By Eddie Liszka

Video

Dickinson College Cross Country Coach Don Nichter (Chris Knight)

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Dickinson College Cross Country Coach Don Nichter was attending a routine department meeting led by Bob Massa, the college’s vice president at the time.[1] Abruptly, the meeting was interrupted when Massa’s administrative assistant ran into the building and whispered news of the first crash to him, causing Massa to leave with no further explanation than “There’s been an emergency. I have to go.” Confused, Nichter and other coaches gathered around a television and watched as the tragedy of September 11 unfolded. He remembers the disbelief they all felt knowing that “nothing like this had ever happened in the U.S.” In the book American Dreams, H. W. Brands describes this intense shock that characterized the American reaction to September 11 and credits prominent leaders for helping the country overcome it.[2] While figures such as George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani were instrumental in the country’s recovery efforts, Brands’ portrayal fails to acknowledge the bravery and resilience of the American people who returned to their lives fearing the possibilities of further attacks. This unwillingness to be compromised by fear is what truly defeats terrorism, and in 2001 it was displayed by Nichter’s athletes as well as the broader Dickinson community.

Dickinson College students attend a candlelight vigil outside of the Holland Union Building (Pierce Bounds)

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, it is undeniable that grief dominated national sentiment. Brands writes that “The shock of the day evolved into mourning for the thousands killed in the attacks.”[3] This was especially evident on college campuses, where students came together to support each other as they processed the events of the day.[4] Although classes at Dickinson were canceled, Nichter and other coaches held practices that afternoon to check in on their athletes.[5] “We didn’t run that day, but we got everybody together,” he remembers. “And there were people in tears . . . . There was a lot of sadness.” That evening, the campus convened in a community gathering at Anita Tuvin Schlecter Auditorium.[6] Adding to the emotion of the event was the fact that many students were personally affected by the attacks. According to Nichter, two students lost parents, and many others had family and friends that worked and lived in New York City.[7] Arika Peck, a junior at the time, was also stricken by loss. At the gathering, she lamented, “I lost eight friends today. That is a big number of friends that I don’t have anymore.”[8] Later, a candlelight vigil would be held in honor of the victims.[9]

Dickinson students decorated their dorms to display patriotism after September 11 (Courtney Shackelford).

Although events such as those held at Dickinson were born out of feelings of sorrow, they created a sense of solidarity that helped communities recover. Nationwide, many sought to display their patriotism by playing a role in the country’s effort to rebuild, whether through joining volunteer organizations or the military.[10] Staff members at Dickinson established a crisis center to help students navigate the tumultuous period.[11] In a sense, the reemergence of the United States post-September 11 was not a story of any politician’s heroic individual efforts, but of Americans looking out for each other.

As the surprise wore off, life began to resemble what it had been like before the attacks, apart from a new sense of vulnerability. “We just kind of went on with a new reality that terrorism can happen in the U.S.,” Nichter says.[12] On campus, classes, events, and athletics resumed. Nichter’s teams were at the forefront of the return, competing in and winning both the men’s and women’s races at the Vassar College Invitational on September 15.[13] He remembers the meet as particularly emotional, noting that “people were crying during the national anthem, and they gave a moment of silence.”[14] For the team, competing alongside their friends offered the comfort and familiarity that the preceding days seemed to lack. It is likely the same could be said about the many Americans who returned to jobs and other responsibilities in the wake of September 11.

After two anthrax-laced letters were linked to a post office in West Trenton, N.J, a hazardous materials response team was deployed to the location (Tom Mihalek/AFP/Getty Images).

Even as some semblance of normalcy reappeared, a heightened vigilance of terrorism remained at the forefront of the national consciousness. On some occasions, it was justified. Beginning only a week after September 11, anthrax-laced mail was sent to members of Congress and the media, eventually killing five and infecting 17 others.[15] But for every legitimate concern of anthrax infection, there were many more hoaxes designed to take advantage of the hysteria surrounding the matter.[16] On October 30, this issue arrived on Dickinson’s campus after workers in the student mailroom found two envelopes containing white powder and the message “You now have anthrax; prepare to die.”[17] In response, the Carlisle Police closed the Holland Union Building until November 3, when the powder was confirmed harmless. During that time, students dined inside the Kline Center, which is typically reserved for athletics. This incident and the many others like it exemplify how Americans had to accommodate for the growing anxiety over terrorism. By neglecting to describe such stress, Brands misses an opportunity to illustrate the lasting effects of September 11 on the country. Furthermore, he discounts the courage it took for many to continue the push towards normalcy, adjusting to new threats instead of submitting to them.

Nichter’s runners demonstrated this principle as they maintained focus throughout the uncertainty of the semester, finishing the season successfully. The women’s team won the conference championship and qualified for the national meet.[18] The men were conference runners-up and sent two individuals to nationals.[19] Reflecting on the season, Nichter believes “coming together and having practice and performing on the weekends was, for those student athletes, probably a really positive [experience] for most of them—a way to sort of, not forget . . . . but at the same time, try to move on, too.”[20]

Brands’ portrayal of the United States recovery from September 11 focuses mainly on the leadership of elected officials like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.[21] This choice is understandable, as the guidance of these men was inspiring and highly visible. However, their efforts alone did not lift the country out of the despair caused by the attacks. Just as, if not more, important, was the response of the American people. Despite the ever-present concern over further terrorist action, communities came together in grief, emerged united, and carried on with the determination to make the world feel safe again. Such resilience is integral in any reaction to terrorism, which, by definition, aims to spread fear, chaos, and intimidation to further the attacker’s interest. Nichter’s teams, along with the broader Dickinson community, serve as examples of the countless instances in which Americans carefully but resolutely returned to their normal lives after September 11. Taken together, these many instances were the backbone of the nation’s ability to move forward stronger. “[It’s] complicated when you say we’ll never forget,” Nichter observes, “but, but, we also knew we got to move on.”[22]

[1] Interview with Don Nichter, Carlisle, PA, April 14, 2025

[2] H. W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States Since 1945 (New York: Penguin, 2010), 351.

[3] Brands, American Dreams, 351.

[4] Michele DiPietro, “The Day After: Faculty Behavior in Post 9/11 Classes,” 1.

[5] Interview with Don Nichter, April 14, 2025.

[6] Kate Sweeney, “Community Meeting Gave Voices to the Grieving,” Dickinsonian, September 21, 2001.

[7] Interview with Don Nichter, April 14, 2025.

[8] Sweeney, “Community Meeting.”

[9] Jerilyn Covert, “New York Crisis Unites Campus in Candlelight Vigil,” Dickinsonian, September 21, 2001.

[10] “Solidarity After 9/11,” 9/11 Memorial & Museum

[11] Allyson Ayers, “A Quick Response to Crisis,” Dickinsonian, September 21, 2001.

[12] Interview with Don Nichter, April 14, 2025.

[13] Matt McFarland, “Men Strive to Recieve [sic] Bid for National Championship,” Dickinsonian, September 21, 2001; Alicia Fitzpatrick, “Dickinson Women are Leaders of the Pack,” Dickinsonian, September 21, 2001.

[14] Interview with Don Nichter, April 14, 2025.

[15] “Timeline: How the Anthrax Terror Unfolded,” NPR, February 15, 2011.

[16] Jason Snow, “Anthrax Scare Large Problem,” Dickinsonian, November 8, 2001.

[17] Susan White and Bill Hudock, “Just the Facts: A Look into Exactly What Happened,” Dickinsonian, November 8, 2001.

[18] Bill Hudock, “Women’s Cross Country Ends Impressive Season,” Dickinsonian, November 30, 2001.

[19] Matt McFarland, “Midwest Bound,” Dickinsonian, November 16, 2001.

[20] Interview with Don Nichter, April 14, 2025.

[21] Brands, American Dreams, 351.

[22] Interview with Don Nichter, April 14, 2025.

Brands Quote:

“The utterly unexpected events of 9/11 unfolded in real time on television in the homes and offices of the entire country. The shock of the day evolved into mourning for the thousands killed in the attacks” (351).

