Frontpage Interview’s guest today is James Rothrock, a former career officer in the U.S. Air Force, with special assignments in Athens, Paris, Saigon, Tokyo and Stuttgart. As a former adjunct professor at Troy University, he taught world, regional and political geography. In Vietnam he experienced firsthand the Tet Offensive of 1968, where he saw a major allied victory turned into a disastrous defeat by the antiwar critics back home. He is the author of the new book Divided We Fall, which makes the case that disunity, incited and fueled by the antiwar movement, led to America’s defeat in Vietnam.
FP: James Rothrock, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Rothrock: It’s an honor to be here.
FP: So tell us a bit about what inspired you to write this book.
Rothrock: I served in Vietnam and lived through the tumultuous antiwar years. I have always been troubled by those in the antiwar movement who undermined their own country, subverted the nation’s war effort, and tarnished the image of the American servicemen who served their country, many of whom gave their all.
I still remember the day I returned from Vietnam and was told to change into civilian clothes before proceeding off base. Unfortunately, my short hair and polished shoes gave me away, and I received the wrath of the antiwar crazies at the first bus stop—not a very heartwarming reception after spending a year in Vietnam away from my family, fighting for the freedom of those who were harassing me and calling me foul names. So in writing my book, I wanted to tell the true story of the antiwar movement, especially the grave damage it did to the nation and the men and women who served in Vietnam. Hopefully some of the current crop of antiwar activists will learn from it.
FP: Tell us about North Vietnam’s political warfare strategy and how it met its objectives.
Rothrock: In the war with the United States and South Vietnam, the Communists in North Vietnam drew on the tried and proven Maoist strategy that employed parallel and closely integrated armed and political struggles. Programs were tailored for action against the military and civilians in enemy territory, against the people in “liberated” areas and in the world arena. The political struggle for America on a strategic level was directed at shaping public opinion and undermining support for the war, and on the tactical level to limit the use of American power in the war.
The best evidence of North Vietnam's strategy to use political warfare is outlined in a 1966 Secret North Vietnamese document captured by the U.S. Army. This document outlined in great detail the policies and guidance for carrying out a broad and aggressive political war campaign on a worldwide scale. Specific programs and objectives were identified for each of the various areas of the world, such as Africa, Latin America, Asia, socialist countries, and the United States and its allies. The United States was singled out for special treatment. It is noteworthy to quote a few brief examples of the actions directed at the United States.
“In capitalist countries, such as the United States, we always keep abreast of the American people’s opinions and try to motivate youths, intellectuals and religious sects to protest the war of aggression waged by their government in Vietnam. At the same time, we motivate families of the US troops dispatched to Vietnam to protest the sending of troops.”
“Make every effort to persuade the people of America and its satellites to support us, to oppose the US Government’s aggressive policy, and to exploit the anti-war spirit of American and satellite soldiers in the South.”
“Motivate the American people against the [US] crimes, and request an end to the war of aggression in South Vietnam. Every effort should be made to motivate soldiers’ dependents to launch anti-war demonstrations…”
The political war against America had the objective of undermining support for the war at home, kindling a widespread, worldwide anti-war movement, and enlisting support from around the world to isolate and oppose the United States and its allies fighting in South Vietnam.
FP: There was a façade during the Vietnam war that a “civil war” was being fought in the South. Right?
Rothrock: Yes. The greatest and most enduring myth about the war in Vietnam is that it was a civil war. North Vietnam held on to this thinly veiled façade throughout the war, in spite of obvious, overwhelming evidence of their direct involvement and control of the war.
After the Geneva Accords of 1954 drew the line between North and South Vietnam at the 17th parallel, Ho Chi Minh moved thousands of his Viet-Minh fighters to the North, but left behind a few thousand of his loyal communist cadre. These fighters formed the nucleus of the insurgency that was to follow. They were soon joined by former Viet-Minh fighters who infiltrated from the North. Before long whole units of the North Vietnamese Army were operating in the South.
Following the 1959 decision of North Vietnam’s Communist Party Central Committee to launch an armed insurrection in South Vietnam, infiltration into the South was accelerated. In 1968 alone, 229,000 troops were infiltrated from the North. Traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail became so congested that the trail had to be widened to accommodate larger trucks. Rest stops, fueling stations and antiaircraft batteries were established along the route and a fuel pipeline was built from North Vietnam deep into South Vietnam.
The façade of the a civil war began to crumble as the 1972 Easter Offensive unfolded with multiple divisions of the North Vietnamese Army pouring across the 17th Parallel backed by hundreds of Soviet tanks, artillery pieces, surface-to-air missile batteries and helicopters. A similar but much larger force invaded South Vietnam in 1975, eventually marching into Saigon.
