In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T ER 8 The Chemical Corps and Dioxin, Part 2 Materials which produce physical incapacitation could be used in many situations. Since a soldier must think, see, hear, stand, lie, or move as needed, and manipulate his weapons or tools, it is possible to incapacitate by interfering with any one of these things. —Major General Marshall Stubbs1 He said, “Why didn’t we know that this dioxin was present in 2,4,5-T?” And I said, “I don’t know, we should have known, but we didn’t.” —William B. Ennis Jr., Chief of the Crops Protection Research Branch, USDA2 When it became obvious that Ranch Hand personnel couldn’t be protected from ground fire, the military ordered another round of studies to determine whether Trail Dust was actually worth the risk. In June 1965, the Air Force’s brain trust, the RAND Corporation (the initials stand for “Research and Development”),3 conducted a new analysis of the spraying’s impact. RAND went right to the source, interviewing Viet Cong captives and defectors. The study concluded that defoliation offered little, if any, tactical advantage. While some VC units avoided sprayed areas because they feared detection, others found that the herbicides actually helped; it was easier to travel through a defoliated forest. And still others didn’t seem to care whether the trees had leaves on them or not. But the herbicides had turned out to be valuable psychological weapons. The Viet Cong believed they were poisonous. Most stayed away from contaminated areas and advised the local population to do the same, at least for a while. “Although the VC generally believe the spray to be extremely dangerous to human health, this threat is supposed to wear off fairly rapidly after spraying, thus making it relatively safe, from a health point of view, to cross defoliated areas. There is some evidence, however, that this assessment of the risk is by no means uniform in all VC units.” 69 RAND argued that the fear generated by these chemicals offered substantial psywar benefits. For one thing, “it forces the VC to provide or develop means of protecting their soldiers against the effects of the spray.” These methods ranged from fairly sophisticated masks made from rubber and glass to simple damp cloths. Crop destruction had a particularly devastating psychological impact. After all, the Vietnamese could easily keep out of sprayed jungle during the allegedly brief danger period. But the poisoning of their homes and food supply was catastrophic. “The effect of crop spraying operations appears to be considerable, since it is reinforced by a widespread VC belief in the harmful effects of the spray on human health. “The interviews were unanimous in stating that VC will not eat sprayed food since they believe it to be poisoned. In a number of instances it was also reported that water contaminated by spray could not be drunk as it would make people ill or could even kill them.” Civilians also were convinced that the chemicals were dangerous. “The spraying of crops belonging to civilians has a significant adverse effect on the population’s attitude vis a vis the GVN and the United States (VC propaganda generally blames the Americans for airborne spray operations), and offers the VC the opportunity to propagandize the population. The effectiveness of this propaganda is reinforced in many instances by rumors of death and illness among the villagers attributed to the spray. The propagandists have skillfully linked all sorts of symptoms and physical malfunctions to sprayings, from nosebleeds and nausea to skin burns and blindness. They prescribe quack remedies, and frighten the people, thus provoking hatred and resentment against the Americans and the GVN. This propaganda looks all the more successful in view of the absence of authoritative GVN counter-propaganda.” There was a potential upside to the VC propaganda. “The widespread fear among the VC of the ‘poisonous’ effects of spray conceivably offers an opportunity to use the chemical spray not only for the physical effect of defoliation and crop destruction but also for the morale effects of harassment of VC units and their supporters among the population. The VC have created a propaganda opportunity for us by their falsification of the facts about the chemicals used and their failure to explain the true effects on plants, animals, and humans. “In addition, consideration may be given to the use of chemical spray as a weapon for direct attacks on VC units in order to fully exploit...

Share