What Is Your Theory?

[Greg Burnham]

There are many accounts of those closest to JFK that contradict this oral history. I don't think that it was politically wise for RFK to admit in 1964 that JFK was intending to withdraw. The war was ramping up by then and the propaganda machine was in full swing. RFK was perhaps even more politically savvy than was his brother. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was Bobby who insisted that JFK keep his withdrawal policy secret from the public. Likewise, it would have been unwise for RFK to be seen as dividing the country on Vietnam in 1964. Equally disadvantageous would his being seen as "a dove" prior to the turning of public opinion against the war. Once the public was opposed to the war (by 1968), RFK was free to pursue the path along which he was already inclined. Choosing not only to oppose the war, but choosing to run his campaign on a platform fundamentally based upon that anti Vietnam War stance, Bobby, also "had to be done away with."

James Douglas is not alone in his assessment of JFK's position. John Newman, Fletcher Prouty, George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott and many others have written and reported on this subject.

[David Andrews]

Killed for Vietnam is essentially Jim DiEugenio's viewpoint also, and you might want to look at his work, Jon.'

My belief is that JFK was killed by people who wanted revenge for Cuba, under the orders and support of people who wanted a war in Vietnam.

[Ron Ecker]

There are many accounts of those closest to JFK that contradict this oral history. I don't think that it was politically wise for RFK to admit in 1964 that JFK was intending to withdraw. The war was ramping up by then and the propaganda machine was in full swing. RFK was perhaps even more politically savvy than was his brother. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it was Bobby who insisted that JFK keep his withdrawal policy secret from the public. Likewise, it would have been unwise for RFK to be seen as dividing the country on Vietnam in 1964. Equally disadvantageous would his being seen as "a dove" prior to the turning of public opinion against the war. Once the public was opposed to the war (by 1968), RFK was free to pursue the path along which he was already inclined. Choosing not only to oppose the war, but choosing to run his campaign on a platform fundamentally based upon that anti Vietnam War stance, Bobby, also "had to be done away with."

James Douglas is not alone in his assessment of JFK's position. John Newman, Fletcher Prouty, George Michael Evica, Peter Dale Scott and many others have written and reported on this subject.

John's protector. His right hand, his most trusted adviser. The man who laid his brother to rest. Who stood by his widow in her blood-stained dress.

Lying about his beloved brother's legacy.

Tarnishing a vitally important issue that could have shaped current policy.

For political expediency.

No.

And shame on anyone who promotes this filth. It does more harm to the JFK legacy than a hundred Laskys.

The man who went after the same Mafia that had done favors for the family including providing JFK with a girlfriend.

Did these two brothers see eye to eye on everything? Did JFK ever ask RFK what he thought he was doing?

[Greg Burnham]

This part was misleading to JFK:

2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

There was no way the training and advising functions being carried out by U.S. Army troops in South Viet Nam could have been assumed by South Vietnamese Army officers and non-coms by the end of 1965. The SVN Army was in terrible shape. Its generals were mostly corrupt and inept. Its soldiers had no combat skills or desire to fight. The political leadership in SVN was teetering. The whole thing was on a downward trajectory. The optimism expressed in ¶2 is a lie. Or a big self-delusion.

IMO, if JFK really believed ¶2, he was, I'm sorry to say, not well-suited to his job.

I get that JFK believed in "nationalism"; that he saw the conflict in Viet Nam as a struggle for "nationalism"; that he understood the conflict in Viet Nam pretty well from his early 1950s visit to Viet Nam as a congressman. I also get that JFK didn't, for political reasons, want to be seen as handing over SVN to the communists. As I try to reconcile these facts with NSAM 263's incorporation by reference of ¶2 of the McNamara-Taylor Report, I come away with the view JFK was playing juggler when it came to Viet Nam.

FWIW, I think JFK, as a political animal, would not have cut and run in Viet Nam. Like LBJ, he would have left that to his successor. Fact is, in 1963, the U.S. is committed to propping up the SVN Government. That commitment was based on assumptions and had consequences.

Bottom line: If in the early fall of 1963 you favor war in Viet Nam, why do you sign up to kill JFK? It's a bad deal, a bad bet. You get an assassination and LBJ as president. LBJ doesn't do anything different in Viet Nam from what JFK was likely to do. GENERALLY SPEAKING.

Those who disagree: Bring on the American University speech. Bring on "The Unspeakable". Bring it all on. Then look at Viet Nam in 1963. And tell us what JFK was going to do there.

While I believe you are correct that the situation in Vietnam was far less optimistic than what was being projected in this document (the McNamara/Taylor Report) I also believe you are missing the boat as to the larger ramifications. As he stated in 1954, [paraphrased in my wording]:

"If things don't change within the hearts and minds of the indigenous people of South Vietnam that would lead the United States to believe that they are ready, willing, and able to FIGHT FOR THEMSELVES then there is NOTHING that the United States or anyone else can do to effect the situation. It is their war to win or lose, not ours. Moreover, short of employing the use of nuclear weapons, the preponderance of evidence is persuasive that the United States would, in any event, fail in pursuing a course that was designed to impose OUR will on the people of Indochina. The great danger is to ourselves as well as to the People of South Vietnam. Not only would we fail to meet our objectives under the circumstances, but it would be very expensive. The struggle would change nothing, but at the cost of 100's of thousands of lives lost--a significant number of them being American lives. It would be a lethal exercise in futility. The worse scenario, still, would be the potential for this conflict to escalate to all out war between ourselves and the Soviet Union. We've already seen how these types of regional conflicts can grow into much more dangerous altercations as was the case in Korea."

