I have read this book many times, and I have to say that it is one of my favorites. I think that it shows the average person that the greatest danger you might face in war time may not be the enemy. I have to marvel at the strength of character and will of these men to brave such a storm for so long. I am a history teacher in high school with a special interest in Naval History, and I find this book an absolute treasure. I would definitely say that it is a must read.

This story is so very true and the description of Marcus Arnheiter is factual. The man should never have been given command of a ship much less left to remain in the Navy. He is a disgrace to our military forces everywhere. I served under him when he was the XO on the USS Ingersoll as a radionman.

I was a radioman aboard the Vance from 1965-1968. Reading this book brought back many memories. Some good and alot of very tough times due to the unpredictable Arnheiter. He was a very strange person. This book is extremely accurate and very well written.

Sheehan tells the history of the war in Vietnam paralleled by a biography of one of its most colorful figures, the Army Lt. Col. and later civilian pacification leader John Paul Vann. Regardless of where you stand on this most controversial of all America's wars, this book is a must read to understand its background. Sheehan thoroughly researched the story with interviews of many key players. As a young correspondent he spent several years in country. The book raises many fascinating "counterfactual" history questions: what if military and government leaders had listened to Vann's early (1962-1963) assessment of the weaknesses of the South Vietnamese military and the Diem regime? The only weakness of the book is its abrupt ending. After Vann's death in a helicopter crash in 1972, the author fails to analyze later events including the withdrawal of U.S. troops by 1973 and the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. Writing in 1988, Sheehan should have reflected more on Vann's views and their relation to events that occurred after his death. Nonetheless, a must read for those who want to understand the most divisive war in American history.

A Bright Shining Lie is a true story about a man named John Paul Vann and America's involvement in Vietnam. The author, Neil Sheehan, was a war correspondent for the United States Press International and the New York Times. His book in 1989 was the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. The book starts out at Lt. Col. John Paul Vann's funeral in 1972, ten years after he arrived in Saigon, after a helicopter crash back in Vietnam. His story shows America's failures and disillusionment in Southeast Asia. In 1954, the French were defeated, Vietnam then was divided by Ho Chi Minh's Communist North and the Southern regime of Ngo Dinh Diem. Vann had an opportunity to go to Vietnam and he took it right away because he wanted to fight his way up the ranks. When he arrived he was teamed up with South Vietnam's Colonel Cao. Right away Vann notices the corruption of the South Vietnamese regime and their incompetence in fighting the Communists. Sheehan shows this throughout the book with many examples of what the South Vietnamese did. Colonel Cao was shone taking pictures of his men pretending to be dead VC's (Viet Cong) to impress the higher officials and to show that we were winning the war. The South Vietnamese army did not know what they were doing and lost many battles. As Sheehan graphically describes the battles, the Viet Cong are winning them, but that is covered up by South Vietnam and America portraying them as being the supreme force. Vann secretly told reporters how the war was a waste and Neil Sheehan was one of these reporters. The peasants in Vietnam were caught in the middle between the North and the South. We gave the peasants guns then they were seen used by the Viet Cong in battle. Sheehan noted that the corrupt South Vietnamese did not care for the peasants and carpet-bombed their villages because of known Viet Cong inhabitants. This whole book is based on Vann's telling the self-deceiving illusions of the American military and civilian bureaucracy. Vann was sent back to the United States after the army found out about his meetings with reporters. America hid the truth throughout the whole war. He then resigned, but could not stand not be in on the action. Sheehan said, "The war satisfied him so completely that he could no longer look at it as something separate from himself" (745). Later Vann was able to get a position as a civilian aid and went back to Vietnam in 1965. This is when Sheehan depicts another corrupt South Vietnamese soldier. Colonel Dinh, he resisted America's help in the war. He killed his own soldiers, did not want to help the villagers in any way and destroyed their villages. Vann's main goal was to stop this and gain the villagers trust. He ran pacification programs, mobilized allies among South Vietnamese forces, coordinated America's support and had many theories on how to turn the war around. Sheehan also wrote detailed descriptions of John Vann's family and the struggle he had with it during the war. From this the reader is able figure out why Vann always cheats on his wife. His mother, Myrtle was like this and it was a hard subject for John to talk about. In Vietnam Sheehan tells about two secret lovers of Vann. He could not control his sexual compulsion. His military career was almost ruined years earlier because of his affair with a babysitter. Sheehan writes a lot about Vann's character flaw. His wife divorces him later because of this. He was able to get all of this information with interviews of many people while his time in Vietnam as a correspondent. Vann wanted things to be done his way, he wanted to win. Sheehan said, "He was not supposed to accept defeat" (269). Sheehan talks about Westmoreland, the Commanding General in Vietnam and how he believed that the Viet Cong would not attack Saigon during "Tet" the Chinese New Year in 1968. Vann believed that they would and they did. Vann helped lead the fight against the VC and they were successful. Vann took a position in the South Vietnamese army. He served as general in command of the Central Highland Regime. President Nixon had ordered U.S. combat troops out of Vietnam in June of 1972. The U.S. said it was the South Vietnamese war and they are giving them more control. Sheehan in the story points out that the South Vietnamese had little interest in the war in the first place. Vann in 1972 had his coordinates in Kontum carpet-bombed by B-52's to try to wipe out the second, the third and the fifth divisions of North Vietnam. This was a big risk Vann was willing to take, because of the corrupt Dinh who changed orders and they were forced to retreat into a mine field as VC's advanced forward. Sheehan points out that Vann had a different outlook on the war. He was concerned now about his fighting and not the peasant revolution. Earlier he was bothered that, "...the United States could generate an astonishing reaction from the peasantry once corruption was eliminated and the American millions were getting down to the poor instead of being siphoned into the feeding trough of the Saigon hogs" (539). John Paul Vann soon died in a helicopter crash during a rain storm, ten years after he first arrived in South Vietnam. The biography by Neil Sheehan was very detailed about the war the way John Paul Vann experienced it. First as an Army Colonel and later a civilian pacification leader. Sheehan's book clearly shows the corruption of the South Vietnamese regime, their incompetence to fight Ho Chi Minh's Communists and their brutal alienation of their own people. Vann was able to bring these secrets out to reporters like Neil Sheehan to inform the public of what was going on in South Asia. This brings up the question that what if the military and government leaders had listened to Vann's earlier assessments of the weakness of the South Vietnamese military and the Diem regime? What would have been different? This book was very well written and brings much of the war right out into the light. If the reader does not have much knowledge of the war in Vietnam, this is the book to read. Vann personified our good intentions, our courage, our arrogance and are folly in the war. There is one shortcoming of the book. The book ends after Vann's death in a helicopter crash. The reader is left there wanting to know more about the events in Vietnam after his death.

