The truth about the progress made following the

[justjohn]

I found this article while researching for an Asian studies course that I am taking. Its long to be sure but I hope someone finds it interesting.



“One myth propagated by the ‘peace’ movement is that the American soldier, because of his involvement in an “immoral” war, would, and later did, lose the war. The truth about the progress made following the Tet Offensive, from 1968 on, was never told to the American people.

The world’s foremost authority on People’s Revolutionary War, the Communist-developed strategy that was used in South Vietnam, is Sir Robert Thompson, who as Secretary of Defense of the Malaysian Federation, defeated the Communist insurgency in that country. As observer of the Vietnam situation throughout its history, and himself critical of earlier American strategy, he nevertheless was able to report as follows to President Nixon in1969.

“I was very impressed by the improvement in the military and political situation in Vietnam as compared to all previous visits, and especially in the security situation, both in Saigon and the rural areas. A winning position in the sense of obtaining a just peace, whether negotiated or not, and of maintaining an independent non-Communist South Vietnam has been achieved. We were most impressed by the remarkable success of the pacification program, we were able to visit areas and to walk through villages that had been under Viet Cong control for years. With increased security and improved communication, the economy is expanding rapidly. The seeds of democracy are also being planted at the village level. At the higher political level there is no question but that the government of President Thieu is not only more stable than any other government of the past few years, but that its performance is steadily improving. On the military side there has been a steady improvement in both performance and morale.”

Where had all this progress come from, if not from the efforts and sacrifices of the American soldier?

(For the full scope of the true tragedy of Vietnam, that it was a war that had been won and then thrown away to placate those at home who would not serve, we now have new histories that fill in what happened after 1968. None of this progress was made known to the American people by the media. Two of the most important of these books are Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, by Mark Woodruff, and A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam, by Lewis Sorley.

Below is an excerpt from a speech Mr. Magruder gave on the occasion, with 50 Vietnam veterans, of the symbolic retaking of Grant Park during the Chicago Parade weekend, from those who protested at the Chicago Democratic Convention in l968 and did not serve. Mr. Magruder later presented the flag used in the event to General Westmoreland in a ceremony during the Houston Parade weekend. Although reporters from Chicago papers were present at the event, they refused to report on it, arguing that there were still too many in Chicago who were against the war. That is absurd. Former war protestors wept openly in regret in the streets, and had to be comforted by the veterans as the huge parade, with its countless wounded, passed by. This was never mentioned by the media.

“We need to remember just how treasonous the campus ‘peace’ movement actually was. Commentary of Feb. 1980, reported that 28% of all college students at the time supported the Viet Cong while 51% of those in the campus ‘peace’ movement favored a Viet Cong victory. Said Jane Fonda to students at Michigan State on Nov. 22, l969, ”If you understood Communism…you would pray on your knees that we would some day be Communists.” (She obviously knew nothing about atheistic Communism.) “The anti-war movement,” said the S.D.S. in literature out of Antioch College,”rests on three main elements, the Trotskyites, the Communist Party, and the radical pacifists. A number of its leaders, such as Dave Dellinger, were self-confessed Communists and Marxists. ‘Peace’ movement leadership let North Vietnam provide tactical advice and help coordinate demonstrations.

Said Guenter Lewy in “America in Vietnam,” the most comprehensive and best balanced study to date of the war, “…it was obvious that many of these men and the organizations and committees they spawned were not so much for peace and against the war as they were partisans of Hanoi, whose victory they sought to hasten through achieving American withdrawal from Vietnam.” For this reason, the general public had nothing but contempt for the campus ‘peace’ movement. A poll by the University of Michigan showed that reactions to “Vietnam war protestors” was “by a wide margin the most negative shown to any group.” The Harris Poll showed, at the height of the war, that 69% of the public believed anti-war demonstrations were “acts of disloyalty against the boys fighting in Vietnam.” 65% agreed that “protestors were giving aid and comfort to the Communists,” and 64% felt that they were “not serious, thoughtful critics of the war, just peaceniks and hippies having a ball.” (Reported in America in Our Time, by Godfrey Hodgson.)

Later, in a letter published in The Lawrence Journal World, Mr. Magruder wrote, “Robert McNamara, in his recent memoirs, said that U.S. policy in Vietnam was “gravely flawed” and the war was unwinnable. According to the enemy, it was McNamara’s policies that were “flawed,” and the U.S. could have won the war.

