Hue 1968 by Bowden left me cold; I wasn't happy with the book. As it is, he treats the battle in Hue in isolation and makes some serious errors of omission as a result. I understand that authors must pick and choose what they discuss, but he seems to miss a lot of context here.
He doesn't mention the A Shau Valley. This isn't a point of trivia – the NVA would not been able to infiltrate Hue as much as they did, or move troops to Hue in large units if it wasn't for the fact that they held this area after 1966. The 1966 fights in A Shau completely dictated how Hue went two years later. If the US had held A Shau – a real possibility – Hue would have gone differently.
He misreads the importance of the siege of Khe Sanh. Yes, I realize that this is a VERY controversial subject even today, but he strongly pushes the view that it was "irrelevant" without mentioning the fact that it involved four NVA Divisions, a vastly larger number of NVA soldiers than were in the battle of Hue. Had either the NVA troops or the Marines from Khe Sanh been in Hue during Tet – again, things could have been very different.
He also portrays Hue as a decisive battle – on the cover it is called "A Turning Point." I think you could describe the attack on the US Embassy in Saigon as such, due to the political ramifications, but Hue? To put it in perspective, 16,592 US troops died in Vietnam in 1968. 216 died in Hue. I'm not trying to minimize Hue, but – well, it wasn't a turning point from a military or a political perspective.
He really doesn't cover the ARVN participation in the battle, even though more ARVN were involved – and died – than US Marines. He doesn't interview any ARVN soldiers or give their perspective, but spends a lot of time describing how they were "puppet soldiers" ("Nguy") instead.
This skews things. In fact, he seems to cleave to a narrative throughout the book – US Marines inadvertently kill civilians, NVA are brave patriots, civilians get caught in the middle and die, the journalists are the real heroes – and the ARVN are absent. I think an author of Bowden's caliber could present a more nuanced view.
As it is, he presents the way things went in Hue and extrapolates them to the whole war, then reaches the conclusion that the outcome of the war was an inevitability. Before you explode – no, I am not saying that the USA was going to win in Vietnam. Instead, I'm pointing out that when you talk about the history of a specific event – in this case, a battle – it might not be a bad idea to point out that outcomes aren't set in stone and that the people involved had agency and made decisions that affected outcomes. Maybe acknowledge the "fog of war" that makes decisions difficult. And while you're at it, look at the big picture. He doesn't do this, and the book – and his thesis – suffer as a result…
harvests scenario ideas from The Third World War.
