You know the man on the right. He’s hard to miss with his ridiculous hair and Dr. Evil wardrobe. But do you recognize the man on the left? Most of you probably don’t. Allow me to give you a refresher.
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: 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.
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.
Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids.
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
Q: What of Nixon?
A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.
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.
I want you to keep this interview in mind as I juxtapose what has happened this month with the LA missile and North Korea’s declaration of war in their attack of the South Korean island Yeonpyeong with the Cronkiting of the Vietnam War.
On November 8, 2010, a large, two stage, ballistic missile launched from a submarine lit up the early evening rush hour sky off the California coast. And what did we do?
Nothing. Not only did we do nothing, but our own leaders lied to us and covered it up.
Our own leaders.
North Korea and China didn’t have to worry about consequences, sanctions, condemnations, or reciprocity. In fact, they didn’t even have to worry about us marching in the street demanding their heads. They were given a pass, a get out of jail free card, a political thumbs up.
So tell me…if you were Kim Jong-il, who wants to hand his kingdom over to his son soon, what would that say to you?
The exact same thing it said to Col. Tin. It would tell you that if we aren’t willing to defend ourselves, and would in fact call this horrific breach of our sovereignty everything except what it actually was, how likely are we to defend an ally?
The LA missile was this administration’s Phuoc Loc: a test by an enemy of our resolve. When we did nothing, they took that green light and ran to the next intersection a little closer to home but still a message to us. I’m surprised our administration didn’t force the South Korean government to join in the mass delusion we’ve seen in the outrageous explanations here to tell its people that what happened on Yeonpyeong was merely airplane contrails.
And to top it off, China isn’t even willing to play “Let’s pretend!” anymore; their sheep’s clothing is off and their true, Maoist selves are utterly exposed. North Korea may be a tool, but that tool is made in China, used by China, and when finished, will be destroyed by China, ‘cause evil always inevitably eats its own.
But more than what is being said and done is the alarming pattern being established. Why is that important? Because patterns are mathematical, and math is the language of the universe. No matter how hard we may want it to be different, we are not above the laws of math. No matter how many laws you enact declaring that 2 + 2=5, it is forever and always will be 4. Math cannot be Politically Castrated, manipulated with emotion, lies, or force. It simply “is.”
In fact, not only did we do nothing to help ourselves or our ally, the NoKo aggression succeeded. Yep, once again NoKo got good for evil. They gave death, and we gave words. According to our pattern, we will soon be sending them more bribe money and supplies, and encouraging other nations to do the same. And according to their patterns, they will attack again, only sooner and harder this time. I’ll bet we see something as big or bigger by the end of the year.
And how did NoKo say thank you for us not returning to them what they gave? With yet more artillery shelling on November 26, while our own Gen. Walter Sharp was touring the damage on the island. Yeah, they’re really worried about us! The world made it clear on Obama’s 2 billion dollar trip-o-ganza how little respect they have for us; physical attack is the next logical step.
And did China rein in NoKo? Nope. After “taking note” of what NoKo had done, they used the last few days to lodge an official protest against the regular joint US-South Korean military exercise. Make no mistake, people; China supported NoKo with hundreds of thousands of troops, millions in supplies and weaponry, and the use of their mighty weight to stall, alter, and frustrate negotiations during the active phase of the Korean War. That pattern should be telling you something. And if China is so great at influencing NoKo, how is it in the past 15 years it hasn’t worked once?
Isn’t the answer obvious? Because what China says publicly doesn’t come close to resembling what they are clearly doing privately. No, China’s fruits are obvious, and NoKo is doing exactly what they want them to do. And don’t believe for one moment they would never support NoKo in war because they fear mass refugees. They will handle these new unwanted the same way they handle their own unwanted, and you know how they handle their own who become “inconvenient.”
It is Mutually Assured Destruction, alright…two enemy nations agreeing on how to destroy us and our allies.
Patterns don’t lie. This pattern of giving in and giving up, or altering the natural consequences that evil behavior deserves, has been in play for over 40 years now. And it began with a wretched little man who lied to America about what America was doing; and what the enemy back then had, and hadn’t, done.
Read again what Col. Tin said about Vietnam, only imagine this time that it is being said by NoKo (parenthesis and contents added by me to help connect):
“By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South (Korea)…’We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.’ (The still-going Korean War is on its sixth decade now)
“Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the (television) at 9 a.m. to follow the (reaction of America’s leadership to our provocations.) (There must have been dancing and kimchee when we covered for them in the LA Mystery Missile.)
“(Yeonpyeong) was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South (Korea) during a holiday and a truce when few South (Korean supplies) would be (available.)
“…he's the weakest president in U.S. history…even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Korea…We tested (Obama’s) resolve by (launching a ballistic missile off their west coast in November 2010.) When (Obama lied to the American people and covered up our actions), our leadership decided on a big offensive against South (Korea.)
“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.”
Cronkite is dead and gone, yet the evil tactics he successfully employed remain. One thing always bothered me about Cronkite’s lies regarding Vietnam. Pres. Johnson knew damn well that we hadn’t lost Tet; he knew Cronkite was lying. Yet instead of accusing him of fraud and holding him accountable for the lie, Johnson abandoned the truth of what had really happened and gave up. Why didn’t Johnson put him on trial for lying about military assaults, victories and defeats, and our troops during war time?
And why aren’t we doing it now? Because whether you actually call it that or not, we are at war, complete with submarines, missiles, and lie after lie from our own leaders.
Two plus two is four, people, and subs plus missiles plus shelling plus cover-ups is war. It was a pattern established from the beginning; not even “the most trusted man in America” was above the laws of math.
And neither are we.
Keep the faith, bros, in all things courage, and no substitute for VICTORY.