Mission 2026: Binge reviewing all previous Reads, I was too slothful to review back when I read them
Reading Robert Mason’s 'Chickenhawk' felt less like reading a war memoir and more like being locked inside a nervous system that never fully learned how to power down. I had encountered Vietnam narratives before, of course, from Tim O’Brien’s metafictional doubt to Michael Herr’s hallucinatory journalism, but 'Chickenhawk' occupies a different psychological register.
It is not reflective in the literary sense, not shaped by irony or retrospective wisdom. It is raw, linear, and insistently procedural. Mason does not so much remember the war as relive it, minute by minute, checklist by checklist, rotor beat by rotor beat.
The effect is cumulative and corrosive. By the end, I felt less that I had understood Vietnam than that I had absorbed its rhythm of stress.
What distinguishes 'Chickenhawk' immediately is its obsession with competence. Mason arrives in Vietnam not as a reluctant conscript or political skeptic but as a young man intoxicated by the idea of flying. The helicopter is not initially a weapon or a symbol; it is a machine to be mastered.
The early chapters are filled with the language of training, flight hours, emergency procedures, and peer evaluation. This focus gives the book its peculiar moral texture. Mason’s sense of worth is entirely bound up with performance. Fear is not shameful because killing is wrong, but because fear interferes with execution.
This is where 'Chickenhawk' unsettled me most. Unlike many war memoirs that emphasize moral rupture or political awakening, Mason’s narrative charts the erosion of a technical self. The war does not first destroy his ideals; it destroys his precision. Missions blur, reactions slow, judgment falters.
The reader watches a man whose identity is built on control confront a situation designed to defeat control at every level. There is no grand ideological betrayal here. There is only fatigue.
The helicopter itself becomes the book’s central metaphor, though Mason never treats it symbolically. It is both shield and coffin, mobility and entrapment. In the air, Mason feels powerful, distanced, almost serene.
On the ground, he is exposed, anxious, and unmoored. This oscillation creates the memoir’s emotional rhythm. Flight is escape; landing is dread. Over time, even flight loses its relief. The cockpit fills with ghosts, with remembered tracers, with anticipated malfunctions. The machine that once promised transcendence becomes merely another variable that might fail.
Comparatively, where Tim O’Brien interrogates the truth of memory, Mason distrusts memory altogether. He clings to logs, statistics, and procedural detail as anchors. This gives 'Chickenhawk' an almost anti-literary quality. The prose is blunt, repetitive, occasionally graceless. But this is precisely its power.
The book resists aestheticization. Violence is not poetic; it is tedious. Death is not tragic; it is inconvenient, destabilizing, something that disrupts the mission flow.
What shocked me was how long it takes Mason to register moral dissonance. Civilians appear, villages burn, bodies accumulate, yet the narrative rarely pauses to condemn. Instead, the horror leaks in sideways.
Through sleep deprivation. Through reflexive aggression. Through the creeping inability to feel relief after survival. When moral awareness does surface, it does so without rhetoric. Mason does not indict the war; he notes what it has done to him. That restraint makes the indictment stronger.
The title itself, 'Chickenhawk', is a perfect encapsulation of the book’s cruel irony. The term, used derisively to describe helicopter pilots perceived as less exposed than infantry, becomes an internal wound. Mason feels both superior and guilty, privileged and hunted. He is never safe enough to relax, never vulnerable enough to feel absolved. This liminal position mirrors America’s own role in Vietnam: technologically dominant yet strategically blind, insulated yet psychologically undone.
By the later chapters, the memoir becomes a study in psychological unraveling. Mason’s growing paranoia, emotional numbing, and compulsive aggression read now as a textbook account of combat trauma, though the term PTSD never appears.
What makes this section so disturbing is its lack of narrative climax. There is no breakdown scene, no cathartic collapse. Instead, there is accumulation. Stress piles atop stress until normality itself feels unreal.
In this sense, 'Chickenhawk' stands in sharp contrast to more overtly literary Vietnam works. Herr’s 'Dispatches' intoxicates with language; O’Brien’s 'The Things They Carried' circles trauma through metafictional grace. Mason offers no such mediation. His book feels closer to a flight log accidentally infected with consciousness. That flatness is its ethical stance. War, the book suggests, does not arrive as meaning. It arrives as routine.
What stayed with me long after finishing 'Chickenhawk' was its portrayal of return. Homecoming does not resolve anything. The war persists internally, stripped of context but not intensity. Mason’s postwar disorientation feels more frightening than combat itself. In Vietnam, at least, there were procedures. At home, there are none. The absence of structure reveals how much of Mason’s self had been outsourced to the war machine.
Reading this now, decades removed from Vietnam but not from endless war, 'Chickenhawk' feels disturbingly contemporary. The technologies have changed, the rhetoric has evolved, but the psychological economy remains intact. Competence still substitutes for morality. Precision still masks purpose. Trauma still arrives not as a single wound but as an atmosphere.
'Chickenhawk' is not a book I would call beautiful or wise. It does not offer synthesis or consolation. What it offers instead is exposure: to the lived texture of mechanized war and to the quiet devastation of becoming very good at something that should never have existed.
Mason does not ask us to judge him. He shows us what the war required of him and what it took in return.
In doing so, he leaves the reader with an uncomfortable realization. The most dangerous wars are not those fought by monsters or fanatics, but those fought by skilled, earnest people doing their jobs as well as they can.
'Chickenhawk' is a record of that competence turning inward, hollowing out the person who perfected it. It is a book that does not shout its antiwar message, because it does not need to. The damage speaks fluently on its own.
Most recommended.