"A Bright Shining Lie" is a masterfully written history of America in Vietnam. Written by Neil Sheehan, a former Southeast Asian correspondent for United Press International (UPI) and later "The New York Times," this book combines a biography of John Paul Vann, considered by some to be ". . . the one irreplaceable American in Vietnam," with a spellbinding narrative of the miscalculations, blunders, and self-deceptions which marked America's decade-plus involvement in Vietnam.

John Paul Vann's career in Vietnam spanned a decade, from its beginning in 1962 with Vann as U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel and advisor to the South Vietnamese, to its end in 1972 with his death in a helicopter crash, Vann having become the civilian equivalent of a two-star general. During his decade in Vietnam, Vann was consistently frustrated and angry with the pusillanimous and corrupt performance of South Vietnamese forces and the frequent incompetence of American senior political and military leaders. He repeatedly urged his superiors, through normal channels and in the press, that the U.S. government could not defeat the Communist forces in South Vietnam with its military might alone. The war could only be won by the South Vietnamese with American assistance. That help, Vann recommended, should take the form of facilitating social change and providing military equipment and advice. By the time of his death, however, Vann's views had changed. After the near destruction of the Vietcong during the 1968 Tet offensive, he came to believe that America could indeed achieve a military victory in Vietnam.

Sheehan explores every aspect of Vann's life with the keen eye of the best biographers. Vann is seen at his best: possessed with a first-rate intellect and a singleness of purpose which led him to rise above a childhood filled with poverty and neglect; highly patriotic and courageous; and imbued with a strong sense of professional integrity that gave him tremendous credibility at the most senior levels of the U.S. government. Also seen is Vann's darker side: his ability to manipulate others to his ends; his dark sexual compulsions (which ultimately led him to ruin his marraige and endanger his career); his callousness toward his friends and family; and his all-consuming self-centeredness.

Interwoven with Vann's biography is a brilliant survey of the Vietnam conflict from the time of the French defeat at Dienbienphu in 1954 to Vann's death in 1972. Three areas of this book were especially interesting to me: first, the author's account of the battle of Ap Bac in 1963, where American advisors were first seriously bloodied by the Vietcong, and Vann's attitudes about the overall conduct of the war took shape; second, Vann's efforts, after his retirement from the Army, to get the U.S. government to change its Vietnam policy - and the political machinations within the government at work against him; and third, Vann's last months in Vietnam as the "civilian general" in charge of the mountains of the highlands and the rice deltas of the central coast, and the critical role he played in several key battles as America's involvement in Southeast Asia approached its tragic coda.