The civil war myth was perpetuated by the antiwar factions in America all the way to the end of the war and beyond. Even today some will argue that is was a civil war and we should have stayed out of it.
Le Duan, Ho Chi Minh’s successor, finally put an end to the civil war façade in his victory speech in 1975 following the surrender of South Vietnam. He announced, “Our party is the unique and single leader that organized, controlled, and governed the entire struggle of the Vietnamese people from the first day of the revolution.”
FP: Share your thoughts with us on the antiwar movement and the impact it had on the war. What is the true legacy of the antiwar movement?
You also discussed the impact of the antiwar movement with the former North Vietnamese Army officer, Colonel Bui Tin, who was once on Ho Chi Minh’s personal staff and was the senior North Vietnamese officer in Saigon who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam. Tell us about that experience and what you learned from it as well please.
Rothrock: The most incredible aspect of the antiwar movement is that so many could have been misled by so few. A handful of hard core activists were able to attract a following that grew into tens of thousands.
The antiwar movement spawned a wide variety of organizations on the local, regional and national levels, with political leanings ranging from left of center to far left. Many of the organizations were infiltrated by communists of various stripes. The Communist Party of the USA and the Young Socialist Alliance of the Socialist Workers Party actively infiltrated the antiwar organizations and attempted to gain key leadership positions.
The goals of the antiwar groups covered the full spectrum of extremes, but most had the short term goal of ending the war by any means, even if it meant defeat for the United States and all of Southeast Asia. The longer range goal for many was a revolution in the United States to tear down the existing government along with the evil capitalist system and replace it with some form of a socialist (communist) system.
In addition to the massive demonstrations against the war organized by the various antiwar groups, a number of activists traveled to Hanoi and met with North Vietnamese officials, giving them encouragement to carry on in the face of battlefield defeats. Some made broadcasts from Hanoi aimed at our servicemen fighting in the South in an attempt to undermine their support of the war. The most despicable act of the travelers to North Vietnam was their meetings with our POWs. This often resulted in torture to force the POWs to cooperate and say the right things. When the activists returned home, they made false and harmful reports about the “humane” treatment of the POWs and their “comfortable” living conditions.
The antiwar activists were so successful in undermining the war effort that the North Vietnamese considered them a second front for their side. Many of the leaders in Hanoi, including Ho Chi Minh, himself, and Premier Pham Van Dong, sent messages of praise and appreciation to the antiwar groups.
The accomplishments claimed by the antiwar activists include shortening the war, preventing more killing, aiding the POWs and their families and bringing them home sooner. Nothing is further from the truth.
The true legacy of the antiwar activists is that they became a major weapon in Hanoi’s arsenal. They encouraged the enemy to hold out in the face of numerous military defeats, thus prolonging the war by several years. The massive demonstrations in our streets and the disunity around the country weakened our negotiating leverage, giving the North Vietnamese a great advantage at the peace talks. Visits to Hanoi by activists caused grave hardship and suffering of our POWs, while at home the activists caused anguish and torment of the POWs’ families. In prolonging the war by several years thousands of U.S. troops died needlessly and even greater numbers of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians perished. Finally, the antiwar critics contributed immeasurably to our defeat and the fall of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to the Communists. They share in the responsibility for the mass killings that followed and the subjugation of millions of people to this day.
Turning to your question about my talk with the former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, we met at a symposium at the Texas Tech Vietnam Center in 2003. Meeting face-to-face with a former enemy was a very surreal experience. He proved to be a very poised and astute individual. My interest was in learning how the leaders in Hanoi viewed the antiwar movement in the U.S. and how it influenced their strategy and thinking about the war. He spoke of how the leaders in Hanoi paid close attention to the antiwar movement in America and watched what was happening every day. He emphasized that the leaders in Hanoi were heartened by the support of the antiwar activists in opposing the war and viewed them as another army fighting on their side.
FP: So what is the real lesson of Vietnam? And what can that lesson teach us today in our war with Islamist terror?
Rothrock: The real lesson of the Vietnam War is that disunity leads to defeat. It is impossible to win a war when large segments of the population are undermining the war effort and the will of the people. A well known American statesman, Dr. Henry Kissinger, recently validated this thesis in August 2005 when he stated on CNN, “In Vietnam we defeated ourselves with domestic divisions.” If we fail to heed this lesson we are destined for more Vietnams. The divisions over Iraq and the weakening of support for that war indicate that we could be sliding in that direction again. The failure to recognize and unite against terrorism will be viewed as weakness and will embolden the terrorists.
John Dickinson said it best: “Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all! By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall.”
FP: James Rothrock, it was a pleasure to speak with you.
Rothrock: Thank you. The pleasure was all mine.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.