Phoenix Program

by Douglas Valentine

  As for the Census Grievance program, managed by John Woodsman, Brickham said, “We wanted access to its intelligence because they could get intelligence we didn’t have access to. But because we were more compartmented within ourselves than we should have been, the police could not necessarily absorb this stuff …. The basic contract with the Vietnamese peasant,” Brickham explained, “was that anything that was learned through Census Grievance would not be turned over to the police authorities. This was to get the confidence of the rural population. So we had almost nothing to do with it. It was for the province chief’s advice and guidance. They took Census Grievance stuff and turned around and used it in the counterterror teams, although on occasion they might turn something over to the military.”

  Brickham cited Chieu Hoi as “one of the few areas where police and paramilitary advisers cooperated.”

  Regarding his own programs, Brickham said, “All counterinsurgency depends in the first instance on informants; without them you’re dead, and with them you can do all sorts of things. This is something that can only be a local operation. It’s a family affair. A few piasters change hands.”

  In “The Future Applicability of the Phoenix Program,” written for the Air University in 1974, CIA Province Officer Warren Milberg calls the Hamlet Informant program the focus of the Special Branch’s “bread-and-butter” activities, designed specifically “to gain information from and on the people who lived in rural hamlets …. The problem,” he writes, “was in recruiting informants in as many hamlets as possible.” This task was made difficult by the fact that informing is dangerous work, so “it became necessary to do detailed studies of various motivational factors.” Consequently, at the top of Special Branch recruitment lists were “people who had been victims of Viet Cong atrocities and acts of terrorism.”3

  Recruiting victims of VC terror as informers was a condition that dovetailed neatly with counterterror and the doctrine of Contre Coup. For, as David Galula explains, “pseudo insurgents are another way to get intelligence and to sow suspicion at the same time between the real guerrillas and the population.”4

  By 1965 defectors who joined counterterror teams had the words Sat Cong (Kill Communist) tattooed on their chests as part of the initiation ceremony to keep them from returning to former VC and NVA units. Their unit insignia was a machete with wings, while their unofficial emblem was the Jolly Roger skull and crossbones. When working, CTs dispensed with the regalia, donned black pajamas, and plundered nationalist as well as Communist villages. This was not a fact reported only by the leftist press. In October 1965, upon returning from a fact-finding mission to Vietnam, Ohio Senator Stephen Young charged that the CIA hired mercenaries to disguise themselves as Vietcong and discredit Communists by committing atrocities. “It was alleged to me that several of them executed two village leaders and raped some women,” the Herald Tribune reported Young as saying.5

  Indeed, CT teams disguised as the enemy, killing and otherwise abusing nationalist Vietnamese, were the ultimate form of psywar. It reinforced negative stereotypes of the Vietcong, while at the same time supplying Special Branch with recruits for its informant program.

  In his autobiography, Soldier, Anthony Herbert tells how he reported for duty with SOG in Saigon in November 1965 and was asked to join a top-secret psywar program. “What they wanted me to do was to take charge of execution teams that wiped out entire families and tried to make it look as though the VC themselves had done the killing. The rationale was that other Vietnamese would see that the VC had killed another VC and would be frightened away from becoming VC themselves. Of course, the villagers would then be inclined to some sort of allegiance to our side.6

  “I was told,” writes Herbert, “that there were Vietnamese people in the villages who were being paid to point the finger.” Intrigued, he asked how they knew for certain that the informer might not have ulterior motives for leading the death squads to a particular family. “I suggested that some of their informers might be motivated, for instance, by revenge or personal monetary gain, and that some of their stool-pigeons could be double or triple agents.”7

  Milberg concedes the point, noting that the Special Branch recruited informants who “clearly fabricated information which they thought their Special Branch case officers wanted to hear” and that when “this information was compiled and produced in the form of blacklists, a distinct possibility existed that the names on such lists had little relation to actual persons or that the people so named were not, in fact, members of the VCI.”8

  Such concerns, unfortunately, were overlooked in the rush to obtain information on the VCI. “The Special Branch kept records of people who had been victims of Viet Cong atrocities and acts of terrorism, of people who had been unreasonably taxed by the Viet Cong, of families which had had sons and husbands impressed into Viet Cong guerrilla bands, and those people who, for differing reasons, disliked or distrusted the Viet Cong. Depending on the incentive, be it patriotism or monetary gain, many hamlet residents were desirous of providing information on the activities of the local VCI. The Special Branch then constructed sometimes elaborate, sometimes simple plans to either bring these potential informants into province or district towns or to send undercover agents to the hamlets to interview them on a regular basis.”9

  In recommending “safe, anonymous” ways for informers to convey information, counterinsurgency guru David Galula cites as examples “the census, the issuing of passes, and the remuneration of workers.” Writes Galula: “Many systems can be devised for this purpose, but the simplest one is to multiply opportunities for individual contacts between the population and the counterinsurgent personnel, every one of whom must participate in intelligence collection.”10 The idea, of course, is that “intelligence collection” is the primary task of the counterinsurgent and that all his contacts with the population are geared toward this purpose, whatever ulterior motive they may appear to have.

