Doomed Gun of Doom Dooma
ZERO FUNDING FOR TIBET – NATURAL MECHANISM FOR REGIME CHANGE IN BEIJING
President Trump’s 2018 Budget provides no funding in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet.
I am presenting view shared by Ms. Olivia Enos in which she appeals to President Trump not to forget Tibet. In her view, it appears that Natural Order is always determined by choices and actions performed by Man.
As student of Natural Science, I examine Natural Factors, Natural Conditions, Natural Mechanisms, and Natural Events that impact, or reset Natural Balance, Natural Order, and Natural Equilibrium that underlies human experience called Natural Freedom. For example, Natural Event called K-T Extinction Event totally wiped out ruling clan of Dinosaurs from face of planet Earth to introduce new clan of rulers called Anatomically Modern Man.
In Natural History of Man, powerful, mighty Empires have risen and fallen altering political boundaries imposed by Man over Natural Boundaries that define terrestrial life. Man brings about Regime Change using physical force using tools invented by Man. However, to expect Regime Change through Natural Event such as Bolide Collision cannot be dismissed as figment of human imagination.
In fact, Saint John describes, Book of REVELATION, Chapter 18, a mechanism for Regime Change in Evil Empire code-named Babylon. He visualizes heavenly strike such as Bolide Collision that destroys Evil Empire Babylon. Man may interpret sudden, unexpected Downfall of Babylon as Natural Disaster, Natural Calamity, Catastrophe, Cataclysm, Doom, or Apocalypse.
I am not concerned about President Trump’s Budget Plan with Zero Funding for Natural Freedom in Tibet. In my Natural Expectation, Evil Red Empire will experience Natural Downfall triggered by Natural Event called Bolide Collision. I seek Tibet Equilibrium to restore Balance of Power in South Asia that grants Natural Freedom to Tibetans. The Sword of Damocles is hanging over the neck of Beijing.
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
PRESIDENT TRUMP, DON’T FORGET ABOUT TIBET
Olivia Enos ,
I write on international human rights and national security.
I am a researcher in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation where I write on international human rights issues including human trafficking, transnational crime, religious freedom, and democratic freedoms, among other social issues in Asia. I also work on human rights challenges facing the Middle East including ISIS genocide and U.S. refugee policy. My work has been featured in The National Interest, RealClearWorld, Providence: A Journal of Christianity and Foreign Policy, and Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, among other publications. I received my BA from Patrick Henry College and am completing my MA in Asian Studies at Georgetown University. I live with my husband Zach on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
UNSPECIFIED, CHINA – APRIL 23: Tibetan Buddhist monks use the iPhone in the courtyard of the Kumbum Monastery on April 23, 2017 in Xining, Qinghai Province. Kumbum was founded in 1583 in a narrow valley close to the village of Lusar in the Tibetan cultural region of Amdo. (Photo by Wang He/Getty Images)
President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would zero out funding critical to advancing freedom in Tibet. Proposed budget cuts would eliminate all USAID programming for Tibet and funding for the Ngawang Choephel Fellows program, which finances educational and cultural exchanges for Tibetan refugees. What might happen with efforts to protect Tibetan refugees in South Asia is unclear.
The State Department said that many “tough choices” were made during budget negotiations. Economic development programs in Tibet will take the most significant hit. In addition to the cuts outlined above, there is a question as to how much funding—if any—will be allocated for the Tibet Fund. Nor does the budget proposal outline how cuts to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) will impact programs toward Tibet.
Defunding efforts to empower Tibetans sends the signal that the U.S. no longer cares about advancing liberty in places like Tibet and Xinjiang where China today uses human rights abuse to maintain control over these territories.
Just last year, the Chinese government began demolishing one of the world’s largest Tibetan Buddhist academies, the Larung Gar, reducing the population of monks and nuns from 12,000 to less than 5,000 after its partial destruction in 2016. Additionally, at least 150 Tibetans have self-immolated since February 2009.
At a recent event at The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, president of the Central Tibetan Administration, reaffirmed Tibet’s commitment to the “Middle Way” approach. This policy approach seeks freedom for Tibetans within the framework of the Chinese constitution.
“The Middle Way approach” explained Sangay, “is in the middle of seeking separation or independence from China but at the same time ending the present repressive policies of the Chinese government.”
It is a peaceful initiative, one that embraces dialogue with the Chinese government. The last two U.S. administrations affirmed that policy, but it remains to be seen whether it will be supported by the Trump administration which has said little to nothing on Tibet.
U.S policy toward Tibet has historically been led by Congress and is enshrined in the 2002 law, the Tibetan Policy Act, which initiated or affirmed the programs the Trump administration plans to cut. If budget cuts are solidified, members of Congress should take steps to reaffirm U.S. support for Tibet.
