Forty Years Ago – RN Announces Cambodia Incursion

April 30, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

On the evening of April 30, 1970, President Nixon announced that the United States was going to attack North Vietnamese and Vietcong sanctuaries which were threatening allies from the Vietnamese-Cambodian border:

Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam. This key control center has been occupied by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong for 5 years in blatant violation of Cambodia’s neutrality.

This is not an invasion of Cambodia. The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by North Vietnamese forces. Our purpose is not to occupy the areas. Once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries and once their military supplies are destroyed, we will withdraw.

These actions are in no way directed to the security interests of any nation. Any government that chooses to use these actions as a pretext for harming relations with the United States will be doing so on its own responsibility, and on its own initiative, and we will draw the appropriate conclusions.

He then spoke right to the American people, and succinctly provided the reasons for his decision:

Now let me give you the reasons for my decision.

A majority of the American people, a majority of you listening to me, are for the withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam. The action I have taken tonight is indispensable for the continuing success of that withdrawal program.

A majority of the American people want to end this war rather than to have it drag on interminably. The action I have taken tonight will serve that purpose.

A majority of the American people want to keep the casualties of our brave men in Vietnam at an absolute minimum. The action I take tonight is essential if we are to accomplish that goal.

We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made–we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield.

Let us look again at the record. We have stopped the bombing of North Vietnam. We have cut air operations by over 20 percent. We have announced withdrawal of over 250,000 of our men. We have offered to withdraw all of our men if they will withdraw theirs. We have offered to negotiate all issues with only one condition–and that is that the future of South Vietnam be determined not by North Vietnam, and not by the United States, but by the people of South Vietnam themselves.

The answer of the enemy has been intransigence at the conference table, belligerence in Hanoi, massive military aggression in Laos and Cambodia, and stepped-up attacks in South Vietnam, designed to increase American casualties.

This attitude has become intolerable. We will not react to this threat to American lives merely by plaintive diplomatic protests. If we did, the credibility of the United States would be destroyed in every area of the world where only the power of the United States deters aggression.

Tonight, I again warn the North Vietnamese that if they continue to escalate the fighting when the United States is withdrawing its forces, I shall meet my responsibility as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces to take the action I consider necessary to defend the security of our American men.

The action that I have announced tonight puts the leaders of North Vietnam on notice that we will be patient in working for peace; we will be conciliatory at the conference table, but we will not be humiliated. We will not be defeated. We will not allow American men by the thousands to be killed by an enemy from privileged sanctuaries.

The time came long ago to end this war through peaceful negotiations. We stand ready for those negotiations. We have made major efforts, many of which must remain secret. I say tonight: All the offers and approaches made previously remain on the conference table whenever Hanoi is ready to negotiate seriously.

But if the enemy response to our most conciliatory offers for peaceful negotiation continues to be to increase its attacks and humiliate and defeat us, we shall react accordingly.

Watch the full video here.

Again with the “Secret Plan”

April 30, 2010 by Jack Pitney | Filed Under Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

In the Huffington Post, an environmental activist repeats an urban legend:

In 1968 Richard Nixon campaigned on his “secret plan to end the war in Viet Nam”. Of course if he TOLD you the plan, you wouldn’t have to elect him so he was keeping it close to the vest. Epilogue: There was no secret plan. At least not one that worked.

The passage links to a History Channel “documentary” that makes the accusation without offering any evidence.  Of course, there is no evidence, because Nixon said no such thing.  As speechwriter Ray Price explained in 2002:

That myth had its origin in the New Hampshire primary, when a wire-service reporter, new to the campaign, filed an article misinterpreting one line of Nixon’s standard stump speech: that “a new administration will end the war and win the peace.” We on the Nixon staff immediately pointed out, to all who would listen, that he had not claimed a “plan.” Nixon himself told reporters that if he had one, he would have given it to President Johnson.

It was his rival for the nomination, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, who derisively added the word “secret,” and, on that basis, reporters and commentators ever since have snidely accused Nixon of claiming a “secret plan” he did not claim and denied having.

Frank Gannon has referred to the “secret plan” as the “Dracula of canards.”  More here.

Jennings’ Heroes

April 2, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Book Review, Vietnam | 16 Comments 

In Regnery’s most recent Politically Incorrect Guide, author and Marine Corps Veteran Phillip Jennings thinks highly of RN’s handling of the Vietnam War:

If Mr. Jennings has a hero, other than the American and South Vietnamese soldiers who fought the battles, it is Richard Nixon. Unlike LBJ, Nixon was unafraid to employ American air power against the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos, against North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia, and finally—with the “Christmas Bombings” of 1972—against Hanoi and Haiphong in an effort to force the North Vietnamese to the peace-conference table. Mr. Jennings, as a pilot, may have an excessive faith in the efficacy of air power, but there is no doubt that the battered North Vietnamese did wind up signing the Paris Peace Accord in 1973 (only to immediately violate the terms). The rest is sad denouement and catastrophe: Watergate, a weakened presidency, a rebellious Democratic Congress, a cutoff of promised military support to our South Vietnamese ally, a massive North Vietnamese invasion of the south, and collapse.

Read an excerpt of the book here.

Bruce Herschensohn’s New Book

March 31, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under International Affairs, Nixon Administration figures, Nixon Library events, Nixon in the News, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam | 9 Comments 

On April 19, political commentator, former assistant to President Nixon, and 1992 Republican senatorial candidate Bruce Herschensohn comes to the Nixon Library to discuss his new book American Amnesia, which presents his thesis that had Congress been prepared to support Presidents Nixon and Ford when they asked for military aid to South Vietnam after North Vietnamese violations of the 1973 peace accords, then Hanoi’s forces would not have been able to defeat that nation in 1975. The theme of his book has particular relevance as American forces prepare to depart from Iraq, a nation whose future may be determined by the whims of its eastern neighbor Iran unless the United States is ready to ensure otherwise. In today’s Victorville (California) Daily Press, Herschensohn discusses his book:

On January 27, 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed by the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. North Vietnam agreed to an immediate cease fire, and South Vietnam was promised the same sort of freedoms guaranteed Americans under the First Amendment.

Officially, the war was over.

But, Herschensohn says, the U.S. wasn’t so naive as to believe there would be no more hostilities by North Vietnam after American troops went home. So, the accords promised piece-for-piece replacement of any military assets South Vietnam used to defend itself after the Americans left.

“We didn’t do it,” Herschensohn said flatly. “Congress saw a way that we could lose (the war) by not appropriating funds in the piece-for-piece provision.”

Editors note: Bruce Herschensohn will be at the Nixon Library on Monday, April 19, to discuss and sign copies of American Amnesia. For more information click here.

