Destruction, Grief, and Relief: an Oral History of Agent Orange
Use of Agent Orange
“That stuff is just a killer” – John B. Wells
Agent Orange is a chemical defoliant that was prominently used by the United States military during the Vietnam War. The herbicide got its name from the bright orange markings painted on the drums it was stored and transported in. The use of Agent Orange was a strategic one for the United States. Traditional American war strategies involved overpowering enemy forces with firepower, but the Vietnamese landscape was filled with jungles, which hindered their ability to use the weaponry they wanted to. The solution was to spray chemicals over the jungles to kill the foliage and clear the way for troops and weapons. By removing the jungle, cover for Vietnamese forces as well as some of their food crops were destroyed. It is estimated that the United States sprayed between 10 and 12 million gallons of Agent Orange, destroying 4.5 million acres of the Vietnamese landscape in the process. While the only intended target of Agent Orange was the Vietnamese landscape, and occasionally Vietnamese crops, many humans, including many United States soldiers, were exposed as well.
“My husband was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in the U.S. Army in Vietnam,” Beth Lewis recalls. “He was stationed in Phuoc Vinh, Vietnam in 1970 and ’71, in the 31st Engineer Battalion.” Mrs. Lewis’ husband, Dave, developed cancer from his exposure to Agent Orange, and passed away in 2008. His job within the Army may have contributed to his level of exposure to Agent Orange. “The engineers went ahead and dug the trenches and fox holes for the combat troops. As they were blazing through the jungle they were sprayed [with Agent Orange],” Mrs. Lewis recalls. In Dioxin, Agent Orange: The Facts, Michael Gough notes that troops going through the jungle “did not go to a clean base, shower, change clothes... [they] remained in the field for days, stayed dirty, drank whatever water was available, supplemented their rations with local fruits and vegetables.”
While the government would take a long time admitting it, mainland Vietnam was not the only location Agent Orange was used, and therefore people living or serving there were not the only ones exposed to it. “It’s not just Vietnam,” says John Wells, a Navy Veteran, lawyer, and founder of Military-Veterans Advocacy. Wells works with veterans in court cases, as well as with the U.S. Congress in attempts to get laws enacted that will benefit veterans. “You’ve got herbicide use on Guam, the Philippines, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Okinawa, Panama, and many bases throughout the United States.” “I learned in 2008 that I had unknowingly been exposed to herbicides (Agent Orange) while serving at Camp Khon Kaen and Camp Vayama in Thailand from 1968 to 1970,” U.S. Army veteran Joseph J. Wilson Jr., a Thailand veteran of the Vietnam War, recounts. Wilson’s exposure was not limited to just military service in Asia: “I also learned in 2017 that I was also exposed to herbicides while serving at Fort Davis in the Panama Canal Zone from 1974 to 1977.”
Effects Discovered
“The first question the doctor asked my husband was ‘did you serve in Vietnam or did you work at DuPont?’” – Beth Lewis
In the late 1970’s, only a few years removed from the war, Vietnam Veterans began coming forward about health issues they believed were related to Agent Orange. Fred A. Wilcox, in Waiting for an Army to Die, mentions Paul Reutershan, who in 1978 went on the Today show to discuss his eventually fatal cancer thought to be caused by Agent Orange. Veterans Affairs immediately denied that Agent Orange had directly caused any diseases. The VA claimed that no evidence linked diseases to the chemicals.
Beth Lewis believes she first encountered the effects of Agent Orange in the early 1980’s. “I worked for a public health hospital, and we treated a lot of people from Cambodia. I saw a lot of unusual illnesses in people from Cambodia. Children had high rate of scoliosis.” It was not until 2005 that Agent Orange affected her own life. In September of that year, a plasmacytoma was found when her husband had a routine colonoscopy. “The oncologist thought that due to the shape and location of the tumor, it was related to Agent Orange or another chemical. The first question the Doctor asked my husband was ‘did you serve in Vietnam or did you work at DuPont?’” In 2006, more symptoms arose, but doctors did not think they would progress into cancer. “Due to the speed it progressed into stage 4 Multiple Myeloma with kidney involvement, his doctors were sure it was related to Agent Orange. Just over 18 months later, my husband passed away from Multiple Myeloma, a cancer related to Agent Orange.”