One of the other ways Sangay suggests the U.S. can support Tibet is by meeting with the Dalai Lama. Sangay highlighted that on his first international trip, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Vatican traveling to “all three major sacred places of three major traditions.” Sangay continued, “If he can meet with all leaders of major traditions, I think it’s just logical that he meet with the most prominent Buddhist leader”.
Advancing freedom in Asia – and around the world, for that matter – is in the interest of the U.S. China is not the only country to use human rights violations or the threat of abuse to keep the population in check and maintain their grip on power. These authoritarian tendencies are encouraged when actors like the U.S. refrain from supporting freedom where they can. The U.S. should not grant de facto impunity to China by abandoning the Tibetan people in their time of need. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a recent speech to the State Department said that human rights would factor into the Trump administration’s foreign policy paradigm. To make good on that promise, the Trump administration should consider ways to promote human rights and norms in China. The effort can begin with protecting rights and freedom in Tibet.
TIBET EQUILIBRIUM vs THUCYDIDES TRAP – UNFINISHED VIETNAM WAR
Special Frontier Force represents military organization that symbolizes ‘Unfinished Vietnam War’. The US fought bloody War in Vietnam to contain, to engage, to confront, and to oppose the spread of Communism in South Asia. Red China’s Evil actions Destined US-China War. ‘Tibet Equilibrium’ is good reason to fight Unfinished Vietnam War to its rightful conclusion.
Could the U.S. and China end up in a terrible war that neither wants?
May 30 at 6:00 AM
Chinese troops marching to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the ‘Victory of Chinese People’s Resistance against Japanese Aggression and World Anti-Fascist War’ at Tiananmen Square in Beijing on Sept. 3, 2015. China planned to increase its defense budget in 2016 by 7 to 8 percent (European Pressphoto Agency/Rolex Dela Pena/poll/file)
Is a dangerous pattern emerging in U.S.-China relations? International relations scholar Graham Allison coined the term “Thucydides Trap” in 2012 to explain how a rising power can instill fear in an existing power, leading to hostility and mistrust that can escalate into war.
In his new book, Allison argues that China and the United States are falling into this trap, which owes its name to Greek historian Thucydides’s famous history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which proved disastrous for both sides. Fast-forward a couple of millennia, and some observers worry that Washington and Beijing are heading toward the same fate.
But the focus on whether the United States and China will follow this path has obscured another insight from Thucydides’ classic work, “The Peloponnesian War” — how the geography of East Asia would shape what a U.S.-China war might look like, and just how dangerous and destructive such a war may be.
There is another way to look at rising powers
The Thucydides Trap we often see in debates about rising powers is actually a simple version of power transition theory, which dates back to the 1950s. The idea is that a war between great powers is more likely when a rising state seeks to topple the international pecking order. It is easy to see why this idea might be applicable to contemporary U.S.-China relations.
There are other ways to view the situation. Some scholars have argued that things may be more stable when two leading powers are at similar strength; others argue that the sources of war lie elsewhere. And the empirical record does not provide a lot of evidence that rising and dominant powers fight directly, or for the reasons that power transition theorists suggest. This leads some scholars to suggest that the power transition model is a poor guide to understanding U.S.-China relations.
None of this discussion means that U.S. and Chinese analysts should ignore Thucydides, although perhaps they should look for inspiration from other parts of his book.
The other Thucydides Trap isn’t pretty
Thucydides is best remembered for his short argument about the causes of war, but he said much more about its conduct. His insights are quite relevant for a hypothetical clash between the United States and China. This is especially the case in his commentary on the first few years of the Peloponnesian War, where he describes how Athens and Sparta stumbled into a protracted fight that neither side expected.
How they got there has to do with a very different kind of Thucydides trap. They wanted a quick victory, and they wanted to avoid their respective enemies’ comparative military advantages. Both opponents fell victim to delusions about bloodless victory without hard fighting. After their early efforts failed, they faced a terrible dilemma: capitulate or settle into a long and uncertain war.
And both sides faced the same basic challenge when the war began in 431 B.C. — how to avoid engaging on terms that favored the enemy. Sparta (like China today) was a dominant land power while Athens was the dominant naval power (like today’s United States). Sparta needed to figure out how to defeat Athens without challenging its navy directly. Meanwhile, Athens needed Sparta to concede without taking the risk of a pitched battle on land against the formidable Spartan army.
Neither side had a good solution — but they pursued operational fantasies about how to win without having to challenge the enemy’s main area of strength. Athens wanted to use its navy to assist land forces that would conduct raids on Sparta’s allies, while simultaneously encouraging a slave insurrection in the Spartan homeland. Sparta, for its part, thought that others would take on the Athenian navy on its behalf — and then it could focus instead on fighting on land.
