What
Really Happened at Cam Ne?
©2000 by Peter Brush
Morley Safer and Cam
Ne
While en
route to their objective, the lieutenant told Safer his force was going to
level Cam Ne, "really tear it up." When asked why, the officer said
his men had taken a lot of fire from the village. Further, the Vietnamese
province chief said he wanted it leveled. Another reporter, Richard Critchfield
of the Washington Star, later told
Safer the reason Cam Ne was leveled had nothing to do with the Viet Cong;
rather, it was because the chief was furious with the residents of Cam Ne for
refusing to pay their taxes. According to Critchfield, who was an expert on
villages in Vietnam, the chief wanted the village punished.
[5]
Safer was accompanied on the operation by a South Vietnamese cameraman, Ha Thuc
Can. The operation at Cam Ne was filmed by Can and narrated by Safer.
The report was filed on the spot; sent via Telex from Da Nang to Saigon to New York. CBS realized they had a powerful story as soon as it was read in the New York office. CBS News President Fred Friendly asked a staffer to confirm that Safer was sure of his facts. Safer confirmed the validity of the report. Friendly was nervous and frightened, aware of the enormous implications of broadcasting the film, as yet unseen by CBS officials. He called CBS President Frank Stanton to warn him about the upcomlng broadcast. Next he called Pentagon public affairs official Arthur Sylvester, telling him to listen to the local CBS radio station. At this point the film itself had been transported by airplane from Vietnam to Los Angeles. A data line was leased to Los Angeles. Fred Friendly and Walter Cronkite in New York watched the film of U.S. Marines setting fire to Vietnamese dwellings, watched the burning of Cam Ne. They were shocked by the image they saw, but felt it was so important they could not fail to broadcast it. CBS called Safer again to ensure they had the proper context of the story. This was confirmed. The film was broadcast on CBS Evening News on August 5, 1965.[6]
It first appeared that the marines had
been sniped at before and that a few houses were made to pay. Shortly after,
one officer told me he had orders to go in and level the string of hamlets that
surrounded Cam Ne Village. And all around the common paddy fields [camera
focuses on a roof being lit by a flame-thrower] a ring of fire. One hundred and
fifty homes were leveled in retaliation for a burst of gunfire. In Vietnam like
everywhere else in Asia, property, a home, is everything. A man lives with his
family on ancestral land. His parents are buried nearby. . . . Today's operation shows the frustration of
Vietnam in miniature. There is little doubt that American firepower can win a
military victory here. But to a Vietnamese peasant whose home means a lifetime
of backbreaking labor, it will take more than presidential promises to convince
him that we are on his side.[9]
In the days that followed, newspapers,
television networks, and wire services ran additional reports of the impact of
Marine operations on South Vietnamese civilians in the Da Nang TAOR. In a
subsequent report, Safer claimed "These [civilians] are the people to whom
the war is a curse. Intimidation and atrocity by the VC, and now to them, equal
brutality by the government and its allies." Safer interviewed Marines who
were involved in the operation at Cam Ne. One claimed "You treat everyone
like an enemy until he's proven innocent. That's the only way you can do it. .
. . . Yesterday we were in that village of Cam Nanh [sic], we burned all the houses, I guess." Asked if this
burning was necessary to fulfill the mission, the Marine replied yes, it was
necessary, and that his company had done a good job, that his was the only
Marine company that was in Cam Ne that hadn't had Marines killed, that they
showed the civilians the Marines were done playing with them, that the Marines
had proved their point. Another Marine said he had no remorse for the civilians
because they were the enemy, that one couldn't do their job and also have pity
for the people.[10]
Pulitzer Prize-winning author and
journalist David Halberstam claims the Marines were injured at Cam Ne as a
result of friendly fire, not enemy fire: all three wounded in the initial
operation received wounds in the back by their own men. When the Marines
occupied the village they reacted in anger and "tore the place
apart." The Americans threw grenades and used flame throwers in holes and
tunnels where Vietnamese civilians were cowering in fear. Some were burned to
death. At one point in the operation, cameraman Ha Thuc Can, the only one
present who could speak both Vietnamese and English, saw Marines about to fire
a flame thrower into a hole. The voices of women and children could be heard.
