TESTIMONY OF
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JAMES
G. ZUMWALT II, USMCR (RET)
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
NATIONAL PARKS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND
RECREATION
CONCERNING S. 1921
Washington, D.C.
April 27, 2000
I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to present
testimony regarding S. 1921, seeking to authorize placement,
within the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, of a plaque
to honor Vietnam veterans who died after their service in the
Vietnam war but as a direct result of such service.
Let me acknowledge at the outset I have a personal interest in
the outcome of this legislation for two reasons. First, in 1988
I lost a brother, LTJG Elmo R. Zumwalt III, who served during
the war as a Swift Boat commander, to cancers linked to his exposure
to Agent Orange in Vietnam. Second, this past January I lost
my father, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., to cancer linked to his
exposure to asbestos. One of the last projects he had undertaken
prior to his death was to press for recognition for all those
veterans who died from post-Vietnam service war-related causes.
When he took ill and was unable to continue the effort, I was
asked to join the Advisory Board of the Vietnam War In Memory
Memorial Inc. in his place. I appear here today in that capacity.
There appear to be two main objections to S. 1921.
The first is: The veterans to be honored by the proposed plaque
did not actually die in combat against the enemy which, it is
suggested, was the primary focus of the original legislation
authorizing the Memorial, and therefore they are not rightfully
entitled to such recognition. Such reasoning fails as one examines
the wide range of causes of death represented by the names on
the Wall--causes which include traffic accidents, drowning and
other non-combat-related deaths. Still, and rightly so, the names
of these casualties were placed on the Wall because death occurred
in Vietnam while contributing to the war effort.
This objection also fails to consider the impact of technological
advancements of 20th century warfare. Line of sight observation
of the enemy no longer was necessary to effectively employ weaponry.
Thus, area kill weapons were used against an unseen enemy many
miles away. An unfortunate consequence of this was sometimes
casualties were inflicted upon friendly forces as well. It is
now known that Agent Orange, intended to protect troops, inadvertently
functioned in the long term as just such an area kill weapon,
claiming both friendly and enemy casualties. The fact such wounds
suffered by friendly casualties during the war were bloodless
in nature should not disqualify victims from recognition at the
Wall simply because death came at home. A veteran felled in Vietnam
by a bullet, even a silent one like Agent Orange, deserves recognition
at the Wall for his or her sacrifice, regardless of whether death
ultimately occurred during or after one's service there.
The second objection to S. 1921 is: Placement of a plaque--consuming
two square yards and set at ground level--somehow will impact
on the aesthetics of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Personally,
I fail to see the merit of such an argument. With the abundance
of space surrounding the Memorial, the plaque can be placed in
such a manner so as not to impinge in any way upon the Memorial's
aesthetics. For those who disagree, the question must be asked:
Even if some diminution in aesthetics resulted, is that justification
for denying recognition at the Wall to those who made the ultimate
sacrifice? It is estimated the number of veterans who served
in Vietnam and returned home to die from these bloodless wounds--the
"hidden" casualties of the war--far exceeds the number
of names on the Wall. Try telling the families of these unsung
heroes they are not deserving of such recognition.
Artist Lee Teter did a very moving rendition of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial. His print, entitled "Reflections," depicts
a man alone at the Memorial. He stands with his left hand is
in his pocket, leaning with his right hand above his head against
the Wall. The touch of gray in the man's neatly trimmed beard
suggests he is in his 50s. His head is bowed, his eyes tightly
shut as he is immersed in deep reflection--perhaps about a fallen
comrade, brother or father. At the point where the man's outstretched
right hand comes into contact with the Wall, one can see an outstretched
arm-extending from within the black granite of the Memorial--its
hand pressed firmly against the grieving man's hand as if the
two were only separated by a pane of glass. The arm leads to
the apparition of a young helmeted soldier, still in battle uniform,
peering out at the bereaved visitor, who remains oblivious to
the apparition's presence. Other, similar apparitions peer out
at the visitor as well. Unable to console him--their voices silenced
forever--they convey in their faces the message in their hearts:
"Do not grieve for us, dear friend, for we are finally at
peace."
The print moved my father to write of his own reflections about
a son lost to that war as he visited the Wall. In 1993 Dad wrote:
"Perhaps it is just an old man's folly, but now when I visit
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, I pause to press my hand against
the black granite wall. I then envision Elmo's hand, reaching
out to touch mine. And in a plea that will forever remain silent
in this world, I see in his eyes the message he is trying to
convey from his heart: "Do not grieve for me, Dad, for I
am finally at peace."
On Veteran's Day, whenever possible, Dad visited
the Memorial, stopping to place his hand upon it, pausing to
pray silently for my brother and all the other veterans who gave
their lives to that war. Such visits left him with mixed emotions--for
while they were healing, they also gave rise to a sense of emptiness.
For him, for me, for family members of other veterans who died
of war-related causes after their service in Vietnam, there is
no representative name on the Wall; there is no sense of closure
that the Wall was representative of our lost loved one as well.
Like the apparitions in the Teter print, Dad now is at peace.
His battle on behalf of these deserving veterans is over--a battle
he fought because, politics aside, he knew it was the right thing
to do.
S. 1921 seeks to recognize men and women who upheld, to the very
end, the concepts of duty, honor and country. If the true measure
of the soul of a nation is its heroes, failure to pass S. 1921
shortens our measuring stick by not recognizing all the heroes
of the Vietnam conflict.
Four Medal
of Honor recipients support In Memory plaque (Click)