Health effects relating to Agent Orange often do not appear for many years. Mrs. Lewis’ husband left Vietnam 35 years prior to being diagnosed with cancer. Joseph J. Wilson Jr. suffered health effects before he even learned he was exposed to Agent Orange. “On August 28, 1998 I suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD).” Mr. Wilson did not learn until 2008 that he may have been exposed to Agent Orange. The U.S. Government did not admit that Veterans in Thailand were exposed until 2010, 35 years after the war in Vietnam had ended.
Howard Goldin is a Vietnam War veteran who served in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. He has felt the effects of Agent Orange on his own health. “I’ve had a bout or two with cancer,” Goldin casually mentions. “I’ve undergone 52 radiation sessions. I have had 10 heart procedures, and I have 15 heart stents.” Starting in 2005, he has made trips back to Vietnam, and after seeing how the war still affected the country, especially children, he co-founded the non-profit Schools to End Poverty (S.T.E.P.). “I've travelled the whole country, and you can see the difference in how children are affected in areas where we had Agent Orange stored or where it was sprayed. I think in Vietnam you see [effects are] more drastic.”
As Agent Orange was primarily sprayed on the Vietnamese landscape, it understandably has caused environmental effects as well as the health effects on humans. Howard Goldin explained, “I’ve traveled extensively in Vietnam, the whole country, and you could actually see vegetation was brown, or older looking in some places, and it’s a sharper green in other places where vegetation has grown back from Agent Orange, so you do see [environmental] changes.” Goldin said of a recent trip to Vietnam that the herbicide seemed to still be lingering: “The Agent Orange was so much in the air, the smell, it grabbed you in the throat.”
Relief Efforts & Government Benefits
“I’m still trying to get my claim approved – 11 years after filing.” – Joseph J. Wilson, Jr.
A 2014 report from the Congressional Research Service, Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange: Legislative History, Litigation, and Current Issues, discusses the history of Congressional action, lawsuits, and research involving the effects of Agent Orange. According to this report, “currently 15 health conditions are presumptively service-connected.” These health conditions include cancers such as Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, Parkinson’s disease, Type 2 diabetes, and birth defects such as Spina Bifida in the children of veterans. The report also outlines the concept of a Presumption of Service Connection, which essentially means that if a veteran served at a certain place at a certain time, if they develop any of a set list of diseases, it is assumed that this was due to their military service. While the following may give the impression that the V.A. and government are not doing much, it is important to know that a lot of payments are being made. “In 2015, there were about 500k Vietnam veterans receiving benefits after an Agent Orange ruling.” Charles Bailey reported. “Totals over tens of billions of dollars just for one year.”
“After my husband passed away, a friend told me I may be able to receive benefits. I had to work with my Senator’s office and had to send the same paperwork to the VA multiple times because they kept claiming to not have received it. After about 11 months, me and my children were approved for benefits.” Beth Lewis has an unfortunately rare “success” story when it comes to receiving benefits from Veterans Affairs. Many veterans and their families have been turned away, including Mrs. Lewis’ husband. “My husband called the VA while he was still alive and was told he was not eligible for benefits. While working with them after he died, my Senator’s office told me he had been misinformed and likely could have received monetary benefits while he was alive.”
While 11 months may seem like a long time, and the process may seem difficult, this was actually rather quick and easy when it comes to VA benefits. Joseph J. Wilson, Jr. has been dealing with the process for much longer. “In 2008 I filed my VA claim for IHD as a result of herbicide exposure and my claim was denied because according to the VA herbicides were not used in Thailand. In 2010 the VA added Thailand as a place where herbicides were used and IHD was on the list of diseases attributable to herbicide exposure. Thailand Veterans are suffering and dying from exposure to herbicides while battling the VA over the fabricated and unrealistic restrictions placed on them.” When asked if he has received benefits yet, Wilson responded: “I’m still trying to get my claim approved – 11 years after filing.” Wilson, and many of his fellow Thailand veterans are in the midst of a letter-writing campaign dubbed Operation Orange Envelope. These letters are asking members of congress to consider co- sponsoring bills HR 2201 and S1381, which would give a presumption of service connection to Thailand veterans, and conceivably make the process of receiving benefits much easier. “We have 53 Co-Sponsors of HR2201 and 3 Co-Sponsors of S1381. We need more than 270 Co-Sponsors out of the 535 Members of Congress if we expect our bills to pass and be signed into law.”