3.29.1974

March 29, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Vietnam | 2 Comments 

Thirty-Six years ago today, RN commemorated the first anniversary of the last troop’s return home from Vietnam, now known as Vietnam Veterans Day. Below are the Thirty-Seventh President’s remarks:

Just one year ago, the last American combat serviceman returned to the United States from Vietnam, and America’s longest war came to an end. It is very appropriate on this day, then, that we honor those 2 1/2 million men who served in Vietnam, that we pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives, and that we renew our commitment to obtain a full accounting for all of those who are still missing in action.

To those who have served, I can imagine that sometimes they are discouraged as they read and hear the postmortems on this very long and very difficult war. But the verdict of history, I am sure, will be quite different from the instant analysis that we presently see and sometimes hear.

Those who served may be discouraged because it seems sometimes that more attention is directed to those who deserted America than those who chose to serve America. They may be discouraged because they read and hear that America becoming involved in Vietnam was wrong, that America’s conduct in Vietnam was wrong, that the way we ended the war was wrong.

I would say to all of those who served and to all of my fellow Americans that not only was it not wrong but I think it is well for us to put in perspective on this day why we went there, what we accomplished, and what would have happened had these men not served their country as bravely and as courageously as they did in these difficult times.

We see one result in the fact that 17 million people in South Vietnam, the Republic of Vietnam, are now governing themselves and able to defend themselves. We went to Vietnam not to destroy freedom, but to defend it. We went to Vietnam not as an aggressor, but to stop aggression. And history will record that the American effort in Vietnam was a good cause, honorably undertaken and honorably ended.

We can see what that means if we evaluate what would have happened had we followed the advice of those who said, “Bug out, regardless of what happens to the people of Vietnam and what happens to America’s standing in the world.” Because if we failed in our commitment, our allies would have lost confidence in us throughout the world, not just in Asia, the neutrals would have lost respect for America, and those who might be tempted to engage in aggression would have been encouraged to embark on that aggression not only in Asia but in other parts of the world.

But because we saw this long and difficult conflict through to an honorable conclusion, respect for America was maintained, and the possibility that America can meet its great destiny, the destiny that is seldom given to a people, to build a peace not only for itself but for the whole world that possibility has been strengthened. On this occasion then, the highest tribute we can pay to those who served, and particularly to those who died, is to go forward in building a world of peace for ourselves and for all people. And in order for that to be accomplished, it is essential that America be strong. That means, first, strong militarily.

The cost is high. But as President Eisenhower once said in thinking of that cost, “While the cost of peace may be high, the cost of war is far higher and it is paid in a different coin, the lives of our young men and the destruction of our cities.”

And so, we need to maintain a militarily strong America, an economically strong America, but most important, we need to maintain an America that is strong in its character and in its spirit and its sense of destiny and its sense of purpose in this great period in our history and in the world’s history.

And that is the most significant contribution that has been made by those who served in Vietnam, because when it was not easy, when there seemed to be so little support at home, they saw it through. And because they saw it through, because they did not quit, we were able to negotiate an honorable end to the war at the conference table, which would not have been possible had they not served with distinction and courage to the end on the battlefield.

Al Haig In Conversation

February 27, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under American Politics, Cold War, International Affairs, Middle East, Military, News media, Nixon Administration figures, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam, Watergate | Leave a Comment 

In 2000, James Rosen of Fox News interviewed Gen. Alexander Haig for his biography of John Mitchell. That book, The Strong Man, was published eight years later. But it turns out that, in the course of the three-hour conversation, the General talked of many other things besides Watergate, with his customary verve and forcefulness, and in tomorrow’s Washington Post, there’s an article by Rosen in which Gen. Haig ranges from Vietnam to America’s policy toward Lebanon to the first Gulf War. Also worth reading is the comment on the article by Ken Hughes of the Miller Presidential Center at the University of Virginia.

Dr. Kissinger’s Tribute to General Haig

February 25, 2010 by admin | Filed Under In Memoriam, Nixon Administration figures, U.S. History, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

At Time’s site today, Dr. Henry A. Kissinger writes about Gen. Alexander Haig’s passing:

Societies become rich through ingenuity and hard work. But they become great because they produce men and women who lift them beyond the moment. Alexander Haig, who served his country during turbulent times, was such a person. I recruited him for the National Security Council staff as my deputy. One of his principal tasks was to help end a war that President Richard Nixon had inherited and in which Al had fought. It proved a heartrending journey, especially for a soldier. But with typical skill and dedication, Al carried out the many vital missions entrusted to him, including the dual tasks of extricating America from war while preserving the nation’s honor.

A Moment In History

February 20, 2010 by admin | Filed Under History, National Security, News media, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 4 Comments 

On 13 June 1971, General Alexander Haig, then Deputy Assistant to the President for Military Affairs, was the first to discuss with RN The New York Times‘ publication —that Sunday morning— of the first installment of the study that became known as the Pentagon Papers.

RN refers to Mel Laird, who was Secretary of Defense, and General Haig refers to the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment that required complete withdrawal of all American troops from Vietnam by 31 December 1971.  Although it had been defeated in the Senate in October 1970, it remained the subject of discussion and controversy through 1971.  He also mentions Clark Clifford, the ubiquitous Democrat who was one of the legendary Wise Men as well as one of Wasington’s most famous  fixers.  He  had succeeded Robert McNamara as LBJ’s Secretary of Defense.  After initially  deciding to support Johnson’s policies in Vietnam, he turned against the war.

There Naftali Goes Again…

February 16, 2010 by admin | Filed Under Foundation News, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 29 Comments 

I loved the OC Register article about Ron Walker, who by all accounts is doing an outstanding job as president of the Nixon Foundation. Well, everything except for the typically ungracious and inaccurate remarks made by Tim Naftali.

Here’s the text of a letter to the editor I sent to the Register to try to correct the record:

To the Editor:

The assertion by Tim Naftali, the National Archives director of the Nixon Library [“He’s still Nixon’s advance man,” February 12, 2010], that the Library’s original exhibit on Vietnam did not indicate that National Guardsmen shot the four students killed at Kent State is pure fantasy.

As the author of that exhibit 20 years ago, here is the text of the concluding paragraph of a sidebar to the Vietnam exhibit entitled: Cambodia and Kent State, taken directly from my files:

At Kent State University in Ohio, the Governor had to call in the National Guard after some demonstrators burned the Army ROTC building to the ground. The guardsmen, many the same age as the students, were pelted with rocks and chunks of concrete. Tragically, in the ensuing panic, shots rang out. Four students lay dead. The President later referred to the days following Kent State as among the darkest of his presidency.

It is obvious to anyone (except perhaps Naftali, who seems to possess a very jaundiced and biased eye toward all things Nixon) that the students were shot by the National Guardsmen. Does he really think that Library visitors are either so stupid or so ignorant as to conclude that the students were shot by other students or by unknown assailants?

Naftali’s anti-Nixon bias is apparently so deeply ingrained in his psyche that he cannot distinguish the truth from the dark fantasy he has created in his own mind about the Nixon Library. Isn’t there an Alger Hiss Library somewhere he would like to be director of?

