November 24, 1970
Page 38633
THE ABORTIVE POW RESCUE MISSION TO NORTH VIETNAM
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, no one with a shred of compassion can remain unconcerned over the uncertain fate of American prisoners of war in North Vietnam.
No one who believes in the humane treatment of prisoners of war can be uncritical of the North Vietnamese Government for its failure to abide by the Geneva Convention.
But compassion for our men, and opposition to the policies and practices of the North Vietnamese, should not blind us to the follies of the administration's latest military adventure.
One need not question the motives of the President and the Secretary of Defense to question their judgment. One need not turn a deaf ear to the anguish of the families of American prisoners and of those missing in action to question the wisdom of the abortive raid.
I am troubled, Mr. President, that even a sucess in this instance would still have been a failure for hundreds of other prisoners. It would have been a failure, because it would have further disrupted any chance of a negotiated settlement with the North Vietnamese – the best way we can end the war, reduce the time Americans will have to fight and die in Indochina, and obtain the release of the brave Americans now held captive.
We do not need to have the President in the White House, or the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon, trying to prove how tough they are and how ready they are to run risks, by sending courageous men on a valiant exercise in futility.
The world looks to the United States, not for sporadic demonstrations of military might and individual bravery, but for steady, firm, and resolute demonstrations of the capacity to lead, to act with sound judgment, and to make a contribution to an early settlement of the war in Indochina.
That, Mr. President, is our real challenge, and should be our prime objective. In my judgment, the incident which was described to us yesterday was inconsistent with that objective.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this morning some of us were privileged to be present with the Secretary of Defense and others in a meeting of the Armed Services Committee, and to have an opportunity to explore in some detail the expedition just referred to by the Senator from Maine.
Since that briefing, I have had an opportunity to visit with three wives of prisoners, one of whom made the statement that she would rather have her husband die attempting to escape than rot to death in a prison camp.
To me, this is the basic question. This is the basic issue. I understand that later this afternoon there will be a press conference, called by the wives and mothers of American prisoners of war and Americans missing in action, at which time they will commend the Secretary of Defense and the courageous men, General Manor, Colonel Simons, and the others who participated in this most courageous act.
As I stated yesterday, it is not difficult for us, in the luxury of our homes or our offices, to suggest that we wait, to suggest that we negotiate, to suggest that the action taken was incorrect. But it occurs to me that were we in the position of prisoners of war or Americans missing in action, and had we been imprisoned under almost intolerable conditions for 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, or 5 years, we might have a different view.
One wife also commented to me this morning that she could sustain herself now for another 6 months, knowing our Government cares and that there are Americans who will risk their lives to save their fellow men.
I recognize the difference of opinion Senators have with reference to policy in Vietnam. I do not, of course, question their right to differ. But the underlying question with reference to the courageous act in an effort to rescue American prisoners has nothing to do with American policy in Vietnam. It was a bold effort. It was a courageous effort, carried on by volunteers who would do it again; and I hope they do if an opportunity presents itself.
Yes, we encourage the writing of letters to Hanoi. Almost every Member of this body has made speeches about prisoners of war and Americans missing in action. We suggest that more letters be written. We suggest activities within our States. We suggest more and more be done.
Maybe these are futile gestures. Maybe we should not do it. Maybe we should just wait, and wait, and wait.
Americans died last week in North Vietnamese prison camps. Americans died the week before in North Vietnamese prison camps. Should we take the floor of the Senate and criticize the efforts of those who attempt to rescue American prisoners? It seems to the junior Senator from Kansas the height of folly. We should be grateful that we have in positions of responsibility men such as President Nixon, Secretary Laird, General Manor, Colonel Simons, and the others who volunteered, who risked their lives in the best American tradition to demonstrate to the mothers, to the wives, to the children, to the world, yes to the enemy that we shall never forget our men.
As said yesterday, I commend the effort. It would have been better, of course, had one man or 10 men or 40 been rescued. Then it would have been a glaring success in the eyes of most everyone.
But no prisoners were there. But this does not diminish the effort, this does not diminish the concern, and this does not diminish the boldness of this venture. I trust the junior Senator from Maine, and others in this Chamber, applaud the efforts of the volunteers. But to use this effort to save American lives and attempt to blow it up into a change in administration policy in the Vietnam war exceeds anything that I can comprehend.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I trust the Senator is not describing the statement I made this morning. If he is, I suggest that he read my statement in the RECORD.
I do not find it easy to come to the floor of the Senate, I may say to the Senator from Kansas, to criticize this action. I am as concerned as he is with the fate of American prisoners of war. What we are disagreeing about is not the objective of bringing these men home but the means that are used at any given time to advance that objective.
