RIPPLE SALVO… #247… GALLOP ASKS THE QUESTIONS… but first…
4 NOVEMBER 1966… THE HEADLINES ON THE HOMEFRONT from the NYT…on a fair and sunny Friday in New York City…
Page 1: “President Faces Minor Surgery; Calls Off Tour”…”President Johnson announced today that he would undergo surgery late this month for repair of a ventral hernia–a defect in the scar from his gall bladder operation a year ago. At the same time, a small polyp, a common protrusion of soft tissue–will be removed from the President’s throat near his right vocal cord…Dr. George Burkley, personal physician of the President said: ‘There is no indication of any serious problems in either instance, and his general health continues to be excellent…the planned operation will force him to curtail his activities for November.”… Page 1: “Nixon Criticizes Manila Results”…”Richard M. Nixon said yesterday that the recent Manila Conference accomplished nothing toward achievement of peace in Vietnam. ‘The Administration’s current policy resigns America and free Asian nations to a war which could last five years and cost more casualties than Korea.” The former Vice President made his first full appraisal of the Manila Conference in a 10-page report and a campaign speech in Johnson City, Tenn. He said: “…a strategy for the future must be devised that will increase the military, economic and diplomatic pressure on the aggressors to end the war and will guarantee peace without surrender throughout Asia.’…”… Page 3: “U.S. Submarine Aground On Reef Off Australia”… United States submarine Tiru with a crew of 80 aboard was aground today on Frederick Reef off the northeastern coast of Australia but was not reported in any danger.”…
4 NOVEMBER 1966… OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER… NYT Page 1: “U.S. Expected To Expand Raids In area Of Hanoi”…
“Defense Department planners are drafting blueprints for an intensification of the bombing of North Vietnam. The Pentagon expects an affirmative discussion by President Johnson for a step-up. The focus of the new assault would be railroad junctions and freight yards, power plants and defense factories, particularly in the vicinity of Hanoi. For months a number of high military advisors have urged President Johnson to expand the list of targets. Their pleas were rejected before Manila because the President was unwilling to jeopardize any chance that North Vietnam might change its mind about negotiating an end to the war. Nor is he willing to do so before the elections, lest he alienate voters buoyed by gestures of peace.
“Expansion of bombing was to be designed to serve several purposes. One might be to increase pressure on North Vietnam leaders to reconsider their refusal to negotiate by reminding them — the quotient of pain will continue to rise so long as the war continues. The last major step up was in June when gas and oil storage tanks close to Hanoi and Haiphong were struck for the first time….Stepped up efforts may have hindered efforts to transport guns, ammunition and other materials to units in South Vietnam. Although some outlying transportation centers have already been hit, most strikes on the transportation system have been directed at rolling stock– freight cars, trucks and barges. There are a handful of railway junctions within 10 miles of Hanoi. Military traffic from Communist China, from Haiphong and from North Vietnamese defense plants goes through these junctions and Hanoi, and then southward. Military men have long south to bomb these to keep the material from spreading out to smaller moving targets over the countryside….
“One of the defense plants eyed by the target selections is the Thai Nguyen steel plant located 40 miles northwest of Hanoi. One of the planning officers said: ‘We devote a lot of effort to severing a rail line and then a day or two come back to find it repaired or a new section of line laid out that skirts around the bombed out section.’… The railroad tracks come from the Thai Nguyen plant along with bridge repair sections.
“Certain Pentagon leaders privately express disappointment that repeated attacks on North Vietnam petroleum supplies have failed to reduce materially the movement of supplies to the South. The trucks continue to roll. This has been possible it is believed because decentralized storage areas were filled with fuel before the central depot raids. And even more important, because Soviet bloc tankers have been bringing new oil supplies. The oil tankers in many instances move into Haiphong harbor and unload into waiting lighters. The lighters stay close to Russian ships until darkness or storms give them cover. One officer said: ‘They know we don’t dare attack them where there is a chance of hitting the Russians.’
“Ships going into the north not only bring fuel but also surface-to-air missiles, spare parts for weapons and ammunition. And several officers have urged that the President permit the dropping of aerial mines into Haiphong to halt the ocean-going traffic. Knowledgeable officials say there is little likelihood that this will be granted soon. ‘For one thing, it could create all kinds of international problems with the Soviet Union and other nations whose ships use the harbor,’ one official commented. ‘And besides, the enemy could still get in needed supplies by moving to lesser harbors, by unloading over the beaches, by making greater use of lighters to unload at offshore islands and by making increased use of the roads and rails from China.’ Similarly, the three major jet fields in the Hanoi-Haiphong area will probably remain off limits at least until the MIG fighters cause us more problems.
“Both Russian and Chinese aircraft move in and out of these airfields and administration officials do not want to risk destroying any of those planed. Intelligence officials believe that North Vietnam operates 60-70 MIGs, but these are believed to have accounted for only a handful of American losses.”…
New York Times (5 Nov reporting 4 Nov ops) Page 2: “In North Vietnam yesterday the United States pilots destroyed 42 trucks, 25 buildings, 14 barges, and 8 bridges during 155 missions of 2 to 5 planes each, hitting hardest in the panhandle region. Three Air Force F-4Cs dueled momentarily with a pair of MIG-21s, the enemy’s most advance jets about 120-miles northwest of Hanoi. No aircraft incurred battle damage.”