Bob Bostock

1.27.73

January 27, 2010 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under History, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Pat Nixon, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam | 1 Comment 

Thirty-seven years ago today, the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam  —popularly known as the Paris Peace Accords— was signed.

After four hard years, RN had achieved the peace with honor he had promised and was determined to achieve.

The tortuous negotiations that had begun under LBJ in 1968 finally ended on a Thursday afternoon in Paris when RN’s Secretary of State William P. Rogers and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Ambassador to South Vietnam and head of the US delegation, signed  the Paris Peace Accords.

The Vietnamese signatories were South Vietnamese Foreign Minister Tran Van Lam, North VIetnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Duy Trinh, and Vietcong Foreign Minister Nguyen Thi Binh.

Secretary of State William P. Rogers signs the Paris Peace Accords.  The text of the Peace Accords can be read here.

When the news arrived, RN informed PN:

And, as he said he would, at 10 PM that night, he spoke to the nation from the Oval Office.  He began by describing the terms of the settlement, and reminding all parties that they must be observed and honored:

This will mean that the terms of the agreement must be scrupulously adhered to. We shall do everything the agreement requires of us, and we shall expect the other parties to do everything it requires of them. We shall also expect other interested nations to help insure that the agreement is carried out and peace is maintained.

RN thanked the American people for their support:

And finally, to all of you who are listening, the American people: Your steadfastness in supporting our insistence on peace with honor has made peace with honor possible. I know that you would not have wanted that peace jeopardized…..

The important thing was not to talk about peace, but to get peace–and to get the right kind of peace. This we have done.

Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina. Let us be proud of the 2 1/2 million young Americans who served in Vietnam, who served with honor and distinction in one of the most selfless enterprises in the history of nations. And let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom and so that the world might live in peace.

At what must have been an intense moment of personal satisfaction, RN’s final words and thoughts were for his predecessor —Lyndon Johnson— who had died only days before.  Although he did not mention it in his speech, RN had made sure that LBJ was fully briefed about the progress of the talks, and that he died knowing peace was, truly, at hand.

Just yesterday, a great American, who once occupied this office, died. In his life, President Johnson endured the vilification of those who sought to portray him as a man of war. But there was nothing he cared about more deeply than achieving a lasting peace in the world.

I remember the last time I talked with him. It was just the day after New Year’s. He spoke then of his concern with bringing peace, with making it the right kind of peace, and I was grateful that he once again expressed his support for my efforts to gain such a peace. No one would have welcomed this peace more than he.

Pursuant to the terms of the Paris Peace Accords, in February 1973, the POWs returned home.

Address to the Nation Announcing Conclusion of an Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam

You can listen to the President’s speech here.

Good evening:

I have asked for this radio and television time tonight for the purpose of announcing that we today have concluded an agreement to end the war and bring peace with honor in Vietnam and in Southeast Asia.

The following statement is being issued at this moment in Washington and Hanoi:

At 12:30 Paris time today, January 23, 1973, the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam was initialed by Dr. Henry Kissinger on behalf of the United States, and Special Adviser Le Duc Tho on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

The agreement will be formally signed by the parties participating in the Paris Conference on Vietnam on January 27, 1973, at the International Conference Center in Paris.

The cease-fire will take effect at 2400 Greenwich Mean Time, January 27, 1973. The United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam express the hope that this agreement will insure stable peace in Vietnam and contribute to the preservation of lasting peace in Indochina and Southeast Asia.

That concludes the formal statement. Throughout the years of negotiations, we have insisted on peace with honor. In my addresses to the Nation from this room of January 25 and May 8 [1972], I set forth the goals that we considered essential for peace with honor.

In the settlement that has now been agreed to, all the conditions that I laid down then have been met:

A cease-fire, internationally supervised, will begin at 7 p.m., this Saturday, January 27, Washington time.

Within 60 days from this Saturday, all Americans held prisoners of war throughout Indochina will be released. There will be the fullest possible accounting for all of those who are missing in action.

During the same 60-day period, all American forces will be withdrawn from South Vietnam.

The people of South Vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their own future, without outside interference.

By joint agreement, the full text of the agreement and the protocol to carry it out will be issued tomorrow.

Throughout these negotiations we have been in the closest consultation with President Thieu and other representatives of the Republic of Vietnam. This settlement meets the goals and has the full support of President Thieu and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, as well as that of our other allies who are affected.

The United States will continue to recognize the Government of the Republic of Vietnam as the sole legitimate government of South Vietnam.

We shall continue to aid South Vietnam within the terms of the agreement, and we shall support efforts by the people of South Vietnam to settle their problems peacefully among themselves.

We must recognize that ending the war is only the first step toward building the peace. All parties must now see to it that this is a peace that lasts, and also a peace that heals–and a peace that not only ends the war in Southeast Asia but contributes to the prospects of peace in the whole world.

This will mean that the terms of the agreement must be scrupulously adhered to. We shall do everything the agreement requires of us, and we shall expect the other parties to do everything it requires of them. We shall also expect other interested nations to help insure that the agreement is carried out and peace is maintained.

As this long and very difficult war ends, I would like to address a few special words to each of those who have been parties in the conflict.

First, to the people and Government of South Vietnam: By your courage, by your sacrifice, you have won the precious right to determine your own future, and you have developed the strength to defend that right. We look forward to working with you in the future–friends in peace as we have been allies in war.

To the leaders of North Vietnam: As we have ended the war through negotiations, let us now build a peace of reconciliation. For our part, we are prepared to make a major effort to help achieve that goal. But just as reciprocity was needed to end the war, so too will it be needed to build and strengthen the peace.

To the other major powers that have been involved even indirectly: Now is the time for mutual restraint so that the peace we have achieved can last.

And finally, to all of you who are listening, the American people: Your steadfastness in supporting our insistence on peace with honor has made peace with honor possible. I know that you would not have wanted that peace jeopardized. With our secret negotiations at the sensitive stage they were in during this recent period, for me to have discussed publicly our efforts to secure peace would not only have violated our understanding with North Vietnam, it would have seriously harmed and possibly destroyed the chances for peace. Therefore, I know that you now can understand why, during these past several weeks, I have not made any public statements about those efforts.

The important thing was not to talk about peace, but to get peace–and to get the right kind of peace. This we have done.

Now that we have achieved an honorable agreement, let us be proud that America did not settle for a peace that would have betrayed our allies, that would have abandoned our prisoners of war, or that would have ended the war for us but would have continued the war for the 50 million people of Indochina. Let us be proud of the 2 1/2 million young Americans who served in Vietnam, who served with honor and distinction in one of the most selfless enterprises in the history of nations. And let us be proud of those who sacrificed, who gave their lives so that the people of South Vietnam might live in freedom and so that the world might live in peace.

In particular, I would like to say a word to some of the bravest people I have ever met–the wives, the children, the families of our prisoners of war and the missing in action. When others called on us to settle on any terms, you had the courage to stand for the right kind of peace so that those who died and those who suffered would not have died and suffered in vain, and so that where this generation knew war, the next generation would know peace. Nothing means more to me at this moment than the fact that your long vigil is coming to an end.

