Kennedy's Vietnam
Steve Bochan
Journal, and may be of some interest to the readers here.
STEVE
-- The question is NOT "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot
the President?" The question is: "Did he have help?"
-- G. Robert Blakey
----------------------------------------------------------
KENNEDY'S VIETNAM
The Vietnam War haunted the American political psyche for three decades,
until the ghost was exorcised on September 11, 2001. The other bookend of
the era, at least in my mind, is November 1963, a month that opened with the
assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam and closed with
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas.
Those of us who think this way, and I am by no means the only one, naturally
looked forward to a new biography of the martyred president, Robert Dallek's
"An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963." As it turns out, Mr.
Dallek asserts that JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam if he had served a
second term. This notion has been assiduously spread by Kennedy acolytes for
three decades now, and Mr. Dallek's uncritical acceptance of it raises again
the issue of why he was selected for privileged access to the Kennedy
papers.
Mr. Dallek has already had an exchange in our columns on this issue with
Thomas C. Reeves, a Kennedy skeptic in his own book, "A Question of
Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy" (Macmillan 1991). Mr. Reeves pointed
out that the Kennedy Library is the only tax-supported presidential library
that has a system of "donor committees" controlling access to materials, and
that Ted Sorensen, chief guardian of Kennedy mythology, was instrumental in
the selection of Mr. Dallek to be the first historian to see a wide range of
materials. Mr. Dallek replied that his "understanding" was that the
materials would also be released to other scholars, but Mr. Reeves, who has
sought the records for years, has heard nothing to date.
Nothing here should be taken as any suggestion of a quid pro quo, or as
questioning Mr. Dallek's standing as an outstanding biographer. "An
Unfinished Life" is unquestionably an important book, and provides a trove
of information for future scholars. Yet in approaching the book, one needs
to remember that the author's attitudes were evident in his previous work,
and Mr. Sorensen must be pleased with the two points made in Mr. Dallek's
excerpts in The Atlantic.
The first article detailed President Kennedy's extensive health problems.
The spin was that they demonstrated bravery, and did not affect the
president's performance in office. Mr. Dallek has said he was surprised to
find the records uncensored, but he also reports they include nothing about
Dr. Max Jacobson, the infamous "Dr. Feelgood," a specialist in amphetamine
cocktails.
Yet Dr. Jacobson was seeing the president about weekly, according to bills
reviewed by Laurence Leamer, author of "The Kennedy Men" and "The Kennedy
Women." In a Boston Globe article (see the History News Network
http://hnn.us/), he says he had access to records secreted by the
president's secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, including letters from other
physicians warning against Dr. Jacobson's treatments, which included
providing drugs for favored patients to inject themselves. Mr. Leamer
concludes, "it is absurd to suggest that his illnesses and amphetamine use
had no impact on his presidency."
My own preoccupation, Vietnam, was the subject of the second article. Mr.
Dallek discusses the long debate within the administration over whether to
sanction the coup that ultimately resulted in Diem's murder. In contrast
with his clarity during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the president is
conflicted and indecisive. Immediately after the coup, he taped a memo,
particularly regretting an August cable that first suggested a coup. "I
should not have given my consent to it without a roundtable conference at
which McNamara and Taylor could have presented their views."
In fact, the key Aug. 24 cable was approved by the president after a
briefing by George Ball, who interrupted his shower on a Hyannis weekend. At
least, this was the contemporary report of Marguerite Higgins in "Our
Vietnam Nightmare" (Harper & Row, 1965). But this is missing from Mr.
Dallek's bibliography, as is Ellen Hammer's "A Death in November" (Dutton,
1987). These anti-coup books are essential balance to the acolytes.
President Eisenhower briefed the incoming president the day before the
inaugural. The principal subjects included Laos and, we know from other
sources, the balance of payments, which unwound as a crisis during the Nixon
administration. The outgoing president favored American intervention in
Laos, predicting that unless the U.S. resisted there South Vietnam and
Cambodia would also fall.
In the event, President Kennedy negotiated the Laos accords, a coalition
arrangement that gave the Communists de facto control of the Ho Chi Minh
trail vital to infiltration into South Vietnam. By 1963 the South erupted in
crisis, with conflicting battlefield reports and political turmoil in the
Buddhist crisis and burning bonzes. The notion spread in the Saigon press
corps and a Kennedy administration faction that Diem, an inflexible
Catholic, had to go in order to win the war. After the coup, the military
situation deteriorated rapidly.
Mr. Dallek lists the reasons JFK was reluctant to withdraw from Vietnam:
failure at the Bay of Pigs, the Vienna summit with Khrushchev, defending
Laos, the Berlin Wall, the Soviet resumption of nuclear testing. He feared
the international and domestic reaction to another defeat. By November,
sanctioning a coup against an ally in the name of winning the war had been
added.
Then withdraw? Joe Kennedy's competitive kid? The "green berets" guy? The
"bear any burden" guy? Give me a break.
Acolytes love this myth dearly, of course, and Mr. Dallek was writing not a
focused examination of it but a broad portrait valuable in its own right.
But he need not adopt the withdrawal notion so uncritically or champion it
in magazines. For the purpose of the myth is to obscure a salient truth. To
wit, Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's war.
Peter Fokes
"Steve Bochan" <sbo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bckvul$rtg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Lol...ok...now you can start kicking him lolol
In Mr. Bartley's opinion anyway.
Mr. Bartley has no monopoly on the truth though.
Peter Fokes
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Clarke
> failure at the Bay of Pigs, the Vienna summit with Khrushchev, defending
> Laos, the Berlin Wall, the Soviet resumption of nuclear testing. He feared
> the international and domestic reaction to another defeat. By November,
> sanctioning a coup against an ally in the name of winning the war had been
> added.
>
> Then withdraw? Joe Kennedy's competitive kid? The "green berets" guy? The
> "bear any burden" guy? Give me a break.
>
> Acolytes love this myth dearly, of course, and Mr. Dallek was writing not
a
> focused examination of it but a broad portrait valuable in its own right.
> But he need not adopt the withdrawal notion so uncritically or champion it
> in magazines. For the purpose of the myth is to obscure a salient truth.
To
> wit, Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's war.
>
>
>
Thank you much. Makes sense to me.
But I’ve got to tell you; this isn’t going to go over well with Aguilar and
A. Marsh. Nor, I guess, the rest of the folks that believe Kennedy was
killed because he was going to cut and run in Vietnam.
I never understood if the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff was supposed to have
popped Kennedy or if maybe just Curtis LeMay. Any answers?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
news:3eee...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
not
> > a focused examination of it but a broad portrait valuable in its own
right.
> > But he need not adopt the withdrawal notion so uncritically or champion
it
> > in magazines. For the purpose of the myth is to obscure a salient truth.
> > To wit, Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's war.
>
> In Mr. Bartley's opinion anyway.
> Mr. Bartley has no monopoly on the truth though.
>
> Peter Fokes
>
>
Nor does Mr. Dallek, Gary Aguilar or A. Marsh have a monopoly on the truth.
Hell, neither do I but one should try to be as objective as possible.
When you determine up front that Kennedy was killed because he was going to
withdraw from Vietnam you then have to twist and lie about the history of
the Vietnam War to support your assassination theory. The antics of A.
Marsh in doing this would be comical if not so sad.
My suggestion would be to find the true assassin and any pertinent
conspiracy, if any. I don’t believe it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Any
proof to the contrary? About the Joint Chiefs I mean?
Bill Clarke
Peter Fokes
"Bill Clarke" <cla...@livingston.net> wrote in message
news:ves8e4r...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Peter Fokes" <pfokess...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:3eee...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> > "Steve Bochan" <sbo...@erols.com> wrote in message
> > news:bckvul$rtg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> >
> > > Acolytes love this myth dearly, of course, and Mr. Dallek was writing
> not
> > > a focused examination of it but a broad portrait valuable in its own
> right.
> > > But he need not adopt the withdrawal notion so uncritically or
champion
> it
> > > in magazines. For the purpose of the myth is to obscure a salient
truth.
> > > To wit, Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's war.
>
> >
> > In Mr. Bartley's opinion anyway.
> > Mr. Bartley has no monopoly on the truth though.
> >
> > Peter Fokes
> >
> >
>
> Nor does Mr. Dallek, Gary Aguilar or A. Marsh have a monopoly on the
truth.
Tis true what you say ....
> Hell, neither do I but one should try to be as objective as possible.
Agree.... unless you are a politician...lol
>
> When you determine up front that Kennedy was killed because he was going
to
> withdraw from Vietnam you then have to twist and lie about the history of
> the Vietnam War to support your assassination theory. The antics of A.
