
The Truth About Tonkin (2008) - stareatgoats
https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/february/truth-about-tonkin
======
lordnacho
I can't help but be sceptical about the suggestion that Iran attacked the oil
tanker.

They're trying to be friends with Japan, but they attack a Japanese vessel
while the PM of Japan is actually visiting? Really?

They aren't a superpower, and the US has bases all the way around Iran. Maybe
I'm a strategic simpleton whose entire diplomatic experience is playing Civ,
but it just doesn't seem smart.

Plus you have to wonder about the evidence for the Iraq war. That seemed
pretty flimsy too. And it involved some of the same senior staff.

If international diplomacy were a reality TV show, it would make sense though.

~~~
partiallypro
We do have video of what appears to be Iranians removing an undetonated mine
from one of the ships. It is entirely possible, and it is known, that the
Iranian military isn't exactly cohesive like other countries. There are
fractures and some rogue elements. It's entirely possible a rogue element did
this, or it's possible it came from the top down.

Iran knows that the US public doesn't believe its own US intelligence after
Iraq, so it could easily be behind the attacks knowing that the US is on a
leash of public opinion to do anything about it.

~~~
eternalban
Even taken at face value, removing something in full view of US Navy (present
at the scene for 4 hours) is not the same thing as "attaching" mines. It may
well be that they were collecting evidence, on the record helpfully provided
by US.

It is also interesting that a 3rd world country's navy has better camera
equipment than the premiere power.

~~~
partiallypro
Then what do you make of Iran showing up afterwards and forcing a ship that
actually saved some sailors to hand over said sailors at gun point before the
US could get there, therein making it seem like Iran rescued the sailors?

Or the photo of what looks like a mine, and the Iranian boat being in the
exact same place...then that item just disappearing? Seems like a lot of
coincidences.

That's even excluding a huge surge in activity of the Houthis, which are
Iranian funded.

"It is also interesting that a 3rd world country's navy has better camera
equipment than the premiere power."

I also don't know where you're getting this, the video the US Navy has is
clearly taken from a drone miles and miles away from the ship, completely out
of view of anyone.

------
hurrdurr2
Somewhat related is this latest supposed attack by Iranians on the two
Japanese tankers... now one of the Japanese tanker owners is saying it was a
projectile while US Centcom says it's limpet mines.

~~~
maxxxxx
We definitely don't want to get into another situation like after 9/11 when
some people did everything they could to connect Iraq to 9/11 so they could
invade. Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war
Iran. I hope not.

~~~
twothumbsup
> Not sure if there are people right now who are hellbent to go to war Iran. I
> hope not.

Their name is John Bolton and they're the National Security Advisor of the
USA.

~~~
danharaj
They really need to stop letting that guy anywhere near the whitehouse.

------
simlevesque
I learned this year that the commander of the U.S. naval forces in the Gulf of
Tonkin during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident is The Doors' Jim Morrisson' father.
Small world.

------
freewilly1040
For a great book on the military decision making at the time, I’d recommend
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg

------
codr7
Straight from Wikipedia:

"In his book, Body of Secrets, James Bamford, who spent three years in the
United States Navy as an intelligence analyst, writes, that the primary
purpose of the Maddox "was to act as a seagoing provocateur—to poke its sharp
gray bow and the American flag as close to the belly of North Vietnam as
possible, in effect shoving its five-inch cannons up the nose of the communist
navy. ... The Maddox' mission was made even more provocative by being timed to
coincide with commando raids, creating the impression that the Maddox was
directing those missions ..." Thus, the North Vietnamese had every reason to
believe that Maddox was involved in these actions."

The US was already neck deep in Vietnam, what they needed was an excuse for
going all in. So they started poking the bear, which is exactly what they're
doing right now with Russia, Iran, China and probably more.

Wars are not started by coincidence, they are very well planned and always
come with a hidden agenda.

~~~
lsd5you
It feels like something the (non-corrupt) left and right should be able to
agree on. Plenty of people on the right seem disappointed that Trump seems to
have lost his pre-government isolationist tendancies.

I suppose the only hope is this time around it's a 'trumpian' ploy. i.e. War
or give us what we want, with the emphasis on getting some deal. Not that that
is ok. The impression very much is that the deal may be in fact that he may
get is give the 'deep state' a war and then he gets some media support and a
chance at a second term.