  Apart from the Hamlet Informant program, Special Branch advisers also managed the PIC program—what Brickham called “a foundation stone upon which it was later possible to construct the Phoenix program. The PICs were places where defectors and prisoners could be taken for questioning under controlled circumstances,” he explained. “Responsibility was handled by a small group assembled by Tucker Gougleman. This group worked with province officers setting up training programs for translators, clerks doing filing and collation, and interrogators. John Muldoon was the chief of this little group. He was CIA staff, and he had a good program there. Everything led me to believe that he was top-notch.”

  The third major program run by the Special Branch was agent penetrations, what Brickham termed “recruitment in place of Vietcong,” adding, “This is by far the most important program in terms of gathering intelligence on the enemy. My motto was to recruit them; if you can’t recruit them, defect them (that’s Chieu Hoi); if you can’t defect them, capture them; if you can’t capture them, kill them. That was my attitude toward high-level VCI.”

  The penetration process worked as follows, according to OSS veteran Jim Ward, the CIA officer in charge of IV Corps between 1967 and 1969. An athletic, good-looking man, Ward noted, when we met together at his home, that the Special Branch kept dossiers on all suspected VCI in a particular area of operations, and that evidence was gathered from PIC interrogations, captured documents, and “walk-ins”—people who would walk into a police station and inform on an alleged VCI. When the accumulated evidence indicated that a suspect was a high-ranking VCI agent, that person was targeted for recruitment in place. “You didn’t send out the PRU right away,” Ward told me. “First you had to figure out if you could get access to him and if you could communicate with him once you had a relationship. Everybody in the Far East operates primarily by family, so the only opportunity of getting something like that would be through relatives who were accessible people. Does he have a sister or wife in town that we can have access to? A brother? Somebody who can reach him? Somebody he can
trust? If that could be arranged, then you looked for a weakness to exploit. Is there any reason to believe he’s been in this position for five years and hasn’t been promoted when everybody else around him has been moving up the ladder? Does he bear resentment? Anything you can find by way of vulnerability that would indicate this guy might be amenable to persuasion to work for us.”11 Bribes, sex, blackmail, and drugs all were legitimate means of recruitment.

  Speaking of the quality of Special Branch penetration agents, Brickham remarked, “We had some that were fairly good. By which I mean their information checked out.” That information, he added, concerned “the movements and activities of district and province and COSVN cadre. COSVN people might come around on an inspection tour or an indoctrination mission. Sometimes they had major political conferences where you might have a number of province and COSVN cadre together in one place. Now this is the kind of thing we’d go right after however we could. It was usually militarily; artillery if you could reach it.”

  Because of the unparalleled “intelligence potential” of penetrations, one of the main jobs of liaison advisers was training Special Branch case officers to handle penetration agents. At the same time, according to Brickham, “if the opportunity came their way, our own people would have a unilateral penetration into the VCI without their Special Branch counterparts knowing. These things for the most part were low-grade, but occasionally we had some people on the payroll as penetration agents who worked at district level, and as I recall, we had three or four at province level, which is fairly high up.”

  In 1967, Brickham told me, the CIA had “several hundred penetration agents in South Vietnam, most of them low-level.” They were not cultivated over a period of years either. “In a counterinsurgency,” he explained, “it’s either quickly or not at all. However, the unilateral operations branch in the station went after some very high-level, very sophisticated target penetration operations.” Since this unit played a major role in Phoenix, it requires a brief accounting.

  The CIA’s special operations unit for unilateral penetrations was largely the work of Sam Drakulich, the senior Special Branch adviser in III Corps in 1965. “I’ve always had a notion ever since I was a kid,” Brickham said, “that it’s the crazy people that have the bright ideas. So I’ve always been willing to play along with people like that, even though they’re ignored by the other kids in school. Same thing with Drakulich. He had a lot of good ideas, but he was a little flaky—and he got more so. He refused to live in Bien Hoa, and he was the region officer in charge. Now I wanted all the region officers to live in their capitals. Anyway, Drakulich had a place to live out there, and it hadn’t been bombed in thirty years; but he was terrified, so he came to Saigon every night. The point came [March 1966] where he was not supervising the province operations, and therefore, I persuaded Tucker to relieve him of duty.

  “Howard ‘Rocky’ Stone [Jack Stent’s replacement as chief of Foreign Intelligence (FI)] had just come into country and was putting on pressure for VCI penetrations. So what Tucker and I did—to respond to Stone, on the one hand, and to solve the Drakulich problem, on the other—was to create a high-level VCI penetration unit and switch Drakulich to run it.”

