[News] Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Fri Feb 23 11:05:00 EST 2018
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/23/vietnam-will-win-the-work-of-persuasion/
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
by Wilfred Burchett
<https://www.counterpunch.org/author/wilfred-burchett/> - February 23, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
“You’re a good looking bunch of boys,” said the old man in the Saigon
market, addressing a group of new recruits. “It’s a fine, patriotic
thing to fight for your country. And you are going to get good pay, now
that you are in the army. But let me give you a bit of old man’s advice.
Put a bit aside for a coffin, so it won’t be a burden on your parents
and, in any case, put something aside for the family in case you get
killed or so badly wounded you can’t work anymore. I had two fine sons
like you who were taken into the army. They both got themselves killed
after a few months and there’s no one to support me now…” And he pulled
out photos to show two young men who he said were his sons.
Who would not be affected by these kindly words? Maybe the old man
really did have two sons killed, or more likely they had joined the NLF
with the old man’s blessing and he had pretended to the authorities that
they had been rounded up by the government press gangs. The incident was
related to me by two of the group to whom the old man had spoken and who
had deserted to the NLF at the first opportunity. “At first we did it
because the survival rate with the NLF is better,” one of them said.
“The old man’s remarks about coffins badly scared us. We soon found out
that we are treated here as real human beings and that in any case our
place is with the NLF because it is fighting our people against the
American invaders.”
The old man may or may not have been what the Americans would call a
“Vietcong agent,” but his remarks were typical of the “work of
persuasion” that goes on day and night, wherever the local population
has contact with the Saigon troops. In the Introduction to the new NLF
political program adopted in August 1967, this “persuasion within the
ranks of the enemy” is listed as one of the “three prongs” together with
the “development of political struggle and the coordination of armed
struggle with political struggle,” with which the enemy will be defeated.
The term in Vietnamese is ‘binh vân’, which means mass political work
among soldiers, and it is considered a weapon of highest strategic
importance. There are three forms of political struggle: political
struggle by the civilian population, political-military armed struggle
on the battlefields and agitation or the “work of persuasion” within the
enemy ranks. In South Vietnam, as in Latin America and all third world
countries, the peasantry comprises almost the totality of the
rank-and-file troops in the government armies. If the policies of the
leaders of liberation struggles, in those countries where they are being
waged, is correct, it is very possible to influence decisively this rank
and file, stimulate them to change sides, to abandon the forces of
repression or at least to neutralize the latter’s activities. In many
cases, the officers represent the landlord-capitalist class with whom
the peasants are in constant conflict in civilian life. In South
Vietnam, the NLF leadership is well aware that the Saigon troops are
victims of circumstances, often simply rounded up by the press gangs or
in military sweeps in which they have not even a chance to tell their
families they have been taken off into the army. A few Vietnamese enlist
out of desperation for financial reasons, but the vast majority,
especially after the Americans started cracking the whips for more and
more cannon fodder, were conscripted by force and put into uniform,
given a few weeks’ training and sent off to fight with a built-in
resentment against the machine they are forced to serve and the
foreigners who really control this machine. They are prime targets for
the propaganda “bullets” that are fired at them every day in every
imaginable shape and form.
Among the potent influences at work, is NLF policy toward the peasantry,
including those within the Saigon ranks. In land distribution, a parcel
is set aside on an equal basis for all those serving in the armed forces
including those serving in the Saigon army. Material aid is granted to
bereaved families of soldiers, including soldiers serving in the Saigon
army. Peasants in the NLF-controlled areas are free and have not been
cooped up behind barbed wire. These are all things known to the Saigon
troops.