I have not heard it suggested by the Senator from Kansas or by the administration that the way to get all our prisoners of war back is to launch a military effort calculated to achieve that result. If one were to take the Senator's argument literally, it would appear to support a military plan to bring back, not one or 10 or 40 prisoners of war, but a military plan of sufficient magnitude to bring them all back. This clearly would involve a major invasion of North Vietnam. I have not heard it proposed. I have not heard it suggested that the administration intends that or has it under consideration, and I hope it does not. If I am right in that assessment, we are not really talking about an effective way of bringing all our American prisoners of war back when we disagree about the wisdom of this incident.
The Senator's argument is not that this is an effective way of bringing all American prisoners of war back, but that it was a symbolic gesture to indicate our concern about American prisoners of war for the benefit of the mothers and the wives and children of these prisoners. If this is what was involved – a symbolic gesture to reassure the dear ones of these American prisoners of war that we care about them – did we, in the process, incur risks which run counter to the objective of bringing them home?
That is the heart of the disagreement, may I say to the Senator from Kansas: whether or not this incident, this effort on our part advanced in any way the ultimate objective of bringing all American prisoners of war back. The wisdom of this step ought to be measured against that, not against the importance of indicating to the dear ones of these American prisoners of war that we care about them, much as we all desire to reassure them on that score.
Mr. DOLE. Let me say to the Senator from Maine that I made it very clear and am certain the Senator from Maine shares the view those who volunteered should be commended. It was a courageous act, whether we agree or not.
But how many must die in prison camps, how many wives must be told they are widows, how many children must be told they are fatherless, and how many parents must be told their sons have died in a prison camp before we take some initiative?
The Senator from Kansas is not sugguesting an all-out invasion of North Vietnam or raids wherever prisoners may be kept. The Senator from Kansas is suggesting a flexible policy, that if an opportunity presents itself to rescue American prisoners of war, we should take advantage of that opportunity. That does not mean any enlargement of the war. That is the point I make. If we condemn the act of courage, that is one thing. If the Senator suggests that this act enlarged the war in North Vietnam or anywhere in Indochina, then the Senator from Kansas disagrees.
I do not fault the Senator from Maine. I know his concern for American prisoners of war. Who can, however, speak with more authority, with more feeling, and with more knowledge than the wives themselves? Not 10 or 20 minutes ago, in the rotunda of the Capitol, the Senator from Kansas visited with three wives. I accept their feelings and their thoughts. I accept their statement that "it is better to have my husband die in a rescue attempt than rot to death in a prison cell."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. If I were the mother or the wife or the daughter of an American prisoner of war, I would respond positively to any suggestion designed to bring those prisoners back. Does that mean that their emotional reaction to the desirability of bringing their boys home necessarily documents the wisdom of any step that might be taken? Does it justify any and all steps that might be taken in the name of that objective?
I suspect that if many of them were asked, "Should we then launch a major invasion of North Vietnam in order to bring them all back, not just a handful?" they might say "yes" to that proposition. To these people, who are concerned about their loved ones, that is their objective.
That does not mean that any action taken in the name of that objective is necessarily a wise one.
The question I am raising – and I am not doing it to belabor the administration – is this: Does this kind of effort truly advance us, and the loved ones of these men, toward the objective of bringing them all home?
The Senator emphasizes that no one is proposing a military means to bring them all home. What the Senator is saying is that from time to time, if there is a chance to bring a handful home by this means, it is a wise thing to do. What I am suggesting is that if we embark on that kind of policy, of reaching in from time to time to get a handful of prisoners back, we may exacerbate the situation, we may be risking an escalation of the war, we may minimize the prospects of a negotiated settlement, and we may further delay the day when we may bring them all back.
I raise this question and I make this point this morning in order to generate whatever inhibiting effect I may have upon the consideration of a repetition of such efforts and incidents in the future. Unless we raise such questions, then there will be no such inhibitions or restraints and we may find ourselves making this kind of effort as a matter of practice. I think that if we were to do that, we would really risk an escalation of the war. I am not anticipating that that is in the minds of the President or the Secretary of Defense. I am anticipating nothing. I am just saying that I am disturbed about this effort because I think it can lead to some undesirable results, and I consider it my responsibility to suggest what those undesirable results can be.
Mr. DOLE. Let me suggest an undesirable result if we do nothing, it will mean more deaths in prison camps.
