Saturday July 14, 2007 The Tonkin Gulf Incident Posted by Richard Hodge There is some buzz around the net about the Tonkin Gulf phantom attack. I hate to admit but I had never even heard of this before. Here is some basic summary of it from NPR.org: from NPR:                    On Sunday Aug. 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked the American destroyer the USS Maddox in Southeast Asia's Gulf of Tonkin. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara told President Lyndon B. Johnson that a covert strike against North Vietnam two days earlier likely provoked the attack upon the Maddox. Left, an oil painting depicting the attack. Right, the three attacking North Vietnamese torpedo boats, as seen from the Maddox. The U.S. destroyer damaged two of the boats and sank the third. Retaliation by the Americans was limited to attacking those boats that day. The Maddox and another destroyer, the Turner Joy, were then deliberately positioned to draw a second attack.                                  Two days later, on Aug. 4, McNamara, left, reported to Johnson that an American destroyer in the region was under torpedo attack by the North Vietnamese. That brief conversation was the tipping point for the entire Vietnam War. Johnson ordered American forces to openly attack the North, and he asked Congress to pass a resolution pre-approving any military actions the president would take.                                             Johnson on Aug. 4, 1964, announcing that the U.S. will retaliate against North Vietnam for two attacks on American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. Later, Johnson and others would learn the second attack, which propelled the president and Congress to enter the Vietnam War, never happened.                                  So if I get this right: A United States covert strike against North Vietnam by an American Destroyer ship (the Maddox) provokes 3 North Vietnamese torpedo boats to attack back at the Maddox. During their attack, the Maddox completely sinks one and damages the other two NV torpedo boats and never even gets hit. Then the Maddox, as well as another American destroyer (the Turner Joy) are deliberately positioned to draw a second attack The Defense Secretary (assuming that those two ships would be attacked) tells the President that they were under torpedo attack by the North Vietnamese. Johnson orders American forces to attack North Vietnam        (and gets Congress to pre-approve further military actions) America assumes that this is a retaliation so the Vietnam war begins - but it turns out that the second attack never even happened and the first attack was provoked... But that is what justified the beginning of the Vietnam War?

	Christian	2007-08-14 06:41:34
	Woh...seems like we always get ourselves into trouble with preemptive strikes. Have you tested these facts anywhere?
	SorryButNo	2007-10-21 20:28:48
	It's a bit sad you've never heard of the "Tonkin Gulf Incident," and sadder still to link to a Fark frenzy where they find 72 ways to convey "Republicans = Nazis" with the 2008 Republican National Convention logo. http://www.speculativebubble.com/politics/republican-national-convention-logo-photoshopped.php But regarding Vietnam, it was JFK who brought America into that war: http://www.pbs.org/battlefieldvietnam/timeline/ That was before JFK unilaterally invaded Cuba (I'm assuming you never heard of that either, so Google "Bay of Pigs Invasion"). Also, the Vietnam war should be viewed in the larger context of dealing with the expansion of communism (an ideology which has claimed over 100 million lives), and not as a "quagmire" or other meme the "mainstream" media and pacifist politicians attempt to portray. If you're open-minded enough to learn more, try reading: "Vietnam: The Necessary War" by Michael Lind http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Necessary-Reinterpretation-Americas-Disastrous/dp/0684870274
	NotIntoDenial	2008-03-01 08:58:11
	I'm sorry, but SorryButNo is wrong. More than 2 million Vietnamese didn't die to stop commies from killing a hundred million imaginary people. This war was started because there is incredible amounts of money to be made supplying Uncle Sam with the tools of the trade. See http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm written my US major general Smedley Butler. It's a few years old, but the more things change, the more things stay the same. Just like the Iraq war, started with lies so Halliburton and other neocon cronies can make outrageous profits, some of which are spent to make sure that the American people believe the next lies they tell. For a little while. The truth sometimes gets told. Thanks, Mr. Richard Hodge, for writing an article that helps the truth find its way to more people. Try http://www.ae911truth.org/ to find yet more evidence of more freshly told lies, this time by the Resident of the United States and other neocons.
	SoulReal	2008-03-08 12:39:38
	first let me say that I have enjoyed reading your blog for quite a while now. I disagree with both previous comments. It is funny how the same thing happens again and again, yet many do not make the connection. Dating back to the USS Maine during the Spanish American War, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and now we have 9-11 which is in no way connected to Iraq but is used to justify the war. There is a larger agenda at work and it is up to you to find it. Simplistic answers such as "it's for money" or "to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" is absurd. Logically, much of what is generally excepted as reasons behind U.S. military action do not make sense. The same agenda has been played out one generation after another with different players but all working together. That is not an accident, greed does not play in teams and the agenda has an outcome if you can fathom it. Read the books of policy makers and you will quickly see what the agenda is about. Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5) "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31) "Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40) "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40) "Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145) "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148) "China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149) "In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209) "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)