Abstract

Historians have often used a 1966 Army report nicknamed PROVN either to cast aspersions on the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam between 1964 and 1968, General William C. Westmoreland, or to praise his successor, General Creighton Abrams. This interpretation is simplistic and inaccurate. Although the report criticized aspects of the war under Westmoreland, its target was really the U.S. and Vietnamese governments. Moreover, PROVN’s conclusions were less radical and its remedies less novel than observers have tended to admit. A fresh look at PROVN reveals significant continuities in thought between Westmoreland, the report, and Abrams.

pdf

Share