JFK's Vietnam Policy as a Major Motive of the Plotters

[Michael Griffith]

For years I took it for granted that one of the plotters' main motives for wanting JFK dead was his Vietnam policy. However, the closer you look at the relevant facts, the more unlikely this theory appears to be, IF--again IF--we assume that the plotters were as powerful as many of us believe they were, especially if we assume that LBJ at least knew and approved of the plot.

If one of the plotters' main motives for wanting JFK dead was his Vietnam policy, and if the plotters wielded great influence in the federal government, especially in the Pentagon and the CIA, it is very hard to fathom the following:

-- Why the plotters would have allowed LBJ to so horribly mismanage the war effort, especially why they would have allowed him to impose absurd, self-defeating restrictions on our military operations against North Vietnam.

-- Why they would have allowed LBJ to retain Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense.

-- Why they would have allowed LBJ to pick General Westmoreland as the commander of American ground forces in South Vietnam, instead of one of the three other candidates submitted to LBJ by the Pentagon: General Harold K. Johnson, General Creighton Abrams, and General Bruce Palmer. Westmoreland was clearly the least qualified of the four, had limited experience as a combat commander, and had little formal training in strategy and tactics. Johnson, Abrams, and Palmer would not have used the same approach that Westmoreland used.

-- Why they would not have insisted that LBJ fire Westmoreland after his first three years as commander in South Vietnam. After Westmoreland's third year in command, it was obvious to most observers that Westmoreland was incompetent and that his search-and-destroy strategy was badly flawed. Some progress was being made in South Vietnam, but much more could have been made with a different strategy. (This is not to say that Westmoreland did nothing right, but his bad decisions far outweighed his good ones.)

-- Why the plotters would not have pushed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be much more vocal in objecting to LBJ's limited-warfare, gradual-escalation approach.

Another possibility is that JFK's Vietnam policy was indeed a major motive of the plotters but that the plotters were not strong enough/were not in a position to control LBJ's handling of the war. If the plotters consisted mainly of Allen Dulles, Mafia elements, and rogue CIA elements, with the knowledge and approval of LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover and elements of the Secret Service, this could explain why the plotters were unable to exert more influence on LBJ's handling of the war. 

 

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

For years I took it for granted that one of the plotters' main motives for wanting JFK dead was his Vietnam policy. However, the closer you look at the relevant facts, the more unlikely this theory appears to be, IF--again IF--we assume that the plotters were as powerful as many of us believe they were, especially if we assume that LBJ at least knew and approved of the plot.

If one of the plotters' main motives for wanting JFK dead was his Vietnam policy, and if the plotters wielded great influence in the federal government, especially in the Pentagon and the CIA, it is very hard to fathom the following:

-- Why the plotters would have allowed LBJ to so horribly mismanage the war effort, especially why they would have allowed him to impose absurd, self-defeating restrictions on our military operations against North Vietnam.

-- Why they would have allowed LBJ to retain Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense.

-- Why they would have allowed LBJ to pick General Westmoreland as the commander of American ground forces in South Vietnam, instead of one of the three other candidates submitted to LBJ by the Pentagon: General Harold K. Johnson, General Creighton Abrams, and General Bruce Palmer. Westmoreland was clearly the least qualified of the four, had limited experience as a combat commander, and had little formal training in strategy and tactics. Johnson, Abrams, and Palmer would not have used the same approach that Westmoreland used.

-- Why they would not have insisted that LBJ fire Westmoreland after his first three years as commander in South Vietnam. After Westmoreland's third year in command, it was obvious to most observers that Westmoreland was incompetent and that his search-and-destroy strategy was badly flawed. Some progress was being made in South Vietnam, but much more could have been made with a different strategy. (This is not to say that Westmoreland did nothing right, but his bad decisions far outweighed his good ones.)

-- Why the plotters would not have pushed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be much more vocal in objecting to LBJ's limited-warfare, gradual-escalation approach.

Another possibility is that JFK's Vietnam policy was indeed a major motive of the plotters but that the plotters were not strong enough/were not in a position to control LBJ's handling of the war. If the plotters consisted mainly of Allen Dulles, Mafia elements, and rogue CIA elements, with the knowledge and approval of LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover and elements of the Secret Service, this could explain why the plotters were unable to exert more influence on LBJ's handling of the war. 

