Book: The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam

[Douglas Caddy]

Book: The Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in Vietnam

 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0871409410?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

 

There is a rave review of this book in the weekend edition (Jan. 6-7) of the Wall Street Journal. Robert D. Kaplan, the reviewer, paints a glowing portrait of Lansdale's "sage" advice  for winning the Vietnam War being ignored by the JFK administration. The lengthy review makes no mention of the allegation that Lansdale may have played a role in JFK's assassination, nor does the Amazon announcement of the book. I have not read the book, so I do not know if this subject is covered in it.

 

Edited January 6, 2018 by Douglas Caddy

[James DiEugenio]

Max Boot is a CFR neo con all the way.

This is part of the whole Vietnam revisionist angle by the likes of Lewis Sorley, an Army historian. 

Somehow, some way, America actually could have won that war if only we had listened to people like Lansdale.

The problem is, we did listen to people like Lansdale.  Lansdale created South Vietnam.  He decided on a completely wrong leading family for that country, the Nhus.  What with Madame Nhu and her American style bouffant hairdo, and encouraging more "Buddhist barbecues", and her husband raiding Buddhist pagodas, and a totally corrupt army of South Vietnam etc.

This is more of Ronald Reagan's "Vietnam was a noble cause" BS. It was nothing of the kind.  As even Kissinger said, the night of the final American retreat, "We should have never been there." And if Kennedy had not been killed, we would not have been.

And BTW, in doing some research on the Pentagon Papers for the newest Hanks/Spielberg mythology The Post, at the trial of Dan Ellsberg, Schlesinger said all of this on the stand, way back in 1973!  I was completely unaware of that fact.  And I don't recall even Schlesinger mentioning it.

[Andrew Prutsok]

Kaplan, the rave reviewer, was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Iraq War.  I'm sure his analysis of Vietnam would be ever bit as insightful.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, note the title of the book, its an American Tragedy in Vietnam.

I beg to ask:  What about what happened to Vietnam and its people? Does not that count for something?  Anything?

The most current casualty count that is available, from a British medical journal, places the dead and wounded, both military and civilian at about four million.  This was a much more  sound study than the previous DOD estimates that were much lower, since this was really epidemiological.  That is, they went house to house and interviewed families, asking them how many died during the war.  Then how many died after, due to things like stepping on a land mine etc.

That figure represents about ten per cent of the entire population of the country as of 1975. It would have been like America losing 20 million, not the combined 300,000 dead and wounded.

And one must not forget, if the Dulles brothers had not been so intent on having no neutralist nations in the Third World, there very likely would not have been a first Indochina War either.  Or it would have been foreshortened.  Because by 1950, America was footing a large percentage of the bill for that war.

As Daniel Ellsberg used to say, its not that America was on the wrong side--backing a totally corrupt, incompetent, and brutal dictatorship in Saigon--one which rigged elections, and placed literally tens of thousands in the infamous tiger cages (begun my Diem and continued by Thieu).  Its that we were the wrong side. South Vietnam was a creation of the USA.  It did not exist prior to the Geneva Accords.  Once it was set up by Lansdale and the Dulles brothers, then we had to defend our own artificial creation.

Which ended up costing 4 million Vietnamese casualties. 

Edited January 7, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, note the title of the book, its an American Tragedy in Vietnam.

I beg to ask:  What about what happened to Vietnam and its people? Does not that count for something?  Anything?

 

Ditto

[Anthony Thorne]

As Jim says, Boot is a notorious neoconservative, and Kagan is little better.  

A funny story.  Several years back, Jon Stewart appeared on the Crossfire show with Tucker Carlson.  Stewart detested the show and tore Carlson and his co-host apart on air.  The Crossfire show was cancelled shortly afterwards.  Carlson had been a prolific cheerleader for the Bush administration and the Iraq war, so this was no great loss at the time.  That incident is viewable on Youtube.