> Marsh in doing this would be comical if not so sad.
Anthony is more than able to defend his own opinions. His knowledge of this
case is immense. I would not describe his arguments as "antics", nor stuff
to make you sad. It is sad to see Dallek repeat the old canard that had JFK
not been wearing a back brace, he might have been able to avoid the head
shot. Have you ever seen a picture of the brace JFK was wearing?
> My suggestion would be to find the true assassin and any pertinent
> conspiracy, if any.
Aye, there's the rub.
I don't believe it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Any
> proof to the contrary? About the Joint Chiefs I mean?
The JCS (not Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval ..hehe..) is not my leading suspect.
By the way there is another review of Dallek's book floating around. I
received an email with such a beast.
http://counterpunch.org/madsen05142003.html
Time for supper.
Peter Fokes
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>
Bill Clarke
> > truth.
>
> Tis true what you say ....
>
> > Hell, neither do I but one should try to be as objective as possible.
>
> Agree.... unless you are a politician...lol
>
Hell no, too many ghost in my closet to be a politician.
>
> Anthony is more than able to defend his own opinions. His knowledge of
> this case is immense. I would not describe his arguments as "antics", nor
> stuff to make you sad. It is sad to see Dallek repeat the old canard that
had > JFK not been wearing a back brace, he might have been able to avoid
the > head shot. Have you ever seen a picture of the brace JFK was wearing?
>
Marsh might be an Ace about the conspiracy but his understanding of what
was happening in Vietnam in the early to mid 1960s is….well…sad. I think
the man has read the right stuff but wanders in the analysis and that, I
believe, is due to his overwhelming need to think Kennedy was pulling out
of Vietnam come hellfire or high water. That is the reason Kennedy was
killed, according to Marsh.
>
> > My suggestion would be to find the true assassin and any pertinent
> > conspiracy, if any.
>
> Aye, there's the rub.
>
> > I don't believe it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Any
> > proof to the contrary? About the Joint Chiefs I mean?
>
> The JCS (not Jaggers-Chiles-Stoval ..hehe..) is not my leading suspect.
>
Thanks. That is a relief.
> By the way there is another review of Dallek's book floating around. I
> received an email with such a beast.
>
I’ve probably seen the other review, much more favorable to Dallek’s
opinion? Dallek, of course, cannot be brushed off lightly but I think
I’ll wait and see how his book fares under time. I haven’t read the book
yet but I didn’t really see any new smoking gun in the reviews. Not about
his Vietnam policy anyway.
If I were a writer I’d be very careful writing about Kennedy. Seymour
Hersh was top rated until he stepped on it with his last book about
Kennedy. A shame too, I loved the way Seymour gave it to Henry Kissinger.
Bill Clarke
FourStix
personnell were to be withdrawn by '65 There was a NSAM regarding this,
I'm sure you're aware of it. The fact that Kennedy's stance was to get out
of Nam is one of many motives on why he was assassinated. LBJ and the
hawks wanted Nam. Kennedy didn't.
In article <bckvul$rtg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Steve Bochan
Gary Aguilar
> "Steve Bochan" <sbo...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:bckvul$rtg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > Mr. Dallek lists the reasons JFK was reluctant to withdraw from Vietnam:
> > failure at the Bay of Pigs, the Vienna summit with Khrushchev, defending
> > Laos, the Berlin Wall, the Soviet resumption of nuclear testing. He feared
> > the international and domestic reaction to another defeat. By November,
> > sanctioning a coup against an ally in the name of winning the war had been
> > added.
> >
> > Then withdraw? Joe Kennedy's competitive kid? The "green berets" guy? The
> > "bear any burden" guy? Give me a break.
> >
> > Acolytes love this myth dearly, of course, and Mr. Dallek was writing not
> a
> > focused examination of it but a broad portrait valuable in its own right.
> > But he need not adopt the withdrawal notion so uncritically or champion it
> > in magazines. For the purpose of the myth is to obscure a salient truth.
> To
> > wit, Vietnam was John F. Kennedy's war.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thank you much. Makes sense to me.
>
> A. Marsh. Nor, I guess, the rest of the folks that believe Kennedy was
> killed because he was going to cut and run in Vietnam.
>
> I never understood if the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff was supposed to have
> popped Kennedy or if maybe just Curtis LeMay. Any answers?
>
> Bill Clarke
Terribly amusing, really, to see loyalists spouting an op-ed writer
for the Wall St. Journal, of all places, that JFK would have done what
LBJ had done. They hate Dallek, and assume that he's lying to support
the Kennedys who gave him access to the archives at the Kennedy
Library.
Reject Dallek if you like, but what about military historians or
historians with military backgrounds? John Newman, an Army man, said
JFK wouldn't have sent troops. But that was 12 years ago. More
recently, David Kaiser has said the same thing.
As I've elsewhere written:
Once-secret records demonstrate a pattern in Kennedy we are
unaccustomed to seeing in presidents: rather than JFK following advice
on critical issues – the way good presidents do, the way LBJ did –
Kennedy often ignored it. He rejected his advisors' suggestions to
follow-up the foundering Bay of Pigs invasion with a military assault
on Cuba. He rejected advisors' suggestion to use force in Laos,
pushing against the U. S. military to achieve an ultimately successful
negotiated settlement. He shouldered aside his military advisors to
advance a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets. And as May and
Zelikov note, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, taped conversations
prove that JFK was often "the only one in the room [full of advisors]
who is determined not to go to war."
And, finally, as David Kaiser wrote in response to a published review
of his book: "American Tragedy extensively documents numerous
occasions during 1961, 1962, and 1963 on which Kennedy did exactly
that ["stopped the United States from going to war in Southeast
Asia"], rejecting the near unanimous proposals of his advisers to put
large numbers of American combat troops in Laos, South Vietnam, or
both. He also showed – and not at all ‘reluctantly' – that he
preferred a neutral government in Laos to American military
involvement on behalf of pro-Western forces … it is now clear beyond
any doubt that he had refused, on a number of earlier occasions, to do
what Johnson did during those years. He also had a wide-ranging
diplomatic agenda, explored at length in American Tragedy, which could
not be reconciled with war in Southeast Asia – an agenda abandoned by
his successor."
It may well be that the greatest irony of all is that in the mountain
of documents released in response to the public uproar over the
pro-Garrison film that Max Holland's bete noir produced, the Bronze
Star-winning, Vietnam veteran movie maker, Oliver Stone, has been
vindicated against "patriots" like Holland.
To The Establishment, JFK was a dangerous and loose cannon. He did
represent change – right up until the moment the shots rang out in
Dealey Plaza.
Gary
GMcNally
Gary,
The NY Times Book Review took on Dallek last Sunday and chided him for
taking about what Kennedy MIGHT HAVE DONE in Vietnam rather than what
he did do.
He might have chosen to accept a military defeat and withdraw his
troops after the SV army had suffered catastrophic defeats and after
the SV government was a mere fiction and after we had suffered losses
- he might have just walked away and let Ho take over the south.
Certainly his Cabinet officials and advisors would have strongly
resisted and resigned on principle; certainly he would have taken a
lot of heat and perhaps faced impeachment.
If Kennedy had shown he was a man of courage - a profile in courage -
at any time during his political career we might be encouraged to
think he would do so.
But, we don't know what Kennedy would have done as the situation in
1965 was quantitatively and qualitatively different from what he faced
in 1963. At that time if was still possible to think that we could
prevail w/o US combat troops.
I can't imagine what reasons Kennedy could have given the US public
for letting SVN fall to Ho. Would he have told them the war was
immoral? I can't imagine that. Would he have told them that Ho
couldn't be stopped from taking SVN?
He would have been laughed at if he had!
So what would he have told the people, Gary? How would he have
'splained away the fact that we'd made a commitment and had backed out
allowing our allie to fall?
Jerry
Bill Clarke
news:d127717d.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> Terribly amusing, really, to see loyalists spouting an op-ed writer
> for the Wall St. Journal, of all places, that JFK would have done what
> LBJ had done. They hate Dallek, and assume that he's lying to support
> the Kennedys who gave him access to the archives at the Kennedy
> Library.
>
> Reject Dallek if you like, but what about military historians or
> historians with military backgrounds? John Newman, an Army man, said
> JFK wouldn't have sent troops. But that was 12 years ago. More
> recently, David Kaiser has said the same thing.
> >>>>>Propaganda snipped for space>>>>>>
> To The Establishment, JFK was a dangerous and loose cannon. He did
> represent change - right up until the moment the shots rang out in
> Dealey Plaza.