Not much came out of these plans for the first few years. As long as Sparta and Athens were unwilling to challenge their counterparts directly, neither was able to hurt the enemy enough to force surrender. Neither side was willing to back down. And because they could both retreat to reliable sanctuaries — Sparta on land, Athens at sea — they didn’t need to seek terms.
A toxic blend of geography and politics conspired against the Greek great powers, and the result was an exhausting war that no one wanted. Geography enabled retreat, while political pressures encouraged continued fighting. Meanwhile the military balance held, with Sparta dominant on land and Athens controlling the water. What followed were years of costly but indecisive campaigns. Neither side was strong enough to win — nor weak enough to lose.
Geography would factor into any U.S.-China war
Here’s how this applies to U.S.-China relations today. As I explain in a forthcoming article in the Journal of Strategic Studies, the United States and China risk slipping into this pattern.
War is far from inevitable, of course. But if it did break out, the United States and China — like Athens and Sparta — would each be able to retreat safely in the event of early wartime setbacks. When we read about potential flash points that could spark a confrontation, especially over Taiwan and disputed maritime claims, this geographic risk lurks in the background.
Wartime setbacks that send each side retreating to its safe haven are possible, perhaps even likely, given that both sides are placing their bets on elaborate plans to win quickly. In this scenario, China and the United States would each put a premium on interfering with the other’s communications and blinding its intelligence capabilities to inject confusion on the battlefield and make it hard to coordinate complex operations.
For the United States, the goal would be to seize the initiative, ensuring freedom of movement in the waters near the Chinese mainland, overcoming anti-access weapons, and buying time for superior reinforcements to arrive in the region. For China, it means forcing the United States to fight farther from the shore, which might prevent it from effectively defending its regional allies and partners.
These plans might sound good in theory, but both sides are investing in efforts to secure their communications against debilitating attacks. The normal fog and friction of war also work against operational plans that depend on precise attacks with little margin for error. Leaders might also become so concerned about nuclear escalation that they scale back their opening moves, further decreasing their effectiveness. For all these reasons, both sides may end up disappointed by the result of the first volley.
A quick political settlement might be the rational response in this case, but the fact that both sides were willing to take the gigantic risk of war suggests they will find it hard to stomach the prospect of backing down, especially if they haven’t suffered many casualties. This is a recipe for a long and grinding war.
This is the kind of Thucydides trap that looms over any U.S.-China conflict. Geography, politics and the maritime-land balance in East Asia create a situation likely to lead to prolonged fighting. The central task for strategists is figuring out how to escape it. If they cannot, the only alternative is avoiding war in the first place.
Joshua Rovner holds the John Goodwin Tower Distinguished Chair in National Security and International Politics at Southern Methodist University, where he also serves as director of the Security and Strategy Program (SAS@SMU).
10:32 AM EDT
On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I confirm the possibility of war between the US and China. We wanted to fight this War to relieve pressure on the US Armed Forces fighting bloody war in Vietnam. President Nixon-Kissinger continued using bombing campaign while knowing that it was not effective. Special Frontier Force as a military organization symbolizes the Unfinished Vietnam War. US was fighting against the spread of Communism in South Asia. The fall of Soviet Union has not eliminated the problem of Power Equilibrium in Asia. If not the tensions of South and North China Sea disputes, the great problem of ‘Tibet Equilibrium’ will be a good reason to check, to contain, to engage, and to oppose Red China.
10:20 AM EDT
Odd that it does not include North Korea in the discussion. The most likely scenario is a US – N. Korea conflict with China taking sides with N Korea. But that does not fit the simplistic model of dominant vs challenging state that is the book’s theme.
10:46 AM EDT
Tibet is the second largest nation of this region sharing border with China. In terms of size, Tibet is second to China. Korea receives plenty of media attention. The problem of Balance of Power demands action to accomplish ‘Tibet Equilibrium’.
7:54 AM EDT
I don’t see how the US and China could stumble onto war. What’s the motive for a war when there is so much trade going between these 2 countries? There is no common border between the two, no known historical animosity between the two people, no known problem that only a war could solve. The Taiwan problem is likely to be solved sometime in the future by the Chinese themselves. If the US wanted to defend Taiwan in the first place, Taiwan and the US would already have a mutual defense treaty. I don’t see any US military base in Taiwan either.
10:52 AM EDT
That’s not correct reading of the US history. President Harry Truman tried his best to avert Communist victory in China. Apart from giving support to Nationalists, the US made modest efforts to deliver arms and ammunition to Tibet during 1948-49. Tibet maintained policy of Isolationism until China’s military conquest in 1950s. Since that time, the US is helping Tibetan Resistance. The plans for a future war are not yet buried.