Most Americans would probably agree that veterans who have become sick or disabled as a result of their military service should be compensated in some way. Why is that not the case? According to John Wells, “today, the primary problem is the Pay as You Go Act of 2010, which requires for any increase in benefits for there to be a corresponding offset.” This puts lawmakers in a difficult situation. “How do we find the $1 Billion we need without reducing some other veterans’ benefits? You’re taking out of one veterans’ pocket to pay another.”
Politics in general have been blamed as a reason that laws pertaining to veterans’ benefits have not been enacted. Wells suggests that veterans’ benefits have been “turned into a political football.” To avoid the political mess, Wells, and his group Military-Veterans Advocacy, are “stepping away from congress and looking toward the courts.” “The courts at least seem to give us a fair hearing, and they’re not concerned about money.” The Congressional Research Service report notes that veterans’ have had some success taking a judicial approach to seeking benefits. The courts ruled in favor of the veterans in Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Administration, subsequent rulings involving the Nehmer case, as well as Haas v. Nicholson.
Awarding benefits to affected veterans and their families only covers one side of the story. What, if anything, should the United States do to help the Vietnamese citizens, as well as the environment, that they negatively affected by the spraying of Agent Orange? Charles Bailey and Howard Goldin have both worked (together at times) in Vietnam to help citizens living with the effects of Agent Orange. The two men worked on similar projects, with different approaches. Bailey, working first for the Ford Foundation and later the Aspen Institute, worked to improve U.S.-Vietnamese relations and eventually to have legislation passed to provide U.S. funds to help Vietnam. Goldin co-founded a non-profit that works directly on projects in Vietnam.
“In 1998, I discovered that [the Vietnamese and U.S. governments] weren’t talking to each other. The U.S. govt instructed its diplomats in those days never to have conversations about and never to use the phrase ‘Agent Orange’. It was a complete deadlock.” Bailey recalls. “Legislation was way out of the picture. Not everybody in congress was happy that the United States had started diplomatic relations with Vietnam.” In Bailey’s mind, the problem was that Congress did not have a specific, fixable problem to focus on. “The breakthrough was a grant to the Ministry of Health in Vietnam to work on a study with a Canadian group called Hatfield. They evaluated all the former American military bases in Vietnam for dioxin contamination, 2,735 of them. IT took 3 years to evaluate and came to the finding that the dioxin was indeed a problem, but only a few (3) were contaminated to the point that required cleanup.”
The discoveries of the Hatfield study gave Bailey the fixable problem he was looking for, “this was the beginning of drawing congressional focus to it, ‘this is something we can do something about.’” The United States agreed to clean up the three most affected bases, and two of the three have been cleaned so far. The U.S. also agreed to provide funds. “U.S. money goes to both direct assistance to severely disabled, in money for home renovations or providing beds or wheelchairs, as well as building out capabilities of local hospitals for physical therapy. Money that has been going to Vietnam has been about $10 million a year, and this coming year it will be about $12.5 million. The money is focused on the severely disabled living in the seven provinces that were the most heavily sprayed during the war. Focus on severely disabled and most heavily sprayed provinces ensures this modest amount of money goes to those affected the most. $10 million doesn’t go very far.” Bailey believes that the role of non-governmental agencies was crucial in getting the United States to provide support. “There is a lesson here in the roles that American philanthropy can play in helping two parties that are deadlocked find a solution”
Howard Goldin and S.T.E.P. have focused their efforts on education in Vietnam, both building schools and helping make education more accessible. S.T.E.P. has donated nearly 300 wheelchairs to those affected by Agent Orange. “Children in the U.S. are given a wheelchair if they can’t walk, but in Vietnam that doesn’t happen. How do we help a child who has the capability mentally to go to school, but physically can’t? The answer was wheelchairs.” Goldin says he has received letters from children who are recipients of these wheelchairs, thanking him for the opportunity to get an education. S.T.E.P. is funded entirely through individual donations and local fundraisers.