>
>
> Gary
>
As you well know, Newman's seminar at the LBJ Library on this theory didn't
pass muster with the other historians. Just because you find a couple of
writers and historians that agree with what you wish were true does not make
it a historical fact.
And not once, not one time, have I seen any of these "Kennedy would have
saved us from Vietnam" boys address the difference in conditions in Vietnam
from 1963 to 1965.
Again, as you well know, in 1963 Kennedy & Company foolishly thought the
insurgency would be under control by 1964 or 1965 and we could withdraw.
The insurgency, of course, had not come under control by 1965 and in fact
had blossomed since the assassination of Diem.
Why does none of your historians and writers make this consideration when
looking into their crystal ball?
Kennedy didn't want to commit troops to Vietnam but neither did Johnson.
When the north came down in force in 1964 we had two choices. Stay and
fight or cut and run. You really think Kennedy would have ran?
And please answer this one for me. Which one of the "establishment" shot
Kennedy? Was it Curtis LeMay?
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
news:160620031915088358%Four...@zep.net...
> JFK was not reluctant to withdraw from Vietnam. It made headlines that all
> personnell were to be withdrawn by '65 There was a NSAM regarding this,
> I'm sure you're aware of it.
Yes, I'm aware of the NSAM. If you were to read it you would see what most
of the Camelot boys conveniently leave out. It is making plans (not orders)
for our troop withdrawal when the insurgency comes under control, possibly
in 1964 or 1965. Well, the insurgency didn't come under control by 1965.
Matter of fact, in 1964 main force communist forces came south and things
got damn hot.
> The fact that Kennedy's stance was to get out of Nam is one of many
> motives on why he was assassinated.
That is only your opinion. The fact that a few more fellows agree with you
still does not make it a historical fact. I say it was some pissed off
Cuban ex-POWs from the Bay of Pigs that were damn sore about their
air-support being cut off. That makes as much sense as "the Joint Chiefs
did it".
> LBJ and the hawks wanted Nam. Kennedy didn't.
>
And the fact that you believe Johnson "wanted" Vietnam belies the
shallowness of your history. Johnson wanted Vietnam about like he wanted a
penicillin resistant case of the claps.
Bill Clarke
Steve Bochan
Even more amusing to see you so amused. You act as if the WSJ is an odd
place for such matters to be discussed, yet, as I recall, you've had your
own letters (mercifully edited down) on matters relating to JFK published
there as well, yes?
> They hate Dallek,
No one "hates" Dallek, but it is typically useful for propagandists to
demonize their opponents in such a manner. Look Gary, I would think you of
all people would realize that no one really *knows* what JFK would have done
for *sure*. We can all speculate until the cows come home, but speculation
is far from proof positive.
> and assume that he's lying to support
> the Kennedys who gave him access to the archives at the Kennedy
> Library.
No one assumes Dallek is lying, and I certainly did not see such an
accusation made in the article you seem to be raising such a fuss about.
Are you still mad at the WSJ for editing down your rants of the past there?
> Reject Dallek if you like, but what about military historians or
> historians with military backgrounds? John Newman, an Army man, said
> JFK wouldn't have sent troops. But that was 12 years ago. More
> recently, David Kaiser has said the same thing.
>
> As I've elsewhere written:
<snip>
Forgive me. We've all read your "writing" elsewhere.
How about another educated source, other than the one you object to at the
WSJ? How about that darling of the uber liberal, anti-gov't and
anti-corporate set, Noam Chomsky? Yes, he must be more in line with your
thinking on matters related to JFK - certainly more so than a respected and
highly regarded newspaper like the WSJ, which you yourself have contributed
to in the past. Let's see now, didn't Chomsky publish something about ten
or so years ago called, "Rethinking Camelot" ?
Yes, and as I recall, he deals with the subject of whether or not JFK
would've withdrawn from Vietnam. Here are some passages that the very
liberal Chomsky wrote on the subject:
<quote on>---
8. The Presidential Transition
At the Honolulu meeting of November 20, a draft was prepared (signed by
McGeorge Bundy) for what became NSAM 273, adopted after the assassination
but intended for JFK with the expectation that he would approve it in
essentials, as was the norm. Top advisers agreed; Hilsman made only "minor
changes." The State Department history states that the draft "was almost
identical to the final paper," differing only in paragraph 7.
NSAM 273 was declassified in May 1978; the November 20 draft, on January 31,
1991. The draft is not published in the State Department history, but its
assessment is quite accurate. Both documents reiterate the basic wording of
the early October documents, and call for maintaining military and economic
assistance at least at previous levels. On withdrawal, the NSAM approved by
Johnson is identical with the draft prepared for Kennedy. It reads: "The
objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S.
military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October
2, 1963," referring to the statement of US policy at the NSC meeting,
formalized without essential change as NSAM 263. As for paragraph 7, the
draft and final version are, respectively, as follows:
Draft: With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a
detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam
resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should
indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of
effectiveness in this field of action.
NSAM 273: Planning should include different levels of possible increased
activity, and in each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:
· A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam;
· B. The plausibility of denial;
· C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation;
· D. Other international reaction.
Plans should be submitted promptly for approval by higher authority.
(Action: State, DOD, and CIA)
The final phrase is attached to other paragraphs.66
There is no relevant difference between the two documents, except that the
LBJ version is weaker and more evasive, dropping the call for "a wholly new
level of effectiveness in this field of action"; further actions are reduced
to "possible." The reason why paragraph 7 refers to "additional" or
"possible increased" activity we have already seen: such operations had been
underway since the Kennedy offensive of 1962, apparently with direct
participation of US personnel and foreign mercenaries.
<quote off>---
Gary, did you read that last sentence above? It alludes to "the Kennedy
offensive of 1962". These are not WSJ words written by a conservative
editor, but uber liberal Chomsky's words. Chomsky used the very same
documents and primary source material that others have used, and came away
with a completely different take on this. The WSJ titles their article
"Kennedy's Vietnam," but based on what Chomsky has written, that's exactly
what it would seem to be.
Chomsky continues:
<quote on>---
As reviewed earlier, the military had advocated in January 1963 that
operations against the North be continued (perhaps intensified) as a
counterpart to the plans of the hawks for withdrawal after victory, with the
agreement of Hilsman and reportedly the President. No direct US government
involvement is proposed in NSAM 273 beyond what was already underway under
JFK. Subsequent plans developed by the DOD and CIA call for "Intensified
sabotage operations in North Vietnam by Vietnamese personnel," with the US
involved only in intelligence collection (U-2, electronics) and
"psychological operations" (leaflet drops, "phantom covert operations,"
"black and white radio broadcasts").67
These two NSAMs (263 in October, 273 on November 26 with a November 20 draft
written for Kennedy) are the centerpiece of the thesis that Kennedy planned
to withdraw without victory, a decision at once reversed by LBJ (and perhaps
the cause of the assassination). They have been the subject of many claims
and charges. Typical of the 1992 revival is Oliver Stone's Address to the
National Press Club alleging that John Newman's study "makes it very clear
President Kennedy signaled his intention to withdraw from Vietnam in a
variety of ways and put that intention firmly on the record with National
Security Action Memorandum 263 in October of 1963," while LBJ "reverse[d]
the NSAM" with NSAM 273.
Arthur Schlesinger claimed that after the assassination, "President Johnson,
listening to President Kennedy's more hawkish advisers and believing that he
was doing what President Kennedy would have done, issued National Security
Action Memorandum 273 calling for the maintenance of American military
programs in Vietnam `at levels as high' as before -- reversing the Kennedy
withdrawal policy." The co-author (with Stone) of the screenplay JFK,
Zachary Sklar, also citing Newman's book, claims further that the draft
prepared for Kennedy "says that the U.S. will train the South Vietnamese to
carry out covert military operations against North Vietnam" while "In the
final document, signed by Johnson, it states that U.S. forces themselves
will carry out these covert military operations," leading to the Tonkin Gulf
incident, which "was an example of precisely that kind of covert operation
carried out by U.S. forces" (his emphasis).68
Such claims, which are common, are groundless, indeed are refuted by the
internal record. Newman's book adds nothing relevant to the available
record, which gives no hint of any intention by JFK to withdraw without
victory -- quite the contrary -- and reveals no "reversal" in NSAM 273. The
call for maintenance of aid is in the draft of NSAM 273 prepared for
Kennedy, and was also at the core of his tentative withdrawal plans,
conditioned on victory and "Major U.S. assistance" to assure it.
