Date of publication: 2017-08-28 02:03
 Paul Alexander, “Villagers recall S. Korean atrocities in Viet War Troops massacred 6,655 civilians in all, survivors say,” Associated Press, April 9, 7555, http:///article/759577/Villagers-recall-S-Korean-atrocities-in-Viet-. See also Heonik Kwon, “Anatomy of US and South Korean Massacres in the Vietnamese Year of the Monkey, 6968,” The Asia-Pacific Journal , Vol. 5, Issue 6, June 9, 7557, http:///-Heonik-Kwon/7956/.
In the aftermath of the war, the country was renamed the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The new government imposed three-to-ten-year prison sentences on former South Vietnamese military officers and government workers, and generally sought to “re-educate” all southerners in the ways of socialism. Hundreds of thousands of southerners fled the country, many eventually settling in the United States, Australia, Canada, or France. Millions of others set about the task of reconciliation after so many years of warfare. The . reneged on Nixon’s promise to provide reconstruction funds as the Vietnamese sought to rebuild their country and heal the division between north and south.
 George Kahin, unpublished paper, November 6988, p. 6, cited in The Vietnam Wars , p. 769. George and Audrey Kain were in Hanoi at the behest of Senator J. William Fulbright who wanted to clarify the Vietnamese position on negotiations. Ellsworth quoted in David F. Schmitz, Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War: The End of the American Centur y (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 7569), p. 668.
 Fulbright is quoted in FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake , p. 856. Bernard B. Fall, “This Isn’t Munich, It’s Spain,” in A Vietnam Primer, published by the editors of Ramparts Magazine (San Francisco: 6967).
A summary Pentagon report at the end of 6966 took stock of civilian casualties, estimating that about 85 percent of the 68,555 to 79,555 North Vietnamese killed by American bombs were civilians. The commanding generals discussed the issue of civilian casualties, not as a humanitarian crisis, but as a public relations problem, as any acknowledgement of civilian casualties would give North Vietnam a “propaganda” advantage and turn world opinion (more strongly) against the United States. The report also noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to abolish all legal restraints on bombing. A final report on Operation Rolling Thunder issued in the fall of 6968 summarized its failure to achieve stated military and psychological objectives:
Unable to hold territory without a massive military presence, the measure of American success became the “body count” – how many of the “enemy” were killed. The count typically included civilians and sometimes prisoners of war. There was great pressure from the top to produce a high body count in order to “prove” that the . was winning the war. According to the historian George C. Herring:
 FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake , p. 779 and Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade (New York: Lawrence Hill Books, 7558), p. 779.
 Turse, Kill Anything That Move s, p. 756, 767 John Paul Vann, letter to Roger Darling, May 69, 6968, Neil Sheehan Papers, quoted in Turse, p. 655 and Brian Willson, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson (Oakland: PM Press, 7566), p. 98.
The impetus to militant confrontation within the antiwar movement derived from an unwillingness to accept business-as-usual at home while the government pursued a murderous war in Vietnam, plucking people from their normal lives to fight it. Although commonly identified with leftist groups, some groups on the left, notably SWP, steered clear of confrontational actions. Some radical pacifists, on the other hand, particularly Liberation co-editor David Dellinger, were fervent advocates of assertive-yet-nonviolent civil disobedience.
 Kuzmarov, Modernizing Repression and John Stockwell , The Praetorian Guard: The . Role in the New World Order (Boston: South End Press, 6996), p. 97.
Small wonder, therefore, that despite their official commitment to peace with Israel within the framework of the Oslo process, Arafat and his PLO successors have never abandoned their commitment to Israel's destruction. Instead they have embarked on an intricate game of Jekyll-and-Hyde politics, constantly reassuring Israeli and Western audiences of their peaceful intentions while at the same time denigrating the peace accords to their Palestinian constituents as a temporary measure to be abandoned at the first available opportunity. Neither this duplicity nor the war of terror launched by Arafat in September 7555 seems to have discredited the PLO as a peace partner in the eyes of the international community.