My attempt to patch up David’s earlier post:
Posted 53 minutes ago
5 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:
I find your systems engineering analogy to be compelling. Viewing Dallas not as isolated, but rather as part of a system or process (with redundancy, diversity, and failure considerations). A five-city series of motorcades in just two days. One wonders who the teams were in San Antonio, Houston and Ft. Worth, and why those "events" did not transpire or go forward.
Ironically, Jacqueline Kennedy rarely traveled with her husband on political trips but decided to fly with him to Texas (her first public appearance since the loss of son Patrick). Extending this thinking, were there plans prior to Texas, such as when JFK traveled west, at the end of September, speaking in nine different states in less than a week?
Gene: No, I don't think so. And here's why: To execute a plot of this nature, one has to have the cooperation of local law enforcement. They certainly don't "all" have to be corrupt, but there has to be "an element" that is (i.e., that is "recruitable"). So the places that would be most amenable to "recruitment" in such a scheme, would be locations where civil rights was a hot button (and where JFK (and RFK, as AG) were deeply resented). So the Deep South would be the preferred location. For anyone who wants to educate themselves on how "plot recruitment" (and the "political environment") works, I highly recommend Luttwak's "Coup d'Etat," first published in 1969, still in print, and which has become a classic in the field. From the Amazon writeup,
This short book is…wicked, truthful, and entertaining. The author, after outlining a step-by-step procedure for bringing about a coup, analyzes modern (post–Second World War) coups, and points out why some succeeded and others failed. (New Yorker)
An extraordinarily competent and well-written work, displaying very wide knowledge of the ways in which coups, both successful and unsuccessful, have actually been organized. (Times Literary Supplement)
Coup d'État demonstrates that scholarly analysis can be good social science and at the same time fun to read. It is nontechnical in approach and informal in style… Moreover, Edward Luttwak's familiarity with the basic concepts and problems of political science is evident throughout. He is seldom superficial and never trivial in his treatment of his subject. The result is a book of value to everyone interested in the sudden changes of government that occur so frequently in many parts of the world and also curious as to why they so often seem to result in more of the same… We can all have the satisfaction of understanding the strategies and techniques employed, and we can enjoy learning them from this lucid and witty book. (Virginia Quarterly Review)
I read this book--indeed, studied it--back in 1969, when it was first published, and it was a real "eye-opening" experience. A must read. Bottom line: the plot that took Kennedy's life could not have been synthesized in an "ordinary" political environment. There had to be an undercurrent of prejudice and hostility. This was plainly apparent when I first started reading the Dallas Morning News on microfilm, and happened to order films from the summer of 1960, because I wanted to explore how the "locals" reacted to LBJ getting on the 1960 ticket. To my considerable surprise, (when I first read these microfilms) the entire tone was as if the Civil War had ended "yesterday." Anyway, that was Dallas politics, and I'm sure the same was true in other cities in the deep south. However: you could not tell JFK "Oh Mr. President, you absolutely must make this trip to Okeephenokee, Mississippi," whereas one could (and did) make that sort of argument about going to Texas, and visiting the major cities there (which is exactly how the Dallas trip was sold--not by itself, and in isolation, but by a broader "pitch.". And so it was under the guise of "political necessity" (my phrase) that JFK was "lured" (Jackie's phrase) to make the Texas trip. The final result: Five cities, 10 motorcades. Dallas was the seventh motorcade, in a two day trip. If JFK was more prudent, I don't think he would ever have made the trip, but --as RFK himself later admitted--if he (RFK) had tried to veto the trip, JFK would simply have laughed and gone ahead with it, anyway. As is well known, JFK had this thing about "courage," and he also had a thing about fate. And, I'm sorry to say this, he was a bit of a gambler. So this was a situation in which, IMHO, he gambled and lost. Also, and I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, he never realized (or even suspected) that elements of the Secret Service were disloyal, and that was a key factor. There were people connected with his security that were a part of this plot, and from the time they were recruited, JFK was a "dead man walking." Also note: JFK's (and RFK's concerns) centered around a General Walker type "screwball,: and not around the more "establishment type" plot that was (more or less) an "inside job" and was the plot that actually took his life. But that's another story. Again: read Luttwak.
6/4/2018 - 10 AM PDT
South Orange County, California