Opinions
“I think it’s disgraceful. We should take responsibility” – Howard Goldin
Agent Orange is, understandably, a touchy subject, and one that brings about many strong opinions. Everyone interviewed in this report has been directly impacted by the effects of Agent Orange. Some have had their own health impacted, some lost friends or family members, some have embarked on new careers in order to help those most affected. The following responses are intended to relay the opinions of those interviewed on what the United States government has or has not done in response to Agent Orange, both within the United States and in Vietnam. Interviewees were also asked what they believed the government should do about Agent Orange relief going forward. These opinions are not meant to represent those of veterans, survivors, charity workers, or Vietnamese citizens as a whole, but merely to provide a glimpse at how certain people feel.
“My husband never felt any resentment towards the government or military.” Beth Lewis remembers. “He volunteered for the army and knew the risks. He never tried to blame anyone.” “Personally, I feel a certain amount of anger towards the government. I think these deaths could have been avoided. I also think a better job could have been done in supporting Vietnam Veterans as a whole, not just those affected by Agent Orange. Homelessness and mental illness are big problems. I think Vietnam Veterans provided the country with a learning curve for what support was needed for those returning from war. Veterans today probably have more support because of what Vietnam Veterans suffered through.”
“No, I don’t feel resentment or anger towards the government.” Joseph J. Wilson, Jr responds. “I am frustrated at the VA’s response to the needs of Thailand Veterans as even today they continue to push us aside.” Wilson and some fellow veterans who served in Thailand are currently expanding their campaign from letter writing and a Facebook page to Twitter accounts as well. They hope to draw the attention of policymakers in this way to attract more cosponsors.
“During my 10 years living in Vietnam, and 10 years visiting each year, I’ve never once had anyone reproach me because I’m an American or due to the destruction we caused there during the war.” Charles Bailey was asked how those he met in Vietnam felt about the United States. “Generally speaking, they have a favorable view of the U.S., more favorable than many other allies in Asia.” In his personal view, he knew something had to be done in Vietnam. He recalled telling a U.S. diplomat “we won’t have normal relations with Vietnam until you guys step up to the plate, and frankly address the legacy of Agent Orange.” He wants the United States to keep providing funding to programs in Vietnam and to “make sure ALL the victims of Agent Orange are not forgotten.”
“I think it’s disgraceful. We should take responsibility and clean up that area.” Howard Goldin was upset with the response of the United States after the Vietnam War. “Look back in history. After World War II, we cleaned up Japan and we cleaned up Germany. After Korea, we helped clean that up. After Vietnam what happened? We didn’t do a damn thing until the pressure was on.”
“I would say disgust is probably the best word.” John Wells presented some of the strongest views of anyone interviewed. His anger was mostly directed at Congress, especially Congressman Mark Takano, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, but Wells was also disappointed with Veterans’ groups. These feelings stem from the passing of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, which Wells called “a stupid bill” that did little to actually help veterans. Referring to Takano as well as veterans’ groups such as the V.F.W., Wells suggested they had little interest in helping Navy veterans but instead, “all they wanted to do was get a photo op.” Wells anger is summed up with one line: “right now, the VA is basically saying, if [veterans] die, maybe we’ll take care of their families. Well, that’s not good enough.”
Conclusion
The Agent Orange story is not one of a successful military strategy. It is instead the story of mass destruction, both on a human and environmental level. The story of Agent Orange relief could be one where a government works to redeem itself for destructive mistakes made during war. Instead, the relief story tells of a refusal to take responsibility for disastrous actions, and in this refusal, continuing to hurt those who are already suffering. Each of the above interviews show how the United States Government failed. Some veterans have been refused benefits. Those who have received them were forced to wait long periods of time. Philanthropic efforts had to step up where the government did not act. And maybe most importantly, the country where this destruction was caused was ignored for over 30 years.