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

[Michael Griffith]

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

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. 

Good grief, Paul, it is incredible that you would say this, given all that has been known on the subject for decades. LBJ and McNamara micromanaged the war to a degree never seen before or since in the history of American warfare. Presidents are not supposed to do that, but that's exactly what LBJ did, and that was a big part of the problem.

I'm just wondering how anyone can be unaware of this fact in 2022.  I take it you haven't read such books as H. R. McMaster's award-winning 1997 work Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, among others that could be cited. LBJ and McNamara went so far as to usurp from local commanders the choosing of tactical-level bombing targets and the setting of time frames for bombing operations without consideration of the weather and changing circumstances.  

LBJ did not just mismanage the war, he mis-micromanaged the war. He and McNamara were making tactical operational decisions that they had no business making, that they were not qualified to make, and that were normally made by corps- and division-level commanders.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Calvin Ye]

21 hours 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. 

 

The scenario is realistic. Why? Because some of the plotters were involved in drug trafficking in Vietnam.

[Calvin Ye]

17 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

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.

There is also the drug trade in Vietnam

[Calvin Ye]

JFK's Vietnam Policy is a major motive of the plotters for one reason: drug trade. Drug Trade was profitable business in Vietnam at the time

[James DiEugenio]

Well, there is a lot of evidence that Vietnam was involved with the plot, is there not?

1. Kennedy and McNamara both agree that America can only train and advise Saigon, they cannot fight the war for them. And it does not matter if we are losing the war, when that mission is completed, America is out of there.

2. LBJ tells McNamara, in effect, what the heck are you doing saying we are leaving a war we are losing.

 

1. Kennedy does not want any of the JCS visiting Vietnam, since this would help militarize the war.

2. LBJ invites the JCS into the oval office to map out a war plan against the North.

 

1. Kennedy resisted planning for  direct American intervention in the war.

2. In March of 1964, LBJ signs off on NSAM 288 which plans for an extensive American air war over North Vietnam.

 

1. Under Kennedy, there were no OPLAN 34 A operations.

2.  Under LBJ, Americans could supply the speed boats for this plan, which results in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

 

1. November of 1963, no combat troops in Vietnam. Advisors being withdrawn.

2. November of 1965, 170,000 combat troops in Vietnam.  On the way to 540,000 combat troops in theater.

 

I would think that this kind of trail would at least lead to suspicion that Vietnam was a cause for the plot.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

Agree.

At the very least, it would be hard to argue that it wasn't on their minds.

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/26/2022 at 5:59 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Good grief, Paul, it is incredible that you would say this, given all that has been known on the subject for decades. LBJ and McNamara micromanaged the war to a degree never seen before or since in the history of American warfare. Presidents are not supposed to do that, but that's exactly what LBJ did, and that was a big part of the problem.

I'm just wondering how anyone can be unaware of this fact in 2022.  I take it you haven't read such books as H. R. McMaster's award-winning 1997 work Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam, among others that could be cited. LBJ and McNamara went so far as to usurp from local commanders the choosing of tactical-level bombing targets and the setting of time frames for bombing operations without consideration of the weather and changing circumstances.  

LBJ did not just mismanage the war, he mis-micromanaged the war. He and McNamara were making tactical operational decisions that they had no business making, that they were not qualified to make, and that were normally made by corps- and division-level commanders.

This is not to mention the fact that LBJ, taking McNamara's idiotic advice over the advice of the Joint Chiefs and the CINCPAC, imposed absurd, suicidal restrictions on our military operations in Vietnam. For example, according to LBJ's insane rules of engagement, our jet fighters could not attack a MIG airfield unless the MIGs took off and fired at them first. Our fighters could not attack SAM sites unless the sites fired at them first. When we saw the SAM sites being constructed, our military leaders naturally asked for permission to knock them out before they became operational, but LBJ refused. LBJ allowed the North Vietnamese army (NVA) to maintain huge sanctuary areas in Cambodia and Laos, sanctuaries that the NVA used to mass weapons and supplies and troops, and to which they safely retreated whenever they wanted to disengage from our forces. LBJ refused to mine Haiphong Harbor, through which North Vietnam received a large portion of its weapons and supplies, and refused to hit vital logistical targets north of the 20th parallel, and in so doing prevented our forces from cutting off most of the weapons and supplies that entered North Vietnam and that were then transported to South Vietnam via the sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos. If Westmoreland had been allowed to assault those sanctuaries, as he dearly wanted to do, NVA operations in South Vietnam would have been drastically curtailed, and there would have been no Tet Offensive, because the NVA and the VC would have received at least 70-80% fewer weapons and supplies than they had been getting.

So, yes, it is absolutely valid and fair to say that LBJ horribly mismanaged the war.

[Michael Griffith]

These facts must be included when we consider the theory that JFK's Vietnam policy was a major reason he was killed. What if someone proposed that another major reason that JFK was killed was that he was in the process of expanding the welfare state? Most people would say, "Well, wait a minute. Johnson expanded the welfare state far more than JFK had ever proposed. If LBJ knew of the assassination plot and approved of it, wouldn't the conspirators have demanded that he reduce or stop his welfare-state expansion? The only two alternatives are that (1) the conspirators were not powerful enough to persuade LBJ to do as they wished, or (2) most of the conspirators did not view the size of the welfare state as a reason to kill JFK." 