By his own admission (in an interview I saw with him elsewhere), Carlson suffered something of a crisis of the soul after this.  He took some time off, reflected upon the extent of his earlier pro-war cheerleading, and toned down his schtick.  When Carlson started his show up again at Fox, he was no longer inclined to support every neoconservative statement.  In fact, he'd become openly critical of the pro-war stance a lot of them still held.  

THE ROAD NOT TAKEN author Boot - who was a bigger cheerleader for the Iraq war at the time than Carlson, and who remains a pro-war agitator now - appeared on Carlson's new show several months ago.  Carlson had become sick of the pro-war stance of the neocons, and Boot was visibly angry that Carlson had changed his ways (even if only to a degree).  The result was one of the most striking on-air clashes that I saw last year.  The neoconservatives rarely get taken to task in this manner on television, and I suspect this threw Boot off even more.  Whether or not you like Carlson, this was a striking debate, very different from the usual bluster you'd see from guys like O'Reilly.

Notice too at the beginning, Carlson includes a clip of Robert Baer, the (untrustworthy, I believe) ex-CIA agent who was pushing that bogus Oswald documentary a few months back.  Baer is also pushing neocon talking points these days.

Justin Raimondo, at the Antiwar site, did a post-mortem of the interview that was pretty on target.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/

At this point, Boot and Kagan appear to be cheering each other on, hoping for more war.  Kagan actually did an interview during the past election cycle where he criticised Obama for not wanting to pursue a 'survivable' nuclear first strike with other countries.  God knows what ridiculous propaganda we'll see from these idiots next.

[Paz Marverde]

2 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Kagan actually did an interview during the past election cycle where he criticised Obama for not wanting to pursue a 'survivable' nuclear first strike with other countries

O-M-G

[James DiEugenio]

These neo cons are so crazy its almost funny.  Let us never forget PNAC.  This is what they wanted as far back as Bill Clinton.

The thing is, Putin is correct about Syria.  The best analysis I saw on this by an American was by Tulsi Gabbard.  The congresswoman from Hawaii who was in the military.

And there was a decent article about it by Kinzer in the Boston Globe.  The reason Putin intervened was because he saw that the people we were backing would have caused more of the fundamentalism that had destabilized the Middle East to spread even further into Syria. Therefore, it would have been a very dominant force throughout the  Middle East.  In other words, it would have been a repeat of getting rid of Hussein, and Gaddafi.  In each case, we get something worse.  And BTW, Gaddafi told Blair what was really happening in his overthrow.  He said that if I go, you will now see attacks from north Africa  into Europe by these fundamentalists. And I think we all recall what happened in France after.

This is why I could not vote for HC.  But since California is a safe state, I was fine with that.  She won here by a huge margin.  But when I studied that Libya debacle I said, this woman is a neocon as far as foreign policy goes.  

I have to say, Carlson was good in that segment.  He was better than most of the people on MSNBC would have been.

And my God, Kagan wants a survivable first strike?  Kagan is the husband of Victoria Nuland, the State Dept rep who engineered the coup in Ukraine and let all those neo Nazi nut cases kill dozens of people en route.  Incredible  to me how we have this double standard:  Nuland can pick a whole new government out of her office, create TV stations, hire radio broadcasters, finance campaigns in Ukraine;  but somehow if we think that there was a connection between Trump and Putin to help the former, that is simply outrageous.  Reminds me of Claude Rains in Casablanca: I am outraged you think gambling takes place here.

Let us not forget, the neocons came from Jerry Ford's administration.  He brought in Cheney and Rumsfeld, who thought Kissinger was too moderate in pursuing detente.  You don't have to ask what they thought of JFK. Jeb Stuart Magruder tried to equate Bobby Kennedy going after the steel companies for breaking a union agreement  with Nixon going after the networks for not giving him better coverage.

Thanks Anthony. For the clip and the link to Raimondo's column which I hope everyone reads.

Edited January 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The best analysis I saw on this by an American was by Tulsi Gabbard.

