Center for a New American Security

"Take a look, see if you see

"Take a look, see if you see the same thing."

I see your context of how this report went to air prior to that offensive being put down. Not a lot else you can really say. Either any of that upbeat pushback happened the day this report aired and didn't get reported or it didn't, and you're just left with the offensive to report on.

I don't get the

I don't get the "p.ropoganda." The report seemed pretty straight forward. At the end they mentioned how 13,000 NVA had probably been killed in the offensive. I don't think the report alleged that the ARVN was collapsing.

I digress a bit here

I digress a bit here but...
My dad, John Ripley played a key role as a CoVan during the Easter Offensive. The only Marine ever inducted in to army ranger hall of fame. Here’s a better description of what he did that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpQY_sCL7I&feature=channel_page

He cited his Ranger experience as preparing him for the Easter Offensive. The affront was not, on Easter that is, overwhelmingly, nor soley airpower on either side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ripley_(USMC)

This video is a classic

This video is a classic example of media bias. I didn't say media lying because everything that was written was true. It was the way it was done. The video didn't explain what was going on in Vietnam. There was no attempt to explain strategy or objectives. It just showed people dying and suffering. It portrayed volunteers not as patriots, but as people who the military is the only place that they can be treated like professionals.

MaryR, Thank you for your

MaryR,
Thank you for your sacrifices as the daughter of a true hero. John Ripley saw his duty and executed it selflessly in 1972. His efforts saved many lives. He continued to serve our country as a patriot for the rest of his life. For that, I am speechless in admiration.

The Lone Scout,
I join you in your esteem for our Vietnam Veterans. I, too, grew up watching the evening broadcasts of the Vietnam War. It was not pleasant watching that video.

WayneZ,
I never got a good history lesson from all those Vietnam War broadcasts I watched as a teenager. It was the news and it was what we watched. There was less analysis on the evening news then than now.

Was it propaganda? I am not sure. I think taking one part of one night's broadcast from that time period does not give an adequate example. I wish the video had included the Op-Ed piece that was mentioned in the introduction.

Easy there, MaryR... since

Easy there, MaryR... since your father was the chancellor of a predominately LDS school I just wondered... yikes.

I watched a bit of the clip

I watched a bit of the clip and it did not seem anti-american. But if you read a book like Best and the Brightest, there is definitely bais against the US and toward the N Vietnamese. I will never forget reading that book as a high school kid and the claim that we were fighting on the wrong side in Viet Nam. I believed that for a while. Then came the boat people, the killing fields, the Soviet incursion in Afhganistan, Reagan and the fall of the Iron Curtain. We were on the rigvht side in the Cold War and we won. Our excesses in prosecuting the cold war were trivial compared to Commie execesses. There are a lot of people in the Main Stream media who cannot deal with that.

The issue of bias has been

The issue of bias has been touched upon in Matthew 7 in the New Testament.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&version=31

As far as the video clip provided, the question seems to be whether it does or does not conform to the perceptual bias of the viewer.

My apologies to any commenters who feel themselves to be completely free of bias.

Gearing up for another

Gearing up for another Fourth of July in Chu Lai ?

http://www.tdtnews.com/story/2007/08/13/42828/

So I suppose all this means

So I suppose all this means the Vietnam war itself was a good idea, or that we were "supposed to win." And why is that?
We started off defending the French colonial authorities [hint for the kids: we started off on the wrong side]

American soldiers often fight bravely but that says absolutely nothing about what is is they fight for or against.
Often it's just the military telos: fight to win.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39822prs20090610.html
"Among the multiple-choice questions included in its Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course, the DoD asks the following: “Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?” To answer correctly, the examinee must select “protests.”

I'm not convinced many of the readers here even know what they're supposed to be defending.

@245 Visitor, Actually we

@245 Visitor,

Actually we put what I guess was "the right side" in 1945 by helping Uncle Ho stage an abortive coup, with the help of the OSS. Then sanity took over, and.....

As far as what were supposed to be defending: go live in Cuba, Iran, China....in fact most of the world outside of America and most of it's formal Western allies, and voice sentiments about their security and defense forces similar to what you posted above. The response should provide some clarity as to what we were defending, and the difference between them and us.

Not that I would continue to defend the rights of Al Caeda's Legal Unit, or support AG's who boast about how many of the bastards in GITMO they have represented. Frankly, their actions do cross the line, and I am of the opinion they are basically just sexy beast groupies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_Son_Island_prison

Hmmmm.....that "Sanity" word

Hmmmm.....that "Sanity" word seemed to bring out opposite. Well thank Allah for Wikipedia.

