This would be the last thing she heard from him for years.
Though she thought the call was a bit strange, Andrea did not have time to ponder it too much at the time. She had a full-time job in Baltimore as a para-professional in a mental health clinic, where she monitored the crisis hotline. Later, she would also work for a pharmacist running a poison control line—managing scary scenarios was part of her daily routine. She had two young daughters at home, Donna Page and Lysa. She was doing double duty as a career woman and a single mom.
A few days after her husband’s cryptic call, a secretary in Andrea’s department at work called with instructions for Andrea to go immediately to the head of her department. The young wife and mother followed orders, and found her doctor and several men in Army uniforms waiting for her in another office. One of the Army officers told her to have a seat as she wondered to herself, Why are they here?
The servicemen told her there had been an insurgency in Hue and that the city had been taken over by Communist forces during what would later become known as the Tet Offensive. Rander’s whereabouts were unknown; he was now classified as MIA. This was a huge shock: Don had been in Vietnam for only three months. This terrible announcement would soon be followed by another revelation, but one that included some welcome news.
A month later, escaped Army POW Bob Hayhurst told his debriefers that Donald Rander had been captured in Hue. Andrea rejoiced—he was alive! His status was reclassified from MIA to POW. After her shock wore off, the mental health advocate and now POW wife wondered, “So how do I plan my life now?”12
* * *
In March, another political bombshell fell. LBJ announced that he would not be running for a second full term as president. Sybil and many other POW and MIA wives were thrilled. “When Johnson announced at the end of March that he wouldn’t run again, I rejoiced. I felt strongly we had to have a change of party in order to have any change in policy.”13
Coincidentally, Bob Boroughs noticed Sybil’s increasing clout in his communications with the Office of Naval Intelligence Analysis Department on her behalf. On April 16, he wrote, “Such service we never had before: I put a copy of your ‘official’ note to me along with the original of your 19 December 1967 letter and it was enough to move this to the head of the line.”14 Boroughs had always known how valuable Sybil was. Only now was the Navy catching up with his original assessment. She was a valuable intelligence asset and one the Navy could not afford to ignore.
Meanwhile, the Vietnam War and LBJ’s indecisive response to it had nailed his political coffin shut.
* * *
Washington and Hanoi spent March and April of 1968 bickering over the location of formal peace negotiations that aimed to end the war. Geneva, Vienna, New Delhi, Jakarta, Rangoon—would any of these locations suit the North Vietnamese diplomats? Hanoi turned them all down in favor of Paris. Foreign Minister Xuan Thuy headed the North Vietnamese delegation, while American ambassador Averell Harriman, from Team LBJ, controlled U.S. negotiations.15 In the United States, the mere fact that negotiations had begun sparked hopes that the war might be brought to a peaceful and rapid conclusion.
Upon their arrival in Paris, the American diplomats discovered that they were not the only ones dealing with protests in their streets. A cultural, social, and political revolution was sweeping the Left Bank. Chic female students wearing low-slung belts and Sonia Rykiel knits, accompanied by bearded male students in bell-bottom jeans, had taken over the Sorbonne.
A general revolt was under way against what young people and the intellectual left perceived as bourgeois postwar society, ruled over by Charles de Gaulle. Though General de Gaulle, savior of the French during World War II, had failed spectacularly in France’s own war with Vietnam, as the French president he had proved a popular, if paternalistic, leader. He subscribed to the old order in France, whereby “women couldn’t wear pants to work and married ones needed a husband’s permission to open a bank account. Homosexuality was a crime. Factory workers could be fired at will.”16
By May 13, the first day of the Paris peace talks, “students joined forces with the trade unions to proclaim a general strike. Paris appeared to be on the brink of an authentic French revolution.”17 Harriman, Xuan Thuy, and their deputies would have heard popular anthems of this revolution like “Il est Cinq Heures, Paris S’Réveille” (“It’s 5 a.m., Paris Wakes Up”), “Paris Mai” (“Paris May”), and “Déshabillez-Moi” (“Undress Me”) streaming through the streets. “L’Internationale,” the Communist anthem, also played frequently, to the probable horror of Harriman and the equally probable delight of Xuan Thuy. Cars were strewn everywhere, barricades were up. Even at the world headquarters of diplomacy, where protocol was paramount, disorder was the order of the day.
