War Criminal John McCain and the Real Heroes
Posted by Mike E on September 2, 2008
War Criminal About to Commit More War Crimes
By Mike Ely
Republican Presidential front-runner John McCain recently announced that continuing the U.S. occupation of Iraq for 100 years would be “fine with me.” Such announcements are nothing less than open statements of empire — they are not about a “war on terror,” or “expansion of democracy,” but about dominating key parts of the world.
At the same time McCain’s career rests on his role in Vietnam, which is routinely treated as something worthy of honor and respect — including by leading Democrats of all stripes. Here is the truth about that history — which is the story of a war criminal, not a hero.
A War Criminal At the Start
John McCain was a Navy bomber pilot in 1967–part of an A-4 attack squadron based on the U.S. aircraft carrier Oriskany. Waves of these warplanes would sweep in, over northern Vietnam, from the South China Sea. The bombing campaign was called “Rolling Thunder.”
Like everything else the U.S. did in the Vietnam War, “Rolling Thunder” came wrapped in lies. “Rolling Thunder” was supposedly a retaliation for unprovoked attacks on a U.S. destroyer by Vietnamese patrol boats. But, in fact, this 1964 “Gulf of Tonkin incident” was a U.S. fabrication.
President Johnson made up a fake Vietnamese attack–and then used it to justify the bombing of northern Vietnam which started in February 1965, and then the land invasion of southern Vietnam in March 1965.
As far as the public knew, “Rolling Thunder” only lasted eight weeks–but this too was a lie. The bombing campaign secretly lasted for four years, pounding targets throughout the North. After “Rolling Thunder,” the U.S. bombing continued and escalated.
It was the most intense air war in world history. Seven million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos– three times as many as had been dropped in all of World War 2. Huge parts of Indochina were “carpet bombed”–killing Vietnamese civilians and liberation fighters, ruining valuable farmland and leaving the countryside pockmarked with 21 million bomb craters.
The U.S. planes dropped anti-personnel bombs (containing thousands of flesh-shredding darts), white phosphorus incendiary bombs, huge “daisy cutter” bombs that turned jungle into flattened football fields, and jellied gasoline bombs called napalm. The notorious chemical Agent Orange was sprayed over tens of millions of acres–poisoning crops, forests and human beings in the strongholds of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. In Washington, strategists of the air war came up with a slogan, “Bomb them back to the stone age.”
This is the air assault that pilots like McCain carried out. They formed an elite gung-ho caste inside the U.S. military. They were highly privileged, isolated from many hardships of war, and drawn from the upper classes of U.S. society. McCain himself was the son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals. His father was the top commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific during the last years of the Vietnam War.
In his memoirs, McCain describes how he and his fellow pilots hated any restrictions on their brutal work–how they thought the bombing should be unrestrained and totally ruthless. He describes how he and his fellow pilots greeted each escalation of the air war with wild celebrations.
In October 1967, John McCain was shot down during a bombing raid over the capital city of Hanoi. He had carried out 23 bombing missions. McCain was captured, his wounds were treated, and he was held in a Vietnamese prison with other captured pilots. Five years later, as the defeated U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, these prisoners were released.
Mass murder, then captivity–for that the Pentagon gave John McCain two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, two Flying Crosses, three Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts. Com. John McCain was a trained killer for U.S. imperialism. He carried out his orders without question. There is no discussion in his memoirs of the people he killed, or the destruction he carried out halfway around the world. He is totally unapologetic–shamelessly and repeatedly calling the Vietnamese “gooks” in media interviews over the past several months.
This is the record and these are the “ideals” that the U.S. media and political establishment now promote as “heroic.”
Unjust War
The civilians who hauled McCain out of Hanoi’s Truc Bach Lake in 1967 hated him for what he and the other pilots had done to their people, their city and their country. McCain mentions in his memoirs that one Vietnamese soldier guarding the U.S. prisoners would shout with great emotion, “You killed my mother!”
A war is defined by the political goals it serves. And the U.S. invasion of Vietnam was an unjust war–a war of conquest aimed at breaking the will of an oppressed people and imposing foreign domination over them. The U.S. wanted to encircle China and prevent the Maoist revolution there from rippling outward–toppling oppressive governments “like falling dominos” in Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. U.S. imperialism wanted to preserve for itself the freedom to exploit the hundreds of millions of people in this region, by any means necessary.
Meanwhile, the U.S. claimed that it was defending a democratic ally, South Vietnam, from an invasion by North Vietnam. Another lie. In fact, the Vietnamese were a single people who had long fought for liberation and unification–from the French colonialists, then the Japanese, then the French again, and in the 1960s and 1970s from the U.S. President Eisenhower had prevented elections in southern Vietnam and created a pro-U.S. dictatorship there– openly admitting that the masses of people would have voted for the revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh if given the chance.
When the revolutionary people’s war spread through the villages of southern Vietnam during the early 1960s and threatened the pro-U.S. government–the U.S. invaded to keep control by force.