Let me suggest that I do not question the Senator's right to question the action taken. Perhaps out of disagreement we may find some solution. But to say that it is an incorrect step without offering any alternative, or to say that we should continue negotiations offers little hope to the prisoners, or their families.
The Senator from Kansas made it clear that the most effective way to release the prisoners would be through negotiation. President Nixon has initiated, through Ambassador Bruce, a cease-fire proposal. One of the specific points is release of prisoners.
This Government has made an offer which has never before been made in history; namely, that we will release 33,000 prisoners in exchange for 3,000 of ours.
Still no response from the enemy. How many steps backward must our Government take? How long must we wait for a response from the other side? Now, perhaps
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator from Kansas yield at that point?
Mr. DOLE. Just a second – I believe we may be violating a rule of the Senate here, but in any event–
Mr. KENNEDY. A couple of minutes anyway.
Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Kansas would hope, that the Senator from Maine would share his view, that whenever there is an opportunity to save an American life, or to rescue a downed pilot, or to rescue an American prisoner, our Government should take advantage of that opportunity. I see nothing improper in that kind of policy.
Let me remind the Senator from Maine that nearly every American prisoner in a prison camp today, in North Vietnam, Laos, or wherever it may be, is there because of the bombings in the late 1960's – 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968 – and the bombing was stopped in November 1968, as the Senator from Maine well knows.
However, there is a continuing obligation on the part of this Government, and on the part of any administration, whether it be Republican or Democratic, to help free all American prisoners.
Again I commend those who took an active part in the recent incident and if they see another opportunity then I, for one, would hope that they would take that risk – not an empty risk, not a symbolic gesture, but a risk that would be taken to save American lives.
The Senator from Kansas sees nothing inconsistent with the American tradition in the venture undertaken.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Kansas will yield at that point, I just have a word or two.
I doubt very much that the distinguished Senator from Kansas really intends the full implication of what he is saying in the remarks he has just made.
The suggestion that because we are frustrated about our inability to bring the war to a final conclusion, any step is justified if its objective is to reach even a handful of our prisoners of war to return them to freedom
Mr. DOLE. I said opportunity, not step. There is a vast difference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I prefaced my statement by saying that I am sure the Senator from Kansas did not intend the full implications of what he had just said.
Mr. DOLE. It is like trying a case before a jury, if we are going to stick to the facts then let us stick to the facts.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has been a little free with the implications he draws from what I have said this morning. I think neither of us intends to misstate what the other has said.
Let me conclude by saying that if we are going to respond to all our frustrations about the war and our inability to bring it to a final conclusion by encouraging such military efforts as this one, whenever we can devise a military effort which would have some potential to reach into North Vietnam to rescue a handful of prisoners, then all we are doing is embarking upon a military course that could escalate the whole war.
If one incident can be justified, then two can be justified, or three can be justified. If our objective is 20, 30, or 40 prisoners, our objective could just as easily be all of the hundreds of American prisoners that are there. The principle is the same.
I am sure that our military people could devise a military effort aimed at recovering all of our prisoners of war, if we gave them that mission.
The question is, How far down that road are we willing to go?
The next question is, What risks are there to even the first step down that road?
The final question is, By taking even that first step and raising questions as to how many further steps down that road we are willing to go, are we risking, then, an escalation of the military side of the war?
That is the question.
The President and the Secretary of Defense are in a better position to answer that in terms of their own intentions than I am. I certainly am not going to attribute motives that I cannot document.
All I am saying is that this first step down that road, by itself, raises serious questions that should inhibit us from repeating the experience in the future.
The Senator from Kansas looks with some favor on the possibility of repeating that experience. I do not. I think that if we do, we risk setting a pattern which will have serious consequences in terms of a military escalation of the war.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I would only say that there might be one more dimension to this travel down the road. One other question should be asked, and that is, What are the alternatives?
Yes, we should not go that first step. Yes, we should not do this. But should there be some course pursued by our Government – not a Republican administration or a Democratic administration – but our Government, should this step be to sit and wait for negotiations? Should this step be a unilateral withdrawal from South Vietnam? Is there any assurance that even then the enemy would turn over our prisoners?
I have seen not one scintilla of evidence that would indicate the enemy has any regard for American lives, any regard for our prisoners, or any intent to release them.
Had there been releases of our prisoners – only nine have been released since the war began – nine, let me emphasize – and they escaped, for the most part, then perhaps the Senator's suggestion would be meritorious.
I do not quarrel with the right of the Senator from Maine to his views, but would say there is more at stake than just going down one road. There is another road, and perhaps even another we must also view, before we step in either direction. In other words, we must consider all possibilities – not just criticize.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.