| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Back to the Pentagon |
| 2007-03-17 |
| A bit of WaPo retrospective At home, the war had reached a turning point. For the first time, a majority of Americans believed the conflict was a mistake. U.S. involvement was nonetheless escalating. Many previous demonstrations had been held, but growing frustration with the political system prompted antiwar leaders to select a new target: the Pentagon. The 1967 march on the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War became a touchstone event in American history, one that pitted U.S. citizens against "the true and high church of the military-industrial complex," as marcher and author Norman Mailer put it. Tomorrow, according to organizers, tens of thousands of demonstrators protesting the war in Iraq will march on the Pentagon in what they are billing as "the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march to the Pentagon." Tomorrow's march, which was scheduled to take place around the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war -- March 20 -- comes as the Bush administration sends 26,000 additional troops to deal with the violence there. Buses, vans and caravans from across the United States are coming, organizers say, with veterans, soldiers and military family members marching in the first rank of the demonstration. Heading across the Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Pentagon north parking lot, the demonstrators will follow literally in the steps of the earlier protesters. A counter-demonstration in support of the war is also planned for tomorrow. And where do I go for that? "The 1967 march wasn't the biggest, but in some ways it's the most historically significant because of the target," said Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition, the main sponsor of tomorrow's protest. "It represented a shift in public opinion." In tying their protest to the Oct. 21, 1967, march, organizers say they are capitalizing on a similar climate among angry voters who believe the results of November elections have been ignored. Ramsey Clark, who as attorney general for President Lyndon Johnson helped oversee the administration's preparations for the march, said that day shifted the ground under the government. "From that moment, I got the feeling that we'd reached a turning point in the commitment of many people to ending the war in Vietnam," Clark said in an interview this week. Whether today's feelings match those of 40 years ago is another question. Clark will be among the speakers tomorrow. "I can't tell you that we have the depth of passion or breadth of commitment today that we had then," Clark said. The 1967 march still raises emotions at both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, it is remembered as a time when peaceful marchers were confronted by bayonet-wielding soldiers and beaten. On the right, the march is recalled as a disgraceful event during which military police were subjected to terrible abuse from protesters. History shows that both views hold elements of truth. Soldiers manning the line in front of the Pentagon Mall entrance were taunted with vicious slurs and pelted with garbage and fish. Some defenseless protesters sitting peacefully were clubbed and hauled off. Yet a more complex picture emerges in interviews with demonstrators, Army officers and Pentagon officials responsible for defending the building, as well as research papers in Army archives. Some of the interviews were conducted for a forthcoming book on the history of the Pentagon. Ironically, Pentagon officials were so preoccupied with presenting a tolerant image that they kept thousands of soldiers hidden inside the building. During the critical early stages of the confrontation, a thin line of MPs outside the building was overrun, and the commander couldn't get reinforcements in place quickly. A subsequent Army report concluded that the low-profile strategy backfired and "may have developed an air of confidence on the part of demonstrators and encouraged violence." Some protest leaders say they were trying to provoke a confrontation with soldiers in the hopes of escalating the situation. Each side miscalculated, contributing to a bitter confrontation that left a legacy of division. By that day in October 1967, two years after ground troops were committed to Vietnam, more than 13,000 Americans had been killed and 86,000 wounded. The National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam -- an umbrella organization of peace groups and radical organizations -- vowed to shut down the Pentagon with the greatest antiwar protest in history. Among their number was Abbie Hoffman, co-founder of the yippies, who announced plans to levitate the Pentagon 300 feet, using the psychic energy of thousands of protesters. I'm sorry I missed that! In addition to 2,400 troops positioned in and around the Pentagon, a brigade from the 82nd Airborne was flown in from Fort Bragg, N.C., and held at Andrews Air Force Base in reserve. More than 12,000 soldiers, National Guard troops, federal marshals and civilian police officers were standing by in the region. At the order of then-Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, commanders were operating under restrictions that kept much of the force under wraps. "It was a concern that events would get out of hand, and there would be violence on one side or the other that would lead to continued violence," McNamara recalled in an interview last year. So under McNamara's guidance, things got out of hand. The march unfolded on a gorgeous autumn Saturday, with 50,000 demonstrators at the Lincoln Memorial. Although in the