Tuesday, November 24, 2020

OPLAN 34A and Covert Action in Vietnam

A Top Secret Operation Provides the Motivation for U.S. Escalation

Jul 15, 2009 Michael Streich

USS Maddox - US Navy: Public Domain Image

Begun by the CIA, OPLAN 34A called for covert action against Communist North Vietnam including aerial bombing in Laos and DeSoto destroyer missions in the Tonkin Gulf.

By early 1964 President Johnson had to confront the fact that American presence in Southeast Asia was not turning the tide against North Vietnam. Americans were convinced that the Communists in the north were heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union which had been busy promoting “wars of liberation.” South Vietnam was a domino. If it fell, Laos would be the next to fall until all of Southeast Asia was lost to the Communist cause. Thus, in early February, Operation Plan 34A (OPLAN 34A) was launched.

OPLAN 34A and Covert Operations

Facilitated under the Office of the Special Assistant for Counterintelligence and Special Activities, OPLAN 34A was top secret. Although run under the Department of Defense, the operation had begun in the early 1960s under the CIA. CIA covert operations can be traced back even further to the mid-1950s when Air Force Colonel Edward Lansdale implemented secret operations against North Vietnam.

Under President Kennedy, the covert plan was expanded to include the use of PT boats in assisting South Vietnamese clandestine naval operations against the North. By February 1964, President Kennedy had been assassinated and Lyndon Johnson had to deal with what appeared to be an escalating situation in Vietnam.

OPLAN 34A called for several responses to North Vietnamese actions against the South. The operation included commando raids, specifically to disable North Vietnam’s transportation system. In Laos, American planes flown by American pilots were to bomb North Vietnamese operations based in that country. The planes were marked as being part of the Laotian air force. Planes were also used to drop propaganda leaflets.

An important part of the operation involved the “DeSoto” missions: U.S. destroyers patrolling off the coast of North Vietnam that assisted with relaying intelligence to South Vietnamese forces regarding North Vietnamese naval operations and coordinating commando raids against the North. The destroyers were assisted by aircraft on the carrier Ticonderoga.

The Maddox and the C. Turner Joy

On August 2, 1964, the Maddox was patrolling secretly along the coast of North Vietnam when it was attacked by three North Vietnamese PT boats. Returning fire, the Maddox sunk one of the attacking boats and severely crippled the other two. Jets from the Ticonderoga supported the Maddox, which sustained no damage from the twenty-minute encounter. The response in Washington, D.C., however, was muted. While some leaders called for retaliatory action, President Johnson favored a moderate, wait-and-see approach, perhaps aware that the Maddox had not been in international waters when attacked.

OPLAN 34A continued on August 3rd and Captain Herrick, commanding the Maddox, was ordered to maintain his position off the coast of Vietnam. By this time the Maddox was supported by the C. Turner Joy, another destroyer. That night, in stormy seas, sonar abroad the Maddox registered in-coming torpedoes. Both destroyers returned fire. The attacks on the ship were never verified, however, and Captain Herrick claimed that faulty sonar readings prompted the false alarm.

Admiral Sharp, Pacific Operations commander in Hawaii, reported to Washington that the attacks had taken place. Despite efforts to keep the alleged attacks from reaching the media, the story was soon leaked, forcing President Johnson to react.

Reaction to the Gulf of Tonkin Attacks

The questionable second attacks gave Johnson the opportunity to widen American involvement in Vietnam. He was also acutely aware that his Republican opponent in November would be Senator Barry Goldwater, a vocal if not necessarily articulate “hawk” who led a conservative faction that saw Communism as nothing less than an anti-Christ movement. The ensuing Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed by Congress gave Johnson the weapon not only to defeat Goldwater, but to drive Communism from Vietnam.

Sources:

George C. Herring, America’s Longest War: the United States and Vietnam 1950-1975 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986)
Jon Margolis, The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 [The Beginning of the “Sixties”] New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999)
Randall Bennett Woods, J. William Fulbright, Vietnam, and the Search for a Cold War Foreign Policy (Cambridge University Press, 1998)

Causes of the Vietnam War

Feb 16, 2011 Michael Streich

Anti-War Demonstrators at the White House - Library of Congress Photo Image

Fears of global Communist expansion and the establishment of a Communist world revolution made Vietnam the principal domino in Southeast Asian U.S. policy.

The chief cause of the Vietnam War focused on fears of the “Communist world revolution.” Both Democrats and Republicans viewed Vietnam as a test of the popular “domino theory.” Communist victory in Vietnam would begin the process of a deluge of terror in Southeast Asia. A February 1965 federal government “white paper” stated that, “South Vietnam is fighting for its life against a brutal campaign of terror and armed attack inspired, directed, supplied and controlled by the Communist regime in Hanoi.” This was the on-going message Americans heard every day.

