[Rhodes22-list] Soup or Tuesday

[Brad Haslett]

Herb,

Here's another perspective on Vietnam.  Brad

----------------------

The Lies of Tet By *ARTHUR HERMAN*
February 6, 2008

On January 30, 1968, more than a quarter million North Vietnamese soldiers
and 100,000 Viet Cong irregulars launched a massive attack on South Vietnam.
But the public didn't hear about who had won this most decisive battle of
the Vietnam War, the so-called Tet offensive, until much too late.

Media misreporting of Tet passed into our collective memory. That picture
gave antiwar activism an unwarranted credibility that persists today in
Congress, and in the media reaction to the war in Iraq. The Tet experience
provides a narrative model for those who wish to see all U.S. military
successes -- such as the Petraeus surge -- minimized and glossed over.

In truth, the war in Vietnam was lost on the propaganda front, in great
measure due to the press's pervasive misreporting of the clear U.S. victory
at Tet as a defeat. Forty years is long past time to set the historical
record straight.

The Tet offensive came at the end of a long string of communist setbacks. By
1967 their insurgent army in the South, the Viet Cong, had proved
increasingly ineffective, both as a military and political force. Once
American combat troops began arriving in the summer of 1965, the communists
were mauled in one battle after another, despite massive Hanoi support for
the southern insurgency with soldiers and arms. By 1967 the VC had lost
control over areas like the Mekong Delta -- ironically, the very place where
reporters David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan had first diagnosed a Vietnam
"quagmire" that never existed.

The Tet offensive was Hanoi's desperate throw of the dice to seize South
Vietnam's northern provinces using conventional armies, while simultaneously
triggering a popular uprising in support of the Viet Cong. Both failed.
Americans and South Vietnamese soon put down the attacks, which began under
cover of a cease-fire to celebrate the Tet lunar new year. By March 2, when
U.S. Marines crushed the last North Vietnamese pockets of resistance in the
northern city of Hue, the VC had lost 80,000-100,000 killed or wounded
without capturing a single province.

Tet was a particularly crushing defeat for the VC. It had not only failed to
trigger any uprising but also cost them "our best people," as former Viet
Cong doctor Duong Quyunh Hoa later admitted to reporter Stanley Karnow. Yet
the very fact of the U.S. military victory -- "The North Vietnamese," noted
National Security official William Bundy at the time, "fought to the last
Viet Cong" -- was spun otherwise by most of the U.S. press.

As the Washington Post's Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in
his 1977 book, "The Big Story," the desperate fury of the communist attacks
including on Saigon, where most reporters lived and worked, caught the press
by surprise. (Not the military: It had been expecting an attack and had been
on full alert since Jan. 24.) It also put many reporters in physical danger
for the first time. Braestrup, a former Marine, calculated that only 40 of
354 print and TV journalists covering the war at the time had seen any real
fighting. Their own panic deeply colored their reportage, suggesting that
the communist assault had flung Vietnam into chaos.

Their editors at home, like CBS's Walter Cronkite, seized on the distorted
reporting to discredit the military's version of events. The Viet Cong
insurgency was in its death throes, just as U.S. military officials assured
the American people at the time. Yet the press version painted a different
picture.

To quote Braestrup, "the media tended to leave the shock and confusion of
early February, *as then perceived*, fixed as the final impression of Tet"
and of Vietnam generally. "Drama was perpetuated at the expense of
information," and "the negative trend" of media reporting "added to the
distortion of the real situation on the ground in Vietnam."

The North Vietnamese were delighted. On the heels of their devastating
defeat, Hanoi increasingly shifted its propaganda efforts toward the media
and the antiwar movement. Causing* American* (not South Vietnamese)
casualties, even at heavy cost, became a battlefield objective in order to
reinforce the American media's narrative of a failing policy in Vietnam.

Yet thanks to the success of Tet, the numbers of Americans dying in Vietnam
steadily declined -- from almost 15,000 in 1968 to 9,414 in 1969 and 4,221
in 1970 -- by which time the Viet Cong had ceased to exist as a viable
fighting force. One Vietnamese province after another witnessed new peace
and stability. By the end of 1969 over 70% of South Vietnam's population was
under government control, compared to 42% at the beginning of 1968. In 1970
and 1971, American ambassador Ellsworth Bunker estimated that 90% of
Vietnamese lived in zones under government control.

However, all this went unnoticed because misreporting about Tet had left the
image of Vietnam as a botched counterinsurgency -- an image nearly half a
decade out of date. The failure of the North's next massive invasion over
Easter 1972, which cost the North Vietnamese army another 100,000 men and
half their tanks and artillery, finally forced it to sign the peace accords
in Paris and formally to recognize the Republic of South Vietnam. By August
1972 there were no U.S. combat forces left in Vietnam, precisely because,
contrary to the overwhelming mass of press reports, American policy there
had been a success.

