of this volume:nWhat Vietnam Did to Us Both thosenwho supported and those who opposednthe war appear to prefer national silencento a frank discussion of the consequencesnof their actions. Although this book is antragic reminder of the self-imposed limitationsnof any society that would extendnhedonistic individualism to the pointnthat it becomes the dominant thrust ofneven our most vital public endeavors, it,ntoo, sustains that silence on the keynquestions. Neither the reporters nor thenformer soldiers appear to have any unifiednanswer to those questions. The booknprovides 65 different opinions, all fromnthe ground level. No one perspectivenguides the reportage, and, serving thencanons of journalistic objectivity, the reportersnmake no effort to weed out thenfatuous and the frivolous observationsnfrom the more sober reflections. Smallnwonder that the resulting stew of opinionsnis indigestible, lacking a commonnflavor despite the mixture of ingredients.nVietnam was an unnerving war bothnfor those who fought it and for those ofnus who lived through the domestic skirmishes.nThe nation slid into the exercise,nwith no clarion call to batde. PresidentnJohnson first offered “guns and butter,”nas if this war would pose no real strainnon a people as great as Americans. Thennhe abruptly attempted to remove thenwar from political discussion as he recantednhis candidacy for reelection. Thenwar had been his decision, and one asnimperious as this President would notndeign to answer to the electorate for hisnactions. Johnson’s abdication presentednthe American people with an electoraln3()lnChronicles of Culturenimpasse. No candidate would publiclyndeny that the war was worth the valiantnefforts our troops demonstrated (thatnrejection came later), but that tacitnassumption was apparent when officialsnregularly affirmed that the primary tasknof the soldiers in Vietoam was to getnhome as quickly as possible. The Americannpsyche rebelled at the notion thatnthe primary purpose of hostilities is theirncessation. From all indications in theseninterviews, it is still in rebellion.nMost of those who served have nonidea why their country asked this servicenof them. None interviewed believed thatnthe war was to prevent the spread of andreadfiil form of government, despitenthe evidence that legitimates that viewnsince the fall of Saigon in April 1975. Notnone of them mentions the notion ofnhuman freedom. Some confront thenpossibility that we fought for rice plantsnand rubber trees, but the price was toongreat to make such trivial stakes a crediblenrationale. One is tempted to hopenthat this inability to develop an explana­nWe Told You SonITie flotsam of the 196()’s are litteringnthe shores of oiir everydayness in the formnof fetid refiise. Here Ls some news aboutnone of the most repellent “heroes” of thatntime, one David Crosby of the Crosby,nStiUs, Nash & Young rock group. Mr.nCrosby was convicted in a Texas court ofnpossession of cocaine, as was recenfly reportednby a provincial daily:nTlie pudgy singer wore dirty tennis shoes,nbaggy corduroy pants, a work sliirt and anblaclt-aiid-wliitc plaid jacket to Friday’snnon-jury trial. His graying, tangled hairnwas pulled back in a ponytail. Crosbynspent most of his day in court trying tonstay awake. But several times he fellnasleep and snored loudly, his head tiltednback and his mouth open. When the snor-nLiBERAL CULTUREnnntion is a quirk of the company selectednfor these interviews. This concept isndashed by survey evidence indicatingnthat 70 percent of the generals who lednthese troops into batde have no betternunderstanding of the reasons for the warnthan the men they commanded.nIn the absence of any common purpose,neach soldier adopted an immediatenand pressing personal purpose: the questnfor survival. In cases where the soldiernknew that his term of service would benone year—^unless involuntarily terminatednahead of schedule—^the primarynincentives were to avoid danger with increasingnintensity as the anniversary ofnarrival approached. Understandably, mennplaced into combat yet given no largernreason to fight fought no better than wasnnecessary to ensure thefr return home.nAt times, even that required heroic action,nbut such heroic accounts comprise anminuscule portion of the text. Mostly,nthese are tales of dangers evaded, eithernby avoiding contact with the enemynwhile in the field or by indulgence inndrugs and alcohol in the barracks. Be-nii^ became too loud, one of his attorneysnleaned over and shook him awake.nOne of tile ieMiiiialeil by the American fascistcoqionnensystem of riivession. But apparentlynit Isn’t so, and now we have amongnus the nioM di-spic:ihlf and repugnant ofncreatures: the senesei-iit adolescent Dn