From the start of the armed struggle, it has been the custom for the
NLF to permit officers and soldiers within the Saigon army to visit
their home villages in the NLF-controlled areas during the Christmas and
Lunar New Year cease-fires, as long as they come without arms. There
they can see and hear for themselves what goes on, and even inspect the
bit of land that has been set aside for them. Some never return to their
posts, while the majority who do return never forget the bit of land
that is awaiting them and never forget the arguments they hear on all
sides to stop serving the enemy. Also in the Saigon-controlled areas or
the disputed regions, or during raids into NLF-controlled areas, the
Saigon troops hear nothing in market places and village streets from the
very old to the very young and especially from young women, except scorn
and contempt if they come on hostile business, nothing but appeals to
their conscience and patriotism. From the propaganda teams, mostly
girls, that work on the encircled troops at night, they learn of life in
the liberated areas, of land distribution, progress in education and
public health, even news of their own families in liberated villages.
From their garrison posts bordering on the liberated zones they can see
the difference between the free life and that of the peasants in the
“strategic hamlets” they are ordered to control. As peasants they are
horrified by the poisoning of crops and orchards by air-sprayed
chemicals, and by the destruction of villages and agricultural
implements. They will obey orders because they are liable to be shot on
the spot if they do not, but the wholesale ravaging of their own
countryside, the destruction of forests and any scrap of greenery in the
villages that might hide a guerrilla or provide him with food, goes
against the human grain and resentment builds up, as it would in peasant
hearts anywhere in the world in front of their eyes, fellow peasants,
sometimes from their own villages, are tied hand and foot, and kicked,
clubbed, tortured and riddled with bullets, with U.S. officers
supervising. Many who have changed sides have told me of their revulsion
against such things.
Their minds and hearts are receptive to the arguments and appeals of the
NLF and the tens of thousands of propagandists who carry on the work of
persuasion. This goes on at all levels within the Saigon army. Because
of the politically conscious outlook fostered by the NLF, the
“persuaders” are all aware of the vital importance of influencing enemy
soldiers. Every soldier, every guerrilla fighter is encouraged to be a
good “persuader” as well. At a “Heroes’ Congress” held by the NLF
September 10-18, 1967, among the 47 decorated as heroes or outstanding
combatants (ten posthumously) a number were decorated for combining
outstanding services on the battlefield with that of winning over enemy
soldiers.
Nguyen Thi Hanh, a young peasant woman, for instance, received the
“Liberation Combat Order, 2nd class” for having organized a secret
guerrilla group while the Front was organizing its revolutionary bases
within the “strategic hamlets”; having personally participated in 37
military actions; having penetrated into enemy positions permitting the
NLF artillery to do its work with accuracy; and, continues the citation:
“Taking advantage of confusion within the enemy ranks, she, in
cooperation with the local population, persuaded over 200 puppet
soldiers to desert… ” The NLF considers that the ideal person is a
fighter who masters the military, political and persuasion forms of
struggle.
The results of the sort of activities for which Nguyen Thi Hanh was
decorated have been startling. According to official U.S. figures,
132,000 Saigon troops quit the ranks during 1966. The NLF gave a figure
of nearly 160,000. No official figures are available for 1967, but /US.
News & WoId Report/[1] <#_edn1> of July 31, 1967 stated that “the South
Vietnamese army is still undisciplined, lacking leadership and
motivation. Despite improvement, the desertion rate is appalling. In
1967, of every 1,000 troops, fewer than 750 will remain at the end of
the year…[2] <#_edn2> Desertions from the 59-man [pacification] teams
are growing. In the Mekong Delta there are only 35 and 40 members on
duty with each team. In the countryside, the average is only slightly
higher…”
If the proportion of desertions quoted was correct, they would total
about 180,000 for 1967. But this was only half the story as the same
article implicitly admits further on. (Much of the NLF “persuasion work”
these days is aimed at neutralizing Saigon troops, persuading them to
stay where they are but not to do any fighting. It is considered better
to have units neutralized, than for them to desert and be replaced by
more zealous ones.) After citing some of Westmoreland’s optimistic
stories of progress, the /US. News & World Report /article continues:
“But even the South Vietnamese agree that those Westmoreland’s
statements tell only part of the story. By Saigon’s analysis, only three
of the ten South Vietnamese divisions, plus a handful of elite
battalions, are worth their salt.