Vietnam and the Policy of Containment

Following the exodus of the French from Vietnam, the Eisenhower administration, on the heels of President Truman’s containment policies, promised Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem U.S. support at a time of Vietnam’s “hour of trial.” On May 13, 1961, Vice President Johnson reiterated U.S. support for, “…a brave country in the defense of its liberties against unprovoked subversion and Communist terror.”

Diem was viewed as a reliable ally “on the periphery of the Communist empire in Asia.” Writing to President John F. Kennedy December 7, 1961, Diem linked the Communist threat to the United States: “From the beginning, the Communists resorted to terror in their efforts to subvert our people, destroy our government.”

New York’s Roman Catholic Cardinal, Francis Spellman, perhaps the most political churchman of the decade, was quoted in the August 31, 1954 New York Times postulating a “Communist world plan” which allowed for no peaceful co-existence. Americans were building bomb shelters and strengthening civil defense measures in the light of that Communist world plan.

The Communist World Revolution Fuels Fears of the End of Capitalism

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev predicted that Communist victory in the United States would come from within. America was decadent and self-absorbed. According to Dean Rusk, speaking April 23, 1965, Communism was committed to “different ideas of the conduct and organization of human affairs…” The global battle was far more than ideological.

The decade of the sixties was turbulent, especially after 1964, the “last innocent year,” according to writer Jon Margolis. John F. Kennedy and his brother, Senator Bobby Kennedy were assassinated as was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The August 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution allowed President Johnson to vastly upgrade U.S. military actions in Vietnam. Congressional leaders like Senator Mike Mansfield orchestrated a Vietnam policy determined to halt Communist expansion.

Capitalism was the cornerstone of American prosperity and growth. At its core stood the American family. In her study of Cold War families, historian Elaine Tyler May equates attacks on accepted domesticity with Communist proclivities: “Those who claimed that South Vietnam fell as a result of softness against communism also blamed feminism for what they perceived as the destruction of the family.”

Causes of the Vietnam War Tied to Fears of Communism

The advent of the Cold War focused on Communist expansion and the fears that the “free world” was being confronted by an insidious, atheistic ideology intent on destroying the American way of life. Vietnam, like Taiwan, South Korea, Greece, and other “third world” nations was a small nation but implied far-reaching global consequences if allowed to fall to the Communist “wars of national liberation.”

American troop presence in Vietnam began in earnest with President Kennedy. After billions of assistance, it was not possible for the U.S. to walk away. There was too much at stake. Despite anti-war protests, many Americans continued to support the war, as demonstrated by President Richard Nixon’s 1972 reelection victory. Events like the 1970 Kent State massacre failed to trump fears of a Communist victory.

The Communist “evil empire” would not be crushed until the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Communism was out-spent by the West, opening the door to a market economy. Vietnam would be the last prolonged conflict involving American soldiers in vast numbers sent to foreign shores to combat Communism.

Sources:

Stephen Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin books, 1997)
Marvin E. Gettleman, editor Vietnam: History, Documents, and Opinions on a Major World Crisis (Fawcett Books, 1965)
Jon Margolis, The Last Innocent Year: America in 1964 (William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1999)

Collective Bargaining and Unionization in America

Feb 20, 2011 Michael Streich

Senator Robert Wagner Speaks About the NLRA - Library of Congress/U.S. Gov't Photo Image

The National Labor Relations Act allowed for collective bargaining in union disputes between workers and employers, ensuring fair negotiations.

1877 was a difficult year for American labor and capitalism. Over the next twenty years, industrialization widened the gulf between rich and poor. In 1886 alone, there were over 1,400 strikes across the nation. Often turning violent, as with the 1892 Homestead steel plant strike in Pennsylvania or Chicago’s Haymarket strike in 1886, the goals of labor were equated with socialism and anarchism. Not until 1935 was collective bargaining legalized under the National Labor Relations Act. Today collective bargaining is again under attack.

Collective Bargaining and the NLRA

The National Labor Relations Act guarantees private sector workers the right to organize unions and bargain collectively through union representatives with employers. Public sector employers like teachers are excluded, although many public sector employees are represented by unions. Both state and past judicial decisions have broadened collective bargaining to include almost all employees, even if publicly employed.

Individual states can regulate collective bargaining and arbitration or outlaw union activity by public sector employees altogether, as many Southern states have done. Collective bargaining, as part of the NLRA, was a means toward good faith negotiation between employees and employers. Eliminating collective bargaining would deprive employees of a way to protect benefits like health care and pensions.