 

Michael I believe the answer to your "Whys" is somewhat covered in Eisenhower's farewell address.

Since WWII we see a new form of limited conflict that does not use the traditional means of declaring war thus preventing war profiteers from profiting. Vietnam was a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private. It was high level racketeering, this is the beginning of the 'rise of the Deepstate' we will see Darpa form just before this and that may be what Eisenhower was warning about. We see a similar quagmire again occur in a similar fashion 2001 in Iraq with another Texas President with a lot of the same war profiteering companies who had simply changed their names like Brown and Root to Halliburton.

The trap was getting in, because there wasn't a way of getting out without damaging the prestige of The United States and it's military. JFK knew this and was trying to avoid it with a secret withdrawal. This was too much for the conspirators imo after a secret missile deal. Meanwhile LBJ like in the USS Liberty Incident clearly didn't give a damn and went along with what the people pulling his strings wanted.. 
 

[Michael Griffith]

46 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Michael I believe the answer to your "Whys" is somewhat covered in Eisenhower's farewell address.

Since WWII we see a new form of limited conflict that does not use the traditional means of declaring war thus preventing war profiteers from profiting. Vietnam was a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector to the private. It was high level racketeering, this is the beginning of the 'rise of the Deepstate' we will see Darpa form just before this and that may be what Eisenhower was warning about. We see a similar quagmire again occur in a similar fashion 2001 in Iraq with another Texas President with a lot of the same war profiteering companies who had simply changed their names like Brown and Root to Halliburton.

The trap was getting in, because there wasn't a way of getting out without damaging the prestige of The United States and it's military. JFK knew this and was trying to avoid it with a secret withdrawal. This was too much for the conspirators imo after a secret missile deal. Meanwhile LBJ like in the USS Liberty Incident clearly didn't give a damn and went along with what the people pulling his strings wanted.. 
 

The point is that the Deep State, such as it was at the time, was unable to change LBJ's horrible handling of the war. If the Deep State killed JFK because of his Vietnam policy, the Deep State was not strong enough to change LBJ's disastrous handling of the war. 

And, JFK's withdrawal plans were not secret. He talked about the planned partial withdrawal twice in news conferences in 1963, and numerous stories about the withdrawal appeared in the press, even in The Stars and Stripes. 

If you're referring to the alleged secret plan to abandon South Vietnam regardless of the situation and consequences after JFK was reelected, that's a subject for a different thread (such as my thread on Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited documentary and the Vietnam War).

Edited October 25, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Matthew Koch]

41 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The point is that the Deep State, such as it was at the time, was unable to change LBJ's horrible handling of the war. If the Deep State killed JFK because of his Vietnam policy, the Deep State was not strong enough to change LBJ's disastrous handling of the war. 

And, JFK's withdrawal plans were not secret. He talked about the planned partial withdrawal twice in news conferences in 1963, and numerous stories about the withdrawal appeared in the press, even in The Stars and Stripes. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but NSAM is not a public document it is Top Secret clearance and above. The NY Times wrote about the secret invasion of Cuba (See President and the Press Speech) The Stars and Stripes was about a limited withdrawal do to the Pentagon saying that the war was going good, That is how Kennedy was playing them (Which I'm sure they didn't appreciate) The war was supposedly going good so JFK was like great we can start witdrawling men. This then changes in the Honolulu conference which is right when JFK is killed and his cabinet is over the Pacific heading to Japan, preventing them from stoping continuity of government. The story in Stars and Stripes isn't about a total withdrawal. Members of the East Coast Deep State attempted to change course (The Wise Men) https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/25/this-day-in-politics-march-25-1968-477991 

Why weren't these men able to stop LBJ? As we see in Eisenhower's speech the "Deep State" isn't one group, the President than goes on to list the groups that make up the "deepstate" and there were a lot of people making money from the overt side and the covert side (drugs) 

 

 

 

For additional reading on how the Deep State isn't one harmonious group, I would recommend you read Carl Olgesby's 'The Yankee Cowboy War' for more on that subject Michael.
https://www.amazon.com/Yankee-Cowboy-War-Carl-Oglesby/dp/0425034933/ref=sr_1_1?crid=383M8V6L8TUFF&keywords=the+yankee+and+cowboy+war+by+carl+oglesby&qid=1666722677&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjgxIiwicXNhIjoiMC45MiIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=Yankee+Cowboy+war+%2Caps%2C544&sr=8-1