~~~
maxxxxx
"War or give us what we want,"

I always wonder what he really wants from them (Total surrender is probably
not going to happen and he rejects the nuclear treaty so what's the endgame?).
I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran.
North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the planet
right now and makes Iran almost look nice.

~~~
wahern
> I also don't understand how nice he is to North Korea in comparison to Iran.
> North Korea's government is probably the most brutal government on the
> planet right now and makes Iran almost look nice.

Because North Korea says nice things about him in public. He literally made it
clear that all he wants with Iran is that _he_ make a deal. He wants the photo
ops, he wants the opportunity to look good. A not insignificant number of
Trump's base already believe he "solved" the North Korea issue, and that's
what he wants with Iran.

Personally I seriously doubt that Trump will initiate a full-on war with Iran.
I said it in 2016 after the election and I'll say it now: Trump has a
preternatural instinct for survival and spinning narratives, and wars are
invariably lose-lose for everybody involved. He's not stupid enough to believe
Iran could possibly turn out any better than Iraq. He may drop a few bombs to
punish the IRGC for making him look bad, but then he'll find an opportune time
to claim victory and move on or otherwise shift attention. Iran's regime is
safe just like North Korea's is safe.

~~~
maxxxxx
I agree. I am a little worried that if something like 9/11 happened again he
may do something impulsive that may spiral out of control.

~~~
wahern
That's what I mean by preternatural instinct. Yes, he's impulsive and a
textbook narcissistic archetype. But that's not _all_ he is. He's Donald Trump
for a reason--someone who is successful almost despite himself. For decades
everybody around him loses but he always worms his way out before the house of
cards falls. However, avoiding the consequences is nearly impossible to do if
he attempts to invade Iran, even _if_ he had objectively good reason to.

At the very worst we may end up fighting a proxy war through Israel and Saudi
Arabia and wrecking even more havoc in the ME, but there won't be another
Iraq.

In that sense he's reliable and predictable. Russia knows this. China knows
this. Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Israel, however... they may be cocky enough to
try to manipulate Trump into doing things he simply won't do and is perhaps
incapable of doing, and things will go sideways for them. For the U.S. our
cost will be in treasure and reputation, which will be par for the course.

------
apo
This event led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which granted the president
sweeping military powers in southeast Asia. It amounted to a declaration of
war on North Vietnam

It passed the senate with flying colors; only two votes against:

> The Senate conferred its approval by a vote of 88–2. Some members expressed
> misgivings about the measure, but in the end, Democratic Senators Wayne
> Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska cast the only nay votes.[12]
> At the time, Senator Morse warned that "I believe this resolution to be a
> historic mistake."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution)

When the US starts wars, it's always with massive popular support - at least
in the beginning.

It's easy to forget just what a boogeyman decades of propaganda had turned
communism into by the 1960s. A similar thing has happened with "radical islam"
today. There's currently a nascent movement to do the same thing to China.

When the next big war comes, expect it to be met with wild applause regardless
of how asinine the justification is.

------
teilo
My father, a yeoman in the Navy at the time, has been telling me this for
years. But try to make that point 20 years ago, and you would be labeled a
conspiracy nut.

~~~
WillPostForFood
In 1971, 60 Minutes, the most watched TV show in the country won an Emmy for
it's story on "What Really Happened at Tonkin Gulf?". The truth was out pretty
early, and well accepted.

------
byron_fast
Read the point of view of a fighter pilot who was there:
[https://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Philosophical-Fighter-
Pilot-...](https://www.amazon.com/Thoughts-Philosophical-Fighter-Pilot-
Reprint/dp/0817993924)

------
davidw
Wish there were more men like Wayne Morse in power.

------
jonny_eh
This is a very long article. Can someone summarize?

~~~
dsr_
The United States government decided that they wanted to escalate the war in
Vietnam. For public relations reasons, they manufactured an incident and used
it as an excuse.

Somewhere between 1.5 million and 3.5 million people died. The United States
got Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian restaurants, and also 60,000 dead
soldiers and 300,000 wounded soldiers.

~~~
mcguire
'Tis an ill wind, and all that.

------
tedunangst
But what about the Maine?

~~~
mcguire
I don't remember that.

