Our Covert Enemies
Aug 20th 2006 | 10:39 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Our Covert Enemies
Published August 21, 2006
Our Covert Enemies
"In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both
overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists
themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of
its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their
totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in
any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when
British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to
blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large
numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not
enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.
On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their
expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to
undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These
covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas
labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is
Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.
At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No
idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours
-- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged,"
especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development
and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed
their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich
white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around
the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as
morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly
from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that
all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation
by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who
dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the
good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that
some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders -- and are left ignorant
of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are
taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II -- and not
that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be
sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By
the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and
accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert
enemies have their effect.
Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery
was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in
history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish
it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was
not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France.
It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book
"Bury the Chains," by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain,
followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade
was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the
U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.
Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in
any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That
assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the
Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert
enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and
consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of
virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood
that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today,
many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to
fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until
the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions
of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win.
But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose."
Our Covert Enemies
"In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both
overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists
themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of
its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their
totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in
any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when
British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to
blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large
numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not
enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.
On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their
expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to
undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These
covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas
labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is
Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.
At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No
idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours
-- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged,"
especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development
and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed
their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich
white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around
the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as
morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly
from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that
all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation
by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who
dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the
good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that
some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders -- and are left ignorant
of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are
taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II -- and not
that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be
sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By
the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and
accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert
enemies have their effect.
Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery
was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in
history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish
it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was
not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France.
It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book
"Bury the Chains," by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain,
followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade
was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the
U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.
Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in
any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That
assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the
Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert
enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and
consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of
virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood
that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today,
many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to
fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until
the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions
of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win.
But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose."
Aug 20th 2006 | 10:43 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> Published August 21, 2006
> Our Covert Enemies
> "In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism... "
Oops, brainwashed.
> , we face enemies both
> overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists
> themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of
> its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their
> totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in
> any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when
> British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to
> blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
> Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large
> numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not
> enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.
> On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their
> expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to
> undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These
> covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas
> labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is
> Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.
> At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No
> idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours
> -- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged,"
> especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development
> and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed
> their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich
> white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around
> the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as
> morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly
> from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that
> all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
> These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation
> by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who
> dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the
> good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that
> some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders -- and are left ignorant
> of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are
> taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II -- and not
> that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be
> sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By
> the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and
> accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert
> enemies have their effect.
> Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery
> was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in
> history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish
> it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was
> not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France.
> It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book
> "Bury the Chains," by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain,
> followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade
> was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the
> U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.
> Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in
> any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That
> assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the
> Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert
> enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and
> consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of
> virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood
> that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today,
> many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to
> fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
> We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until
> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions
> of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win.
> But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose."
--
NO to touch-screen voting machines!
> Published August 21, 2006
> Our Covert Enemies
> "In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism... "
Oops, brainwashed.
> , we face enemies both
> overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists
> themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of
> its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their
> totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in
> any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when
> British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to
> blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
> Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large
> numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not
> enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.
> On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their
> expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to
> undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These
> covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas
> labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is
> Professor Samuel Huntington's) transnationalism.
> At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No
> idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours
> -- who's to say who is right? No ideas should be "privileged,"
> especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development
> and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed
> their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich
> white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around
> the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as
> morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly
> from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that
> all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
> These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation
> by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who
> dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the
> good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized. We are taught that
> some of the Founding Fathers were slaveholders -- and are left ignorant
> of their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights. We are
> taught that Japanese-Americans were interned in World War II -- and not
> that American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. To be
> sure, the great mass of Americans tend to resist these teachings. By
> the millions they buy and read serious biographies of the Founders and
> accounts of the Greatest Generation. But the teachings of our covert
> enemies have their effect.
> Of course, this distorts history. We are taught that American slavery
> was the most evil institution in human history. But every society in
> history has had slavery. Only one society set out to and did abolish
> it. The movement to abolish first the slave trade and then slavery was
> not started by the reason-guided philosophies of 18th century France.
> It was started, as Adam Hochschild documents in his admirable book
> "Bury the Chains," by Quakers and Evangelical Christians in Britain,
> followed in time by similar men and women in America. The slave trade
> was ended not by Africans, but by the Royal Navy, with aid from the
> U.S. Navy even before the Civil War.
> Nevertheless, the default assumption of our covert enemies is that in
> any conflict between the West and the Rest, the West is wrong. That
> assumption can be rebutted by overwhelming fact: Few argued for the
> Taliban after Sept. 11. But in our continuing struggles, our covert
> enemies portray our work in Iraq through the lens of Abu Ghraib and
> consider Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah as the oppression of
> virtuous victims by evil men. In World War II, our elites understood
> that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today,
> many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to
> fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.
> We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until
> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions
> of millions. Our covert enemies don't want the Islamo-fascists to win.
> But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose."
--
NO to touch-screen voting machines!
Aug 20th 2006 | 10:54 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> Published August 21, 2006
> We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until
> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions
> of millions.
Well, maybe. But then didn't Tricky Dicky get elected on a 'bring our
boys home' ticket, and weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
Vietnam on the orders of his GOP successor Gerald Ford? Now the neocon
script is that Vietnam was a US victory!
> Published August 21, 2006
> We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until
> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions
> of millions.
Well, maybe. But then didn't Tricky Dicky get elected on a 'bring our
boys home' ticket, and weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
Vietnam on the orders of his GOP successor Gerald Ford? Now the neocon
script is that Vietnam was a US victory!
Aug 20th 2006 | 11:20 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Published August 21, 2006
Where? Is it not immoral to plagiarise?
> At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism.
Moral absolutism is equally contentious.
**** off, Peej.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>Published August 21, 2006
Where? Is it not immoral to plagiarise?
> At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism.
Moral absolutism is equally contentious.
**** off, Peej.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Aug 20th 2006 | 11:21 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
<<We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few
until
the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
and mainstream media to the point that they are the default
assumptions
of millions.
PJ>>
<Well, maybe.... weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
Vietnam on the orders of .. GOP... Gerald Ford?
joeh>
Ford had no choice. The die had been cast by the "useful idiots" in the
Congress controlled by the Left and their Church Ammendment.