7:42 AM EDT
Excellent article, thank you. I’ve been teaching in China for the past seven years and worry about what to do if war breaks out – can I make it across the border into Hong Kong? Would the Chinese expel all Americans or intern them or worse? From this end of the pond, it’s pretty easy to see how rising Chinese confidence could lead to miscalculations, spilled blood and war. The Chinese think they can overcome US supremacy in submarines by building out a huge network of sea floor sensors in the South China Sea – who knows what that type of arms race combined with territorial expansion could lead to?
7:22 AM EDT
A good article, but I would have liked to read how the author feels our economic inter-dependency would factor into the equation.
10:56 AM EDT
In the past, Communist Powers like Soviet Union encouraged people and nations to oppose European Colonial Rulers. Now, the world of geopolitics and geoeconomics have changed. Now, the US would encourage people and nations to oppose Red China’s Neocolonialism.
7:10 AM EDT
Only someone with a worldview based in the capitol of the U.S. Bible Belt would spew this. What horse shout; I subscribed to Wash Post for this?
11:00 AM EDT
Don’t worry about your subscription. You can still read this story without being a subscriber. The realities of the world are described by Red China’s occupation of the second largest nation of South Asia. As long as that occupation prevails, there will be Power Imbalance. Tibet Equilibrium cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE REMEMBERS JOHN F KENNEDY’S LEGACY ON 35th PRESIDENT’S 100th BIRTHDAY
On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy on 35th President’s 100th birthday. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated in India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform Tibetan Resistance Movement into regular fighting force.
Special Frontier Force symbolizes Unfinished Vietnam War, America’s War against the spread of Communism in South Asia.
John F Kennedy’s life and legacy remembered on 35th president’s 100th birthday
Published May 29, 2017
In this Feb. 27, 1959 file photo, Sen. John F. Kennedy, D-Mass., is shown in his office in Washington. Monday, May 29, 2017 marks the 100-year anniversary of the birth of Kennedy, who went on to become the 35th President of the United States. (AP Photo, File) (AP 1959)
As Americans celebrate this Memorial Day, they also will remember the life and legacy of President John F. Kennedy who was born 100 years ago this Monday.
While the 35th president left a mixed legacy following his assassination in Dallas in 1963, Kennedy remains nearly as popular today as he did during his time in office, and he arguably created the idea of a president’s “brand” that has become commonplace in American politics.
“President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy worked hard to construct a positive image of themselves, what I call the Kennedy brand,” Michael Hogan, author of ‘The Afterlife of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Biography.’ “And because history is as much about forgetting as remembering, they made every effort to filter out information at odds with that image.”
In commemoration of JFK’s 100th birthday, Fox News has compiled a rundown on the life of the 35th president:
Born on May 29, 1917 in Brookline, Massachusetts to Joseph “Joe” Kennedy and Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald Kennedy
In 1940, Kennedy graduated cum laude from Harvard College with a Bachelor of Arts in government
From 1941 to 1945, Kennedy commanded three patrol torpedo boats in South Pacific during World War II, including the PT-109 which was sunk by a Japanese destroyer
In 1946, Kennedy was elected to Congress for Massachusetts’s 11th congressional district and served three terms
Elected to the U.S. Senate to represent Massachusetts in 1952
Kennedy marries Jacqueline Bouvier, a writer with the Washington Times-Herald, in 1953
Receives the Pulitzer Prize in 1957 for his book “Profiles in Courage”
Elected President of the United States in 1960, becoming the youngest person elected to the country’s highest office, and the first Roman Catholic president.
He is credited with overseeing the creation and launch of the Peace Corps
Sent 3,000 U.S. troops to support the desegregation of the University of Mississippi after riots there left two dead and many others injured
Approved the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 intending to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro
In 1962, Kennedy oversaw the Cuban Missile Crisis — seen as one of the most crucial periods of the U.S.’s Cold War with the Soviet Union
Signed a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in July 1963
Asked Congress to approve more than $22 billion for Project Apollo with the goal of landing an American on the moon by the end of the 1960s
Escalated involvement in the conflict in Vietnam and approved the overthrow of Vietnam’s President Ngô Đình Diệm. By the time of the war’s end in 1975, more than 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in the conflict
Assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved. All market data delayed 20 minutes.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON
Better Late Than Never. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger usurped the powers granted to the US Secretary of State while he worked as National Security Adviser during 1970-73. He is the architect of Doomed American Fantasy that formulated US – China relations while Americans were bleeding and dying in Vietnam to contain the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. USA needs to find Special Prosecutor to investigate Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason. I am waiting for “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”.
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
PRESIDENT TRUMP, HENRY KISSINGER MEET IN OVAL OFFICE AMID WATERGATE COMPARISONS – WHITE HOUSE, US PATCH
In a surprise meeting, Trump sat down with the former secretary of State and official in the Nixon and Ford White Houses.