“In the South Vietnamese Army, contact with the enemy is the exception
rather than the rule…
“One example, cited by a U.S. general: ‘I’ve been keeping an eye on a
South Vietnamese division for three months. If I ever thought there was
some sort of de facto agreement between the South Vietnamese Army and
the Vietcong, I’d single out this division… The division, in a sense,
has turned its back on the war…. ”
Turned its back on the war and on the United States! It is not too much
to imagine that the time will come when such divisions will also turn
their weapons against the United States.
The article cited was prepared, as an introductory note explains, by
“the team of /U.S. News and World Report /correspondents who have
covered the fighting from the start.” As a tribute to the “work of
persuasion,” it could hardly be more impressive, coming from one of the
most “hawkish” magazines in the United States. One of its conclusions,
filled with future possibilities for the NLF “persuaders,” was that: “As
matters stand, even senior South Vietnamese generals, seeing more and
more of their battalions being sent into secondary roles in the
countryside, concede that in many respects, ‘this is already an American
war…’ ”
How “persuasion” is combined with other forms of struggle in a
particular operation is illustrated by what is known as the “battle for
Road No. 4, the key highway leading south from Saigon through the Mekong
Delta to the Ca Mau peninsula, along which a major part of Saigon’s food
supplies normally passes.
An essential part of the U.S.-Saigon Command’s plan to “pacify” the
Mekong Delta is to gain complete control over Road 4. It is the main
strategic highway into the Delta, passing through the vital and very
revolutionary provinces of Long An, My Tho, Tra Vinh, Soc Trang and
others down to the very tip of the Ca Mau peninsula. This is the heart
of the granary of South Vietnam, regions rich in fish, fruit, rice and
all types of agricultural produce, and the source of the highly prized
charcoal from the mangrove swamps in the deep South, a vital element in
Saigon’s fuel supply. Road 4 is one of the most heavily defended in all
of South Vietnam, especially the 49-mile section between Saigon and My
Tho. Ringing My Tho is a regiment of Saigon’s 7th Division plus three
tank squadrons responsible for keeping the highway open.
At Tan An, the capital of Long An Province, between My Tho and Saigon,
protection duties are shared by a regiment of Saigon’s 25th Division and
a battalion of commandos. The Ben Luc bridge in My Tho Province alone
requires the protection of one battalion of the U.S. 9th Infantry
Division, plus one from Saigon’s 7th Division and a 12-boat naval
flotilla. From bases at Binh Due and Ben Luc in My Tho there are
frequent sweeps along both sides of the road to try to clear out
guerrillas operating in the area.
A system of closely spaced posts and blockhouses, reminiscent of those
set up by the French in Algeria, with almost permanent patrols between
them, ensures that every stretch of road can be brought under heavy
machine gun and artillery fire.
In the summer of 1967, NLF forces in Long An and My Tho Provinces
decided to launch a “three-prong” attack against Road No. 4 and
subsidiary river communications, using regional and guerrilla troops,
plus a few demolition and other “specialists” loaned by the Liberation
Army. The whole population of this area, one of the real cradles of the
Vietnamese revolution, was asked to help, everyone according to his or
her capacities, in actions that were to be highly coordinated. Sections
were to be cut out in some places, barriers of rock and earth erected,
bridges blown up, army vehicles mined, “persuasion” to be carried out
among the Saigon troops to prevent them from firing their artillery and
shooting from their blockhouses. Activities along the highway itself
were to be coordinated with strikes by workers and business people in
the two provincial capitals and those district centers that bordered the
road. The strikes were aimed at preventing or slowing up the
requisitioning of manpower to repair the damage.
On the night of July 17, 1967, in one typical action, a 43-mile section
between the My Thuan ferry, about 25 miles west of My Tho on the Mekong
river, and Tan Hyong, near the provincial capital of Tan An, was
attacked. Eighty ditches, six-and-a-half yards wide by one and-a-half
deep, were dug right across the road at about half-mile intervals, and
mines were used to break up the surface so that the peasant hoes and
shovels could set to work. Dirt and stone dug out of the ditches were
used to erect as many barricades almost right across the road, a yard
and a half high, with enough space left at the edges for motor scooters
and bicycles to pass. A number of medium-sized bridges were blown up.
