Who was JFK?

[Gene Kelly]

Jim:

This is great work and very enlightening. I've always felt the "answer" to what happened to JFK is contained in the political backdrop or bookends of history that surrounded his presidency. I also agree that - of all the policies that went counter to the prevailing Power Elite - the Middle East was (forgive the pun) the straw that broke the camel's back. None of the foreign policy for the next 50 years (including current) would have happened on JFK's watch... it simply wasn't his style.

Gene

[Len Colby]

Something I left out, but Douglass mentions: Before Lodge left for Saigon, he had a long meeting with Henry Luce. It was there that it was decided upon that they were going to go hard line on Diem. Which, of course, contradicted JFK's wishes.

Still pushing to notion that the Diem coup was done behind JFK's back? We went over this before and your own cited sources contradicted you.

[James DiEugenio]

Jim:

This is great work and very enlightening. I've always felt the "answer" to what happened to JFK is contained in the political backdrop or bookends of history that surrounded his presidency. I also agree that - of all the policies that went counter to the prevailing Power Elite - the Middle East was (forgive the pun) the straw that broke the camel's back. None of the foreign policy for the next 50 years (including current) would have happened on JFK's watch... it simply wasn't his style.

Gene

Thanks Gene. Its amazing the Middle East stuff was not really brought out earlier. But when it finally was, especially by Robert Rakove, it was quite compelling I thought.

Kennedy really did not like Saudi Arabia or the Shah.

[Cliff Varnell]

Something I left out, but Douglass mentions: Before Lodge left for Saigon, he had a long meeting with Henry Luce. It was there that it was decided upon that they were going to go hard line on Diem. Which, of course, contradicted JFK's wishes.

Still pushing to notion that the Diem coup was done behind JFK's back? We went over this before and your own cited sources contradicted you.

Kennedy was rolled by a bureaucratic master, W. Averell Harriman.

Ellen J. Hammer's A Death in November: America in Vietnam 1963, pgs 177-80

<quote on>

Washington, August 24, 1963

A handful of men in the State Department and the White House had been awaiting an opportunity to encourage the Vietnamese army to move against the [Diem] government. They intended to exploit the latest crisis [massive raids on Buddhist pagodas August 21] in Saigon to the full. "Averell [Harriman] and Roger [Hilsman] now agree that we must move before the situation in Saigon freezes," Michael Forrestal of the White House staff wrote in a memorandum to President Kennedy.

..."Harriman, Hilsman and I favor taking...action now," Forrestal informed the president. Kennedy was at his Hyannis Port residence in Massachusetts for the weekend. The three men had drafted a cable of their own to [uS Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot] Lodge. The substance, according to Forrestal, had been generally agreed to by [commander in chief of Pacific Command (CINCPAC)] Admiral [Harry D.] Felt. "Clearances [are] being obtained from [Acting Secretary of State] Ball and [the Department of] Defense...Will advise you reactions Ball and Defense, but suggest you let me know if you wish comment or hold-up action." A copy of their draft was dispatched to the president.

This would become Department of State telegram No. 243.

It stated that the American government could not tolerate a situation in which power lay in [Diem brother and head of SVN secret police] Nhu's hands. Military leaders were to be informed that the United States would find it impossible to continue military and economic support to the government unless prompt dramatic actions were taken by Diem to redress Buddhist grievances and remove the Nhus from the scene...Ambassador and country team should urgently examine all possible alternative leadership and make detailed plans as to how we might bring about Diem's replacement if this should become necessary...

...Harriman and Hilsman were determined to send their cable that very day. They found Acting Secretary of State [George] Ball on the golf course, and he telephoned the president in Hyannis Port. Kennedy made no difficulty about giving his approval, assuming that the appropriate officials agreed.

After the call to Kennedy the rest was simple. Ball telephoned [secretary of State Dean] Rusk in New York and told him the president had already agreed, and Rusk gave his own unenthusiastic endorsement. When Roswell Gilpatric (McNamara's deputy at Defense) was called at home by Forrestal, he too was told that Kennedy had cleared the telegram and he was assured that Rusk had seen it. Gilpatric reluctantly gave the clearance of the Department of Defense but was concerned enough about the substance of the cable and the way it had been handled to alert General Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Taylor sent for a copy of the cable. When he read it, his first reaction was that the anti-Diemists in the State Department had taken advantage of the absence of the principal officials to get out instructions that would never have been approved as written under ordinary circumstances. John McCone also was out of town, and rather than try to locate him Harriman had reached Richard Helms, who provided the clearance of the Central Intelligence Agency.