WASHINGTON, DC — President Trump invited the press into the Oval Office Wednesday for photos and brief questions with a guest that shocked many of the reporters in attendance: Henry Kissinger, the controversial former secretary of State and official in the Nixon and Ford White Houses. Trump called the meeting “an honor.” Earlier in the morning, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a choice many found shocking in light of Tuesday night’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, whose bureau is investigating ties between the president’s campaign and Russia.
Asked in the Oval Office meeting with Kissinger about the Comey termination, Trump said, “He wasn’t doing a good job. Very simple. He was not doing a good job.” (For more information on this and other political stories, subscribe to the White House Patch for daily newsletters and breaking news alerts.)
“With all the comparisons the Nixon era, Trump brings the press into the Oval to see him sitting w/ a key member of the Nixon administration,” tweeted Bloomberg and pool reporter Jennifer Epstein who attended the meeting.
The meeting with Kissinger, 93, was not on the president’s public schedule, and reporters thought they would be entering the meeting with Lavrov when Trump invited them in the office.
“We’re talking about Syria, and I think that we’re going to do very well with respect to Syria and things are happening that are really, really, really positive,” Trump said, according to the pool report. “We’re going to stop the killing and the death.”
He added that his meeting with Lavrov was “very, very good.” Both sides, he said, want to end “the killing — the horrible, horrible killing in Syria as soon as possible, and everybody is working toward that end.”
Kissinger is a deeply embattled figure. Many advocates and journalists have characterized him as a war criminal; the late Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing book, which was turned into a documentary film, called “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” condemning the former secretary of State for his actions. In a contentious decision, the Nobel Prize committee awarded Kissinger the Peace Prize for negotiating a (ultimately unsuccessful) ceasefire in Vietnam.
According to a Politico profile published in December 2016, Kissinger has had a long-running relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The former secretary of State has been working to get closer to Trump, Politico reports, in an attempt to potentially broker a deal with Russia.
Trump said that he’s been friends with Kissinger for a long time. Hillary Clinton, too, spoke of her relationship with Kissinger during the presidential campaign.
The Russian Embassy in the United States Sent out a picture of Trump meeting with Kislyak:
Lavrov also met with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and they appeared briefly in front of the press. While Tillerson answered no questions, a reporter asked the pair if Trump’s firing of Comey cast a shadow over the
meeting, apparently unaware of the news, appeared shocked by the information. “Was he fired?” he said. But then his tone changed: “You are kidding, you are kidding.”
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
BITTER MEMORIES OF APRIL 30, 1975 – VIETNAM WAR’S NEVER ENDING PAIN
James E. Parker Jr., CIA’s last Vietnam evacuee shares his bitter memories of April 30, 1975 in a story published by The Washington Times. Mr. Parker joined the CIA in 1970. I joined Indian Army on July 26, 1970 after grant of Short Service Regular Commission during September 1969. Both of us served the CIA’s Mission in Southeast Asia with different expectations. My sadness, and mental pain continue in the context of Tibet’s continued Military Occupation since 1950s. Vietnam War gave me hope of USA’s willingness to engage and contain the threat posed by Communist Expansionism in Southern Asia.
I am still patiently waiting for the US to fulfill its Mission to evict Military Occupier of Tibet.
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
James Parker, CIA’s last Vietnam evacuee, holds bitter memories of fateful day – Washington Times
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Last CIA evacuee bitterly recalls U.S. Embassy cowardice, betrayals as Saigon fell to North Vietnam
James Parker (right) received the CIA’s Intelligence Medal of Merit from CIA Director William Colby in 1975. This photograph is signed: “To James Parker – with thanks and applause for a job well done in Vietnam. William Colby.
By Richard C. Ehrlich – Special to the Washington Times – – Sunday, April 30, 2017
BANGKOK — Time has done little to dull the anger of James Parker James Parker, the last CIA officer to evacuate Vietnam, as the world marks the latest anniversary of the U.S. evacuation of its embassy in Saigon just ahead of advancing North Vietnamese forces in 1975.
When South Vietnam’s capital fell on the last day of April that year, the intelligence officer’s two best military sources committed suicide and the actions of an American diplomat endangered the lives
of escaping diplomats and CIA personnel, the 73-year-old Mr. Parker recalled in an interview. Off the coast of Danang, panicked South Vietnamese who evacuated onto a U.S. ship shot, stabbed, raped, trampled and executed one another in revenge attacks.
But much of his anger targets Mr. Parker‘s fellow Americans as they stumbled through one of the low points of the postwar era in their nation’s history.
“As for my experiences, back in Vietnam at the end, [I remember] the absolute chickens—t character of the men in the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, how they were so petty and self-indulgent, so pedantic and so distant from the fighting,” Mr. Parker said in an interview with The Washington Times.
