rcocean wrote:
And Sheehan was wrong.
Maybe. Maybe not. I haven't checked yet, his sources were pretty well indexed extensively at the end of the book. I'll look tonight.
Maybe because, Sheenan didn't know what he was talking about when he made a random comment about the Korean War
Or maybe that's just your personal speculation because you don't like what he is saying?
- in a book about Vietnam.
So why you keep quoting him is puzzling.
I actually haven't "quoted him", just recollected what I read a while back. It seems as though you've never actually read it? Sheehan probably spends about half the book on Vietnam, no more than two-thirds. The rest was a biography of Vann - a complex individual filled with duality. There is also much in the book about the social strata of the South during the Great Depression, WWII, and quite a bit regarding Vann's seemingly stellar pre-Vietnam career, which he derailed with his obsessive womanizing. I also took a lot of what Sheehan said to be an opinion he devolved from years of interacting with military officers and government personnel over decades.