Article: From Vietnam to Iraq: The Lessons from Tonkin Gulf Lies

From the Gulf of Tonkin;
weapons always ready for some kind of action

From Vietnam to Iraq:
Lessons from Tonkin Gulf Lies

Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq
[November 2002]

Courtesy: Weekly Holiday [Bangladesh; December 13, 2002]

Bridge destroyed in Baghdad
Desert Storm already devastated much of Iraq's infrastructure, though the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussain still prevails

The drums of war, not too unknown to humanity, are beating again. The new phase of America's War on Terrorism is to declaw the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussain. The Bush administration seems convinced that the security of the world in general, and of America in particular, is vulnerable to the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussain allegedly commands. President Bush has sought and been given a carte blanche from the U.S. Congress to take any steps he deems necessary to carry out his war agenda. American presidents generally have had their way in a similar setting, especially before an imminent election. Toning down its arrogant verbiage about unilateral preemptive action, if necessary, Bush has also sought tough, resolute and all-encompassing resolution from the U.N., so that in case the renewed arms inspection, in which U.S. government has not put much stock, fails, then U.S. would be at liberty to do as it deems appropriate. The world seems to be less than convinced by the "case" presented thus far by President Bush and by America's ever-loyal war partner, the British prime minister. The current Congressional Act in support of the President's war campaign is already being hailed as another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. [1]

America is unquestionably vulnerable, as evidenced by the events of 9/11. But does that mean America can achieve its cherished security by a regime-change in Iraq and installing an America-Israel-friendly government, through a war for which it is beating the drums? Is this war really a part of the War on Terrorism? Why is the opposition around the world so great, even among America's European allies? Conscientious and conscious minds can't but ponder over these questions.

In the early 80s, the misadventure of Saddam Hussain against its neighbor Iran, with blessings from America, served to devastate the Iraqi economy. From a severely weakened position, Iraqi regime was not ready to give up its military ambitions, even though its civilian population would suffer. As Iran-Iraq war came to a resolution and Iraq gradually began to appear more as a regional threat, especially to Israel, the tide was turned. America pushed its former bedfellow to transform into an adversary. Seeing the limitation and failure of conventional weapons, Iraqi regime focused more on nuclear and other non-conventional weapons, at the expense of the needs and interests of its civilian population. America could not simply attack Iraq without a pretext. Iraq always had an eye on Kuwait, claiming that the British carved it out of Iraq to serve as a lackey city-state. Iraq was cleverly lured to invade Kuwait, thus offering the U.S. the necessary pretext to go after Iraq and its ruling junta. [2, 3]

The Persian Gulf War in 1991 devastated Iraq as a nation. Under the sanctions imposed by the United Nations and orchestrated by the United States, a low level warfare over the next decade has continued as part of enforcing "no-fly zone". Half a million children have died from malnutrition. Iraq was subjected to an unprecedented inspection of weapons of mass destruction. When the UN inspection regime was tainted with America's own intelligence works, it crawled to a dramatic end as Iraq refused to cooperate any further, causing the inspectors to pack up and return home. This left the United States in an awkward position, having no direct knowledge of Iraq's maneuvers, while it thumbed Iraq down with broad sanctions that have collectively turned out to be a colossal humanitarian disaster, and through an enforcement of the "no-fly zone".

In the aftermath of 9/11, with its vulnerability so painfully exposed, the United States quite legitimately has to be more vigilant about its security. It declared the War on Terrorism. Afghanistan has been a battled field for various outside parties, and once more the leveled country suffered further leveling by America's crushing power, directed against the Bin Laden group and its former friends, the Talibans. From the American viewpoint (read also, Israeli viewpoint), there is an unfinished task in Iraq. Albeit without any proof so far, America claims that Saddam Hussain may have had links with the al-Qaeda group, which, if connected with the weapons of mass destruction, could serve up a potential nightmare.

In reality, however, it is quite different to suspect a looming nightmare and to authenticate it, based upon which countries would go to a war. That's precisely where the world has difficulty endorsing America's "case" against Iraq, especially with its history of the Tonkin Gulf-type lies.

Vietnam War remains a painful scar in the American history and psyche. Initially, the Vietnam conflict erupted between the communist-leaning North Vietnamese, who were seeking independence from France, and the France-leaning South Vietnamese. As a superpower, the US became interested in this conflict based on the "Domino Theory": that is, if all of the country fell under a Communist government, Communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia and beyond. Being anti-Communism by default, the U.S. sided with the South Vietnamese.

Typical of the US foreign policy, it seems to align itself with despotic and repressive regimes--the Shah of Iran, for example. The case of the South Vietnamese government was no different. The brutally repressive policies of this government led to rebellion in the South, and the NLF was formed as an opposition group with close ties to North Vietnam. Noting France's failure to get directly involved and take care of the problems at hand, the US sent in troops in 1965 to prevent the South Vietnamese government from collapsing.