Interview Subject:

Don Nichter, 68 years old, has coached cross country and track and field at Dickinson College since 1983.

Transcript:

Q: Could you provide some context for where the team was heading into the season and what your expectations for the team were?

A: Obviously, at that point in the year, two weeks into the competitive season, middle of September, we had only had two meets—two smaller meets—and I would think that the team was just kind of starting to sort of gel as a team after competing together and racing with each other and supporting each other. You know, part of the evolution of a cross-country season is, I don’t need the training component, but getting a chance to race together as a team and be on a line together. So I think we were just at the very early stages of that, kind of developing that sort of culture, a racing culture.

Q: Could you tell me a little about how that day started, before the tragedy happened, for you?

A: So, it was just like a normal day. We had a meeting with our division. Vice President Bob Massa was the vice president then, so our department was there with him, and it was just a standard morning meeting that you have once every two or three weeks. Just like a regular, up-to-date meeting, talk about recruiting, whatever. So we got up and did that, and we were sitting in the meeting.

Q: What was it like when you when you heard the news in that meeting?

A: Well, we just knew that something was happening because, the administrative assistant for Bob, she came running into the building when he was literally standing before us and just whispered something to him. And he immediately just, his face just kind of turned blank, and he said, “There’s been an emergency. I have to go.” And so he literally left. We’d all just came in … all of our coaches were in this building, and somebody had a TV. And we just kind of all were gathered around the television, just in disbelief that this was actually happening. It was just sort of one of those moments where you go like—nothing like this had ever happened is the US, you know what I mean? Like we were not used to anything like that in terms of terrorism. Terrorism didn’t exist in the US. It existed everywhere else. So, I just remember just being in an office, just going like, “I can’t believe this is happening,” kind of thing.

Q: And what was the mood like on campus after that tragedy?

A: I think I just remember contacting the team. And [we] came in for practice. Obviously they canceled classes that day, but we talked about it. I can’t remember the circumstances for deciding what we were gonna do as a department, but I think I remember something along lines of, “We’re gonna have practice and then process it as a team.” We didn’t run that day, but we got everybody together because we were kind of encouraged to do that. And there were people in tears. There were people just, you know, their facial expression was just blank. There was a lot of sadness. We kind of just met and talked a little bit about it, but it was brief. It was kind of more just to make sure people were as okay as you can be under those circumstances, that there wasn’t anybody really having a really horrible meltdown. So then the next day is when we actually kind of started to talk through it a little bit. And it was more or less just like an open forum. I mean, we did go out and run that day because I talked to the captains and decided then that it was a good idea to just kind of get out and move a little bit and get away from it, so we did actually do a little baby run together.

Q: So do you think running, in a way, was able to help the team kind of return to a sense of normalcy?

A: Yeah, I do. I mean, that’s a good way to put it. These things, there’s never an easy—you know, everybody always says when there’s a death in your family, there’s never like a perfect way to handle it, right? So you just kind of go through and you try to—but there’s not like a script for “This is what you should do,” especially in this case. Like, should you practice, should you not? Should everybody just go to their room? But I think at that point, it was more, “Okay, let’s try to get back to some level of normalcy in terms of who we are as a team and use running partly as an outlet for getting back into a routine that they’re familiar with.”

Q: And once you returned to running, what was the general attitude toward continuing the season? Was that even a concern?

A: No, I don’t remember talking about shutting down the season. We had a delay for a week where we didn’t compete—a meet that was canceled—and then the following week, we went to a meet. People kind of took it more as something that, you know, we have to move on [from], and we can’t dwell on this. The first meet back was emotional because they had a national anthem beforehand. We were at Vassar, and I just remember people crying during the national anthem, and they gave a moment of silence. So I think that was the extent of it. But by two or three weeks after it, I think we were—I won’t say everything was normal. There was still some, you know—the news was being bombarded every day with information about trying to find survivors and all of that. But, I guess at some point, we just kind of went on with a new reality that terrorism can happen in the U.S. I think that was the recognition—that, we’re not safe and the world is a very complicated place.

Q: How did it feel being able to line up to race afterwards?

A: I think it was a positive experience for me and for the team to sort of be back, trying to find your place in a normal pattern of racing on the weekend and being together as a team, traveling together. I think that was really important. I think teams, personally, that that was a good thing and can be really positive thing, to be on the team. I think coming together and having practice and performing on the weekend was, for those student athletes, probably a really positive [experience] for most of them—a way to sort of, not forget. You’re never gonna forget, right? Always said that, but at the same time, try to move on, too. [It’s] complicated when you say we’ll never forget, but, but, we also knew we got to move on.

Q: Lastly, do you have anything else that you’d like to share about this topic?

A: I can’t remember a lot about what other coaches did. I don’t remember, like I said, anybody shutting down. The school didn’t send everybody home or anything. I think, you know, you got up the next day and it was on everybody’s mind. Campus-wide, there were a couple of kids that lost parents—I think there were two. So that was like a big thing, obviously, huge thing. [There] wasn’t anybody on my team, cross country, that had a close relative or anything like that. But Dickinson has a lot of students from New Jersey and Connecticut, and parents that work in New York City. There certainly were some people that had like really strong connections for whatever reason, so that was a different situation. There was like—the two students that—there was a ceremony on campus, not too long after it happened when they identified who passed away.

By: Max Emery Baum

On September 10th, 2001, Colonel John V. Donovan was having lunch with a former military “buddy,” at the United States Pentagon. Unbeknownst to them, just 24 hours later, the place in which they were sitting would meet the nose of American Airlines Flight 77. This attack on U.S. soil marked a new chapter not only in American foreign policy but also in its domestic security infrastructure. Historian and author H.W. Brands writes that “[B]ush proclaimed a national emergency” which for that reason, he “later went before Congress to declare a ‘war on terror.’”[1] While Brands correctly highlights the sweeping foreign policy response, he overlooks a transformative domestic development: the creation of the TSA in November of 2001, and the urgent expansion of the Federal Air Marshal program and the controversial debates that reshaped the role of aviation security in the post-9/11 era.

On September 11, 2001, “19 terrorists from the Islamist extremist group al Qaeda hijacked four commercial aircrafts” and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.[2] The attacks claimed the

Federal Air Marshal Credentials – John Donovan (Personal)

lives of nearly 3,000 Americans, marking one of the deadliest acts of terrorism on American soil. Just five days after these devastating attacks shook the nation’s collective consciousness, Col. Donovan received a call from “a retired three-star general and close colleague” whom he had known from his days as an active duty member of the United States military.[3] His colleague, whose name will remain redacted, told him, “I need you right now,” and immediately began processing his security clearance.[4] Within hours, Donovan was informed he was now the 33rd Federal Air Marshal, tasked, under a direct presidential directive, with expanding the program from just 32 agents to several thousand within six months. But with thousands of daily flights, the scale of this commitment raised serious logistical questions. “It’s a very great goal, [but] it’s difficult to meet that,” Donovan admitted at the time in a Wall Street Journal article from 2001, reflecting the unprecedented scope and urgency of the mission.[5]

Federal Air Marshall Facility in Atlantic City, NJ (The Washington Post)

As outlined by the the Aviation Security Act (S. 1447), the urgent mission of the Federal air marshal program was to “provide for random deployment of Federal air marshals” on both domestic and international flights, conduct “appropriate background and fitness checks for candidates,” and ensure “appropriate training, supervision, and equipment” for all new marshals.[6] The morning after Donovan assumed his new position, he “flew alone on a Gulfstream provided by the Secretary of Transportation, from D.C. to Atlantic City,” then the program’s only operational hub.[7] As Donovan recalls, “it was the only plane moving at Reagan Airport, an eerie and unforgettable experience.”[8] Once in Atlantic City, he met with the existing leadership and divided responsibilities: “they would handle tactical operations and training” while he would lead plans and policies, acting as the bridge to “Congress, [and] to the White House.”[9]

From the perspective of Donovan, the TSA was unaware of the threat landscape at the time, and had “no clear sense of what could come next.”[10] To address this, he established a small intelligence cell, nicknamed the “chin scratchers,” tasked with thinking creatively from the perspective of “deviant minds,” and tactically about potential future threats. The mission of this group was to war-game possible attack scenarios, such as bombs being smuggled onto planes, aircraft being hijacked, or explosive devices planted on board. He also had to be strategic in deciding which flights received coverage, based on a specific algorithm, which focused on high-risk targets: long-haul, fully fueled, high-profile flights that were both domestic, and international.[11] Conversely, he had to deemphasize the need for Federal air marshal presence on short regional flights with limited potential for catastrophic impact. 

