A neocon friend sent this to me...

[Carson]

...to bolster his argument that one cannot claim to both "support the troops" and be an anti-war activist, that protesting inherently hurts our soldiers.

He says the following article was originally printed in the Wall Street Journal in August of 1995. I'd like to know if this article is legitimate. Any help would be appreciated.


HOW NORTH VIETNAM WON THE WAR

The Wall Street Journal


What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.



Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”



Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.



Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.



Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

(snip)

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.


(snip)

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion.

(snip)

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

[truthspeaker]

1. Tell him it's as bullshit now as it was when Nixon used it.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. This still has nothing to do with support of the troops.

It's a nice article, but it completely irrelevant to his argument.

[Parche]

3. Vietnam

They had no entry strategy and no exit strategy


It was one of the worst tactical wars ever by America
They had no plans at all
Those brave soldiers who fought there should have expected more
from Command

[Forkboy]

4. So many people with so many neocon friends sending so many emails

huh

[yellowcanine]

5. It is a WSJ article. That answers your question right there. Cheeleaders

for war. What do you expect?

[Carson]

7. True,

...I just didn't know if it had actually appeared in the newspaper

[wryter2000]

6. First off

The person who sent this has confused the political power structure with the soldiers. The ultimate support for our soldiers would be to bring them all home. That sure as hell would hurt "the war effort."

Ask you friend how many care packages he/she has sent to troops or if their contribution to the war effort is only to forward "patriotic" e-mails.

[Carson]

9. lol

Ask you friend how many care packages he/she has sent to troops or if their contribution to the war effort is only to forward "patriotic" e-mails.

Good point. Thanks.

[democratreformed]

13. I was trying to figure out how to say what you did.

Then, I gave up. You said it well.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. I posit...

That neither the author of this piece nor your friend was alive and active during that time. If either was, they would have some appreciation of the terrible toll that The Nam took on this country, on so many fronts.

I call bullshit.

[Mizmoon]

10. One man's opinion

does not make a fact.

[proud patriot]

11. ask this person How Many Care packages he has sent to our troops?

[madrchsod]

12. so what is the guys point?

all wars are are fought on a military and political reasons and methods-win the hearts and minds- of the enemy or make them submit. does this mean in undeclared wars we are to lose our rights? during a real war reasonable people would limit their "free speech" for the common good of the soldiers and the nation-loose lips sink ships- but illegal wars do not warrant restrictions on freedom to speak and assemble. tell the bozo to read the constitution and the amendments

[StClone]

15. Following that

Vietnam like Iraq was a far off and foreign environment that wasted much money and lives against a perceived threat. Wars are tough but to fight one that challenges reason and strains our military to the limit automatically is doomed to kill our will and foster negative world opinion.

War just say no!

[happyslug]

14. Tet was launched for Domestic purposes, Vietnamese Domestic Politics

War is politics, and the North Vietnamese NEVER forgot that. On the other hand they had to keep their own base supporting the war. This lead to several situations, first Ho Chi Minh was aging fast, and he had been the key leader for decades. The people around him wanted him to see a United Vietnam (Ho would die in 1970 not living long enough to even see the US Pull Out).

Second, the Camh Rae Shah base was coming on line in mid-1968. Up till its completion the US had a problem getting supplies into South Vietnam. The main Harbor in Vietnam had been Haiphong IN NORTH VIETNAM and as such not usable by the US. Thus the US Build Cam Rae Shah port to permit the flow of supplies to the troops in the field. The North Vietnamese knew that once the port was in place the US could flood the South with Supplies (One of the Reasons we sent in Troops in Vietnam in 1964 was it was easier to send in US Troops than the Supplies to improve the training of the South Vietnamese Army, Vietmanization of the war could only occur once the supply problem had been solved and that require Cam Rae Shah to be fully operating).

Thus Tet 1968 was going to be the last chance the Vietcong could hope to win until the US had some sort of Supply problem (i.e. the US had another war someplace else that required the Supply needed to keep the South Vietnam Government in Power, this happened in 1974 when the US decided to re-supply Israel after the Yom Kipper War instead of sending the same supplies to South Vietnam. Thus we lost the Vietnam War on the Banks of the Suez Canal).

Given than Ho could (and did) die before such a supply problem would occur, the North Vietnamese decided to go for an all out attack. When the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Troops in South Vietnam received their orders, they knew the offensive could not succeed, but decided to obey the orders but in a way to strength their position in South Vietnam. Thus the attacks were carried out and any area that came under Viet Cong control was subject to the gathering up of any supporters of the South Vietnamese Government and execution of those "Traitors" as the Viet Cong considered them (When South Vietnam did fall in 1975 no such mas killing took place, the Communist would be in Power and therefore no need to kill the low level supporters of the South Vietnamese Government, In 1968 the Viet Cong KNEW they would be driven from what they had taken and thus wanted (and needed) to eliminate supporters of the South Vietnamese Government).

Furthermore the Viet Cong wanted to use Tet to show they could PUSH the Americans. Everyone knew the Viet Cong could NOT drive the Americans out, but showing to the people of South Vietnam that the Viet Cong could PUSH the Americans, it strengthen the view of the people of South Vietnam of the Power of the Viet Cong.

Note all of these reason sound in DOMESTIC POLITICS OF VIETNAM (Both North and South). The desire to show strength, the Desire to punish enemies (and the means to do so), and the desire of the leadership to win one for Ho all came into play much more than Anti-War movement in the US.