WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- Any seasoned reporter
covering the Tet offensive in Vietnam 36 years ago is
well over 60 and presumably retired or teaching
journalism is one of America's 4,200 colleges and
universities. Before plunging into an orgy of erroneous
and invidious historical parallels between Iraq and
Vietnam, a reminder about what led to the U.S. defeat in
Southeast Asia is timely.Iraq will only be another
Vietnam if the home front collapses, as it did following
the Tet offensive, which began on the eve of the Chinese
New Year, Jan. 31, 1968. The surprise attack was
designed to overwhelm some 70 cities and towns, and 30
other strategic objectives simultaneously. By breaking a
previously agreed truce for Tet festivities, master
strategist Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap in Hanoi calculated that
South Vietnamese troops would be caught with defenses
down.
After the first few hours of panic, the South
Vietnamese troops reacted fiercely. They did the bulk of
the fighting and took some 6,000 casualties. Vietcong
units not only did not reach a single one of their
objectives -- except when they arrived by taxi at the
U.S. Embassy in Saigon, blew their way through the wall
into the compound and guns blazing made it into the
lobby before they were wiped out by U.S. Marines -- but
they lost some 50,000 killed and at least that many
wounded. Giap had thrown some 70,000 troops into a
strategic gamble that was also designed to overwhelm 13
of the 16 provincial capitals and trigger a popular
uprising. But Tet was an unmitigated military disaster
for Hanoi and its Vietcong troops in South Vietnam. Yet
that was not the way it was reported in U.S. and other
media around the world. It was television's first war.
And some 50 million Americans at home saw the carnage of
dead bodies in the rubble, and dazed Americans running
around.
As the late veteran war reporter Peter Braestrup
documented in "Big Story" -- a massive, two-volume study
of how Tet was covered by American reporters -- the
Vietcong offensive was depicted as a military disaster
for the United States. By the time the facts emerged a
week or two later from RAND Corp. interrogations of
prisoners and defectors, the damage had been done.
Conventional media wisdom had been set in concrete.
Public opinion perceptions in the United States changed
accordingly.
RAND made copies of these POW interrogations
available. But few reporters seemed interested. In fact,
the room where they were on display was almost always
empty. Many Vietnamese civilians who were fence sitters
or leaning toward the Vietcong, especially in the region
around Hue City, joined government ranks after they
witnessed Vietcong atrocities. Several mass graves were
found with some 4,000 unarmed civil servants and other
civilians, stabbed or with skulls smashed by clubs. The
number of communist defectors, known as "chieu hoi,"
increased fourfold. And the "popular uprising"
anticipated by Giap, failed to materialize. The Tet
offensive also neutralized much of the clandestine
communist infrastructure.
As South Vietnamese troops fought Vietcong remnants
in Cholon, the predominantly Chinese twin city of
Saigon, reporters, sipping drinks in the rooftop bar of
the Caravelle Hotel, watched the fireworks 2 miles away.
America's most trusted newsman, CBS' Walter Cronkite,
appeared for a standup piece with distant fires as a
backdrop. Donning helmet, Cronkite declared the war
lost. It was this now famous television news piece that
persuaded President Johnson six weeks later, on March
31, not to run. His ratings had plummeted from 80
percent when he assumed the presidency upon Kennedy's
death to 30 percent after Tet. His handling of the war
dropped to 20 percent, his credibility shot to pieces.
Until Tet, a majority of Americans agreed with
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that failure was not an
option. It was Kennedy who changed the status of U.S.
military personnel from advisers to South Vietnamese
troops to full-fledged fighting men. By the time of
Kennedy's assassination in Nov. 22, 1963, 16,500 U.S.
troops had been committed to the war. Johnson escalated
all the way to 542,000. But defeat became an option when
Johnson decided the war was unwinnable and that he would
lose his bid for the presidency in November 1968. Hanoi
thus turned military defeat into a priceless
geopolitical victory.
With the Vietcong wiped out in the Tet offensive,
North Vietnamese regulars moved south down the Ho Chi
Minh trails through Laos and Cambodia to continue the
war. Even Giap admitted in his memoirs that news media
reporting of the war and the anti-war demonstrations
that ensued in America surprised him. Instead of
negotiating what he called a conditional surrender, Giap
said they would now go the limit because America's
resolve was weakening and the possibility of complete
victory was within Hanoi's grasp.
Hanoi's Easter offensive in March 1972 was another
disaster for the communists. Some 70,000 North
Vietnamese troops were wiped out -- by the South
Vietnamese who did all the fighting. The last American
soldier left Vietnam in March 1973. And the chances of
the South Vietnamese army being able to hack it on its
own were reasonably good. With one proviso: Continued
U.S. military assistance with weapons and hardware,
including helicopters. But Congress balked, first by
cutting off military assistance to Cambodia, which
enabled Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge communists to take over,
which, in turn, was followed by a similar Congressional
rug pulling from under the South Vietnamese, that led to
rapid collapse of morale in Saigon.
The unraveling, with Congress pulling the string, was
so rapid that even Giap was caught by surprise. As he
recounts in his memoirs, Hanoi had to improvise a
general offensive -- and then rolled into Saigon two
years before they had reckoned it might become possible.
That is the real lesson for the U.S. commitment to
Iraq. Whatever one thought about the advisability of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States is there with
100,000 troops and a solid commitment to endow Iraq with
a democratic system of government. While failure is not
an option for Bush, it clearly is for Sen. Edward
Kennedy, D-Mass., who called Iraq the president's
Vietnam. It is, of course, no such animal. But it could
become so if Congressional resolve dissolves.
Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North
Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional
surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the
Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear
the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to
the collapse of political will in Washington, was
"essential to our strategy."
Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney
General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave
us confidence that we should hold on in the face of
battlefield reverses."
America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of
its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the
ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should
remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw
the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and
Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It
would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context
of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq,
but the entire Middle East.
(Arnaud de Borchgrave covered Tet as Newsweek's chief
foreign correspondent and had seven tours in Vietnam
between 1951 under the French and 1972.)