Federal Air Marshal Training (LA Times)

Additionally, scaling the Federal Air Marshal program posed a significant challenge, especially without compromising its elite standards. After conducting extensive research and consulting with experts, Donovan concluded that the original growth targets were unrealistic without sacrificing the high standards they maintained, something the program refused to do. Federal Air marshals were required to meet the highest firearms qualification standards in the U.S. government, exceeding even those of the Secret Service, because, as Donovan emphasizes, “the margin for error on an aircraft is zero. There is no second shot in a pressurized cabin.”[12] As it appeared then to Donovan, the need for such high standards could be argued as the difference between a beat cop in an alley, who might exchange multiple rounds in a chaotic shootout, and an air marshal, who had to neutralize a threat with a single shot in the confined, high-stakes environment of an aircraft cabin. This uncompromising approach to training and firearms proficiency also shaped Donovan’s firm opposition to a controversial policy proposal gaining traction in Congress at the time: arming commercial airline pilots.

Armed Pilots Posing for Picture in the Cockpit (Reddit)

One of the most contentious post-9/11 aviation security debates centered on whether commercial airline pilots should be armed. As Donovan recalls, “there was a push from at least one lawmaker to arm airline pilots, a well-intentioned, but deeply flawed idea.”[13] “Pilots are trained to fly planes, not engage in firefights,” he explains, “they need to stay focused on aviation proficiency, not firearms training.”[14] His stance directly contradicted the logic put forth in a House of Representatives report, which claimed that “giving pilots a means to defend themselves in an emergency will allow them to concentrate on flying and ensure the safety of the flight.”[15] Donovan was of the belief that the opposite was true: arming pilots would only distract them from their core responsibilities and introduce unnecessary risk into the cockpit. To support his view, he conducted live demonstrations in Atlantic City simulating how a pilot, depending on their dominant hand and cockpit position, would have to react to a sudden threat, noting, “you can’t expect someone to turn 180 degrees and fire a precise shot in a confined space when they’re startled and untrained for that kind of scenario.”[16]

Article with John Magaw’s Stance (London Times)

The House of Representatives report attempted to address some of these practical concerns by requiring the TSA to consider “the placement of the firearm… to ensure both its security and its ease of retrieval in an emergency,” as well as to define “the division of responsibility between pilots” if only one or both were armed.[17] These measures, while well-intentioned, failed to fully account for the unpredictable realities of a live flight deck. Donovan remained unconvinced that these procedural requirements could compensate for the operational and psychological risks that were brought forth from arming pilots. His concerns were echoed at the time by then TSA Administrator John Magaw, who, according to The Times (London), “opposed arming pilots, arguing that their responsibility was to control the aircraft.”[18] Donovan’s warnings were tragically validated a few years later when a Federal Flight Deck Officer discharged his weapon negligently while parked at the gate in Charlotte.[19] “No one was hurt,” he notes, “but it was a wake-up call, and it confirmed what I’d said all along: this was a dangerous idea from the beginning.”[20]

Donovan was keen to understand such miscalculations from the decades he spent in the military, and these experiences were the foundation for his role in the Federal Air Marshal Service. His leadership within the TSA reflected a fundamental belief that rigid hierarchy and “we’ve always done it this way” thinking were dangerous in a world where threats constantly evolved, shedding light on his rare perspective on institutional innovation. He rejected command-and-control leadership in favor of collaboration, respect, and clear standards. “You don’t motivate professionals by barking orders,” he reflects, “I focused on setting the right tone, fostering collaboration, and leading in a way that motivated people.”[21] Donovan’s philosophy of leadership wasn’t about relinquishing discipline, it was about aligning structure with mission. His attention to detail stemmed not from a desire to micromanage, but from a conviction that the systems he built needed to last beyond any one person. It was this forward-thinking mindset, paired with a commitment to operational excellence, that helped shape an air marshal culture built not just for immediate post-9/11 threats, but for the long term.

Looking back, Donovan expresses quiet confidence in TSA’s trajectory, discussing how the “TSA has done a remarkable job staying true to its mission.”[22] Though acknowledging that no system is perfect, he argues that Americans are fundamentally safer in the air today than they were before 9/11. For him, the true danger lay not in bureaucracy or inconvenience, but in complacency. “Complacency is your worst enemy,” he warns, “the moment you assume you’re safe is the moment you’re most vulnerable.”[23] Donovan’s legacy within the TSA and Federal air marshal program is not measured in medals or headlines but in the culture he helped shape. He never sought recognition, but rather holding fast to the ethos of the “quiet professional”: do the job, do it right, and move on. In a security landscape defined by unpredictability, his story serves as a reminder that the most powerful defense is not fear or force, but foresight and nimble-thinking. In the wake of terror, Donovan didn’t just help build a new agency, he helped build a mindset. One that asks not if we are safe, but rather “what haven’t we thought of yet?”

[1] H.W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States Since 1945 (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), 176.

[2] Naval History and Heritage Command, “Sept. 11 Attack,” Naval History and Heritage Command, [WEB].

[3] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[4] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[5] Stephen Power, “Push to Expand Air Marshals Force Will Send Law Officers Back to Camps,” Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2001, [WEB].

[6] U.S. Congress, Senate, Aviation Security Act, S. 1447, 107th Congress, 1st session, introduced in Senate September 21, 2001, placed on calendar September 24, 2001, [WEB].

[7] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[8] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[9] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[10] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[11] U.S. Congress, Senate, Aviation Security Act, S. 1447, 107th Congress, 1st session.

[12] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[13] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[14] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[15] U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, H.R. Rep. No. 107-555, pt. 1 (2002), [WEB].

[16] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[17] U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.

[18] Roland Watson, “Bush backs plans to give guns to pilots,” The Times Digital Archive, September 6, 2002, [WEB].

[19] ABC News, “Trigger-Happy Pilot? Gun Discharged Midflight,” ABC News, March 24, 2008, [WEB].

[20] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[21] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[22] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

[23] Video Interview with John V. Donovan, Carlisle, PA, and Chapel Hill, NC, April 14, 2025.

Appendix

“Bush proclaimed a national emergency, in light of what he described as ‘the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.’ He went before Congress to declare a ‘war on terror.'” (H.W. Brands, American Dreams, p. 176)

Interview Subject

I will be interviewing Col. John V. Donovan, a U.S. veteran who began his lengthy military history and service to the United States of America during the Vietnam war. Following the 9/11 attacks, Col. Donovan was appointed head of the Federal Air Marshal Service and later served on the committee responsible for establishing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Interviews

– Audio recording, Carlisle, PA, April 14, 2025

Selected Transcript

Q: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, how were you brought into the leadership of the Federal Air Marshal Service, and what were your initial responsibilities?

A: “Just five days after the attacks, I received a call from a retired three-star general and close colleague from my active duty days. He was then Chief of Security at the FAA and had just come from a White House Situation Room meeting with the President. He told me, ‘I need you right now,’ and immediately began processing my security clearance. He informed me I was now the 33rd Federal Air Marshal—with the President’s directive to grow the program from 32 to thousands within six months.”

Q: What was your understanding of the threat landscape at that time, and how did it shape your approach to air travel security?

A: “In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we had no clear sense of what could come next. The threat environment was entirely uncertain, so we had to prepare for worst-case scenarios. I stood up a small intelligence cell—nicknamed the ‘chin scratchers’—who were tasked with thinking creatively and tactically about future threats. Their role was to war-game potential attack vectors, such as bombs being brought onto planes, aircraft being hijacked for non-piloting purposes, or explosive devices planted on board. We also had to be strategic in deciding which flights received coverage. Our focus was on high-risk targets—long-haul, fully fueled, high-profile flights—not short regional ones with limited potential for catastrophic impact.”

