The Lies of Tet
Dai Uy
X-URL:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120226056767646059.html?mod=opin
ion_main_commentaries or http://tinyurl.com/2ck6hz
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Copyright material is distributed without profit
or payment for research and educational
purposes only, in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. section 107
***
AR-
Dai Uy wrote:
> X-URL:
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120226056767646059.html?mod=opin
> ion_main_commentaries or http://tinyurl.com/2ck6hz
>
> 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.
This has got to be a joke, right? Whom ever Herman is, either he has a
very very dry sense of humor, has only a most shallow, biased, and
incorrect understanding of the vietnam war and why we finally halted our
invasion, or is a simple fool who just can't live with the truth, even
after these long years. I do hope it is the first alternative!
Dai Uy
AR- <Ginger...@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote:
> Dai Uy wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> This has got to be a joke, right? Whom ever Herman is, either he has a
> very very dry sense of humor, has only a most shallow, biased, and
> incorrect understanding of the vietnam war and why we finally halted our
> invasion, or is a simple fool who just can't live with the truth, even
> after these long years. I do hope it is the first alternative!
Arthur L. Herman (born 1956) is a conservative American
historian of Anglo-American history, but his 1984 Ph.D.
dissertation at the Johns Hopkins University dealt with the
political thought of early 17th-century French Huguenots. He
often writes for National Review. In the late 1980s he taught
at Sewanee: The University of the South; in the 1990s he taught
at George Mason University. Currently he is coordinator of the
Western Heritage program at the Smithsonian Institution.
His 2001 book on the Scottish Enlightenment, How the Scots
Invented the Modern World, was a New York Times bestseller. His
most recent work (to be published by Bantam in Summer 2008) is
Gandhi and Churchill: the Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and
Forged Our Age.
Works:
* The Idea Of Decline In Western History, Free Press, 1997.
* Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of
America's Most Hated Senator, Free Press, 1999.
* How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story
of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and
Everything in It, Crown, 2001.
* To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern
World, HarperCollins, 2004.
And you?
***
AR-
Dai Uy wrote:
> In article <foihuo$jha$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> AR- <Ginger...@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Dai Uy wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>This has got to be a joke, right? Whom ever Herman is, either he has a
>>very very dry sense of humor, has only a most shallow, biased, and
>>incorrect understanding of the vietnam war and why we finally halted our
>>invasion, or is a simple fool who just can't live with the truth, even
>>after these long years. I do hope it is the first alternative!
>
>
> Arthur L. Herman (born 1956) is a conservative American
> historian of Anglo-American history, but his 1984 Ph.D.
> dissertation at the Johns Hopkins University dealt with the
> political thought of early 17th-century French Huguenots.
Ah yes, and there lies the problem. He was way off of his area of
expertise in the WSJ piece. What is surprising is that the WSJ didn't
have someone who knows what they are talking about check out the
veracity of heman's piece.
He
> often writes for National Review. In the late 1980s he taught
> at Sewanee: The University of the South; in the 1990s he taught
> at George Mason University. Currently he is coordinator of the
> Western Heritage program at the Smithsonian Institution.
>
> His 2001 book on the Scottish Enlightenment, How the Scots
> Invented the Modern World, was a New York Times bestseller.
Ah yes, and there lies the problem. He was way off of his area of
expertise in the WSJ piece.
His
> most recent work (to be published by Bantam in Summer 2008) is
> Gandhi and Churchill: the Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and
> Forged Our Age.
Ah yes, and there lies the problem. He was way off of his area of
expertise in the WSJ piece.
>
> Works:
>
> * The Idea Of Decline In Western History, Free Press, 1997.
> * Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of
> America's Most Hated Senator, Free Press, 1999.
> * How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story
> of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and
> Everything in It, Crown, 2001.
> * To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern
> World, HarperCollins, 2004.
Ah yes, and there lies the problem. He was way off of his area of
expertise in the WSJ piece.
Thank you for pointing out how far off his expertise is from the topics
of his WSJ piece.
>
> And you?
I find out a bit about what I want to talk about before I talk. That way
I rarely look as foolish as herman did. I look foolish at times, but not
as foolish and not to the point of being moronic, which is how he came off.
Dai Uy
AR- <Ginger...@bettertakethisoutfirst.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ah yes, and there lies the problem. He was way off of his area of
> expertise in the WSJ piece. X4
>
> Thank you for pointing out how far off his expertise is from the topics
> of his WSJ piece.
>
> >
> > And you?
And what exactly is your particular area of expertise?
>
> I find out a bit about what I want to talk about before I talk.
I see. Having found out a "bit" about the war in Viet Nam
makes you more knowledgeable than a Ph.D. of History?
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or
taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate
the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
-Alexander Pope "An Essay on Criticism, 1709"
> That way
> I rarely look as foolish as herman did. I look foolish at times,
This may very well be one of those times...
> but not
> as foolish and not to the point of being moronic, which is how he came off.
Rather than immediately resorting to,argumentum ad
hominem, based upon this "bit" that you've found out, which of
the facts presented in Dr. Herman's WSJ article do you believe
are untrue?
See article reposted below:
-Dai Uy sends
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
X-URL: http://tinyurl.com/2ck6hz
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
BenLong
their wars.
When the French defeated Ho Chi Minh in 1945 and pushed the Viet
Minh to the border of China, Stalin was not alarmed. He played cool
and gave Ho a chance to learn how to fight and win nine years later in
1954 at the Dien Bien Phu battle.
Despite famine that caused 20 million people to die in China and lack
of foods in the Soviet, the people of Soviet and China were willing to
go hunger so that Vietnamese communists could have food to fight.
According to the Wilson Coldwar History project, China alone sent
500,000 tons of foods to North Vietnam in 1967. China also sent
130,000 troops to North Vietnam in 1967 and 200,000 troops in 1972.
The U.S. was not as patient and tolerate like China and the Soviet to
DRV. When South Vietnamese lost 80 men in a small battle of Ap Bac,
Diem's regime was severely criticized by the U.S. and this is one of
the reasons for U.S. direct combat in Vietnam.
When Thieu ordered the abandonment of Danang without allowing an elite
unit at Danang airport to leave in 1972, that unit hijacked a plane
that World Airways sent to withdraw. In the war time, the military has
the right to seize any transportation for the need of the battlefield,
and by the order from president Thieu to withdraw, this unit had the
legal authority to do so. The only problem was Thieu did not tell U.S.
government that he ordered the withdrawal so the U.S. did not know. At
that time, President Ford was watching TV in the White House and said:
"let's pull the plug".
Unlike Stalin who hanged on with Ho in 1945, only after the loss of I
Corps in March 1975 that President Ford ordered the termination of
the war.
The Chinese government documents translated by Wilson Cold War History
Project showed that both North and South Vietnam had hundred thousands
of foreign troops on their land, and both were puppets of Communist
Block and U.S. However, Soviet Union and China treated their puppet
with understanding, sacrifice, and patience while the American public
and the U.S. government did not. That was how the U.S. lost the war.
The U.S. should know this weakness so that it should never go to war
again, unless the U.S. was invaded by foreign troops.
On Feb 6, 7:36 pm, Dai Uy <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> X-URL:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120226056767646059.html?mod=opin
> ion_main_commentaries orhttp://tinyurl.com/2ck6hz
redvet
wrote:
Damn fine analysis on the part of the Wilson Coldwar History Project.
Mahalo for posting it BenLong.
< Dai Uy cut in the interest of brevity>