[Michael Griffith]

15 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but NSAM is not a public document it is Top Secret clearance and above. The NY Times wrote about the secret invasion of Cuba (See President and the Press Speech) The Stars and Stripes was about a limited withdrawal do to the Pentagon saying that the war was going good, That is how Kennedy was playing them (Which I'm sure they didn't appreciate) The war was supposedly going good so JFK was like great we can start witdrawling men. This then changes in the Honolulu conference which is right when JFK is killed and his cabinet is over the Pacific heading to Japan, preventing them from stoping continuity of government. The story in Stars and Stripes isn't about a total withdrawal. Members of the East Coast Deep State attempted to change course (The Wise Men) https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/25/this-day-in-politics-march-25-1968-477991 

Why weren't these men able to stop LBJ? As we see in Eisenhower's speech the "Deep State" isn't one group, the President than goes on to list the groups that make up the "deepstate" and there were a lot of people making money from the overt side and the covert side (drugs) 

For additional reading on how the Deep State isn't one harmonious group, I would recommend you read Carl Olgesby's 'The Yankee Cowboy War' for more on that subject Michael.
https://www.amazon.com/Yankee-Cowboy-War-Carl-Oglesby/dp/0425034933/ref=sr_1_1?crid=383M8V6L8TUFF&keywords=the+yankee+and+cowboy+war+by+carl+oglesby&qid=1666722677&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjgxIiwicXNhIjoiMC45MiIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=Yankee+Cowboy+war+%2Caps%2C544&sr=8-1

I think we're missing the forest for the trees here. The point is that IF the plotters' viewed JFK's Vietnam policy as a major reason to kill him, then they were not powerful enough to prevent LBJ from bungling the war effort. 

When I say "the plotters" I'm referring to most or all of them, not to just part of them. Obviously, if only a minority of the plotters considered Vietnam policy to be a crucial issue, this would explain the plotters' failure to control LBJ's handling of the war. But, that's not what I'm talking about. 

I'm certainly open to the idea that the majority of the plotters did not view Vietnam as a key issue. I think that's a distinct possibility, given what happened after JFK's death. If this is the case, then many of my fellow conspiracy theorists need to revise their theory of the assassination, since many of them believe that Vietnam was one of the plotter's main motives, if not their main motive, for wanting JFK dead. But, again, this is not what I'm talking about. 

[Ron Ecker]

35 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

The point is that IF the plotters' viewed JFK's Vietnam policy as a major reason to kill him, then they were not powerful enough to prevent LBJ from bungling the war effort. 

 

The plotters wanted a war in Vietnam. As General Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket." To war profiteers, winning a war is not as important as having one. If LBJ mishandled the war, it meant it would be a longer war than a well-managed one. For war profiteers, the longer a war is the better. They milked it for all they could till the American people got tired of it. So did we lose the war? To the war profiteers, so what?

 

 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Ron Ecker

[Michael Griffith]

10 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

The plotters wanted a war in Vietnam. As General Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket." To war profiteers, winning a war is not as important as having one. If LBJ mishandled the war, it meant it would be a longer war than a well-managed one. For war profiteers, the longer a war is the better. They milked it for all they could till the American people got tired of it. So did we lose the war? To the war profiteers, so what?

That scenario strikes me as unlikely and unrealistic. If the plotters were Cold War hawks and therefore viewed Vietnam as a vital issue, I seriously doubt that any of them wanted a war in Vietnam merely to make money and did not care if South Vietnam fell to the Communists. That sounds far-fetched and out of character for Cold War hawks. 

If the argument is that the majority of the plotters were not Cold War hawks, then we're back to my point that that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the common assumption among most conspiracy theorists that the plotters viewed JFK's Vietnam policy as a major reason to kill him because they were Cold War warriors who were determined to keep South Vietnam free. 

 

[Ron Ecker]

3 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

That scenario strikes me as unlikely and unrealistic. If the plotters were Cold War hawks and therefore viewed Vietnam as a vital issue, I seriously doubt that any of them wanted a war in Vietnam merely to make money and did not care if South Vietnam fell to the Communists. That sounds far-fetched and out of character for Cold War hawks. 

