The Truth About Tonkin (2008)

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin

by stareatgoats • 7 years ago

67 74 7 years ago

jonny_eh• 7 years ago

This is a very long article. Can someone summarize?

hurrdurr24• 7 years ago

Basically declassified evidence points to Sec of Defense at the time intentionally lying to Congress to get the US involved in Vietnam regarding Gulf of Tonkin attack.

radar_ghosts• 7 years ago

In 1964, the White House and Defense Department lied and misrepresented a supposed act of naval aggression in order to fraudulently justify launching a war they sought for other reasons.

Its relevance to the present day is left as an exercise for the reader.

dsr_• 7 years ago

The United States government decided that they wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam. For public relations reasons, they manufactured an incident and used it as an excuse.

Somewhere between 1.5 million and 3.5 million people died. The United States got Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian restaurants, and also 60,000 dead soldiers and 300,000 wounded soldiers.

mcguire3• 7 years ago

'Tis an ill wind, and all that.

hurrdurr24• 7 years ago

Somewhat related is this latest supposed attack by Iranians on the two Japanese tankers... now one of the Japanese tanker owners is saying it was a projectile while US Centcom says it's limpet mines.

maxxxxx5• 7 years ago

We definitely don't want to get into another situation like after 9/11 when some people did everything they could to connect Iraq to 9/11 so they could invade. Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war Iran. I hope not.

brians• 7 years ago

The national security advisor and the Secretary of State.

_t2kx• 7 years ago

Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war Iran. I hope not.

Their name is John Bolton and they're the National Security Advisor of the USA.

pjc50• 7 years ago

They're the same people as last time, more or less.

Gibbon1• 7 years ago

Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war Iran. I hope not.

I have bad news for you. The same people are pushing for war then are pushing for war now because that's how they make their living.

scottlocklin• 7 years ago

. Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war Iran.

Erm, yes, there are. Saudis, Israelis and the MEK are hell bent for us to go to war with Iran. They've also publically greased John "neocon mustache boy" Bolton, who will hopefully be looking for a job soon.

krapp• 7 years ago

Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war Iran. I hope not.

Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea. That's been the plan ever since 9/11.

DuskStar2• 7 years ago

IIRC the Japanese tanker owner misidentified what side of the ship was damaged, so I wouldn't place too much weight on his words.

simlevesque• 7 years ago

I learned this year that the commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident is The Doors' Jim Morrisson' father. Small world.

freewilly1040• 7 years ago

For a great book on the military decision making at the time, I’d recommend Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg

lordnacho2• 7 years ago

I can't help but be sceptical about the suggestion that Iran attacked the oil tanker.

They're trying to be friends with Japan, but they attack a Japanese vessel while the PM of Japan is actually visiting? Really?

They aren't a superpower, and the US has bases all the way around Iran. Maybe I'm a strategic simpleton whose entire diplomatic experience is playing Civ, but it just doesn't seem smart.

Plus you have to wonder about the evidence for the Iraq war. That seemed pretty flimsy too. And it involved some of the same senior staff.

If international diplomacy were a reality TV show, it would make sense though.

codr72• 7 years ago

The reason it doesn't make any sense is that its all a bunch of lies and excuses to start a war, its not like the US hasn't been barking up this tree for quite a while now.

And there were no weapons of mass destruction, all lies. It's public information but you'll have to search for it yourself because it will never be reported in the mainstream media, people might start asking the wrong questions.

hurrdurr24• 7 years ago

The US going to war with Iran is John Bolton's wet dream.

pvg2• 7 years ago

Iran also has a complicated internal power structure the players in which are not necessarily always in agreement or in full knowledge of each others' actions. It makes it a trickier state to deal with compared to your run-of-the mill unitary dictatorship.

jdm2212• 7 years ago

This is a (correct) view that is frustratingly underreported.

mrkstu• 7 years ago

Ironically this was very true in imperial Japan. I recently listened to Craig Nelson's "Pearl Harbor: From Infamy to Greatness" and this was stressed repeatedly.

The factionalism, not just between the civilian government and the military, but between the Navy and the Army was vast. There was no unitary government, in any sense. Their Navy never thought they could defeat the United States over a protracted war, but the internal factionalism forced their hand.

joyeuse6701• 7 years ago

It ought to make it easier to divide them in war, and come to a swifter resolution in conflict.

eternalban2• 7 years ago

IRI's political dynamics is no way informs its ideological military arm: http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/revolutionary-guards

LifeLiverTransp2• 7 years ago

Reminds me of when the freshly minted new strong men of china visited india, only to be greeted with " you know your army just marched over some parts of the border?"

partiallypro2• 7 years ago

We do have video of what appears to be Iranians removing an undetonated mine from one of the ships. It is entirely possible, and it is known, that the Iranian military isn't exactly cohesive like other countries. There are fractures and some rogue elements. It's entirely possible a rogue element did this, or it's possible it came from the top down.

