August 26, 2004

NO PLAN TO WIN THE PEACE

Testimony of John F. Kerry on Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia (United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C. 4/22/71)

Senator Aiken: I was going to ask you next what the attitude of the Saigon government would be if we announced that we were going to withdraw our troops, say, by October 1st, and be completely out of there-air, sea, land- leaving them on their own. What do you think would be the attitude of the Saigon government under those circumstances?

Mr. Kerry: Well, I think if we were to replace the Thieu-Ky-Khiem regime and offer these men sanctuary somewhere, which I think this Government has an obligation to do since we created that government and supported it all along. I think there would not be any problems. The number two man at the Saigon talks to Ambassador Lam was asked by the Concerned Laymen, who visited with them in Paris last month, how long they felt they could survive if the United States would pull out and his answer was 1 week. So I think clearly we do have to face his question. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country-

Senator Aiken: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dienbienphu. But assuming that we resettle the members of the Saigon government, who would undoubtedly be in danger, in some other area, what do you think would be the attitude, of the large, well-armed South Vienamese army and the South Vietnamese people? Would they be happy to have us withdraw or what?

Mr. Kerry: Well, Senator, this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal. We have to consider the happiness of the people as pertains to the life which they will be able to lead in the next few years.

If we don't withdraw, if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic combing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.

The war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America, and we can't go around- President Kennedy said this, many times. He said that the United States simply can't right every wrong, that we can't solve the problems of the other 94 percent of mankind. We didn't go into East Pakistan; we didn't go into Czechoslovakia. Why then should we feel that we now have the power to solve the internal political struggles of this country?

We have to let them solve their problems while we solve ours and help other people in an altruistic fashion commensurate with our capacity. But we have extended that capacity; we have exhausted that capacity, Senator. So I think the question is really moot.

Senator Aiken: I might say I asked those questions several years ago, rather ineffectively. But what I would like to know now is if we, as we complete our withdrawal and, say, get down to 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or even 50,000 troops there, would there be any effort on the part of the South Vietnamese government of the South Vietnamese army, in your opinion, to impede their withdrawal?

Mr. Kerry: No; I don't think so, Senator.

Senator Aiken: I don't see why North Vietnam should object.

Mr. Kerry: I don't for the simple reason, I used to talk with officers about their- we asked them, and one officer took great pleasure in playing with me in the sense that he would say, "Well, you know you American, you come over here for 1 year and you can afford, you know, you go to Hong Kong for R. & R. and if you are a good boy you get another R. & R. or something you know. You can afford to charge bunkers, but I have to try and be here for 30 years and stay alive." And I think that that really is the governing principle by which those people are now living and have been allowed to live because of our mistake. So that when we in fact state, let us say, that we will have a cease-fire or have a coalition government, most of the 2 million men you often hear quoted under arms, most of whom are regional popular reconnaissance forces, which is to say militia, and a very poor militia at that, will simply lay down their arms, if they haven't done so already, and not fight. And I think you will find they will respond to whatever government evolves which answer their needs, and those needs quite simply are to be fed, to bury their dead in plots where their ancestors lived, to be allowed to extend their culture, to try and exist as human beings. And I think that is what will happen.

I can cite many, many instances, sir, as in combat when these men refused to fight with us, when they shot with their guns over tin this area like this and their heads turned facing the other way. When we were taken under fire we Americans, supposedly fighting with them, and pinned down in a ditch, and I was in the Navy and this was pretty unconventional, but when we were pinned down in a ditch recovering bodies or something and they refused to come in and help us, point blank refused. I don't believe they want to fight, sir.

Senator Aiken: Do you think we are under obligation to furnish them with extensive economic assistance?

Mr. Kerry: Yes, sir. I think we have a very definite obligation to make extensive reparations to the people of Indochina.