The means that the U.S. used to fight this war were as criminal as the goals: By 1969, the U.S. command was leading 1.4 million troops in this poor southeast Asian peasant country. Over 500,000 of them were U.S. troops, and the rest were Vietnamese “puppet troops”–hired and controlled by U.S. “advisers.” Anyone suspected of loyalty to the revolutionary guerrillas (the National Liberation Front–NLF) faced arrest, torture and execution. Many thousands were rounded up and brutalized–including by imprisonment in infamous “tiger cages.”
The U.S.-occupied zones and cities gave a sense of what a U.S. victory would mean for the people: Peasants were rounded up into concentration camps called “strategic hamlets” and held there by troops. Rape and wholesale murder of civilians became routine–as when U.S. troops massacred a village of 500 people in My Lai on March 16, 1968. Hundreds of thousands of women and young boys were forced to prostitute themselves around U.S. bases and strongholds. Corruption was rampant–the U.S. forces and their South Vietnamese allies were consumed with black marketeering and drug smuggling.
In mid-1968 the CIA launched its notorious Phoenix program–intended to crush the people’s movement by executing the organized “infrastructure” of revolutionary leaders and activists. It was a countrywide death squad campaign.The Vietnamese estimated that these CIA teams killed 40,000 suspects.
There has been much disinformation about the treatment of U.S. POWs in Vietnam. But the basic truth is that the U.S.-controlled prisons in South Vietnam held 70,000 prisoners at the height of the war–under the most brutal conditions imaginable. Meanwhile the Vietnamese forces held slightly over 300 U.S. military prisoners in northern Vietnam–most of them elite pilots who had carried out mass murder from the skies. By the end of the war, two million Vietnamese had been killed by the U.S.
Senator John McCain complains that his Vietnamese captors used the name “war criminal” to describe him, other U.S. pilots, the U.S. president and the Pentagon high command. But the whole world has known for 30 years that the U.S. attacks in Vietnam were war crimes on a massive and historic scale.
Who are the Real Heroes?
The people of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos defeated the U.S. invaders. That remains the most profound and thrilling fact of this whole history.
Defeating the U.S.–in ten years of intense warfare–required incredible ingenuity, perseverance, consciousness, self-reliance and sacrifice by millions. It inspired oppressed people all over the world to see the people of Indochina–this poor, low-tech, rural, colonized region–defeat the world’s biggest imperialist power. In the late ’50s, in southern Vietnam, the liberation fighters started with little more than primitive crossbows, bamboo spikes and a few old weapons from the war against the French, and built a deeply rooted people’s war in the south that fought the U.S. invaders. In the north, the masses of people endured tremendous hardships to support the revolutionary struggle, sending supplies and army fighters down the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail.
And now, 25 years after Vietnamese liberation forces took Saigon on April 30, 1975, who are we supposed to consider “honorable”? Who were the people who showed “character”? Who are our war heroes?
Is it an unapologetic bomber like McCain, who brought “death from above” to a people fighting for liberation? Is it a conflicted liberal careerist like Al Gore who volunteered for this war so that his patriotic loyalty would forever be on his resume? Or a pampered ruling class frat rat like George W. Bush, who cheered the invasion of Vietnam from the beer parties of the Texas National Guard?
Or are our heroes those who fought against imperialism in Vietnam and those who dared to support them?
It is a question of class perspective–of radically different class interests. And for the oppressed people, it is the liberation fighters who are the real heroes–and those all over the world who dared support them. Millions of people mobilized to oppose U.S. imperialism’s attack on Vietnam War. Students organized against the war in the U.S.–and even faced guns at the infamous 1970 shootings at Kent State and Jackson State. Thousands of young men in the U.S. refused to obey the draft–and went underground, or to Canada, or to prison, rather than fight for the U.S. Armed struggles developed among the oppressed people in many countries, threatening the imperialist grip on the globe.
And within the U.S. military itself–thousands of young men dared to resist–and help disintegrate the war machine from the inside. Thousands deserted, or just refused to fight, and even staged organized actions of resistance. A famous few went over to the liberation armies and fought against imperialism. And many more veterans, who came back from Vietnam radicalized, plunged into the Black Liberation movement, the antiwar movement and the growing revolutionary currents–bringing a raw and militant urgency with them.
Let the ruling class–their media and political representatives–uphold their invasion of Vietnam. It reveals much about their system and its nature. Decades after the Vietnam war, this system is still trying to “put Vietnam behind us.” They are still trying to end “the Vietnam syndrome” (by which they mean restore the eager willingness of people to kill and die for U.S. military adventures.) The fact that the political system and media drool over the “character and ideals” of a John McCain, or offer up old war photos of an Al Gore shows how hostile this system is to simple justice–how unwilling it is to back away from its own most hideous acts.
Meanwhile, the people of the world have not forgotten Vietnam, and do not intend for it to be forgotten.
People saw the world’s superpower brought to its knees by the revolutionary peasant fighters in their famous black clothes and homemade sandals. And the people remember well when resisters rose up, in the belly of the beast, in the ghettos and campuses and in the military itself–to oppose this war and this system.