“Vietnam: Air Losses” (Hobson) Three fixed wing aircraft lost over Southeast Asia on 4 November 1966…
(1) CAPTAIN DEAN A. ELMER was flying an F-105D of the 469th TFS and 388th TFW out of Korat on an armed reconnaissance mission twenty miles west of Cap Mui ron and was hit several times in an attack on a target. He was able to fly the aircraft out of North Vietnam into Laos before having to eject. His rescue by HH-3 was made difficult since he was injured and in a tree. His F-105 cover aircraft required three refuelings to remain on station for the successful rescue. CAPTAIN ELMER was hospitalized in japan before resuming his career in CONUS…
(2) MAJOR ROBERT EDWIN BRINCKMANN and CAPTAIN VINCENT ANTHONY SCUNGIO were flying a Wild Weasel F-105F of the 13th TFS and 388th TFW in support of strike operations northwest of Kep. MAJOR BRINCKMANN located and commenced an attack on an active SAM site. His down the throat attack was met head-on by an SA-2 and both MAJOR BRINCKMANN and CAPTAIN SCUNGIO perished in the missile impact on their F-105F which crashed on the target three miles west of Kep airfield. The gallant pair of warriors were Killed in Action. This was the fifth Wild Weasel crew to be lost in three months. On 31 July 1989 the Vietnamese returned a set of remains to the USA that were subsequently identified as those of MAJOR BRINCKMANN. The remains of CAPTAIN SCUNGIO remain lost on the battlefield where he fell fifty years ago on this date and has been left behind, so far.
(3) CAPTAIN VINCENT JOHN CONNOLLY was flying an F-101C of the 20th TRS and 432nd TRW out of Udorn on a BDA reconnaissance mission following a wing strike on a road bridge when hit by an SA-2 near Hoang Xa 15 miles south of Hanoi. CAPTAIN CONNOLLY’s Voodoo broke up when hit and he was killed immediately. His remains were handed over by the North Vietnamese in 1984 for burial at Arlington National Cemetery. CAPTIN CONNOLLY was Killed in Action in an unarmed aircraft far from home fifty years ago this day…
RIPPLE SALVO… #247… THE WITHDRAWAL OPTION… The Gallup Poll, the voice of the people. In mid 1965 Gallup reported that President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam war enjoyed a two to one approval rating. By January 1967 his approval number was down to 38% with a disapproval rating of 43%… One of the Gallup questions posed to respondents was called the “mistake” question. Did the United States make a mistake in sending troops to Vietnam in 1966 and 1967… Here is where the nation stood in November 1966, 50 years ago this week… 31% said, yes it was a mistake; 51% said it was not a mistake; and 18% had on opinion.
In this same time frame Gallup presented respondents three possible options for the Vietnam War: (1) continue the present situation indefinitely; (2) fight a major war with thousands of American casualties; or (3) withdrawal of American troops leading to eventual communist takeover in Vietnam. Thirty percent said a “Major War” with casualties was preferable. Thirty-nine percent said that continuing to pursue the original goals until they are achieved was the right way to go. Only 19% chose the withdrawal option. In late 1966 only one in five Americans thought withdrawal was a good option.
The following is quoted from David Barrett’s “Uncertain Warriors: Lyndon Johnson and His Vietnam Advisors” Pages 71-72…
“The 19 percent of the public who thought that the United States should get out of Vietnam, even if that meant a communist take over, has little representation in Congress and the news media. Expression of such sentiment came not from mainstream doves like Fulbright or critical news media outlets like the New York Times but from isolated legislators like Morse, demonstrators, news media outlets with smaller circulations, and leftist commentators such as Noam Chomsky. Chomsky wrote in 1967 that immediate withdrawal from Vietnam was the only ‘feasible’ alternative and castigated those doves who criticized the war but favored continued U.S. presence in Indochina. He could not understand how reporter Neil Sheehan of the New York Times could describe the U.S. strategy late in 1966 as ‘creating a killing machine’ then write: ‘Despite these misgivings, I do not see how we can do anything but continue to prosecute the war.’ Nor could Chomsky understand James Reston writing in 1967 that the United States was ‘fighting a war now on the principle that military power shall not compel south Vietnam to do what it does not want to do.’ And to Arthur Schlesinger’s assertion that ‘we may all be saluting the wisdom and statesmanship of the American government’ if the Unite States should win in Vietnam, Chomsky replied that it was ‘startling to see how easily the rhetoric of imperialism comes to American lips.’ In Chomsky’s view the tragedy in Vietnam would end only when the Americans got out.”
In November 1966 “the withdrawal option” was off the table. The choices were (1) hang in there or (2) escalate. What would you have advised the President at that time? Now, with fifty years of hind sight, what would you advise? Now, in 2016, with the lessons of Vietnam considered, as you survey the world landscape and consider the status of our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria with ISIS, and our national military and economic readiness, what option would you advise the incoming President to incorporate into his/her National Strategy?…. (1) press on at constant rpm, (2) power-up and all ahead full–expand, or (3) withdraw from South Asia and reset our perimeter of influence? I am hiding my secret ballot until after the election…
Lest we forget… Bear (Alienated American) -30-