I believe she should be POTUS, in 2020. Maybe, she could get RFK Jr. as her mate. By the way, he wrote and declared that JFK assassination was not a lonely nut work 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261263/JFK-assassination-Robert-Kennedy-speaks-death-uncle.html

Quote

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is convinced that a lone gunman wasn't solely responsible for the assassination of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and said his father believed the Warren Commission report was a 'shoddy piece of craftsmanship.'

Kennedy and his sister, Rory, spoke about their family Friday night while being interviewed in front of an audience by Charlie Rose at the Winspear Opera House in Dallas. The event comes as a year of observances begins for the 50th anniversary of the president's death.

Their uncle was killed on Nov. 22, 1963, while riding in a motorcade through Dallas. Five years later, their father was assassinated in a Los Angeles hotel while celebrating his win in the California Democratic presidential primary.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his father spent a year trying to come to grips with his brother's death, reading the work of Greek philosophers, Catholic scholars, Henry David Thoreau, poets and others 'trying to figure out kind of the existential implications of why a just God would allow injustice to happen of the magnitude he was seeing.'

He said his father thought the Warren Commission, which concluded Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the president, was a 'shoddy piece of craftsmanship.' 

He said that he, too, questioned the report.

'The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman,' he said, but he didn't say what he believed may have happened.

Rose asked if he believed his father, the U.S. attorney general at the time of his brother's death, felt 'some sense of guilt because he thought there might have been a link between his very aggressive efforts against organized crime.'

Kennedy replied: 'I think that's true. He talked about that. He publicly supported the Warren Commission report but privately he was dismissive of it.'

He said his father had investigators do research into the assassination and found that phone records of Oswald and nightclub owner Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald two days after the president's assassination, 'were like an inventory' of mafia leaders the government had been investigating.

He said his father, later elected U.S. senator in New York, was 'fairly convinced' that others were involved.

The attorney and well-known environmentalist also told the audience light-hearted stories Friday about memories of his uncle. As a young child with an interest in the environment, he said, he made an appointment with his uncle to speak with him in the Oval Office about pollution.

He'd even caught a salamander to present to the president, which unfortunately died before the meeting.

'He kept saying to me, "It doesn't look well,'" he recalled.

Rory Kennedy, a documentary filmmaker whose recent film 'Ethel' looks at the life of her mother, also focused on the happier memories. She said she and her siblings grew up in a culture where it was important to give back.

'In all of the tragedy and challenge, when you try to make sense of it and understand it, it's very difficult to fully make sense of it,' she said. 

'But I do feel that in everything that I've experienced that has been difficult and that has been hard and that has been loss, that I've gained something in it.'

'We were kind of lucky because we lost our members of our family when they were involved in a great endeavor,' her brother added. 'And that endeavor is to make this country live up to her ideals.'

The city of Dallas will mark the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy later this year  with a ceremony featuring the tolling of church bells, a moment of silence and readings by Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David McCullough from the president's speeches.

'I think what we want to do is focus on the life and legacy and leadership of President Kennedy,' Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said. 'The tone is going to be serious, simple, respectful, and it's going to be about his life.'

The commemoration on November 22, 2013, will take place in Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy's motorcade through downtown Dallas was passing as shots rang out. It will be free and open to the public.

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Paz Marverde

[James DiEugenio]

I agree Paz.  Warren gets all the media attention, but Gabbard is better I think on foreign policy.  She was actually in Iraq and Kuwait.

BTW, to my knowledge, that tape of RFK Jr saying that stuff has never been available to the public since that night.

People have tried to get it, but its nowhere to be seen.

Edited January 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree Paz.  Warren gets all the media attention, but Gabbard is better I think on foreign policy.  She was actually in Iraq and Kuwait.

BTW, to my knowledge, that tape of RFK Jr saying that stuff has never been available to the public since that night.

People have tried to get it, but its nowhere to be seen.