popular imagination marchers from that era are often recalled as bands of hippies, a large cross section of Americans participated. The majority of the crowd was young and many wore ties, but large numbers of middle-age and older demonstrators were included in the ranks. Despite claims by organizers of 100,000 or more marchers, counts made by intelligence agencies put the figure of those who continued to the Pentagon at closer to 35,000. Army intelligence later concluded that the protest included "probably fewer than 500 violent demonstrators; however these violent types were backed by from 2,000 to 2,500 ardent sympathizers." Indeed, much of the protest was peaceful, and the majority of marchers were far removed from any violence. Hoffman, dressed in an Uncle Sam hat and by his own admission tripping on acid, went about his efforts to raise the building by leading protesters in chants. Shortly before 4 p.m., as the main body of demonstrators arrived on the Pentagon grounds, several hundred radicals raced toward the building. "Our specific goal was to create a confrontation -- a nonviolent one, because they were military and we were not -- and make a physical effort to get into the Pentagon," Walter Teague, a leader of the group, recalled in an interview. Army documents show that the operational commander immediately asked for reinforcements from inside the building but had to wait 20 minutes while the request was reviewed by the Justice Department. By then, it was too late. The plaza in front of the Pentagon's Mall entrance was in chaos. "Our kids were standing there and having all kinds of things thrown at them, to include feces," said Phil Entrekin, then an Army captain commanding a cavalry troop that reinforced the MPs. In the ensuing melee, several thousand protesters occupied the Mall plaza. Spotting an opening in the Army defense, 30 demonstrators made a break for a Pentagon doorway at 5:30 p.m. The vanguard made it inside before being roughly ejected by troops. I think we ought to get some cold steel and start using some gas," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Harold K. Johnson urged, Army records show. McNamara, after surveying the situation from the Pentagon roof, refused. "Let boredom, hunger and cold take their course," he said. Nonetheless, late that night, soldiers and federal marshals began clearing the plaza, and many protesters were roughed up in ugly scenes of violence. Four dozen protesters, soldiers and marshals were injured; 683 people were arrested. Forty years later, the chances of a similar confrontation appear slim. No soldiers will be deployed to defend the Pentagon this time. The building will be adequately protected by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, a Pentagon spokeswoman said. Nor are many protesters likely to get close to the Pentagon in the heightened security atmosphere of post-Sept. 11. Protest leaders, learning lessons from the 1967 march, said they are taking pains to show no disrespect to soldiers this weekend. And the Pentagon is not likely to rise in the air. Said Amelia McDonald, a protest organizer, "We're not trying to levitate it." |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #16 If anything, I will suggest the JFK assassination was based in simple, if incorrect, conclusions. 1) JFK had Addison's disease. Here is the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addison%27s_disease 2) At the time, the only treatment was to give massive doses of cortisone, which were administered to JFK. 3) At the time, it was *incorrectly* thought that giving someone massive doses of cortisone would cause textbook clinical paranoia. 4) JFK could launch nuclear weapons, a fact everyone in power had been made very aware of. So were you in their shoes, knowing what they thought they knew, what would your conclusions be? a) The President is sick, and his medicine is driving him insane. He cannot be allowed to remain President under those conditions. b) If he is willing to resign, he should be encouraged to do so. If he is not, he represents a grave threat to the US. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-03-17 23:28 |
| #15 Certainly explains the huge outbreak of crop circles in 1964. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-17 21:59 |
| #14 Excellent point, WXJ. I didn't want to get into that but I also believe that the CIA got Kennedy assassinated for the Bay of Pigs. That cowardly act by itself would have been enough, but there were other things going on as well. I think that's the reason the truth has never come out. The people who masterminded it were honorable men and some of America's most dedicated patriots. They acted, felt certain to their dying day they had done the right thing for their country, and took the secret to their graves. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-17 19:11 |
| #13 Mac, Kennedy did show cowardice to the face of Communism, in Cuba, at the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy withheld air support after the CIA and Cuban refugee units were on the beach. That's why some believe the CIA had Kennedy put down, which also explains why Teddy hates America like he does. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-03-17 18:32 |