All traffic from Saigon was brought to a standstill, three or four
hundred trucks and cars piling up at some points.
Tens of thousands of people took part in the work which could proceed
uninterruptedly only because of the neutralization of the Saigon troops
by “persuasion” or by guerrillas encircling the posts and blockhouses.
As each section was destroyed to the satisfaction of the guerrillas and
regional troops, they laid aside their hoes and took up positions with
their antitank and other weapons to await the tanks, tank-dozers and
truckloads of troops, certain to be sent early the following morning to
attempt to reopen the road. The first few tanks were dealt with by teams
equipped with B-40s. The enormous heat generated as the war-heads struck
home was sufficient to force the infantrymen to move away from the
protective steel barrier the tanks normally afforded them, making them
easy marks for snipers’ bullets.
In the days that followed, the local population kept off the roads so
they could not be mobilized for repair work, while the Americans used
giant Chinook helicopters to fly in repair materials, including loads of
stone to fill in the ditches. Six to 12 Chinooks were used every day
along the My Thuan-Tan Muong section, three tank squadrons and several
battalions of infantry protecting the engineering troops. This diversion
of military power in the area had been foreseen and the guerrillas took
advantage of it to dismantle all the “strategic hamlets” bordering the
highway, while the local population swarmed around the posts and
blockhouses protesting about bombing raids, appealing to the patriotism
of the Saigon troops not to fire on their own people, blocking troop
movements by the sheer weight of their massed bodies and generally
making nuisances of themselves. For eight days, between July 17 and 25,
Road No. 4 was totally paralyzed as far as motorized traffic was
concerned with a large proportion of U.S. and Saigon troops in the area
diverted to repair and repair-protection work. Taking advantage of this,
on July 22 and 23, regional NLF forces went into action, bombarding the
U.S. military base at Binh Duc, a training camp for Saigon troops at
Hung Vuong and several other bases, and launching an attack in force
against a 7th Division battalion protecting the repair work. River
vessels were attacked during the same action and out of one flotilla of
35 river vessels, 12 were sunk or damaged.
“Apart from having caused the enemy military, political and economic
difficulties stated a report to NLF headquarters from the Long An-My Tho
provincial committees, “the result of this week-long operation was to
blow up five bridges, sink five vessels, destroy nine M-113 amphibious
tanks, three jeeps and one truck. The masses were mobilized and rose up
in coordinated actions transforming the communications network into
their own battlefield, the river ways into a burial ground for the
enemy… ” The operation would have been infinitely more difficult without
the neutralization of the Saigon forces in key sectors, possible only
because of many months of “softening up” by persuasion teams.
The reaction by the U.S.-Saigon Command was predictable. The largest
“mopping-up” operation to that date for the Mekong Delta was launched.
Five simultaneous and overlapping sweeps were made with a total of 20
battalions, including one brigade of the U.S. 9th Division and a number
of Saigon units, including the 7th Division, a Marine regiment, three
battalions of commandos and 300 river vessels, combing section by
section the whole of Road No. 4, from Saigon down to the My Thuan ferry,
probing deep into the surrounding countryside and the myriad waterways
which crisscross the area. But this time units of the regular Liberation
Army went into operation using regular troops in close cooperation with
regional troops and guerrillas and the closest coordination between
military, political and gestational activities.
On numerous occasions, the Saigon troops refused to budge or if they did
they carried their weapons slung across their shoulders to show their
non hostile intent. Among them the “work of persuasion” was extremely
important. On the night of August 1, for instance, an NLF commando group
of 35 men infiltrated, with the passive help of a Saigon unit on guard
duty, the command post of an American company and in an action that
lasted only a few minutes they wiped out the command post, making off
with more than 100 weapons.