  Drakulich claimed to me, in a 1986 interview, that he had written a proposal for the high-level penetration unit before he was given the job by Brickham. Big and powerfully built, Drakulich said he designed the unit specifically to identify a group of high-level VCI that had killed, in broad daylight, a CIA officer on the main street of Bien Hoa. Hence his angst about sleeping overnight in Bien Hoa. In any event, Drakulich devised a special unit for penetrating the high-level VCI who were targeting CIA officers for assassination, and it was his contention that this special unit, which supplied blacklists to a special CT unit in Saigon, was the prototype for Phoenix.12

  The special unit organized by Drakulich consisted of several high-ranking CIA officers who traveled through the country reviewing all penetration cases. This team would visit each province officer, interview everyone on his staff, evaluate all the cases, in some instances meeting with the agent, then determine which of the cases were promising enough to set up special arrangements. The special unit would bring back to Saigon the cases that were promising, and in Saigon, Brickham said, “We would apply special care to their development. We would nurture them, generate requirements, and make sure they had communications and full exploitation.

  “Regardless of the potential importance of this job,” Brickham added, “Sam could never adjust to the fact that he had been relieved of his regional officer job, and so he left Vietnam in the summer of 1966. And that was the end of that. Then Rocky Stone set up his special unit [under Burke Dunn] to take over what Sam Drakulich was supposed to be doing, and suddenly these cases, if they were thought to be good, would disappear from our purview all together.

  “Stone pressed very hard for unilateral operations. He was interested in high-level penetrations of the VCI; I was interested in fighting a counter-insurgency war. As a result, he set up this separate shop, which took away my best operations—which is always a source of resentment. Stone and I later became best of friends, but not in this period.” Brickham took a deep breath, then said solemnly, “This competition for intelligence sources is one of the underlying, chronic conflicts that you can’t avoid. There’s a tension because there are two different purposes, but you’re utilizing basically the same resources.

  “Anyway, the penetrations Stone wanted to take away were our unilaterals. Out in the provinces we would provide advice and guidance to the Special Branch for their penetrations into the VCI. But on our side, maybe through Chieu Hoi or some other resource, we would develop independent unilateral penetrations unknown to the police. We had a number of these around the country, and it’s that kind of thing that Stone’s special unit was interested in reviewing. And if it was very good, they’d take it away from us.”

  Not only did Rocky Stone abscond with the special unit, but he also took steps to have Special Branch field operations expelled from the station. This issue is central to Phoenix. “There was always a big fight in the agency as to how covert it should be,” Brickham explained. “In particular, there was a lot of opposition in the station to the extent of exposure we had in Special Branch field operations. So Stone came in and tried to reduce that operation in favor of unilateral espionage into the VCI. Which I resisted.”

  A believer in David Galula’s theories on political warfare, Brickham stated, “My feelings were simple. We’re in a war, an intelligence war, meaning fought on the basis of intelligence. It will either succeed or fail on intelligence. Special Branch field operations are a crucial element of this whole thing with Special Branch operations—informants, defectors, PICs—critical against the enemy infrastructure. American boys are over here who are being killed. We don’t have time to worry about bureaucratic niceties. We don’t have time to worry about reputations. We got to win the goddamned thing!

  “So I was all gung ho for continuation and improvement of field operations. But Stone said, ‘Get rid of field operations. I don’t want it as part of my responsibility.’ So I was turned over to the new Revolutionary Development Cadre unit that was run by Lou Lapham, who was brought out from Washington especially for that purpose.”

  CHAPTER 8

  Attack on the VCI

  In the summer of 1966 steps were finally taken in Washington and Saigon to resolve the debate over who should manage the pacification of South Vietnam. At the heart of the problem was the fact that despite the U.S. Army’s success against NVA main force units in the Central Highlands, the Vietnamese people were not supporting the GVN to the extent that President Lyndon Johnson could withdraw American forces and leave the Vietnamese to manage the war on their own.

  On one side of the debate was the Pentagon, recommending a single chain of command under MACV commander Westmoreland. The reasons were simple enough: The military was providing 90 percent of pacification resources, a single chain
of command was more efficient, and there was danger in having unsupervised civilians in a battle zone. On the other hand, the civilian agencies were afraid that if the military managed pacification, any political settlement calling for the withdrawal of troops would also require civilians under military management (in, for example, refugee programs) to depart from Vietnam along with U.S. soldiers.

  In 1965 Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge had handed the problem to Ed Lansdale, whom he appointed senior liaison to the Ministry of Revolutionary Development. But Lansdale (a “fifth wheel,” according to Brickham) was unwanted and ignored and failed to overcome the bureaucratic rivalries in Saigon. By 1966 the problem was back in Washington, where it was determined that pacification was failing as the result of a combination of poor management and the VCI’s ability to disrupt Revolutionary Development. As a way of resolving these interrelated problems, President Johnson summoned his war managers to a conference at Warrenton, Virginia, in January 1966, the result of which was an agreement that a single pacification manager was needed. Once again, this point of view was advanced by the military through its special assistant for counterinsurgency and special activities, General William Peers, who suggested that the MACV commander be put in charge of pacification, with a civilian deputy.