Vietnam War chronology:
January 23, 1973
United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign Paris Peace
Accords, ending American combat role in war. U.S. military draft ends.
A cease-fire goes into effect 5 days later.
March 1973
Last U.S. combat troops leave Vietnam.
April 1973 - President Nixon and President Thieu meet at San Clemente,
California. Nixon renews his earlier pledge to respond militarily if
North Vietnam violates the peace agreement.
June 19, 1973 - The U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment
which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia,
effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House
and 64-26 in the Senate.
The Amendment paves the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another
invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing.
August 9, 1974 - Richard M. Nixon resigns the presidency as result of
Watergate. Gerald R. Ford is sworn in as the 38th U.S. President,
becoming the 6th President coping with Vietnam.
December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violates the Paris peace treaty and
tests President Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in
South Vietnam. President Ford responds with diplomatic protests but no
military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S.
military activity in Southeast Asia.
January 8, 1975 - NVA general staff plan for the invasion of South
Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam's Politburo. By
now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in
the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory.
January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense
James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier
promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu of "severe retaliatory
action" in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
January 21, 1975 - During a press conference, President Ford states the
U.S. cannot re-enter the war in compliance with the Congressional ban.
March, 1975 - North Vietnamese forces deploy 100,000 soldiers into
major cities in South Vietnam.
April 29, 1975 - South Vietnamese president Thieu resigns; Saigon
falls. U. S. Navy evacuates U.S. personnel and South Vietnamese
refugees.
April 30, 1975 - The mass evacuation of Americans ends; South
Vietnamese leader General Duong Van Minh announces the surrender of the
nation.
until
the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
and mainstream media to the point that they are the default
assumptions
of millions.
PJ>>
<Well, maybe.... weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
Vietnam on the orders of .. GOP... Gerald Ford?
joeh>
Ford had no choice. The die had been cast by the "useful idiots" in the
Congress controlled by the Left and their Church Ammendment.
Vietnam War chronology:
January 23, 1973
United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign Paris Peace
Accords, ending American combat role in war. U.S. military draft ends.
A cease-fire goes into effect 5 days later.
March 1973
Last U.S. combat troops leave Vietnam.
April 1973 - President Nixon and President Thieu meet at San Clemente,
California. Nixon renews his earlier pledge to respond militarily if
North Vietnam violates the peace agreement.
June 19, 1973 - The U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment
which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia,
effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House
and 64-26 in the Senate.
The Amendment paves the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another
invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing.
August 9, 1974 - Richard M. Nixon resigns the presidency as result of
Watergate. Gerald R. Ford is sworn in as the 38th U.S. President,
becoming the 6th President coping with Vietnam.
December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violates the Paris peace treaty and
tests President Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in
South Vietnam. President Ford responds with diplomatic protests but no
military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S.
military activity in Southeast Asia.
January 8, 1975 - NVA general staff plan for the invasion of South
Vietnam by 20 divisions is approved by North Vietnam's Politburo. By
now, the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese Army is the fifth largest in
the world. It anticipates a two year struggle for victory.
January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense
James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier
promise to South Vietnam's President Thieu of "severe retaliatory
action" in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
January 21, 1975 - During a press conference, President Ford states the
U.S. cannot re-enter the war in compliance with the Congressional ban.
March, 1975 - North Vietnamese forces deploy 100,000 soldiers into
major cities in South Vietnam.
April 29, 1975 - South Vietnamese president Thieu resigns; Saigon
falls. U. S. Navy evacuates U.S. personnel and South Vietnamese
refugees.
April 30, 1975 - The mass evacuation of Americans ends; South
Vietnamese leader General Duong Van Minh announces the surrender of the
nation.
Aug 20th 2006 | 11:31 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
> <<We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few
> until
> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default
> assumptions
> of millions.
> PJ>>
> <Well, maybe.... weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
> Vietnam on the orders of .. GOP... Gerald Ford?
> joeh>
> Ford had no choice. The die had been cast by the "useful idiots" in the
> Congress controlled by the Left and their Church Ammendment.
> Vietnam War chronology:
> January 23, 1973
> United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign Paris Peace
> Accords, ending American combat role in war. U.S. military draft ends.
> A cease-fire goes into effect 5 days later.
[..]
> April 30, 1975 - The mass evacuation of Americans ends; South
> Vietnamese leader General Duong Van Minh announces the surrender of the
> nation.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Would you say with the benefit of
hindsight that the Vietnam War was winnable by the US, without an
unsustainable death toll?
> <<We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few
> until
> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default
> assumptions
> of millions.
> PJ>>
> <Well, maybe.... weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
> Vietnam on the orders of .. GOP... Gerald Ford?
> joeh>
> Ford had no choice. The die had been cast by the "useful idiots" in the
> Congress controlled by the Left and their Church Ammendment.
> Vietnam War chronology:
> January 23, 1973
> United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign Paris Peace
> Accords, ending American combat role in war. U.S. military draft ends.
> A cease-fire goes into effect 5 days later.
[..]
> April 30, 1975 - The mass evacuation of Americans ends; South
> Vietnamese leader General Duong Van Minh announces the surrender of the
> nation.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Would you say with the benefit of
hindsight that the Vietnam War was winnable by the US, without an
unsustainable death toll?
Aug 20th 2006 | 11:37 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>> <<We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few
>> until
>> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
>> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
>> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
>> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
>> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default
>> assumptions
>> of millions.
>> PJ>>
>> <Well, maybe.... weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
>> Vietnam on the orders of .. GOP... Gerald Ford?
>> joeh>
>> Ford had no choice. The die had been cast by the "useful idiots" in the
>> Congress controlled by the Left and their Church Ammendment.
>> Vietnam War chronology:
>> January 23, 1973
>> United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign Paris Peace
>> Accords, ending American combat role in war. U.S. military draft ends.
>> A cease-fire goes into effect 5 days later.
> [..]
>> April 30, 1975 - The mass evacuation of Americans ends; South
>> Vietnamese leader General Duong Van Minh announces the surrender of the
>> nation.
> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Would you say with the benefit of
> hindsight that the Vietnam War was winnable by the US, without an
> unsustainable death toll?
And what, actually, would have signified a 'win'? BTW if you expect
peejay to answer questions such as these you have to be deluded. Peejay
has very few opinions of his own.