The sweep failed to break what was a deep encirclement of this key
section of Road No. 4. Immediately after the military sweeps ended, the
guerrillas concentrated on the road again. In an action between August
31 and September 5, Road No. 4 was again cut 40 sections and 16
tower-type blockhouses and two posts were destroyed.
From mid-1967 onward the battle continued between road-destroyers and
road-repairers, with the local NLF forces able to cut the road at will,
the Saigon forces largely neutralized in the area, and U.S. forces too
thinly spread to undertake any decisive action or even to protect
themselves effectively from raids on their bases. On the night of
January 6, 1968, for instance, the Long An regional forces and
guerrillas launched a series of attacks against three key positions of
the 3rd Brigade, U.S. 9th Division and an important Saigon artillery
position, inflicting 250 casualties on the American troops and knocking
out all 20 of the 105-mm artillery pieces. The Americans had succeeded
in getting some activity from one battalion of the 46th Regiment of
Saigon’s reluctant 25th Division, so the headquarters of this battalion
was attacked the same night and completely wiped out, as a reminder that
if the “work of persuasion” failed, there were always other means available.
Three days before the attack, at Phy Huu in Soc Trang Province through
which the southern section of Road No. 4 passes, an entire company of
the Saigon army mutinied. Killing their officers and beating off some
civil guards and a “revolutionary development” team that halfheartedly
tried to intercept them, the mutineers crossed over to the NLF, bringing
with them 63 weapons, including two heavy machine guns and one 81-mm mortar.
All this was but a full-dress rehearsal for the generalized offensive on
January 30, 1968, when every major strategic highway, including Highway
No. 4, was cut, scores of bridges destroyed and road communications were
completely paralyzed. Mutinies of the Soc Trang type occurred throughout
the Mekong Delta, and the NLF forces attacked almost every military
base, including the important U.S. naval base at Vinh Long. Their forces
occupied the base, forcing the Americans to withdraw long enough for
them to sink or seize the entire flotilla of river patrol vessels.
Saigon administrative control collapsed throughout the Mekong Delta like
a pricked balloon. U.S. attempts to force the Saigon forces to play a
more active role fell on deaf ears. High Saigon officers in the delta
area were showing an elaborate disinterest in obeying U.S. orders. Those
who were too zealous were swiftly reminded by the NLF forces that
“persuasion” was not the only weapon in their arsenal.
Coincidentally, just prior to the attack on the battalion of the Saigon
25th Division described above, the news of the sacking of the divisional
commander, Brig. Gen. Phan Trong Chinh, was announced. Commenting on
Chinh’s dismissal, an Associated Press report[3] <#_edn3> stated that
“there has been a major American campaign for more than a year to get
rid of Gen. Chinh, who boasted of his refusal to work with U.S. Army
advisers attached to his command. The division, which protects Saigon’s
western and southwestern flank, fought less and less, and casualties
within the U.S. 25th Division-which operates in the same area-in one day
sometimes exceed the yearly total of the entire Vietnamese 25th Division.
“American pressure in the past failed to budge the Vietnamese high
command, where generals most normally are rated on political reliability
and one-upmanship rather than on fighting ability.” Thus the “work of
persuasion” goes on at all levels within the Saigon army and
administration, based on national as well as class sentiments, and it
was stepped up considerably at the higher levels once the United States
started to take over the war. The growth of anti-American sentiment had
been foreseen as the American takeover became more flagrant. The new NLF
political program has provisions directly aimed at fostering this outlook.
Point 12 in the new program states in part: “Individual groups or units
of the puppet army and administration who have rendered services in the
struggle against the American aggressors… will be rewarded and admitted
to important posts… Officials of the puppet administration who
voluntarily offer to continue to serve the Motherland and the people in
the state apparatus after the liberation of South Vietnam, win be
treated as equals…” and “Dissident individuals, groups or units from the
puppet army who voluntarily enlist in the Liberation Armed Forces to
fight against the American imperialists for the salvation of the country
win be heartily welcomed and treated as equals … Services rendered win
be rewarded according to merits…”
The U.S.-Saigon Command through its psychological warfare services also
had a “persuasion” program aimed at recruiting troops for the Saigon
army from within the ranks of the NLF. Through radio broadcasts,
loudspeakers mounted on helicopters and leaflet drops, a mixture of
threats and offers of material rewards are used to promote desertions.