With the president's approval State Department telegram 243 was dispatched to Saigon at 9:36 P.M. on August 24.

John Kennedy would regard this as a major mistake on his part, according to his brother Robert. "He had passed it off too quickly over the weekend at the Cape--he had thought it was cleared by McNamara and Taylor and everyone at State. In fact, it was Harriman, Hilsman and Mike Forrestal at the White House and they were all the ones who were strongly for a coup. Harriman was particularly strong for a coup.

<quote off>

ibid, pg 185:

<quote on>

Washington, August 26-27, 1963

...In the cool halls of the White House the hectic plotting of the weekend took on an air of unreality. Robert Kennedy had talked with Taylor and McNamara and discovered that "nobody was behind it, nobody knew what we were going to do, nobody knew what our policy was; it hadn't been discussed, as everything else had been discussed since the Bay of Pigs in full detail before we did anything--nothing like that had been done before the decision made on Diem, and so by Tuesday we were trying to pull away from that policy..."

President Kennedy belatedly realized that no one had spelled out to him the ramifications for the policy he had approved so lightly. He was irritated at the disagreement among his advisers. Taylor, McNamara, and McCone all were critical of the attempt to run a coup in Saigon. Even Rusk seemed to have second thoughts. "The government was split in two," Robert Kennedy recalled. "It was the only time really in three years, the government was broken in two in a very disturbing way."

<quote off>

ibid, page 198, quoting Robert Kennedy:

<quote on>

"The result [of the cable of August 24] is we started down a road from which we never really recovered...[uS Vietnam military commander General Paul] Harkins was against it and Lodge wasn't talking to Harkins. So Henry Cabot Lodge started down one direction, the State Department was rather in the middle, and they suddenly called off the coup. Then the next five or six weeks we were all concerned about whether they were going to have a coup, who was going to win the coup, and who was going to replace the government. Nobody ever really had any of the answers to any of these things...the President was trying to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge...The policy he [Lodge] was following was based on that original policy that had been made and then rescinded...that Averell Harriman was responsible for..."

<quote off>

"Harriman was particularly strong for a coup."

Wasn't the first coup Harriman was "strong for."

Edited July 26, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Let me deal finally with Colby.

As anyone can see, he cherry picked the NY Times article I referenced, to the point he did not even include its title. And he picked the spin parts and neglected the actual primary documents.

He then tries to say that South Vietnam was actually a country partitioned in 1945. Well, this is like saying, I am going to auction my next book for a starting price of 500,000 dollars. OK.

(No reply. Dead silence. )

Technically that is true. But in practical terms saying there was a South Vietnam in 1945 means little or nothing. The problem was there was a confusion of jurisdiction. There were four countries involved in maintaining the border: Japan, China, France and the USA. In fact, the OSS actually befriended Ho Chi Minh at the time. One by one it all fell apart until only France was left to reclaim Indochina, against FDR's wishes. Truman allowed this to occur. And he then backed France. The problem is, France was in no condition to contain the Viet Minh, Ho, or Giap. Therefore, the distinction of South Vietnam was meaningless almost as soon as the war started in 1946; because Ho proclaimed Vietnam as one country. And the Viet Minh operated almost everywhere. This was borne out at the end, when France extended into the north at Dien Bien Phu, and Ho was in the south.

Contrast this with what happened after 1954. When the Dulles brothers tasked Lansdale with creating South Vietnam, the USA had the economic, and military might to actually create a country. And that country lasted for about 20 years under Diem and Thieu.

For those new to this site, Colby was the guy who said JFK only showed liberal or progressive foreign policy views in 1963. I then quoted his Algeria speech from 1957 to show just how ignorant this was. I then showed what JFK did in Congo as an example of those ideas in 1961.

Also, for the new members, when I got a load of Colby's background I decided that I was not going to engage with him anymore.

I repeat that pledge now. Finis. I would rather debate David Von Pein.

Edited July 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

Just thinking about what the Democrats have done to us (US citizens) and to the World. Since JFK left us, LBJ took over and amongst all his failures, the VietNam war was surely his monumental failure. Then we get Jimmy Carter: he continued the policies of surrender in the world, leaving us the Iranian situation amongst other things, Then we got Bill Clinton--Black Hawk Down, anyone? continued the surrendering in the middle east. And then comes the master, Barack Obama. Colossal failures everywhere.