Q: H.W. Brands mentions the ‘war on terror’ and emergency declarations, but leaves out the formation of the TSA. In your view, how significant was the creation of the TSA in the broader U.S. response to 9/11?

A: “One of the most impactful aspects of TSA’s creation was how it brought together subject matter experts from across corporate America—18 different companies contributed top talent to help design a new aviation security system from scratch. These experts, many from sectors like logistics and crowd management, worked grueling hours in D.C. for over a year. For example, the layout of the TSA checkpoint queuing system was designed by a Senior Vice President from Disney, leveraging their expertise in managing high-volume crowds efficiently. Baltimore-Washington International Airport served as the testing ground for many of the concepts these experts developed—what eventually became the standardized screening process we know today.”

Q: As someone on the committee that created the TSA, what were the biggest challenges in the creation of a brand new federal agency essentially from scratch?

A: “A major hurdle came from Congress. There was a push from at least one lawmaker to arm airline pilots—a well-intentioned but deeply flawed idea. I was one of the first to oppose this publicly. My position was clear: pilots are trained to fly planes, not engage in firefights. They need to stay focused on aviation proficiency, not firearms training. To prove this, I conducted demonstrations in Atlantic City simulating how a pilot—depending on whether they were right or left-handed and seated in the left or right cockpit seat—would have to react to a threat at the cockpit door. The physical mechanics made it nearly impossible to respond quickly and accurately under stress. You can’t expect someone to turn 180 degrees and fire a precise shot in a confined space when they’re startled and untrained for that kind of scenario. My warnings were unfortunately validated a few years later when a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) discharged a weapon negligently while parked at the gate in Charlotte. No one was injured, but it was a wake-up call that confirmed why arming pilots was a bad idea from the beginning.”

Q: Looking back now, do you feel the TSA has stayed true to its founding mission?

A: “Yes, I do. In fact, just yesterday I sat next to a commercial airline captain, and he expressed how much more comfortable and confident he feels flying today compared to before 9/11—thanks to the multiple layers of security now in place. The immediate deployment of Federal Air Marshals, the creation of the TSA, and the overall overhaul of aviation security have all played a part in that. Sure, there are inconveniences. You might have to stand in line, take off your shoes, or follow new protocols that seem frustrating. But these measures exist for a reason. We take our shoes off because one individual tried to ignite explosives in his sneakers. And it all started with just 19 people—not a country, not an army, just 19—who were able to carry out an attack that changed the world. That’s the scale of what we’re dealing with. Given that, I think the TSA has done a remarkable job staying true to its mission: keeping the flying public safe. Do I think it’s perfect? No system is. But I feel safer flying today, and I think most people do—even if they don’t always say it out loud.”

– Audio recording, Carlisle, PA, April 14, 2025

National economies were bound so tightly together, [Norman Angell] maintained in his book, The Great Illusion, that war, far from profiting anyone, would ruin everyone. —Margaret Macmillan, “Rhyme of History,” Brookings (2013)

Causes of World War I

Imperialism

“Between 1870 and 1900, Britain added more than four million square miles to its imperial holdings, France more than three and a half million, and Germany one million.  The new rush for empire further destabilized an already unsettled world.” –George Herring, From Colony to Superpower (2010), 268

• During this same period, the US added approximately 500,000 square miles of annexed territory (Guam, Hawaii, Philippines, Puerto Rico); including Alaska (1867) raises the figure above 1 million square miles

From L to R / top to bottom: Alfred Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, John Hay, Henry Cabot Lodge

• The advocates for an American “large policy” in the 1890s were balance-of-power realists.  What does that description from international studies mean in this context?

The New “Manifest Destiny”

Contemporaries celebrated American victories [in 1898] as the providential act of God. The influential Brooklyn minister Lyman Abbott, for instance, declared that Americans were “an elect people of God” and saw divine providence in Dewey’s victory at Manila. Some, such as Senator Albert J. Beveridge of Indiana, took matters one step further, seeing in American victory an opportunity for imperialism. In Beveridge’s view, America had a “mission to perform” and a “duty to discharge” around the world. What Beveridge envisioned was nothing less than an American empire. —American Yawp, Chapter 19, Sec. III

Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points (January 1918)

• Open diplomacy, neutrality, and free trade
• Self-determination and de-colonization
• League of Nations and rule of international law

Wilsonianism offered a rebuke to balance-of-power realists by offering (in the terminology of international studies) a more idealistic approach to the US role in the world.

Treaty of Versailles Debate (1919-20)

• 

  Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge

  Wilsonians (Robinson)

• Reservationists (Lodge)
• Irreconciliables (Borah, Johnson, LaFollette)

Timeline of votes:

• November 18, 1919: 8 to 55 for treaty with reservations
• November 19, 1919:  38 to 53 for Wilson’s treaty
• March 19, 1920: 49 to 35 for Wilson’s treaty // (56 required for 2/3 super-majority)

Discussion Questions

• Lodge and Wilson were both internationalists.  So why did they destroy the greatest accomplishment of American internationalism to that point in time?
• Does this American treaty-making and treaty-ratifying system deserve any blame for this tragic outcome?

Consequences of World War I

We expect that the international community will deal with conflicts when they arise, and that they will be short-lived and easily containable. But this is not necessarily true. —Margaret Macmillan, “Rhyme of History,” Brookings (2013)

US Role in World Affairs

• WWI and Wilsonianism –lessons of imperialism and “guns of August”
• WWII and intervention –lessons of Munich and appeasement
• Cold War and containment –lessons of Vietnam and hubris

By Jane Canfield

“The blood of the two Kennedys and King, the blood on the streets of America’s cities, and the blood in Vietnam made that hope almost impossible to maintain,”^[1] H.W. Brands writes of the turbulence of the 1960s and 70s that destroyed liberalism’s hope of peaceful problem-solving. In his book American Dreams: The United States Since 1945, Brands characterizes the late 60s and early 70s through its counterculture and conflict, demonstrating societal evolution on a widespread scale. Protests, war, and prominent political figures are emphasized while the typical American experience fails to be mentioned. Brands focuses heavily on typical middle-class American family life in his chapter on the 1950s but never follows up with how those experiences evolved. Brands’ avoidance of this highlights a trend among historians, as the 60s and 70s are more often than not portrayed through the lens of social and political movements. By focusing on the more memorable turmoil like the Vietnam War and counterculture of the 60s, Brands omits the stories of how typical life was unfolding while these events were taking place, thus omitting a fuller picture of the period he explores. The experiences of those directly involved in the conflict are valuable, but personal anecdotes from those who were not are also worthwhile in that they can more accurately reflect the experiences of most Americans of the time.

Frances O’Connell-Canfield’s childhood memories speak directly to the experience of daily life in the late 60s and early 70s, and particularly middle-class family life, which can act as a continuation of Brands’ exploration of middle-class families in the mid-50s and early 60s. Though Brands describes the “Golden Age of the Middle Class” as 1955-1960, he forgoes to explain whether or not the “Golden Age” continued or diminished. The 60s and 70s can be understood as a time of increasing leisure and entertainment for families, the peak of the middle class occurring in the early 70s.^[2] Frances O’Connell-Canfield was born in December 1961 and grew up in Queens, New York in a middle-class neighborhood. When recalling her childhood, she describes a time of middle-class bliss, remembering that “we were lucky in that we never experienced any economic hardship. My father had a position where he made a good salary, and my mom stayed home. We were able to, in the 70s, buy a summer house in the north fork of Long Island.”^[3] The disposable income that Frances expresses is characteristic of the “Golden Age” of the 50s that Brands writes about. However, what was shifting was the political landscape in which these families existed. The families of the 50s were experiencing the Cold War, while the 60s and 70s saw the Vietnam War through their television screens. Famously dubbed the Television War, attacks were viewed on the news in people’s living rooms. Because the war was prevalent in daily life, one could assume that family life during that time might not be as leisure-filled as the idyllic 1950s suburban life. However, Frances recalls a childhood full of road trips, amusement parks, playing outside, and television, despite the chaos occurring in the U.S. and abroad.