Some other methods used to inflate statistics of the much publicized
“Chieu Hoi” (Open Arms) program were disclosed by former Sgt. Peter
Martinson, a prisoner-of-war interrogator with the 541st Military
Intelligence Detachment. Martinsen served in South Vietnam from
September 1966 until June 1967 and on November 23, 1967, at the second
session of the International War Crimes Tribunal,[4] <#_edn4> he gave
evidence on the common practice of torture of prisoners, applied under
instructions of American interrogation officers, an activity in which
Martinsen himself had participated.
There was an interesting exchange between the American pacifist leader
Dave Dellinger, a member of the Tribunal, and Martinsen on what happened
to prisoners once the torture-by-interrogation was finished. The
pertinent passages are as follows:
Dellinger: I’m wondering if you know what happened to the prisoners
after the interrogation was completed. Did you ever see them, or do you
know what happened to them, the ones who did survive?
Martinsen: Yes, I know exactly what happened to them. They were
separated into categories for intelligence purposes. The people who
probably had information of strategic value were taken to the central
command… There are other prisoners who may or may not have information.
If we wanted to get information out of them we could always treat them
as if they were civil criminals, civil defendants… (And Martinsen went
on to explain that a Vietnamese picked up without proper travel papers
is guilty of a crime and could be sent to jail.)
Dellinger: In other words if you did not find out any information you
could still consign him to jail on the basis of their not having their
travel permit or something of this kind.
Martinson: Yes. Generally Vietnamese don’t have any identification with
them, because they are afraid they might lose those identification
cards. They were arrested by the American troops, since the American
troops have that power… The people who are arrested are called
“detainees.” Until they are interrogated and their status is determined,
they remain “detainees.” Draft dodgers are in another category. When I
was at Cedar Falls[5] <#_edn5> before it was turned into a “free fire
zone” – where everyone found would be killed – and while the refugees
were still being moved out, I was screening every man between 20 and 30,
to be taken into the Vietnamese army.
Dellinger: Yes.
Martinson: I had the power to induct men. A U.S. citizen has the power
to induct men into the Vietnamese army.
Dellinger: Without any procedures at all. I wonder if you have any idea
what happened to people who gave testimony? Testimony which for one
reason or another was interpreted as being correct?
Martinson: Of the Vietnamese prisoners, those determined to be
high-ranking Vietcong were generally taken to the superior authorities.
And they probably ended up in the Saigon interrogation center. It is
called the CMIC, Combined Military Interrogation Center… For low-ranking
Vietcong, we had two policies… Low-ranking Vietcong were placed in a
prison camp until the Vietnamese decided whether or not he was going to
remain dangerous. If they considered him to be no longer dangerous, then
he is moved to another kind of “prison camp”, called “chieu hoi”
villages, which are also called “strategic hamlets” and he is told:
“Here you are. You are on your own. You must take care to defend
yourself against Vietcong attacks. You are on our side now…”
In other words, all civilians of military age rounded up in military
sweeps were automatically conscripted into the Saigon armed forces and
listed as “chieu hoi” deserters, and all “Vietcong” prisoners considered
not to be too dangerous were forced to become “civil guards.” Their
numbers in both cases were included as “defectors” under the “chieu hoi”
program. Martinsen gave another example of the “chieu hoi” statistics.
