• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 2862 0

Frankel commented in the New York Times (Feb. 11, 1968) that pressures at home and in Vietnam “are thought to have raised once again the temptation of further military escalation” (I, 584, italicized by Braestrup for emphasis as an example of raising “straw men”). Frankel was quite accurate in this measured statement. As Braestrup points out, “Wheeler and Westmoreland agreed that it was also a good time to urge a bolder Vietnam strategy, with more troops to gain quicker results: i.e., forays into Laos, Cambodia, and possibly that part of North Vietnam just above the DMZ.” Why then the “straw man” charge? Because, Braestrup objects, escalation “was hardly a tempting prospect for Johnson” (his emphasis), hardly Frankel’s point. Braestrup claims further that Frankel, in this article, suggested “that escalation—notably a reserve call-up—was probable” (I, 586). Frankel’s article does not appear in the accompanying volume of documents; turning to it, we discover that Braestrup’s claim is another Freedom House exclusive, suggested nowhere in Frankel’s article, which is noteworthy only for its standard reiteration of government propaganda about the goal of bringing “security” to “the people of South Vietnam”—by B-52 bombing of villages, the exploits of Task Force Barker at and around My Lai at just that time as part of the general ravaging of Quang Ngai Province, etc.

After television, Newsweek is the worst offender. Let us therefore inquire further into its misdeeds. In what Braestrup describes as “Newsweek’s major statement on the Thieu-Ky regime,” a March 18 feature entitled “Vietnam: A Reappraisal,” the journal commented accurately in an editorial entitled “The Political Morass” that “land reform, a vital element in any effort to win the loyalty of the peasantry, has not been tackled seriously” (I, 534–36), a truism familiar to everyone from the American high command to officials in Washington. Braestrup comments: “It is difficult, once again, to fathom Newsweek’s logic. Surely, neither Newsweek nor the Vietnamese peasant expected the regime to tackle land reform seriously in the aftermath of Tet.” It is perfectly obvious that in this “reappraisal,” Newsweek is referring to the general picture, not specifically to the post-Tet period of one month.

According to Braestrup, “Newsweek, throughout the February – March 1968 period, was to refer, in passing, to the ‘wily’ Giap, ‘tough’ North Vietnamese regulars, ‘ominous’ enemy activity, and in general, to a foe without setbacks or flaws” (I, 229). Turning to the facts, on March 11, Newsweek presented an analysis in which it reported that the Communists “were still plagued by the confusion that is characteristic of all military operations.” The report (II, 216f.) goes on to describe “inexplicable” failure to blow up a crucial bridge, failure to use main forces adequately to maintain momentum, misassessment of popular moods and U.S.–ARVN tactics, inadequate preparation of troops, etc., concluding that “the communists did not achieve most of their objectives.” The following week’s article on Khe Sanh reports a marine view that “Charlie missed his golden opportunity” by bad tactics. Newsweek’s picture of “a foe without setbacks or flaws” is another Freedom House exclusive.

What of the other sins? As for the reference to the “wily” Giap, compare Newsweek with what Braestrup regards as the outstanding analysis by Douglas Pike, who describes Giap as a “master tactician,” “one of the best tactical commanders of the 20th century,” etc. (I, 196f.). On the “toughness” of the North Vietnamese and their “ominous” activity, see the regular reports of the U.S. military command, and an extensive literature by Vietnam veterans.

Braestrup claims that “one searches in vain through most of the media descriptions of the foe, even well into March 1968, for indications that the enemy’s planning, tactics, execution, zeal, and weaponry were less than flawless”; “there were few hints in Times analyses or battlefield reporting that the foe was anything but shrewd, tenacious, ascetic, infallible and menacing,