Let this system pick its war heroes. And we’ll pick ours.
criminyjicket said
excellent article. I disagree with some of it, but all things considered, far more accurate than the propoganda spewed out by the media to elevate McCain. My only real disagreements are sins of omissions, not commission. well done
The Cold Lamper said
Yeah, I’d like to hear more about “disinformation about the treatment of U.S. POWs in Vietnam.” Without challenging the basic assessment, are we to believe that armies that were in an overall sense “people’s liberation” forces never committed war crimes? Or is it simply equivocation, like trying to begin and end an argument saying “Conquest claims the Stalinist NKVD executed tens of millions of people, but it was really ‘only’ 800,000…meanwhile back at the ranch in Jiangxi…”
I understand the need to fight back against the use of the “Amsterdam International Criminal Tribunal For Eurasian Genocide Poker Game” to end any rational discussion, but that’s hardly the linchpin of our effort to demonstrate why these societies were fundamentally better than what they’ve been portrayed as, let alone why communist revolution can do even better in the “New Proletarian Century.” John McCain apparently can’t lift his arms over his head because of the shit he endured at the “Hanoi Hilton.” Has he just been maintaining a remarkable public facade for four decades?
I’m honestly curious; if there are any Marxist refutations of McCain’s “alleged” torture, I’d be interested in seeing them.
Domingo Tavella said
What makes McCain extremely dangerous is that he is a real war criminal, as opposed to Bush or Cheney, who are mere desk criminals.
McCain’s sanctimoniousness attests to his utter moral blindness. He truly believes he is right and could never even begin to doubt that showering burning gasoline (Napalm is gasoline made gluey so it will stick to the skin) on the North Vietnamese population could possibly be wrong.
The only regrettable aspect of his imprisonment in Vietnam is that the North Vietnamese did not treat him the way Americans were treating Vietnamese prisoners. He should have been laid across the road and run over by a truck, or dropped from a helicopter – the standard American treatment of Vietnamese fighters.
If history is of any informative value, McCain will be the next US president. American rural whites, who hold the key to the electoral college, are unlikely to vote for woman and will never elect a black man to the presidency. Sadder times are yet to come.
Gil Corby said
how is it the left never mentions stuff like DAK SON where the VIETCONG (i will not dignify them with National Liberation Front) CREMATED 600 Montagnard Hill people. Or Uncle Ho’s “agarian Reform” that slaughtered 10,000 north vietnamese civilians. i have spoken to Vietnames Boat people. Ileft the “peace movement” because of its one sidedness. you are just mad you cannot call John McCain a chicen hawk so you have to throw out war criminal. you just do not want to admit you are a bunch of cowards brainwashed by communist propaganda. John McCain gave up his freedom he was offered it by the NVA because he said the POWS captured first should be released first. have anyof you people ever sacrificed so much for love of other people.
Quorri said
I haven’t been given a cause to sacrifice for yet, but I’m hoping we create one :D
Libertarian Lurker said
Comrade Corby,
Yes, the VC committed plenty of attrocities and aren’t heroes of mine. But neither is John McCain — what, exactly, do you find heroic about him? McCain was shot down while on a mission to bomb a civilian power plant in a small country that posed absolutely no threat to the United States and was subsequently “intensively interrogated.” I might ponder whether McCain might owe the Vietnamese government thanks for their relatively lenient sentencing standards for what were objectively capital crimes on his part but that might be a little extreme and I would lose whatever right-wing cred I have left. Regardless, bombing civilian targets in a war that was not one of self-defense by any stretch of the imagination is not heroic.
If an Abu Ghraib inmante is also subjected to “intensive interrogation techniques” (to use the popular ’00s euphemism), is he as “heroic” as McCain by your definition of “heroic”?
Following his release, of course, McCain returned to the U.S., where he dumped the wife who had stood by him during his captivity but who was now disfigured from a traffic accident and married his current trophy, affluent wife. Heroic in his personal life too, I guess.
All of this was long, long before my time but from what I understand, some of his fellow Hanoi Hilton inmates strongly question his denial of “special treatment.”
patrickm said
The fact that JFK (an America First supporter until the great collapse) was a war hero on the correct side in WW2 did not prevent him becoming an anti-hero over Vietnam.
Bush Sr., for that matter even if most of his life was spent after his WW2 heroism then supporting rotten to the core U.S. policies, he again became another hero of the people when he ordered troops to liberate the people of Kuwait.
The unpleasant fact is that if it were left to the policies put forward by Mike Ely and mates in the current ‘anti-war’ movement, the Baathists from Iraq would still oppress the people of Kuwait. All these years later and still no understanding of how muddle-headed opposition to that war of liberation was. Opposition to that war was like Trotskyite opposition to WW2, just plain wrong. But McCain got it correct!
Bush did not go further and followed realist standard policies rather than make bourgeois revolutionary war and liberate the peoples’ of Iraq. He called on them to rise up then he abandoned them! Rather than risk the Shia masses lining up with the Iranian regime he stuck with the Baathist dictatorship.
Ironically it was left to his son to correct this after 9/11 forced a strategic re-think leading first to the correct attacks on the enemies of all progressives holed up in Afghanistan, then secondly to the new U.S. policies of ‘draining the swamps’ of reaction that breed these enemies, and thirdly, launching the ‘illegal’ revolutionary war to liberate the peoples’ of Iraq from their ‘lawful’ Baathist tyranny.
