• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The war in Vietnam clearly was a war to those of us who were over
there fighting it, as I have pointed out before. Not only was it a war, but there came a time when it was a war which we
were winning — at least on the ground and up front where we were in
direct confrontation with the communist foe. This has been pointed out
in a recent book by Col. Lewis Sorley, “A Better War: The Unexamined
Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam.” But
though the time came when we were winning the war at the front where we
were directly engaged, that was not sufficient. For we were not winning
the battle of logistics, as Sorley illustrates in his well documented
presentation. The enemy had the advantage to begin with of shorter
lines of supply, but, more importantly — and more harmful to our side
– our enemy was allowed by those running the war to use the logistical
capabilities of nations that were ostensibly our allies.

The reason for our inability to interdict the communists’ supplies
according to the myth promoted by our own press was that the communists
skillfully used manpower and less sophisticated but effective methods to
transport the goods. The simple truth, however, is that the North
Vietnamese and the Vietcong were getting 92 percent of their supplies
from nations which were supposed to be our allies. That is why the
mining of Haiphong Harbor and the bombing of that port were so important
and why the trickery which I have described in my 1998 testimony before
the Helms Committee, was so crucial and why we have been so concerned
about the Hutchison Whampoa attempts to
control the piloting at the Panama Canal.

In addition, and equally as importantly, the enemy’s skillful use of
disinformation against us here and abroad harmed us. It harmed us
particularly in weakening the support for the superior logistical effort
that we needed even while these same disinformation efforts succeeded in
holding harmless in the arena of public opinion the assistance our
erstwhile allies were giving to the other side. The fact is that our
longtime allies were able to assist our communist foes with impunity in
their logistical efforts combined with restrictions under which we were
forced to operate to undo our victories in the field.

That our forces defeated both the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese
Army in the field has also been confirmed in another excellent recent
book, “Unheralded Victory,” by Mark Woodruff, who served in that latter
part of the war under Gen. James Jones in the 3rd Marine Regiment. As
Gen. Jones, now Marine Corps commandant, has said in his excellent
introduction to the Woodruff book: “… in war you can do almost
everything correctly in the field and still not end up on the winning
side.” That result against our interests depends, of course, on our
limiting our prosecution of war within narrowly defined channels while
the communists, and particularly the Chinese communists, conceive of war
and execute it in a broader concept.

At that time the successes which we were achieving in the field were
not being accurately reported back home in the United States. Our
opponents were winning that part of the disinformation component of what
the Chinese, who were instrumental in the other side’s successes, would
call “war by other means.” This is an ancient Chinese concept which
their more recent military thinkers have recently renamed “asymmetrical
warfare.” These are the means, including “dirty war,” disinformation,
and sabotage of lines of supply, by which you defeat an opponent who has
the technological advantage over you at the actual front. The Chinese
communists were much more involved in the Vietnam War on the other side
than we have yet acknowledged publicly as a general rule.

An important component of this “war by other means” was the
inaccurate information spread throughout our open society by the other
side’s operatives of their closed and centrally commanded society. This
component is what the Soviets — who were also very instrumental in
carrying it out — called “disinformation.” A more familiar term to
most Americans is “propaganda.” It is by the skillful use of
disinformation that the communists were able to convince a willing U.S.
press that they carried off these miracles of logistics with bicycles
and tunnels and the like when, in harsh reality, they were being
assisted in every way by our European “allies.”

In these aspects of the war, logistics and “war by other means,” we
were not prevailing. A central component of the other side’s success in
this disinformation component of their “war by other means” was our own,
highly centralized media, led by the most powerful organ of our
intellectual elite, the New York Times.

To the extent that the other side was able to use our own media
against us to further disinformation was because of a willingness at the
core of what was then a relatively centralized command structure of the
U.S. media to accept inaccurate information about our own success, and
– underneath that — to continually question and even misinform the
public about our principles and purpose, while sympathizing with and, on
occasion, even lauding the principles and purpose of our opponents.