To Congress and the public, however, the war had been nothing but a debacle.
And by withdrawing American troops, President Nixon gave up any U.S.
political or military leverage on Vietnam's future. With U.S. military might
out of the equation, the North quickly cheated on the Paris accords. When
its re-equipped army launched a massive attack in 1975, Congress refused to
redeem Nixon's pledges of military support for the South. Instead, President
Gerald Ford bowed to what the media had convinced the American public was
inevitable: the fall of Vietnam.

The collapse of South Vietnam's neighbor, Cambodia, soon followed. Southeast
Asia entered the era of the "killing fields," exterminating in a brief few
years an estimated two million people -- 30% of the Cambodian population.
American military policy has borne the scars of Vietnam ever since.

It had all been preventable -- but for the lies of Tet.

*Mr. Herman is the author of "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That
Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age," to be published by Bantam Dell in
April.*


On Feb 6, 2008 1:34 AM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:

> While I accept your apology, my assessment is the same. Read the thread
> below, here's what I saw:
>
> Slim stated that he was voting for Obama, and stated hoisting our
> stature as just about the only reason.
>
> I pointed that out, and stated that I don't give a rip what other
> countries think of us.
>
> You stated that I "sounded like an isolationist from the 30'"
>
> I challenged you to show me what I said that qualified me as an
> isolationist (actually, I'm VERY far from being an isolationist, but
> that's not really relevant to the point here).
>
> You then tried to use my statement about not caring what other countries
> THOUGHT of us as some sort of proof, and YOU stated "we all want someone
> who can represent us to the world and STAND UP TO OTHERS and be
> respected" (my emphasis)
>
> And, in spite of your assertion to the contrary, I never said anything
> about "kicking their a... when it's the right thing to do" (bascially
> agreeing with the "wnat someone ... (to) stand up to others), I said
> their butts, and no John, kicking their butts when it's the right is not
> isolationist, you obviously misunderstand the word.
>
> I believe kicking Iraq's butt over Kuwait was the right thing to do.
> That's not an isolationist view.
> I believe defending Korea and Vietnam was the right thing to do. That's
> not an isolationist view.
> I believe we likely should have entered WWII in March of '39 when Hitler
> invaded Czechoslovakia; if not then, then in September of '39 when they
> invaded Poland. I believe this becausedoing so would have been the right
> thing to do. That's not an isolationist view.
>
> Now, had I said something like "the only time kicking some butt is the
> right thing to do is when they come stomp on our butt first", then you
> could make your isolationist case.
>
>
>
> john Belanger wrote:
> > herb,
> >   i apologize for the misunderstanding. you mentioned kicking their
> a...when its the right thing to do.....i just continued the thought and i
> defined what i understand was an isolationist attitude. these are not my
> policies. they belong elsewhere. in this time of need you throw up your
> hands and say you don't care what other people think of america, and would
> never pick a pres on the basis of what other nations thought of him. i
> disagree. we must have someone who represents this strong nation. whose
> leadership qualities match our nations ideals and responsibilities. and i
> never said to choose solely on that basis. we have a diverse society. many
> people from many nations. the leader of the u.s.a. represents all the
> people.
> >
> > Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
> >   My my John. So, when the topic was voting for a Presidential candidate
> > soley based on what other countries would think of us, and I responded
> > that I don't give a rip what other countries think of you, you've now
> > twisted that into somehow threatening to "bomb them back to the stone
> age"?
> >
> > Are you always that full of yourself? Or should I say so full of
> > bullshit? Or is it both?
> >
> > You really do need to work on the reading comprehension skills some,
> > then go back and re-read the emails in question.
> >
> > Assuming you're capable of either.
> >
> > john Belanger wrote:
> >
> >> the isolationist movement in the u.s. 1930's was based on not wanting
> to be involved in league of nations and world affairs. every nation has its
> own self interest at heart but when you say you don't give a ..... what
> other nations think of you, you are asking them to act accordingly. that
> attitude is counter productive to your own interests and will isolate you
> from your objective, if not from other nations, as well. !?!? threatening to
> bomb them back to the stone age is not the way to elicit cooperation.
> standing up to others gets you respect....the threat of preemtive strike
> (possibly nuclear), and regime change gets you hated. i've said enough.
> going back to work on my boat. john b
> >>
> >> Herb Parsons wrote: Actually John, you're wrong on two counts. First of
> all, you took it
> >> entirely out of context, secondly, you obviously don't know what
> >> "isolationist" is.
> >>
> >> I said nothing about concerning ourself with only our own affairs. I
> >> said I don't give a rip about out stature in their eyes. I don't. We
> >> should do the right thing because it's the right thing, NOT because of
> >> what another country thinks.
> >>
> >> In instances where we need to be involved with other countries, we
> >> should do so - again, NOT because it increases our stature in their
> >> eyes, but because it's what we should do. In instances where we should
> >> kick their butts, we should do so even though they're not going to like
> >> us much afterwards.
> >>