Describing his work with the 173rd Airborne Brigade during “Cedar
Falls,” he stated:
“We flew over the villages and said: ‘Come out. Lay down your arms and
come over to our side.’ This was quite effective. We got quite a number
of ‘chieu hoi’ during operation ‘Cedar Falls.’ There were also several
hundred people running around who didn’t want to leave the Iron
Triangle. These people were shot on sight…”
Throughout 1966-67, the American public was fed statistics about the
ever-increasing number of “chieu hoi” defectors as one of the most
encouraging signs that the United States was winning the war. It was an
ever-recurrent theme in the briefings of congressmen and journalists
visiting Saigon. Those briefed in Saigon and the U.S. public were led to
believe that the “defectors” were people disillusioned with life in the
liberated zones who had come over to the U.S.-Saigon side of their own
free will. It was presented as “proof” of the decline in popular support
for the NLF. Obviously these “defect or die” methods used against
civilians could have nothing in common with the moral and ideological
appeals of the NLF. The real results of U.S. methods of persuasion were
to swell the ranks of Saigon’s military and paramilitary forces with
malcontents burning with hatred against the Americans and their local
agents. Obviously these “soldiers” remained, or became, loyal allies of
the NLF.
A tribute to the heroism of the Vietnamese people is that even the
defect-or-be-killed program has failed to produce the results expected
by the U.S. Command in Saigon. This is clear from the following dispatch
from Washington on January 15, 1968:[6] <#_edn6>
“The program to get enemy soldiers and politicians to defect to the
South Vietnamese government is slipping, latest Pentagon figures show.
The White House in the past has portrayed the “Chieu Hoi”(Open Arms)
program as one of the significant indicators of how well the Vietnam war
is going.
“Figures made available Saturday show that there were only 951 defectors
in December, a low for the year and a continuation of the downward trend
which started after the March high of 4,913 defectors.
“Robert W. Komer, White House special assistant [with a long background
as a top CIA functionary] now serving at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon,
went to Vietnam with high hopes of stimulating defections.
“U.S. officials early in the year predicted 45,000 people would defect
in 1967. The actual total, according to a Pentagon figure, was 27,178…”
Among the reasons given for the 1967 failure was the “improvement in the
statistics so that the count of defectors is more accurate than previously…”
The real reason obviously was that Westmoreland had lost the initiative
in the 1967-68 dry season and was no longer able to round up the same
number of civilians of military age or captured “Vietcong” to
manufacture “defectors” from them by the methods Martinsen described.
Any comfort Washington once received from the faked figures on “Vietcong
defectors” should have been shattered by the realities of the admitted
failures of Komer’s efforts and the stagnation of large parts of the
Saigon armed forces by 1968. All of this was capped by the desertion of
over 27,000 Saigon troops in the first week following the NLF’s
generalized offensive against the towns and the resultant almost total
collapse of U.S.-Saigon military and political presence in the
countryside the dismissal of two of Saigon’s four zonal commanders
because the “neutralized” troops in Military Zones 2 and 4 respectively,
either refused to budge in defense of the cities and American bases, or
deserted with their arms to the NLF, could not change the situation. The
rich harvest reaped during the offensive against the cities was the
result of years of patient “persuasion” activities.
*Notes.*
[1] <#_ednref1> In a very gloomy article headed: “The Truth about the
War in Vietnam: Fact versus Propaganda.”
[2] <#_ednref2> In comparison with the 1967 figure of one in four
deserting, the same magazine in its December 5, 1966 issue gave the rate
of desertion from the Saigon forces as one in six throughout 1966.
[3] <#_ednref3> /Internationale Herald Tribune/ (Paris), Jan. 8, 1968.
[4] <#_ednref4> The 2nd session of the Bertrand Russell War Crimes
Tribunal was held at Roskilde, Denmark, between November 20 and December
2, 1967. The author was present as a witness.
[5] <#_ednref5> An operation launched January 8, 1967, in which Ben Suc
village was bulldozed out of existence.
[6] <#_ednref6> Reported by George C. Wilson of the /Washington Post/
published in /International Herald Tribune/ (Paris), January 16, 1968.
*NEXT: Chapter Nine – Emptying the Sea*
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20180223/7e642a8e/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list