Vietnam was a failure but clearly Goldwater would have upped US involvement as much if not more so than LBJ. There is strong evidence Nixon and Kissinger sabotaged the 1968 Paris Peace Talks. Tricky Dick then continued the war unnecessarily for years before agreeing to terms very close to those on the table in 1968. Bonzo Raygun capitulated to Iranian terrorists and then sold their patrons weapons. But if we want to talk about "Colossal failures everywhere." the POTUS par excellence was "Baby Doc" Bush.

But if we want to talk about "Colossal failures everywhere." the POTUS par excellence was "Baby Doc" Bush. You must be an Obama follower. " It's all Bush's fault. " I guess you think he staged the twin towers bombing just so he could have a war.

[Kenneth Drew]

Let me deal finally with Colby.

As anyone can see, he cherry picked the NY Times article I referenced, to the point he did not even include its title. And he picked the spin parts and neglected the actual primary documents.

He then tries to say that South Vietnam was actually a country partitioned in 1945. Well, this is like saying, I am going to auction my next book for a starting price of 500,000 dollars. OK.

(No reply. Dead silence. )

Technically that is true. But in practical terms saying there was a South Vietnam in 1945 means little or nothing. The problem was there was a confusion of jurisdiction. There were four countries involved in maintaining the border: Japan, China, France and the USA. In fact, the OSS actually befriended Ho Chi Minh at the time. One by one it all fell apart until only France was left to reclaim Indochina, against FDR's wishes. Truman allowed this to occur. And he then backed France. The problem is, France was in no condition to contain the Viet Minh, Ho, or Giap. Therefore, the distinction of South Vietnam was meaningless almost as soon as the war started in 1946; because Ho proclaimed Vietnam as one country. And the Viet Minh operated almost everywhere. This was borne out at the end, when France extended into the north at Dien Bien Phu, and Ho was in the south.

Contrast this with what happened after 1954. When the Dulles brothers tasked Lansdale with creating South Vietnam, the USA had the economic, and military might to actually create a country. And that country lasted for about 20 years under Diem and Thieu.

For those new to this site, Colby was the guy who said JFK only showed liberal or progressive foreign policy views in 1963. I then quoted his Algeria speech from 1957 to show just how ignorant this was. I then showed what JFK did in Congo as an example of those ideas in 1961.

Also, for the new members, when I got a load of Colby's background I decided that I was not going to engage with him anymore.

I repeat that pledge now. Finis. I would rather debate David Von Pein.

,He then tries to say that South Vietnam was actually a country partitioned in 1945. All I could find on Google is 1954, long after FDR

[Cliff Varnell]

But if we want to talk about "Colossal failures everywhere." the POTUS par excellence was "Baby Doc" Bush. You must be an Obama follower. " It's all Bush's fault. " I guess you think he staged the twin towers bombing just so he could have a war.

Attacking Bush makes one an Obama follower?

I like these Neo-cons: let's put boots on the ground against ISIS and let's bomb Iran at the same time!

Let's put a hundred thousand US troops in the middle of a Sunni-Shia conflagration fighting both sides!

Geniuses, all of ya...

[James DiEugenio]

Its interesting to trace the rise of the nutty neo cons.

It actually started under former Warren Commissioner Jerry Ford.

Ford continued with Kissinger as Secretary of State. But he then promoted Rumsfeld and Cheney. Those two felt that Kissinger/Nixon detente with Russia was too liberal. Too much like Kennedy.

So they started to subvert Henry. And they did all they could to trash detente. This led to the rise of Paul Nitze and the Committee on the Present Danger to say that Russia was too strong and belligerent to have detente with.

Nitze of course was the right-winger who authored NSC 68, which did so much to father in the whole MIC. Nitze was also one of the guys who was disappointed when JFK refused to retaliate when Castro shot down the U 2 during the MC.

Edited July 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

My review of the Rakove book, which I think is a very, very important book about JFK's foreign policy. If you cannot read the book, at least read my review of it.

A very well researched and even handed approach to the subject from a very smart and scholarly man.

http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/rakove.html

[Martin Blank]

in my reading about the jfk assassination over the past 40 years or so, i have two moments that were similar to what col. kurtz described in apocalypse now when he said: And then I realized. . .like I was shot. . .like I was shot with a diamond. . .a diamond bullet right through my forehead

. . .Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.

​one of those moments was reading newman's jfk and vietnam. mind and life altering to say the least.

[Martin Blank]

Quoting excerpts from the records of the Sec Def Conference, that is a primary document not secondary spin:

Part IV: Withdrawal of US Forces:

"As a matter of urgency, a plan for withdrawal of about 1,000 US troops before the end of the year should be developed."