Just yesterday, a great American, who once occupied this office, died. In his life, President Johnson endured the vilification of those who sought to portray him as a man of war. But there was nothing he cared about more deeply than achieving a lasting peace in the world.

I remember the last time I talked with him. It was just the day after New Year’s. He spoke then of his concern with bringing peace, with making it the right kind of peace, and I was grateful that he once again expressed his support for my efforts to gain such a peace. No one would have welcomed this peace more than he.

And I know he would join me in asking —for those who died and for those who live— let us consecrate this moment by resolving together to make the peace we have achieved a peace that will last. Thank you and good evening.

Longest Serving POW Honored By Nixon Foundation

January 10, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Military, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 1 Comment 

The longest serving POW in Vietnam, Commander Everett Alvarez, Jr., was honored with the Nixon Foundation’s Great American Hero Award by President Nixon’s daughter Tricia Nixon Cox. From left to right:  Christopher Nixon Cox, the President’s grandson; Commander Alvarez; Tricia Nixon Cox; Edward F. Cox, the President’s son-in-law and newly elected Chairman of the Republican Party of New York; and Ronald H. Walker, the new President of the Richard Nixon Foundation.

Commander Everett Alvarez, Jr., among the longest captive prisoners of war in American history was at the Nixon Library on the occasion of the President’s 97th Birthday. For his service, RN’s daughter Tricia Nixon Cox presented him with the Richard Nixon Foundation’s first ever Great American Hero Award.

Commander Alvarez was shot down over the skies of Vietnam in 1964 and was held captive over eight years in the Hanoi Hilton and other Vietnamese prisons.

Daughter Julie Nixon Eisenhower had these words to say about Commander Alvarez’s honor:

My father had a special place in his heart for the POWS —as I know they had for him.  He was aware of them —and their plight and their pain— every day they were held captive.  But he knew that they would understand the necessity to end the war in a way that reflected America’s values and honored America’s obligations.

The American Hero Award has been created to honor men and women whose exceptional character and extraordinary courage make them able to rise above personal concerns and act in the kinds of noble and selfless ways that inspire all the rest of us.

When John Wayne was introduced to Commander Alvarez at the POW dinner at the White House, the tough movie star broke down and said, “I only play a hero — you are a hero.”

David and I wish we could be with you today in Yorba Linda to celebrate Everett Alverez’ inspiring record of faithful service, exceptional bravery, extraordinary courage, and exemplary honor.  He truly is an American Hero.

On Saturday, he also sat down with Nixon White House Fellow and Special Assistant Frank Gannon to discuss his experiences in captivity and his encounters with President Nixon:

First Duffer

January 9, 2010 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under Barack Obama, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Sports, U.S. History, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

America learned early about President Obama’s love affair with basketball, a romance so intense that during the 2008 campaign reports kept leaking out of his camp that if elected, he planned to convert the one-lane bowling alley installed by President Nixon in the White House basement into an indoor court – a notion quickly kiboshed when it became clear that many devotees of the ball-and-pins might vote for Sen. John McCain rather than let this happen.

But although Obama has been known to dribble and dunk whenever his schedule allows, it was a foregone conclusion that sooner or later he had to come to grips with the real sport of Presidents, and so over the holidays reports came out of his Hawaii hideaway that he had been seen on the local links, was taking golf lessons, and dutifully attempting to find out just how huge his handicap is going to be.

The 44th President undertakes the sport with a distinct disadvantage: he is the first President since, perhaps, William Howard Taft who never had the chance to play with Bob Hope. And so it is that Peter Corrigan of the London Independent devotes a column to discussing Obama’s taking up golf and his place in the Presidential traditions connected with tees, hooks, and double eagles. (Not to mention the Vice-Presidential tradition, established by Spiro Agnew and so often mentioned by Hope and Johnny Carson, of beaned spectators.)

Nearly every golfer under the age of ninety can quote Lacey Davenport’s line from Caddyshack, “Nixon plays golf” – in a film made, as it happens, a year after RN broke 80 on a California course and then gave up the game for good. Quite a bit could be written about Nixon’s quarter-century on the greens, off and on, before that happened, but Corrigan focuses on the time in the early 1970s when Arnold Palmer was invited to San Clemente and there found the President and, perhaps inevitably, Bob Hope. The journalist continues:

[Palmer] was asked his opinion about how the US should end the Vietnam war. He muttered something about not pussyfooting about and “going for the green”. I’m not sure if they bombed Cambodia as a result, but as valuable as a pro’s advice is when it comes to your swing it shouldn’t carry weight in real life.

Collinson’s account is not quite true to the record. It’s hard to picture the forthright Artie “muttering” any advice, and the account that Palmer gave in the 2000 book (as quoted from his own website) is as follows:

Perhaps Palmer’s best memory of the [Bob Hope] tournament has nothing to do with what happened on the course. It was at the Hope in the early 1970s that Palmer was summoned to a mini-summit with President Richard M. Nixon. A U.S. Marine helicopter picked up Bob Hope, Palmer and their spouses and flew them over the mountains to Nixon’s Western White House at San Clemente north of San Diego.

On hand with Nixon was Vice President Gerald Ford, foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger and a host of top level national security officials. “It seemed the president wanted to pick our brains, of all things, about how to end the war in Vietnam,” Palmer told author James Dodson in the Palmer biography, A Golfer’s Life. When Palmer’s turn came to express his opinion, Palmer sheepishly told the Commander-in-Chief to “get this thing over as quickly as possible, for everyone’s sake. I mean, why not go for the green?”

The golf pro’s advice got a round of laughs from people who were unaccustomed to the levity.

Levity aside, at the end of 1972, when it looked like North Vietnam would balk at signing the Paris peace accords, President Nixon went ahead and sent bombers to Hanoi, in that sense “going for the green.” And that brought Le Duc Tho’s negotiators back to the table, and thus the war ended for the United States. Palmer’s meeting with the President also happened well after the Cambodia bombing. The lesson here is that it pays, especially in this age of Google and Books.Google, to check the sources.

“All This Happened”

January 4, 2010 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under China, Richard Nixon, Russia, Vietnam | 3 Comments 

Conrad Black critiques President Obama’s first year with a blow-torch, and then says his agenda pales in comparison to past presidents, notably RN:

Richard Nixon entered office with a plan to open relations with China, extract the U.S. from Indochina without bringing down the non-Communist government in Saigon, and pursue better relations with the USSR, arms control, and a peace process in the Middle East. All this happened.