If the argument is that the majority of the plotters were not Cold War hawks, then we're back to my point that that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the common assumption among most conspiracy theorists that the plotters viewed JFK's Vietnam policy as a major reason to kill him because they were Cold War warriors who were determined to keep South Vietnam free. 

 

Well I'm not sure that Cold War hawks and war profiteers are the same thing. In terms of the military-industrial complex, the Cold War hawks would be "military" and the war profiteers would be "industrial." Now certainly the Cold War hawks would be out to win the war, so they might well be upset if LBJ mishandled it, but the industrialists would be out to make money win or lose. And if LBJ mishandled the war, how much was he to blame? Didn't someone say you should never get bogged down in a land war in Asia? I would say the Cold War hawks were to blame more than any president. Of course things might have been different in the war if we did to North Vietnam what Putin is doing to Ukraine. Just bomb the hell out of the civilian population. Thank God we didn't do that.

 

  

 

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

Noam Chomsky -- who has claimed he would never write about

two subjects, the JFK assassination and 9/11, although he

actually has written two books about both -- writes in

his book attacking Oliver Stone's JFK that the US "won"

the war in Vietnam not in the military sense but in the

sense that the people who perpetrated it made out

like bandits, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower

warned about. Halliburton was a major player in Vietnam

as in the Iraq War, etc. Also, Stone's film mentions by name

Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics (both also Texas

firms). Wars are a way of ripping off the taxpayers

and funneling vast sums of money to the military

contractors who support those in power; the

profiteers don't care how many Americans or

foreigners are killed.

 

LBJ was put in power to expand the war in Vietnam.

He knew the war couldn't be won from the spring

of 1964 onward, at least, but felt powerless to stop expanding it. Around the time

JFK was being declared dead at Parkland, LBJ

was in a secluded part of the hospital making

a call to his tax lawyer in Houston, J. Waddy Bullion,

lamenting, "Oh, I gotta get rid of my goddamn Halliburton

stock." But ultimately LBJ did not have to do so, because

he monitored his so-called "blind trust" from telephone

lines in the Oval Office and the LBJ Ranch to deal

on trades involving his stock holdings. Waddy Bullion

was one of the trustees.

The US has not "won" a war since 1945 (when

we won World War II with the major help of the USSR and our other

allies), unless you count the farcical attack on the tiny island of Grenada

in the Reagan years. We lost in Korea and Vietnam

and in the Middle East, but the military-industrial complex

keeps getting richer. It is no concidence that the last

war we actually won in the conventional sense was

the last time we declared war. Since then all the wars we have

fought have been illegal under the Constitution, which is

routinely ignored.

[Anthony Thorne]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

 I seriously doubt that any of them wanted a war in Vietnam merely to make money and did not care if South Vietnam fell to the Communists. That sounds far-fetched and out of character for Cold War hawks. 

Go follow the activities of the Defense Science Board from the 1960's to the present day - the premiere advisory body in government for defense acquisition, with military leaders repeatedly touting their reports in congress - and then have a look at how many members of it ended up working for defense contractors, or (in one instance) moving from being the Secretary of the Army to becoming the head of Lockheed Martin.

The rationale is greater than just making money. Some of them viewed the maintenance of the defense technology base - the trickle down effect of military spending into all other aspects of the economy - as a national security issue. If it waned, so did their lead in other economic areas. If it was boosted, the military spending would enable the entire broad church of American business and industry to reap the profits of innovation and technological investment. And if this helped companies two years down the line come up with a better weapon when required, the investment would be worth it. If they fell behind, how to anticipate what crisis they would fall short of being able to meet in the near to mid term future?

That has remained a preoccupation of some members of the Pentagon  - and their advisory bodies - for decades. The profits of sitting on a company board that procures weapons are just a pat on the head for ensuring the system is maintained. And the system as described above is fed more fuel for investment, and research, and spending through a long war, rather than a short one.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Anthony Thorne

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Noam Chomsky -- who has claimed he would never write about

two subjects, the JFK assassination and 9/11, although he

actually has written two books about both -- writes in

his book attacking Oliver Stone's JFK that the US "won"

the war in Vietnam not in the military sense but in the

sense that the people who perpetrated it made out

like bandits, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower

warned about. Halliburton was a major player in Vietnam

as in the Iraq War, etc. Also, Stone's film mentions by name

Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics (both also Texas

firms). Wars are a way of ripping off the taxpayers

and funneling vast sums of money to the military

contractors who support those in power; the

profiteers don't care how many Americans or

foreigners are killed.