Again McCain got it correct and when the going got difficult McCain got it right by enthusiastically recommending more troops, not the anti-war policy of abandoning the Iraqi peoples’ to the market-place-bombers and Baathists and Shia death squads.
Now victory for the Iraqi bourgeois democratic revolution is in sight and it is not in the name of the reactionaries and pseudo-leftists who support Obama and his wrong policies.
GW Bush put ending the war for greater Israel on the agenda and McCain supports this. Obama mouthed-off about how the Zionists could keep all of Jerusalem (a ‘deal breaker’ position and he had to back down immediately). McCain never made this blunder. Obama is to the right of McCain, and objectivly on his record would not make as good a Commander in Chief.
And if that is not enough he is also a genuine war hero on the wrong side in Vietnam. His Character is the character that put others before himself when he could have been free. Heroism and good character must be recognised where ever it comes out. The Vietnamese who mistreated and totured McCain were following wrong policies despite their just war.
What is wrong about Mike’s article from the year 2000 is that he is one-sided and has nothing to say to add to this eight years later. i.e after the war in Afghanistan and the war to liberate the peoples’ of Iraq have been launched supported by McCain and opposed by the pseudo-left, except repeat McCain’s video. Well what is wrong with what McCain said about U.S. troops in Japan and Korea for that matter?
The U.S. ruling-elite was involved in a war of agression in Korea and had their ass kicked by the Chinese ‘Volunteers’ and that war ended in effect in 1953 and then the U.S. rulers propped up undemocratic filth in South Korea for many decades. But South Korea has undergone revolutionary transformations and its political leadership is not now puppets of the U.S. and China is not in anyway Communist so the world changes and we must adjust our thinking.
U.S. troops are now not harming the interests of the masses in Korea and Japan. Revolution is urgently required in North Korea and China. Bourgeois democracy is better than tyranny whatever it calls itself.
‘John McCain gave up his freedom he was offered it by the NVA because he said the POWS captured first should be released first. have anyof you people ever sacrificed so much for love of other people.’
The U.S. masses are being offered a man of such character with the alternative being a rank opportunist. The choice is obvious despite the Tweedledee/Tweedledum nature of U.S. two party politics.
It’s a strange world where the left has become right and the right has become left! But facts are stubborn things.
Mike E said
Moderator note: Patrick is now defending U.S. troops in Korea, and supporting their threats against North Korea and China.
His argument is “Bourgeois democracy is better than tyranny whatever it calls itself.”
This site really exists for the discussion among progressive and revolutionary people.
The fact that Patrick (for some odd and farfetched reason) seeks to portray himself as a Maoist doesn’t hide the fact that he is fairly crudely and openly a reactionary and pro-imperialist element.
I want to make a proposal as a moderator: I think we should ask Patrick to withdraw from our discussions.
His arguments (being the arguments of U.S. imperialism itself) do, of course, need to be countered — but this site does not exist to focus on that debate, and after having engaged him at some depth, I believe we should ask him to move on.
Any agreement? any disagreement?
Mike E said
The Vietnamese (led by the communist Vietnamese Workers Party) were fighting a just war for the liberation of their country after a century of colonialism — against the Japanese, then the French and finally Against the U.S. invaders. from 1965 to 1976, with rather remarkable heroism and incredible sacrifice, they rose up against and defeated the U.S., the largest military force in the world.
By contrast, the U.S. forces were fighting an unjust war for empire and subjugation — a war CHARACTERIZED by racism, raw mass murder, and countless acts of atrocity.
It was the Vietnamese who suffered rape, aerial bombardment, torture in prisons, assassination through the Phoenix program, biological warfare, napalm, military attacks on their harvests, systematic murder in “search and destroy missions” and more. And by contrast, they waged a war rooted in the principles of people’s war –which required relying on the people, and mobilizing the people for lofty goals.
And it is rather important to have a living sense of those differences.
for that purpose (and only for that purpose) i challenge anyone who wants to claim that the National Liberation Front committed atrocities to document what they were…. You will not be able to reveal any basis for suggesting an equivalence between these forces for liberation and the cruel American war of domination.
Linda D. said
Yes Mike…and we can add Mi Lai, Agent Orange, and the bourgeois adages, “bomb them back into the Stone Age”, “life is cheap in Asia,” to the list.
As far as asking PatrickM to move on, I think it is a wise suggestion. It is not that K. is some consolidated and cohesive group; instead there are lots of contending political lines… but…
“This site really exists for the discussion among progressive and revolutionary people.”
And progressive and revolutionary people who earnestly and in a more principled way want to come to some consensus as to the way forward. I have not stopped reading most of what PatrickM has to say because I definitely don’t agree with him, nor would I necessarily shy away from struggling against his reactionary and imperialst/partisan ideas, his view of history, etc. If I wanted to get his views in a more encapsulated way I suppose I could tune into Fox News, or listen to Rush Limbaugh. But clearly Patrick M is not about waging some principled struggle, nor are his “ideas” presented in a comradely or constructive way. His m.o. is to not only pursue personal attacks within Kasama, he attacks the people at large and worldwide.
