VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
(Vietnam vet contact: General Carl Schneider (ret.) Korea, Vietnam
dukesch@aol.com, 480-595-7668)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND A RUTGERS PROFESSOR MISREPRESENT A CIA “WHAT IF” SCENARIO TO IMPLY AN EARLY PREDICTION OF FAILURE IN VIETNAM.
May 5, 2005
By Leonard Magruder
The Associated Press, working with a Rutgers history professor, in an article titled, “Newly Released Vietnam Papers Reveal Intelligence Prediction,” misrepresented new documents released by the CIA to make it appear that the CIA had repeatedly warned superiors that the war in Vietnam could not be won.
The AP article laid out this misrepresentation using two selections from 174 CIA intelligence documents released on Friday, April 29, 2005, a day before the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Working with Lloyd Gardner, a professor of history at Rutgers University, the Associated Press article began with the statement that a 1967 memo “eerily foretold what happened in Saigon nearly eight years later.”
They failed to mention that this was a “what if” exercise requested of the CIA by administration officials, a standard feature of war games. As the CIA admits in their reports, these were uncertain predictions, more like guesses, within the framework of a “what if “ assumption of a negotiated settlement with the Communists.
The following AP quotes are from the first of the two CIA reports, Implications of an unfavorable outcome in Vietnam:
“There could be a spectacle of panic flight from the country...and Communist terror and vengeance. But even that worst-case scenario envisioned a better outcome that what actually occurred. It assumed a negotiated settlement that favored the North, and called a possible political and military collapse an ‘entirely implausible hypothesis.’ This seems to suggest the North could not be defeated. Also, they did not tell the reader that the ‘negotiated settlement’ was within the framework of a ‘what if’ scenario.”
The CIA article reads, “What we mean by an ‘unfavorable outcome’ needs to be defined. We are not discussing the entirely implausible hypothesis of a political-military collapse, say, the precipitate withdrawal of American forces or sweeping political concessions granting Hanoi outright achievement of its aims in the South...It is possible, however, that events would be precipitated in such a manner that the outcome would emerge very rapidly, and in conditions of breakdown and disorder on the non-Communist side. There could be a spectacle of panic flights from the country, suicidal resistance by isolated groups, and Communist terror and vengeance.”
The Associated Press article then goes on to read:
“The 1967 memo also bluntly stated what some historians have viewed as one of the central lessons of Vietnam that still echoes today. Such a loss would demonstrate the United States ‘cannot crush a revolutionary movement which is sufficiently large, dedicated, competent, and well-supported.’”
Here the AP is trying to bolster a major argument of the anti-war position on the war and also hint that this was the truth about our current engagement in Iraq.
The CIA article reads, “What we are attempting in this paper is to provide some greater precision about the probably costs, for American policy and interests as a whole, of an unfavorable outcome in Vietnam. It is not assumed in this inquiry that such an outcome is now likely; it has been demonstrated, in fact, that the Communists cannot win if the U.S. is determined to prevent it. It would constitute the best rather than the worst case, or rather a successful U.S. effort to achieve the best case, given a decision to place priority on ending hostilities rather than on achievement of the aims we have so far pursued. The question posed can have no complete or wholly satisfactory answer. One is asked to assume a single event, the scenario and context for that which cannot be described in detail, and to project its consequences for subsequent development on the world scene as a whole.
“To be sure, no one doubts that the U.S. could utterly destroy North Vietnam with nuclear weapons, if it choose to do so. Most would probably agree that the U.S. could achieve its objectives by less drastic methods, if it persisted long enough and paid the cost. (In other words, there is little question but what we could win, one way or the other.) But the compelling proposition emerging from the situation (the ‘what if’ of deciding to negotiate now) would be that the U.S. acting within the constraints imposed by its traditions and public attitudes, cannot crush a revolutionary movement which is sufficiently large, dedicated, competent, and well-supported.” (In other words this is the conclusion many, especially those in the anti-war movement, would draw if the U.S. negotiated anything less than its stated goals at this time.)”
The Associated Press article then made reference to the final installment, “dated March 1975” in the CIA collection. They did not give its name, but it is the March 27, 1975, CIA report, Assessment of the Situation in South Vietnam. This is not a “what if” scenario but a straightforward account of conditions in South Vietnam.
Said the AP: “U.S. intelligence analysts said that even if the ongoing North Vietnamese attack were blocked, the South Vietnamese government would find itself in control of very little.”
Gardner wrote, “The CIA estimate foresaw final defeat by early 1976, a prediction still too generous as it turned out.”
