Peter Arnett, then working for the Associated Press (AP) in South Vietnam, was another so-called “journalist” who gave false, misleading reports during the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War. (Not surprisingly, Arnett later came under considerable attack for his slanted reporting during the Gulf War.)
Hours after the Tet Offensive began, the AP’s office in Saigon issued the erroneous story, printed in many U.S. newspapers the next morning, that the Viet Cong had “seized part of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon,” that they had “penetrated the supposedly attack-proof building.” Arnett continued to peddle this false story even after General William Westmoreland had personally refuted it during his news conference at the Embassy later that day (Peter Braestrup, Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, Yale University Press, 1977, p. 85).
Peter Arnett was also the reporter who famously claimed that after the battle at Ben Tre during the Tet Offensive, a U.S. military major, whom Arnett refused to identify, told him that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it” (Braestrup, Big Story, pp. 193-194).
This alleged comment became a favorite quote and catchphrase among anti-war activists to illustrate the alleged immorality of the war effort. Anti-war protestors, along with many journalists, frequently changed “town” to “village” when they repeated the comment.
However, soon after Arnett’s story appeared, many observers expressed doubt about it and charged that Arnett had either fabricated it or had exaggerated what some officer had told him.
First and foremost, Ben Tre was not “destroyed.” Fully 20 percent of the buildings in the city suffered no damage whatsoever, while damage varied substantially among the remaining buildings, with some incurring major damage, others moderate damage, and others slight damage. This is not to mention the fact that part of the damage was done by the Viet Cong when they attacked the city.
Also, part of Ben Tre never fell into Communist hands in the first place. The Viet Cong did not take the entire city. The Americans and the South Vietnamese retained control of the provincial headquarters, the MACV advisory compound, a South Vietnamese Army logistics compound, and the main police station. Thus, when additional U.S. and SVN troops arrived to drive the Viet Cong from the city, they did not need to assault those areas.
And Ben Tre was not a “town” but a large city—in fact, it was the capital of Kien Hoa Province.
Many observers found it suspicious that Arnett refused to name the major who had supposedly made the comment to him. At one point, Arnett seemed to hint that the major was in the Air Force. Arnett said he withheld the officer’s name because MACV was frantically investigating to find out who had made the comment and because he was afraid that naming the officer would harm the officer’s career. Yeah, uh-huh.
Major Phil Cannella, a U.S. Army officer at Ben Tre, said that when Arnett interviewed him, he commented to Arnett that that it was a shame that some of the city was destroyed during its defense. It is possible that Cannella was Arnett’s source and that Arnett severely exaggerated what Cannella told him, which would explain why Arnett refused to identify his source.
Even decades after the war, and long after the officer would have been out of the military, Arnett still refused to identify him. If the officer ever existed, he would have retired from the military by no later than 1995. Arnett, who is still alive, had no excuse for not naming him after 1995.
Hours after the Tet Offensive began, the AP’s office in Saigon issued the erroneous story, printed in many U.S. newspapers the next morning, that the Viet Cong had “seized part of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon,” that they had “penetrated the supposedly attack-proof building.” Arnett continued to peddle this false story even after General William Westmoreland had personally refuted it during his news conference at the Embassy later that day (Peter Braestrup, Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and Interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, Yale University Press, 1977, p. 85).
Peter Arnett was also the reporter who famously claimed that after the battle at Ben Tre during the Tet Offensive, a U.S. military major, whom Arnett refused to identify, told him that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it” (Braestrup, Big Story, pp. 193-194).
This alleged comment became a favorite quote and catchphrase among anti-war activists to illustrate the alleged immorality of the war effort. Anti-war protestors, along with many journalists, frequently changed “town” to “village” when they repeated the comment.
However, soon after Arnett’s story appeared, many observers expressed doubt about it and charged that Arnett had either fabricated it or had exaggerated what some officer had told him.
First and foremost, Ben Tre was not “destroyed.” Fully 20 percent of the buildings in the city suffered no damage whatsoever, while damage varied substantially among the remaining buildings, with some incurring major damage, others moderate damage, and others slight damage. This is not to mention the fact that part of the damage was done by the Viet Cong when they attacked the city.
Also, part of Ben Tre never fell into Communist hands in the first place. The Viet Cong did not take the entire city. The Americans and the South Vietnamese retained control of the provincial headquarters, the MACV advisory compound, a South Vietnamese Army logistics compound, and the main police station. Thus, when additional U.S. and SVN troops arrived to drive the Viet Cong from the city, they did not need to assault those areas.
And Ben Tre was not a “town” but a large city—in fact, it was the capital of Kien Hoa Province.
Many observers found it suspicious that Arnett refused to name the major who had supposedly made the comment to him. At one point, Arnett seemed to hint that the major was in the Air Force. Arnett said he withheld the officer’s name because MACV was frantically investigating to find out who had made the comment and because he was afraid that naming the officer would harm the officer’s career. Yeah, uh-huh.
Major Phil Cannella, a U.S. Army officer at Ben Tre, said that when Arnett interviewed him, he commented to Arnett that that it was a shame that some of the city was destroyed during its defense. It is possible that Cannella was Arnett’s source and that Arnett severely exaggerated what Cannella told him, which would explain why Arnett refused to identify his source.
Even decades after the war, and long after the officer would have been out of the military, Arnett still refused to identify him. If the officer ever existed, he would have retired from the military by no later than 1995. Arnett, who is still alive, had no excuse for not naming him after 1995.