One has to wonder why PatrickM even sees the need to “participate” within Kasama? At first I tried to figure this out, but after reading much of what he has had to say, realized any attempts to engage in some dialogue was a futile effort. The torturers at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo could take a lesson from PatrickM. Reading through his diatribes is a mini-version of waterboarding.
NSPF said
I tend to disagree with Mike’s proposal regarding Patrickm.
His pro-imperialist views seem to be an attempt at formulating an already existing current, perhaps mainly in oppressed countries, that deems people incapable of getting rid of “their” tyrranical regimes.
I have a few questions and clarification requests that I wanted to ask him later when I had time to engage this view.
Aparat from time constraint, I wanted to give myself time to calm down and deal with this in a restraint and reasonable way.
I admire the ability of people like Quori who managed to remain calm and principled in the face of such provocative and abusive language. Several times I was tempted to just jump in the most caustic manner possible. But then I learned how not to from Quori.
Carl Davidson said
Patrick seems like a NeoCon, mixed with a little populism, who hasn’t quite dropped all of the old Shactmanite Trotskyism, which is their original political mother lode. Spreading bourgeois revolution in the third world with the 82 Airborne reminds me of the famous Spartacist League headline demanding that the Red Army march into Afghanistan. It also reminds me of Hitchens, an old friend whose Trotskyism, although a more left version, also led him into the NeoCon swamp. He’s also in tune with SDUSA, the rightwing split of the Socialist Party of Norman Thomas, the other side of it being DSA. SDUSA is reduced to a handful these days, but serve as a real-world example of social-imperialism.
So I’d say let him post, which also means no one has to reply directly. But his posts can serve as instructional pieces showing some of the range and history of what has come out of the left.
But I like Mike’s original article.
However, I think it raises a much more interesting question. Doesn’t it show that there’s a difference that makes a difference between McCain and Obama, to the point that we would want to help see McCain defeated, for old times sake, if nothing else?
Quorri said
I definitely think that PatrickM does not belong on Kasama. I would like to ask him to leave, along with anyone else who would. I think that the fact that he doesn’t uphold revolution or communism or really anything radically left at all is less of the point than the fact that his posts are amazingly off topic, off point, or too mucked, muddied, and convoluted to read, while being littered with allusions unexplained….
I think that Linda D has the crux of it all wrapped up when she says, “But clearly Patrick M is not about waging some principled struggle, nor are his “ideas” presented in a comradely or constructive way” Period.
zerohour said
I agree with Quorri. We have people who post here who are anarchist and libertarian. As long as they are interested in an actual exchange and not substituting personal attacks for argument, they should be welcomed into the discussion. It should be obvious that Patrickm is not interested in that at all.
Besides, politically, he offers little more than “white man’s burden” with Marxist rhetoric. Despite his grandiose claims we HAVE heard his arguments before – just not from anyone who would call himself a Marxist.
Libertarian Lurker said
In response to Mike’s “challenge” –
By no means does any VC atrocity that I’m aware of come even close to the 2 million or so deaths that the U.S. invasion caused. Were I alive and involved in the antiwar movement in those days, I would probably have the same level of emotional involvement and rage about what the U.S. did there as I have about what the U.S. is doing in Iraq today. Again, there’s no real equivalence, but since you asked — the atrocity committed specifically by the VC (leaving aside internal policies of the Hanoi government then and now — is Vietnam really an example of a “liberated” country today?) that I’ve most commonly heard mentioned is a massacre of some 4000 civilians in Hue when the city was under VC control during the Tet Offensive. Thoughts?
Mike E said
Yes, LL:
during the Tet uprising, the National Liberation Front seized the city of Hue. Fighting was intense and they defeated the U.S. occupiers. Then cam a very shocking and intense development: as the U.S. lost some key urban areas (Hue and Cholon), they brought in their B-52s and carpet bombed the liberated urban areas.
Cholon was the chinese-nationality quarter in Saigon, and was flattened by the bombing. Hue (the old imperial capital) was similarly hit.
After the tet offensive receded, and the urban areas were recaptured by the U.S. and ARVN forces, the U.S. made a big propaganda that they had uncovered mass graves, and they claimed that the graves were filled with civilians executed by the NLF during their control of Hue.
It was part of their disinformation campaign — to claim that if the U.S. pulled out “there will be a bloodbath.” (as similar campaign is conducted today vis a vis Iraq — i.e. if the U.S. pulls out “there will be a bloodbath.”) And in both cases, they hide from people in the u.s. the ACTUAL bloodbath conducted by the U.S. as it fights for control.
Now, obviously, I was not in Hue. and I am not in a position to make a definitive summation of the claim of mass graves. However I will list here the facts that I think relevant:
1) While the NLF held Hue, the U.S. did mass bombing of the area. I have no doubt there are mass graves. I see no reason to assume that the dead were (mainly) caused by the U.S. actions.
2) The Vietnamese revolutionaries did (over the whole course of the war) execute notorious collaborators with the various armed forces occupying their country (Japan, France, U.S.) This was done selectively, and with great care. Any history of the war will document this. And any history of revolution will show that this has previously proven to be a necessary part of the seizure of power — not just to disintegrate the infrastructure of reactionary forces, but also to prevent the masses from making too broad a targetting of their tormentors. So I don’t doubt that there were SOME executions of notorious reactionaries during the days the NLF held power in Hue (and throughout the country). what I see no reason to believe is that they conducted some unjustified wave of mass executions (since there is little evidence before or after that this was their policy).