Taps For An American Hero

December 26, 2009 by Robert Nedelkoff | Filed Under In Memoriam, Military, Presidents, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

On Wednesday, Colonel Robert L. Howard, the most decorated American soldier living, passed away at the age of 70. He served five tours of duty in Vietnam and the extraordinary list of honors and unit citations he received in those years is itemized in his Wikipedia entry. But one honor stands out among them, and how he came to receive it is described by Richard Goldstein in Col. Howard’s New York Times obituary:

In December 1968, Sergeant First Class Howard, his rank at the time, was in a platoon of American and South Vietnamese troops who came under fire while trying to land in their helicopters on a mission to find a missing Green Beret. As the men set out after a prolonged firefight to clear the landing zone, they were attacked by some 250 North Vietnamese troops.

As related in “Medal of Honor: Portraits of Valor Beyond the Call of Duty,” by Peter Collier, Sergeant Howard was knocked unconscious by an exploding mine. When he came to, his eyes were bloodied and his hands injured by shrapnel that had also destroyed his rifle. He heard his lieutenant groaning in pain a few yards away. He then saw an enemy soldier with a flamethrower burning the bodies of American and South Vietnamese soldiers who had just been killed.

Sergeant Howard was unable to walk, but he threw a grenade toward the soldier with the flamethrower and managed to grab the lieutenant. As he was crawling with him toward shelter, a bullet struck his ammunition pouch, blowing him several feet down a hill. Clutching a pistol given to him by a fellow soldier, Sergeant Howard shot several North Vietnamese soldiers and got the lieutenant down to a ravine.

Taking command of the surviving and encircled Green Berets, Sergeant Howard administered first aid, encouraged them to return fire and called in air strikes. The Green Berets held off the North Vietnamese until they were evacuated by helicopters.

Having gained an officer’s commission after that exploit, he received the Medal of Honor from President Richard M. Nixon on March 2, 1971. The citation credited him for his “complete devotion to the welfare of his men at the risk of his life.”

Presenting an award to so valiant a warrior was, indeed, one of the proudest moments of the Nixon White House. May the Colonel rest in the eternal peace that he so very much has earned.

Christmas Coming In From The Cold

December 24, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Afghanistan, Cold War, History, Intelligence, International Affairs, North Korea, Russia, U.S. History, Vietnam | 3 Comments 

On Christmas day 20 years ago, Nicolae Ceausescu – long time dictator of Romania – was, along with his wife Elena, executed by firing squad just days after fleeing Bucharest, while his tyrannical regime unraveled before the eyes of a watching world. His demise and the surrounding events are etched in the memory of those of us who watched it all unfold via various news reports.

The look on the once strong-man’s face as a massive crowd began to boo during a speech on December 21st, was one of the defining moments of the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. The scene of his helicopter flying him out of the city and his preoccupation during the interim with looking at his watch (which had been equipped with a tracking device for his security people, the gadget – unbeknownst to him – having been disabled by his captors) – these events moved with breakneck speed two decades ago this week.

And while much of the world rekindled almost forgotten traditions of faith and family, due to fresh-found freedom that Christmas of 1989, many Americans celebrated with televisions left on (volume muted), so as not to miss a story that was so compelling.

The Cold War was, in fact, ending.

It was a fitting season of the year for yet another piece of compelling evidence that the schemes of Marx, Lenin, and so many others, were indeed bankrupt and bore the fruit not of promised utopia, but rather tyrannical horror. One reason for this calendar-driven appropriateness was the irony that so many important Cold War stories had Christmas season components.

The French, following a World War II exile from their imperial hegemony in Indochina, landed there once again just before Christmas in 1945. That didn’t work out so well for them in the long run. Come to think of it, it didn’t help us much either.

Just in time for Christmas in 1968, and as astronauts prepared to send a Biblical message of peace to all of us on “the good earth,” 82 Americans were rejoicing in their freedom, though with bodies still racked by torture-produced pain. They had been “guests” of the “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea for about 11 months. The men of the USS Pueblo had been taken captive that previous January and were hostages to Cold War politics and diplomacy. I had a conversation a while back with Harry Iredale, whose cover on the Pueblo (an intelligence gathering vessel) was his work as an oceanographer. He talked to me in great detail about the seizure of the ship and their brutal treatment.

On Christmas Eve, 1979, the Soviets invaded a place called Afghanistan, to prop up a faltering Communist regime in that neighboring nation. That didn’t work out for them, either – or again for that matter – for us. Paraphrasing Mark Twain’s quote, history may not repeat itself, but it surely rhymes.

A couple of Christmases later, in 1981, the Polish government was enforcing martial law, trying to break the back of something called Solidarity. That movement was reminiscent of what had happened in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, and with the same result – a Soviet inspired crackdown. But there was something different about what was going on in Poland. Maybe, many thought, this was the beginning of something bigger, something that might morph into real freedom.

Eight years later, the Romanian despot was dead, the Berlin Wall was becoming a lengthy pile of stone-pocked dust, and the Soviet system was on the ropes, first trying to reinvent itself; then conceding defeat with barely a whimper. And on Christmas Day in 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as President of the USSR, and the hammer and sickle flag was lowered over the Kremlin for the last time.

Yes, there are a lot of Cold War stories that coincide with the season that speaks of peace on earth and good will toward men.

This Christmas there is another such story. Though the Cold War is now a too-distant memory in light of all that has transpired since in our ever-dangerous world, there is a vital effort underway to ensure that the period from 1945-1991 is never ignominiously relegated to the ash heap of history.

The Cold War Museum began many years ago with the vision of Gary Powers. You might recognize him through his full name: Francis Gary Powers, Jr. Of course, students of the Cold War, and certainly anyone who lived through it, remember that Gary’s father, Francis Gary Powers, was flying one of our U-2 Spy planes on May 1, 1960, only to be shot down over Soviet territory. He became a prisoner, sometimes pawn, and an iconic and brave figure from that era.

In a day and age when most Americans would think of U-2 as referring to an Irish rock band, there was a time when the men who piloted those magnificent planes played a vital role in national and international security. For example, we would have found out far too late in the game about missiles in Cuba in 1962, without the reconnaissance photos taken from a U-2 aircraft.

Founded in 1996, the Cold War Museum is a very real memorial to honor Cold War Veterans and preserve the period’s history. For years, a mobile exhibit has traveled around the country and world displaying historical artifacts (more than $3,000,000 worth), including some from the Berlin Airlift, U-2 Incident, Cuban Missile Crisis, USS Liberty, USS Pueblo, and Space Race. In addition, the museum has over $500,000 worth of Soviet, East German, and former Eastern Bloc flags, banners, and uniforms.

After many years of tireless effort and various offers and negotiations, Powers recently announced the acquisition of a permanent home for the Cold War Museum at Vint Hill in Northern Virginia. The significance of this site selection was highlighted by Mr. Edwin “Ike” Broaddus, Chairman for Vint Hill Economic Development Authority:

We are pleased to offer The Cold War Museum a home. It is highly appropriate for the museum to locate at Vint Hill, the former Vint Hill Farms Station used during the Cold War, by the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the US Army to safeguard the United States against a surprise nuclear attack.