 

LBJ was put in power to expand the war in Vietnam.

He knew the war couldn't be won from the spring

of 1964 onward, at least, but felt powerless to stop expanding it. Around the time

JFK was being declared dead at Parkland, LBJ

was in a secluded part of the hospital making

a call to his tax lawyer in Houston, J. Waddy Bullion,

lamenting, "Oh, I gotta get rid of my goddamn Halliburton

stock." But ultimately LBJ did not have to do so, because

he monitored his so-called "blind trust" from telephone

lines in the Oval Office and the LBJ Ranch to deal

on trades involving his stock holdings. Waddy Bullion

was one of the trustees.

The US has not "won" a war since 1945 (when

we won World War II with the major help of the USSR and our other

allies), unless you count the farcical attack on the tiny island of Grenada

in the Reagan years. We lost in Korea and Vietnam

and in the Middle East, but the military-industrial complex

keeps getting richer. It is no concidence that the last

war we actually won in the conventional sense was

the last time we declared war. Since then all the wars we have

fought have been illegal under the Constitution, which is

routinely ignored.

If you want to share your far-left views about the Vietnam War, this is not the thread to do so. Chomsky is an abject loon. Anyway, we're talking about the point that if the plotters viewed the Vietnam War as a major motive to kill JFK, it is very hard to understand why they let LBJ so horribly mismanage the war effort. So, there are two possibilities: (1) Vietnam was not a vital issue for the majority of the plotters, or (2) the plotters were not powerful enough to control LBJ's handling of the war effort. 

I've answered many of your claims about the war in my "Oliver Stone's New JFK Documentaries and the Vietnam War" thread.

[Joseph McBride]

Note to Moderators: Michael Griffith is telling me I can't

share my political views on this thread. Naturally I will

keep doing so, as I always do, everywhere I am. But I object to his attempt to stifle free

speech on this forum. What will the moderators do

about that?

Edited October 26, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Denny Zartman]

As I see it, it wasn't about winning, it was about feeding the MIC. Winning isn't really the goal, is it? How long did the Afghanistan war go on? Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, @Anthony Thorne makes a compelling argument, imho.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Note to Moderators: Michael Griffith is telling me I can't

share my political views on this thread. Naturally I will

keep doing so, as I always do, everywhere I am. But I object to his attempt to stifle free

speech on this forum. What will the moderators do

about that?

Agree. 
michael - your frame - that LBJ mismanaged the war - is strange in itself. Presidents don’t manage war, they front for the Pentagon and the MIC. I gather you disagree. Can’t imagine how you can blame LBJ. 

[Benjamin Cole]

It may be that the JFKA was perped out of the Miami station of the CIA, and related Cuban exiles, veterans, and mercenaries.

There were literally thousands of such people in the US at the time, due to the Cuba situation, and many were skilled in weaponry and even black ops. Cuba was the reason, not Vietnam. 

A puzzle is why after the JFKA, the US Deep State pivoted away from Cuba (up to that point an obsession), and hardly touched the subject again. 

Rank conjecture coming: OK, inside the Deep State there was deep suspicion, and maybe even knowledge it was the Miami guys who did the JFKA. They could hardly then validate the JFKA by invading Cuba. Even the Deep State has some bounds, and assassinating the President is one of them. 

Why LBJ went into S. Vietnam remains a puzzle. A nation (then) of 15 million, on the other side of the globe. Sen. Richard Russell was wondering out loud on Sunday talk shows what was going on. LBJ was bemoaning his self-made fate daily. 

Nixon and Kissinger get on the scene, and decide immediately to withdraw and soon as Nixon is re-elected. 

There is no way the Vietnam war was in the interest of US citizens and taxpayers. 

IMHO, Vietnam could have been made into an ally, or effectively a neutral state, in the 1960s. The Vietnamese have long resented Han hegemony.  

Maybe 20 years after the Vietnam War, America's largest multinationals were pouring into Communist China to do heavy, heavy business. 

If commie China is so wonderful...why then the Vietnam war? 

You can't make this stuff up....