A too-eager willingness to find fault with our own efforts and our
own military, while failing to analyze the underlying brutal and
totalitarian nature of our opponents was the order of the day in New
York and our other media centers, and it was an order paid attention to
by our own governing elites (including the most powerful figures in both
the legislative and executive branches of our government as well as
those in the media centers themselves, with a handful of notable
exceptions) to the exclusion of other media which, as it turned out,
were telling a more truthful story — even if they were less highly
regarded by those who were the most influential in our governance.

One New York intellectual, Max Ascoli, saw his excellent magazine,
the Reporter, go under because he refused to join in the fashionable
inaccuracy. His insistence on telling the truth made his magazine
unpopular with the in-crowd despite its high quality.

Thus, to the extent such a powerful organ as the New York Times was
willing to convey false information, it served the other side and not
the cause of freedom and justice, which, ultimately, has to depend upon
truth, not inaccuracy. The irony of the situation was that in the early
days of the Vietnam War the New York Times did report accurately when we
were not conducting the war effectively and in as principled a fashion.
Its reporter David Halberstam was threatened by the Kennedys for telling
the truth about what was going on in Vietnam. Yet, in the latter stages
when we — considering much of that criticism as valid and having
learned to prosecute the war more effectively for our ideals –
corrected our course and began to win, the New York Times wanted to keep
on reporting in the same critical vein regarding our efforts while, in
effect, giving a free, or at least very low cost, ride to our
opponents. So it continued to report the outlook it had developed, even
though its criticism no longer reflected accurate observation or
truthful reporting.

I went to see Mr. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger at the New York Times, in an
effort to persuade him and his news organization to report accurately on
what was actually happening at the front in the Vietnam War at that
time. Such accuracy would have been most helpful and even essential in
a truly just outcome of that war, one in which a substantial portion of
the world could have been moved toward the type of democracy within a
viable framework of constitutional republicanism which we enjoy, rather
than away from such a desirable form of government (as ultimately
happened when the Vietnam War ended).

In no uncertain terms, however, Mr. Sulzberger refused my request.
He told me that he did not care if what the New York Times was reporting
about the Vietnam War was true or not. He and the New York Times were
against the Vietnam War, he said, and the paper would keep on reporting
the way it had been. The paper wanted America to pull out of the
Vietnam War, not to attempt to win it any further.

The reason I tell this at this time is because of the report which
has just been made in the Feb. 16 Washington Times by Bill Gertz, one of
their best reporters on military matters. He reports of a “new” study
by the Department of Defense which shows that communist China is “making
plans for war.” This study, he tells us, incorporates some 600
translations of internal Chinese communist writings by 200 different
authors.

What is most interesting to our group at
U.S. Defense-American
Victory
about this report is that it
validates and repeats many of the points which we have made in articles
here at WorldNetDaily and elsewhere. For example, it makes the same
points about the Chinese communist view of us as the enemy; it makes the
same point about the melding of ancient Chinese military strategy and
Marxist thinking about our collapse (particularly Lenin’s concept of a
“trust” to hang us “capitalists” with our own rope); and it makes the
same point about the Chinese military making a thorough study of our
weaknesses as exhibited in our military efforts since Korea to develop
the ability to defeat us despite our technological superiority at the
forward point of contact.

It particularly confirms many of the points in my article, “Lesson
forgotten, by us”
— namely the use of the chains of islands running from Japan to the
Philippines, of electronic attack intelligence from locations such as
Tarawa, of swift destroyers and other smaller, faster craft with
precision, high-speed missiles to attack our carriers repeatedly at
their control and logistical chokepoints.

Most significantly of all, it confirms what we have been saying over
and over again about Taiwan. The report indicates that the Chinese
communists have estimated that they can overtake us and defeat us, given
present trends, by 2030, but they are well aware that so crucial is
Taiwan to their plans that our protection of it as a free society moving
toward our kind of constitutional democracy within a stable republican
framework is a threat to them and their plans of conquest.