So what had changed for the better by the early 1960's Jon? Nothing. Indeed, as you have pointed out, by 1963 it was even worse than before. History proves that LBJ's course to escalate the war, as well as Nixon's expanded bombing campaigns and all the rest, DID NOT WORK. We lost the war. Why? Because we did not have the support of the indigenous people. JFK was right. Without that support it was a lost cause no matter what we did.

Here's the deep political part:

JFK's analysis from 1954 until the day he died was spot on correct, as HISTORY proved. By deviating from JFK's OFFICIAL DIRECTIVES and offering nearly unlimited assistance to the GOV of SVN, the new president, Johnson, FAILED TO MEET ANY OF THE OBJECTIVES that he set out to accomplish, as did Nixon--just as JFK predicted would happen. Without support of the People, South Vietnam was going to fall to communism NO MATTER WHAT WE DID--short of employing nuclear weapons. It was an un-winnable war from the start and JFK knew it. But he could not get away with taking such a stance in public prior to an election. So he decided to postpone public exposure to his policy for as long as possible. He wasn't stupid. He knew that eventually his policy would become apparent. So he positioned NSAM 263 in a manner that allowed him to claim that he was following the "Recommendations" of his TOP military advisors: SECDEF McNamara and CJCS Taylor as laid out in their McNamara/Taylor Trip Report.

So Jon, I'm not arguing that the situation was "good" in Vietnam--or that the war effort was succeeding--or that the SVN Army was capable of taking over the tasks then carried out by the US military. What I am saying is that the situation was NEVER GOING TO GET ANY BETTER without the support of the people of SVN, just as JFK predicted. What I am saying is that JFK knew that this was the case. What I am saying is that JFK was doing his best to extricate us from a hopeless situation, while risking as little as possible politically.

Jon, is it possible that "JFK saw what LBJ and Nixon failed to see?" Where LBJ and Nixon thought an exercise of extreme force and commitment of "US military might" would succeed, JFK knew it would fail. And, as history has shown, he was correct. It did fail, exactly as JFK predicted it would (in his 1954 speech).

The assassination made a big difference, just not to the outcome of the war effort. That was to fail anyway. The difference is the 58,000+ American lives lost, over ONE MILLION dead Vietnamese, and a tax payer burden exceeding a HALF TRILLION US DOLLARS.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

So you are open to the possibility that Bobby would twist his brother's legacy five months after his murder for the sake of politics?

This is an example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. You have substituted an argument that is much weaker than the one originally offered in order to more easily knock it down.

"I am open to the probability that you would twist Ron's meaning five minutes after he wrote it for the sake of avoiding the real issue."

Edited May 31, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

So you are open to the possibility that Bobby would twist his brother's legacy five months after his murder for the sake of politics?

This is an example of the "Straw Man" fallacy. You have substituted an argument that is much weaker that the one originally offered in order to knock it down.

I am open to the probability that you would "twist Ron's meaning five minutes after he wrote it for the sake of avoiding the real issue."

Burn ham, your boring, melodramatic lip-quivering tear-stained fanboy idol-worship (and your horrendous Frank Gorshin JFK imitation) sets you up as a xxxxx in any JFK-related matter. Your utterly predictable revisionist views are bad enough on your own gasping, moribund web site - the equivalent of cyber JFK-death cosplay - but you traipse over here now and then to inflict your holier-than-thou views that amount to little more than a schoolyard taunt. The only weak argument is yours. Cling to something JFK said NINE YEARS before he died, because that appears to be your only comfort. That and hair dye.

Mark,

While you may not agree with my views, I invite you to share your own. I encourage you to make good, logical, arguments to support your assertions even if they conflict with my own. I would prefer to keep it "on point" and I respectfully ask that you refrain from employing fallacious or "less than well reasoned" rebuttals. They do not persuade. However we may disagree on the interpretation of evidence, the manner in which we present our arguments will either assist or hinder us to get closer to the truth.

[Ron Ecker]

So you are open to the possibility that Bobby would twist his brother's legacy five months after his murder for the sake of politics?

I don't understand the question. All I know is that RFK in my view endangered his brother's life by going after all the mobsters he could, including summarily deporting Carlos Marcello, who came back and whose region I believe included Dallas. I don't think it was for nothing that Trafficante told Jose Aleman that JFK was going to be hit.

[Greg Burnham]

Let's pull this one offline, Mark. I don't want to taint the integrity of this forum by engaging you here. I do this out of respect for the other members and out of a sense of appreciation to the administrators for having me. While I am making an argument, you are picking a fight. That is not appropriate. But, make no mistake, I am quite capable of a rumble.

