A year ago this month, 100,000 people took to the streets in London's biggest anti-Vietnam war mobilisation. Organised by the October 27th Ad Hoc Committee, (a united front of political groups, tendencies and individuals) the mobilisation demonstrated its solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their heroic resistance to American imperialism. Sickened by the Labour Government's support of the American imperialists, the demonstrators also demanded an end to British complicity in the war.
Revolutionary socialists took their place on this demonstration and helped to mobilise it. They did so, not only to express their solidarity with, and to pay tribute to, the heroism of the Vietnamese freedom fighters, and to protest against British complicity, but also because they recognised that the outcome of the Vietnamese war would have important consequences for the liberation struggles taking place throughout the world.
The task of mobilising maximum support for the October 27th demonstration was seen as a priority by all those socialists who understood the decisive nature of the Vietnam war. For too long American imperialism had had the initiative in its self-assigned role of policing the world in the interests of world reaction; their aim being to halt the colonial revolution, which had gained fresh hopes from the successes of the Chinese and Cuban revolutions, and to prevent the world-wide struggle for national liberation and social progress from being realised; their intention being to "contain communism in south east Asia.
The magnificent resistance of the Vietnamese people has already changed the relationship of forces throughout the world. Socialists everywhere have a vital stake in the Vietnam war. A victory for American imperialism would put back the progress of world revolution for a long time. It is unlikely that in Britain, as in other countries that any big advance can take place if world imperialism is strengthened through an American victory. The Vietnamese people understand very well the international character of the war. That is one of the reasons why they are still fighting back with everything they have.
Unfortunately, it cannot be said that the left in Britain has carried on the struggle with the same consistency and energy as our Vietnamese comrades. For while we are not called upon to actively resist imperialist aggression by taking up arms to defend our lives and national independence, we do have an elementary duty to do everything in our power to give the maximum support to the Vietnamese people and strike a blow at the imperialists. One of the best ways we can do this in Britain is to mobilise the biggest possible number of people against the war and bring them out into the streets to express their solidarity with the Vietnamese.
What better way of helping to weaken the forces of capitalism than by actively supporting those who are engaged in a living revolution? The Tories and the Wilson Government are very happy to let the Americans do the dirty work for them in Vietnam. They would be much happier if the Vietnamese did not resist and the international anti-war movement gave up.
A major factor contributing to the lull in the anti-Vietnam war movement in the past few months is confusion as to the current stage of the war. Johnson agreed to "peace talks" and stopped the bombing of North Vietnam. Nixon was elected to the White House because a substantial number of voters hoped that he would at least have sense enough to draw the conclusions from what happened to Johnson and that he had no alternative but to get the US out of Vietnam and without any [illegible] combination. Nixon, however, decided to stall for time.
Fresh grumblings about the war began to be heard in the States. In the first week of April, the anti-war movement succeeded in staging demonstrations in key cities from coast to coast. Within the armed forces, opposition to the war became more vocal. A number of newsmen became restive under the rising pressure, and started criticising the new administration. And so Nixon announced a "peace plan".
Many people thought the "plan" might be genuine and adopted a wait and see attitude. Others were more disposed to view the "plan" as a manoeuvre to allay popular opposition to the war. The peace "plan" was written up by James Reston, the executive editor of the NEW YORK TIMES in his column on April 6th: "The indications are, that the President has decided to reduce the level of violence at once in Vietnam, begin withdrawing substantial forces from that conflict by the end of 1969, negotiate a cease-fire and a compromise settlement and a complete withdrawal of American troops from that country by the end of 1970".
Ten months later, in June, Nixon announced a withdrawal of 25,000 troops by mid-August. What is the reality of the situation? A quick look at what has actually been happening in the past few months leaves no doubt but that Nixon's "peace plan" was as phoney as Johnson's talk of "peace". According to the Pentagon's figures, American troop levels at various dates were: [figures illegible].
The figures reveal that instead of any withdrawal taking place the number of American troops in Vietnam five months after the 25,000 withdrawal announcement, actually increased. The apparent reduction during July is explained to us by the CHICAGO DAILY NEWS. It points out that since the Midway agreement, the number of US troops had dropped by 1,000, but goes on to say "... the evidence suggests that the Administration, [went] to great pains to set up special units [that] could be withdrawn in the glare of publicity...the units earmarked as part of the withdrawal were stacked with men on the verge of completing their regular one year tours of duty in Vietnam and would have been coming home soon anyway."
Even if Nixon had withdrawn the 25,000, what effect would that have had on the war machine? THE ECONOMIST of August 15th stated that although more withdrawals would be announced, and that perhaps 100,000 troops may have left Vietnam by the end of the year, military personnel say that this is compatible with the current situation.
The military argue that the Americans and the South Vietnamese can maintain the war at the present level after as many as 100,000 Americans have been pulled out without "running any unnecessary risks."