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> PJ O'Donovan wrote:
>> <<We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few
>> until
>> the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the
>> military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which
>> they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes.
>> They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools
>> and mainstream media to the point that they are the default
>> assumptions
>> of millions.
>> PJ>>
>> <Well, maybe.... weren't the last US troops airlifted out of
>> Vietnam on the orders of .. GOP... Gerald Ford?
>> joeh>
>> Ford had no choice. The die had been cast by the "useful idiots" in the
>> Congress controlled by the Left and their Church Ammendment.
>> Vietnam War chronology:
>> January 23, 1973
>> United States, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign Paris Peace
>> Accords, ending American combat role in war. U.S. military draft ends.
>> A cease-fire goes into effect 5 days later.
> [..]
>> April 30, 1975 - The mass evacuation of Americans ends; South
>> Vietnamese leader General Duong Van Minh announces the surrender of the
>> nation.
> Ok, thanks for the clarification. Would you say with the benefit of
> hindsight that the Vietnam War was winnable by the US, without an
> unsustainable death toll?
And what, actually, would have signified a 'win'? BTW if you expect
peejay to answer questions such as these you have to be deluded. Peejay
has very few opinions of his own.
Aug 21st 2006 | 12:01 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
<Would you say with the benefit of
hindsight that the Vietnam War was winnable by the US, without an
unsustainable death toll?
joseph.hutcheon>
Two different questions.
Since I have a life other than Usenet which does not allow unlimited
time to engage in lengthy debates on Usenet, I suggest a source that
you may find enlightening in which the author addresses your two
specific questions.
Michael Lind: Vietnam: The Necessary War, pg 24-25
"While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
and anti aircraft guns..."
hindsight that the Vietnam War was winnable by the US, without an
unsustainable death toll?
joseph.hutcheon>
Two different questions.
Since I have a life other than Usenet which does not allow unlimited
time to engage in lengthy debates on Usenet, I suggest a source that
you may find enlightening in which the author addresses your two
specific questions.
Michael Lind: Vietnam: The Necessary War, pg 24-25
"While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
and anti aircraft guns..."
Aug 21st 2006 | 1:00 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Since I have a life other than Usenet which does not allow unlimited
>time to engage in lengthy debates on Usenet...
I don't believe you.
You don't have the capacity to deal with ideas.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
>Since I have a life other than Usenet which does not allow unlimited
>time to engage in lengthy debates on Usenet...
I don't believe you.
You don't have the capacity to deal with ideas.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/
Aug 21st 2006 | 5:38 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe,talk.politics.misc,uk.po litics.mi
> sc,aus.politics
> Date: 21 Aug 2006 05:01:17 -0700
> Subject: Re: Our Covert Enemies
>
> "While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
> the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
> Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
> with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
> and anti aircraft guns..."
While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest the
usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern or
not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is not
ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
point.
Donna Evleth
>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe,talk.politics.misc,uk.po litics.mi
> sc,aus.politics
> Date: 21 Aug 2006 05:01:17 -0700
> Subject: Re: Our Covert Enemies
>
> "While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
> the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
> Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
> with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
> and anti aircraft guns..."
While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest the
usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern or
not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is not
ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
point.
Donna Evleth
>
Aug 21st 2006 | 6:10 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
here comes the first lady eagerly waiting for an answer by her laquais
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C10FBC4B.37240%[email protected]...
>> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe,talk.politics.misc,uk.po litics.mi
>> sc,aus.politics
>> Date: 21 Aug 2006 05:01:17 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Our Covert Enemies
>> "While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
>> the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
>> Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
>> with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
>> and anti aircraft guns..."
> While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest the
> usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern or
> not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is not
> ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
> point.
> Donna Evleth
>
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C10FBC4B.37240%[email protected]...
>> From: "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups:
>> alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe,talk.politics.misc,uk.po litics.mi
>> sc,aus.politics
>> Date: 21 Aug 2006 05:01:17 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Our Covert Enemies
>> "While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
>> the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
>> Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
>> with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
>> and anti aircraft guns..."
> While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest the
> usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern or
> not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is not
> ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
> point.
> Donna Evleth
>
Aug 21st 2006 | 8:55 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:38:51 +0200, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest the
>usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern or
>not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is not
>ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
>point.
There was film of one breaking through the gates of the presidential
palace.
--
Martin
wrote:
>While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest the
>usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern or
>not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is not
>ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
>point.
There was film of one breaking through the gates of the presidential
palace.
--
Martin
Aug 21st 2006 | 9:00 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 03:39:52 -0700, PJ O'Donovan wrote :
> Published August 21, 2006
>
> Our Covert Enemies
This posting is an exhaustive pasting of an editorial written by Michael Barone
without any mention of the real author's name. See
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/C...4-a1fcd21c1cf7
Two years ago Barone also wrote another article titled "No quagmire, no Tet,
no Vietnam". A great insight.
What relation with travels in Europe ?
--
Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do
it himself. -- A.H. Weiler
> Published August 21, 2006
>
> Our Covert Enemies
This posting is an exhaustive pasting of an editorial written by Michael Barone
without any mention of the real author's name. See
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/C...4-a1fcd21c1cf7
Two years ago Barone also wrote another article titled "No quagmire, no Tet,
no Vietnam". A great insight.
What relation with travels in Europe ?
--
Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do
it himself. -- A.H. Weiler
Aug 21st 2006 | 11:10 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
<<While the Democratic majority in the US Congress refused to provide
the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
and anti aircraft guns..."
PeeJay>>
<While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest
the
usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern
or
not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is
not
ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
point.
Donna Evleth>
Donna, hasn't your time finally come when an aged 70's something year
old former California cuckoo flower child/ hippie type like you
finally faces reality and abandons your Vietnam era myths to face
reality surrounding that era?
Martin Walker: The Cold War pg 114
"In the 1960s and 1970s anti Vietnam war critics claimed that the CIA,
which estimated that 12 to 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of
the Soviet Union was devoted to its military, exagerated the scale of
the Soviet buildup. After the Cold War it was learned that the CIA had
grossly UNDERESTIMATED Soviet military spending which was as high as 25
percent of Soviet GDP during that time.."
"The People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) was founded in August 1945, with
most of its equipment being obtained from the locally defeated Japanese
forces....
In 1971, in the Boloven Plateaux in southern Laos, the PAVN deployed
the 3rd Independent Tank Company, which was also equipped with PT-76s.
