Why did america attack Vietnam?

periacs

Join FAIR's Email List: | October 16, 2006 | FAIR Store | Search Our Site: [adv search]

Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam â€” no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 â€” and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers â€” in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf â€” a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets â€” there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."

An exhaustive new book, The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. In an interview, author Tom Wells told us that American media "described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely `tit for tat' â€” when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North."

Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" â€” as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"

Daniel Hallin's classic book The "Uncensored War" observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account [of Tonkin Gulf events]; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."

What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."

In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution â€” the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam â€” sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

The rest is tragic history.

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."

6ft5inallman

I hate to say it, but it was supposed to be in defense of South Vietnam (communist were supporting North Vietnam and we did not want communism to spread), but it's really because President Kennedy was overthrown (that's still a secret) by a Government coup so the war machine would make billions for the owners of weapons manufactures (read about Lindon B Johnson and his connection with big money)

Brainy

"6'5"inall" Pretty well tells it as it is. The nation of VN had been tempoarily divided after the fall of Dien Bien Phu, ending the French rule. Elections were to be held by 1960, in both sections with plans to reunite them. They were held in the North and the "Viet Mingh" (Socialist) party won. The dictators in the south knew that they would be thrown out if they called an election. They asked for and rec'd advisors from JFK, However he realized that was the wrong move and announced his plan to withdraw, a move which would cost him his life. LBJ became Pres. and immediately escalated the US involment(See 6'5"inall's comments). the Viet Cong was the military arm of the Viet Mingh, and a civil war broke out to force the south to hold elections. Under International law there is no justification for US involvement as it was a Civil War and the US were backing a Dictator who still had French Generals on staff from the Colonial days. The reason the US stayed at a cost of over 60,000 US lives was so a few could profit at the txpayers expense. Not much different than what is happening in Iraq today.

Rambo

All are good writting. By concise ans yr question the official reason is to beak and resist the comunist spreading to southeast Asia countries. Real reason is the loss control of France in the Indochina country. France wanted to maintain her colonial over Indochina but she failed.

aarshi72

no body gives the short and rite answer, we also need to know y USA attached Vietnam....offcourse it was attach USA army was not on Picnic...
My foot US amrine was on routine patrol at vietam boarder,where vietnamese boats fire torpido.......offcourse they had to fire bcoz that was there boarder......where is USA and where is vietam how come it was on routine in overseas water...
two stupid...pasted some site details here...

It was the time when russia was developing more nukes and preparing for agression in Afghanistan, US need a place from where they can keep an eye on China and Russia...they seems vietam is the best place and like apple pie to get there, so they attached on vietnam to get hold on that place.,

imhomebeforedark

Ha. Where do you get your information? Seriously, where? Do you live in America? Judging by your questions you're not a huge fan, so if you do live here, maybe you should think of relocating to a place that more suits you. I am not happy with our government, like the majority of the country. However, I know that my opportunities in America are far greater than just about anywhere else in the world, and for that I'm extremely grateful.

BeArPaW_4709

OFFICIAL

We came to the aid of South Vietnam in support of a treaty we had signed known as the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty after there was an attack on the USS Maddox (DD-73). As always, an attack on a US ship is considered an attack on US soil. Therefore, the adminstration in place at the time (Johnson) went before congress and obtained what is known today as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. (see below) which gave the president the power to enforce the SACDT.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a resolution [1] that gave US President Lyndon B. Johnson approval, without a formal declaration of war, "To take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom." Both Johnson and President Richard Nixon used the Resolution as a justification for escalated involvement in Indochina.

Following the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Lyndon Johnson, who was up for re-election that year, launched retaliatory strikes and went on national television on August 4, 1964. Although the USS Maddox (DD-731) had been involved in providing intelligence support for South Vietnamese attacks at Hon Me and Hon Ngu, Johnson's Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, went before Congress and denied that the United States Navy was supporting South Vietnamese military operations. He thus characterized the attack as "unprovoked." He also claimed before Congress that there was "unequivocal proof" of an "unprovoked" second attack against the Maddox.

Mainly as a result of McNamara's testimony, on August 7, 1964, US Congress passed a joint resolution (Wikisource: H.J. RES 1145) that facilitated increased U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The floor vote in the House was 416-0 although Representative Eugene Siler of Kentucky paired against the Resolution. The Senate approved it 88-2, with Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska casting the only nay votes.

The Resolution was repealed in May of 1970, with the help of Judge Glenn Smith II, in response to the Nixon Administration's military operations in Cambodia. The U.S. had already begun the process of withdrawing troops from the area in 1969, under a policy known as "Vietnamization", but did not completely disengage from the region until 1975, after the North Vietnamese take-over of Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City. The Resolution was replaced by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is still in place today.

REAL

The real reason is subjective. There are political reasons (1) in which the US wanted to stop the encroachment of communism into southeast Asia (2) commitments to our allies (The French) who faltered at developing stability in the region after WWII (3)

I believe the 'Real' reason is that each administration inhereted the problem of the previous administration and used ever increase resources to resolve the matter once and for all. After all, no adminstration wanted to be at blaim. It all started when Eisenhower sent in advisors, Kennedy sent in more advisors and troops to train the South Vietnamise and Johnson/Nixon sent in troops to actually do the fighting until the a stable government could be established and a Sout Vietnamise Army could be trained and put in place.

It's a lot of things dude... people make careers studying the events in hopes that we don't make the same mistakes again.

Good question.

davegesprek

As periac s said, the official reason for the war on Vietnam was to stop the North Vietnamese' agression.

While an American destroyer was patroling on the bay of Tongkin, they became under attack by the NV vessles.

After that incident, there were several more of armed confrontations, and for this reason, the U.S. began sending the armed forces (at first, only military advisers were sent to train the South Vientnamese, but later, insertion of full troops.)

While this official reason makes it looks like "the NVs are the one who initiated the attack, and they are the main aggressors", but in reality, the U.S. had been pondering how to make a reason to invade Vietnam, long before the Tongkin conflicts. The Tongkin confrontation happened, and the U.S. finally acheived a good, politically correct reason to fight a war in Vietnam.

As you know, the war on Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism, based on the "domino theory". The domino theory means by one state becoming a communist nation, the next neighboring states are likely to be influenced and eventually becoming communist nation. Just like the fall of domino bricks. One brick falls, then it hits the next, then the next, then the next... so on.

Brooks B

America did not attack Vietnam - they defended South Vietnam from invasion from North Vietnam. Whether the US executed the war in a humane way is another question - but the US DID NOT attack Vietnam.

the robber

Official reason: stop the spread of communism in southeast asia.
Real reason: the French became weaker after WW2 and couldn't maintain their colony in Vietnam. The American, after WW2 become the strongest power of the world, would want to replace the French in Vietnam, put Vietnam under their influence.

telefantastical

we did not attack vietnam, we tried to help people who were being attacked.

David B

did not "attack" Vietnam, were "invited" by the democratic south to assist in resisting communist insurgency fomented by the North.

munchen2186

america=evil
america attack vietnam..attacked palestine tru israel..attacked iraq for oil..so pathetic!!

Araceli

Trust me, the United States of America is not evil I'm American citizen and in the future I want to end the war with Iraq, Afghanistan what ever is united states of american having I hate wars that's why in the future I'm going to make our country quit. Our country is not a loser and our country is not interest in Iraq oil by the way oil is not good for our planet it makes the country to have global warming I don't want no more innocent people dead. I want our country and all country to have peace I hate wars.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: