Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks
Share:
by babblingdweeb | January 9, 2008 at 09:00 am
1812 views | 33 Recommendations | 10 comments
When history is made, it can be front-page news; yet when it is corrected few hear about it.
(Or you skip over it, like me! NP Contributor Rene' posted about this story yesterday morning, but I missed it in the search I did today. Please check out the discussion below and additional information on the origins of this "report" the FAS is claiming to be new from the NSA. It appears that this is a rehashing of previously declassified documents [2005-2006] and *not* a new NSA report.)
This morning, the AFP newswire (as posted on Yahoo News) published a sotry on the newly released and previously classified report on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident. Previously, it was thought that the North Vietnamese were able to penitrate the Allied communication system and they were able to make hoax calls that forced the U.S. to attack and kill its own forces.
The report does show that it was sometimes possible for the North Vietnamse to break into the Allied communications system. However, it also shows that the attack never happened.
The U.S. faked the attack to escalate troop deployment into Vietnam. Hopefully revisions to history books are being made, lesson plans being changed and opinions of those who ever thought otherwise are being corrected.
That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.
The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (10)
at 09:30 on January 9th, 2008
It shows that those in the corridors of power are counting on people to believe that "government would never lie to [us]".
at 10:29 on January 9th, 2008
Actually, this isn't even news. The classified documents were released in 2006; this is 2008!
FAS isn't a news source; it's a political group with a political agenda. It got its latest manifesto placed as "news" on Yahoo (shrug).
Agenda? Sure thing. Now people are using this alleged NEWS to claim that the Iranian boats didn't harass U.S. ships; that, "like the Gulf of Tonkin", the U.S. is making it all up.
Here's a quick reference to see a photo of the actual machine gun bullets fired against the U.S. in the Gulf of Tonkin.
The statement "The U.S. faked the attack" is opinion, IMHO.
During war, classified communications, troop communications, and the multiple types of intelligence (HUMINT, SIGNINT, ELINT, etc.) are very tricky and --prone to error, just as are all things human.
I came of age during Vietnam. It's easy for people to jump on bandwagons based on just one cleverly-based bit of propaganda and declare it as truth, and then extrapolate from that. Historical truth is more complex than that. For example, my family will *never* forgive General James Longstreet for his failure to support Ewell and Gen Jubal Anderson Early at Gettysburg. Reasons include the fop Longstreet lingering over breakfast while the fighting was going on and--claimed miscommunication between Lee and Longstreet.
From that, may I extrapolate that the Gettysburg battle never happened? That because communications were fouled up and mistakes made, that the entire thing is a fraud and a put-up job?
History, and understanding it, is a harsh taskmistress. FAS is one of the organizations that has a clear political agenda, and in essence, as much, and maybe more so, than the government.
I am suspicious of the timing of all this. I think it all happened just to trash support for American troops overseas. If not, why the heck is news from 2006 suddenly hot stuff?
at 11:01 on January 9th, 2008
The FAS is not the source for the 500-page report, if so...than AFP/Yahoo have inaccuracies in their story.
"The report was released by the National Security Agency,responsible for much of the United States' codebreaking and eavesdropping work, in response to a "mandatory declassification"request, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said Monday."
This clearly states that the report was released by the NSA, and the FAS (Steven Aftergood) even comments to this at the end of the story saying "...this is the first time we have seen the complete study." The use of "the" before "complete study" implies (to me) that the report was not created by the FAS. However, that doesn't mean that AFP has their facts wrong.
That being said, a 500-page report by the NSA is not listed in the database of information on Tonkin Gulf on their website (as of today). I also could not find a press release on the NSA website So it is fair to say that there could be something fishy with the story.
Unlike the majority of my articles, this one is not posted in opinions as I left my opinion out and went based on what I read about the NSA report. However, if the NSA did produce a report on Tonkin that proves there
was no battle, as the story suggest, I would say my words are not
opinion. Otherwise, I took the bait and swallowed it. :)
Additionally, I do agree that there is an amusing link with the timing and wither everything going on with Iran, Iraq and the rest of the world. In this case, it wasn't so much a bandwagon for me -but, I often to support the theory of questioning our government...a lot more than I used to. In the mean time I'll look for updates on the NSA site and see if anything new pops up. AFP/Yahoo did not mention a date on the release of the 500-page report...so this could easily be just a repush of 2006 information.
at 11:12 on January 9th, 2008
Reading my comment over, it sounds kinda stuffy and "ramblinsh" -but I think you get what I mean. Normally I overly-editorialize in my articles, so I put them in opinion. I left out how I really feel about this so that's why I didn't post it in opinions.
Now I'm really curious who wrote the report!
at 13:26 on January 9th, 2008
Good for you, Justin, to keep an open mind.
The details of the Gulf of Tonkin incident have been argued. There is absolutely *no* doubt that there was an attack on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The only thing that has ever been debated is, in the darkness and chaos, whether or not there was a separate, second wave of attack.
The FAS material is based heavily on Robert J. Hyanok's history reprise, published in 2002.
The NSA released deeper classified materials in 2005 and 2006. FAS simply decided to drum up business right now by chewing their cabagged twice, or even thrice. Their website release actually says: "That is just one passing observation (at p. 392) in an exhaustive history of American signals intelligence (SIGINT) in the Vietnam War that has just been declassified and released by the National Security Agency."
If FAS believes that "just...released" means 2002 (they link to the disputed Hyanok version), then it's news. ;}
They also clearly state that the NSA released materials in 2005 and 2006.
The AFP article was based on the FAS release page. It tosses in the interesting quote: "
"That's something I have never heard before," Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS project on government secrecy, told AFP."
If Aftergood hadn't yet heard the discussion over COMINT, then he didn't pay any attention to the NSA releases.
Here are some basic links.
http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm
http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/gulfoftonkin.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/spartans/front.pdf
Yes, this FAS release--and AFP biting the bait--at this time bears scrutiny.
To be fair, Ryan and Jordan, shouldn't we include Renee's posting on this on Jan. 8 in the discussions and sharing of flags?
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one of the most heavily-debated incidents; however, it's not a new debate, and what FAS is peddling as news is actually....a slanted re-run at a specially-chosen time. In my opinion, of course.
at 13:16 on January 9th, 2008
babblingdweeb, as we know, history is written by the victor. I doubt any books are being revised. Thanks for posting this, it's important and interesting.
at 13:44 on January 9th, 2008
Fascinating information. Makes you really question just what's real information being passed around.
at 13:58 on January 9th, 2008
Ron Paul was fulminating about this in Jan. 2007.
I find it fascinating that this is being promoted now after the problem with Iranian boats.
at 14:01 on January 9th, 2008
babblingdweeb, thanks for posting this--you've facilitated an interesting discussion as a result. Thanks for your work. As Mulder would say, "The truth is out there." :)
at 13:40 on January 10th, 2008
Justin, classy action in adding that second paragraph.
I enjoyed our chat yesterday. Ya know, it would be interesting to take closer looks at many of the "reports" adn things that circulate around the 'net and figure out how, when, and why old stuff resurfaces.
Are you SURE you want to keep that old, clunky, takes-up-too-much-space camera around? I'd still be nice enough to take it off your hands. ;} (Couldn't resist!)