The unit supported the operations around the city of Attopeu. The
armored units in Laos were recalled into the area of Tchepone to
counter Operation "Lam Son 719", the ARVN offensive to severe the Ho
Chi Minh Trail. The 202nd Armored Regiment also reinforced the PAVN 70B
Army Corps with two additional tank battalions equipped with T-54
tanks. On 19 February 1971, the North Vietnamese armored assault
against the LZ 31 was repulsed with heavy losses. The ARVN M-41s proved
to be superior in tank-versus-tank fighting. A week later, after
several assaults, three T-54s finally gained the summit of the
position, forcing the defenders to withdraw.
The PAVN tanks now attacked the remaining ARVN positions around Aloui
and engaged in several other battles with the South Vietnamese 1st
Armored Brigade. PAVN T-54s and PT-76s took two South Vietnamese Marine
positions despite the fact they were atop hills of 550 meters (610
yards) and 543 meters (593 yards) in height, respectively. In fact,
during this campaign the North Vietnamese armor succeeded in operating
in rugged and mountainous terrain, while the ARVN tanks, which were
forced to retreat along the narrow Route 9, were routed. At the
completion of the operation, the ARVN claimed 30 PAVN tanks destroyed
and the loss of only 6 M-113s. Air strikes claimed another 60 tanks.
In 1971, the PAVN reorganized and expanded its armored forces. A new
regiment was set up in November - the 201st Armored Regiment. It was
followed by the 203rd Armored Regiment with the 171st, 198th and 297th
Armored Battalions. The old 202nd Armored Regiment was also reorganized
along with the 4th, 177th and 397th Armored Battalions.
Each armored regiment was organized with three battalions, usually two
tank battalions and an APC battalion. The armored regiment rarely used
standardized equipment. It was not unusual to have in the same regiment
one battalion equipped with T-54 tanks, another with PT-76s and a third
with BTR-50 APCS. Each tank battalion had a strength of 38 vehicles;
each APC battalion consisted of between 30 to 35 vehicles.
Until 1975 the armored battalion usually operated independently. Each
tank battalion had three companies, usually equipped with the same
equipment. However, there were exceptions. For example, the 195th Tank
Battalion had two companies equipped with Type 59 tanks and one company
with T-34-85s. Another example was the 2nd Armored Battalion, which had
one company of Type 59 tanks and two companies of K-63 APCS. In fact,
the PAVN armored formations exhibited great flexibility in terms of
organization and equipment. The strength of a specific unit was then
tailored to a specific task or tactical situation, and even to the
availability of vehicles. This situation, nevertheless, caused more
logistical problems.
K-63
The Soviets and Chinese delivered additional equipment to the PAVN in
1970 and 1971, including new T-54B, PT-76, Type 59 and Type 63 tanks.
China furnished most of the APCs in service in the form of rugged and
reliable K-63. By January 1972, the PAVN began to deploy its armored
units in preparation of the Nguyen Hue Offensive. The 171st Tank
Battalion from the 203rd Armored Regiment was sent down the Ho Chi Minh
Trail to a location east of Tay Ninh, near the Cambodian border. The 38
heavily camouflaged T-54Bs of the unit drove themselves over 900
kilometers (560 miles) in two months. It was thus far the longest
deployment of PAVN armor. En route, the battalion witnessed thirty air
strikes, but none of its tanks were hit.
The main thrust of the PAVN armor occurred across the DMZ on 30 March
1972, when the 201st and 202nd Armored Regiments supported the attack
of five infantry divisions against the ARVN Military Region 1 in what
was to become known as the Nguyen Hue Campaign or, Easter Offensive.
The two regiments were equipped with Type 59, Type 63 and T-54 tanks
and K-63 APCS. The two units were temporarily halted by the ARVN I
Armored Brigade at Dong Ha, but they finally pressed on and reached the
South Vietnamese defensive lines north of Hue. In September, an ARVN
counterattack pushed the PAVN back to Dong Ha. Thanks to effective air
strikes and the ARVN tankers, who were better trained in long-range
shooting, the two PAVN regiments suffered heavy losses.
Type 63
In the Central Highlands, the ARVN forces deployed around Dak To and
Tan Canh were routed by the 203rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped
with T-54, T-34-85 and PT-76 tanks. Another assault against Ben Het on
9 May failed when three PT-76s were destroyed by TOW missiles launched
from a US Army trial gunship helicopter unit. On 13 May, without
artillery preparation, two PAVN regimental task forces, supported by
tanks, attacked Kontum from Route 14. Two other armored assaults took
place in the northeastern and southern part of the town. The ARVN
infantry fought tenaciously, destroying a dozen tanks with M-72 LAW
rocket launchers. Two other armored assaults, which took place on 26
and 27 May, succeeded in taking the northern part of town. Continuously
attacked by TOW-armed helicopters and fighter bombers, the PAVN were
pushed back on 31 May. By mid-June, when the siege of Kontum was
relieved, the PAVN had lost around 80 tanks and suffered 4,000
casualties.
The offensive against An Loc, near Saigon, was supported by the already
deployed 171st Tank Battalion and the 20th and 21st Independent Tank
Battalions, which were equipped with T-54s. The town was encircled and
Route 13, which led to Saigon, was severed by the 20th Independent Tank
Battalion, which had crossed the Saigon River undetected on a pontoon
bridge. On 13 April, the 20th and 21st Independent Tank Battalions
attacked An Loc in support of the 9th Infantry Division, but the
coordination between artillery, tanks and infantry was poor. The ARVN
soldiers held their ground with LAW anti-tank rockets. An entire column
of six T-54Bs that had reached the main avenue of the town was
completely wiped out. Another attack force, which was caught in a
pre-planned B-52 strike area, lost an entire platoon of tanks.
T-54B
On 15 April, the 171st Tank Battalion joined the second offensive
against An Loc. After losing a further dozen T-54s, the PAVN pulled
back and besieged the city. An independent armored company was then set
up with captured ARVN M-41 tanks and M-113 APCS. The remaining battered
armored formations were regrouped within the 26th Armored Regiment,
with two depleted tank battalions and one APC company. This provisional
armored regiment was disbanded in 1973.
On 9 May 1972, the PAVN tried one more time to take An Loc, launching
an assault that was supported by 40 tanks. B52 strikes, fighter bombers
and Cobra helicopters hit the attackers. On 12 May, the T-54s reached
the northern and eastern parts of the city and commenced direct tank
fire from entrenched positions. On 12 June, the last PAVN units were
driven from An Loc after losing nearly all the 40 tanks committed.