Furthermore, Kennedy's more dovish -- not "more hawkish" -- advisers
approved and continued to urge LBJ to follow what they understood to be
JFK's policy, rejecting any thought of withdrawal without victory. The final
version of NSAM 273 does not state that US forces would carry out covert
operations in any new way; nor did they, in the following months. There were
covert attacks on North Vietnamese installations just prior to the Tonkin
Gulf incident, but they were carried out by South Vietnamese forces,
according to the internal record.
The two versions of NSAM 273 differ in no relevant way, apart from the
weakening of paragraph 7 in the final version. Furthermore, the departure
from NSAM 263 is slight, and readily explained in terms of changing
assessments. Efforts to detect nuances and hidden implications have no basis
in fact, and if pursued, could easily be turned into a (meaningless) "proof"
that LBJ toned down Kennedy aggressiveness.
The call in paragraph 7 for consideration of further ARVN operations against
the North is readily explained in terms of the two basic features of the
post-coup situation: the feeling among Kennedy's war planners that with the
Diem regime gone, the US at last had a regime committed to Kennedy's war in
the South, offering new "opportunities to exploit"; and the increasing
concern about the military situation in the South, undermining earlier
optimism. The former factor made it possible to consider extension of ARVN
operations; the latter made it more important to extend them. In subsequent
months, Kennedy's planners (now directing Johnson's war) increasingly
inclined towards operations against the North as a way to overcome their
inability to win the war in the South, leading finally to the escalation of
1965, undertaken largely to "drive the DRV out of its reinforcing role and
obtain its cooperation in bringing an end to the Viet Cong insurgency,"
using "its directive powers to make the Viet Cong desist" (Taylor, November
27, 1964).69
<quote off>---
There is much more that Chomsky writes on this matter, but you get the idea.
And Chomsky is no conservative, anti-Kennedy type.
I initially provided the WSJ piece as an attempt to balance the one-sided
raving I saw being posted on this subject, but now I have provided both a
conservative and a liberal published piece contradicting the theory that JFK
would have withdrawn from Vietnam -- let the readers make up their own
minds. My own personal view is that we'll never *know* for sure what JFK
would have done, and I seem to recall John Newman either verbalizing or
using that same (rather obvious) caveat, but I'll have to check.
It is both logical and rational to conclude that we'll never *know* for
sure, Gary. Oswald took care of that, despite what the historical
revisionists attempt to foist on the public.
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Gary Aguilar
Tell you what, Steve: I'll meet your "amusing," and raise you 2
amusings. That means I'm at least twice as amused as you are.
Why? Because right off the bat you've taken a couple of swings, and
missed the ball by a mile. You're wrong the WSJ published me on JFK,
but "mercifully edited me down." I never wrote the WSJ on JFK; I
wrote, and was published, on Chile.(see excerpt, below) Nor was my
letter 'edited down,' with or without mercy. [No small irony here,
Steve, given the gobs you failed to 'edit down' from Chomsky!] My
letter appeared word-for-word as I wrote it, except that, when I named
the author of the op-ed piece I responded to as "Anastasia," the
editor changed it to "Ms. Anastasia." So, in a sense, the editor
actually made it longer.
>
> > They hate Dallek,
>
>
>
> No one "hates" Dallek, but it is typically useful for propagandists to
> demonize their opponents in such a manner. Look Gary, I would think you of
> all people would realize that no one really *knows* what JFK would have done
> for *sure*. We can all speculate until the cows come home, but speculation
> is far from proof positive.
>
It's clear *you* don't hate Dallek, Steve, because that's what he
says, too - that no one can say for sure. And so does virtually
everyone. [Is this your version of a Straw Man, Steve?] Dallek happens
also to say what Roger Hilsman, JFK undersecretary of S.E. Asian
affairs, R. McNamara, A. Scleshinger, Peter Dale Scott, John Newman,
David Kaiser and others have said: Kennedy would probably not have
fought Vietnam's War the way the Pentagon wanted him to, the way LBJ
did: with U. S. soldiers.
>
> > and assume that he's lying to support
> > the Kennedys who gave him access to the archives at the Kennedy
> > Library.
>
>
>
> No one assumes Dallek is lying, and I certainly did not see such an
> accusation made in the article you seem to be raising such a fuss about.
> Are you still mad at the WSJ for editing down your rants of the past there?
>
Let's just leave it that, with all the special access Dallek got, the
suggestion was floated that he'd gotten access less for his commitment
to the truth than for his willingness to tell a story the Kennedy's
wanted told. Of course, Dallek's disclosing Kennedy was fooling round
with an intern was hansome repayment of the trust the Kennedys had
placed in Dallek, right? ;~?
>
> > Reject Dallek if you like, but what about military historians or
> > historians with military backgrounds? John Newman, an Army man, said
> > JFK wouldn't have sent troops. But that was 12 years ago. More
> > recently, David Kaiser has said the same thing.
> >
> > As I've elsewhere written:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Forgive me. We've all read your "writing" elsewhere.
Oh, so rather than respond to it, you expediently excise it from the
conversation. Very well.
>
> How about another educated source, other than the one you object to at the
> WSJ? How about that darling of the uber liberal, anti-gov't and
> anti-corporate set, Noam Chomsky? Yes, he must be more in line with your
> thinking on matters related to JFK - certainly more so than a respected and
> highly regarded newspaper like the WSJ, which you yourself have contributed
> to in the past. Let's see now, didn't Chomsky publish something about ten
> or so years ago called, "Rethinking Camelot" ?
>
> Yes, and as I recall, he deals with the subject of whether or not JFK
> would've withdrawn from Vietnam. Here are some passages that the very
> liberal Chomsky wrote on the subject:
>
Steve, if you actually had read what I wrote in the Wall St. Journal,
and remembered any of it, you wouldn't be spouting such folly. Let me
quote myself:
>From the WSJ in December, 2000:
"As a Cato Institute libertarian who supported neither Salvador
Allende's policies in Chile, nor Castro's in Cuba, I believe Mary
Anastasia O'Grady's exploration of Allende's Marxist links fails to
address a central issue: the wisdom and propriety of the US's
response, both then and now.
"Just as Marxist means didn't justify Allende's socialist goals, the
CIA's means didn't justify our goals of stopping Allende. We "won" in
Chile by abandoning our own laws and ideals, and by emulating the
worst acts of the radical left. This sad history is bound to help
socialists. They can argue that Allende failed not because of flawed
economic policies, the real reasons, but because of America's covert
imperialistic gangsterism.
"It would be one thing if the human rights records of the plutocracies
we supported in the Americas were superior to the Castro's abominable
record. But alas, as in places like Chile and Guatemala, they are,
at best, no better. Among the world-class criminals our CIA has
directly supported is Chile's Gen. Manuel Contreras. Currently in a
Chilean prison for the 1976 terrorist bombing in Washington, D.C. that
killed former Chilean ambassador, Orlando Letelier, and Ronni Moffit,
an American, Contreras ran the torture centers in Chile. He was also
funded by the CIA, even though his links to human rights abuses were
then well known ... ."
End quote.
How often *do* I have to remind you that, since migrating from the
ranks of right-wing Republicans, I've never, ever voted for a
Democrat? I now uniformly vote Libertarian, that is, since the scales
fell from my eyes about the purposes to which U.S. power is often put.
[I've gotten to see some of that first hand doing charity surgery in
Central America.]
But the greater irony here is not your swingsandmisses, but *your*
choice of Chomsky. As if you, a dedicated "centrist," if memory
serves, have ever embraced much anything of what Chomsky has ever
said.
[sniip]
> There is much more that Chomsky writes on this matter, but you get the idea.
> And Chomsky is no conservative, anti-Kennedy type.
Oh, puhleeze, Steve. Chomsky makes it clear, to everyone but you
apparently, that that he hates JFK. Chomsky's point was that, in
essence, JFK would have done what LBJ did because "even" JFK's dovish
advisors were on the war bandwagon. So Kennedy would have at least
danced with his doves, in the off chance he'd coyly demurred from
signing his hawks's dancecard.
But that's the central peculiarity of Kennedy, the president. I
summarized it in the section I wrote that you 'edited down and out':
Kennedy, on numerous occasions, had refused to dance with BOTH his
doves and hawks! There is no shortage of examples. Your convenient, if
momentary, soulmate, Chomsky, ignores Kennedy, the wall flower. He's
what Peter Scott referred to one time, I believe, as a
"structuralist," someone who believes that, GOP or Dem, they're all
pretty much the same; they ALWAYS do The Establishment's bidding,
especially on important things, like war.