3) The U.S. claimed that the mass graves included people whose hands were tied (i.e. this is their argument against the possibility that these were victims of U.S. bombings.) I see no reason to believe the U.S. claims. I was alive at that time, and closely watched events. My experience is simple: the U.S. reports from vietnam proved (over and over) to be raw and monstrous lies. the reports from the Vietnamese side (via Burchett and others) proved (over and over) to be credible and careful.
In all the examination of that war, no one has proposed that the Vietnamese conducted war crimes. While the American invaders (including McCain) were guilty of atrocities that curdle the heart.
And the reason is not just “policy” — it is the nature of insurgency and counterinsurgency. A guerilla army gains nothing by killing civilians, since they rely on the people for survival and victory. The counterinsurgent has every reason to kill civilians (including the Japanese “kill all, burn all” policies).
In short, My response to you is that there is no reason to believe that the Vietnamese “massacred some 4000 civilians” in Hue. I may be wrong — but I have never seen any credible evidence that the U.S. claims were any different from all their other lies about this war.
I am genuinely interested in hearing evidence (which may, of course, have surfaced over recent decades) and also interested to hear why you are convinced by it.
However, my challenge remains: if you have ANY evidence that there was a massacre by the NLF, and if you have any evidence that they ever conducted massacres of Vietnamese civilians…. just let us know where such evidence is gathered. We are eager to read and evaluate it.
* * * * * *
Side note: You insist on calling the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam the “VC” or “Vietcong” — however you need to know that this was the slur used by the rightwing French and American deathsquads and their collaborators. It is like writing a post here about the civil rights movement and insisting on using the name “Martin Luther Coon.”
I propose that you refer to the Vietnamese revolutionaries by their proper historic name, and I will (in turn) refer to the U.S. Marines and Army by their names (and not by the vivid and passionate names that come to mind.)
a necessary
Libertarian Lurker said
Hmmmm I honestly was not aware that “VC” was a “slur” — as someone who wasn’t around then, it’s the term that I’ve been most exposed to and it’s what comes naturally to mind when writing a quick response. Not so much that I “insist” on using it versus NLF — I simply wasn’t aware of the connotations.
Since I asked out of genuine curiosity, I’ll let your response stand other than to draw a quick comparison with the “atrocities” of the Balkan wars of the ’90s, which I am much more familiar with than Vietnam. Clinton’s bombing campaign against Serbia was based on the idea that the Serbian army had massacred 10,000 or so Albanian civilians in Kosovo and driven hundreds of thousands more from their homes. The final numbers turned out to be 2000 dead on both sides of a civil war — not genocide. And many of those driven from their homes left due to the U.S. bombing campaign. My point? Simply that from stories of German soldiers bayonetting Belgian babies in WW1, to Iraqi troops throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait, to the aforementioned Serbian atrocities, to Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda — the U.S. government over the years has exaggerated stories in order to demonize its opponents.
saoirse said
Mike. excellent post. I do have a question. I 100% agree that the terms vc, cong and vietcong were often used as slurs by imperialist forces. It was my understanding that the term VC comes from “victor charlie,” or “charlie” which were radio terms used by us forces during the war. Charlie is a way of saying communist on a radio and victor charlie meant vietnamese communist.
Mike E said
while we are talking:
The U.S. referred to the Maoist troops in Korea as “chi com.” And this was common in the headlines and anti-communist press of the 1950s, along with “commies” etc.
The term Viet Cong originally came from the words for “Vietnamese Communists” in the vietnamese language. It was used by the rightwing, pro-colonialist forces running South Vietnam in the 1950s and then adopted by the U.S. trainers as they started the U.S. intervention under Eisenhower and Kennedy.
In the NATO radio-speak, victor is the radio word for “V” and charlie is the radio word for “C”. So when discussing the Vietcong on the radio they called the victor charlie (in part to differentiate from the “NVA” — i.e. the North Vietnamese Army.) In other words, the ‘VC” refers to the National Liberation Front of south Vietnam, while the regular troops from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam had a different designation.
Unfortunately the NLF was almost completely destroyed as a separate force after the 1968 Tet offensive (when general Giap tried to short cut the process of strategic offensive, and “turn all of southern Vietnam into a Dienbienphu.”
In the Maoist movement, the Tet offensive was generally seen as an important (and incorrect) departure from the strategies Mao developed in China. (this reflected a rather rigid sense of model that we can still see in the discussion of some people vis a vis the Nepali innovations of revolutionary strategy.)
Linda D. said
The problem with “Charlie” and VietCong–is whatever their origins, were used pejoratively, and “Charlie” in a very racist way. It is not surprising that the National Liberation Front wouldn’t be addressed with its proper name or title by the rulers of the U.S. (And “Vietcong” was another term used to dehumanize and depoliticize the liberation forces in the minds of the U.S. soldiers–who often just said, “The Cong.”