They did not specify which “ongoing attack”; there were a number during this period. The statement by the AP was meant to convey the impression that this “mistaken” war had devastated almost everything in South Vietnam, which, of course, is absurd. By 1971 almost 95% of South Vietnam had been pacified, and much rebuilt. The CIA report does not contain the phrase, “even if the ongoing North Vietnamese attack were blocked.” The AP or Professor Gardner made this up. In his statement that, “the estimate foresaw final defeat by early 1976,” Gardner seems to be wanting to convey the idea that the CIA is warning the administration of a final defeat of the U.S. by that year.
The actual CIA report, Assessment of the Situation in South Vietnam, is a report dealing entirely with that disastrous period following President Thieu’s decision in mid-March to shift to a strategy of military entrenchment, withdrawing SVN troops almost two thirds down South Vietnam. From this report:
“The situation is especially bleak in MR 1. The South Vietnamese have abandoned five highland provinces and large parts of several others, and government troops do not appear to be capable of standing up to the Communists. The continuing debate in the U.S. on the question of U.S. aid to South Vietnam is also an unsettling factor....if the South Vietnamese in general come to believe that the U.S. will not respond with additional assistance to meet the new situation, this will fuel defeatism.
“The South Vietnamese forces in MRs 3 and 1 ---including the territorial forces, remain intact and able to give a good account of themselves. Even so, the Government of South Vietnam will probably be left with control over little more than the delta and Saigon and surrounding populated areas. It would thus face further communist pressure from a position substantially weaker than our previous estimates, with the result likely to be defeat by early 1976.”
This is a classic example of how the media and the university still like to cling to the arguments of the anti-war movement, long since exposed as false. The reason being, to protect from guilt those who wouldn’t serve, and because the exposure of the bankruptcy of these views of the war would severely challenge the credibility of the Left in our universities.
The issue of lying about Vietnam was of special relevance in the last presidential election. 80% of Vietnam vets, and a majority of the American people, rejected Kerry in a massive repudiation of 30 years of university and media lies about the Vietnam War. Vets celebrated closure as Karl Rove and others credited them with victory. Kerry was the media’s “stealth” candidate. They had hoped to sneak him in to vindicate their left/liberal version of the Vietnam War.
But as one Vietnam vet said, “Do we really want a president who organized and led anti-war and anti-American protests and demonstrations under the flag of the enemy we were fighting?” Most vets see Kerry as having shared the same leftist agenda as people like Abbie Hoffman, Dave Dellinger, Jerry Rubin, and Jane Fonda.
Said columnist Stephen Young as the election approached, “Our national recollection of the war matches that of the New Left.”
That is the problem. The media and the university want to keep it that way. They declared long ago that the debate over Vietnam was closed, that the New Left, the war protestors, and people like Kerry, had won, and that there would be no further discussion. But those who fought in the war overwhelmingly disagree.
What is really eating away at America is that everyone knows that our educators still teach students that the protestors were the “moral heroes,” when the real heroes came back to slander and ostracism by their peers who would not serve. Everybody sees the issue, except the university and the media. Here is an important insight by Gil Spencer of The Delaware County Times (Penn.)
“When thousands of veterans gathered in Washington, D.C., a few weeks ago to express their disdain for Kerry’s candidacy, it went lightly covered nationally. Why is the mainstream press downplaying, if not ignoring, this outraged group of veterans? These vets have a theory. It’s because the media was complicit in the same anti-Vietnam War movement that John Kerry helped lead when he returned from his four-month tour of duty. Papers like the New York Times and networks like CBS bought and perpetuated the myth of Vietnam veterans as drug-addled and crazed losers. And they continue to have a stake in sustaining that myth. The media’s version of that war is now the country’s official version and they don’t want it changed. Now along come men like Jim Warner, Ken Cordier, Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Leo Thorsness, and hundreds, thousands of others, to say they got it wrong.”
If they got it wrong it needs to be changed.
Following the victory on November 22nd, Vietnam vet Jeffrey Sharp - Commander - AMVETS Post 18 - Orange County said:
“Those of our veteran’s community who served honorably and have lived with a terrible burden of charges of unsubstantiated war crimes that Kerry has hung over their heads for thirty years, have been vindicated by America’s citizenry once and for all. With the resounding defeat of John Kerry for his bid to become Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces, America has totally repudiated the far left in this country.”
The victory also brought closure to the campaign started long ago when Mr. Magruder, founder and president of V.V.A.R., although not a vet, resigned his post as professor of psychology at a rally he and his students held for Vietnam veterans, at Suffolk College, New York, in May 10, 1981, “to protest the damage done to Vietnam veterans by the erroneous views of many in the university and the media in the 60’s and their perpetuation of these views .” (The Compass, May 11, 1981.) It has been a bitter issue for decades.