Of course Pol Pot and for that matter the North Vietnamese were such an improvement over Diem...yes indeed.

"Diem's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic.."

As opposed to totalitarian and genocidal?

Mary R: I think about the

Mary R:

I think about the bridge at Dong Ha when I hear
"Easter Offensive 1972." It was a good book. When I clicked on your link,
I also looked at an associated link (Your Dad's funeral movie). I noticed that
Gen. Walt Boomer (Ret.) attended. I knew he was a Co Van also, but did not know until
further research that he was one at the same time as Col. Ripley. As for the tone of that
particular newscast, I saw no propaganda; it seemed par for the course. If anything, the
inclusion of the Vietnamese marine's funeral sent a message that his unit was fighting west
of Quang Tri, unlike many of the MARVIN the ARVN formations poised on fire bases along Route 9, and
also serving as Palace Guards in fixed bases along the DMZ region in general. As per usual, these
usual suspects performed their almost universal routine of folding like a house of cards, when put under
pressure by the Bo Doi.

Also, the on-the-scene correspondent was limited to some hapless clod reporting from the
flight line at Bien Hoa air base (way down south). At least, he reported that airframes had
been flown in from different places to try to limit the dammage (weather permitting), of the offensive.
There were no correspondents with Marvin units (gee, I wonder why?) Your Dad's action
slowed down the offensive, to be sure.

The Wikipedia link for the operation has a Marvin armored unit destroying the bridge at Dong Ha.
You might want to consider sending them a Nasty-Gram....or worse.

Anand: RE/ your comment

Anand:

RE/ your comment about NVA casualties = 13,000. The whole op went from March 30 to October 72'
US estimates of casualties for the mean enemy people = 100,000 killed = So what!

Amurican Generals are not members of the Numeratii. (they don't do numbers).
In 1967, the infiltration rates of NVA to the south was about 7,000 a month, In 1968,
Because of Tet (original recipe), Tet II (May-June) Tet III (Sept -Oct) and Tet IV
(Jan-Feb 69), the rates averaged out to 29,000 a month. as a consequence, during
1968, the High School youth in North Vietnam started sporting Tattoos which read:
"Born in the North, To die in the South."

If any of the members of this august peanut gallery had never heard of these other offensives,
it is because they were not deemed newsworthy, the May-June version 2.0 was deadlier than the original.
All in all, nothing much was accomplished strategy-wise for either side, save for record levels of teeth gnashing and blood-letting.

Which brings us to 1972, which also featured an increase in draft call-ups in the North. One can argue that
the PAVN did not achieve all they had planned for. (DMZ-Kontum-An Loc). What they did achieve though..see below:

"Hanoi, which had committed 14 divisions and 26 independent regiments to the offensive (virtually its entire army), had suffered approximately 100,000 casualties and 450 tanks destroyed.[100] In return, it had gained permanent control of half of the four northernmost provinces—Quang Tri, Thua Thien, Quang Nam, and Quang Tin—as well as the western fringes of the II and III Corps sectors (around ten percent of the country). The North Vietnamese leadership had made two grave miscalculations concerning the abilities of its enemies. The first was to underestimate the fighting ability of the ARVN, which by 1972 had become one of the best-equipped armies in the world; the second was a failure to grasp the destructiveness of American air power unleashed against an enemy that was now fighting a conventional battle. Combined with these strategic errors, PAVN commanders
had also thrown away their local numerical superiority by making repeated frontal attacks into heavy defensive fire, and suffered massive casualties as a consequence. Hanoi, however, wasted no time in making use of what it had gained. The North Vietnamese immediately began to extend their supply corridors from Laos and Cambodia into South Vietnam. The PAVN rapidly expanded port facilities at the captured town of Dong Ha, and within a year over 20 percent of the materiel destined for the southern battlefield was flowing across its docks."

What the above means is that them Northeners had route 9 from Tchepone, Laos, to the Cua Viet estuary (unmolested), on account of the Jan 73' dictum "you holds what you got.", and the Western parts of most contested provinces (multiple approaches to Hue, Kontum, etc.),

Game over...Checkmate, whenever (1975), they chose to try again, You won't understand this unless you are especially adept at map reading or have walked the ground in question, questionable Murrican, CYA historical/hysterical propaganda notwithstanding.