Promotional image of The Partridge Family, courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

“We used to take road trips to upstate New York to see Niagara Falls,” Frances recalls, “we went to Cape Cod for the beaches. We loved to go to Golf City, it was a mini golf place. One of my most memorable trips was taking the ferry to Block Island from Long Island,”^[4] These memories were not unique. The recreational road trip was an increasing trend in the 60s and 70s, with 68,901 visits to national recreational sites in 1959 skyrocketing to 111,386 in 1964 and jumping another 50,000 or so by 1969.^[5] The use of automobiles had also exponentially increased since 1959, allowing more families to have vacations on the road. By the 70s, a culture of spending money on recreation was already embedded into American life as “Americans continued to spend increasing amounts on recreational pursuits, even in the face of higher gas prices and a sluggish economy during the 1970s,” as professor of Economics David George Surdam writes in his study on 20th century American leisure.^[6] The “sluggish economy” can in part refer to the energy crisis of the 70s, a time in which Frances remembers “parents were laid off from jobs…And also a construction boom that kind of collapsed. There were three tall empty apartment buildings in Queens. One family moved to the West Coast because they couldn’t get another position.”^[7] While the energy crisis laid people off and the Vietnam War was wearing on the economy, recreational spending did not decrease substantially. As Frances remembers, most families in her community were comfortable enough to rely primarily on the income of the fathers, with some of the mothers working by the time she reached high school age. Even so, Frances claimed that the mother’s jobs typically “[weren’t] providing for the household budget but adding to it so they could afford more luxuries like a second car or toward vacation homes or summer vacations, road trips. Vacations were very big in those days.”^[8] Therefore, even with financial struggles for some in the 70s, leisure remained at the forefront of family life.

More so than the 1950s, however, family life in the 60s and 70s saw an increase in television watching. While televisions became a new household staple in the 50s^[9], the late 60s and 70s solidified the pastime as something to stay. Despite the Vietnam War being televised, watching television was also recreational for the whole family. The amount of children’s entertainment in the 60s and 70s had elevated immensely. Reflecting on the TV shows she watched with her family, Frances remembers the different ways her family watched television: “We all watched the news. 60 Minutes and Face the Nation were popular news shows. Also Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. But for fun, my siblings and I would watch The Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family. They were like the number one shows.”^[10] With shows like this, the whole family could enjoy the same program. Interestingly, as scholar Andrea Press writes, “Television families of the period tend[ed] to be white, middle-class, intact, and suburban, all appearing in much higher percentages than they did in actuality.”^[11] This “ideal” family that was portrayed on television was likely the type of family to be least affected by any of the hardship of the time, meaning that watching these happy families on television could act as escapism from realities of the outside world.

New York Times article about the Atari from Christmas Day, 1975, courtesy of ProQuest

Another addition to family leisure was the rise of electronics and video games. Frances recalls when new electronics began to pop up in her neighborhood, recounting “I remember my dad bringing home from work one day an IBM electric typewriter, I remember when one of the other kids on the block got one of the first VHS tape machines, and I remember when my cousins got the new Atari.”^[12] She also recalled watching slideshows of pictures from vacation on the Kodak Carousel Projector. The Atari is of interest, though, because it was the first company to popularize video game consoles.^[13] “People want new ways to spend their leisure time,” reads a quote from a 1975 New York Times article on Atari’s popularity, “It’s part of a trend of looking for different ways to relax.”^[14] The article claims electronic games to be the newest Christmas gift craze, one that provides an escape from “harsh realities.”^[15]

Picture of Frances and her sisters opening presents on Christmas morning, circa mid-1970s.

Whether or not the “harsh reality” of the Vietnam War and other current events seeped into family life depended entirely on personal circumstances. While her family wasn’t directly affected, some families weren’t so lucky as to be so removed from wartime. Frances’ neighbors had a son who had been drafted and she remembers when “he came home and he was kind of…his behavior had changed. In those days people didn’t really understand PTSD or didn’t speak about it. People referred to him as being ‘odd’, saying ‘he got messed up by Vietnam.’”^[16] His backyard was next to the O’Connell family, and Frances recalls that he would spend hours lying under a Cherry tree in his yard. As a kid, she wondered why he didn’t get up and do something.

When asked about her awareness of the war at that age, Frances said she was aware, as it was on the news every night, but was too young to have a clear understanding. Frances believes that her parents did their best to shelter their children from the harsh realities, remembering that her mother put away a magazine that had images of the war to not disturb her younger siblings. “I think children,” she says, “or at least middle-class kids, were more kept in a childhood lane in those days. Finances weren’t discussed, and problems of the world weren’t discussed as much except for when they were glaring. Things were hidden from children then.”^[17] This protection of childhood innocence in the face of televised foreign violence and violence on the homefront can perhaps be understood as a driving force for the family-friendly entertainment of the era. As an exhibit in the American Archive of Public Broadcasting says, “The late 1960s and 1970s witnessed rising consumer activism in the television industry, as pressure grew on corporate broadcasters to address the commercialization and violence that children saw on television.”^[18]

Therefore, while the social radicalism and political conflict of the late 1960s and 70s is the focus of Brands’ exploration, the seemingly mundane life of family leisure can help paint a fuller picture of American culture of the time and how family leisure persisted in the face of conflict. Brands’ claim of how peaceful hope was “almost impossible to maintain” did not apply to many Americans who were somewhat removed from those events and perhaps sheltered through their material consumption and pursuit of leisure.

^[1]  H.W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States Since 1945 (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), 162.

^[2] Willis, Derek. “The Rise of the Middle Class as An Ordinary American Term.” The New York Times, May 14, 2015. [URL]

^[3] Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, November 27th, 2023

^[4] Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, December 8th, 2023

^[5] Surdam, David George. “The Rise of Expenditures on Leisure Goods and Services.” Century of the Leisured Masses, 2015, 64–85. [URL]

^[6] Surdam, David George. “The Rise of Expenditures on Leisure Goods and Services.” Century of the Leisured Masses, 2015, 64–85. [URL]

^[7] Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, November 27th, 2023

^[8] Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, December 8th, 2023

^[9]“1920s – 1960s: Television.” Elon University. Accessed December 11, 2023. [URL]

^[10] Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, December 8th, 2023

^[11] Press, Andrea. “Gender and Family in Television’s Golden Age and Beyond.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 625 (2009): 139–50. [JSTOR]

^[12]Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, November 27th, 2023

^[13]“Atari 2600 Game System.” The Strong National Museum of Play, November 10, 2021. [URL]

^[14] WILLIAM D. SMITH. “Electronic Games Bringing a Different Way to Relax: Electronic Games Bring New Way for Relaxation.” New York Times (1923-), Dec 25, 1975. [URL]

^[15]WILLIAM D. SMITH. “Electronic Games Bringing a Different Way to Relax: Electronic Games Bring New Way for Relaxation.” New York Times (1923-), Dec 25, 1975. [URL]

^[16]  Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, December 8th, 2023

^[17]  Video Interview with Frances O’Connell-Canfield Carlisle, PA, and Brewster, NY, December 8th, 2023

^[18] “Innovations in Children’s Public Television Programming.” American Archive of Public Broadcasting. Accessed December 11, 2023. [URL]

Appendix

“The blood of the two Kennedys and King, the blood on the streets of America’s cities, and the blood in Vietnam made that hope almost impossible to maintain” (H.W. Brands, American Dreams, p. 162).

Interview Subject

Frances Canfield, age 61, was born in 1961 (near the end of the baby boom) and experienced American family life during the late 60s and early 70s.

Interview

Zoom call recording, Carlisle, PA and Brewster, NY, November 27, 2023

Zoom call recording, Carlisle, PA and Brewster, NY, December 8th, 2023

Selected Transcript

Would you describe your family growing up as middle class and can you describe your memories of your neighborhood briefly and the socioeconomic status of your neighborhood overall?

