USS Liberty: Review of The History Channel Documentary

The History Channel aired its documentary in the midst of the latest round of public debate on the fate of NSA ship USS Liberty, engendered by James Bamford’s new book, Body of Secrets. The facts are straightforward: On June 8, three days into the Six Day War, Israeli forces attacked the American spy ship. Israel immediately asserted that the attack was an error caused by the fog of war, apologized, and proceeded to pay compensation to the families. However, in a manner reminiscent of the Kennedy assassination, repeated American-Israeli investigations reaffirming the original Israeli claim failed to close the case. A group of activist members of the Liberty’s crew, along with sympathetic ex-officials and writers, continues to argue that Israel attacked the Liberty on purpose and that the American government covers it up because of its friendship with the Jewish state.

This is the argument forwarded by Bamford’s recent book and by the History Channel’s documentary. It is proven by bold-face lies. It is proven by telling the truth but not the whole truth. Both the Bamford book, and the documentary, ignore the context of the 1967 war. The longer ago events are, the easier it is to do. Filling the documentary with the vivid memories of men who feel betrayed is a very effective way to avoid the painful truths: The Johnson administration mismanaged the Vietnam War. That war caused the Soviets to urge their Arab clients to open a second front in the Middle East. Israel found itself on the front line of the Cold War. To save itself, it was forced to fight a war which also saved the American strategic hide. Many Americans never forgave Israel the favor.

Lets examine these charges within their strategic context. First, Why would Israel attack the Liberty at the time it was fighting a war against Soviet clients? Because it wanted to cover up its plans to attack Syria argue some documentary pundits. The reality was that the United States wanted Israel to take the Golan Heights because it had to prove that Moscow was no more able to protect its Syrian client than Washington was able to defend its Jordanian one. McGeorge Bundy (who returned to the administration to coordinate Middle East policy) told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that “it would seem strange that Syria – which had originated the war – might be the only one that seemed to be getting off without injury.” When Israel finally obliged, Washington demonstrated its approval by ordering the Sixth Fleet eastward and suspending for the two days of fighting on the Syrian front the moratorium on bombing Hanoi!

Second, did the Johnson administration cover up the Liberty incident in order to protect Israel? Not likely. On the day of the attack Lyndon Johnson asked McGeorge Bundy to come up with anti – Israeli cards. Bundy reported that the attack on the Liberty was the strongest American card, though “it was of more use in the Middle East than in the United States.” Yes. The United States was searching for such cards for both strategic and political reasons:

First, on the day of the attack Israeli leader Levi Eshkol was quick to remind the world that President Johnson promised great things but was unable to deliver. Indeed, in 1967 it was the US, not Israel, which suffered from a credibility gap. In January 1957 the United States had committed itself to keep the Straits of Tiran open. President Eisenhower publicly reaffirmed it in 1967. Mired in Vietnam, and finding itself unable and unwilling to engage in a two-front war, Johnson failed to live up to that commitment. This failure was clear to American allies everywhere. It is important to note that the Liberty was the closest American vessel to the fighting. The rest were kept far away. Soviet pilots and ships were much closer. On May 28, the Soviet defense minister told his Egyptian counterpart:"We received today information that the Sixth fleet in the Mediterranean returned to Crete the marines it had been carrying on landing vessels. Our fleet is in the Mediterranean near your shores.”

On June 5, American papers showed photos of the marines sunning themselves on the beaches of Malta! The Sixth Fleet was three days away from the Israeli and Egyptian coasts. At the same time, four additional Soviet destroyers and a frigate sailed through the Dardanelles. Senators John Stennis and Mike Mansfield explained that Vietnam had undermined American military capabilities. The order to the Six Fleet to avoid helping the Liberty was given on the assumption that it was a Soviet not an Israeli attack.

The American fear of investigating the incidence had probably much more to do with the reluctance to expose the American strategic weakness than to protect Israel. Charging Israel with a deliberate attack helped redirect attention from the administration's willingness to sacrifice the ship to avoid confronting the Soviets. Let us remember the fate of the Pueblo!

The Johnson administration also needed cards against Israel because, as Dean Rusk told the participants in the June 7 NSC meeting,"If we do not make ourselves attorneys for Israel, we cannot recoup our losses on the Arab world." His comment was followed by his colleagues questioning Israel's willingness to grant the US such a role after the American failure to live up to its 1957 and post 1957 commitments. Encouraging Israel to attack Moscow’s closest client, Syria, helped increase Israeli dependence for it caused Moscow to break relations with Israel and, later, to place Israeli cities on its nuclear targets list.

Interestingly, the documentary suggests that the Liberty’s mission may have been to collect additional anti-Israeli cards. It is significant that neither the NSA nor the navy had any interest in stationing the Liberty so close to the shore. Both concluded that their needs could be met 100 miles from shore. What were their needs? They needed information about Soviet movements in the region.

Who wanted Liberty to be so close that it could be privy to tactical communications between Israeli tank commanders and their men? The documentary asserts it was the American National Security Council. The unanswered thundering question is why?

After all, such information could have been useful only to the Egyptians planning their counter attack. Did the US plan to give the Egyptians the information in order to diminish the Israeli victory? It should be noted that Egypt's acceptance of the cease fire followed the attack on the Liberty, and came somewhat as a surprise to Dayan and led him to agree to retaliate against the heavy Syrian bombardment of the Israeli kibbutzim by taking the Golan Heights. Anyone watching the documentary would think that Syria, Egypt, Jordan and the PLO, were innocent victims of the aggression of a powerful Israeli army. In short, if there was a cover-up, it was NOT for the sake of Israel.

Second, the Israeli victory presented Johnson with a public relations nightmare. As New York Times columnist Tom Wicker remarked, it was going to be difficult for Washington to present the"war in Vietnam as necessary to honor its commitment and as one for the protection of small nations" after"finding itself unable or unwilling to assist the Israelis." Most upsetting to Johnson was James Reston's remark: 'the Israelis are very popular in Washington. They had the courage of our conviction, and they won a war we opposed.” Ironically, as Rusk admitted at the NSC meeting and Cy Sulzberger told the public: while the US role had been" confined to waffling," American"prestige" had risen.

So devastating was the credibility gap that the American effort to convince the Arabs of Washington's innocence took back seat to the need for damage control.

Consequently, apparently as the result of some confidential briefings, on June 14, 1967 Reston wrote a column entitled"Washington: 'And God Spake Unto Israel'" in which he revealed that Israel"had an ally after all" because the best kept story on the Middle East so far is in the 46th chapter of the Book of Genesis . . . . Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will be there make thee a great nation."

Still, the documentary proved how naïve Bundy was to think that the Liberty card was of"more use in the Middle East than in the United States." Little did he know how useful it would be in the United States once polemicists were given the opportunity to revise history. Those keeping the memory of the Liberty alive are not truth seekers but political activists with an anti-Israeli ax to grind, just like the Chinese who refuse to accept the American apology for the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade are anti-Americans with an ax to grind. Difficult to explain events often happen in the fog of war. Conspiracy theorists are not created by such events. They are strategic political thinkers who exploit them for their own ends. It is a pity to see historians in their ranks.