The Continued Need for Unions in America

The economic downturn that began in 2008 continues with unemployment rates at or over 9%. Many states are facing budget “shortfalls” in the billions of dollars, necessitating the elimination of public sector jobs and the curtailment of vital social services. Caught in between are millions of workers that will lose health and pension benefits.

Unions in America were originally formed to organize workers against the excesses of labor practices such as 12-14 hour work days. Industrial workers lived in “factory towns” like Pullman town near Chicago, subsisting at the mercy of employers. In the South, factory towns sprang up around large textile enterprises like Fieldcrest Mills in Reidsville, NC or Cannon Mills in Salisbury, NC.

Originally, unions like the 1869 Knight of Labor combined temperance with worker agendas. Craft unions like Samuel Gompers’ American Federation of Labor catered to skilled workers, fighting for an eight-hour workday and higher wages. Not until the Progressive Era were many of these complaints addressed.

Unemployment and the Great Depression

Senator Robert Wagner’s National Labor Relations Act was designed to establish rights for workers through union representation. Collective bargaining was one important tool in reestablishing equilibrium between labor and capital, although critics deemed it socialism.

The NLRA became a hallmark of New Deal legislation. At the same time, unionization was viewed as a form of monopoly that could restrict the number of workers employed. Despite this, however, collective bargaining continues to ensure an open dialogue between employer and worker. It continues to serve as a form of protection against arbitrary actions designed to strip workers of key benefits.

Sources:

Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

J. Joseph Huthmacher, Senator Robert Wagner And The Rise of Urban Liberalism (Atheneum, 1968)

Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America: A People’s History of the Post-Reconstruction Era (Penguin Books, 1984)

Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation

Feb 22, 2011 Michael Streich

Jefferson Believed in a Wall of Separation - KConners Morguefile Photo Image

In 1804 Jefferson wrote the Ursulines in New Orleans, guaranteeing their property rights and their ministry under the Constitution.

In the late 18th Century and early 19th Century, the Catholic Church was under attack in large sections of Europe. The French Revolution was violently anti-Catholic and in Spain secularists sought to deprive the Church of power and control. In March 1804, the superior of the Ursuline convent in New Orleans wrote President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over their rights and ministry following the Louisiana Purchase from France. Jefferson’s reply, much like his “wall of separation” enunciated in 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, pointed to the “principles of the constitution and government…”

Governmental Interference with Religion in the New Republic

Jefferson’s reply to Sister Marie Therese Farjon referenced the First Amendment of the Constitution. Like many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson opposed a European-style state religion. Further, Jefferson was a product of the Enlightenment and rejected the miraculous nature of Scripture, preferring the moral teachings of Jesus without the miracles.

Jefferson wrote the nun that the works of the “holy sisters” would be respected and allowed to continue. He praised the Ursulines for their social work with orphans and other downtrodden youth. There would be no interference from the “civil authority” and the rights of property would be “guaranteed.”

Roman Catholics in the Early Years of the Republic

Jefferson’s reply should not be taken as a change in attitude toward Catholics among many Americans. Despite the on-going suspicions of a predominantly Protestant America, the wall of separation impacted all faith traditions. Over 150 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court would finally apply the First Amendment to Protestant America at a time religious diversity was expanding.

Lucas A. Powe, Jr., writing about the Warren Court and the First Amendment, states that, “…just as government had no business writing prayers, it had no business mandating Protestant devotions in public schools…” Whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or not has never been the issue. Rather, the issue has always been the extent of government establishing religion.

Debating Jefferson’s Wall of Separation

While Jefferson saluted the devotion of the Danbury Baptists just as he did the good work of the Ursulines in New Orleans, he was mindful that religion “…is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God…” This was not the providence of the legislature but it was also not construed to muzzle every man’s expression of faith. U.S. Presidents, for example, represent a wide variety of sectarian religious views.

It must also be remembered that 19th Century America was overwhelmingly Protestant, despite an ever expanding presence of Catholics due to immigration. There was only one version of the Bible, the KJV, and it was used in the nation’s classrooms. None of this could be interpreted as an establishment of religion. But that changed in the later half of the 20th Century.

Jefferson could have followed precedent in 1804 and ignored the Ursulines. The American colonial period was full of examples of anti-Catholic belief and action. But he didn’t. Rather, he followed the principles of natural rights as enshrined in the Constitution in much the same way George Washington, an Anglican, worshiped in a variety of churches reflecting different faith traditions. This was the thinking of the Founding Fathers.