So let's again see what it is you found necessary to ignore:
Once-secret records demonstrate a pattern in Kennedy we are
unaccustomed to seeing in presidents: rather than JFK following advice
on critical issues – the way good presidents do, the way LBJ did –
Kennedy often ignored it. He rejected his advisors' suggestions to
follow-up the foundering Bay of Pigs invasion with a military assault
on Cuba (against some hawks and some doves). He rejected advisors'
suggestion to use force in Laos, pushing against the U. S. military to
achieve an ultimately successful negotiated settlement (against both
hawks and doves). He shouldered aside his military advisors to advance
a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets (against some hawks, and
even some doves). And as May and Zelikov note, during the Cuban
Missile Crisis, taped conversations prove that JFK was often "the only
one in the room [full of advisors] who is determined not to go to
war." (Even the "doves" wanted war, doves like his own brother, RFK!,
and yet JFK stood firm against them all, and saved the world a nuclear
catastrophe. (Why? The Cubans had operational tactical, Russian nukes
on the beaches lying in wait for the armada of "liberators" from El
Norte, nukes the USA didn't realize they had! Had our boyz been nuked,
what do you suppose all the Strangeloves would have demanded, and
probably got?)
And, finally, as David Kaiser wrote in response to a published review
of his book: "American Tragedy extensively documents numerous
occasions during 1961, 1962, and 1963 on which Kennedy did exactly
that ["stopped the United States from going to war in Southeast
Asia"], rejecting the near unanimous proposals of his advisers to put
large numbers of American combat troops in Laos, South Vietnam, or
both. He also showed – and not at all ‘reluctantly' – that he
preferred a neutral government in Laos to American military
involvement on behalf of pro-Western forces … it is now clear beyond
any doubt that he had refused, on a number of earlier occasions, to do
what Johnson did during those years. He also had a wide-ranging
diplomatic agenda, explored at length in American Tragedy, which could
not be reconciled with war in Southeast Asia – an agenda abandoned by
his successor."
Yup, as a very young GOP activist, I stood besides my rock-ribbed
Republican parents, placard in hand, protesting on the streets outside
a JFK campaign speech in Los Angeles. "We" in the GOP *just knew*
Kennedy had no guts, that he'd get all squishy and wobbly when bombs
and bullets were needed to "save" places like Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and
perhaps even the USSR.
Boy, what an unhappy day it was in our Catholic, 12-children,
household when that Catholic wimp Kennedy won. But what an amazingly
lucky day it turned out to be for the country! Because Kennedy
ultimately proved more than once that he was, borrowing from May and
Zelikow, "the only one in the room [full of hawk and dove advisors]
who is determined not to go to war."*
Would that we had someone like Kennedy around right now, someone
willing to stand down zealots such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl,
Cheney, etc.
Gary
*Ernest R. May & Philip D. Zelikow. The Kennedy Tapes – Inside the
White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1997, p. 692.
Gary Combs
IMO, pretty well said.
gc
Steve Bochan
I'll see your "amusing" and raise you to a real knee slapper, as your
response made me laugh out loud.
> Why? Because right off the bat you've taken a couple of swings, and
> missed the ball by a mile. You're wrong the WSJ published me on JFK,
Excuse me, Gary, I believe I mentioned "matters related to JFK" and Chile --
as well as Cuba, which you also mentioned in your letter to the WSJ -- does
come up now and again whenever there are discussions alluding to Presidents
like JFK (who tried to overturn governments or assassinate leaders of
foreign countries). But thanks for clarifying the fact that you were just
feigning surprise at my mentioning an article in the Wall St. Journal, "of
all places." Of all places, indeed. Places where you dwell occasionally,
yourself, sir.
> but "mercifully edited me down." I never wrote the WSJ on JFK; I
> wrote, and was published, on Chile.(see excerpt, below) Nor was my
> letter 'edited down,' with or without mercy.
Really?
Then were you just having a bad day when you complained in a post on 7/6/01
that they edited out the references contained in your lengthy piece? Check
it out on Google, Gary.
> [No small irony here,
Indeed. I'm sure you'll acknowledge your error and we can move on ...
> Steve, given the gobs you failed to 'edit down' from Chomsky!] My
> letter appeared word-for-word as I wrote it, except that, when I named
> the author of the op-ed piece I responded to as "Anastasia," the
> editor changed it to "Ms. Anastasia." So, in a sense, the editor
> actually made it longer.
OOPS. Gotta watch those errors, Gary. No sense repeating them. You
publicly complained in a post about the WSJ editing out the references in
your letter to them. If you can't find the post using Google, let me know
and I'll send it to you.
>
> >
> > > They hate Dallek,
> >
> >
> >
> > No one "hates" Dallek, but it is typically useful for propagandists to
> > demonize their opponents in such a manner. Look Gary, I would think you
of
> > all people would realize that no one really *knows* what JFK would have
done
> > for *sure*. We can all speculate until the cows come home, but
speculation
> > is far from proof positive.
> >
> It's clear *you* don't hate Dallek, Steve, because that's what he
> says, too - that no one can say for sure.
I see. So first you claim "they hate Dallek" and now admit that no, not
everyone hates Dallek. Thank you at least for demonstrating the folly of
sweeping generalizations in your previous missive.
<snip>
> How often *do* I have to remind you that, since migrating from the
> ranks of right-wing Republicans, I've never, ever voted for a
> Democrat? I now uniformly vote Libertarian, that is, since the scales
> fell from my eyes about the purposes to which U.S. power is often put.
> [I've gotten to see some of that first hand doing charity surgery in
> Central America.]
>
> But the greater irony here is not your swingsandmisses, but *your*
> choice of Chomsky. As if you, a dedicated "centrist," if memory
> serves, have ever embraced much anything of what Chomsky has ever
> said.
I enjoy reading Chomsky, Gary. Is that a crime? Does a "centrist" only
read "centrist" literature in your world?
Unlike you, I presented two different approaches to the topic at hand to
demonstrate that people can look at the same facts, the same evidence, and
yet come away with totally different points of view on what that evidence
means. No need for throwing in misleading distractions like: 'this one
hates that one,' etc.
>
> [sniip]
>
> > There is much more that Chomsky writes on this matter, but you get the
idea.
> > And Chomsky is no conservative, anti-Kennedy type.
>
> Oh, puhleeze, Steve. Chomsky makes it clear, to everyone but you
> apparently, that that he hates JFK. Chomsky's point was that, in
> essence, JFK would have done what LBJ did because "even" JFK's dovish
> advisors were on the war bandwagon. So Kennedy would have at least
> danced with his doves, in the off chance he'd coyly demurred from
> signing his hawks's dancecard.
>
> But that's the central peculiarity of Kennedy, the president. I
> summarized it in the section I wrote that you 'edited down and out':
> Kennedy, on numerous occasions, had refused to dance with BOTH his
> doves and hawks! There is no shortage of examples. Your convenient, if
> momentary, soulmate, Chomsky, ignores Kennedy, the wall flower. He's
> what Peter Scott referred to one time, I believe, as a
> "structuralist," someone who believes that, GOP or Dem, they're all
> pretty much the same; they ALWAYS do The Establishment's bidding,
> especially on important things, like war.
This is such nonsense -- I cannot believe an educated man like yourself
would even waste time typing it.
Would Peter Dale Scott prefer we do Berkeley's bidding - rather than "the
Establishment's bidding" - when it comes to important things like war?
Should we just turn to the anti-Establishment crowd whenever we need to know
what to do about important things, "like war" Gary?
<more snipping of repetitive verbiage>
> Would that we had someone like Kennedy around right now, someone
> willing to stand down zealots such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl,
> Cheney, etc.
It was only *after* JFK was assassinated, and after the country was being
torn apart by the fighting in Vietnam, that Bobby Kennedy finally realized
what a mistake it was to continue the war. He made a complete turn around
from his own brother's administration's policies and spoke out against the
war, and probably would've done what his brother failed to do if he too
weren't killed by an unstable gunmen.
But don't despair. There is an election coming up in 2004. Do your duty
and vote for someone more akin to your views if you don't like the way GW is
running things.
Ed Moise
> And, finally, as David Kaiser wrote in response to a published review
> of his book: "American Tragedy extensively documents numerous
> occasions during 1961, 1962, and 1963 on which Kennedy did exactly
> that ["stopped the United States from going to war in Southeast
> Asia"], rejecting the near unanimous proposals of his advisers to put
> large numbers of American combat troops in Laos, South Vietnam, or
> both.
I can't quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war
in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a
thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just
advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.
Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a
larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to
war at all.
He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
Ed Moise
Gary Aguilar
Dear Ed,
Thanks for your message. Great controversy still swirls around what
JFK would have done. And there's no doubting that he was constantly
under pressure from the Pentagon to "Americanize" the war, the way LBJ
did.