Iran knows that the US public doesn't believe its own US intelligence after Iraq, so it could easily be behind the attacks knowing that the US is on a leash of public opinion to do anything about it.

eternalban2• 7 years ago

Even taken at face value, removing something in full view of US Navy (present at the scene for 4 hours) is not the same thing as "attaching" mines. It may well be that they were collecting evidence, on the record helpfully provided by US.

It is also interesting that a 3rd world country's navy has better camera equipment than the premiere power.

mcguire3• 7 years ago

I recommend Dan Carlin's episode on Japan in the '20s and '30s.

mikeash4• 7 years ago

We have video of some people doing something next to a big ship. Any interpretation beyond that from the US government can’t be trusted. Remember the photos of Iraqi WMD?

You’re right, Iran might have really done this. It’s also highly, highly likely that this is a big steaming pile of bullshit from the US.

What to do? Well, the consequences of acting on a US lie would be catastrophic. The consequences of failing to act on a real act by Iran would be negligible. The choice is clear. I pray we choose wisely, for once.

dkarl• 7 years ago

Iran knows that the US public doesn't believe its own US intelligence after Iraq, so it could easily be behind the attacks knowing that the US is on a leash of public opinion to do anything about it.

That's a very optimistic take on U.S. public opinion. I think this is going to be a lot easier than you assume. If you start with Trump's approval rating, which is somewhere in the low forties, you just need another ten percent of the country to find it unbelievable that somebody would fake a casus belli against Iran and U.S. intelligence would go along with it. Once the mobilization is in swing, there will be an additional cushion of people who don't think the government should be second-guessed during a war, or who shrug their shoulders because they think Iran has it coming anyway. The media can't help cooperating; their editorial content might be against the war, but war coverage is inherently exciting and will stoke people's appetite.

If Trump does this -- and I think he regards it as his best shot at re-election -- I wouldn't be surprised if his approval rating goes to over 60% in the first week of the conflict.

LifeLiverTransp2• 7 years ago

We had satellite images of wmds, we had videos of iraquis smashing babys in hospitals + witnesses - we had it up to here with faked evidence and lies.

DuskStar2• 7 years ago

Here's the video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5rZeMqvZ9g

mikeash4• 7 years ago

The phrasing of your first paragraph confuses me. “I can’t help but...” as if this sentiment were hard to justify. The US government is notorious for lying its way into wars, and the current administration is full of psychopaths who would love a justification to invade Iran.

It’s like finding a notorious serial killer standing over a body holding a knife who says, “a ghost did it.” “I can’t help but be skeptical about the ghost....”

It was painfully obvious bullshit in 2003 and we must not fall for it again. If we do, it’ll make the disaster of Iraq look like a fun little game.

lordnacho2• 7 years ago

I guess it's a nuance of what that phrase means. It seems to me there are many reasons to disbelieve that the Iranians would do this. Reasons that can't be ignored no matter what logical contortions I were to make.

Stratoscope• 7 years ago

It sounds like the phrase did confuse you.

"I can't help but be sceptical..." simply means "I am skeptical..."

Try that substitution in your example and it should be more clear:

It’s like finding a notorious serial killer standing over a body holding a knife who says, “a ghost did it.” “I am skeptical about the ghost....”

zyxzevn• 7 years ago

Japanese Tanker Owner Denies Ship Hit By Mine, Says Crew Saw "Flying Objects" Before Attack https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-14/japanese-tanker-ow...

I think this means that someone else tries to ignite a war. Could be similar to the USS Liberty incident, but it all needs an investigation by neutral parties. Does the US needs all that oil?

thephyber2• 7 years ago

Does the US needs all that oil?

The USA doesn't need to use the oil for the USA to claim there is either a "national security" or world geopolitical rationale for going to war to "protect" it.

Petrodollar Warfare[1] is a theory that the US can and does attack (or otherwise undermine) any oil producing country that tries to transact its oil in any currency (or commodity) other than USD.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

ssvss• 7 years ago

I found this argument on why Iran would attack, in r/geopolitics to be plausible. https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/c0gi8b/why_ira...

tlear2• 7 years ago

I think this a perceptions issue. IRGC done VERY well recently, successes in Syria, Houthis, Iraq, much closer ties and success in Gaza/Hamas. They feel good about themselves and view US as impotent(as in Syria). It could be a threat and demonstration of what they can do.

These are hard experienced and utterly committed men. They do not feel weak at all. Trump is a bit of a joke to them as Obama was before.

WillPostForFood3• 7 years ago

If Iran didn't attack the ships who did? It would be impossible for the US Govt to orchestrate this and keep it secret. Enough people inside government would be horrified that it would 100% leak immediately if not beforehand.

If not Iran, why is there video of an Iranian navy vessel pulled up alongside the attacked tanker?

smnrchrds• 7 years ago

If Iran didn't attack the ships who did?