Thanks Jim. I did not know about that tape disappearing. All in all, I am not surprised 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, that whole thing about Putin being the equivalent of Hitler, that is again, so overwrought that its almost funny.  And I am glad that Carlson fired back on it.

In studying Nixon and Kissinger for my  four part  essay on the Burns/Novick pastiche on Vietnam, Kissinger knew how to press Nixon's buttons by using that Munich analogy: time after time in situation after situation.  Even in the Bangladesh crisis of India vs Pakistan.  Man, when you can compare that to HItler at Munich how good at foreign affairs can you be?  The answer being not very good, as the declassified record bears out.

The thing is, if you read the Putin/Stone interviews in book form, not the televised version, Putin does not want a confrontational relationship with the USA.  Time after time Stone gave him an opportunity to blast the USA, and each time Putin declined.  BTW, if you are interested in Putin , get that book, since there is much that was not televised.

About RFK Jr, I have always suspected that someone that smart and that liberal could not buy the official story about his uncle, or his father.  In his book on the Shakel case--which is really good--he hints that he does not buy the RFK official story either.

Edited January 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paz Marverde]

Well, because of my Chilean roots, I know very well what Kissinger is able to do.

About RFK Jr, yes, that’s why I would love to see him in the White House. I like what he’s doing to protect the environment. I think he has the right strength in his blood and in his brain

[James DiEugenio]

Oh yes, Chile, that was  a real debacle all the way around.

 Never forget Kissinger's infamous quote:  "I don't see why we have to stand around and let a country go communist just because their people voted for it."

Edited January 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the reason this whole neocon/PNAC movement--which has swept Washington and much of the media--is important to this subject is a topic I talked about at length with the invaluable David Giglio at his web site, Our Hidden History.  It is called The Vietnam War and the Destruction of JFK's Foreign Policy.

http://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/the-vietnam-war-and-the-destruction-of-jfk-s-foreign-policy

The way Vietnam ended, and the frustration felt by many on the right, helped encourage that movement.  They felt it was a black eye that had to be erased.

And with the birth and ascension of that movement, whatever was left of Kennedy's foreign policy, which was not very much, was now not just negated, but it was completely and irrevocably reversed.  JFK's foreign policy ended up being a kind of museum piece, something for scholars of the future to examine like they would the fall of a former empire.

In a nutshell, Kennedy's foreign policy was:

1. Employ a neutralist approach to the Third World,  even to people like Sukarno and Lumumba, who were socialists.

2. In the Middle East, tilt away from from the monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and become friends with Nasser of Egypt--another socialist.  This would put us on the side of democracy and progress in the Middle East and perhaps the possibility of secularizing away from fundamentalism could take hold.

3. Try for detente with Cuba and Russia.

4. Recognize China in the second administration.

5. Get out of Vietnam by 1965.

6. No nukes for anyone, including Israel.  Move toward disarmament with the Soviets.

Almost all of these aims were transformed and reversed over time, the exception being number 4.  And the alterations to numbers 2 and 3, IMO, needlessly prolonged the Cold War, and helped start the war on terror.  The alterations in number five, as we have seen caused millions of unnecessary casualties in Indochina.  Kennedy's foreign policy was flexible, accommodating, and not driven by Manichean ideas about ideology, or about demonizing the other side.  It was about understanding why the world was as it was.

LBJ started to eat away at the underpinnings of it, then Nixon and Kissinger went much further, especially in the Middle East and with nuclear proliferation e.g. Israel, and then when Rumsfeld and Cheney tried to marginalize Kissinger over the issues of nuclear weapons and detente with Russia, well that was about it.

Today, our foreign policy establishment has gone so batxxxx crazy, and  along with that the editorial pages of the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, that you cannot argue for anything like what Kennedy wanted, or you end up being called a Putin apologist or anti Israel, by the likes of nut cases like Max Boot.  And now, Boot is going to try and say that somehow Kennedy blew it in Vietnam?

Blew what Max?  No matter what John Foster Dulles said, it was never our country to begin with.

Edited January 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio