– Vietnam War Politics -The Chennault Affair
Over three decades ago the famous Pulitzer Prize winning historian, Barbara W. Tuchman made cogent observations on the role of political influence regarding the decisions to go to war, the strategy to conduct the war and how to end the war. In her book The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam (1984), she states,”Mankind, it seems, makes a poorer performance of government than almost any other human activity.”
Consider that profound thought for a moment in regards to our involvement in Vietnam over a half century ago…
Five American presidents, Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, pursued inherently flawed policies in Vietnam leading to a war of attrition costing over 58,000 American lives between 1961 -1975. Tuchman asserts that misguided political practice and behavior have been an intrinsic element of government since the Renaissance. In other words, we never seem to learn the lessons of history and are condemned to repeat our mistakes.
Santayana pointed out this tragic pitfall in the Spanish philosopher’s treatise, “Life of Reason” in 1905. Tuchman obviously agreed with him and examined the psychology of faulty decision making, stating:
“Reason is more often than not overpowered by non-rational human frailties ambition, anxiety, status-seeking, face-saving,” she points out, and adds, “Rulers will justify a bad or wrong decision on the ground , ‘He had no choice'”, referring to JFK’s committing military advisors and support to South Vietnam in 1961.
Tuchman disputes this specious argument with, “No matter how equal two alternatives may appear, there is always freedom of choice to change… Yet to recognize error, to cut losses, to alter course, is the most repugnant option in government.”
Find that insightful? Those profound thoughts and observations ring true and explain a lot in any discussion of Vietnam. And, for that matter, it may be relevant to include them in our consideration of modern politics involving recent wartime decisions by contemporary politicians in America.
The political dissension we see now had much of its origin in our Vietnam experience. Politics in the Vietnam era became a blood sport and spawned ongoing controversy and animosity. I’ll give you one of the best examples of political intrigue from that time. You could not make this conspiracy stuff up. It really happened.
The Chennault Affair
Intrigue and mystery characterized one of the greatest ongoing political “who-dunnits” of the Vietnam era (1964-1975). The episode occurred in 1968 during the run-up to the Presidential election featuring Richard M. Nixon vs. Hubert Humphrey. This colorful back story that I describe below has sparked controversy until the present day. People still argue about it. My research hopefully will give you a perspective and shed some light on a famous political escapade, one for the ages.
Background: Recall that LBJ dropped out of ’68 presidential race due to the escalating antiwar fervor after losing the NH primary. He was desperate to end the war by conducting the Paris Peace talks in early 1968. Nixon painted LBJ and Humphrey, his VP, weak on war. Meanwhile, the Democrats portrayed Nixon as a hawk, a war monger. Nothing unusual there for campaign chatter in a heated environment. Then an interesting subplot developed, storybook in its dimension.
Enter into the picture an attractive republican Chinese-American woman, a socially gifted political operative. Her name, Anna Chennault. She lived in Saigon at the time, 1968. The wife of the famous Flying Tiger commander, Claire Chennault, had connections in high places, money, and influential DC “friends.” She became the central figure in the controversy known as the “Chennault Affair”. It was alleged for the past fifty years that she collaborated with the South Vietnam government to torpedo the Paris Peace talks, assuring them than Nixon would help them win the war once elected and that Humphrey would abandon them. She urged them not to trust the Democrats. Nixon was on their side.
Now the plot thickens. The Johnson White House learned through intelligence intercepts of Anna Chennault’s private discussions in Saigon that she indeed urged the South Vietnamese ambassador to boycott the Paris peace negotiations with North Vietnam. She promised Nixon would continue to support the South Vietnam war effort, pointing out Humphrey’s campaign pledge to end the war in 1969.
Did this conspiracy really take place? Democrats insisted it did for decades and her covert activity prolonged the war. That assumes the Peace talks would have been effective only if Humphrey had been elected, not Nixon. The dispute became endless and unproven until the next century.
James Nichter’s A Vietnam Myth That Refuses to Die absolves Anna Chenault of her role in sabotaging Vietnam peace talks to help Nixon’s election based on a personal interview before she died. He makes a compelling argument, but without definitive evidence, basically, relying only her word. Most of the major players are dead, so no one was around to collaborate his contention. The controversy continued.
However, in 2007, John Farrel found the smoking gun when rummaging through archives at the Nixon Presidency Library. He discovered handwritten notes of HR Haldeman that appeared to counter the “myth” argument. The notes confirmed Haldeman, of Watergate infamy, was the intermediary in the “Chennault Affair,” managing Anna’s political maneuvering through back channels. But, Farrel found no evidence of Nixon’s direct involvement in the affair. He assumed Haldeman had received marching orders.
Following this conspiracy theory so far?
According to recent, accurate accounts ten years later by someone who was a credible firsthand witness and is still alive to relate the story, we find some closure on the episode with his explanation.
Still living, Ted Van Dyk, VP Humphrey’s assistant at that time, shed some light on the controversy, He related that LBJ met with his national security team and chose not to publicly disclose the Nixon-Chennault initiative in 1968 because of the sensitive involvement of an intel agency conducting surveillance on a political opponent. (Sound familiar?)
They could not disclose that their information came from illegal intercepts, nor could they prove Nixon’s personal involvement. Another consideration, they decided that if the information was released, Nixon would brand it an election-eve ploy and ask for documentation they could not risk providing because it was obtained illegally. A classic Catch-22 circumstance.
Instead, acting on Humphrey’s behalf , Van Dyk contacted James Rowe, a law partner of Chennault attorney, Tommy Corcaran, and asked him to tell Corcoran and the South Vietnamese ambassador that the LBJ administration knew about the Chennault-Nixon initiative and to urge South Vietnam to come to the negotiation table. The ploy to intimidate them failed.
Two days before the Presidential election the South Vietnam government responded with an unequivocal “no”.
The outcome: Nixon won the presidency and sidetracked the Paris peace negotiations immediately after his inauguration, then released the “dogs of war,” increasing the bombing of North Vietnam and allowing search and destroy operations into Cambodia and Laos, previously off limits.
The story does not end there.
The connection of Chennault with Nixon suggested collusion and led the Democrats for years to assert that Chennault’s intervention prolonged the Vietnam War. Some suggested that Nixon’s involvement amounted to treason. This controversy raged on for the next five decades until ten years ago.
Finally, fact was separated from fiction. The Chennault Affair actually happened and was orchestrated by Halderman following Anna’s idea to help Nixon’s bid for the Presidency by influencing the South Vietnamese ambassador in Saigon. Whether sabotaging the Paris peace negotiation conference in 1968 prolonged the war remains open to opinion, hypothetical, full of assumptions. Did Nixon know? Probably, but had plausible deniability. No direct evidence exists.
The evidence presented by Farrel and Van Dyk substantiate the claims that sordid political activity was perpetrated by both parties in an effort to win the White House. Illegal electronic surveillance by one party, dirty pool by the other.
Does anything in politics ever change?
—————————-
Want to purchase RECALL? – Click here
Want to hear what readers are saying about RECALL? Here are some reader reviews and a professional review.
Leave a Reply