Mr. Magruder has written a letter to the Chairman of the History Department at the University of Kansas asking for an appointment to discuss the terms of surrender. They will have to stop using Karnow’s 35-year-old history of the Vietnam War. This history, still widely used at universities around the country, is so biased that when translated into a PBS series, there were riots by military people in Los Angeles, New York, Houston, London, and Paris. They also must regularly show the V.V.A.R. documentary Media and How The Campus Lied About Vietnam, as well as see that certain new materials are added, documentaries such as Silent Victory (www.silentvictory.com), and the 4-volume Long Way Home Project, and new books such as Vietnam: The Necessary War by Michael Lind; A Vietnam Memoir, by Troung Trong Nhu Tang; Deconstructing the Left, by David Horowitz; A Better War, by Lewis Sorley; Unheralded Victory, by Mark Woodruff; and America in Vietnam, by Guenter Lewy; and a new booklet by Vietnam veterans who are also historians, Myths of the Vietnam War.
The university is now faced with the fact that the reigning world-view of the social sciences and the humanities over the last decades has led repeatedly to major misinterpretations of world events. It is time to address the question posed recently by Daniel Pipes, our greatest scholar on the Middle East, “Why have university specialists proven so inept at understanding the great contemporary issues of war and peace, starting with Vietnam, then Granada, then Kuwait, then the War on Terror?”
Those who died in Vietnam died for a cause. But they rarely have it right in our universities. They either died in “an imperialistic, immoral war of aggression against elements in South Vietnam (the Viet Cong) attempting to unify their country,” the position of the campus “peace” movement, or they died “fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese against Communist aggression from North Vietnam,” the position of the government, the majority of the American people, and certain to be the position of those who sacrificed their lives. These positions are mutually incompatible. They cannot both be true. The nation cannot remain forever in this state of division and illogic over the Vietnam War. Through new books, films, and even testimonies from the enemy, we now have more than enough facts to end this conflict. If you can’t end the polarization at this level, then you can’t end the one Vietnam vet Milt Copolas referred to when he said, “There is a wall 10 miles high and 50 miles thick between those of us who went and those that didn’t.” (VFW Magazine.) And if you can’t end that, then this becomes the ground for a new polarization, over the war on terrorism and Iraq, this one threatening the homeland. Those who would not serve used to say, “I’ll fight when they get over here.” Well, they are over here. And they still don’t care.
You heal a nation, not by pretending that you can hold on to two absolutely incompatible positions as both true at the same time, but by showing were one is true and the other false.
It has all been straightened out by the historians, and here is what the university and the media need to finally accept:
1. It is not true that the Vietnam War was a civil war.
2. It is not true that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first and a Communist second.
3. It is not true that the National Liberation Front was a revolutionary movement independent of North Vietnam.
4. It is not true that the Viet Cong won the hearts and minds of villagers through humanitarian policies.
5. It is not true that the Geneva Declarations of 1954 legally bound Diem’s government and the United States to unify the two halves of Vietnam through elections.
6. It is not true that most American soldiers were addicted to drugs, guilt-ridden about their role in the war, and deliberately used cruel and inhumane tactics.
7. It is not true that American blacks constituted a disproportionate number of the combat casualties.
8. It is not true that the United States lost the war militarily.
9. It is not true that the Communist Tet offensive of 1968 was a military defeat for the United States.
10. It is not true that it was a calculated policy of the United States to bomb civilian targets in North Vietnam.
11. It is not true that the percentage of civilian deaths in the Vietnam War was higher than in other wars.
12. It is not true that American POW’s were treated humanely by the North Vietnamese.
13. It is not true that the press coverage of the Vietnam War was “fair and balanced.”
14. It is not true that the antiwar demonstrations in the United States shortened the war.
15. It is not true the Gulf of Tonkin incident was manufactured.
16. It is not true that life is better in Indochina now that the United States is gone.
During the Democratic Convention, July 26-29, 2004, there was a major conference** at Simmons College in Boston, right next to the Democratic Convention, titled, Examining the Myths of the Vietnam War. Historians and military experts from all over the country showed media and university still misrepresenting the Vietnam War. Reporters right next door at the Convention refused to tell the American people about the Conference. A booklet exposing the lies was proposed for distribution to high school and college students to counteract the lies they were being taught. That booklet, Myths of the Vietnam War, has now been published by two Vietnam War veterans and historians. Information on ordering can be obtained by e-mailing TechConsultServ@juno.com. We urge all patriots to obtain copies for their favorite high school or college student.
(For interviews showing how vets were treated by the protestors when they returned home see our documentary, Media and Campus Lied About Vietnam. For the history of the V.V.A.R. mission see the 10-part series, Vietnam and the Media. See also our new Manifesto Against Leftist Tyranny. On the Big Lie of the campus protestors, see our two articles, Kerry too Naive - part 1 and We Don’t Want your Views on Vietnam. For more on campus lies and a run-in with a history professor over lying about Vietnam, see Students Challenge Professor on Vietnam.
This article may be reproduced in any form. Copy this article, distribute, add us as a link.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by www.i-served.com.