Bui Tin, a colonel on the general staff of North Vietnam, and the man who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam on April 10, 1975, was recently interviewed in The Wall Street Journal. “If Johnson had granted Westmoreland’s request to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.” It was McNamara who advised Johnson on this. On McNamara’s bizarre policy of “graduated response” bombing, Bui Tin said, “It didn’t worry us; we had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities.”

On the effectiveness of Westmoreland’s strategy he said, “We were losing base areas, control of the rural population. And our main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam.” Of the crucial Tet Offensive he said, “Our losses were staggering. If American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon, they would have punished us severely… we suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.”

The American people never had any idea of just how seriously the enemy was mauled. Here are the figures for just the five main offensives, from Vietnam in Military Statistics, a major history of the Vietnam War by Micheal Clodfelter.
1968 - The Tet Offensive
U.S. - 1,829 KIA (Killed In Action)
South Vietnam - 2,788 KIA
Communist forces - 45,000 KIA


1969 –

U.S. - 9,414 KIA

South Vietnam - 21,833 KIA

Communist forces - 156,954 KIA



1970 (includes Cambodian Incursion)

U.S.- 4,221 KIA

South Vietnam - 23,346 KIA

Communist forces - 103,638 KIA



Laos Invasion (Lam Son 719 ) (with U.S. air support)

South Vietnam - 3,800 KIA

Communist forces -13,668 KIA



1972 -Easter Offensive (with U.S.air support)

South Vietnam - 15,000

Communist forces - 83,000

From Unheralded Victory, by Mark Woodruff: “During 1966, the North Vietnamese Army suffered approximately 93,000 killed. In 1967, the casualty figure climbed to over 145,000. By the early 1970’s, General Giap was publicly admitting that his forces had suffered at least 500,000 killed during the war. The actual number of Communist soldiers killed during the war: 1,100,000.” Compare this to approximately 58,000 American forces killed. That is a 19 to 1 ratio. How was this war lost? Certainly not on the battlefield while America was engaged. It was lost when anti-war forces in Congress, led by Ted Kennedy, for no reason, cut off all ammunition to South Vietnam. This was two years after we left, during which time South Vietnam more than held its own against the North. We simply abandoned an ally. The media never made any of this clear to the American people. Nor did they ever make clear the enormous sacrifices of the South Vietnamese, who lost approximately 250,000 in the war.

It was McNamara’s flawed policies, the impact of the campus “peace” movement, and the media that cost America the war. Of the ‘peace’ movement Bui Tin said, “It gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield losses…through dissent and protest, America lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.” As to the argument of the “peace” movement that the Viet Cong was an independent South Vietnamese political movement, Bui Tin said, “It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960.”

The ‘peace’ movement lied to America. Carrying the flag of the enemy it succumbed to Hanoi propaganda and ended up on the side of genocide and tyranny. As for McNamara’s views, they are nothing but a cover-up for his own incompetence.

It is absolutely time to demand that the media, and the university, stop hiding out on the subject of Vietnam and re-enter into dialogue with the rest of America, especially its Vietnam veterans, as to what really happened. We cannot go into a world-wide war on terrorism with this huge a hole in our history. Holding on to, and perpetuating myths, has too great a potential for creating a lethal, paralyzing polarization. The media, and the campus, must find the courage to consider “second thoughts,” as have David Horowitz and so many others, some describing what they did in the 60’s as “treason.” The campus and the media fell for enemy propaganda and it is time they admitted it.

As the Chief of Military History–U.S Government wrote in his Final Report,”If there is to be an inquiry related to the Vietnam War, it should be into the reasons why enemy propaganda was so widespread in this country, and why the enemy was able to condition the public to such an extent that the best educated segments of our population gave credence to the most incredible allegations.”

And to tell the truth about Vietnam is by definition to bring about the long hoped for reformation of American education. The lies told in the 60’s metasticized through the years to create intellectual trends on campus that are betraying the American student. These must be challenged. We can’t fight a war with dummies either.

This article may be reproduced in any form. All of the stories that are being covered in this series on media suppression are found in the VVAR Monograph, The War on the Home Front, which also includes observations on the ongoing deterioration in higher education. It was written by Mr. Magruder, who was a professor of psychology in the U.S. during the war years.