I'm like you BD, I wasn't there but am of the age that a lot of my generation was. I remember one conversation I had with a friend who was drafted in 1970 and spent a tour in the Ashaw Valley. His personal view of the time he finally got mad enough to kill someone he didn't even know came one rainy day when the LZs were all too hot for helicopters to land and take people out or bring in replacements. A supply plane came over and dropped dry clothes and supplies. He hadn't eaten a good meal or had clean clothes for over two months. He said the pure filth that he had to live in succeeded in bringing out the willingness to kill without compunction. I remember thinking that he had reached the edge that is different for everyone, it just took him a little longer than most of the others. I don't think the war had a lasting effect on him, I live a few blocks from him and we have been friends since 1966 or 67. He hasn't worn a ragged field jacket with medals on it and grew a scraggly beard or even said a lot about about the right or wrong of what he had to do. He came home in 1972 and after about a year, he was the same kid he was when he left.

I have another friend in Tyler, tx who joined in `68 and was terribly wounded and was in a hospital in Japan for six months befor he could be sent home. Same story except he was ready to fight the day he was in Vietnam. I remember about a year after he was back, he was putting makeup on the scarring on his face and joking with me about getting his face on straight. He still can't walk without a limp.

I am not all that knowing on the theoretical content and I might even be somewhat biased, I had a peek at the construction.
First, can't she say".....this isolation....machines" but state that that is her opinion. If stated properly, what's wrong with your view on the topic.
Second, we were taught that referring to written material is done with just (name author, year of publishing the book) in the bibliography you state name, year, title, who published it. Again this is how we are taught overhere!
Internet or magazines are mentioned differently, but I'll spare you that. (Unless is might come in handy)

Thank you both for your help, Missileer and Ted.

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

Thank you both for your help, Missileer and Ted.

No sweat IG. Be sure and mention to her about the GIs who refused orders to kill innocents and actually put their lives on the line and saved some villagers of My Lai. Those stories don't get much press.

Hi, IG. I'm also a teacher, and I also have to take exception to the tone of the paper. Even if the Prof were to read the assignemnt without actually checking the sources, the tone that she uses is biased enough that if the Prof does not believe the same things she does, he or she is more likey to dig deeper.
As others said, the claim that isolation alone caused desertions and insanity must be avoided. I could easily claim that it was a sense of cameraderie that kept the vast majority of the US forces together and fighting. I would not be wrong. But my claim, like hers, is impossible to confirm, so it must be edited.
"As the darkening cloud of war engulfed America in 1965, the widespread, national solidarity towards the U.S. Cold War foreign policy was shattered"
I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of Americans were so against the war that their belief in their own foreign policy was shattered, particularly in 1965. It never happened. Unfortunately, this statement sets the tone for the rest of the assignment, and as it is unsubstantiated, it sets the wrong tone. Although it is far more boring, it is far better to use more middle of the road language to argue a point. It appears more believable, even if it is not true.
"The economic cost of the war in Vietnam was too great a drain on the economy to fund both Johnson’s domestic ambition and the war. To kill one Viet Cong in 1967 the government spent $300,000 and it spent $50 to help one American out of poverty." This is a great point. Make sure the source is cited as right now, it looks more like heresay.
Last point: I have read both her's and Bulldog's versions, and I am still not sure if she is writing about the failure of US foreign policy or the continuing fallout of the Vietnam conflict. A concise thesis statement would be very helpful.

My 0.0002 cents...
Dean.

Excellent points Dean and they echo my conversation with IG yesterday evening.

Wow, that's really um, thick with bias.

From this isolation soldiers supposedly went AWOL and became blood-thirsty killing machines.

I agree with Bulldogg, this comment is really over the top. Her comments on this are easy enough to disprove as well. The majority of Veitnam veterans were not "blood-thirsty killing machines."

My Dad came home with the same cheerful attitude towards life and people. He wasn't blood thirsty when he left, while he was completing his tours (yes, he had multiple), or when he returned.

Missileer, yes, I will tell her about those stories. My impression is she read extremely biased books (though she's actually a Republican she lives in San Francisco so it wouldn't surprise me if teachers there were as biased as the essay is, and recommended books of the same tenure).
Dean, very nice of you to throw your 2 cent in. You and Bulldog being teacher is of great help here.
PJ, thank you for your contribute from personal experience, much appreciated.
Thank you all for taking some time to read this and give your opinions.

Her perspective on the socio-political climate of the times, and the war itself are certainly different from mine in many ways. I will have to read what she's written again before I decide to comment on specifics. I won't dissect the structure or correct the spelling as that it not my forte. I also don't wish to become embroiled in a debate about the merits of those long ago decisions. I will say this much though, at the time I listened to so many of my fellow students rail against the establishment on whatever the subject du jour happened to be. They pontificated upon such subjects as the logic and desires of the Vietnamese people and the evils of the military-industrial complex. They displayed their displeasure against their peers who decided to support their government's efforts in self-imposed and self-inflated airs of righteous indignation.
At the same time, I was receiving letters from a few close friends who had been drafted into the military and were actually serving on the ground in Vietnam. The difference between those who were there and those who were simply told about what was going on there was, to say the least, striking.
Anyway, I will read the posts again and try to post something more informative than this if I can.

Absolutely, DTop. It is not my intention and it will not happen that this thread becomes a thread on the Viet Nam war itself. We already have one.
You can weigh in with some opinions of yours about the essay and you won't be trapped into some "right or wrong" discussion.
Thank you man.