Yes, I would describe my family as middle class. I grew up in Queens, New York in the 60s and 70s. My father and mother came to New York in 1956 from Ireland and we moved into a neighborhood that also had a lot of immigrant and first-generation families from Italy, Germany, Ireland, and Greece. Most of the dads worked and the moms stayed home and raised the children. Everyone came from pretty large families and had ties to a church. There were a lot of activities based out of those churches for families. Most of the kids I grew up with came from families of 4, 5, 6 kids. It was not unusual. In fact, every family on my block had four or more kids. 

How did your financial situation contribute to experiences you had as a child? Did your family ever experience economic hardship?

We were lucky in that we never experienced any economic hardship. My father had a position where he made a good salary, and my mom stayed home. We were able to in the 70s buy a summer house in the north fork of Long Island. And like I said that we had roots in Ireland, we went there every other summer and we took the plane and my cousins also lived in Queens, my father had a sister that he emigrated with. The mothers would stay in Ireland for the summer while the fathers stayed two weeks and went back to work in the United States. You know my father often worked long hours so he could provide that for the family. We were fortunate. But you know I do remember in the 70s some kids in the neighborhood whose parents were laid off from jobs because there was an energy crisis. And also a construction boom that kind of collapsed. There were three tall empty apartment buildings in Queens. One moved to the West Coast because they couldn’t get another position. 

Did you take many road trips growing up and was this the norm for people in your community? And then what was your most memorable road trip?

The houses were small and there were a lot of children so people took a lot of Sunday drives to places like sleigh riding, Bear Mountain Park. Also these big water parks were popular, they were just starting to come, like Palisades park in New Jersey used to have commercials and it was the first wave pool in that tri-state area. A lot of picnics. We used to take road trips to upstate New York to see Niagara Falls, we went to Cape Cod for the beaches. One of my most memorable trips was taking the ferry to Block Island from Long Island. I also remember taking a road trip to Florida and it was long and I remember stopping at South of the Border, the border between North and South Carolina. It had a lot of amusements for kids there. You could buy firecrackers whereas in New York firecrackers were not for sale, they were illegal. We went to Disney World and that was a big deal for us at the time. We didn’t really appreciate visiting our grandparents in Ireland, we preferred Disney World as kids.   

Were there any television shows/movies you and your whole family would watch together?

Yes we would watch Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, it was a popular nature show. I would watch that with my mom, dad, and sisters. We all watched the news. 60 minutes and Face the Nation were popular news shows. But for fun, my siblings and I would watch the Brady Bunch and the Partridge Family. They were like the number one shows. As a family I remember going to Radio City Music Hall in NYC and seeing a movie called 1776. I don’t remember going to other movies except for drive-ins in the summer in the town of  our summer house on Long Island. We mostly played outside with the other kids in the neighborhood until it was dinner time. We played board games, we had a lot of board games. And those we would play as a family. 

In the book I’m reading for my class, American Dreams by Brands, his chapter on the time of your childhood focuses heavily on the political and social movements going on. I was wondering as a kid, did you even take notice of any of that? Because you were so young, do you remember anything about that?

Well, I did take notice of it because it was on the news and it was on the news every night, really. And our next door neighbor, the Hansens, their son had been in Vietnam and he came home and he was kind of, his behavior had changed. In those days people didn’t really understand PTSD or didn’t really speak about it. People referred to him as being “odd now” or “he got messed up by Vietnam.” Their backyard butted our backyard, and they had this Cherry tree. He used to spend hours just laying under that Cherry tree and I remember as a kid wondering why he didn’t get up and do something. And I think part of it was that he was decompressing but we weren’t really privy to that, or it wasn’t explained to us or discussed. And I did have a t-shirt that another older neighbor had given to me whose brother had also been in Vietnam, I actually have a photo of me wearing it. It said “Make Love Not War” and I remember she was a teenager and I was maybe 10 and she passed it onto me when it shrunk in the wash or she outgrew it. I remember her parents being very disturbed that their son was drafted, you know, but luckily he came back okay. Also, a magazine that was delivered to our house was “Life” magazine. It was practically just a photo journal, and I remember one time there was coverage about Vietnam about it and my mother putting it away because I had younger siblings and she didn’t want them to be disturbed by the images. But again, I was young so I didn’t really have a clear understanding of it. Like when I see kids now at protests on their parent’s shoulders or something. As a kid, children weren’t part of it. I think children, or at least middle-class kids were more kept in a childhood lane in those days. Finances weren’t discussed, problems of the world weren’t discussed as much, except for when they were really glaring. Things were hidden from children then. 

Further Research

Willis, Derek. “The Rise of the Middle Class.” The New York Times, May 14, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/upshot/the-rise-of-middle-class-as-a-mainstream-description.html

Surdam, David George. “The Rise of Expenditures on Leisure Goods and Services.” Century of the Leisured Masses, 2015, 64–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190211561.003.0006.

1920s – 1960s: Television.” Elon University. Accessed December 11, 2023. https://www.elon.edu/u/imagining/time-capsule/150-years/back-1920-1960/#:~:text=Television%20replaced%20radio%20as%20the,million%20had%20them%20by%201960.

Press, Andrea. “Gender and Family in Television’s Golden Age and Beyond.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 625 (2009): 139–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375911.

“Atari 2600 Game System.” The Strong National Museum of Play, November 10, 2021. https://www.museumofplay.org/toys/atari-2600-game-system/#:~:text=Atari%20did%20not%20make%20the,electronic%20table%2Dtennis%20game%20Pong.

“Innovations in Children’s Public Television Programming.” American Archive of Public Broadcasting. Accessed December 11, 2023. https://americanarchive.org/exhibits/zoom/innovations-childrens-television.

Video: Vietnam Veterans: America’s Other Vietnam Failure

       Vietnam Veterans: America’s Other Vietnam Failure

By Sam Kistler

The evacuation of Saigon before its fall on April 30, 1975. (Britannica)

“The communist conquest completed America’s Vietnam debacle,” wrote H.W. Brands in his, American Dreams, referencing the Fall of Saigon and the ultimate end of American involvement in the Vietnam War. [1] The conflict, during which direct American military action lasted from 1965-1973, was highly controversial and contentious, and claimed the lives of nearly 60,000 American servicemen. [2] Set against the backdrop of America’s Cold War policy of globally containing communism, the unsuccessful and domestically unpopular conflict saw the United States militarily intervene in support of South Vietnam in their war against neighboring communist North Vietnam. After eight years of harsh fighting, and little, if any, true military success, US forces withdrew from Vietnam completely in 1973, and in April of 1975, the North Vietnamese captured the South’s capital city of Saigon, effectively concluding the war. However, while the fighting itself may have ended in the South Vietnamese capital on 30 April 1975, “America’s Vietnam debacle,” was far from complete.

While America’s geopolitical aspect of the Vietnam War ended with the cessation of hostilities in 1975, a domestic development of the war would continue for decades, one that many, including H.W. Brands, neglect to include in their analysis of the conflict: the plight of Vietnam Veterans. Upon returning from the failed war, often brining with them physical disabilities and mental struggles, American servicemen faced persistent hardships, with many finding both inadequate assistance in dealing with those hardships, and a seemingly ungrateful nation. Robert Van Loon had a front row seat to the predicaments of these Veterans. In 1971, after serving in the Army Reserves during the early years of the war, Van Loon began a career at the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.), first working as a Benefits Claims Examiner in Buffalo, NY, and then as a Benefits Counselor and Officer-in-Charge in Rochester, NY until retiring in 2001. [3] As a Benefits Counselor, Van Loon dealt personally with Veterans, and he recalls being “inundated” with those who served in Vietnam. [4] “I interviewed and filed claims for many thousands of Vietnam Veterans,” he remembered. [5] As witnessed by Van Loon, throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, the men who had served in what was at the time America’s longest conflict would face struggles of an intensity greater than those faced by any Veterans who had come before. While the war was over for the rest of America, their fight was just beginning.