Part V: Phase out of US Forces

"SecDef advised that the phase out program presented during May 6 Conference appeared too slow. In consonance with Part 3, request you develop a revised plan to accomplish more rapid phase out of US Forces."

Comprehensive Plan: Republic of Vietnam

Item 2: Decision Made and Actions to be taken

1."Draw up training plans for the RVN that will permit US to start an earlier withdrawal of US personnel than proposed under the plan presented."

Item 3: Role of Attack AIrcraft

"Secdef stated the percentage of RVNAF effort was no greater than a year ago. Our sights should be higher and he wanted to get US pilots out of combat and transport operations."

Comprehensive Plan: Part 2, Force Structure

"At the same time, the Secretary stated that we should seek opportunities to leave our material behind for RVN to use wherever they can absorb it..."

Part C: Relations of Reductions in US Strength to Growth in Self Sufficiency

"In connection with this presentation...the Secretary of Defense stated that the phase out appears too slow. He directed that training plans be developed for the GVN by CINPAC which will permit a more rapid phase out..."

LOL Jim YOU cited the NYT article now you dismiss it as "secondary spin" no one disputes that JFK wanted to get out of the mess he essentially had created. But there is reason to doubt if he would have let Vietnam fall when their own military proved incapable of saving the country.

no one disputes that JFK wanted to get out of the mess he essentially had created. Is it accurate to say he (JFK) created it?

i don't think so. there's a longer answer than that but this will suffice for now.

[Kenneth Drew]

Ford caved because he had no choice. I don't think that's fair to Ford. He didn't make a choice. The Congress voted to stop the war, put it on them. They were Democrats and deserved the credit/blame

No it was Nixon who finally decided to pull out of 'Nam. There were only 50 troops there, mostly if not entirely embassy guards, by the end of '73.

Those who think Ike's “MIC” comment was not taken out of context should read the transcript without any spin.

http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwatl.htm

I agree that Nixon drew the troop level down every year he was president. How does that square with the theory that he was the one that was promoting the war?

[Martin Blank]

In 1963 Kennedy remarked to his aide Kenneth O’Donnell:

In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a communist appeaser, but now I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m re-elected. So we had better make damned sure I’m re-elected.

To Larry Newman, Kennedy said:

“The first thing I do when I’m re-elected, I’m going to get the Americans out of Vietnam. Exactly how I’m going to do it, right now, I don’t know.”

from NYT

Historians know that Kennedy directed the Pentagon to devise the withdrawal plans. But some believe they were a political facade erected for the 1964 elections;

don't seem to jibe with preceding two statements

Other anecdotal evidence:

In 1968, (Ret.) General James M. Gavin stated:

There has been much speculation about what President Kennedy would have done in Vietnam had he lived. Having discussed military affairs with him often and in detail for 15 years, I know he was totally opposed to the introduction of combat troops in southeast Asia. His public statements just before his murder support this view.

Paul B. Fay, undersecretary of the Navy under JFK, stated:

If John Kennedy had lived, our military involvement in Vietnam would have been over by the end of 1964.

JFK also advised Robert McNamara:

“We are not going to have men ground up in this fashion, this far away from home. I’m going to get these guys out because we’re not going to find ourselves in a war it is impossible to win.

Senator Wayne Morse told the Boston Globe in 1973:

There’s a weak defense of John Kennedy. He’d seen the error of his ways. I’m satisfied if he’d lived another year we’d have been out of Vietnam. Ten days before his assassination, I went down to the White House and handed him his education bills, which I was handling on the Senate floor. I’d been making two to five speeches a week against Kennedy on Vietnam. . . .I’d gone into President Kennedy’s office to discuss education bills, but he said, ‘Wayne, I want you to know you’re absolutely right in your criticism of my Vietnam policy. Keep this in mind. I’m in the midst of an intensive study which substantiates your position on Vietnam.’

Edited July 27, 2015 by Martin Blank

[James DiEugenio]

Martin, yes I agree Newman's book was a game changer.

Ken: Nixon got out of Vietnam because he knew that the war was not winnable and he did not wish to see what happened to LBJ happen to him.

In fact, he actually said this to Haldeman.

Also, he wanted to construct, as Pat said, a Decent Interval strategy around the 1972 election. That was his second strategy; he first fought of such things as invading North Vietnam, bombing the dikes, and using nuclear weapons. Instead he decided to just spread the war to Cambodia and go for a nuclear alert in October 1969.

None of it worked. So he went for gradual withdrawal combined with bombing and Vietnamization. Then the phony peace treaty and the Decent Interval.

While about 21, 000 more Americans died, and millions in Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.

Edited July 27, 2015 by James DiEugenio