As long as Taiwan is there with market driven entrepreneurial
opportunity as the engine of growth and its people are free, the
dictators of Beijeng are threatened — with freedom. As long as we can
prevent the communist tyrants from conquering the free people of Taiwan
and from thus forcing it into their dictatorship, that commitment to
freedom could ignite the war which they seek against us in the next few
years, instead of in the year 2030. In that case, as in Korea and
Vietnam, they would take us on with all of their “asymmetrical” tactics
and strategies now, in a major war of “global and historic
implications.” That is what the report confirms and what I have
emphasized before.

Taiwan is to the communist Chinese right now as Pearl Harbor was to
the Japanese in the implementation of their plan of conquest, which,
like the Chinese planning, was otherwise patient and Taoist in its
outlook. With Subic Bay no longer available to us, and with the other
islands between Japan and the Philippines under Chinese communist
control, Taiwan is like a huge forward deployed aircraft carrier armed
to the teeth right at the root of the “Greater Co-prosperity Sphere”
which the Chinese communists are spreading as their empire to dominate
the Pacific. In the end the Japanese realized that they had to hit
Pearl suddenly before their plans could go any further and the communist
Chinese are now in a similar situation with regard to Taiwan.

And just as Hawaii was an outpost of the American way of freedom, so
Taiwan is a constant reminder, despite all the propaganda, a beacon that
the world can see, of a people moving in gigantic strides toward a
freedom much resembling our own, people whose very existence causes the
world to discard the notion that the Chinese cannot be free and could
not handle freedom as well as any western power. So long as Taiwan is
successful, free and armed, communist China is in logistical danger and
in danger in the war of ideas that is such an essential part of “war by
other means.”

It is important to recognize that a report such as this Department of
Defense revelation of communist China’s actual intentions is very much
like one of those consulting jobs designed to give weight and authority
to what people inside an organization already know. There are many in
the Department of Defense who have long known what is in this report,
yet the report is necessary to get the points listened to and available
to the general public. For the report is derived completely from the
writings of communist China’s own military, and thus cannot be
attributed to any supposed anti-Chinese or ideological bias. (You can
buy the report from the Government Printing Office for $23 under the
name, “China debates the future security assessment,” as put out by the
DOD Office of Net Assessment. Stock number 008-020-01476-1).

In essence what we see here is evidence of another point we have been
making: I mentioned in the article, “Lesson forgotten, by us,” the case of Adm. Prueher, who indicated that the communist Chinese were
in fact a strategic threat only after his retirement, and then fell
silent again when he went back into service as our ambassador to the
Peoples’ Republic.

“Who,” I asked, “is preventing our high officers from speaking the
truth before they retire?” The question was rhetorical. The answer is
that it is those who hold the positions are prevented from speaking out
in public what they may say in private in closed meetings because the
betrayal of our trust is coming from the very top. They stay and do not
speak out publicly simply because they know that if they leave one will
be appointed who will be willing to betray the trust of the nation in
accordance with the guidance at the top in order to curry the favor of
those at the top.

So we see even in the military the same centralized command of
inaccurate information serving our old foe, and we see it dispelled and
broken, here at the end of President Clinton’s tenure in office, by such
a report as this. It is now up to us, the American people, to see that
this is not just a dry report at the GPO, but becomes the living concern
of the campaign trail. To that end we of U.S. Defense-American Victory
have initiated our Project Get HIP — standing for “Honor In Politics.”
Through our website you can
contact us and get the information on setting up your local organization
to implement Project Get HIP in your area with all your candidates.

The concept of honor is essential in the military because full and
accurate information is crucial to success in combat — which is, after
all, the ultimate mission of the military, and the goal which, when
achieved, is our only assurance of lasting peace. In the Information
Age now upon us, we can no longer afford the kind of centralized command
mentality illustrated by Mr. Sulzberger in my encounter with him as
described above.