At least one witnesses to the events has said that Kennedy liked to
throw McArthur at 'Americanizers,' telling them if they can convince
McArthur of the wisdom of sending combat troops, then perhaps they can
convince 'me,' JFK. Roger Hilsman, JFK undersecretary, published a
long letter in New York Times to that effect on 1/20/92. He also put
in a letter to "Foreign Affairs" backing up McNamara's claim that JFK
would not have made it an American war. (Vol. 74(4):164ff).
Similarly, Tim Weiner in the NY Times reviewed documents in an article
on 12/23/97 that was entitled,"New Documents Hint that JFK Wanted U.S.
Out of Vietnam," or at least that was the title of the story as it
appeared in the San Fran Chronicle on that date.
Besides Dallek and Kaiser coming to the view JFK would have stood down
the military in Vietnam the way he'd done re: Bay of Pigs, Laos, the
Test Ban Treaty, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Northwooes, etc.,
a fascinating and well written book review of Dallek's book by Fred
Kaplan makes the same point about JFK and Vietnam. You can find it up
at Slate at:
http://slate.msn.com//?id=2083136&
For convenience, I've pasted Kaplan's whole article below, but I
suggest you go to the website and look at it yourself for his
fascinating "sidebars" which didn't make it into this pasting.
While no one knows for sure, I believe the Pentagon wasn't wrong to be
quite concerned that JFK was going to disappoint them again, just like
he had done so often before. And I'm not convinced that JFK's bumbing
defense spending would have entirely quieted their concerns.
Best wishes,
Gary
The War Room
What Robert Dallek's new biography doesn't tell you about JFK and
Vietnam.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, May 19, 2003, at 4:31 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com//?id=2083136&
Would John F. Kennedy have gone to full-scale war in Vietnam, like his
successor, Lyndon B. Johnson? This may be the most haunting question
of the past 40 years. Certainly it accounts for whatever traces still
survive of the "Camelot myth." For all the revelations of scandal that
have tainted the image of JFK, there remains the monumental what if:
Had Kennedy dodged the bullets in Dealey Plaza, might America have
dodged the nightmare of the subsequent decade—the 50,000 body bags,
the Chicago riots, the election of Nixon, the cynicism of a
generation?
The historian Robert Dallek doesn't state the matter this
dramatically, but his new book, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy,
1917-1963, argues that JFK would not have waged war in Vietnam. I
agree. But if I didn't, this book would not have persuaded me. There's
a compelling case to be made, but Dallek doesn't nail it.
Dallek musters familiar quotations, cited by many before him, in which
JFK expressed deep reluctance to wade into the Vietnam quagmire—the
memo ordering a 1,000-troop pullout, the interview with Walter
Cronkite where he says the war is not ours but South Vietnam's, his
assurances to Sen. Mike Mansfield that he'll get out after winning the
'64 election.
But this sort of evidence is suggestive, at best. For instance,
there's a tape recording from May 27, 1964, of Lyndon B. Johnson
telling his national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy, that he doesn't
think Vietnam is "worth fighting for." Had Johnson dropped dead the
next day (and had his successor continued to escalate) historians
might now be arguing that LBJ would have pulled out of Vietnam had he
lived.
What, then, is the compelling case for why JFK wouldn't have gone to
war? Those who argue that JFK would have gone into Vietnam just as LBJ
did make the point that Kennedy was every bit as much a Cold Warrior
as Johnson. They also note that the advisers who lured Johnson into
war—Bundy, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Secretary of State Dean
Rusk, and the rest—had been appointed by Kennedy; they were very much
Kennedy's men.
But this is where there is a crucial difference between JFK and LBJ—a
difference that Dallek misses. Over the course of his 1,000 days as
president, Kennedy grew increasingly leery of these advisers. He found
himself embroiled in too many crises where their judgment proved wrong
and his own proved right. Dallek does note—and very colorfully
so—Kennedy's many conflicts with his military advisers in the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. But he neglects the instances—which grew in number
and intensity as his term progressed—in which he displayed equal
disenchantment with his civilian advisers. Yet Kennedy never told
Johnson about this disenchantment. It didn't help that Johnson was a
bit cowed by these advisers' intellectual sheen and Harvard degrees;
Kennedy, who had his Harvard degree, was not.
A turning point in Kennedy's relationship to his advisers took place a
little more than a year before Kennedy's assassination, in October
1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those 13 days when the
United States and the U.S.S.R. nearly engulfed the world in nuclear
war, Kennedy assembled his top advisers to discuss what to do about
the situation: Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev had been caught
secretly shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba, 90 miles off American
shores. The CIA estimated the missiles would be up and armed in a
matter of weeks, easily capable of wiping out huge swaths of the
United States.
For 20 years, the historical accounts of the crisis painted a dramatic
scene where half the president's advisers urged him to bomb the
missiles pre-emptively, half urged him to seek a diplomatic solution,
and JFK himself took a middle course—a naval blockade instead of a
direct attack—that forced Khrushchev to back down.
Then, in 1982, several of these advisers revealed that, in fact, JFK
had settled the crisis by cutting a secret deal with Khrushchev: The
Soviets would remove their nuclear missiles from Cuba; the United
States would remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey.
Dallek recounts this story, of course, and quotes at some length from
Kennedy's secret tapes of the sessions with his advisers (the
so-called ExComm meetings, for the "Executive Committee of the
National Security Council"), which have gradually been declassified
over the past 15 years.
However, Dallek fails to note the key revelation of those tapes—that
on Saturday, Oct. 27, the last day of the crisis, when Khrushchev
offered the Cuba-for-Turkey trade, every U.S. official in the room was
virulently opposed to the deal and wanted to bomb the Russian missile
sites—everyone but JFK and Undersecretary of State George Ball. (Not
insignificantly, Ball became the top internal dissident on Vietnam
policy during LBJ's presidency.)
When Khrushchev's offer came over the wire, Kennedy immediately spoke
in favor of it. He can be heard on the tapes saying, "To any man at
the United Nations, or any other rational man, it will look like a
very fair trade. … Most people think that if you're allowed an even
trade, you ought to take advantage of it."
Bundy protested most passionately. You can hear him quivering as he
says, "I think we should tell you … the universal assessment of
everyone in the government who's connected with alliance problems—if
we appear to be trading the defense of Turkey for the threat in Cuba,
we will face a radical decline."
McNamara expressed firm opposition to the trade, then recited a series
of steps that needed to be taken "before we attack Cuba." The attack
plan, drawn up a few days earlier by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
endorsed by McNamara, called for 500 conventional bombing sorties of
the Soviet missile sites and air bases daily for seven days, followed
by an invasion of Cuba.
Kennedy, remarkably calm, mused, "I'm just thinking about what we're
going to have to do in a day or so. … 500 sorties … and possibly an
invasion, all because we wouldn't take missiles out of Turkey. And we
all know how quickly everybody's courage goes when the blood starts to
flow, and that's what's going to happen in NATO ... when we start
these things and the Soviets grab Berlin, and everybody's going to
say, 'Well, this Khrushchev offer was a pretty good proposition.' "
(For more excerpts from the tapes, click here.)
That evening, JFK called his closest advisers into the Oval Office and
said he was sending his brother (who bitterly opposed the trade) to
tell the Soviet ambassador that he was accepting the deal, as long as
it was never publicly revealed. Significantly, Lyndon Johnson (who was
also against the trade) was not at this meeting. Nor was he among
those let in on the secret.
This is telling for several reasons. Bundy later admitted that hushing
up the missile trade had catastrophic consequences for the Vietnam War
and foreign policy generally. He wrote in his 1988 memoir, Danger and
Survival, "We misled our colleagues, our countrymen, our successors,
and our allies" into believing "that it had been enough to stand firm
on that Saturday." Richard Nixon often cited the pseudo-lessons of the
Cuban Missile Crisis to justify his tough bargaining stance with the
North Vietnamese. Johnson not only learned the same false lessons, but
was deprived of the opportunity to see that Kennedy didn't always
agree with his smart advisers.
Indeed, the secret tapes are rife with examples of JFK's challenging
the wisdom of Bundy, McNamara, and the other architects-to-be of
Vietnam. These disputes show up nowhere in Dallek's biography. Yet the
argument that Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam becomes truly
compelling only when you place his skepticism about the war in the
context of his growing disenchantment with his advisers—and, by
contrast, his failure to share this view with Johnson.
Long before "the best and the brightest" became a term of irony,
Kennedy realized that they could be as wrong as anybody. Kennedy knew
he could trust his instincts; Johnson was insecure about trusting his.
