This above study indicates that between 200 and 400 POWs were not returned, as a conservative estimate. Unknown to our intelligence, in September, 1972, in Hanoi, the North Vietnamese were gloating over the fact that we did not know the precise number of prisoners held. General Tran Van Quang told the politburo meeting that 1205 POWs were held at that time in North Vietnam. Open to interpretation is how many were held in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam. Adding in known captures after that date and returnees, plus estimates from the other countries and subtracting the returnees, leaves an estimate of well over 700 POWs alive at the end of the war. Like the Vietnamese said, we did not know and only estimated our losses.
Moving ahead to 1981, LTG Tighe and our intelligence staffs estimated that about 30 POWs were located at one place, Nhom Marrot, Laos. How that estimate came into being is the subject of another study here, a POW rescue attempt (link below). The relevance is that POWs were alive and Tighe gave his "personal opinion and stated assurance" that this was true. Unlike some of his subordinates and their successors, Tighe was not afraid to state the truth. He also added that "I think they (the policy makers) ... disregarded the evidence (of live POWs) because they knew there was no way they were going to be able to prove it and we weren't about to undertake hostile activities against Vietnam." (Interview in several papers 24 June, 1992)
Let's bring it up to date now. The Senate POW Committee was formed in 1991 and began hearings in 1992. The professional staff decided to look at the evidence and decided "The intelligence indicates that American Prisoners of War have been held ... and remain in captivity in Vietnam and Laos as late as 1989..." In June, 1992, they got together and were polled by member Bill Hendon as to their "live POW beliefs, based upon the evidence before them. (Trails of Deceit pg. 234) The results were:
* LeGro, 200
* Nicklas, under 100
* Hendon, 650
* Holstine, 650
* McCreary, 850
The one thing that should be mentioned is that the 1989 estimate was the point to which they were mandated to study. Much evidence was gathered to show that POWs were alive through the 1992 hearings.
The Party Line is that POWs all died and there are none to return from captivity. Most believe that started in 1973. Wrong. It began in 1970, even though the war was still in progress. That statement was the invention of the North Vietnamese and our policy makers bought it. On 26 February, 1970, LTC Archie Gratch summarized an UPI release concerning the status of an American MIA. The wife of this particular MIA arrived in Paris and talked with the Hanoi delegation. They advised this woman that "her husband was not a prisoner of their camp, that the US Air Force would have to assume the responsibility of saying that he was dead... UPI alleged that the North Vietnamese have announced that the families of all those they are holding should get some definite word within a forthcoming timeframe (time frame as yet unknown, should be 4 months). Those who did not hear could assume that their missing member is deceased."
Gratch continued in his Memorandum for Record. "There is no official confirmation at this time. The State Department as well as DOD are trying to ascertain the exact details from (name deleted to protect family member) who is still in Paris. No action at this time is contemplated by USAF." Well, what was the reaction to this rather blatant "in your face" approach by the Vietnamese. In essence they said, "if we don't respond on CPT Jones, then go to your husband's service, Mrs. Jones and have them declare him dead and don't bother us again." The government did what they always have done on the issue. They capitulated and forged the beginning of the "Party Line."
The Memorandum for Record got bucked up the chain. LTC Gratch, then USAF Directorate for Personnel Services, sent the memo to COL Henry B. Bridget, the Director of Pesonnel Services. He forwarded the memo on 27 February with the note "Attached for your info. As soon as we get more official word we will send item of interest." The Memorandum then went to GEN Dupont and BG Robert W. Maloy, the Deputy Asst DCS/Personnel for Military Personnel. On March 2, came the reply and started apparently the set in stone - "Accept what they give us and live with it" approach to POWs we have today. Maloy referenced the original MFR and wrote back to Bridget "Hank, Better start now re AF position on those whose family doesn't hear. Do we accept it? Do we declare them dead? OSD - State involved and Justice." COL Bridget got a 2 day suspense (until 4 March, 1970) to reply. As they say, history began here and the answer eventually written in stone was given by Frank Sieverts of the State Department to the public on January 28, 1973. If they are not on the list of men coming home and they do not arrive, they are dead. Even cases like the EC-47 where uncontroverted evidence just days old of survival did not fluster anyone. They were all dead! (see link to EC-47 case at bottom) Dead to everyone except the Vietnamese who knew they held prisoners and determined once they got their objectives, they should return our POWs - that being the "correct course" of action - Socialist style. Did they follow through with the Quang approach?
The answer to that has been given to our government in so many ways, it is a wonder our negotiators "missed" the signals. Vietnam negotiated a Paris Peace Accords that was, in the Vietnamese, almost a word for word rendering of the demands for reparations from the 1969 VC 10 point program. They asked for, and President Nixon (through Kissinger) granted a $4.75 billion economic aid package (bribe if you will) to end the fighting. Well, they held some of our men as ransom for that package. (Verified by the 1205 document) Then, we turned our backs on the men and said, no to the package. The intent, according to the Vietnamese, was to keep the men as an insurance package. We reneged, cut tail, and run out on the war, the men, and almost our whole foreign policy commitments. We did offer a puny $100 million for our men. As Congressman John LeBoutillier said, "that's negotiating." We gave them an offer of $4.75 billion, then come in with a lowball figure of $100 million. "They would be fools to take the $100 million." (At this point let me make it clear, this is what happened and it does not mean that I endorse any or all of what happened. I want the men back and unless you understand the background, you can't come up with a workable solution).
To preview Trails of Deceit, press here
To learn how to obtain Trails of Deceit, press here
To return to the POW Forum, press here
To review the EC-47 case, press here
To examine the POW Rescue attempt, press here