He said the attitude in the embassy contributed to the ignominious defeat.
“Their pusillanimity disrespected the men, American and Asian, I had known who died fighting the good fight,” he said. “The State Department people were not folks to look up to in a combat zone.”
Mr. Parker lives in Las Vegas after a 32-year career in the CIA that started in 1970. He has written several books about his experiences in Southeast Asia, including his newest volume published last year, “The Vietnam War: Its Own Self.” The colorful, 706-page book includes photographs of CIA officers, Hmong and Vietnamese soldiers, maps of bomb sites, and pictures of dead bodies and one nude Lao bar girl.
His memories of the bitter end remain especially vivid. One week before the communist North defeated the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government, the “evacuation plan for the consulate” in Can Tho city where Mr. Parker was based degenerated into chaos.
“Jim D., a career Central Intelligence Operations officer and chief of the CIA base in the Delta of South Vietnam” insisted that the safest, most reliable evacuation would be in helicopters, Mr. Parker said in the interview, declining to reveal Jim D.’s full name. But Consul General Terry McNamara
did not trust that the CIA‘s battle-hardened Air America pilots would fly them to a waiting U.S. Navy ship.
Mr. McNamara yelled: “They could leave us all here. They are wild, uncontrollable animals, the Air America people. We control our own destiny if we go out by boat” on a 60-mile Bassac River route to the South China Sea.
Jim D. replied: “I have my people to protect, and I have [Air America] helicopters. My people go out by helicopter.”
Mr. Parker‘s and his CIA colleagues’ escape was also at risk.
“Mr. McNamara’s plan did not provide for the safety of the CIA officers,” he wrote. “We had no cover. If we were captured by the North Vietnamese, as was entirely possible, McNamara suggested we tell them that we were USAID engineers, which would not have held up during any type of serious interrogation.”
Mr. McNamara, his diplomatic staff and some South Vietnamese nationals went on boats down the “extremely dangerous” river, Mr. Parker said in the interview. “He must have known his plan would leave CIA agents behind. And I don’t think he cared.”
The State Department eventually overruled Mr. McNamara and cleared an evacuation by air.
This allowed Mr. Parker, Jim D. and others to arrange Air America helicopter flights to U.S. Navy ships for themselves, the consulate, embassy and CIA, plus more than 100 CIA key local allies during the final 48 hours.
One week before the war’s end, Mr. Parker‘s best South Vietnamese source, Gen. Tran Van Hai, predicted the April 30 deadline of North Vietnam’s victory. But the CIA station chief in Saigon, Tom Polgar, and CIA head analyst Frank Snepp refused to believe Mr. Parker.
backed South Vietnamese Rangers also climbed aboard.
“The Vietnamese Rangers took over my ship. Killed, raped, robbed. You could hear gunshots all the time. Soldiers were walking around with bloody knives,” Capt. Flink told Mr. Parker. “We had to lock ourselves in the pilot house. I only had a crew of 40 plus some security, but there were thousands of those wild, crazy Vietnamese people.
They insisted that North Vietnam would allow Saigon and the southern Delta to remain under U.S. protection after a cease-fire, he said.
On May 1, 1975, Gen. Hai was found dead.
“General Hai lay face down at his desk. Alone during the night, without saying good-bye to anyone, he had committed suicide. A half-empty glass of brandy, laced with poison, was near an outstretched hand,” Mr. Parker wrote.
“That report Hai gave me [predicting] the day Saigon would fall to the NVA” probably helped Mr. Parker win a top citation from his Langley bosses, the agent bitterly recalled in the interview.
Hours after Hanoi’s victory, South Vietnamese Gen. Le Van Hung — Mr. Parker‘s other top intelligence source — saluted his troops “and then shook each man’s hand. He asked everyone to leave. Some of his men did not move, so he pushed them out the door, shook off his wife’s final pleas and finally was alone in his office.
“Within moments there was a loud shot. General Hung was dead,” he wrote.
There were other bitter memories in those final days. One month before the final defeat, Merchant Marine Capt. Ed Flink aboard the Pioneer Contender — a U.S. ship chartered to the Military Sealift Command — was evacuating Americans and thousands of South Vietnamese civilians from Danang when it fell to the communists. As the mission proceeded, however, some U.S.-
“They finally shot some of the worst, once we docked but I’ll tell you, son, it was hell. We found bodies all over the ship after everyone got off. Babies, old women, young boys. Cut, shot and trampled to death.”
Mr. Parker said in the interview: “It was Vietnamese officials who shot the rioters.”
Capt. Flink later told interviewers that Vietnamese conducted onboard “kangaroo courts” and executed suspected communists.