Senator Aiken: I think that is all. [Emphasis added]

NORTH VIETNAM TAKES CONTROL (THIRD INDOCHINA WAR) (Timeline from the 1st Battalion 50th Infantry Association Website)

30 Apr 75   Saigon surrenders.

Apr-Aug 75   Per UC Berkeley demographer, Jacqueline Desbarats' article "Repression in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Executions and Population Relocation," research show an extremely strong probability that at least 65,000 Vietnamese perished as victims of political executions in the eight years after Saigon fell. Desbarats and associate Karl Jackson only counted executions eyewitnessed by refugees in the USA and France to project the rate of killings for the population remaining in Vietnam, and so discarded about two-thirds of the political death reports received, so their figures are likely very conservative. Their death count did not include victims of starvation, disease, exhaustion, suicide or "accident" (injuries sustained in clearing minefields, for example). Nor did they count Vietnamese who inexplicably "disappeared."

2 Jun 75   Official Communist Party newspaper "Saigon Gai Phong" declares that the Southerners must pay their "blood debt" to the revolution.

1975-1985   Within Viet Nam, postwar economic and social problems were severe, and reconstruction proceeded slowly. Efforts to collectivize agriculture and nationalize business aroused hostility in the south. Disappointing harvests and the absorption of resources by the military further retarded Viet Nam's recovery.

1975-1985   A massive exodus from Vietnam began with the change in government; eventually, 2 million people tried to escape. Many braved typhoon-lashed seas only to languish for years in detention camps throughout Southeast Asia. Hong Kong took in many Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s and 1980s. By the mid-1980s, Asia and the rest of the world was suffering from what was dubbed "compassion fatigue" and Hong Kong started trying to force Vietnamese to repatriate, efforts that produced regular riots in the camps.

1976   The first Vietnamese "boat people" come ashore on the northern beaches of Australia after travelling 4,800 km in leaky fishing boats. Over the next decade, tens of thousands of Vietnamese will flee Vietnam as boat people.

1976   South Vietnam and North Vietnam are united in a new Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. . . .

1978   Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong declared that a million people who had "collaborated with the enemy" (about 7% of the South Vietnamese population) had been returned to civilian life from reeducation camps and jail.

Posted by David Cohen at August 26, 2004 10:16 PM
Comments

John Kerry lied, people died.

Posted by: Brian (MN) at August 26, 2004 10:34 PM

Here's a question I wish someone could ask Senator JFK--Does the name Creighton Abrams mean anything to you? Can you tell me anything about him?

I could only watch about 2 minutes of his testimony before I couldn't take it any more.

Posted by: brian at August 26, 2004 11:27 PM

This is powerful stuff. On my email list, I opined that the USA, being 13 & 1 (to paraphrase stripes), has to account for the single loss.

Frankly, when you consider that we "won" the military battle(s) but lost the war at home, Kerry, more than any other I know of, undermined our will to see it through.

And this man is supposed to be the man to see us through the next 4-8 years of the war on terror.

His first act would be to surrender, not out of weakness, but from an intent that they actually win.

Posted by: BB at August 27, 2004 12:21 AM

Kerry's remarks perfectly encapsolate the left's beliefs that the United States is the cause of problems in the world, and that if we simply left Vietnam the country would return to the pastoral agrarian society from which they were forcably removed by the West.

Given their hatred of Bush, I have no doubt were the senator to win the election, any problems in the world for the United States would simply be dumped off as sins the nation is paying for due to the former administration ... at least until late 2007 or so. Were American to be hit with a terrorist attack at that time that threatened re-election, you'd suddenly see John Kerry the Hawk emerge, because something he truly believes in -- his own re-election - would have been put at risk.

Posted by: John at August 27, 2004 7:46 AM

Now then, moving on to Cambodia.....

Posted by: Andrew X at August 27, 2004 9:01 AM

I didn't watch, but I have read the transcript. I was struck by the following:

"We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American."

Kerry did not think the wogs were cut out for self government then and doesn't think that they (in Iraq) are now. At least he is consistent in his condescension and raceism.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at August 27, 2004 11:02 AM

That was pretty standard stuff for the time. I remember a Social Studies teacher explaining that Communism was much like traditional tribal government, and thus a natural fit for the Vietnamese.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 27, 2004 11:18 AM

One must ask why the anti-war movement succeeded in VietNam when it didn't in any other war. Why couldn't they overturn the govt in the War of 1812, the Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish American War, or World War I? All of those had substantial anti-war movements?