Iran's regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and UAE have been staunch proponents of a US attack on Iran and they stand to gain enormously if such an attack happens: a major oil supplier gets removed, increasing demand for their oil; the war increases the price of oil; their only serious rival in the region gets destroyed; and to top it all, it will be at no cost to them—US will pay for the war with money, lives, and reputation and they stand to gain all the benefits.

It would be very convenient if Iran does something to legitimize, even force US to destroy the country to rubble, wouldn't it?

Enough people inside government would be horrified that it would 100% leak immediately if not beforehand.

Saudi Arabia does not have the same limitation. If they could orchestrate and get away with Khashoggi murder in another country, a tanker attack in their backyard is a piece of cake for them.

Taniwha• 7 years ago

Honestly I can't get past the idea that somehow an image of Iranians removing a mine from an oil tanker is somehow a smoking gun proving that they put it on ... It all screams fake news, information warfare, to me.

As far as who would like the US to go to war with Iran (apart from Bolton) Saudi Arabia and Israel spring to mind ...

Remember how we were railroaded into war with Iraq using fake news about weapons of mass destruction (from the Whitehouse that time), fool us once shame on you fool us a second time shame on us.

codr72• 7 years ago

Straight from Wikipedia:

"In his book, Body of Secrets, James Bamford, who spent three years in the United States Navy as an intelligence analyst, writes, that the primary purpose of the Maddox "was to act as a seagoing provocateur—to poke its sharp gray bow and the American flag as close to the belly of North Vietnam as possible, in effect shoving its five-inch cannons up the nose of the communist navy. ... The Maddox' mission was made even more provocative by being timed to coincide with commando raids, creating the impression that the Maddox was directing those missions ..." Thus, the North Vietnamese had every reason to believe that Maddox was involved in these actions."

The US was already neck deep in Vietnam, what they needed was an excuse for going all in. So they started poking the bear, which is exactly what they're doing right now with Russia, Iran, China and probably more.

Wars are not started by coincidence, they are very well planned and always come with a hidden agenda.

lsd5you• 7 years ago

It feels like something the (non-corrupt) left and right should be able to agree on. Plenty of people on the right seem disappointed that Trump seems to have lost his pre-government isolationist tendancies.

I suppose the only hope is this time around it's a 'trumpian' ploy. i.e. War or give us what we want, with the emphasis on getting some deal. Not that that is ok. The impression very much is that the deal may be in fact that he may get is give the 'deep state' a war and then he gets some media support and a chance at a second term.

maxxxxx5• 7 years ago

"War or give us what we want,"

I always wonder what he really wants from them (Total surrender is probably not going to happen and he rejects the nuclear treaty so what's the endgame?). I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran. North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the planet right now and makes Iran almost look nice.

acqq2• 7 years ago

Yes. Moreover, Bamford also wrote a book about the start of one more recent war:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pretext_for_War

Written already in 2004. Later it became even more obvious that the Bus administration openly lied to justify the war with Iraq.

E.g. recently:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/a...

jdc• 7 years ago

And war allows Congress to spend unlimited[1] funds, which, it seems to me, is a terrible moral hazard. I don't know what the answer is, but surely there's a way to stop war from crowding out more responsibly budgeted needs.

1. By policy. Obviously the money can still run out.

mikeash4• 7 years ago

The answer is for the electorate to be sufficiently educated and free-thinking that they vote out people who deliberately get into stupid wars.

Which is probably to say that we’re screwed.

davidw• 7 years ago

Wish there were more men like Wayne Morse in power.

tedunangst• 7 years ago

But what about the Maine?

mcguire3• 7 years ago

I don't remember that.

apo• 7 years ago

This event led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which granted the president sweeping military powers in southeast Asia. It amounted to a declaration of war on North Vietnam

It passed the senate with flying colors; only two votes against:

The Senate conferred its approval by a vote of 88–2. Some members expressed misgivings about the measure, but in the end, Democratic Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska cast the only nay votes.[12] At the time, Senator Morse warned that "I believe this resolution to be a historic mistake."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

When the US starts wars, it's always with massive popular support - at least in the beginning.

It's easy to forget just what a boogeyman decades of propaganda had turned communism into by the 1960s. A similar thing has happened with "radical islam" today. There's currently a nascent movement to do the same thing to China.

When the next big war comes, expect it to be met with wild applause regardless of how asinine the justification is.

teilo• 7 years ago

My father, a yeoman in the Navy at the time, has been telling me this for years. But try to make that point 20 years ago, and you would be labeled a conspiracy nut.

WillPostForFood3• 7 years ago

In 1971, 60 Minutes, the most watched TV show in the country won an Emmy for it's story on "What Really Happened at Tonkin Gulf?". The truth was out pretty early, and well accepted.

byron_fast• 7 years ago

Read the point of view of a fighter pilot who was there: https://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Philosophical-Fighter-Pilot-...

The Truth About Tonkin (2008)

Related Stories