That is why LBJ plunged into Vietnam—and why JFK would not have.
Bill Clarke
news:145c66a2.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
> Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
>
> Ed Moise
>
Thank you, Dr. Moise, for your time and contribution.
Although I am somewhat familiar with OPLAN 34-A and related activities I am
not familiar with the similar programs Kennedy implemented. Can you shed
some light on these programs please?
I have recently been told that the NVA moved into the south in force in 1965
in response to OPLAN 34-A and other harassment activities implemented by
Johnson. This was a shock to me and I ask you if you know of any basis for
this theory.
Thanks.
Bill Clarke
Gary Aguilar
It was about Chile and our continued secrecy - 30+ years later -
concerning what we did in Chile. That bad things were also done in
JFK's era is as relevant as the fact bad things were done during the
Civil War. But nice try.
>
>
> > but "mercifully edited me down." I never wrote the WSJ on JFK; I
> > wrote, and was published, on Chile.(see excerpt, below) Nor was my
> > letter 'edited down,' with or without mercy.
>
>
>
> Really?
>
> Then were you just having a bad day when you complained in a post on 7/6/01
> that they edited out the references contained in your lengthy piece? Check
> it out on Google, Gary.
>
And so I wouldn't, and I didn't, "complain." I just pointed out that I
had some references, which I supplied, but that, as per usual, they
didn't run them. Nor have I ever "complained" that they don't supply
source notes on broadcast news programs. Perhaps you'll be so kind as
to quote me "complaining," Steve. Or didn't you because you can't.
>
>
> > [No small irony here,
>
>
>
> Indeed. I'm sure you'll acknowledge your error and we can move on ...
>
>
> > Steve, given the gobs you failed to 'edit down' from Chomsky!] My
> > letter appeared word-for-word as I wrote it, except that, when I named
> > the author of the op-ed piece I responded to as "Anastasia," the
> > editor changed it to "Ms. Anastasia." So, in a sense, the editor
> > actually made it longer.
>
>
>
> OOPS. Gotta watch those errors, Gary. No sense repeating them. You
> publicly complained in a post about the WSJ editing out the references in
> your letter to them. If you can't find the post using Google, let me know
> and I'll send it to you.
>
a link to my saying it. You just announce it, just as you announce a
lot of 'interesting' stuff.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > They hate Dallek,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No one "hates" Dallek, but it is typically useful for propagandists to
> > > demonize their opponents in such a manner. Look Gary, I would think you
> of
> > > all people would realize that no one really *knows* what JFK would have
> done
> > > for *sure*. We can all speculate until the cows come home, but
> speculation
> > > is far from proof positive.
> > >
> > It's clear *you* don't hate Dallek, Steve, because that's what he
> > says, too - that no one can say for sure.
>
>
>
> I see. So first you claim "they hate Dallek" and now admit that no, not
> everyone hates Dallek. Thank you at least for demonstrating the folly of
> sweeping generalizations in your previous missive.
>
that you've completely lost it. When was the last time you said
something like, "Everyone runs that stop sign, - cheats on their
diets, - forgets to take their vitamins, - stays up too late
sometimes, or Everyone hates that traffic cop, judge, new tax, etc.
..., and actually meant every word, Steve?
Get a grip, and please try to come up with better than that. The fact
your reaching so hard bucks me up.
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > How often *do* I have to remind you that, since migrating from the
> > ranks of right-wing Republicans, I've never, ever voted for a
> > Democrat? I now uniformly vote Libertarian, that is, since the scales
> > fell from my eyes about the purposes to which U.S. power is often put.
> > [I've gotten to see some of that first hand doing charity surgery in
> > Central America.]
> >
> > But the greater irony here is not your swingsandmisses, but *your*
> > choice of Chomsky. As if you, a dedicated "centrist," if memory
> > serves, have ever embraced much anything of what Chomsky has ever
> > said.
>
>
>
> I enjoy reading Chomsky, Gary. Is that a crime? Does a "centrist" only
> read "centrist" literature in your world?
>
Good lord!
> Unlike you, I presented two different approaches to the topic at hand to
> demonstrate that people can look at the same facts, the same evidence, and
> yet come away with totally different points of view on what that evidence
> means. [How marvelous you are, Steve! You need to hurry and tell everyone.] >No need for throwing in misleading distractions like: 'this one
> hates that one,' etc.
>
O.K., you hate the word "hate." Very well, then. But that doesn't
alter the fact that one can scarcely read "Rethinking Camelot" and
honestly believe Chomsky has anything but, if not hate, then contempt
for JFK.
There you go again, old chap: You've completely missed the point. What
have Scott's preferences to do with his view of how "structuralists,"
like Chomsky, view the world?
>
>
> <more snipping of repetitive verbiage>
>
>
>
> > Would that we had someone like Kennedy around right now, someone
> > willing to stand down zealots such as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl,
> > Cheney, etc.
>
>
>
> It was only *after* JFK was assassinated, and after the country was being
> torn apart by the fighting in Vietnam, that Bobby Kennedy finally realized
> what a mistake it was to continue the war. He made a complete turn around
> from his own brother's administration's policies and spoke out against the
> war, and probably would've done what his brother failed to do if he too
> weren't killed by an unstable gunmen. [You got it partly right,Steve. It should have read read "by unstable gunmen," not "by *an* unstable gunmen." ;^>]
>
> But don't despair. There is an election coming up in 2004. Do your duty
> and vote for someone more akin to your views if you don't like the way GW is
> running things.
>
Thanks ever so much for the encouraging words, Steve.
I note with knee-slapping guffaws that you ignored addressing the fact
JFK stood down all of his advisors repeatedly on matters military,
such as Cuba, Laos, the Test Ban Treaty, Operation Northwoods, the
Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet you'd like us to believe that JFK would
have done what LBJ did in Vietnam.
Now where did you say that checkable quote was where I'm bitterly
complaing that the Wall St. Journal excised my footnotes, Steve?
Gary
Steve Bochan
news:d127717d.03061...@posting.google.com...
> "Steve Bochan" <sbo...@erols.com> wrote in message
<snipping repetitive verbiage>
> > Excuse me, Gary, I believe I mentioned "matters related to JFK" and
Chile --
> > as well as Cuba, which you also mentioned in your letter to the WSJ --
does
> > come up now and again whenever there are discussions alluding to
Presidents
> > like JFK (who tried to overturn governments or assassinate leaders of
> > foreign countries). But thanks for clarifying the fact that you were
just
> > feigning surprise at my mentioning an article in the Wall St. Journal,
"of
> > all places." Of all places, indeed. Places where you dwell
occasionally,
> > yourself, sir.
> >
> Fabulous dodge, Steve. My letter had nothing whatever to do with JFK.
No dodge intended at all. Please explain how Latin America during the Cold
War Years is not related to JFK. Remember, I said "matters RELATED to JFK"
[emphasis added].
> It was about Chile
... which is in Latin America, as I recall.
> and our continued secrecy - 30+ years later -
> concerning what we did in Chile. That bad things were also done in
> JFK's era is as relevant as the fact bad things were done during the
> Civil War. But nice try.
Now who's dodging? You just acknowledged the relevance in your own words,
sarcasm notwithstanding.
> >
> >
> > > but "mercifully edited me down." I never wrote the WSJ on JFK; I
> > > wrote, and was published, on Chile.(see excerpt, below) Nor was my
> > > letter 'edited down,' with or without mercy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Then were you just having a bad day when you complained in a post on
7/6/01
> > that they edited out the references contained in your lengthy piece?
Check
> > it out on Google, Gary.
> >
> "Complained?!" They neverm [sic] ever run references on the letters page.
Most know this. Why include them in a letter to the editor then? Did you
want them to think you were writing a college paper? That your letter
carried more weight because you included references they would not print
anyway?
> And so I wouldn't, and I didn't, "complain." I just pointed out that I
> had some references, which I supplied, but that, as per usual, they
> didn't run them.
Fine Gary, I accept your clarification on that. You didn't "complain." You
merely pointed out that they didn't include your references which you gave
to them, all the while knowing that they would not print them anyway. You
just wanted everyone to know that. Makes perfect sense ... <g>
<snip>
> > I see. So first you claim "they hate Dallek" and now admit that no, not
> > everyone hates Dallek. Thank you at least for demonstrating the folly
of
> > sweeping generalizations in your previous missive.
> >
> This silly literalism of yours proves beyond peradventure of doubt
> that you've completely lost it.
LOL! Sure Gary.
You get called on your demagoguery, and like the politicians you claim to
detest -- who never really mean what they say and find themselves spinning
and clarifying ad nauseam -- end up spinning and clarifying, yourself.