So, at best, if the 25,000 troops had been withdrawn it would have had little effect on the actual course of the war. The whole "withdrawal" announcement is thus shown to be as fraudulent as Johnson's "peace offensive". Nixon has not only not reduced the number of troops in Vietnam but has increased them. By lying about a withdrawal, Nixon hoped he could convince the American people that he was moving towards ending the war. If he could keep people fooled long enough, it would result in a downturn in the anti-war movement and thus a release from some of the pressures being exerted upon him.
The MILITANT, weekly paper of the Socialist Workers Party in the United States, has consistently held the view that Nixon had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam, and that his promises were simply meant to buy time. James Reston draws out the contradictions between making promises and buying time - "It means more and more young men are going to die when US troops are purportedly going to be withdrawn anyway".
What about the "peace" plan's projected change in military tactics? Just in case anyone should think big changes have taken place in that direction, General Earle Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hastens to re-assure us. On his return from a four-day visit to the combat area he made a statement that "the tactics of pursuing the enemy forces relentlessly remained unchanged, and that he approved of that kind of fighting."
There are optimistic signs however that his view is not shared by the majority of people in the United States nor by a growing number of GIs. The case of Company A of the Third Battalion, 21st Infantry, which had been reduced from 120 to 60 at the time it temporarily refused to continue fighting, if not an isolated case. In trying to diminish the impact of the action of the men of Company A, the press has suggested that such temporary refusals to fight are commonplace in Vietnam. Rather than reduce the importance of the incident, it shows that it was not a fluke or accidental, but a consequence of the very logic of the war itself. More and more of the GIs are being influenced by the anti-war movement and are questioning the whole concept of being conscripted to fight in Vietnam. It is not surprising that explosive expectations are being fostered by Nixon in raising hopes of an imminent end to the war. Nixon has sought to buy time since he took office. We can expect more refusals to fight by GIs in Vietnam as long as Nixon continues his contradictory policy of making promises and buying time.
The reason he cannot make promises and carry them out is that he has not changed his policy towards the war. Washington has not ruled out the possibility of actually defeating the Vietnamese revolution on the battlefield. The Paris talks, Johnson's resignation and Nixon's promises and fake withdrawals are for the purpose of lulling the American public into believing that the Administration is seriously seeking peace in Vietnam. Faced with growing opposition to the war at home and revolts in the armed forces, why doesn't he take a serious gesture and withdraw 100,000?
Surely that would take the heat off the domestic pressures and give greater hope to the GIs themselves that the war is really going to end?
The answer is that much as Washington might like to place the ever-increasing responsibility for fighting the war in the hands of the Vietnamese - it can't be done. TIME magazine [of] September [illegible] in a major article entitled "Can Vietnamisation Work?" states that "to a great many observers, Vietnamisation looks like an illusion or worse. How, they ask, can the South Vietnamese after two decades of war successfully take on the military task that half a million troops could not quite handle?... A Vietnamese who spent four years in uniform predicted glumly, 'they will not hold without the Americans standing behind them. They will collapse unit by unit. I predict that you will see entire units deserting and going over to the enemy'."
The GI PRESS SERVICE, [illegible] September claims that even talking about Vietnamisation is enough to shake the Saigon army and informs of a press report "on a secret study...a document...which warns bluntly that the South Vietnamese lack the leadership, logistics and organisation to take over the fighting from the American troops."
As James Reston makes it clear in the NEW YORK TIMES on August 27th, Nixon is worried about the revolt of the voters against the war, the possibilities of a growing revolt amongst the GIs and a revolt of the generals if he humiliates them by pulling out too fast. The position is that Nixon is under contradictory pressures from the people in the United States who are opposed to the war and the GIs who are opposing the war in increasing numbers, and from those sections of the ruling class who understand that to withdraw will mean a defeat for American imperialism.
As Nixon's politics became clearer, and it became evident that he was following Johnson's [policy] on the war, the anti-war movement in the United States became re-activated. Plans are now [being made] for many actions in the next two months and a demonstration on Washington is fixed for November the [illegible]. There are encouraging signs that there is now more unity within the left in the United States around the concept of support for [these] demonstrations than at any previous time. The GUARDIAN in an editorial on August [illegible] states "Now more than at any time in the past, the domestic anti-war movement has an almost decisive role to play in bringing an end to US aggression in Vietnam. That responsibility can be summed up very briefly: build a massive and powerful united movement for the "immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US forces from Vietnam". The developing greater unity on this question can be a decisive factor in making the biggest and most militant demonstration yet seen.
The North Vietnamese themselves have made their position very clear. They have no intention of [illegible]. They have called for a continuation of the fighting "until there is not a single aggressor in our country," and reiterated a recent statement by Ho Chi Minh [regarding] Nixon's token troop withdrawals: "The Vietnamese people firmly demand the withdrawal of the [US] troops, not the withdrawal of [illegible] 25,000 or 250,000, but a total, complete, unconditional withdrawal."
Clearly we can see the task of all socialists in Britain in the next two months. Show our maximum solidarity with the Vietnamese people. Give international support to all the anti-imperialist actions planned for this [autumn]. Build the anti-Vietnam war movement in Britain, mobilise the biggest number we can for the demonstrations being planned in Scotland on November 15th and in London on November 23rd.