Vint Hill is part of The Journey Through Hallowed Ground national heritage area and in close proximity to the Manassas National Battlefield Park, the National Museum of the Marine Corps and the historic towns of Leesburg, Manassas and Warrenton, Virginia, existing major tourist destinations.

The Cold War Museum is a 501c3 charity, a Smithsonian affiliate, and worthy recipient of any support the public may be inclined to offer during this season of giving. This new home for the museum is, indeed, a Christmas gift to our nation’s efforts to remind and remember.

The museum’s board of directors includes some storied names reminiscent of that period in history, for example: Sergei Khrushchev (son of Nikita Krushchev), David Eisenhower (grandson of the 34th President of the United States and son in law of the 37th President), and Thomas C. Reed (Former Secretary of the Air Force).

As for Gary, he has interesting plans for 2010, involving a trip to Russia marking the 50th anniversary of the shooting down of his father’s plane. In fact, he is organizing a tour for those who might be interested (May 1-9, 2010), complete with a visit to the prison where his father (who died in 1977) was held for 21 months until his release in exchange for Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel.

As for the end of 2009, it is worthy of note that this has also been the 60th anniversary of the writing of 1984, by George Orwell, as well as the 25th anniversary of the year in the once-ominous title, one that was supposed to be synonymous with totalitarian, “Big-Brother-is-watching” government.

The Little Church In The East Room

December 18, 2009 by David R. Stokes | Filed Under Faith, First Ladies, History, Nixon Administration, Nixon Administration figures, Pat Nixon, Presidents, Religion, Richard Nixon, Supreme Court, U.S. History, Vietnam, White House | 17 Comments 

As the first streaks of dawn quietly announced the arrival of morning on Sunday, November 16, 1969, a 35-year old preacher from Ohio named Harold Rawlings had already been awake for a while after a fitful night of what-could-barely-be-called sleep in a room at Washington, D.C.’s storied Mayflower Hotel. He would in a few hours face a crowd punctuated by the most powerful men and women in America, assembled in the most unusual of venues for any clergyman – the East Room of the White House.

These days, most Americans have moved on from wondering about Barack Obama’s church attendance habits now nearly a year into his presidency. Some of this inattention is due, no doubt, to the swirl of events, but a measure of it is likely because Mr. Obama is demonstrating a kind of ambivalence to church attendance that has become par for the presidential course over the years (though with some exception, e.g., Jimmy Carter).

Most presidents have likely never read Theodore Roosevelt’s “Nine Reasons A Man Should Go To Church.” Among the things TR said was this gem: “Yes, I know all the excuses. I know that one can worship the Creator in a grove of trees, or by a running brook, or in a man’s own house as well as in church. But I also know, as a matter of cold fact, that the average man does not thus worship.”

Richard Nixon decided in the first days of his presidency to reconcile the ethic of church attendance with the realities of security and logistics during his time in the White House, by having regular Sunday services in the East Room. Of course, he was criticized for it. Some saw it as political grandstanding and others (many in the clergy) feared Nixon might be setting a trend for “stay at home” worship. Billy Graham noted, though, that in the early days of Christianity churches met almost exclusively in houses. So, on Nixon’s first Sunday in the White House, Graham shared a sermon, beginning a long run of non-sectarian religious services at 11 o’clock most Sunday mornings.

Rev. Rawlings had received an invitation, via the recommendation of his congressman, Donald “Buzz” Lukens, to bring the message during one of those services. But the preacher had to pay his own expenses to the nation’s capital, something gladly accomplished by his church, Landmark Baptist in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the lanky clergyman shared pastoral duties with his father, the senior minister of the church.

The preacher also had no idea when he accepted the White House invitation that he would be performing his prelatic duties against the backdrop of a city in turmoil.

Pastor Rawlings and his wife Sylvia made their way to Washington, D.C., on Saturday, November 15, while 250,000 protestors were in virtual control of the city’s streets and parks. The Washington Post headline the next day said, “Largest Rally in Washington History Demands End to Vietnam War.” There was a lingering hint of tear gas in the air and the remnants of torn and burned flags littering the ground. Other flags were prominent and not burned, but they bore only one star and just two stripes – the banner of the Viet Cong (National Liberation Front or “NLF”). The night before, 76 nearby buildings had been damaged, and nearly that many more would experience the same fate that day.

The swarm on Washington had been organized by an outfit called the New Mobilization Committee. This group was the successor to the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, which had been part of the infamous Chicago riots at the Democratic Convention in 1968. Basically, it was a leftist mosaic made up of people from Students For A Democratic Society (“SDS”), the Youth International Party (“Yippies”), and assorted fellow travelers.

And though the “festivities” had ended late Saturday night, thousands remained in the streets overnight continuing to shout things like, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is Going to Win!” This made sleep that much more difficult for Rev. and Mrs. Rawlings.

The couple enjoyed breakfast in the Mayflower’s restaurant, their waitress discreetly pointing out the famous “psychic”, Jeanne Dixon, who was sitting across the room near the booth where J. Edgar Hoover regularly ate lunch. This brush with celebrity would be nothing compared to the experience awaiting Harold and Sylvia when they arrived at the White House.

They climbed a stairway to the second floor and were immediately met by the First Lady, Mrs. Pat Nixon, who invited them into the beautiful Yellow Oval Room, where they sat in Louis XVI style chairs. Tricia Nixon soon joined them, followed a few minutes later by President Nixon, who took Pastor Rawlings on a personal tour of the adjacent rooms, sharing details about their history. Nixon was in a great mood, no doubt bolstered some by the latest Gallup Poll showing that around 70% of Americans gave him high marks, this in the wake of his already famous “Silent Majority” speech a few days earlier.

They then made their way to the East Room, with Sylvia taking her seat next to Mrs. Nixon and Tricia. President Nixon, as was the custom, opened the service, “After a very awesome display yesterday,” pausing briefly for effect, knowing that some would think he was referring to the demonstrations, he continued, “of football, we thought it would be proper to have someone here from Ohio.” Ever the football fan, he was referring to the Buckeyes’ 42-14 win over Purdue.

Pastor Rawlings had been asked to suggest two hymns for the service and did so several weeks in advance, only to be called back by the White House and told, “President Nixon doesn’t know those – could you choose two others?” He did, and the service that day included the majestic strains of “All Hail The Power Of Jesus’ Name,” a song Nixon knew well. A choir from New York Avenue Presbyterian Church sang.

The President then introduced Rawlings, who chose as his theme that day, “The World’s Most Amazing Book.” Many notables were in the crowd of about 350, including Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, Secretary of State William P. Rogers, Treasury Secretary David M. Kennedy, Labor Secretary George P. Schultz, and United States Senators Claiborne Pell, Mark Hatfield, John Sherman Cooper, Gale McGee, John Williams, and Charles Percy. And the service was broadcast live across the country via the Mutual Broadcasting System.