Sources:

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1802
William A. Link and Marjorie Spruill Wheeler, editors, The South In the History of the Nation: A Reader, Volume One (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999)
Lucas A. Power, Jr., The Warren Court and American Politics (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000)

Prosperity in the 1920's under Coolidge and Hoover

Mar 2, 2011 Michael Streich

America's Rich Profited During the 1920's - Library of Congress/unrestricted photo image

Prosperity in the 1920's only extended to the wealthy classes, protected by tax cuts and the rise in the stock market while most Americans lived in debt.

Two years before the great crash of 1929 and the onset of the Depression, President Calvin Coolidge declared that America was entering a new age of prosperity. In 1928, Herbert Hoover campaigned on the slogan “A chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage.” Journalist Thomas Stokes wrote Chip Off My Shoulder (1940) in which he observed that, “America was off down Prosperity Road, a road filled with shiny new automobiles and new little houses…” Everyday Americans that believed poverty was about to be conquered, however, never realized the impact of ephemeral wealth.

Optimism and the Building of an American Economic Utopia

The 1920’s was a period of economic growth, fueled by federal tax cuts, notably for those earning more than $100,000, as well as installment buying that enabled ordinary Americans to drive the new cars and fill their homes with labor-saving devices.

It was a period without any regulation of businesses or banks. It was a time of optimism that encouraged even the most modest wage earner to invest in the ever-rising stock market.

“Coolidge Prosperity” was dominated by a colorless and bland president. America was isolationist, protectionist, and shielded by a conservative judiciary favoring the rights of business. Coolidge recommended privately that the Federal Reserve Board curb the expansion of credit, but his Cabinet and advisers were all “big-money” men who viewed any such attempts as a retreat of capitalism.

The Lack of Presidential Leadership in the 1920’s

Both Coolidge and Herbert Hoover’s greatest flaw was their inability to act as leaders. Both men viewed their national roles as managerial rather than presidential. When depression emerged and millions of Americans lost the security of jobs and homes, Hoover believed that the natural course of events would force a correction and return the nation to prosperity. This is as it had always been during the many “panics” of the past.

Prosperity did not Extend to all Sectors of the Economy

Between 1920 and 1929, American production increased dramatically as did population. Population rose from 106 million in 1920 to 122 million in 1929. At the same time, the cost of consumer goods fell, enabling more Americans to purchase newly produced commodities. Within six years, radio sales increased by 7,440,000 sets. Average hourly wages, however, did not reflect these increases and only rose one cent from 0.56 in 1920 to 0.57 in 1929.

Dramatic decreases in real estate were also evident, dropping over 30% between 1920 and 1929. Although farmers were suffering and workers failed to make substantial gains in wages, corporate net income nearly doubled during the same nine-year period.

Stock market shares rose from 227 million shares in 1920 to 1125 million shares in 1929, but the average dividend fell during the same period by almost half. This statistic alone demonstrates the over-valuation of many stocks.

When the market collapsed, many investors lost millions, but so did ordinary Americans that had been encouraged to invest, particularly those working for corporations that pushed employee stock purchases.

The Chasm between Rich and Poor in America

Prosperity in the Coolidge years did not eradicate poverty or end in a capitalist Utopian ideal. A May 11, 1968 article in the New Republic declares that, “The rich stay rich in the U.S., and the poor, poor, and the gulf between them hardly changes…Millionaires who pay no taxes, and poor people who go hungry – this disparity is the most dangerous social fact in America today.”

Although conditions in the 1920’s were very different from those in 2008, parallels do exist. Americans are losing their homes, unemployment figures remain constant, more Americans than ever receive food stamps, and one of the raging debates concerns tax cuts for the wealthy. A March 3, 2011 MSNBC poll, for example, demonstrated that a tax surcharge on millionaires was favored by nearly 70% of those polled.

The 1920’s was an example of false optimism fueled by an inherently flawed economic system. This is not a criticism of capitalism or the free-market system, but an evaluation of a system that refuses to police itself or see the signs of future problems tied to current greed. Additionally, the 1920’s demonstrated a need for solid national leadership, especially when the crisis began. Neither Coolidge nor Hoover represented that necessary strength of leadership.

Sources:

Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957, Government Printing Office, 1960
Thomas Stokes, Chip Off My Shoulder (Princeton University Press, 1940)
George Soule and Vincent Carosso, American Economic History (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1957)
T.R.B., “The Rich Always with Us,” New Republic, May 11, 1968
Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan-Witts, The Day the Bubble Burst: The social History of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 (Penguin Books, 1979)