> >> Often, "standing up to others" doesn't get you respect in the short
> run,
> >> it gets you hated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> john Belanger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> herb,
> >>> quote:"I DON'T GIVE A RIP about our stature in the eyes of other
> nations",
> >>> thats isolationist, when you only want to concern yourself with your
> own affairs regardless of what others think. i agree you should not choose
> your leader on the basis of what the world thinks of him/her, but we all
> want someone who can represent us to the world and stand up to others and be
> respected. john b
> >>>
> >>> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >>> Beg your pardon?? Show me where what I said was isolationist.
> >>>
> >>> I challenge you. You can't, because you're just blowing hot air.
> >>>
> >>> I specifically spoke to a very specific email, one that touted nothing
> >>> about a candidate except how much better he's going to make us look to
> >>> the rest of the world.
> >>>
> >>> If you think that makes me an isolationist, then you don't understand
> >>> the meaning of the word.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> john Belanger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> herb,
> >>>> you sound like an isolationist from the 30's. it didn't work then,
> and i don't think it works now. if we are not involved, and helping, to make
> the world a better place, then we are not worthy of respect by other
> nations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
> >>>> And THERE you have one of the major problems in this country.
> >>>>
> >>>> An entire paragraph outlining why you would vote for the person to
> lead
> >>>> our country, and it all boils down to raising our stature in the eyes
> of
> >>>> other nations.
> >>>>
> >>>> I DON'T GIVE A RIP about our stature in the eyes of other nations,
> and I
> >>>> will NEVER choose a President on that basis.
> >>>>
> >>>> You obviously paid close attention the PC classes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steven Alm wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm going to caucus (when did that word become a verb?) for Yomamma
> tonight
> >>>>> in Minnesota. Just imagine the headlines around the world if he's
> elected
> >>>>> president. It would be the biggest story of the decade and would do
> more
> >>>>> to hoist our stature in the world than anything else we could do.
> The
> >>>>> whole world is watching this with 'bated breath (thank you Bill
> Effros--and
> >>>>> I miss him in this time of need.) For us to oust the incumbent party
> and
> >>>>> elect a black man would stop the presses in every country in the
> world and
> >>>>> our ill-fated, sickly reputation on the national stage would take a
> huge
> >>>>> step in showing the world we are forward-thinking. I say NO to four
> >>>>> presidents--Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton! It smacks of old boy's
> school.
> >>>>> It's so Banana Republic! And that, folks, is what it's down
> to--Clinton or
> >>>>> Obama. There's no way this country will put more of the same in
> office. We
> >>>>> swayed the congress last year in the mid-term election and nothing
> has
> >>>>> happened--this congress couldn't pass the law of gravity. We're
> ready for a
> >>>>> new sweep!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm Slim and I approve this message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 4, 2008 11:30 PM, Brad Haslett wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Robert,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like the last line in "Charlie Wilson", "We'll see!"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As a white male, I'm in the minority of the electorate and this is
> a
> >>>>>> republic not a true democracy, so my voice will still be heard.
> Won't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Brad
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 4, 2008 10:02 PM, Robert Skinner wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But Brad, how did the soup taste?
> >>>>>>> /Robert
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Brad Haslett wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> WARNING! Tasteless joke to follow.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> An old man was in a nursing home watching his girlfriend lifting
> her
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> dress
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (with no panties) over her head and chanting, "Super Pussy, Super
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pussy!"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Ill have the soup!"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Super Tuesday. Mitt, the probable weasel or McShit the known
> weasel?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Obama
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> who?, or the Clinton Klan we know well. If you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Clinton's
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> now you haven't been paying attention or you are stupid.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Politics makes strange bedfellows" adapted from Bill
> Shakespeare.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm voting for Mitt but Hillary really looks attractive when she
> has
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> right weight of make-up on and the lighting is correct.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> God, please save my agnostic ass!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Brad
> >>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Robert Skinner "Squirrel Haven"
> >>>>>>> Gorham, Maine 04038-1331
> >>>>>>> s/v "Little Dipper" & "Edith P."
> >>>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Herb Parsons
> S/V O'Jure - O'Day 25
> S/V Reve de Pappa - Coronado 35
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>