In the middle of this French mêlée, American and Vietnamese diplomats met each Thursday at the Hotel Majestic (today the Peninsula Paris), on the Avenue Kléber in the Sixteenth Arrondissement of Paris. The routine resembled an existential farce, with each side spouting demands and the opposing negotiators refusing to compromise. Everyone went through the prescribed verbal gymnastics, followed the rules, and got absolutely nothing accomplished.
American hopes of a quick diplomatic fix were dashed.
“Predictably, the talks went nowhere. It was the old story. The North Vietnamese wanted an unconditional halt to the bombing. Harriman had been told to get something in return.”18 Time and time again, the venerable American ambassador was stonewalled by the North Vietnamese, who seemed not to care how long they had to hold out to win the war.
Harriman’s own biographer noted that his much labored-over speeches to the North Vietnamese were “so laden with boilerplate quotations of LBJ that he sounded more like the mouthpiece of a totalitarian regime than the ambassador of a democracy.”19 There was no movement at all during the public peace negotiations, except at a point halfway through the day when the diplomats broke for tea and cakes. Even secret negotiations between the two nations proved pointless.20
Britain’s prime minister, Harold Wilson, and his diplomats worked hard behind the scenes to help the Americans and North Vietnamese reach a peace agreement, despite his frosty relationship with Lyndon Johnson. Wilson, like the Americans, was repeatedly frustrated by North Vietnamese diplomats’ elaborate stalling techniques. “The British schemes to broker a peace [did not] achieve much, either in terms of easing tensions between the Americans and the North Vietnamese or in terms of enhancing British standing in American eyes.”21
Diplomats from all sides felt that each day was a repeat of the previous one. They must have felt like actors in the Samuel Beckett play Waiting for Godot. (Spoiler alert: in the play, Godot never shows up.) There seemed to be no end to the mind-numbing Paris peace talks or the plight of the American POWs in sight, nor an accounting of the MIAs.
* * *
Months after the February releases, the U.S. government decided to bring one of the returned POWs to San Diego to reassure the area POW wives that he had been treated well in the camps. Sybil knew from her coded correspondence from Jim that this was rarely the case unless the prisoner had been purposely set apart by the enemy. “No one pointed out that this man’s release, good condition, and reasonable treatment were part of the enemy’s propaganda campaign.”22 Sybil and the other POW wives knew just as well as their prisoner husbands that “our Code of Conduct forbids military men to accept parole and come home early.”23
“Stockdale’s frustration with the Johnson administration stemmed above all from its inability to counter POW propaganda. Knowing that her husband had been abused for his refusal to denounce the war, it angered her that his captors rewarded prisoners and peace activists who willingly did so through early releases.”24
The U.S. government also continued to inflate the hopes of the POW wives that negotiations with the North Vietnamese were progressing.25 The Paris peace talks were stalled, but the American government felt it had to give the POW and MIA families some ho
pe to keep their complaints at bay. The last thing the now waning LBJ government could take was a full-scale revolt, like the one that has just occurred in Paris, among the POW/MIA wives and families.