“If men and women would spend more time in the serious study of the word of God,” said Rev. Rawlings, “earth’s questions would seem far less significant and heaven’s questions far more real.” He then quoted former President Eisenhower, among others. The great man had died eight months earlier and his life and career had intersected with Nixon’s so significantly.

Rawlings affirmed that, “The Bible is not only good for the soul, but also for the body.” He illustrated this point with a moving story about a soldier in Vietnam, Army Private Roger Boe, who after being ambushed found an enemy bullet “lodged in his Bible, just short of the ammunition clip.” The preacher, describing America as “a haven for freedom and peace,” urged prayer, “to make us morally worthy of protection against outward aggression.” He also issued a reminder about praying for the men of Apollo12, at that moment racing through space, “our three astronauts that they might be blessed with safety and good health on their voyage to the moon.”

During a recent conversation with Harold Rawlings, who is a long-time friend, he told me that following the service Chief Justice Burger told him that his sermon was “the kind of message America needed to hear.”

A reception followed, with President and Mrs. Nixon personally introducing Rev. and Mrs. Rawlings to those filing by. Nixon, though, was at least a little bit in a hurry. He was going out to Robert F. Kennedy stadium that afternoon to see the Redskins play the Cowboys. In fact, this would itself be historic – the first time a sitting President of the United States attended a National Football League game. He was pulling for the home team, but conceded to a reporter that the Cowboys would come out on top, “I think they’ll win because of their running attack.”

But it turned out that the Redskins lost because Sonny Jurgenson threw 4 interceptions – three of them in the fourth quarter. The one bright spot of the game for Nixon was the play of Ricky Harris, who returned a punt 83-yards for a touchdown – only to have it called back because of a penalty. Harris then intercepted a pass at a crucial moment – only to have Jurgensen then quickly proceed to throw his own interception (Harris these days sits every Sunday on the front row of the church I pastor.)

Possibly, the fate of the Redskins that day was a harbinger of things to come that week for Mr. Nixon. The very next day, American newspapers first mentioned something about a massacre in Vietnam at a place called My Lai. And later that week, the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Clement Furman Haynsworth, was rejected by the Senate, 55-45.

This just reinforces something else Teddy Roosevelt said about why people should go to church: “In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down grade.”

Honoring “Too Tall”

December 9, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Military, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

36 years late: Army Captain Ed Freeman won the Congressional Medal of Honor in 2001 for his heroism in Vietnam.

On July 16, 2001, at age 73 and over 30 years after his last tour in Vietnam, U.S. Army helicopter pilot Captain Ed “Too Tall” Freeman was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his numerous selfless acts while serving in the legendary 7th Calvary Division.

Six feet four inches in height, Freeman fought as an infantryman in the Korean War. His goal to become a pilot, they said he was “too tall” to attend flight school.

His dream was finally fulfilled when the U.S. Army lifted the height restriction in 1955.

He would do the job well and live up to his cognomen in both word and deed.

It was in the la Drang Valley on November 14 1965, when Freeman flew directly into enemy fire to support a besieged infantry battalion short on supplies and ammunition, effectively changing the course of the battle:

The unit was almost out of ammunition after taking some of the heaviest casualties of the war, fighting off a relentless attack from a highly motivated, heavily armed enemy force. When the infantry commander closed the helicopter landing zone because of intense direct enemy fire, Captain Freeman risked his life by flying his unarmed helicopter through a gauntlet of enemy fire time after time, delivering critically needed ammunition, water, and medical supplies to the besieged battalion. His flights, by providing the engaged units with supplies of ammunition critical to their survival, directly affected the battle’s outcome. Without them the units would almost surely have gone down, with much greater loss of life.

The enemy fire was so intense that wounded infantry couldn’t rely on medical helicopters to land and fly them to get treatment. Captain Freeman filled the void, 14 separate times. The rest of the citation describes how he saved the lives of an estimated 30 men:

Captain Freeman flew 14 separate rescue missions, providing lifesaving evacuation of an estimated 30 seriously wounded soldiers-some of whom would not have survived had he not acted. All flights were made into a small emergency landing zone within 100 to 200 meters of the defensive perimeter, where heavily committed units were perilously holding off the attacking elements. Captain Freeman’s selfless acts of great valor and extraordinary perseverance were far above and beyond the call of duty or mission and set a superb example of leadership and courage for all of his peers. Captain Freeman’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

Though nominated shortly after la Drang, Freeman wasn’t able to receive his honors because the nominating period had passed the statue of limitations, a rule lifted by Congress in 1995.

In 2001 “Too Tall” received what he truly deserved. President George W. Bush from the East Room of the White House:

By all rights, another President from Texas should have had the honor of conferring this medal. It was in the second year of Lyndon Johnson’s Presidency that Army Captain Ed Freeman did something that the men of the 7th Cavalry have never forgotten. Years pass, even decades, but the memory of what happened on November 14, 1965, has always stayed with them.

For his actions that day, Captain Freeman was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. But the men who were there, including the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Bruce Crandall, felt a still higher honor was called for. Through the unremitting efforts of Lieutenant Colonel Crandall and many others, and the persuasive weight from Senator John McCain, the story now comes to its rightful conclusion.

That story began with the battalion surrounded by the enemy in one of Vietnam’s fiercest battles. The survivors remember the desperate fear of almost certain death. They remember gunfire that one witness described as the most intense he had ever seen. And they remember the sight of an unarmed helicopter coming to their aid.

The man at the controls flew through the gunfire not once, not 10 times, but at least 21 times. That single helicopter brought the water, ammunition, and supplies that saved many lives on the ground. And the same pilot flew more than 70 wounded soldiers to safety.

In a moment, we will hear the full citation, in all its heroic detail. General Eisenhower once observed that when you hear a Medal of Honor citation, you practically assume that the man in question didn’t make it out alive. In fact, about one in six never did. And the other five, men just like you all here, probably didn’t expect to.

Citations are also written in the most simple of language, needing no embellishment or techniques of rhetoric. They record places and names and events that describe themselves. The medal itself bears only one word, and needs only one: Valor.

As a boy of 13, Ed Freeman saw thousands of men on maneuvers pass by his home in Mississippi. He decided then and there that he would be a soldier. A lifetime later, the Congress has now decided that he’s even more than a soldier, because he did more than his duty. He served his country and his comrades to the fullest, rising above and beyond anything the Army or the Nation could have ever asked.

It’s been some years now since he left the service and was last saluted. But from this day, wherever he goes, by military tradition, Ed Freeman will merit a salute from any enlisted personnel or officer of rank.

Freeman left the world in August 2008, but his valor has a permanent place in the annals of time and continues to be exemplified by all those who put on the uniform.

Pacific President, Ctd.

December 1, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Asia, China, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | Leave a Comment 

Former New York Times military correspondent Richard Halloran posted an article over the weekend in which he asserts repeatedly that President Obama’s Asia policy — hinting at a carefully and competently molded  Obama Doctrine — is poised to weld cross-Pacific relations and reinvigorate U.S. power in the region after decades of decline.