Wounded Vietnam veterans at a VA Hospital in 1969. (Ann Arbor District Library)

Unlike in previous conflicts, improved medical capabilities of the American military in Vietnam allowed for the survival of hundreds of thousands of wounded servicemen. However, this increased survival rate of the wounded also meant a much higher percentage of soldiers with physical disabilities after the war. In all, nearly 800,000 disabled came out of Vietnam, with almost 400,000 having been moderately to severely impaired. [6] These disabilities often prevented Veterans from living normal lives, and a great deal found their ability to participate in society quite limited. Most turned to government agencies such as the V.A. for help, receiving benefits and medical care. Many received the much needed assistance from the V.A., as Van Loon remembers, “a lot of people (Veterans) did like the V.A., and they liked getting medical benefits.” [7] However, the US Federal Government and the V.A. did come up short on some important fronts.

Most returning disabled Veterans came to the Department of Veterans Affairs to receive badly needed medical care, often administered at V.A. Hospitals. With hundreds of thousands of wounded and disabled servicemen, the V.A. would have needed to provide highly efficient and effective care to meet the needs of these men. This was, however, sadly not the case. V.A. hospitals were often overcrowded, and often lacked the ability to provide adequate care to their patients. “They should have spent more money on the medical part of the V.A.,” recalls Van Loon, in one of his critiques of his employer. [8] “There always seemed to be a shortage of doctors, and perhaps a shortage of nurses too.” [9] These shortfalls of the medical services of the V.A. are vividly illustrated in wounded Lieutenant Bobby Muller’s account of a V.A. Hospital in the Bronx, NY. “It was overcrowded. It was smelly. It was filthy. It was disgusting,” he recalled, while also going on to recount how the understaffed nurses were often too busy to assist him, and that the hospital even ran out of wheelchairs. [10]

Apart from the physical injuries that plagued many Vietnam Veterans, mental afflictions also followed the returning soldiers back home. Of the many former servicemen he dealt with, Van Loon recalls, “A lot of them had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.” [11] Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), an ailment seen in Veterans of most wars, is a mental illness resulting from memories of traumatic events such as combat, and was especially prevalent among Veterans of Vietnam, afflicting up to 15% of all the men who served in the war. [12] What’s more, as Van Loon remembers, it took years until these mental illnesses were identified, as PTSD itself only became a diagnosed mental disorder in 1980, leaving many Veterans to struggle with these afflictions on their own. [13] As a result, a good number of these Veterans were also increasingly unstable, highlighted by an encounter in which Van Loon was threatened by a Vietnam Veteran over a loan payment. “He saw it, he blamed me for it, and said he was going to shoot me with a shotgun,” he recalled, and while the man never went through with his threat, the encounter is a stark reminder of the mental difficulties faced by Veterans of Vietnam. [14]

Vietnam Veterans protesting their financial state. (Reddit)

In addition to their medical difficulties, many Vietnam Veterans also heavily struggled financially. Developments in the mid-late 1970s caused energy prices and inflation to rise drastically in America, leading to increasing unemployment and ultimately a recession. [15] While their mental and physical injuries would have already caused them difficulty in finding work, returning home to a broken economy made it especially hard for many Vietnam Vets to secure employment. Furthermore, many of those who fought in Vietnam  were prevented from finishing their educations, wether it be college or high school. Because of this, a large portion of Veterans found themselves working in low paying, low-skill level, unfulfilling occupations. [16] So, even for those who would find employment, the opportunities were quite slim and grim. 

In light of their economic hardships, many Vietnam Vets would again turn to organizations like the V.A., this time for badly needed financial assistance. While the benefits provided by the federal government did help a good number of Veterans, there also those who felt that, once again, the systems in place to aid them had let them down. Many Vietnam servicemen found that the G.I. benefits that had greatly assisted World War II Vets in establishing post-war lives just three decades earlier were quite lacking, and even “nonexistent,” in the words of Veteran Peter Langenus. [17] In addition to the perceived weakness of the benefits, a number of tricky tacky V.A. regulations prevented some Vietnam Veterans from even receiving necessary aid at all. Van Loon highlights one of these regulations, “The V.A. had a regulation where they (Veterans) had to have gotten a medical determination within one year of leaving service, showing a disability.” [18] Many Veterans were unaware of the bylaw he refers to, and were consequently unable to receive their badly needed disability benefits, “Many of these guys just left service. There was no particular medical examination that they got and they complained, and you know, rightly so.”[19] An instance of this predicament can further be seen in the testimony of Peter Langenus, as he recounts contracting a severe disease specifically connected to Vietnam, after having returned to the U.S.. [20] Langenus recalls that he was unable to receive V.A. benefits or health insurance simply because he was unable to connect the affliction to his war-time service without an in-service medical examination. [21] With many already disabled, impoverished, and out of job, Vietnam Vets now also found themselves unable to receive their promised assistance.

Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 song “Born in the USA” (song cover picture above) describes the social and economic struggles of Vietnam Veterans. (Bruce Springsteen)

In addition to their medical and financial plights, perhaps worst of all was they way many Vietnam Veterans felt they were treated by American society after the war. Throughout its course, Vietnam was an increasingly unpopular conflict in the United States, with anti-war protests erupting in cities and on college campuses across the country. [22] Because of this, a lot of Vietnam Veterans returned home to a much different kind of reception than they expected. While in most American wars of the past, Veterans were treated to great jubilee and celebration, Veterans of Vietnam were given much the opposite. [23] Many felt unappreciated for their service in the unsuccessful war, with some receiving outright hostility. While being transferred to the hospital upon returning to the United States, wounded Veteran Steven Wowwk recalls passing civilians and throwing up to them the two-fingered peace sign. [24] Wowwk claims that “instead of getting return peace fingers, I got the middle finger.” [25] Because of this kind of perceived resentment, many Vets felt ostracized from society, with the Oklahoma Historical Society even describing their treatment as that of “traitors.” [26] This perception of mistreatment towards Vietnam Veterans was, however, not shared by all. Van Loon himself believes that many of these stories of Veteran debasement, such as the one told by Wowwk, were often “apocryphal”, and that the people of America treated them more or less quite well. [27] While American society’s conduct towards Vietnam Veterans after the war is indeed up for debate, it is clear that at least some Veterans felt unappreciated and disrespected by their fellow countrymen after coming home.

While the War in Vietnam may have ended with the Fall of Saigon in 1975, “America’s Vietnam debacle” as H.W. Brands puts it, was far from over. The returning Veterans of the war who had risked their lives for their country, often faced disability and poverty, as well as a sense of contempt and stigmatization from the American people. And while employees of America’s Veteran-assistance institutions, like Robert Van Loon, did their best to aid these former servicemen, there were many Veterans who felt let down by their government when they needed them most. When asked if many of the thousands of Vietnam Vets he dealt with were happy with their lives, Van Loon replied simply, “No.” [28] Thankfully, it was not doom and gloom for all Vietnam Veterans. There were a good number who did manage to complete their education after the war, and some eventually established steady lives during the period of relative economic prosperity in the country during the late 1980s and 1990s. One such Veteran, John McCain, even became the Republican Nominee for President of the United States in 2008. However, despite the eventual success of some of these servicemen, many of the veterans of this unwanted and seemingly unwinnable conflict faced persistent struggles, whether it was destitution, or mental illness, or physical disability, and the end of their plight will be the true end of “America’s Vietnam debacle.”

Citations

[1] H.W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States Since 1945 (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), 175.

[2] H.W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States Since 1945 (New York: Penguin Books, 2010), 175.

[3] Email Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 8, 2023

[4] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[5] Email Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 8, 2023

[6] Sharon Cohaney, The Vietnam-era Cohort: Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992), 6.

[7] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[8] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[9] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[10] Bobby Muller, Quote to New York Times, May 27, 1979, in Now: Vietnam Vets Demand their Rights, ed. Bernard Weinraub (New York: The New York Times, 1979)

[11] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[12] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PTSD and Vietnam Veterans: A Lasting Issue 40 Years Later (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Public Health, 2016)

[13] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PTSD and Vietnam Veterans: A Lasting Issue 40 Years Later (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Public Health, 2016); Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[14] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[15] H.W. Brands, 192-196, 203.

[16] Sharon Cohaney, The Vietnam-era Cohort: Employment and Earnings (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1992), 6.