Well aware that Sybil Stockdale was a political liability for them, the government kept her under a wary watch. After all, she knew the truth of the matter because of her coded correspondence with her husband. She fully realized that the current administration was covering up the POW abuse and then lying to the American public about it. When might she blow the whistle? And she was not the only one they had to worry about. Many of the other West Coast POW wives also felt they were being constantly surveilled. The women noticed a faint but constant clicking on their phones—all suspected they were being wiretapped by their own government.26
No one was supposed to say a word about their missing or imprisoned husbands, even now. On the East Coast, Andrea recalled that the Army told her “not to open my mouth to anyone about anything. Just name, rank, and serial number.” She was forbidden to speak to anyone but immediate family about her situation. When friends asked her about Donald, all she could say was “I don’t know.”27
* * *
Sybil decided to dedicate that summer of 1968 to learning everything she possibly could about the Communist treatment of prisoners throughout history. This would help her decide if she should break with military tradition and the “keep quiet” policy and go to the media with her story. During what Sybil called her “Branford Library summer,” she pored over tracts on this topic at the library near her family’s summer cottage in Connecticut during the dog days of July and August.28
The Korean War (1950–1953) was the most recent American war in which prisoners of war were taken and thus a major focus of her studies. The conflict began when the North Korean Communists invaded democratic South Korea. The North Korean army, armed with Soviet tanks, took over South Korea, and the United States quickly came to South Korea’s aid. The way the North Koreans treated American prisoners of war and the subsequent changes to the U.S. military’s Code of Conduct were of great interest to Sybil.29
The common perception among Americans both during and after the Korean War was that the Communists were masters of “brainwashing.” The idea that the Communists possessed some secretive and irresistible method of indoctrination that turned American prisoners of war into their obedient zombies became a lasting myth in the States.
However, a 1956 Senate investigative Committee on Government Operations found that this popular perception was false. (JFK and RFK served on this committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, respectively.) The report noted that the Communists did not possess any magical formula for breaking down their prisoners of war. But they did employ a time-tested practice, “based on the simple and easily understood idea of progressively weakening an individual’s physical and moral strength.” The Communists, however, exploited this idea that they had special training in “brainwashing.” A psychologist testifying at the Senate hearing noted that “the aura of mystery and fear which has long been associated with Communist methods of interrogation and indoctrination is, in itself, a major factor in their effectiveness.”30
In the Korean War, a total of 7,090 American troops were captured by the Communists—6,556 were Army, 263 were Air Force, 231 were Marine Corps, and 40 were Navy. Of this number, only 4,428 of the prisoners were repatriated to the United States. Several thousand prisoners either died or were murdered in the North Korean military prison camps.31 The total number of prisoners taken in the Korean conflict was much larger than in the Vietnam War. However, the total duration of imprisonment in North Korea was relatively short in comparison with the lengthy captivity American POWs would face in Vietnam.
A major lesson learned by Americans fighting in the Korean War was the vital (and long-overlooked) need for a uniform military protocol for American prisoners to follow. On August 17, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued an executive order that established this new U.S. military Code of Conduct. American servicemen now had a beacon and a road map to guide them if imprisoned by future Communist regimes.
An intensive training program was developed to support this code throughout the military, placing “great emphasis on military discipline, esprit de corps, and morale.” All personnel were trained to resist Communist indoctrination in any form, to develop moral character with support for religious beliefs, and to appreciate their American heritage and program goals.
Part of the program was soon taught formally in the SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) schools to all individuals and units heading into combat zones. “It stresses means to evade capture, and then escape and survival. The serviceman is taught how to combat and survive the physical and mental conditions which he might face under Communist control. He is taught how to deal with informers and collaborators. He is trained to combat interrogation and indoctrination techniques.” Most American POW and MIA wives took some comfort from knowing that their husbands had attended SERE school and received intensive training in this area.32
However, Sybil continued to wrestle daily with the thought of going to the press with her story about Jim’s torture. Her entire career as a Navy wife told her not to say anything and to keep her opinions to herself. But Sybil was an avid student of history, and what she found in her deep dive into the brutal Communist treatment of prisoners of war was clear-cut. She decided that “a consistent, gruesome pattern was clear and I had to conclude that the worst way to influence the enemy to accord our men humane treatment was to keep quiet about the truth.”33
That same summer of 1968, Sybil made another trip to Washington, with a side trip to see Jane Denton and Louise Mulligan in Virginia Beach. Over dinner one evening, Sybil asked Louise to be the “area coordinator” for POW/MIA efforts in the Virginia Beach area.34 Louise was trying to organize women there and all over Virginia to speak out about the POW issue. Jane had ramped up her own involvement with the nascent organization and thrown off some of her initial inhibitions. The younger women around her, like Louise, had made an impact on her more traditional approach. The prisoner and missing scenario was too dire to sit at home and wait for a rescue. Jane was now more willing to shed some of her well-honed manners and to add different approaches—like working with the antiwar activists—to the wives’ arsenal.