America still commemorates the traumatic days of that war, paying homage to and glorifying its heroes. Nevertheless, America lost that war, failing to achieve its goal. In 1975 Vietnam was reunified under communist control, and the following year it officially became the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Noteworthy is the fact that this war was fought when we also claimed to be the vanguards of civilization. Might have we forgotten already that, during this war, approximately 3 to 4 million Vietnamese on both sides were killed? Another 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians, who were drawn into the war, also became its casualty. More than 58,000 American men and women lost their lives. Was it worth it? More importantly, what version of peace, prosperity and freedom America as a (now "the") superpower seeks, at the altar of which so many millions of lives must be sacrificed and countries must be devastated?

There are times when a war is unavoidable. But as much as humanity would like to be free from war mongering, when wealth, technology, resources, arrogance and deception coalesce into one power, it may become a super problem, and it merits more than a cursory scrutiny and skepticism. It needs super-scrutiny and super-skepticism, especially with the evidence of past lies and deceptions costing millions of lives.

The Bush presidency is beating the drums quite loudly about another front in its War on Terrorism, which would risk millions of lives. With the specter of a desperate Saddam unleashing whatever weapons at his disposal and a further, consequential destabilization of the region, it is anybody's guess how nightmarish the scenario could promptly become.

The world, including conscientious and caring Americans, has good reasons to demand a more convincing explanation from the American government, since as a superpower the US has had a tendency to super-abuse its power, such as the deception related to the Tonkin Gulf. That deception served to launch the Vietnam War.

By the summer of 1964, America was already deeply involved in Vietnam, with nearly 20,000 U.S. military advisers. The northern forces were escalating their attacks against their South Vietnamese counterparts. On July 30, 1964, the South Vietnamese forces undertook clandestine naval raids against communist positions. The arena was the Gulf of Tonkin.

On August 5, 1964, the American people woke up to glance at the major newspaper headlines such as this one in Washington Post: "American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression".

On August 2, 1964, one of the U.S. destroyers apparently came under attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats, as the History Channel exclusive on the Tonkin Gulf reports. Two days later, on August 4, a similar attack was reported against two of the U.S. destroyers, and America mounted the first overt military action against North Vietnam. According to the History Channel report, "Neither vessel suffered any damage, and both fired their weapons at the alleged torpedo boats, which were only momentarily spotted on the radar. Later that night, the captain of the Maddox concluded that the radar blips were 'freak weather blips,' reported as torpedoes by an 'overeager' sonar operator. Nevertheless, the next day, in the first overt U.S. act of the war, American warplanes attacked North Vietnamese installations in retaliation for the alleged attacks." [4]

Even though the Captain of the very same ship, allegedly under attack, later that night "concluded" that basically the reported attack was 'freak weather blips', no further investigation or corroboration was needed by the United States. The attacks of U.S. warplanes against North Vietnam were by all accounts an act of war, but President LBJ sought congressional authority to act in Vietnam without a formal declaration of war. In his message to Congress (August 5, 1964), President Johnson justified his action with the following words: "Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations."

U.S. Congress, quite readily, granted the president a blank check within 24 hours of the president's request. The president, of course, had already kicked off the war.

Thus, U.S. got involved in a war that would cost millions of lives in Vietnam and its neighboring countries, as well as 58,000 American lives. Ignored for the time being are all the non-human costs and subsequent sufferings.

Most unfortunate is the fact that the provocations or attacks by the North Vietnamese in Tonkin Gulf, which was cited as the pretext for launching this war, apparently did not occur. As Jeff Cohen of MSNBC and Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a nationwide consortium of public-policy researchers, point out a fact: "... there was no 'second attack' by North Vietnam -- no 'renewed attacks against American destroyers.' By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War." [5] The media itself became the mouthpiece of the government. "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." [5]

This is mind-boggling. One might understand that it is not uncommon human tendency to be insensitive to the sufferings of "others", but this is a war based on a false pretext that cost 58,000 American lives. Thus, it would be no surprise if there were a lot of skeptics about endorsing the US. Government's position. Indeed, many experts and observers point out a clear pattern of deception, even in the current context of the campaign against Iraq.

Despite the U.S. administration's best efforts to prove otherwise, the case against Iraq appears to be quite flimsy at this time. If not, why would the administration attempt to silence its scientific community from publicly sharing its views and research? In September 2002, the US administration disclosed the news about the seizure of shipments of thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes to Iraq and claimed that as evidence of President Saddam's persistent campaign in secret, in pursuit of developing nuclear weapons. While such tubes can be used for producing enriched uranium, ... "a report from the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) says such claims cannot be made. The report – a draft of which has been obtained by The Independent – concludes: 'By themselves these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons. They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational." [6] The disturbing revelation from the scientists of ISIS, an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues, is that the US administration is trying to silence the scientific community. "David Albright, the director of ISIS and a scientist with first-hand experience of Iraq's nuclear weapons programme as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team, said there was a debate within the US scientific community about the government's claims but added that the Bush administration had clamped down on such discussion. 'I don't know why there is not more debate. I have heard that a lot of people are expected to remain silent. [The Bush administration] has certainly scared people,' he said. 'I met one government scientist who said his phone was being monitored.' Similar skepticism was raised in a report in the current edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by the Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, questioning the tubing 'evidence'. [6]