| #12 Doc, don't blame it all on Lyndon. He was just trying to honor the chits his predecessors had given. I remember hearing JFK say "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. " (1960 Inaugural Speech). Doesn't leave much room for maneuver, does it? The Kennedy sycophants have done their best for twenty years now to try to persuade historians that JFK was really going to cut and run in Vietnam and would have done so quickly had he not met his fate in Dallas. Maybe they're right, but I doubt it. I've seen the memo that is their main supporting fact. I can't see Kennedy following through on it because widely publicizing that policy in the next election campaign (as the Republicans would surely have done) would have guaranteed he was a one-term President. The lefty sons of whores didn't have nearly the hold on the country they do now and showing cowardice in the face of communism like that would have gotten him kicked to the curb for sure. He wasn't all that popular a President anyway, particularly in the South. Once we were IN Vietnam, we owed it to the people who had supported us to continue to fight. Our scuttle from Vietnam, just like the British and French backing down at Suez, emboldened our enemies and made what would have been a difficult task exponentially harder. When you get in a war like that, or Iraq, you have to do what needs to be done. If that means another Chechnya--or another Dresden--so be it. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-17 17:57 |
| #11 JohnQC, i waz hoping the ending of your comment went something like thisn... The Mrs. and I took our dog for a walk this morning in one of the local parks. It happened that there was a anti-war demonstration there. The group looked like an anachronism--out of step with reality and the times, so we steered fido right to the front of the barking moonbats and our pup gifted them with a great big steaming pile of ... ;-) |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-17 15:47 |
| #10 I for one find the idea of an orange Torus disgusting, worser than a turquoise Marlin even. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-17 14:59 |
| #9 The Mrs. and I took our dog for a walk this morning in one of the local parks. It happened that there was a anti-war demonstration there. The group looked like an anachronism--out of step with reality and the times. My wife and I talked about the freedom that people will now experience in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the press and misguided protesters. We talked about what don't these people get about 911. The protest must have inspired the dog. She went about her business without much fanfare. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-03-17 14:06 |
| #8 Might have been the biggest mistake Truman made, in retrospect. Helping the French was a mistake. Not helping Ho wasn't. He was a confirmed commie even then and ultimately would have caused us trouble in some other way. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-17 13:16 |
| #7 A friend of mine was part of a unit inside the Pentagon during the famous "levitation march". He says they had orders to kill any protesters who made it past the entryway. The troops were wondering what it would be like to be inside a levitated building. The pentagon was also supposed to turn into an orange torus (lifesaver shape) and disappear. "unfortunately" nothing like that happened, and the Pentagon (all 5 sides of it) is still with us. I still think today's moonbats don't hold a candle to the 60's moonbats. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-03-17 12:27 |
| #6 As to Vietnam: in September, 1945, Ho Chi Minh and his organization declared the independence of Vietnam and wrote a declaration that aped, almost word for word in places, the American Declaration of Independence. He treated with American representatives who were arriving in Hanoi at that time to disarm the Japanese occupiers, and promised to work with America if we recognized he and his pals as the legitimate new government. As it turns out, we'd already promised the French that they could have their Indochina back, so we refused Ho. Might have been the biggest mistake Truman made, in retrospect. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-03-17 11:57 |
| #5 Mac, if we had an internet in 1965, we would not have had a Vietnam war. At draft age at the time, my friends and I discussed the conflict ad nauseum, and we couldn't figure why the US was involved there. We had no history with the place, and we didn't owe the French anything. In fact, Ho Chi Min approached the US for support against the French as a younger man, but was refused. In the end, it was Lyndon Johnson's war toy, and that's what fed the greater anti-war movement. No Vietnamise or Buddist ever flew an airplane into one of our buildings. I was anti-war in the 1970s, but now, I just want to kill every muslim scumbag. I know the real enemy when I see it. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-03-17 11:25 |
| #4 I wonder if they'll have a battery brigade to jump start the electric wheel chairs with dead batteries. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-17 10:08 |
| #3 The Administration should not have busted heads. They should have shot the bastards down on the spot. They were America's enemies just as much as the Viet Cong in Vietnam's jungles. Actually, they were worse because they were traitors to the country that had raised and nurtured them. I think if the Internet had existed in 1965 the Vietnam War would have turned out much differently because the MSM would have had competition rather than being the sole source of news. That's the primary reason we're still holding on in Iraq despite four years of total MSM negativism. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-03-17 10:05 |
| #2 "Allies" Subtle. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-03-17 10:01 |
| #1 "We're not trying to levitate it." But our allies tried to destroy it with a jetliner. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-03-17 09:25 |