LBJ's horrible mishandling of the Vietnam War and the Joint Chiefs' feckless conduct under LBJ suggest that few if any top-level military officials were involved in the assassination plot. It is hard to fathom that any of the Joint Chiefs or the Vice Chiefs were involved in the plot, given the sheepish way they behaved while LBJ was sabotaging the war effort. Their feckless conduct is one of the main subjects of H. R. McMaster's award-winning book Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Calvin Ye]

12 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

These facts must be included when we consider the theory that JFK's Vietnam policy was a major reason he was killed. What if someone proposed that another major reason that JFK was killed was that he was in the process of expanding the welfare state? Most people would say, "Well, wait a minute. Johnson expanded the welfare state far more than JFK had ever proposed. If LBJ knew of the assassination plot and approved of it, wouldn't the conspirators have demanded that he reduce or stop his welfare-state expansion? The only two alternatives are that (1) the conspirators were not powerful enough to persuade LBJ to do as they wished, or (2) most of the conspirators did not view the size of the welfare state as a reason to kill JFK." 

LBJ's horrible mishandling of the Vietnam War and the Joint Chiefs' feckless conduct under LBJ suggest that few if any top-level military officials were involved in the assassination plot. It is hard to fathom that any of the Joint Chiefs or the Vice Chiefs were involved in the plot, given the sheepish way they behaved while LBJ was sabotaging the war effort. Their feckless conduct is one of the main subjects of H. R. McMaster's award-winning book Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam.

The welfare state have nothing to do with the death of JFK. It was the changes to the foreign policy along with certain executive actions that play an role in the president's death

Edited October 30, 2022 by Calvin Ye

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/26/2022 at 1:44 PM, Calvin Ye said:

The scenario is realistic. Why? Because some of the plotters were involved in drug trafficking in Vietnam.

Really? What sources do you have to support that claim? Which plotters are you talking about?

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:06 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Well, there is a lot of evidence that Vietnam was involved with the plot, is there not?

1. Kennedy and McNamara both agree that America can only train and advise Saigon, they cannot fight the war for them. And it does not matter if we are losing the war, when that mission is completed, America is out of there.

2. LBJ tells McNamara, in effect, what the heck are you doing saying we are leaving a war we are losing.

1. Kennedy does not want any of the JCS visiting Vietnam, since this would help militarize the war.

2. LBJ invites the JCS into the oval office to map out a war plan against the North.

1. Kennedy resisted planning for direct American intervention in the war.

2. In March of 1964, LBJ signs off on NSAM 288 which plans for an extensive American air war over North Vietnam.

1. Under Kennedy, there were no OPLAN 34 A operations.

2.  Under LBJ, Americans could supply the speed boats for this plan, which results in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

1. November of 1963, no combat troops in Vietnam. Advisors being withdrawn.

2. November of 1965, 170,000 combat troops in Vietnam.  On the way to 540,000 combat troops in theater.

I would think that this kind of trail would at least lead to suspicion that Vietnam was a cause for the plot.

One, your claims about JFK's withdrawal plans are not credible, as I've documented in the thread on Stone's recent documentaries and the Vietnam War. You're relying mainly on the withdrawal claim in McNamara's "secret debrief," a claim that McNamara himself did not even repeat in his memoir (not even when he was arguing that JFK intended to remove all U.S. forces from South Vietnam by the end of 1965).

Two, Bobby said JFK intended to provide air support if needed. 

Three, our senior MACV commanders were recommending the deployment of combat troops in response to North Vietnam's major offensive in 1964. 

Four, LBJ was not anxious to send large numbers of troops to South Vietnam, and, according to his aides, he did so reluctantly only after senior MACV commanders had been urging this step since the 1964 NVA offensive and only after North Vietnamese torpedo boats then attacked one of our destroyers. (Yes, the second attack most likely did not happen, but the first one certainly did.)

Five, your arguments do not address the central point of the thread: that if the plotters viewed JFK's Vietnam policy as a major motive, why did they not compel LBJ to change his horrible handling of the war? Either they were too weak to do so or they did not care how he handled the war.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Chuck Schwartz]

LBJ gave the Military what they wanted : a very large increase in troops in Vietnam. 

[Calvin Ye]

On 11/2/2022 at 2:42 PM, Michael Griffith said:

Really? What sources do you have to support that claim? Which plotters are you talking about?

My sources are the book The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, The Strength of the Wolf, Kennedy's anti-drug speech, Defrauding America, Dr. Feelgood: The Shocking Story of the Doctor Who May Have Changed History by Treating and Drugging JFK, Marilyn, Elvis, and Other Prominent Figures, Gary Underhill's comments, Why The CIA Killed JFK and Malcolm X: The Secret Drug Trade in Laos and Drug War: Covert Money, Power and Policy.  I am talking about CIA and Military Plotters

Edited November 4, 2022 by Calvin Ye

[Joseph McBride]

THE POLITICS OF HEROIN IN SOUTHEAST ASIA (1972) by Alfred McCoy is a great book

of modern American history. He revised it as THE POLITICS OF HEROIN: CIA

COMPLICITY IN THE GLOBAL DRUG TRADE (1973). Someone who denies or willfully ignores McCoy's

findings does not understand one of the principal reasons the US fought a war in Vietnam.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

Do you really think that Brown and Root gave a darn about who won the war?

It was how much money they could make.  And they made tons.  Because of LBJ's escalation and how he did what JFK was not going to do, introduce combat troops. 500, 000 of them.

And no I am not just relying on Newman and the debrief.  I am also relying on the testimony of about 15 witnesses, including people like Morse, Forrestal and Mansfield and Galbraith, who all said Kennedy was getting out.

I am also relying on the fact that NSAM 263 and the McNamara Taylor Report outline a withdrawal plan of all advisors.

I am also relying on the fact that Kennedy never asked for any alternative plans.  That is to wage a wider war.

NSAM 288 reversed that.  What JFK would not do in three years, LBJ did in three months. "Just get me elected, I'll give you your war."