"A Bright Shining Lie" is certainly one of the two best single-volume histories (along with "Vietnam: A History" by Stanley Karnow) of America's involvement in Vietnam that I've read. It's an essential book for anyone wanting to learn more about America's most regrettable war.

The writing is good if you take it in short small segments, but I had a hard time getting the flow of the book. Also he seemed to spend time on people who weren't the "young war correspondents" and he seemed to spend time on things that happened outside the early Vietnam timeframe. [...]

"Once Upon a Distant War," is a highly readable history of the various journalists covering America's involvement in the early years (1961-63) of Vietnam. Prochnau has produced an intriguing popular history that has some flaws, but on the whole is quite a good book.

The strength of the book is the fact that the material itself is so fascinating. Saigon, circa 1963, was an extremely exciting place for a foreign journalist. America had begun a huge build-up of forces in South Vietnam, the Diem regime was at its most oppressive, and the Vietcong were making huge gains in the rural countryside. Into this mix were thrown men like David Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, Peter Arnett, and Malcolm Brown: relatively young, idealistic reporters who were determined to get the real story. But the US officials in South Vietnam were less than willing to assist the "green" correspondents, who they claimed were not "on the team." Lied to and rebuffed by the official channels, the reporters sought out contacts in the middle of the action: South Vietnamese officers and American field advisors like John Paul Vann who were willing to tell the ugly truth. The result was a constant battle between the Saigon correspondents and the Kennedy administration, other journalists, and even their own publishers. The only people who hated the journalists more were President Diem, his brother Nhu, and most vociferously, South Vietnam's First Lady, Madame Nhu. For two years the correspondents fought for every story and risked everything, including their lives, to get what they believed was the truth about Vietnam out to the American public.

Prochnau is clearly in awe of his protagonists, but I think he still manages to give a fair account. The correspondents are not perfect: Sheehan goofs big time in his early account of My Tho, inflating the body count from 15 to 200. Halberstam was hugely influential, but as Prochnau makes clear, he was also incorrigible, uncompromising, and had a mean temper. One of the most important points that Prochnau stresses is that these men were not anti-war (certainly not at this early stage). Men like Halberstam were ardently anti-communist, and were only angry because the government was lying about a cause that mattered so much. But even the reporters' ostensible adversaries, such as Ambassador Nolting, are given full and fair treatment. (General Harkins is the one exception, but I've never read anything that suggested he was other than incompetent, blind optimist.) In addition to these detailed characterizations, Prochnau adds a wealth of anecdotes that give the book both humor and authenticity. Particularly interesting were the stories of Marguerite Higgins and her Machiavellian ways ("innocent as a cobra"), Sheehan's obsessive 16 year struggle to write "A Bright Shining Lie," and Halberstam mouthing off to high government officials ("Bull..., General! Why are you standing here telling our friend Clurman this bull...?").

My complaints are few. The first is about Prochnau's style: he is eminently readable and well suited for the material, but sometimes his tone becomes so informal it borders on cheesy ("Vietnam was not simply exotic. It was erotic. And narcotic.") My second complaint is that Prochnau glosses over many aspects of the war and does not give a very complete picture of the complex military situation. But his story is about the journalists, so maybe this is an unfair criticism. Then let me leave it as a caveat: do not read this book to gain an in-depth understanding of the political-military situation in South Vietnam, read it to learn about the tribulations of the journalists. In some ways, this book is better suited for people who already understand the history of the era and will not be confused by Prochnau's overly-simplistic (albeit justifiably so) account of the war. That said, this is still quite an entertaining look at some very interesting characters at a crucial juncture in modern American history.

Not long after I finished the book, I read that Jerry Bruckheimer ("Armageddon" and all those big-bucks Hollywood action thrillers) is planning a major movie on it. Not surprising. Prochnau's "Once Upon a Distant War" reads like an adventure novel: a half dozen young war correspondents fighting everybody -- the U.S. govt, the South Vietnamese govt, their own colleagues in the media, even their bosses -- to get the early Vietnam story to the public. It's also first-rate history. You won't learn more about how we got into the mess in Vietnam -- and learn it with such page-turning narrative drama -- anywhere else. I don't know how I missed this the first time around. It's one of the best war books I've read and the best ever about reporters. Don't wait for the movie.

This was not a completely balanced account of post war Vietnam. It is obvious the author was seduced by the Communist authorities when he visited Vietnam in 1989. I say that because when he talks of the effects of war on the south, he mentions the white terror of Diem without mentioning the red terror of the Viet Cong. The red terror targeted not military targets but teachers and bureaucrats. Sheehan does not mention that but Diem's terror campaign, which was mild compared to the red terror. Also when he talks of the 1963 coup against Diem, he terms it the American led coup. Again another fallacy since the coup leaderes had Washington's blessings, but was not led by Americans. Another small lie was the Cambodia invasion by Vietanm. Sheehan wants us to believe that Hanoi was not interested in dominating Cambodia. Most analysts would view this an incorrect statement. If you can read through Sheehan's opinions, it gives those interested in the war some perspective of what happened after the war. Caution is in order for Sheehan's opinions.