The rise of the Internet and the widespread success of talk radio
with great amounts of live feedback as tied together by the Internet and
the other forms of media available to us today — particularly e-mail
newsletters and cable television with its hundreds of channels — have
decentralized information and create the possibility of decentralizing
the decision-making itself. This is occurring by force of the changes
in the technology, but the important opportunity it presents is for
those of us who have concerns about such centralized decisions as Mr.
Sulzberger made in the above example — in which he essentially cut off
a great part of the American electorate from the truth — to see that
the truth is brought out. This opportunity is particularly important at
election time.

In this regard, Gen. Gordon Sumner and I, of our group, U.S.
Defense-American Victory, have recently delivered to presidential
candidates of all parties a communication regarding their taking up of
three issues which we have learned that a great number — probably at
least a majority — of Americans are concerned about. But these are
issues which are not receiving as much attention, if they are mentioned
at all, as the public would like to see.

The three issues are:

 

  1. The high level of communist Chinese penetration of our
    political structure at present, and what they intend to do to bring it
    under control and make sure that our relationship with communist China
    is realistic, doesn’t threaten our national security and benefits our
    interests and not just those of that country’s dictators.

     

  2. The growth of the drug cartels to our south to the level of armed
    and dangerous groups that actually pose a strategic as well as a moral
    threat to our national security and what they intend to do about our
    failed War on Drugs.

     

  3. The present breach of the Treaties supposedly guaranteeing
    neutrality in Panama and what can be done about the interaction of that
    problem and the above two which creates a present danger to our south
    and one that is growing worse rapidly but is being largely ignored by
    the present administration.

     

The letter can be seen on our
website
along with the response we
just received from Sen. Bill Bradley, our reply to that response and our
proposal for a conference to seek to establish some purpose in our
engagement with communist China rather than the present aimless drift,
where the only consideration seems to be the pursuit of hoped-for future
markets.

These issues can be easily remembered by the use of slogans and
questions highlighting them. The problem of communist Chinese
political penetration of our institutions can be summed up, for example,
by the slogan, “No more Charlie Tries, no more Lippo Groups.” In other
words, we would like all candidates to tell us before the election about
any such links with communist Chinese linked entities and individuals.
With regard to the drug problem we would like the candidates to make
clear that they will make the White House itself, if elected, a
drug-free zone and that those involved in redoing our presently failed
drug policy will themselves have no taint of drug usage, “leisure” or
otherwise, including the entire White House staff.

In the case of the present situation at the Panama Canal we would
simply say that Chinese communist control there, either alone or in
combination with the drug groups, is not neutrality. We need to face
that and decide what we’re going to do about it. We need to say to all
candidates: “Acknowledge that neutrality at the Canal has been
breached.” We know that legal action can be taken. Indeed, in alliance
with Judicial Watch and Eagle Forum,
we ourselves are undertaking private legal action now, not only so that
the rule of law may triumph against very bad policy decisions, but also
against the day in the next few years when we will have to do something
about the situation there. This litigation you may also learn about on
our website. But we need to have
an honorable administration in office that will face the illegalities of
the situation and use them to correct it so as to avoid the necessity of
the use of armed force, which is surely what we will have to resort to
if the law or even the treaties are not properly acknowledged and
enforced.

Right now the important thing is for all of those who follow
WorldNetDaily and are on the Internet to spread the word that every
candidate for every federal office, of whatever party, needs to be
constantly presented with the above three issues or questions. We would
ask those who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution
and our rule of law to ask these questions and display banners and signs
and other paraphernalia saying Get HIP for our Honor In Politics
project. Then, when asked, explain that we are in a great battle of
ideas in the world, that through communist Chinese efforts, communism is
not only not dead, it is reaching into our government and we need to
know what every candidate intends to do about it if elected. Drug usage
is still growing and we need to face it and deal with it, particularly
where the communists are using drugs as a cash-generating component of
their “dirty war.” We are still dependent upon the Panama Canal. We
need to assure its neutrality immediately so as to avoid having to spend
lives to make it neutral again later.