The year 1972 ended with new fighting in Laos. The 195th Independent
Tank Company, which was brought up to battalion status, received
additional Type 59, T-34-85s and K-63s. The unit supported the attack
against Sam Thong and the Hmong Headquarters at Long Tien base. The 3rd
Independent Tank Company in the Boloven Plateaux was expanded, becoming
the 6th Independent Tank Battalion. The unit, which was equipped with
PT-76s and T-34-85s, operated around Pakse until the ceasefire in 1973.
Most of the PAVN armor losses of 1972 were attributed to air strikes.
The North Vietnamese had tried to protect their units by deploying a
considerable number of 37mm and 57mm AA guns and SA-7 (A-12) missiles.
Since 1969, some AA artillery units were also equipped with BTR-40As
armed with twin 14.5mm machine guns. These armored vehicles operated
within independent mobile AA artillery companies. In 1972 they were
also used in scouting missions for the benefit of tank units. They were
supported by a few ZSU-57-2 air defence vehicles and some locally
modified T-34 tanks armed with twin 37mm AA guns mounted on an open
turret. The PAVN also modified some BTR-50PK APCs by installing a
platform on the rear deck mounting a 14.5mm machine gun. In December
1972, the 237th AA Artillery Regiment was re-equipped with the
sophisticated ZSU-23-4 Shilka. During the 1975 campaign, only a battery
of four Shilkas was effectively engaged in combat. The remaining
vehicles of the regiment arrived too late, after the fall of Saigon.
ZSU-57-2 ZSU-23-4
During the 1972 offensive, the PAVN lost around 400 tanks and APCS. The
North Vietnamese then decided to reconstitute and expand their armored
forces. The most obvious shortages were assessed, and the infantry
divisions were trained to operate more closely in coordination with the
artillery, air defense units, and armored forces. The PAVN identified
two specific Blitzkrieg-style tactics for the use of armored forces:
the "sudden assault" and the "deep advance". The notion of sudden
assault implied crushing enemy resistance by a quick attack using the
shock effect of tanks to throw the enemy off balance. A successful
sudden assault would open the way for an effective deep advance, or
pursuit.
In 1973, the Soviets delivered additional T-55, T-54, T-34-85 and PT-76
tanks and a small number of BTR-60PB APCS. US sources indicated that a
small number of ISU-122 self-propelled assault guns was also delivered.
If that proved correct, it was the heaviest armored vehicle that
entered service with the PAVN. Little is known about the operational
record and combat use of the SU-100 tank destroyer that was also
received at the same time in order to supplement the surviving SU-76s.
China also delivered more Type 59 and Type 63 tanks and, more
importantly, additional K-63 APCS. In fact, the K-63 became the main
PAVN APC used in the 1975 offensive.
BTR-60PB
In 1974, the PAVN could deploy nine armored regiments: the 201st,
203rd, 204th, 206th, 207th, 215th, 273rd, 408th and 574th Armored
Regiments. These units regrouped some 29 armored battalions. US
intelligence estimated that the North Vietnamese were then using some
600 tanks and 400 APCS.
Learning the costly lessons of the Nguyen Hue Offensive, the PAVN
believed that future combat would be fought at the combined army corps
formation level. Each of these corps would have between three and four
infantry divisions, one AA artillery division, one artillery brigade
and one armored brigade. The 202nd Armored Regiment was the first unit
to be brought to brigade strength, with five armored battalions, and
was attached to the 1st Army Corps in October 1973. The 2nd Army Corps
was set up on 15 May 1974, with the attached 203rd Armored Brigade. The
remaining armored units were put directly under the command of the PAVN
Armored Forces Directorate. In December 1974, two other unidentified
armored brigades were created and placed under the control of the
Strategic General Reserve.
The 1975 offensive began with an assault against Ban Me Thout in the
Central Highlands. Leading the attack was the 273rd Armored Regiment
with a battalion of T-54s, a battalion of T-34-85s and another of
K-63s. The quick collapse of ARVN Military Region 2 took Hanoi by
surprise. The South Vietnamese decision to abandon Hue further to the
north created a panic that was fully exploited. The units of the Tri
Thien Front and the two divisions deployed near the Laotian border went
on the offensive, quickly followed by the 2nd Army Corps. The attached
203rd Armored Brigade received orders to move toward Hue, but the unit
learned that the ancient capital was already taken when its vehicles
were still crossing the DMZ. In fact, the brigade played only a minor
role in the fall of ARVN Military Region 1. On 23 March 1975, the 574th
Armored Regiment, attached to the Tri Thien Front, drove into Da Nang
and crushed the last ARVN resistance in the area.
After the fall of Da Nang, it was decided to take Saigon before the
first rains of the wet season. The 2nd Army Corps moved south, along
the coastal highway, with the T-54s and Type 63s from the 574th Armored
Regiment in the lead. In the Central Highlands, the units which had
taken Ban Me Thout and Pleiku were now grouped within the newly created
3rd Army Corps. They rolled down to the coastal plains and joined
forces with the 2nd Army Corps. The PAVN units also pressed into
service captured or abandoned ARVN armored vehicles. The tanks were
used only on a small scale, notably the M-41s, while the M-113 APCs
were used extensively to reinforce the small amount of K-63s,
BTR-50PKs, BTR-152s and BTR-60PBs.
By advancing in tight, combined arms groups, with infantry in APCS,
trucks and captured vehicles, the tank units maintained constant
pressure on the withdrawing enemy. When resistance was encountered, the
leading units deployed for a sudden assault while following units
bypassed the enemy location to continue the pursuit. By these means,
the PAVN armored units were able to cover an average of 50 kilometers
(31 miles) a day. Within two months of the beginning of the Ho Chi Minh
Campaign, North Vietnamese tanks were in striking distance of Saigon.
By mid-April 1975, the 1st Army Corps, with the attached 202nd Armored
Brigade, was also deployed around Saigon. It was followed by the newly
created 4th Army Corps, which had three armored battalions attached.
Finally, from west and southwest of Saigon was created the 232nd
Tactical Force, which grouped three infantry divisions, three
battalions and one company of armored vehicles.
