Think Obama should be tougher? Then think about Nixon.

CommentaryOpinionCentral Intelligence AgencyBarack ObamaRichard NixonHenry KissingerGerald Ford
Nixon was nothing if not tough. But did that help the U.S. in Vietnam?
Think Obama should be tougher? Consider how that worked out for Nixon

Those who fault President Obama for not being belligerent enough toward Russia and Iran — or assertive enough in dealing with the crises in Iraq, Gaza, Syria and Afghanistan — would do well to remember how poorly the feckless bravado of President Nixon served us and our allies in Vietnam.

Nixon prided himself on his tough-guy image and his reputation for strategic risk-taking. He learned the dubious art of brinkmanship as Dwight Eisenhower's vice president during the height of the Cold War. And, as he later acknowledged, he came to admire Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev for his simple ability to "scare the hell out of everybody."

Once Nixon became president and was faced with the daunting task of forcing the North Vietnamese to negotiate — even as U.S. forces withdrew from Vietnam and U.S. antiwar sentiment peaked — he began trying to "scare the hell out of everybody" to gain leverage against Hanoi.

"I call it the madman theory," Nixon told his aide H.R. Haldeman. "I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war."

His calculated displays of rashness included invading Cambodia, making a jaw-dropping opening to China and initiating the "Christmas bombing" of Hanoi in late 1972.

That last bit of butchery was designed to shock and awe the North Vietnamese into finally signing off on the Paris peace accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger. But it was also designed to get President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam to line up behind the accords, despite his suspicions that Kissinger had sold him out by allowing North Vietnamese troops to stay in the South.

After the agreement was implemented in January 1973, the U.S. withdrew its last combat forces from Vietnam and Congress began shutting down aid to our Saigon allies and throwing up legal obstacles to renewed U.S. military support for them.

But as my old intelligence colleague Merle Pribbenow discovered from reviewing Hanoi's war archives, the North Vietnamese didn't seem to believe the congressional constraints would work with Nixon. Out of concern that the "madman" or his acolytes might defy them, they kept secret sapper units on high alert outside U.S. air bases in Thailand up until the last day of the war, in case they were needed to thwart a resumption of the U.S. air war.

In Saigon, the new U.S. ambassador, Graham Martin, kept South Vietnam's Thieu similarly befuddled. Nixon had handpicked Martin precisely because he saw him as an extension of his own smoke-and-mirrors machismo — "the next best thing to a B-52," as we described him at the embassy. Martin understood there would be no B-52s again thanks to congressional action, but he convinced Thieu that if worse came to worst, the madman would find a way.

For the embattled South Vietnamese president, such assurances became a rationale for resisting reform. Rather than address the corruption that kept his political adversaries pacified, Thieu indulged sycophants and profiteers who were destroying his capacity to fight, and held fast to the assumption that America's imperial president would come to his rescue if necessary.

With Nixon's resignation in August 1974, the calculus changed in both the North and the South. Thieu was so shocked that he stopped confiding in Martin and the CIA. The Hanoi Politburo predicted "an explosion of the U.S.'s social contradictions." From my own debriefing of sources inside the communist command, the message was simpler: With that crazy Nixon gone, "new advantages" had arisen for "revolutionary" forces to "shake the already shaken and confused U.S. and puppet regime."

Immediately the North Vietnamese began ratcheting up pressure to test Gerald Ford. In early 1975, they seized a provincial capital, their first such prize since 1972. Both sides waited to see how the U.S. would react.

When no airstrikes materialized, CIA intelligence sources began reporting that Hanoi was preparing to make a lightning strike for total victory.

Thieu began scrambling, belatedly, to rid himself of deadwood commanders and redeploy his resources to meet the coming onslaught. But it was too late. By early April 1975, communist regulars had obliterated his entire American-made army. The road to Saigon was open.

Inside the embassy, Martin could not bring himself to face the reality that lurked behind all the posturing he had perpetrated. The bully had been blinded by the bluff. Until the bitter end, he remained convinced that America's own deft political hand could rescue a fig-leaf victory from defeat. On the last day of the war, he still hadn't planned adequately for the evacuation of American civilians and our most imperiled Vietnamese allies.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of Nixon's resignation on Aug. 9, 1974, one of the lessons to be drawn from his Vietnam policies is that clear-eyed acknowledgment of our limits is ultimately better for our allies and for us than the momentary satisfaction of pretending there are no limits at all.

Journalist Frank Snepp served as a CIA officer in Vietnam. He is the author of the memoir "Decent Interval."

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
CommentaryOpinionCentral Intelligence AgencyBarack ObamaRichard NixonHenry KissingerGerald Ford
  • Is global chaos the new normal?
    Is global chaos the new normal?

    It's a chaotic world out there. But we'd better get used to it; this may be the new normal.

  • Going off the rails on Metro's rail cars
    Going off the rails on Metro's rail cars

    Two years ago, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority became the first transit agency in the nation to pick a rail car manufacturer based in part on how many jobs the company would create. The Japanese firm Kinkisharyo International won the nearly $900-million contract to...

  • Pennsylvania's unconstitutional gesture to victims' rights
    Pennsylvania's unconstitutional gesture to victims' rights

    It's an occupational hazard for politicians: succumbing to the temptation to do something, anything, to get on the popular side of a public controversy, even if that means enacting an unconstitutional law. The latest example — one that we hope other states don't rush to...

  • Who'll run the Greek Theatre?
    Who'll run the Greek Theatre?

    For four decades, the Nederlander Organization has operated the Greek Theatre, a beloved music venue built in 1929 and owned by the city of Los Angeles. Now, a year before its current contract expires, Nederlander has partnered with AEG Live to compete against Live Nation Worldwide to win a...

  • Is Obama a modern-day Quintus Fabius Maximus?
    Is Obama a modern-day Quintus Fabius Maximus?

    President Obama has been repeatedly accused of delay. Critics say he dragged his feet on sending more troops to Afghanistan, on addressing the dangers in Libya, on providing support to Syria's rebels and, most recently, on initiating military action against Islamic State.

  • Shame on Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court
    Shame on Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court

    In allowing Texas' voter identification law to go into effect, at least for the November election, the U.S. Supreme Court last week showed the nation precisely what it meant in 2013 when its conservatives struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County vs. Holder.

  • The egg-freezing benefit -- family friendly, or corporate control?

    Here are three things you can always count on: death, taxes and that anything related to motherhood or women's reproductive choices will stir up enough cultural debate to make everyone forget about death and taxes for a news cycle or two.

  • Endorsement video: Why you should vote no on Prop. 46
    Endorsement video: Why you should vote no on Prop. 46

    Proposition 46 is the pupu platter of ballot measures, proposing major changes in three laws related to patient safety. One provision would more than quadruple the cap on “pain and suffering” awards in medical malpractice cases, raising it from $250,000 to $1.1 million. A second...