Neil Sheehan adds a short addendum to his Pulitzer Prize "A Bright Shining Lie," one of the most interesting books out of the many written about this debacle. The primary locations of this book are Hanoi and the north and Saigon and south. Sheehan also takes a look into other places he spent time at as a journalist in the 1960s and 70s, and how they've transformed or changed, and/or haven't, up to 1990. He notes some relevant points from his previous book, including the prophetic Ap Bac battle that took place in the early 1960s.

He returns to many of the places of conflict and speaks with the people. His time in Vietnam and the relationships he had there had an enormous influence on him. His return seems to be a mix of catharthism and a quest for objective observation and curiosity. It should be up to a nation's own people to decide how to do things, but in one regard he could have been more critical and questioning of the policies of the post-1975 Vietnamese government. 100,000 people were sent to "re-education" prisons. Southern supporters and participants of the NVA (Viet-Cong) were forced out to be dominated by northerners: The communists were very repressive.

The title does make one wonder. "After the War Was Over," was written 14 years after the fall of Saigon. Another Vietnam "War" book? Not really, and that is good. It discusses the lives and conditions of those who participated in the drawn-out conflict from not just both, but the many sides that actually existed, and where these people are at today in their lives.

Some of the post-war communistic economic policies and later reforms were described, which are interesting. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, De Luan and the communists in Vietnam tried to collectivise agriculture. A proven disaster 50 years before in the Soviet Union, and then again in Maoist China. Collectivization was an outright failure in Vietnam as well. In addition to collectivization policies, the Northern Cadres forced the northern concept of central planning on the entrepreneurial South Vietnamese, which again, just simply doesn't work, being so contrary to human nature. It doesn't spur efficient production nor proper means of distribution of resources and goods. Did the Vietnamese communists learn anything? Yes, they did--after the fact. Now they claim to be the "first ones" to have departed (in 1986) from the moribund Soviet model. A patriotic communist Nguyen Van Linh, was reformist minded and his positions on policy within the government have labled him as the Vietnamese "Gorbachev." He had ideas that were considered by the post-75ers to be "right wing" or radical, but in the end he had their ear, showing some of the ways the South Vietnamese did things, which were objectively speaking, successful.

In this piece two cities are described, Hanoi and Saigon. Street addresses are mentioned and you can learn where significant happenings took place in both cities if you are going there. Many modern buildings, houses, and hotels are noted also. If someone is coming to Hanoi or Saigon, this book can be useful to learn about where things happened. I discovered that I work in the same building where the Pentagon press briefings called the "five o'clock follies" took place.

Some of Sheehan's coverage of Vietnamese history noted how the Vietnamese drove out the Mongols in the 13th Century, and have been invaded by the Chinese no less than 17 times prior to the 20th century. This book can be knocked off in a day.

This book recounts in vivid detail how Viet General Giap defeated
French General Navarre in the game of grand strategy played out in the jungles of Southeast Asia. The author contrasts the intense patriotism and self sacrifice of the Vietminh soldiers against the professionalism and devotion to honor of the French units. Maybe the book deserves 4 stars instead of the three I gave it but I thought the writers style left a little to be desired. All around though a very good book and worthy to sit in any history buffs collection. Note: I had to comment on the previous persons review who ignorantly badmouthed the French army while not even offering a review of the books merits. It takes more than watching a couple of History Channel specials to understand a nations motivations and willingness to fight. The heroism displayed by the French soldiers at Dienbienphu was just one more example of their well known devotion to duty. Ever heard of Camerone, Verdun, Birhacheim or the great victory at Austerlitz? Make sure you get your facts straight before insulting a nations military achievements.

I've watched the History channel inteviews of the German soldiers being interviewed with questions about "who were your most fiercest enemies"? The German's usually replied either the English or the Americans. No German's mentioned the French. The French as our allies, was always bailed out by the Americans. Some Americans say that the French is only good for surrendering!

Only having limited exposure to the battle of Dien Bien Phu, I looked forward to learning about this decisive battle. Mr. Roy has written a saddening, gripping account of sufferings and heroism displayed by the French troops. Of course, I wish he had given more time to the VienMihn, but since he is French... he had to place more emphasis on the French experience. Without doubt, this book is not for arm-chair generals who wish to learn about battles to debate with others. This book is for those who wish to learn everything about the war: Horrors, deaths, sadness, defeat, struggles, honor, disgrace.