During the final assault against Saigon, most of the PAVN armored units
were still on the roads, speeding toward the South Vietnamese capital
and crushing on the way the last pockets of ARVN resistance. Some
regiments saw their organic battalions dispersed on different fronts.
For example, the 206th Armored Regiment had relinquished its 1B
Battalion, which was equipped with a company of Type 59 tanks and two
companies of K-63s, to the 202nd Armored Brigade. The remaining 195th
and 575th Armored Battalions, equipped with a mix of T-54, Type 59,
T-34-85, Type 63 and K-63, were engaged independently to support
clearing operations around Xuan Loc and Bien Hoa. The day that Saigon
was taken, the PAVN engaged 400 tanks and APCs against the last
defensive positions of the city. On 30 April, T-54 number '843' from
the 203rd Armored Brigade crashed through the gates of the South
Vietnamese presidential palace. South Vietnam had fallen."
the levels of aid requested by the Nixon and Ford administrations, the
Soviet Union increased its aid to North Vietnam supplyinmg its proxies
with superior weapons, including modern battle tanks
and anti aircraft guns..."
PeeJay>>
<While I would concede the point on anti aircraft guns, I would contest
the
usefulness of tanks in the Vietnamese terrain, whether they were modern
or
not. We are talking about jungles, rivers, mud, urban areas. This is
not
ideal tank country. Please give me some further clarification on this
point.
Donna Evleth>
Donna, hasn't your time finally come when an aged 70's something year
old former California cuckoo flower child/ hippie type like you
finally faces reality and abandons your Vietnam era myths to face
reality surrounding that era?
Martin Walker: The Cold War pg 114
"In the 1960s and 1970s anti Vietnam war critics claimed that the CIA,
which estimated that 12 to 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of
the Soviet Union was devoted to its military, exagerated the scale of
the Soviet buildup. After the Cold War it was learned that the CIA had
grossly UNDERESTIMATED Soviet military spending which was as high as 25
percent of Soviet GDP during that time.."
"The People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) was founded in August 1945, with
most of its equipment being obtained from the locally defeated Japanese
forces....
In 1971, in the Boloven Plateaux in southern Laos, the PAVN deployed
the 3rd Independent Tank Company, which was also equipped with PT-76s.
The unit supported the operations around the city of Attopeu. The
armored units in Laos were recalled into the area of Tchepone to
counter Operation "Lam Son 719", the ARVN offensive to severe the Ho
Chi Minh Trail. The 202nd Armored Regiment also reinforced the PAVN 70B
Army Corps with two additional tank battalions equipped with T-54
tanks. On 19 February 1971, the North Vietnamese armored assault
against the LZ 31 was repulsed with heavy losses. The ARVN M-41s proved
to be superior in tank-versus-tank fighting. A week later, after
several assaults, three T-54s finally gained the summit of the
position, forcing the defenders to withdraw.
The PAVN tanks now attacked the remaining ARVN positions around Aloui
and engaged in several other battles with the South Vietnamese 1st
Armored Brigade. PAVN T-54s and PT-76s took two South Vietnamese Marine
positions despite the fact they were atop hills of 550 meters (610
yards) and 543 meters (593 yards) in height, respectively. In fact,
during this campaign the North Vietnamese armor succeeded in operating
in rugged and mountainous terrain, while the ARVN tanks, which were
forced to retreat along the narrow Route 9, were routed. At the
completion of the operation, the ARVN claimed 30 PAVN tanks destroyed
and the loss of only 6 M-113s. Air strikes claimed another 60 tanks.
In 1971, the PAVN reorganized and expanded its armored forces. A new
regiment was set up in November - the 201st Armored Regiment. It was
followed by the 203rd Armored Regiment with the 171st, 198th and 297th
Armored Battalions. The old 202nd Armored Regiment was also reorganized
along with the 4th, 177th and 397th Armored Battalions.
Each armored regiment was organized with three battalions, usually two
tank battalions and an APC battalion. The armored regiment rarely used
standardized equipment. It was not unusual to have in the same regiment
one battalion equipped with T-54 tanks, another with PT-76s and a third
with BTR-50 APCS. Each tank battalion had a strength of 38 vehicles;
each APC battalion consisted of between 30 to 35 vehicles.
Until 1975 the armored battalion usually operated independently. Each
tank battalion had three companies, usually equipped with the same
equipment. However, there were exceptions. For example, the 195th Tank
Battalion had two companies equipped with Type 59 tanks and one company
with T-34-85s. Another example was the 2nd Armored Battalion, which had
one company of Type 59 tanks and two companies of K-63 APCS. In fact,
the PAVN armored formations exhibited great flexibility in terms of
organization and equipment. The strength of a specific unit was then
tailored to a specific task or tactical situation, and even to the
availability of vehicles. This situation, nevertheless, caused more
logistical problems.
K-63
The Soviets and Chinese delivered additional equipment to the PAVN in
1970 and 1971, including new T-54B, PT-76, Type 59 and Type 63 tanks.
China furnished most of the APCs in service in the form of rugged and
reliable K-63. By January 1972, the PAVN began to deploy its armored
units in preparation of the Nguyen Hue Offensive. The 171st Tank
Battalion from the 203rd Armored Regiment was sent down the Ho Chi Minh
Trail to a location east of Tay Ninh, near the Cambodian border. The 38
heavily camouflaged T-54Bs of the unit drove themselves over 900
kilometers (560 miles) in two months. It was thus far the longest
deployment of PAVN armor. En route, the battalion witnessed thirty air
strikes, but none of its tanks were hit.
The main thrust of the PAVN armor occurred across the DMZ on 30 March
1972, when the 201st and 202nd Armored Regiments supported the attack
of five infantry divisions against the ARVN Military Region 1 in what
was to become known as the Nguyen Hue Campaign or, Easter Offensive.
The two regiments were equipped with Type 59, Type 63 and T-54 tanks
and K-63 APCS. The two units were temporarily halted by the ARVN I
Armored Brigade at Dong Ha, but they finally pressed on and reached the
South Vietnamese defensive lines north of Hue. In September, an ARVN
counterattack pushed the PAVN back to Dong Ha. Thanks to effective air
strikes and the ARVN tankers, who were better trained in long-range
shooting, the two PAVN regiments suffered heavy losses.