[17] Peter Langenus, Quote to The History Channel, March 29, 2019, Why Were Vietnam War Vets Treated Poorly When They Returned Home, ed. Dante Ciampaglia (New York: The History Channel, 2019)

[18] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[19] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[20] Langenus Quote to The History Channel

[21] Langenus Quote to The History Channel

[22] H.W. Brands, 153-154.

[23] Dante Ciampaglia

[24] Steven Wowwk, Quote to The History Channel, March 29, 2019, Why Were Vietnam War Vets Treated Poorly When They Returned Home, ed. Dante Ciampaglia (New York: The History Channel, 2019)

[25] Wowwk Quote to The History Channel

[26] The Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahomans and The Vietnam War: Veterans Return Home, (Oklahoma City: The Oklahoma Historical Society)

[27] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

[28] Zoom Interview With Robert Van Loon, December 5, 2023

Interview Subject: Robert Van Loon, age 84, retired Officer-in-Charge, Department of Veterans Affairs, Rochester District. Former member of U.S. Army Reserves, 1962-1968.

Interview Transcript, December 5, 2023

Speaker 3  Hi, Sam. 

Speaker 2 Hi. So I guess I’ll start off with. You were at one point in the Army yourself, right? 

Speaker 3  I was in the Army Reserves for six years. 

Speaker 2 And from what years were you in the Reserves? 

Speaker 3 Um. From 1962 to 1968. And nicer. Yeah, I served six, six months regular active duty for training down at Fort Dix, New Jersey. And then I went back to Rochester and then I just went to meetings every Sunday. And then every year we would go to a 2 week summer camp for six years. So that’s what I did. Yeah. 

Speaker 2 And then after your service, you worked at the VA, right? The Veterans Affairs? 

Speaker 3 No, I worked. I work with the DHS, the Defense Contract Administration services for work there, maybe about a year. I left and then I went into teaching there. So I taught for about a year at West High School, and then I taught for a year, well, it was later on at Monroe High School, which was my old high school. I had my own homeroom. Then I went to the V.A.. 

Speaker 2  So Which office did you work at? Was it the Rochester office for the V.A.? 

Speaker 3 No, I worked at the Chicago Chicago Regional Office of the VA in Chicago, Illinois. And I was there for almost two years. 

Speaker 2 Okay. And what was your job at the VA. 

Speaker 3 Um, I worked as a veterans benefit claims examiner. So I, you know, did a lot of paperwork for veterans educational benefits, disability benefits, either non service connected disabilities or service connected disabilities. And so that’s what I did at the Chicago VA. And I did that at Buffalo, too. And I finally ended up in Rochester, New York. 

Speaker 2 So while you were there, did you come across a lot of veterans of Vietnam? 

Speaker 3 Oh, yes. Yeah, quite a few. We were inundated, and I had a lot of claims that I looked over from Vietnam veterans. I had one guy, strangely enough, who got attacked by a tiger. Tiger jumped into his foxhole and dragged him out by the neck and his buddy shot the tiger and it turned up in The Army Times, they’re holding tiger. You know, they hung it up and so forth. The guy had gone out. He got a disability. So, yeah, but wasn’t hurt too badly. 

Speaker 2 So when you interacted with these veterans of Vietnam, did they seem happy with the VA and did they seem that they felt they were being treated properly by the federal government?

Speaker 3 I’d say pretty much so. Pretty much so. I had. Mostly when I left Buffalo, I got a job as a veteran’s benefits counselor so that I dealt with veterans personally, either on the phone or in person filing claims for them to send them to our Buffalo Regional office, which that’s where the claim where I worked as a claims examiner also or had worked there before. But pretty much, you know, you do have complaints every now and then. But pretty much, you know, I think most people did like the VA, okay. And they liked getting benefits, you know, a lot of them were getting benefits. Or I should say medical benefits from the VA clinic, which was at the federal building and in Rochester for a long time before they moved out to a suburban location. And. And I moved out there with them. So yeah, I’d say most of them were pretty happy. You get occasional ones that complain about things. And you know, World War Two veterans sometimes complain. Most of the time it was complaints about hearing loss. And the VA had a, you know, had a regulation where they had to have gotten a medical determination, at least within one year of leaving service, showing a disability. And many of these guys, you know, they just left service. I mean, there was no particular medical examination that they got out or so forth and they complained and, you know, rightly so. But that was probably one of the major complaints that we used to get. 

Speaker 2 Were there any specific interactions at the V.A. that came to mind? Or any people that you remember? 

Speaker 3 Yeah, I’d say one time I was actually threatened. I heard this. I heard this from the nurses that from one of the veterans whom I had dealt with. He was getting a non service connected disability benefit which is based on income. That’s an income based benefit. And for some reason, he did not. He did not list that he owned property and that he was collecting rent from his property. And when he told me that, I had to put it down and I sent it in to Buffalo, to our regional office. And then they sent him a notice of a tremendous amount of overpayment. And he didn’t like that at all. And he blamed me for it. And he saw it and said he was going to shoot me with a shotgun. So. I actually had gone to the police there. And but they never they never did anything. They talked to me about it and, you know, so what. Oh. And nothing ever happened behind that. So. 

Speaker 2 Do you think that there was anything that the V.A. or the federal government could have done differently to help veterans after the war? 

Speaker 3 They could have spent more money. I think on the medical part of the V.A., I think they could have. You know, there always seemed like a shortage of doctors and. Perhaps too a shortage of nurses. There are always nurses around, but doctors seem to come and go. And some stayed and many were very good. Some of the ones who left, they probably should have left because they weren’t very good. But they could have spent more money on getting more doctors. I think for the VA clinics. And the hospitals, for that matter. 

Speaker 2 Now, outside of the VA, did you know personally any people who fought in Vietnam? 

Speaker 3 Who fought in Vietnam? Yes. Yes, I did. A friend of my brother’s had gotten drafted. And he was sent over to Vietnam and he was there. He was there for one day. And the enemy had mortared him and he ended up falling on his arm on a tent steak or something. So that was the end of the war for him. And he was all right after that. But he got a decent disability compensation. That’s not a large amount, but it’s, you know, minimal. That’s the only person that I really knew outside the VA who was in Vietnam.

Speaker 2 So did you. I know you say that all of these veterans were more or less happy with the VA. Did they seem happy with their lives? 

Speaker 3 No. A lot of them had post-traumatic stress disorder. But this wasn’t really, this didn’t become a big thing until maybe years later when they really knew. And it was affecting a lot of these veterans. And there was, you know, and it’s just something that I think happens because of the fact that they’re engaged in such really awful, awful warfare. Yeah. I mean, they saw a lot of terrible things. And, you know, that’s just something that happens, I think, to anybody who’s probably caught in a traumatic or frightening event. And you can’t get more frightening than combat. 

Speaker 2 And apart from the VA and overall, how would you say that the American people treated people coming back from Vietnam? 

Speaker 3 I think that they treated them well. I think a lot of the stories that you read are apocryphal stories like people spitting on veterans and so forth in the back or we didn’t nobody, nobody really felt that way. I mean, it’s possible there were a few people who did something like that. I can’t imagine it. But it’s something that just spread. And a lot of some veterans like to spread those things. Mm hmm. That makes them feel more important or whatever. So, yeah. But I don’t think that that happened very much. If at all, even. 

Email Interview, December 8, 2023

Q. Do you remember the exact years you worked at the V.A.?

A. I started as a VA Claims Examiner at the Buffalo, NY Regional Office of the VA in September 1971. Worked in Rochester, NY as a VA Benefits Counselor, and then as VA Benefits Officer-in-Charge of the Rochester region until I retired in July, 2001.

Q. Do remember if most of the Vietnam Veterans you dealt with were doing well financially?

A. It depended on the benefit the veteran sought. I issues VA loan guarantee certificates for home purchases, applications for college, and trade schools. If the veteran had a low disability percentage, they were perhaps doing well. However, most of the veterans who applied for benefits were not doing well financially. As to numbers, I couldn’t brake it down. I interviewed many thousands of Vietnam veterans.