Is the answer Communist agitation? Then why didn't it affect the Korean War? So the reason why the anti-war movement "won" is more than that.

LBJ was simply a terrible war President. And Secretary of Defense McNamara, a very bright man, simply did not know how to win a war.

Ultimately it was the policies of LBJ that fueld the anti-war movement. He tried a policy of guns and butter that did not generate a feeling of national sacrifice. His strategy was not based on knocking out the enemy, but simply hoping he gave up which made people ask whether the war would ever end. And most importantly he did not tell the American people the truth which convinced many people that the war was ill-conceived to start with and totally fabricated. Johnson's own political failures caused the anti-war movement, a movement which could have been contained as the others had been.

The terrible thing is that Bush does not seem to have learned the lessons of the Vietname War. Just as Johnson created his own anti-war movement, so did Bush. Bush avoided the mistakes in Afghanistan which explains the general ineffectiveness of the anti-war movement there. But he repeated them in Iraq which is why the anti-war movement gained steam. Bush did not need to do all that much different to prevent it.

What war supporters need to ask ourselves now is what do we do? In 1967 people thought Vietnam was winnable. It took Tet to convince them otherwise. We can state all we want that Tet was actually a US military victory, but it was a defeat because it fueled the anti-war movement. The conditions for that defeat was created by LBJ. The Communists simply took advantage of it. Something very similar could happen again.

Simply whining about the protestors will not win this war either. Bush needs to drastically change the way he's mobilized the nation for the war so that it creates more unity, settles questions about the war people have, and engages our efforts to contribute to it. In many ways its precisely the thing Bill Maher talks about. FDR was constantly explaining to people why the Allies attacked this area, and gave the nation a picture of how each action contributed to victory. Bush has done a very poor job of that.

Posted by: Chris Durnell at August 27, 2004 12:19 PM

One reason the anti-war movement succeeded was becase Vietnam was much longer than 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Span-Am War, and World War I. The longer a war lasts the harder it is to sell it.

Another reason was that much of the MSM became anti-war even before Tet. Media oppositon was something FDR never had to worry about after Pearl Harbor (though he did beforehand, e.g., Chicago Tribune and the Hearst papers).

However, I'm not so sure the movement succeeded to the extent it's supporters prefer to think.

Had the movement people had their way we'd never have committed 500,000 men and would have been out by 1968 at the latest. The movement couldn't stop the incursions into Cambodia in 1970 or Laos in 1971 or the mining of Haiphong harbor in 1972 or do much to increase the pace of our withdrawl from 1969 to 1973.

The movement might take some credit for Johnson's resignation but it could never budge Nixon. And when their man McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972 he was soundly thrashed.

Of course what was most annoying about the movement was that many of its members wanted a communist victory more than they wanted peace. An oft quoted line in the 60s was a definition of "alienation" - having your country in a war and wanting it to lose. Michael Moore is a direct ideological descendent of the alienated.

As for Bush, I agree he should do a better job of making his case. Acknowledging that there were "miscalculations" doesn't advance it.

Posted by: George at August 27, 2004 1:48 PM

Chris D.--

Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in the America, convinced LBJ to throw in the towel with a single sound byte. Cronkite lied, people died.

When Walter Cronkite advised his television audience in 1968 that the war in Vietnam could not be won, President Lyndon B. Johnson said: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
Posted by: Uncle Bill at August 27, 2004 4:15 PM

I don't think McNamara is that intelligent. He failed at everything he ever attempted, not just SofDefense.

That said, the anticommunist side lost at Tet and nobody after that wanted to die for a government nobody in Vietnam believed in.

Simple as that, and even 500,000 Americans couldn't change the minds of the people there.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 27, 2004 9:34 PM
« SPOT THE OXYMORON | Main | DON'T HATE IT, OWN IT: »