Hi RP
Re: This bit.
That one flew right over my head. Does it really matter if personnel were temporarily placed under the command of an agency, or were in fact paid members of of it, if the results are the same?
I say yes it does, particularly given your first post which states:
The whole case sounds bizarre i.e.
the CIA using SF to assinate agents and the US Army charging them for it. From what I can glean from Wiki, the Sec of the Army dismissed the case. Does anyone know anymore about what happened?
The point I was gently trying to make was that in Vietnam generally and in this case in particular, contrary to popular opinion, the CIA did not use SF or anyone else for that matter, to assassinate anybody. The CIA unfairly get the blame for the most famous Vietnam era assassination, that of the Ngo brothers in 1963, this came as a complete surprise to those who plotted the coup.
That the CIA ended up with the reputation as ruthless assassins as a result of their activities in Vietnam can be put down to journalists with a particular ideological bent. One of the most famous and flawed contributions to the oeuvre was Douglas Valentines âThe Phoenix Programâ. You can
read it for free here, but that would deny you the opportunity to use the hard copy as toilet paper. A fate, which it so richly deserves.
Valentine, who already had an inbuilt bias, was utterly taken in by a brazen Walt named Elton Manzione. If nothing else, this episode shows the true benefits of the noble art of âWalt-huntingâ and the important contribution it makes to the way that history is recorded.
Now this is an interesting one! Correct me when I err here, but wasn't Australia initially very reluctant to deploy troops to Borneo (I realise that they had some on the Malay Peninsular throughout the Confrontation), doing so in 1964 after repeated British requests? The AATTV deploy to South Viet Nam in 1962 which would indicate a different set of priorities for the Australian Government.
I realise that Australia feared that the fighting in Borneo might have adverse effect on the Papua New Guinea border, but as with invasion of East Timor, it does seem as if successive governments in Canberra have preferred to avoid upsetting Jakarta.
[/i]
I am astoundingly impressed by the depth of your knowledge on this.
You are dead right. It illustrates the point that Australiaâs strategic interests and priorities were out of synch with the UK in the 1960âs. In 1961, Australia was very keen to commit the battalion with 28th Comm. Bde to intervene in Laos. The UK vetoed it in SEATO. The UK simply couldnât afford it and it did not advance the UKâs strategic interests. Which at that time was to retain the favourable UK trading preference with its Asian ex-colonies.
Australia had to be pushed kicking and screaming into Borneo because it didnât want to antagonise the Indonesians with whom we shared a long land border with in PNG. That all changed of course after Suhartoâs âliving dangerouslyâ speech. At which time Australia realised the seriousness of the situation and was prepared to commit one of its very few Infantry battalions to Borneo. In addition Australia felt insecure enough to want a bit of nuclear deterrence. Something the UK was generous enough to provide, with a
flight of âVâ Bombers based out of Darwin.
I meant to add, in that clip I posted earlier, the Australians refer to the Viet Cong as "Nogs". Is that accurate? I never heard that before.
You'll also note that one of the SASR blokes gives the captive a tin of Budweiser. Now we all know it should a "VB"!
Australians often referred to all Vietnamese as âNogsâ, obviously a contraction of Nig-Nog so it was a derogatory and racist appellation that reflected typical attitudes of the time. VC/NVA enemy were referred to as Nigel Nog or simply Nigel, kind of similar to Terry Taliban or Terry. The more things change eh?
Regards
Mick