Mr. Parker was the last CIA officer to evacuate Vietnam, escaping on May 1, 1975, two days after the U.S. abandoned the embassy in Saigon.
He joined the CIA in 1971 as a paramilitary case officer fighting alongside ethnic Hmong guerrillas and Thai forces against Lao and North Vietnamese communists inside Laos until 1973. In 1974, he became a CIA intelligence officer in South Vietnam handling Vietnamese agents and South Vietnam’s military.
He retired in 1992 but returned to the CIA on Sept. 11, 2001, as a contractor to “teach tradecraft to new hires” and work inside Cambodia, Afghanistan and elsewhere before retiring again in 2011.
All site contents © Copyright 2017 The Washington Times, LLC|3600 New York Avenue NE | Washington, DC 20002 |202-636-3000
DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF GERALD FORD – AMERICA’S UNFINISHED WAR
Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald Ford initiated era of Doomed US Presidency when they concluded War against Communism through negotiated Surrender. Unchecked Communist Expansionism in Southern Asia poses severe risks to vital US security interests in Asia-Pacific Region.
FORD SAYS THAT WAR IS FINISHED FOR AMERICA
At a speech at Tulane University, President Gerald Ford says the Vietnam War is finished as far as America is concerned. “Today, Americans can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by re-fighting a war.” This was devastating news to the South Vietnamese, who were desperately pleading for U.S. support as the North Vietnamese surrounded Saigon for the final assault on the capital city.
The North Vietnamese had launched a major offensive in March to capture the provincial capital of Ban Me Thuot (Darlac province) in the Central Highlands. The South Vietnamese defenders there fought very poorly and were quickly overwhelmed by the North Vietnamese attackers. Despite previous promises by both Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to provide support, the United States did nothing. In an attempt to reposition his forces for a better defense, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu ordered his forces in the Highlands to withdraw to more defensible positions to the south. What started out as a reasonably orderly withdrawal soon degenerated into a panic that spread throughout the South Vietnamese armed forces. The South Vietnamese abandoned Pleiku and Kontum in the Highlands with very little fighting and the North Vietnamese pressed the attack from the west and north. In quick succession, Quang Tri, Hue, and Da Nang in the north fell to the communist onslaught. The North Vietnamese continued to attack south along the coast, defeating the South Vietnamese forces at each encounter.
As the North Vietnamese forces closed on the approaches to Saigon, the politburo in Hanoi issued an order to Gen. Van Tien Dung to launch the “Ho Chi Minh Campaign,” the final assault on Saigon itself. Dung ordered his forces into position for the final battle.
The South Vietnamese 18th Division made a valiant final stand at Xuan Loc, 40 miles northeast of Saigon, in which the South Vietnamese soldiers destroyed three of Dung’s divisions. However, the South Vietnamese finally succumbed to the superior North Vietnamese numbers. With the fall of Xuan Loc on April 21 and Ford’s statement at Tulane, it was apparent that the North Vietnamese would be victorious. President Thieu resigned and transferred authority to Vice President Tran Van Huong before fleeing Saigon on April 25.
By April 27, the North Vietnamese had completely encircled Saigon and began to maneuver for their final assault. By the morning of April 30, it was all over. When the North Vietnamese tanks crashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, the South Vietnamese surrendered and the Vietnam War was officially over.
NO CHINA, NO RUSSIA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM
United States must define Foreign Policy before choosing allies. “AMERICA FIRST” Foreign Policy demands choosing “TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.”
Both Russia and China are major military powers of world competing for Superpower status. To achieve ‘Balance of Power’ to restore ‘Power Equilibrium’, America must choose Tibet because of its strategic location.
Tibet is second largest nation of the region and Tibet’s Independence from military occupation is the only real solution to contain and engage military powers like Russia and China.
Major Retd Rudranarasimham, DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER
CHINA OR RUSSIA? U.S. MAY HAVE TO CHOOSE AN ALLY
© Provided by IBT Media (UK) RTX2QS13
This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
Forty-five years ago, last February, U.S. President Richard Nixon returned from a visit to China that shocked the world and unsettled leaders in Moscow, who were awaiting a visit from Nixon a few months later.
Soviet leaders wondered if they were finally witnessing the birth of a U.S.-China alliance that they had feared ever since the breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance in the early 1960s.
As Washington and the media convulse over every new outrage emanating from Moscow, while President Trump repeatedly asks, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?” U.S. policymakers are faced with the same choice between Russia and China, though this time the stakes might be even higher.
The history of persistent tensions between Russia and China suggests two choices: Accommodate and reconcile with Russia to balance against the greater power—China. Or, align with China to defend a rules-based international order from its most powerful antagonist—Russia.
It should be clear by now that we can no longer oppose Russia and China at the same time. Though that route might seem tempting and natural, given the historical aspirations of U.S. foreign policy to protect territorial sovereignty, promote human rights and provide a framework for free trade, we are no longer equal to the task.