I have no authority here, but I do on my own forum. I have a section called: The War Room -- dedicated to verbal combat where the normal rule prohibiting ad hominem attack is relaxed. Feel free to go talk to yourself there. Maybe I'll stop by and knock you out in the first round.

[Greg Burnham]

I'm not running. I'm suggesting we take this outside so I don't damage the furniture in this fine establishment.

The War Room

Edited May 31, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Ron Ecker]

The topic - which you responded to - was about RFK potentially twisting JFK's intentions to suit himself politically. That's when YOU asked

Did these two brothers see eye to eye on everything? Did JFK ever ask RFK what he thought he was doing?

By that, you seemed to be suggesting that RFK was moving along a path that JFK did not approve of.

If that's what you're suggesting, I think it's ridiculous. Bobby was JFK's standard bearer. It defies logic to suggest he would ever do anything that ran counter to his brother's wishes.

That's why I posted Bobby's verbatim words concerning JFK's Vietnam policy. I believe it's insulting - to say the least - to JFK and RFK's memory to suggest that Bobby would sully JFK's legacy for political expediency in his own career. It's gross and wrong.

All I was responding to was your idealizing of RFK as JFK's standard bearer, of his doing nothing counter to his brother's wishes, etc. etc. What I wanted to know was if JFK, while he was bedding Judith Exner, ever once asked RFK what this thing was that he had about the Mafia. "Are you trying to get us into trouble or what?" Or did JFK tell him, "Go get 'em"?

[Greg Burnham]

My only agenda here is to discuss JFK's Vietnam Policy in the context of this thread. Jon titled this thread: "What is your theory?" While I view that which I have offered as not so much "my theory" as it is my informed opinion, I don't claim that it is the last word. It is an interpretation of the evidence. I have attempted to keep the explanation simple, yet adequate to account for as much of the evidence as possible.

I admit that reconciling some of RFK's statements (for the JFK Library in 1964), as well as some statements made by JFK (to the media) with OFFICIAL TOP SECRET POLICY DOCUMENTATION is difficult. However, that is what we are challenged to do if we are to gain an understanding of our Vietnam history.

I find the proper application of Occam's Razor, the preference of the simple explanation to the overly complex, to be in order. Therefore, discounting the "non-official" highly politicized public statements is a much less complex exercise than is attempting to explain away as insignificant the TOP SECRET OFFICIAL RECORDS. The former has a simple "politically based" motive that, under the circumstances, is quite understandable. However, how does one "discount the significance" of TOP SECRET National Security Action Memorandums without introducing an inordinate degree of complexity?

[Mark Knight]

In JFK's interview on 2 September 1963 with Walter Cronkite, he said:

"I don't think that, unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT IS THEIR WAR. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO WIN IT OR LOSE IT. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisors, but they have to win it, the people of Viet Nam, against the Communists." [Emphasis mine.]

I think this still echoes what JFK said 9 years before. I don't believe there was a huge shift in his thinking in the interim. I fail to see where this foreshadows a huge military buildup of American troops in JFK's future...had he lived.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Mark,

The issue is training and support.

In 1963, the SVN Army could not stand up to its opponents regardless of the training and support it had received. So JFK's stated policy toward Viet Nam was a policy that would lead toward the fall of the South. At Ap Bac, in early 1963, SVN Army forces supported by American advisers were creamed. JFK's stated policy about "it's their war" belied the fact that in 1963 everyone knowledgeable about SVN knew the SVN Army could not stand up to its opponents.

JFK was a politician, not an all-wise overseer of events. He was buying time. One doesn't know what he would have done in Viet Nam.

I suspect he would have been sucked in.

Nixon on 1-20-69, the day he was inaugurated, knew Viet Nam was a lost cause. Knew that what JFK had tried to finesse could not be finessed, Knew that what LBJ had tried to overcome with might could not be overcome.

JFK played rope-a-dope years before Muhammad Ali. The idea he was willing to hand over South Viet Nam to the communists is false. He wanted to win in Viet Nam on the cheap side. Problem is, there was no cheap side to an American victory. JFK was playing Viet Nam as if there was a cheap side heading into the 1964 elections.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Ron Ecker]

JFK played rope-a-dope years before Muhammad Ali. The idea he was willing to hand over South Viet Nam to the communists is false. He wanted to win in Viet Nam on the cheap side. Problem is, there was no cheap side to an American victory. JFK was playing Viet Nam as if there was a cheap side heading into the 1964 elections.

And remember that LBJ was the "peace candidate" in 1964, as opposed to that fiend Goldwater who wanted to nuke children while they picked flowers in the meadow.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Jon G. Tidd]

Yes, Ron Ecker.

LBJ played the peace candidate in 1964. No nuclear war. That's what Goldwater represented...war. Goldwater said something like, "Extremism in the service of liberty is no vice."

What a time. A presidential election framed as a fight over no nuclear war vs. nuclear war.

What a distraction. JFK had been killed. Yet the presidential debate was over extremism. No wonder LBJ won in 1964.