For accurate information means not only that what is said must be so,
it also means that that which is importantly so must be said.
Information must not only be accurate, it must also be full. A salesman
of securities must not only say things to you that are true, he also
must tell you everything about the security that is material and he must
do so truthfully and honorably. The same is true of our national
security, even more so. In an age of “information war,” every citizen
is an information warrior. An accurate and full flow of information to
and from each citizen is our most important weapon in such a war; it is
– in the end, along with the moral basis of our free and republican
institutions, if we can preserve them, and our founding vision as set
out in the Declaration and Constitution — our great and undefeatable
weapon. If we do not use it, we will lose to forces that truly
constitute an enemy both foreign and domestic.

The communists may believe that capitalism will collapse; they may
think that through ancient strategies they can use our exuberance as an
arrogance to defeat us. But what they cannot defeat, and what will grow
beyond their control and transform their tyranny into freedom for their
own people, is a free republic under the Constitution, morally based,
militarily strong, and driven by free markets and a free people who are
ever mindful of the limits imposed by the great moral imperatives given
us by the same Creator who granted us our unalienable rights in the
modern world of intercommunication — so long as full and accurate
information flows among our own people and across the Pacific into all
the nations of Asia. When we trade with others it must have a purpose
that is consonant with our founding vision and which is ever mindful
that slavery and military dominance over our free people are not
acceptable conditions of trade if it is to be truly free.

Only addressing these questions and ensuring their discussion in a
free flow of information will at present assure that outcome and assure
that the results of our free elections will be heeded across the
Pacific, where we need the Party rulers to have to respond to their
citizenry to the point where they will cease trying to control our
elections and will be forced by their own citizens to increasingly have
elections of their own within a framework that begins to resemble our
own constitutional foundations within their own cultural context.

Certain of the candidates have briefly mentioned these issues, such
as Gov. Bush’s recent comment on the Panama Canal, and Sen. McCain’s
addressing the drug problem in Colombia in a recent speech at the South
Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. We do have a letter already from
Sen. Bradley promising to examine and speak out candidly about them, and
just recently in a debate with Vice President Gore he mentioned the
campaign cash sellout to the communist Chinese and the need which has
not been met for an independent investigation of that matter. Pat
Buchanan has said he will speak out about the Panama situation. Let us
make sure that these beginnings lead to the full and frank discussion by
all candidates of all parties that is required. If we do, there will be
no dominance of our free people by the elitist tyrants of communist
China, and no conquest of Taiwan, not now, not in 2030. Instead the
people of China will change their government to one that is not
totalitarian, which should be our open goal, call it what the warlords
of Beijing will. Get HIP, candidates. And get HIP, you party tyrants in
China. The Berlin Wall came down. Now we need to bring down the
remaining wall of false ideas.

Those who aspire to our highest office should make clear that they
will pursue that goal. This change is not likely to come from above; it
must come from you, the people of America, and now is the time to make
your voices heard. And you, our fellow veterans, contact Gen. Sumner or
myself through U.S. Defense-American Victory to find out about setting
up a local organization and getting out the message through the use of
an appropriate program and appropriate gear. Our national security is
too important to be left to the centralized command of any elites whose
interests diverge from those of our people as represented through the
processes set out by our Constitution.

 

 


Retired Admiral Thomas Moorer is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
chief of Naval Operations, commander-in-chief Pacific, supreme Allied
commander Atlantic and commander-in-chief Atlantic Fleet. He is the
honorary chairman of U.S. Defense-American Victory in Washington, D.C.,
and may be reached through the USD-AV
website.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.