Can began arguing with the infantrymen, pointing out there were women and
children in the hiding place. The cameraman talked to the civilians, urging
them to come out. Finally about a dozen people emerged. When Safer asked a
Marine officer why no one in his group could speak Vietnamese, the lieutenant
answered he did not need anyone who could speak Vietnamese. Later, Pentagon
official Arthur Sylvester tried to have Can fired, objecting to the use of a
South Vietnamese cameraman by CBS.[11]
The Marine Corps
Viewpoint
The mission
at Cam Ne was conducted by Company D, 1st Battalion, 9th
Marines. Their goal was to clear the Cam Ne village complex. U.S. intelligence
reported that Viet Cong local and main force troops were present in company
strength. The attack began at 1000 hours on August 3. The attacking force
arrived in amphibian tractors (Amtrak's, LVTs). Quickly three of the LVTs
became stuck in the mud. After dismounting from the armored tractors the
Marines met small arms fire from a tree line to the southeast. Three platoons
advanced across open rice paddy fields along a 1,000 foot front. One Marine was
wounded during this stage of the attack. As the Marines pushed forward, the VC
withdrew back into the hamlets of Cam Ne.
According
to the commanding officer of the units involved, Cam Ne had been fortified by
the Viet Cong into something not unlike those encountered by the Marines in
World War II. Caves and tunnels spread throughout the village complex.
Fortified trench lines had been constructed. Spider holes and punji sticks were
evident. Nearly impenetrable hedgerows ran around the perimeter of the village
and between village structures. LVTs were used to breach and crush the
hedgerows, setting off booby traps as they pushed into the village. The
civilian population was uncooperative. Marines received heavy and concentrated
small arms fire, including automatic weapons and probably one machine gun, from
VC hiding in the village. The Marines returned fire with small arms and
3.5-inch rockets. The impact of one of these rockets caused secondary
explosions in the treeline from which fire was being received, indicating the
presence of booby traps. This secondary explosion caused a further detonation
of explosives from booby traps and mines located in hedgerows around the
village. According to the commander's report, heavy small arms fire continued
throughout the period the Marines were in the village (1000 hours until 1500
hours). Most of the structures were burned as a result of rocket fire directed
at structures from which hostile fire was received. Others burned as a result
of flame-thrower or grenade action used to neutralize enemy positions actually
in use by the Viet Cong.
One platoon
commander, Second Lieutenant Ray G. Snyder, claimed Cam Ne was an
"extensively entrenched and fortified hamlet." The battalion
commander noted that "in many instances burning was the only way to ensure
that the house would not become an active military installation after the
troops had moved on past it." By midafternoon D Company had uncovered 267
punji stick traps and pits, 6 Malayan whip booby traps, three grenade booby
traps, six anti-personnel mines, and one multiple booby-trapped hedgerow. 51
huts were demolished along with 38 trenches, tunnels and prepared positions. At
this point, during midafternoon, it became evident the Marines would not be
able to complete their mission before darkness. Captain Herman West ordered his
men to withdraw back to the Yen River. While leaving the village the Marines
received automatic weapons and small arms fire from Viet Cong who had resumed
positions in a nearby tree line. The Marines called in artillery and mortar
fire on the VC positions. The fire stopped and the Marines boarded their amphibian
tractors. When they entered the Cau Do
River the Marines again came under enemy fire from the south bank. Fire was
returned and enemy fire ceased.
The Marines
estimated the enemy force at Cam Ne at between 30 and 100 soldiers. When the
Viet Cong withdrew they carried off their dead and wounded; no bodies were
found, although estimated VC casualties were placed at seven. One ten-year old
Vietnamese boy was killed and four villagers were wounded after having been
caught in a firefight between the Marines and VC.[12] Total Marine casualties at Cam Ne were three killed in
action and 27 wounded.