At a minimum, that would require decisive U.S. action in Syria, firm military support for the government in Kiev, a drastic military buildup of NATO forces across Eastern Europe and a more confrontational posture in the South and East China seas. Doing that would further stretch a U.S. military that is already facing a personnel shortage. It would also represent a burden that the American people apparently no longer wish to carry.
Lost in the discussion of whether Trump’s “America First” bravado reflects militarism or isolationism are the ways in which our options have been shaped by the administration that preceded him.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, second from right, and China President Xi Jinping watch the Victory Day parade at Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2015. Reuters
We have only begun to reckon with the foreign policy legacy of Barack Obama, but he has clearly done more to shape the current global predicament than Trump has. When the Russian, Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers met in Moscow in the final weeks of the Obama administration to solve the Syrian crisis by themselves without inviting
the U.S., they were making a startling declaration: The nation that had once declared itself to be “indispensable” was now very clearly dispensable. It would have been unthinkable at any point since Pearl Harbor for American interests to be discounted so brazenly in solving the most pressing international crisis.
It is hard to separate the factors that brought us to this point. Is this simply an inevitable product of relative, or even absolute, American decline? Is it a product of a president who sought to “lead from behind” and whose fundamental foreign policy principle was that sins of commission are always worse than sins of omission? Or did Obama conclude he was dealing with a country, already exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that was no longer willing to shoulder the burden of defending the free world? Either way, Trump has inherited a country that is no longer willing and able to play the leadership role it once did in world affairs.
So where do we go from here? If we cannot oppose both Russia and China, then we need to compromise with at least one of them.
MAKE FRIENDS WITH RUSSIA?
Arguing for a Russian alignment is the notion that China already does more damage to American interests around the globe than Russia does. China damages U.S. economic interests through unfair trade practices, our standing in Asia by undermining our alliances, and our ability to promote democracy, particularly in Africa, by offering aid and investment without good governance conditions. As China grows more powerful and assertive, its efforts to drive the U.S. out of East Asia, coupled with increasing challenges to American interests around the globe, will amount to a full-spectrum challenge to the current U.S. position in the world.
In contrast, Russia’s challenges to American interests are relative pinpricks. Russia does not have the ability to turn either Eastern Europe or the Middle East into its own sphere of influence. It is even losing the competition for economic influence in Central Asia, its own post-Soviet backyard, to China.
Putin might not be an evil dictator bent on doing as much damage to the West as possible, but rather a spurned pragmatist with a realistic view of Russia’s position in the world who had initially hoped to cooperate with Western leaders, but has been embittered by poor treatment by them. Putin’s Russia, therefore, would represent not a mortal threat to the international world order, but rather a missed opportunity, one that can still perhaps be salvaged.
OR CHOOSE CHINA INSTEAD?
Alternatively, we could align with China against Russia.
This approach makes sense if you believe Putin began as a pragmatist, but that was only a temporary tack, given his KGB background and nationalist authoritarian inclinations. But now that he has seen how weak his opponents are and how much havoc he can wreak, he has set his sights higher. Fifteen years ago he might not have imagined he could break NATO or the EU, but now that seems within reach, and nothing will deter him from this chance to realize the fondest dreams of his Soviet predecessors. What could we possibly offer him to match such dreams? He would revel in the chaos that would follow.
Chaos, however, is precisely the opposite of what the leaders in Beijing desire. China’s resurgence is built on a world of peace and trade, a world ultimately sustained by American military strength. For China to seek to challenge such an order, it would have to imagine that it could not only fill the role the U.S. currently fills, but manage the transition in such a way as to avoid a chaotic interlude. Chinese leaders are far too clear-headed for such a gambit, and in any case they see no need to rush such a transition before conditions for it have matured.
President Xi Jinping is anyway preoccupied with ensuring the indefinite continuation of Communist Party rule. What could jeopardize that more than a world in chaos and economic disaster?
IS THE CHOICE EVEN OURS?
With Russia against China? With China against Russia?
There is no question such a choice is unpalatable. Not only would either alternative involve morally difficult concessions, but having to make the choice at all implies that the United States is no longer capable of defending the world order it has long sponsored. This is a difficult reality to accept.
And broaching the possibility of such a choice leads to more difficult questions.
Could Russia even be persuaded to align with the U.S. against China or China against Russia? What would we have to offer either side? What would this mean for our allies, especially in Europe and East Asia? The latter question might not be as insoluble as it may seem, because our allies have long since begun anticipating just such a scenario. But if we are no longer able and willing to perform the role we once did, we need to reckon with the consequences.
Jeremy Friedman is Assistant Professor, Business, Government, and the International Economy, Harvard Business School.