Want to add what Wiki says (in part) about the Tet Offensive, because in many circles of the anti-war movement in the U.S. and elsewhere, the Tet O. was not seen as a complete disaster or failure. (There had been a supposed “ceasefire” when the Tet O. was launched.)
Wiki: “The initial Vietcong attacks stunned allied forces and took them by surprise, but most were quickly contained and beaten back, inflicting massive casualties on the communists. The exceptions were the fighting that erupted in the old imperial capital of Huế, where intense fighting lasted for a month, and the continuing struggle around the U.S. combat base at Khe Sanh, where fighting continued for two more months. Although the offensive was a military disaster for Vietcong forces, it had a profound effect on the American administration and shocked the American public, which had been led to believe by its political and military leaders that the communists were, due to previous defeats, incapable of launching such a massive effort.”
saoirse said
Linda-
Did US troops make a distinction when using the phrase charlie as opposed to VC or victor charlie. In spirit I agree with you here although as Mike pointed out the term vc originated from the NATO term.
Its my understanding that US forces still use the NATO alphabet in all radio communication. In Iraq insurgents are often labelled Tango which comes from T for terrorist. This is the closest modern example of the continuation of such language. But when speaking derogatory way some troops use the term Haji. Some say the term Haji comes from the arabic term Hajj. Hajj is a pilgrimage to Mecca while others say it comes from the 70s cartoon character Haji 70s on Johnny Quest. Further still there are some US troops that seem to see Haji as a neutral “catch-all” term and they tend to use terms such as sand******, etc.
Coming from my experience with the national liberation struggle in Ireland I’ve had a particular interest slangs and terminology that have been used by occupation forces and insurgent movements.
Linda D. said
Hi Saoirse–
Well am sure you have heard your share of slang and derogatory terms used by the British against the Irish! Funny you should mention that because the term “Black Irish” has certainly been used in a lot of ways, and in many circles “black” is supposed to denote evil, etc.
My feathers get ruffled when I hear even the best meaning types refer to Guantanamo as “Gitmo”. Mind you I’m not all into every single word being scrutinized for its political correctness, but there’s a whole ideology behind NATO’s v.c. moniker, or even “v”–which was also the sign of “victory” (originally I believe flashed by Winston Churchill)–the “v sign” was popular amongst the majority of anti-Vietnam war movement. But for me, NATO coming up with some acronym or moniker is already suspect. I would bet that “Haji” is a slam on Hajj and the pilgrimage to Mecca (wonder what the rulers added to the list of derogatory terms for Malcolm X when he made that same pilgrimage?) One can just imagine all the dastardly combinations they’ve come up with currently to trash all people from the entire region or with their “racial profiling.” Then again, McCain doesn’t know the difference bet. the Sunnis and Shia’s.
Here’s something else that I bristle at: many refer to the U.S. as “America”–and I find it particularly annoying when it is coming from the lips of some “American” living in México. As you well know, the U.S. is part of North America, and the terminology is particularly annoying to most Mexicanos, since practically the entire southwest of the U.S. was originally Mexico.
saoirse said
My mother’s side of the family is from Mayo in North West Ireland in the Republic, where there are many Black Irish. As a kid I never knew where the term came from only it meant you were Irish but had Black hair and dark eyes. Black Irish is an Irish-American expression not really used in Ireland. They say the Black Irish are those of Irish-Italian or Irish-Spanish decent.
Linda D. said
Very true…some say from Iberian descent, which also implies The Moors. (and yes, the term Black Irish originated in the U.S.)–but The Moors–there is a very popular last name in the Spanish speaking world–Matamoros, which literally means “kill the Moors.” Really something how all this gets so twisted. Then you have the staple of the Cubans’ diet: “Moros y cristianos”–black beans and rice.
What I find very interesting is the fascination many Mexicans have with Arab and Middle Eastern culture, and it is not uncommon to meet whole families where their children have Arab/Muslim (or even Japanese, Hebraic or S.A.), etc. names–Herzai Rodriguez, Mahatma, Nasser, Abdul, etc. Also, many of the mestizos name their children indigenous names–from a local tribe.
But unlike the previous tags we were talking about, many of the names amongst the people are given with respect.
A ridiculous BTW–I love Ireland. Last time there in the 90s–but what astounded me was every young person you would talk with knew tons about world economy, politics, history, etc.
Eddy said
More to the point, the purpose of Rolling Thunder was to destroy the economy and infrastructure of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, specifically, agricultural processing centers, factories, power and water systems, bridges, roads and rail systems. The specifically civilian targets of Rolling Thunder – a key topic of every monthly CIA/DIA report during the program – demonstrate the qualification as ‘war crimes’.
Here is the text of a CIA memorandum from August 1967:
Linda D. said
Eddy–don’t you find the following super interesting:
“As the bomb damage, casualties and hardships mount, the regime may be hard pressed to keeo morale at a satisfactory level. The evidence to date suggests, however, that morale is not likely to pose a major problem in the near future.”
Since…the morale amongst the GIs in the U.S. military did pose a major problem for the U.S. government. In fact, “Turn the guns around” became the clarion call amongst many of the troops.
Linda D. said
And as we exchange thoughts on Vietnam least we not forget that on Aug. 6 & 9th–the anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
Nando said
I have always read/heard that the Black Irish descended from remnants of the Spanish Armada that circled the British isles after their defeat and crashed on (still Catholic) Irish shores. Is that true?