Halloran — naively and very absurdly — cites RN’s Guam Doctrine (Nixon Doctrine) as the source of declinism:

In contrast, President Obama has reversed course in meetings in Asia with the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and nine other Southeast Asian nations, and with the leader of India in Washington this week. The president is scheduled to see Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia in the White House on Monday. With all, the president has reaffirmed America’s security commitments. In addition, he had a frosty visit with leaders of a potential adversary, China, in Beijing.

After the Nixon Doctrine had been decreed, the US withdrew in defeat from Vietnam, let the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization wither, and forsook Taiwan to recognize China. Okinawa was reverted to Japan with restrictions on US forces, New Zealand was booted from a treaty with the US and Australia in a dispute over nuclear arms, and US bases in the Philippines were abandoned after a volcanic eruption.

RN’s aims were just the opposite. He would re-affirm all security commitments, and provide allies with a nuclear deterrent should they get bullied by a major nuclear power. He would also help furnish economic and military assistance for nations willing to accept the responsibility for their own security, a strategy that is working in Iraq and would have proven successful in Vietnam, if not for Congress’s decision to cut off aid and leave the South vulnerable to a conventional invasion from the North.

Unfortunately for Halloran’s argument, RN was the one accused by his critics of prolonging the war in Indochina. Halloran is in fact right that RN would end the war, but peace in Asia was conducted on his terms, and would be artfully correlated with the rise of American prestige in the world that culminated during his historic trip to China in 1972.

RN was fully aware of the interminable misinterpretations of his speech in Guam (p.394-395):

The Nixon Doctrine announced on Guam was misinterpreted by some signaling a new policy that would lead to total American withdrawal from Asia and from other parts of the world as well. In one of our regular breakfast meetings after I returned from the Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield articulated this misunderstanding. I emphasized  to him, as I had to our friends in the Asian countries, that the Nixon Doctrine was not a formula for getting America out of Asia, but one that provided the only sound basis for America’s stating in and continuing to play a responsible role in helping the non-Communist nations and neutrals as well as our Asian allies to defend their independence.

RN’s Asia policy — most notably his diplomatic triumph in China — would establish strong bonds and allow America to further its interests in the region.

When diplomatic relations were formally restored in 1979, bilateral trade rose to $2.4 billion from zero in 1971. A three year Chinese-America trade relations agreement was also signed, each side granting one-another favored nation status. By the mid 1980’s, China was ready to engage the rest of the world.

It would also bring the Soviets back to the peace table and fasten the end of the Cold War, establishing the United States as the sole surviving superpower by the end of the Reagan administration.

In a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, President Obama said: “I intend to make clear that the United States is a Pacific nation.”

As he brought the Vietnam war to a close, RN would fulfill his legacy after proclaiming similar words:

the United States is a Pacific power and should remain so.

Setting The Record Straight

November 30, 2009 by Frank Gannon | Filed Under Cold War, History, International Affairs, News media, Nixon Administration, Presidents, Richard Nixon, U.S. History, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

Last month the International Republican Institute honored Henry Kissinger with its 2009 Freedom award in recognition of his contribution to the security and progress of the United States.  HAK was introduced by his old friend Senator John McCain, and his former associate and fellow Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger.

HAK was interviewed by historian Niall Ferguson, a Senior Research Fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, and currently the holder of professorial chairs at Harvard University and the Harvard Business School.

After the presentation of the Award, HAK sat down for a conversation with writer and historian Niall Ferguson.  As an opener, Professor Ferguson asked if there is any historical parallel between our experiences in Afghanistan today and Vietnam back in the day.  HAK’s reply was concise and memorable:

First of all, I have a perception of Vietnam which is not the majority media perception of Vietnam.

I think in essence we defeated ourselves.  Vietnam was a problem of the American soul and not of the American performance.

And until we accept this we are not going to learn the lessons of the period.

We entered a war with decent motives and attempted to pursue it by judgments that turned out to be not applicable to the situation because they were drawn from a European experience.

And when I say “we” I mean the Kennedy and Johnson administration.

President Nixon attempted to disengage us from that war. And, while he is accused today of having prolonged the war, the only decision he made that prolonged the war was his refusal of the communist demand that, at the beginning of the peacemaking process, we had to replace the Government of Vietnam with a communist-dominated government, and after which we would have to withdraw our troops under fire.

Those two conditions he refused, and if that is prolonging the war, we would do it again.

The whole program, as broadcast by C-SPAN, concluding with the Kissinger-Ferguson conversation, can be seen here.

HAK at the IRI dinner, chatting with Gen. Brent Scowcroft, his erstwhile assistant and subsequent successor as National Security Adviser.

Another Misinformed Vietnam Analogy

November 18, 2009 by Jonathan Movroydis | Filed Under Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, Vietnam | 2 Comments 

The Daily Mail’s Andrew Alexander is the latest:

When Vietnam was at its worst, President Nixon made the bogus claim that the Government in the South had reached the stage where it could fight the Viet Cong without outside support.

An undignified retreat then followed. Something like this can be expected for Afghanistan – just find an excuse to leave.

It was President Nixon’s goal to leave Vietnam in honor, not defeat. He said as much in his November 1969 speech, when he reached out to the “Silent Majority” for a peaceful end to the conflict. His strategy was neither irresponsible or undignified:

From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the peacemaker. Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.

But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.

Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace. The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war.

Was it really bogus as Alexander purports? According to Vietnam War veteran and historian Lewis Sorley, the situation on the ground started to improve as the strategy started to be rethought in the late Sixties. Similar to the surge operations in 2007 and 2008, American forces started to concentrate on pacification efforts on the provincial and rural levels.

Rather than continue search and destroy missions, progress was made through the strategy of “secure, build, and hold.” In other words the Nixon’s administration’s plan was not to simply waste time fighting an enemy that exploited hostilities and blended into the population, but rather engage and protect the population, isolate them from insurgents, and help the Vietnamese Army attain the competence to defend from the North.

During this time, the Vietnamese government also gained greater legitimacy as an effective reformer. In 1972, President Thieu spearheaded an initiative to distribute 400,000 acres of land to farmers that lead to an increase in production and the re-opening of local markets.

The Republic was ready to stand on its own.

But in June of 1973, it was Congress — assisted by an amendment from Senators Church and Case — who decided to leave the South defenseless:

Sorley doesn’t just argue that ”clear and hold” beat the Viet Cong. He goes on to argue that the Vietnamization program in general was a success, and that by the time the last US troops left in 1973, the South Vietnamese Army was capable of defending the country. The villain, in this retelling of the war, is the US Congress, which cut off all funding for US military operations in late 1973-making it impossible for the US to provide the air support it had promised in case of an invasion by the North Vietnamese Army-and went on to cut aid to South Vietnam starting in 1975. If the US had just provided South Vietnam with a bit of military aid and air support, Sorley implies, we would have won the Vietnam War.

Next Page »