Marines had
been in the Cam Ne village complex on July 12 and had taken casualties. The
subsequent operation of August 3 was not envisioned to be a routine patrol. It
was expected that Cam Ne was occupied by Viet Cong soldiers, that it was mined
and booby-trapped, and the operation would be dangerous. These factors governed
the conduct of the Marines of D/1/9. The action at Cam Ne included more than
CBS showed during its news report of August 5. Marine commanders were resentful
this was not made known during Safer's report. "War is a stupid and
brutalizing affair. This type of war perhaps more than others. But this does
not mean that those who are fighting it are either stupid or brutal. It does
mean that the whole story should be told. Not just a part of it."[13]
Conclusion
The fact
that senior American commanders in Vietnam considered Safer's report to be both
distorted and incomplete is not to say the U.S. military was unresponsive to
it.[14]
The killing of civilians and the intentional destruction of village property
was felt to be a serious political mistake in a war in which political success
was an essential component of military victory. As one Vietnamese observer explained
it, "The 10-year old children who witnessed their village being burned are
the ones who at 15 will take up rifles for the Vietcong."[15]
Morley Safer noted in an interview that subsequent to his report, several
Marine officers told him his story kept things from getting worse, that it was
the kind of reporting that kept them honest.[16]
On August
9, another Marine unit operating near Cam Ne was taken under fire. Two men were
killed and over 20 were wounded. The Marines decided to secure the area once and
for all. On August 18, the Marines returned to Cam Ne in force. Their purpose
was to complete the search for Viet Cong hideouts. But this time, the villagers
were given full warning of the Marines' arrival. In addition to searching Cam
Ne, the Marines built shelters for the Vietnamese civilian homeless. The entire
village was cleared with no difficulty; no casualties were taken by the
Marines, and no Viet Cong were found in Cam Ne. By the end of August the 9th
Marines had expended their TAOR from the Tien Sha peninsula and the South China
Sea on the east to the Yen River to the west of Cam Ne.
During this period CBS made a
continuing and conscious effort to present positive aspects of Marine Corps
operations in the area in order to balance the initial Safer reports. General
William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, operating under
pressure from the JCS in Washington, directed his staff to prepare a new set of
guidelines governing the relationship between the U.S. military and civilian noncombatants.
These rules, published in September, explicitly prohibited the indiscriminate
destruction of populated areas. Whenever possible, units in the field were to
use loudspeakers and aerial leaflet drops to warn villagers of upcoming air and
ground assaults. South Vietnamese troops were to fight alongside Americans in
order to assist in searching dwellings and communicate to the civilian
population that the South Vietnamese government had endorsed the military
operation. [17] Pentagon
official Arthur Sylvester assigned various officers the task of drawing up
plans to censor American reporters working in South Vietnam. Others were
convinced that censorship would be both unwise and counterproductive.
Eventually all plans to enforce field press censorship in South Vietnam were
ended; the Saigon press corps was allowed to report the war as it saw best.[18]
For additional reading:
William M. Hammond, Public
Affairs : the Military and the Media, 1962-1968 (Washington, D.C., 1988);
Jack Shulimson and Charles M. Johnson, U.S.
Marines in Vietnam : The Landing and the Buildup 1965 (Washington, D.C.,
1978).
[1] The entire list of entries is at http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/journal/Dept_news/News_stories/990301_topjourn.htm.
Professor Stephens description is at http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/journal/Dept_news/News_stories/990301_nominees.htm#60.
[2] Stephens, A History of News (New York, 1988), p. 282.
[3] Jack Shulimson and Charles M. Johnson, U.S. Marines in Vietnam : The Landing and the Buildup 1965 (Washington, D.C., 1978), p. 16.
[4] Ibid., pp. 56-62.
[5] David Halberstam, The Powers That Be (New York, 1979), p. 488.
[6] Ibid., pp.
489-490. William M. Hammond, Public
Affairs : the Military and the Media, 1962-1968 (Washington, D.C., 1988),
pp. 186-187.
[7] Clarence R. Wyatt, Paper Soldiers : The American Press and the Vietnam War (New York, 1993), p. 145.
[8] Saturday Review, September 4, 1965, p. 16.
[9] From transcript of CBS Evening News, August 5 1965, quoted in Hammond, Public Affairs, p. 188.
[10] Also quoted in Hammond, Ibid., pp. 188-189.
[11] David Halberstam, The Powers that Be (New York, 1979), pp. 488-489.
[12] Shulimson, pp. 63-64.
[13] Marine Corps Gazette, Vol.49, No. 10, October 1965, p. 29.
[14] Hammond, p. 193; Gazette, 28-29.
[15] New York Times, August 9, 1965, p. 1.
[16] Transcript
of C-SPAN program Booknotes; air date
April 25, 1990; http://www.booknotes.org/transcripts/50108.htm
[17] Hammond, p. 192; Shulimson, pp. 64-65.
[18] Hammond, p. 195.