In 75' the Marvins folded so fast in the north, they abandoned their arty and attendant ammo. The Bo Doi (not known for looking Gift Horsies in the mouth), were relieved. It seems that they were unsure as to their necessary robustness vis-a-vis tubes/projos in the Arty realm (pre Invasion). Hey....that reminds me of a Joke. What is the Emir' of Kuwait's most fearsome Army Maneuver? It is a three pronged armored Fist pincer movement aimed at the
Iraniman/Iraqiman foe....centered on Kuwait International Aerodrome. See, they gets there with max speed, and the Ossifer tank commanders bolt to the ticket counter of Get-me-the-fuck-out-of-Dodge-Airlines....on their Platinum/Black Cards, Natch. They will, of course, have told the Bidoons to "Keep the motors Runnin'.....Head out on the Highway..aaayyyyyy.....Born to be Miiiiiiild!

Well heck, they had enough veterans of the Viet-Minh that were familiar with the 05's and 55 pigs, that they had them
a field day. Thanks, Uncle Sugar! Xin Loi, Mr. Marvin!

You Know, You gotta know how to picks your Allies. Didn't some wig wearing pantywaist called George Washington
utter some kind of impenetrable hokum bout' not havin' any permanent Allies whatsoever. What the Hell did He Know?

Anand: What is this WE

Anand:

What is this WE stuff? Do You have a mouse in your pocket? Were you a shot caller during that era?

First point - Do you remember the actual History of that era. Milhous was elected in 1968. He claimed a secret
plan to win the war in VN. He did remove some of the silly off and on operational strictures visited on the US forces by LBJ. By June 69 (post Hamburger Hill) the US troops were starting to become errr... disciplinarily challenged.
Milhous and Henry the K decide to visit China to woo them into, among other things, on becoming go betweens the US and Viet Nam. They took up the challenge.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, detractors were asking the Milhous administration about his secret plan. He hinted that if he revealed it to everyone.....it would no longer be a secret. This worked until the 1972 election. He won that election by a landslide painting George McGovern (who flew a B-24 Liberator over garden spots like the Ploesti Oil works) as a commie and hippie lover,,,,I guess it worked. Then, he advanced the new concept of Vietnamizing the war, Talking at the peace talks, and tossing the Marvins Like Thieu over the side. Jan 30 1973...All (US military) non embassy and observer staff are ordered out of the country. The NVA, however get to keep their forces in their captured territory (1972 and later), which, Natch, they reinforce.

That's the elected president that signed off on that. How old are you? Did you raise your voice in opposition then?
Then comes 1973 and 1974, Watergate, and Pres. Nixon loses power to influence Congress RE/ Viet Nam. The NVA probe for weaknesses, and sensing butter, violate the accords, Natch, and overrun towns in the provinces.

As to your LSD fueled delusions of the Marvins holding on indefinitely...BlUUUhhhuuaarphh...I almost barfed.
The most charitable thing one can say about the Marvins is that they were a hit and miss organization. Their officers were promoted for their fealty to Nguyen Cao Ky (he of the spiffy purple silk scarfs...a Hanoi boy by birth) and his replacement, the effervescent Nguyen Van Thieu. To beat the PAVN, you must go to the field. The only Marvins I ever saw in the sticks were Viet Marines, Rangers, and the odd Dog and cat unit made up of Chieu Hoi's (Kit Carson Scouts), who were used for their specific skill sets. Yes they had good units, but nowhere near enough of them. their Few good units became the fire brigades for their worthless ones. Sometimes, their units fought valiantly, in spite of their cretinous upper leadership.

Take Lam Son 719, in 71'.......Puhleeeze...To be fair to Marvin, the forces committed to this fool's errand was not even close to being sufficient. In 66 or 67, Walt Rostow and the JCS approached LBJ with a plan to shore up the DMZ as well as go into Laos to take Tchepone...The big Hub. All it would take is 250,000 American troops. Well LBJ fussed and fretted about pissing off the Russkies and Chinamen and violating the territorial integrity of Laos. He spiked the Idea. Trying to do this in 1971 is crazy, since the contested territory has been in Bo Doi hands
for Rong Time GI. To say that the Marvins got their Asses Kicked is mighty charitable. Add to that the fact of the beleaguered southerners trying out their own private Idaho E&E plans on the skids of the US slicks is a classic in documentary Filmdom. Going out on the skids became a catch phrase for US policy.

I would love to prattle on, but your "they could have held out indefinitely." line reeks of moral certitude. Hanging on in this context means operational art (not something on equates with Marvin) operational art also avoids rhetorical absolutes. I think that you are fond of the scholarship of the Dolchstosslegende crowd, who are fond of this Stalinist revision of facts. I have to run along now, but I will revisit my vast treasury of Links that help to draw a fine picture of the perfidy of the times. I will post them in the next little while.