* * * * * *
On the VC discussion:
There was an earlier thread where it was asked whether it was right to call the cops “pigs” — pointing out (correctly) that part of the escalation of conflict has often involved a deliberate de-humanization of opponents.
I have been thinking about that question over the last week.
Clearly the U.S. military seeks to “name” and define its opponents… Simply saying Eye-rack and Eye-Ran (instead the correct eeee-rack and eeee-ran) is a way of “voting” for the U.S. government and military outlook. Calling the Iraqi resitance “the terrorists” is a way of making them anonymous and depoliticized (as if they have no possible legitimate purpose for opposing U.S. invasion and occupation).
Clearly, the U.S. media and government refused to call the Vietnamese political and military forces by their proper names because doing so would legitimize them. So in the media, the South Vietnamese puppet forces were called by their proper names (ARVN — I.e. army of the republic of Vietnam), but the revolutionary forces were not (i.e. they were called an invented label “Vietcong “instead of National Liberation Front.) The use of Vietcong also implied that all of the resistance forces were communists, when (in fact) the NLF (and later the PRG — provisional revolutionary government) were extremely broad united fronts involving all kinds of revolutionary, patriotic, diverse and anti-imperialist forces.
I don’t think it is wrong to describe and define your political opponents. I don’t think we need to call anti-abortion, anti-women forces “pro-family” — especially when their self-designations deliberately obscure their real character. I think it was fair and correct to call the “States Rights” forces for what they were: racists.
Linda D. said
“Clearly, the U.S. media and government refused to call the Vietnamese political and military forces by their proper names because doing so would legitimize them.”
THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT!!!!
As far as “Pro-family” which is not the more popular version, but “Pro-life”–an oxymoron and misnomer.
Libertarian Lurker said
Interesting stuff about the etymology of the term “VC” — look at reactionary me learning from Maoists. ;-)
Linda D –
You bring up an interesting point that, from the opposite perspective, tells us a lot about where we are today. You wrote: “in many circles of the anti-war movement in the U.S. and elsewhere, the Tet O. was not seen as a complete disaster or failure. (There had been a supposed “ceasefire” when the Tet O. was launched.)”
That fact is a key part of the “stabbed in the back” theory about Vietnam which is accepted truth among the worst elements of the Right in this country. Many conservatives, especially of the neo variety, argue that the Vietnam War was virtually won militarily after Tet but the U.S. did not win because the “liberal media,” the left of the Democratic Party, and the “hippie scum in the street” prevented it. That’s part of the founding mythos of the grassroots American Right over the last generation or so and a key part of its transformation from something at least mildly libertarian on some topics to what Lew Rockwell and other libertarian writers today describe as a “red state fascist” movement (Avakian, to a limited extent, understands this too, but he places too much emphasis on the “religious right” part of it, leading to such silliness as “God: The Original Fascist”). That was a big part of the grassroots right’s surge in the ’90s and its attack on the Clintons — it was not so much a proactive movement for individual liberty and small government (although it wrapped itself in libertarian rhetoric at times), but a reaction against the cultural changes of the ’60s and a lingering “stab in the back” attitude towards the antiwar movement, with which it associated the Clintons.
I fear that when/if the U.S. loses outright in Iraq, we’ll face an even more venomous “stab in the back” theory — we may have a rough few years ahead, on this and on other fronts.
Quorri said
I also fear what this government has in store for us, Libertarian Lurker. And I think we all learn from you like you learn from us ;)
BPowers said
I recently read where McCain made comments about a New York “Woodstock Concert Museum” backed by Senator Clinton. He again had to remind us that he had been a war prisoner. This sent me for a search regarding the U.S. unprovoked attack on civilian facilities in North Vietnam. We may acknowledge his sacrifice after being put in harms way by the U.S. government, but it’s time for him to apologize for taking part in this attack, and stop wrapping himself in the flag at every speech. A vote for him just continues our adoration of militarism, and U.S. arrogance.
Bill Martin On Conception & Collectivity: Pt. 3 Other Cans of Worms « Kasama said
[...] that, in the mainstream of political discourse, John McCain can only be referred to as a “war hero,” and not the war criminal that he is, and the larger point that in no way can the American [...]
que ver de paris said
que ver de paris…
[...]War Criminal John McCain and the Real Heroes « Kasama[...]…
modern warfare 3 hack, modern warfare 3 hacker, modern warfare 3 trainer, mw3 hack, mw3 hack trainer, mw3 trainer said
modern warfare 3 hack, modern warfare 3 hacker, modern warfare 3 trainer, mw3 hack, mw3 hack trainer, mw3 trainer…
[...]War Criminal John McCain and the Real Heroes « Kasama[...]…
high pulse rakeback said
high pulse rakeback…
[...]War Criminal John McCain and the Real Heroes « Kasama[...]…
q 320 reviews said
q 320 reviews…
[...]War Criminal John McCain and the Real Heroes « Kasama[...]…
luxembourg said
luxembourg…
[...]War Criminal John McCain and the Real Heroes « Kasama[...]…