* * *
After debating the matter all summer, Sybil was still undecided. Should she go to the press with her story, risk her reputation and her husband’s, or stay silent? After reading an article in the San Diego Union on September 1 that claimed the POWs were being treated horribly in North Vietnam, she sent Harriman a telegram asking him what steps were being taken to prevent Geneva Convention violations. Harriman quickly responded, but his reply astonished her.
SEPTEMBER 6, 1968
FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO YOU RELAYED FROM PARIS: DEAR MRS. STOCKDALE. I APPRECIATE YOUR SHARING WITH ME YOUR CONCERN REGARDING THE RECENT COPLEY NEWS SERVICE ARTICLE ON OUR PRISONERS OF WAR IN VIETNAM. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE NO INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ASSERTATION IN THE ARTICLE THAT OUR PRISONERS WILL BE EXPLOITED IN CONNECTION WITH FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS ON A SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH VIETNAM. IN FACT, NORTH VIETNAMESE REPRESENTATIVES HERE HAVE INDICATED TO ME THAT THE RELEASE LAST MONTH OF THE THREE PRISONERS WAS A GESTURE OF GOOD WILL. I HAVE URGED THEM TO GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO FURTHER RELEASES, INCLUDING THOSE PILOTS THAT HAVE BEEN HELD THE LONGEST TIME AND THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN INJURED. I AM SURE YOU REALIZE THAT THE WELFARE AND THE EARLY RELEASE OF YOUR MEN HELD IN PRISON CONTINUES TO BE UPPERMOST IN MY MIND. SINCERELY W. AVERELL HARRIMAN.
Sybil was furious. Her immediate reaction: “No Ambassador Harriman, I thought when I finished reading the message, I’m not sure I do realize the welfare of the men is uppermost in your mind, nor do I think you should be advocating early releases, which are a violation of the Code of Conduct.”35 Of deep concern to Sybil was the complete lack of understanding among diplomats like Harriman and State Department staff of th
e military’s code—its very bedrock, especially in times of conflict. Harriman’s urging for the early release of American captured servicemen took an ax to the military’s foundation. “The U.S. government was encouraging the military to disobey its own Code.”36
In her diary later, Sybil further dissected the LBJ government’s response to the prisoner issue and its misguided strategy of early prisoner releases. “Our Government was mushy and mealy-mouthed on the subject of our prisoners, playing straight into the hands of the Communists and allowing them to exploit and torture the majority of them at will. A few prisoners were always kept separate and treated well of course so that they could talk to those Americans who kept traveling to Hanoi and mouthing the Communist propaganda line for the people in this Country.”37
Harriman had unwittingly made Sybil’s difficult decision for her. He was the match that lit her bomb fuse.
It was time to go public with her story.
* * *
Boroughs must have turned the POW/MIA problem over and over in his mind, like the puzzles he so loved to do in his spare time. He was nervous about the idea of Sybil—or any of the wives—going to the press. General publicity about the POWs and MIAs was a good thing, he thought. But Sybil knew so much, she was so deep into the covert coding—if she went to the press, would she endanger Jim and all the others? He wasn’t sure. But Harriman and his State Department stooges were making a royal mess of things. Hell, they would rarely talk to him or his assistant Pat Twinem. Maybe this was the key, the answer to a complicated issue that the current administration had shown little aptitude for solving. He decided to give Sybil his blessing.
On October 28, Sybil finally went public, giving an interview to the San Diego Union and breaking the “keep quiet” rule. “The North Vietnamese,” Sybil declared, “have shown me the only thing that they respond to is world opinion. The world does not know of their negligence and they should know!”38 Sybil did this not only with the approval of Boroughs but also with the full approval of Naval Intelligence, making “no reference to our covert communication.”39 The primary reaction among most POW and MIA wives across the country? Massive relief.
The League of Wives Page 13