And *I'm* the one who has lost it? ;-)
> When was the last time you said
> something like, "Everyone runs that stop sign, - cheats on their
> diets, - forgets to take their vitamins, - stays up too late
> sometimes, or Everyone hates that traffic cop, judge, new tax, etc.
> ..., and actually meant every word, Steve?
Are you admitting that you don't always mean what you say, Gary? That you,
at times, exaggerate, embellish and spin in order to make a partisan point?
My gosh, what's next? Maybe in this arena, you might try to be precise and
completely clear, rather than vague and sarcastic when speaking of JFK and
his policies during the Cold War. No sense emulating those politicos
unworthy of our trust, eh?
FWIW, as more and more documents are being released we are discovering
valuable insight into JFK and his thinking about Latin America. One author
who has used information from recently released documents is Stephen Rabe.
He has written a highly acclaimed book titled, *The Most Dangerous Area in
the World: John F. Kennedy Confronts Communist Revolution in Latin America*.
I would recommend this book to you. It covers JFK's stirring speech of
March 13, 1961, to the diplomatic corps of the Latin American republics,
Congress and others where he launched his new Alliance for Progress (Alianza
para el Progreso), a new program that would be a Marshall Plan for Latin
America.
<more snipping>
> O.K., you hate the word "hate."
The word describes an emotion devoid of any good: it is evil.
> Very well, then. But that doesn't
> alter the fact that one can scarcely read "Rethinking Camelot" and
> honestly believe Chomsky has anything but, if not hate, then contempt
> for JFK.
Nonsense. Why do you attribute these nefarious emotions and motives to
people who just may not agree with your every POV on JFK, Dallek, or anyone
else Gary? This is America. People can have their own point of views
without *hating* someone, can't they? People can believe that Oswald killed
JFK and still have loved JFK, can't they?
<snip>
> There you go again, old chap: You've completely missed the point. What
> have Scott's preferences to do with his view of how "structuralists,"
> like Chomsky, view the world?
No old chap, *you* miss the point. Scott would prefer we view the world the
way he does. Chomsky wants us to view the world the way he does, and so
forth. Thank God they are not our only choices for a worldview.
<more snipping of sniping>
> I note with knee-slapping guffaws that you ignored addressing the fact
> JFK stood down all of his advisors repeatedly on matters military,
<yawn>
Is this news to you, Gary? That Presidents sometime do disagree with their
advisors - military and otherwise? JFK was not the first nor the last POTUS
to do so.
There. Is that addressing that rather moot point of yours?
> such as Cuba, Laos, the Test Ban Treaty, Operation Northwoods, the
> Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet you'd like us to believe that JFK would
> have done what LBJ did in Vietnam.
Aw shucks Gary, for a minute I thought you were going to behave yourself and
then you go and revert back to your old rhetorical games again. When did I
ever say that I'd like you (or anyone else for that matter) to believe that
JFK would have done "what LBJ did in Vietnam" ? Please supply a quote or
two right here that supports your accusation:
1).
2).
My recollection is that I said, and you agreed, that we'd never know for
sure what JFK would have done, remember Gary? That was only two days ago
old chap, did you forget? Are you, dare I say it, losing it? ;-)
> Now where did you say that checkable quote was where I'm bitterly
> complaing that the Wall St. Journal excised my footnotes, Steve?
There you go again, old chap. No one said you were "bitterly" complaining.
Why do you exaggerate so much? Are you running for office?
Ed Moise
> "Ed Moise" <eem...@clemson.edu> wrote in message
> news:145c66a2.03061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
> > Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
> >
> > Ed Moise
> >
>
> Thank you, Dr. Moise, for your time and contribution.
>
> Although I am somewhat familiar with OPLAN 34-A and related activities I am
> not familiar with the similar programs Kennedy implemented. Can you shed
> some light on these programs please?
During the late 1950s there had been a program sending agents north,
but it had been primarily a program of the South Vietnamese
government, and the men sent had been spies. There was an increase in
U.S. (CIA) involvement in the program at the very end of the
Eisenhower administration, in 1960. It was in 1961 that the shift was
made from spies going north in ones and twos, to teams of armed men
for paramilitary operations. The first three teams of which I am
aware, totalling eleven men, were airdropped into North Vietnam in May
and June 1961. Kennedy approved the new program of paramilitary
harrassment of the North in NSAM 52, May 11, 1961. Over the next
couple of years, some teams were dropped by air, while others went
north in small boats for attacks along the coast. The CIA handled the
American part of this program, but the agents dropped into North
Vietnam were recruited within Vietnam. Future Prime Minister Nguyen
Cao Ky was one of the pilots who flew the drop missions.
By 1963, the CIA was starting to think the program should be closed
down. A lot of men were being lost, and nothing seemed to be being
accomplished. At that point, senior people in the Pentagon (both
military and civilian) decided to step in. They thought the reason
the CIA program hadn't produced results was that it was too small.
They figured that if they took it over from the CIA, and expanded it,
they could make it work. The actual transfer of the program from CIA
to military management, and its expansion into OPLAN 34A, did not take
place until after LBJ was president. But the planning had been well
under way during the last months of the Kennedy administration. LBJ
signed an NSAM about this just days after JFK was assassinated. There
are people who argue that the version LBJ signed went a lot farther
than the draft that senior officials had been preparing for JFK's
signature, before the assassination, but I disagree.
For a brief overview see the first chapter of my book on Tonkin Gulf.
For more detail see Sedgwick D. Tourison, Jr., _Secret Army, Secret
War: Washington's Tragic Spy Operation in Vietnam_ (published in
paperback under the title _Project Alpha_). Also William Colby's
memoir _Honorable Men_. Colby was in charge of the program for a
couple of years under Kennedy, and he was in on the discussions, at
the end of the Kennedy administration, when the Pentagon was deciding
to take the program over.
> I have recently been told that the NVA moved into the south in force in 1965
> in response to OPLAN 34-A and other harassment activities implemented by
> Johnson. This was a shock to me and I ask you if you know of any basis for
> this theory.
OPLAN 34A was a program of bigger pinpricks than what the CIA had done
under Kennedy, but still basically pinpricks. I doubt it had a huge
impact on northern policy, though it must have had some impact.
The DRV decision was in stages, and had mixed motives. During the
Kennedy administration, the DRV had avoided sending significant
numbers of northerers south on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. They limited
themselves to sending southerners who were in North Vietnam back to
the South.
At the end of 1963, the DRV leaders decided it was time to strengthen
the Communist forces in the South enough to win the war. This would
be hard to do without throwing northerners into the fighting in
significant numbers. But they were hesitant; they didn't want to
provoke the Americans too much. They started sending modest numbers
of northerners south, but scattering them around in Viet Cong units
made up mostly of southerners.
Then North Vietnam got bombed on August 5, 1964, in retaliation for
the imaginary incident of August 4. That settled things for the DRV
leadership, and by the end of October 1964, two regiments of North
Vietnamese troops, which were going to stay together as units in the
South rather than being mixed into Viet Cong units, had started down
the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
But I would still treat the desire of the Communist leaders to win the
war in the South as the main reason for sending these regiments. I
would not treat Tonkin Gulf and the retaliatory airstrikes as the main
reason.
Ed Moise
Bill Clarke
Bill Clarke
Gary Aguilar
Thanks, Ed.
When I get back from a vacation with my wife and kids to Canada, I'll
look for a copy of Tourisan's "Project Alpha" to help me understand
this history better.
I have no deep understanding of the long history of the West's
tangling with Vietnam, but I am enjoying Dan Ellsberg's new book,
"Secrets." I bought it after I heard him speak last fall at a function
put on by the libertarian organization, "The Independent Institute,"
of Oakland, California.
I had no idea that he had tramped through the marshes in Vietnam with
the grunts and that he had also hobnobbed with McNamara, Kissinger,
Bundy, et al, both before and during stints both as a Rand analyst and
a high-ranking USG employee. His insight into how lies became accepted
USG wisdom in Vietnam offers, I submit, lessons for what's going on
now in Iraq.
What most dismays me in Ellsberg's book is the constancy of official
lying about what was going on in Vietnam: what some at high levels
really knew vs. what they were telling us, what they were really doing
vs. what they were telling us, and what deceitful contempt there was
toward congress and the people's right to know. What does it say about
a democracy when it is only disinformed voters who vote, be they in
congress, or "mere" citizens at the polls?
One way of looking at it is to consider that we fought the American
revolution with the war cry, "No taxation without representation!,"
only to settle for "Taxation based on misrepresentation."
Be back the second week of July.
Gary