Fasteddiez , the ARVN had

Fasteddiez , the ARVN had capable units, and some capable NCOs and officers. The Rangers were good fighters. The Marines were very good.

The ARVN also had a pretty capable air force, albeit with massive spare parts, fuel, ammunition and funding shortages.

With money and logistics they could have held out indefinitely. Few Americans realize how cash starved the ARVN actually was. The ARVN was forced to sharply cut spending in 1973-1975.

Visitor, The entire ANA only had one CM-1 battalion as late as early April, 2008. It was 1st battalion, 1st Brigade, 203rd ANA Corps (that reached CM-1 status in September, 2005.) The entire ANA had very few battalions at CM-2 at the beginning of 2008. There has been a sharp improvement in the quality of the ANA since April, 2008. Part of this is that many 2nd Lieutenants and mid grade NCOs (Corporals and Sergeants) have recently completed training. The ANA graduated its first 4 year batch of 2nd Lieutenants in January, 2009.

I would suggest you talk to the advisers of 1st Bde, 203rd ANA Corps, and ask them if they agree with you. Note that the Bde HQs, 3 combat line battalions, combat support battalion and combat service support battalion are all rated CM-1 as of March, 2009.

Where you have a point is that every other Corps in the ANA is quite a bit behind the 203rd Corps. (203rd Corps has a total of three CM-1 or near CM-1 combat maneuver brigades.) 207th Corps in particular has many problems. 209th Corps is pretty green, and not yet been tested. 205th ANA "Hero" Corps seems to be performing significantly below where 203rd ANA Corps or 201st ANA Corps are performing. The former top advisor to 201st ANA Corps complained that the Corps was not being given sufficiently challenging missions (implying that it was more capable than the ANA HQs and ISAF thought.) He also complained that 201st ANA Corps was heavily over mentored (implying it wasn't necessary.) He also asserted that the 201st ANA Corps didn't have enough units for its battlespace. He suggested that the way to expand the ANA was by over strenghtening existing companies, battalions and brigades versus adding new brigades. {Part why he believed this may reflect a shortage of leaders and experienced cadre.} He was also more critical of current strategies in Afghanistan than any other blogger briefer I am aware of. He was quite critical of the ANP; stating that the ANP needed to take up the road and fixed location security responsibilities, freeing up the ANA for missions in rural areas away from the main roads.

May I point out that Vietnam

May I point out that Vietnam was a CONVENTIONAL WAR, not a guerrilla war. That's why US went in full force. The issue then was North Vietnam's exquisite army marching WEST, across SE Asia. We pulled out because Nixon wanted to prove to Zhou Enlai that US did not want the permanent bases, like a dagger at China's soft underbelly, in Vietnam. To save Thailand: THE ORIGINAL REASON WHY EISENHOWER PUT VIETNAM UNDER SEATO PROTECTION, thus starting Indochina War, was achieved by Nixon as he got Chinese boys to do what Congress would no longer allow American boys to do: block the westward march across SE Asia to link it to India, thus surrounding China, by Hanoi a Soviet proxy. Ho had been thinking about this since 1928! Fearful that Nixon might save the Republic of Vietnam, which Democrats so screwed up, the Kennedy Rider was passed that cut ARVN off of oil and supplies, leaving them defenseless against Hanoi violation of the Paris Accords. Still, China asked Duong Van Minh, Thieu's replacement, through French Ambassador to hold off surrender for 48 hrs so China can stop PAVN from going south of Danang. He refused, claiming that he can get a deal "entre nous vietnamiens"-- exactly what he killed Diem and Nhu for trying to do in 1963!!! As a result we lost South Vietnam, but Thailand was saved as China kept its word and stopped Hanoi's march west. IN IRAQ AND AFGHNAISTAN WE ARE FACING LOCAL BOYS FIGHTING BECAUSE OF THE CROOKED AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT STOLE THE MONEY FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND THE INTEL BLIND, LANGUAGE DEAF AND CULTURE DUMB FORCES WE SENT IN LED BY GENERALS WHO COULDN'T DISTIBGUISH TACTICS FROM STRATEGY-- "tactics" is what you do in Iraq/Afghanistan and "strategy" is how you use it to get more stars and a JCS slot. So, comparing 1975 and 2009, which one seems like the loooossssseeeer's war"?