Type 63
In the Central Highlands, the ARVN forces deployed around Dak To and
Tan Canh were routed by the 203rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped
with T-54, T-34-85 and PT-76 tanks. Another assault against Ben Het on
9 May failed when three PT-76s were destroyed by TOW missiles launched
from a US Army trial gunship helicopter unit. On 13 May, without
artillery preparation, two PAVN regimental task forces, supported by
tanks, attacked Kontum from Route 14. Two other armored assaults took
place in the northeastern and southern part of the town. The ARVN
infantry fought tenaciously, destroying a dozen tanks with M-72 LAW
rocket launchers. Two other armored assaults, which took place on 26
and 27 May, succeeded in taking the northern part of town. Continuously
attacked by TOW-armed helicopters and fighter bombers, the PAVN were
pushed back on 31 May. By mid-June, when the siege of Kontum was
relieved, the PAVN had lost around 80 tanks and suffered 4,000
casualties.
The offensive against An Loc, near Saigon, was supported by the already
deployed 171st Tank Battalion and the 20th and 21st Independent Tank
Battalions, which were equipped with T-54s. The town was encircled and
Route 13, which led to Saigon, was severed by the 20th Independent Tank
Battalion, which had crossed the Saigon River undetected on a pontoon
bridge. On 13 April, the 20th and 21st Independent Tank Battalions
attacked An Loc in support of the 9th Infantry Division, but the
coordination between artillery, tanks and infantry was poor. The ARVN
soldiers held their ground with LAW anti-tank rockets. An entire column
of six T-54Bs that had reached the main avenue of the town was
completely wiped out. Another attack force, which was caught in a
pre-planned B-52 strike area, lost an entire platoon of tanks.
T-54B
On 15 April, the 171st Tank Battalion joined the second offensive
against An Loc. After losing a further dozen T-54s, the PAVN pulled
back and besieged the city. An independent armored company was then set
up with captured ARVN M-41 tanks and M-113 APCS. The remaining battered
armored formations were regrouped within the 26th Armored Regiment,
with two depleted tank battalions and one APC company. This provisional
armored regiment was disbanded in 1973.
On 9 May 1972, the PAVN tried one more time to take An Loc, launching
an assault that was supported by 40 tanks. B52 strikes, fighter bombers
and Cobra helicopters hit the attackers. On 12 May, the T-54s reached
the northern and eastern parts of the city and commenced direct tank
fire from entrenched positions. On 12 June, the last PAVN units were
driven from An Loc after losing nearly all the 40 tanks committed.
The year 1972 ended with new fighting in Laos. The 195th Independent
Tank Company, which was brought up to battalion status, received
additional Type 59, T-34-85s and K-63s. The unit supported the attack
against Sam Thong and the Hmong Headquarters at Long Tien base. The 3rd
Independent Tank Company in the Boloven Plateaux was expanded, becoming
the 6th Independent Tank Battalion. The unit, which was equipped with
PT-76s and T-34-85s, operated around Pakse until the ceasefire in 1973.
Most of the PAVN armor losses of 1972 were attributed to air strikes.
The North Vietnamese had tried to protect their units by deploying a
considerable number of 37mm and 57mm AA guns and SA-7 (A-12) missiles.
Since 1969, some AA artillery units were also equipped with BTR-40As
armed with twin 14.5mm machine guns. These armored vehicles operated
within independent mobile AA artillery companies. In 1972 they were
also used in scouting missions for the benefit of tank units. They were
supported by a few ZSU-57-2 air defence vehicles and some locally
modified T-34 tanks armed with twin 37mm AA guns mounted on an open
turret. The PAVN also modified some BTR-50PK APCs by installing a
platform on the rear deck mounting a 14.5mm machine gun. In December
1972, the 237th AA Artillery Regiment was re-equipped with the
sophisticated ZSU-23-4 Shilka. During the 1975 campaign, only a battery
of four Shilkas was effectively engaged in combat. The remaining
vehicles of the regiment arrived too late, after the fall of Saigon.
ZSU-57-2 ZSU-23-4
During the 1972 offensive, the PAVN lost around 400 tanks and APCS. The
North Vietnamese then decided to reconstitute and expand their armored
forces. The most obvious shortages were assessed, and the infantry
divisions were trained to operate more closely in coordination with the
artillery, air defense units, and armored forces. The PAVN identified
two specific Blitzkrieg-style tactics for the use of armored forces:
the "sudden assault" and the "deep advance". The notion of sudden
assault implied crushing enemy resistance by a quick attack using the
shock effect of tanks to throw the enemy off balance. A successful
sudden assault would open the way for an effective deep advance, or
pursuit.
In 1973, the Soviets delivered additional T-55, T-54, T-34-85 and PT-76
tanks and a small number of BTR-60PB APCS. US sources indicated that a
small number of ISU-122 self-propelled assault guns was also delivered.
If that proved correct, it was the heaviest armored vehicle that
entered service with the PAVN. Little is known about the operational
record and combat use of the SU-100 tank destroyer that was also
received at the same time in order to supplement the surviving SU-76s.
China also delivered more Type 59 and Type 63 tanks and, more
importantly, additional K-63 APCS. In fact, the K-63 became the main
PAVN APC used in the 1975 offensive.
BTR-60PB
In 1974, the PAVN could deploy nine armored regiments: the 201st,
203rd, 204th, 206th, 207th, 215th, 273rd, 408th and 574th Armored
Regiments. These units regrouped some 29 armored battalions. US
intelligence estimated that the North Vietnamese were then using some
600 tanks and 400 APCS.
Learning the costly lessons of the Nguyen Hue Offensive, the PAVN
believed that future combat would be fought at the combined army corps
formation level. Each of these corps would have between three and four
infantry divisions, one AA artillery division, one artillery brigade
and one armored brigade. The 202nd Armored Regiment was the first unit
to be brought to brigade strength, with five armored battalions, and
was attached to the 1st Army Corps in October 1973. The 2nd Army Corps
was set up on 15 May 1974, with the attached 203rd Armored Brigade. The
remaining armored units were put directly under the command of the PAVN
Armored Forces Directorate. In December 1974, two other unidentified
armored brigades were created and placed under the control of the
Strategic General Reserve.