Also, in September 2002, President Bush attributed a report to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that purportedly claimed that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Contradicting the President, IAEA claimed that such a report did not exist. "'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria." [7]

In the statement issued before seeking congressional approval to launch war against Vietnam, President Johnson clarified: "America keeps her word. Here as elsewhere, we must and shall honor our commitments. The issue is the future of southeast Asia as a whole. A threat to any nation in that region is a threat to all, and a threat to us. Our purpose is peace. We have no military, political, or territorial ambitions in the area." [8]

As President Bush has mounted his war campaign against Iraq, his articulation of the relevant US policy is not much different. While keeping the focus on the rhetoric in typical arrogance, against Saddam's program of weapons of mass destruction, one cannot but notice the claim that U.S. is intent upon liberating Iraq from the clutch of Saddam Hussain. However, the U.S. ambition might be much more than either liberating Iraq or declawing Saddam Hussain.

While the hawkish rhetoric about regime change in Iraq has subsided under unprecedented opposition from its own allies in Europe and the Arab world, one can't seriously dismiss the U.S. intention to put in an America-Israel-friendly regime in Iraq. Democracy in a post-Saddam shuffle may not be on the platter for the Iraqi people. As Christian Science Monitor reports, even an outright occupation model has not been out of the question. "Lately the White House seems to be considering an occupation model, drawn from the precedents of Germany and Japan after World War II. This would provide for a straight-out American military government headed by an American general, a Douglas MacArthur type. An American occupation government would, it is believed, facilitate the search for weapons of mass destruction. It would also, incidentally, put America in control of the world's second biggest oil reserves." [9]

Interestingly, the oil connection appears to be more revealing, as it would be one of the most cherished imperial prizes, contradicting the "liberating" rhetoric. In another report in Christian Science Monitor, Lawrence Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation makes it clear: "If we go to war it's not about oil.... But after Saddam, it becomes all about oil." [10]

More than thirty-five years after President Johnson used the Tonkin Gulf incident as a pretext to initiate the Vietnam War, when the world once again hears the jubilant American drum beats for a war, a healthy dose of skepticism about its pretext seems only necessary. For decades since the Tonkin Gulf incident, many considered its allegations to be a lie or speculation. Now that the secret diaries of President Johnson are part of the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, there is no more speculation. Based on the tapes of Johnson's conversations with his aides and confidants, Michael Bechloss, a presidential historian, reveals in his book, Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson's Secret White House Tapes, 1964-1965, that Johnson knew that the alleged attack by the North Vietnamese forces against the American Navy did not occur. [11] Or, at least, he had serious doubt about the incident. But it did not matter. That there would be a war was a decision that was not predicated upon any attack against the U.S. If it were not the Tonkin Gulf lies, something else would have been conjured up to justify the war.

Indeed, Tonkin Gulf lies may not have been an aberration. As Robert B. Stinnett, a Former Journalist with Oakland Tribune and BBC, has exposed in his book Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor that "not only was the attack expected, it was deliberately provoked through an eight-step program devised by the Navy for President Franklin Roosevelt." New York Times wrote about this book, "It is difficult, after reading this copiously documented book, not to wonder about previously unchallenged assumptions about Pearl Harbor." [12]

Among others, Pierre Tristam, a Daytona Beach News-Journal editorial writer and columnist, called this new congressional resolution in support of President Bush "a new Gulf of Tonkin resolution." He writes: "Bush has been using the language of liberation to galvanize support for his scheme, but Iraq in 2002 isn't France or Germany in 1945. It has never been a democracy, and it isn't about to become one under America's neo-colonial rule. There is nothing to "liberate" but oil fields and pipelines, no democracy to build but an American garrison in the heart of the Arab world, and at Iran's flank. Call it pay-back, provocation, opportunism. Don't call it liberation." [13]

No one denies that Saddam Hussain is a proven menace to his own people, to his neighbors and possibly also to others. The image of powerful weapons in his hand is scary. However, the world is not so credulous as to jump on this war boat of a world power that at one time was Saddam's bedfellow. More importantly, any war to make the world--not just America--safer must be based on truth and certain fundamental principles, not just on nationalism and jingoism. It has been aptly said that truth is the "first casualty of war". It is far worse when wars seem to emerge from a legacy of war against truth.

More than five decades ago, in 1947, Albert Einstein shared his concerns about America's foreign policy, the emerging "military mentality" and the influence of "naked power." [14] Yet, quite indisputably, America as a great nation has much positive to share with the rest of world, as well. Nations and people look up to America, drawing much inspiration from what seems to be its great, unique experiment in human liberty and creativity. However, no greatness is immune to a downfall. When such greatness is not carved with respect for truth and justice for all, its continuance into eternity might become threatened. That seems to be a common, enduring lesson from the history of civilizations and nations. And it may not be too difficult to learn!

This page has been visited by
Hit Counter

HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam?
Genocide 1971 Page?
Hadith Humor Page?

Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin
Vietnam War Tonkin Gulf incident Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Lies Deception Gulf of Tonkin