The 1975 offensive began with an assault against Ban Me Thout in the
Central Highlands. Leading the attack was the 273rd Armored Regiment
with a battalion of T-54s, a battalion of T-34-85s and another of
K-63s. The quick collapse of ARVN Military Region 2 took Hanoi by
surprise. The South Vietnamese decision to abandon Hue further to the
north created a panic that was fully exploited. The units of the Tri
Thien Front and the two divisions deployed near the Laotian border went
on the offensive, quickly followed by the 2nd Army Corps. The attached
203rd Armored Brigade received orders to move toward Hue, but the unit
learned that the ancient capital was already taken when its vehicles
were still crossing the DMZ. In fact, the brigade played only a minor
role in the fall of ARVN Military Region 1. On 23 March 1975, the 574th
Armored Regiment, attached to the Tri Thien Front, drove into Da Nang
and crushed the last ARVN resistance in the area.
After the fall of Da Nang, it was decided to take Saigon before the
first rains of the wet season. The 2nd Army Corps moved south, along
the coastal highway, with the T-54s and Type 63s from the 574th Armored
Regiment in the lead. In the Central Highlands, the units which had
taken Ban Me Thout and Pleiku were now grouped within the newly created
3rd Army Corps. They rolled down to the coastal plains and joined
forces with the 2nd Army Corps. The PAVN units also pressed into
service captured or abandoned ARVN armored vehicles. The tanks were
used only on a small scale, notably the M-41s, while the M-113 APCs
were used extensively to reinforce the small amount of K-63s,
BTR-50PKs, BTR-152s and BTR-60PBs.
By advancing in tight, combined arms groups, with infantry in APCS,
trucks and captured vehicles, the tank units maintained constant
pressure on the withdrawing enemy. When resistance was encountered, the
leading units deployed for a sudden assault while following units
bypassed the enemy location to continue the pursuit. By these means,
the PAVN armored units were able to cover an average of 50 kilometers
(31 miles) a day. Within two months of the beginning of the Ho Chi Minh
Campaign, North Vietnamese tanks were in striking distance of Saigon.
By mid-April 1975, the 1st Army Corps, with the attached 202nd Armored
Brigade, was also deployed around Saigon. It was followed by the newly
created 4th Army Corps, which had three armored battalions attached.
Finally, from west and southwest of Saigon was created the 232nd
Tactical Force, which grouped three infantry divisions, three
battalions and one company of armored vehicles.
During the final assault against Saigon, most of the PAVN armored units
were still on the roads, speeding toward the South Vietnamese capital
and crushing on the way the last pockets of ARVN resistance. Some
regiments saw their organic battalions dispersed on different fronts.
For example, the 206th Armored Regiment had relinquished its 1B
Battalion, which was equipped with a company of Type 59 tanks and two
companies of K-63s, to the 202nd Armored Brigade. The remaining 195th
and 575th Armored Battalions, equipped with a mix of T-54, Type 59,
T-34-85, Type 63 and K-63, were engaged independently to support
clearing operations around Xuan Loc and Bien Hoa. The day that Saigon
was taken, the PAVN engaged 400 tanks and APCs against the last
defensive positions of the city. On 30 April, T-54 number '843' from
the 203rd Armored Brigade crashed through the gates of the South
Vietnamese presidential palace. South Vietnam had fallen."
Aug 21st 2006 | 12:41 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Our Covert Enemies
On 21 Aug 2006 03:39:52 -0700, "PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Published August 21, 2006
> Our Covert Enemies
>"In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both
>overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists
>themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of
>its freedoms and liberties,
That's not clear. That's merely the propaganda presented to hide from
us their real motive, which is to get us out of the middle east.
Bin Laden has not attacked Denmark, which has a lot more freedom than
the US does. His followers have attacked the US, saying he did so
because US troops occupied Saudi Arabia, supported corrupt dictators
who use oil resources for their own benefit rather than for the
benefit of the people. His followers have also attacked countries
allied with the US intervention in the middle east, UK, Spain,
Australia (the bombing in Bali killed mostly Australian tourists)
The Swiss, the Swedes, have similar freedoms to the US - but they have
not been attacked.
It's clearly not our freedom leading to attacks on us. It's our
intervention in the affairs of the middle east.
and want to make us all submit to their
>totalitarian form of Islam.
And I guess we want everyone to submit to us, which is probably why we
spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
If someone who spent even one tenth as much as we do wanted to take
over, I might be worried.
They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in
>any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when
>British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to
>blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Or we could stop interfering with the affairs of the middle east. That
would work a lot better, of course.
>Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large
>numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not
>enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.
>On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their
>expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to
>undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness.
Yes, the famous "angry white males" who listen to Rush Limbaugh who
say that all our judges are corrupt, how laws are rigged to help the
minorities, and so on.
And they have been pretty effective really, undermining faith in our
society and confidence in its goodness. And as a result they have
gotten a lot of their candidates elected to congress, for instance.
But again, I would not be too worried about these people, since their
failures are now completely revealed from the total disaster of the
Bush-Republican era.
>Published August 21, 2006
> Our Covert Enemies
>"In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both
>overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists
>themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of
>its freedoms and liberties,
That's not clear. That's merely the propaganda presented to hide from
us their real motive, which is to get us out of the middle east.
Bin Laden has not attacked Denmark, which has a lot more freedom than
the US does. His followers have attacked the US, saying he did so
because US troops occupied Saudi Arabia, supported corrupt dictators
who use oil resources for their own benefit rather than for the
benefit of the people. His followers have also attacked countries
allied with the US intervention in the middle east, UK, Spain,
Australia (the bombing in Bali killed mostly Australian tourists)
The Swiss, the Swedes, have similar freedoms to the US - but they have
not been attacked.
It's clearly not our freedom leading to attacks on us. It's our
intervention in the affairs of the middle east.
and want to make us all submit to their
>totalitarian form of Islam.
And I guess we want everyone to submit to us, which is probably why we
spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined.
If someone who spent even one tenth as much as we do wanted to take
over, I might be worried.
They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in
>any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when
>British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to
>blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Or we could stop interfering with the affairs of the middle east. That
would work a lot better, of course.
>Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large
>numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not
>enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society.
>On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their
>expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to
>undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness.
Yes, the famous "angry white males" who listen to Rush Limbaugh who
say that all our judges are corrupt, how laws are rigged to help the
minorities, and so on.
And they have been pretty effective really, undermining faith in our
society and confidence in its goodness. And as a result they have
gotten a lot of their candidates elected to congress, for instance.
But again, I would not be too worried about these people, since their
failures are now completely revealed from the total disaster of the
Bush-Republican era.
