The Kennedy Withdrawal: The Definitive New Book on JFK and Vietnam

[Steve Roe]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:41 AM, Michael Griffith said:

A lot of reaching and grasping and strident attacks here, and you haven't even read the book yet. "No responsible scholar" would so stridently attack a book that he hasn't even read yet. And for you to talk about responsible scholars and then cite a quack and fraud like Fletcher Prouty is sadly ironic.

Obviously, the subtitle of the thread was mine. I thought everybody would understand that, especially since I give the full title of the book in the very first sentence of the OP. 

So just because Selverstone worked at The Miller Center, you assume the worst about his politics (the worst in your eyes, that is). This says more about your politics than about his.

Michael, I have not read the Selverstone book. However, I did watch a couple of videos of him today explaining his research and findings in the book. 

Here's one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZKe68bwTk

The key to his research is the actual Kennedy tapes. I believe Selverstone has merit in this case of Kennedy's handling of Vietnam. This is solid scholarship and not the Oliver Stone's bogus pop culture "JFK was killed because he was pulling out of Vietnam". 

Agreed on the phony Fletcher Prouty that was exposed in the ARRB findings. Don't get me started on the silly "Destiny Betrayed" film. 

There are other history scholars out there that make similar conclusions on Kennedy's management of Vietnam in the same vein. I think Mr. Selverstone puts it all into a clearer light based on solid grounding. 

Reading through some of the sophomoric comments directed at you regarding Selverstone, is just sad and unwarranted. Of course, this pulls the rug right out of Stone's nutty fantasy JFK films, and understandably there will be blowback from DiEugenio and his followers. 

FWIW, I agree with you and will buy the book, providing there is a Kindle version. Thank you for bringing this important body of work to our attention. 

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Michael, I have not read the Selverstone book. However, I did watch a couple of videos of him today explaining his research and findings in the book. 

Here's one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZKe68bwTk

The key to his research is the actual Kennedy tapes. I believe Selverstone has merit in this case of Kennedy's handling of Vietnam. This is solid scholarship and not the Oliver Stone's bogus pop culture "JFK was killed because he was pulling out of Vietnam". 

Agreed on the phony Fletcher Prouty that was exposed in the ARRB findings. Don't get me started on the silly "Destiny Betrayed" film. 

There are other history scholars out there that make similar conclusions on Kennedy's management of Vietnam in the same vein. I think Mr. Selverstone puts it all into a clearer light based on solid grounding. 

Reading through some of the sophomoric comments directed at you regarding Selverstone, is just sad and unwarranted. Of course, this pulls the rug right out of Stone's nutty fantasy JFK films, and understandably there will be blowback from DiEugenio and his followers. 

FWIW, I agree with you and will buy the book, providing there is a Kindle version. Thank you for bringing this important body of work to our attention. 

Vietnam is not my area of expertise, at all, but I’m having trouble understanding how Selverstone’s thesis is functionally any different from unconditional withdrawal. 

Granted I have not read the book, but I will watch the videos you provided and try to get up to speed later. Until then, these are the key points I’m reading from Michael: 

1. JFK was withdrawing American troops from Vietnam and transferring the war effort to the South Vietnamese. 

2. JFK was committed to not send combat troops to Vietnam under any circumstances. “…with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch.” 

3. The withdrawal plan was scheduled to be completed by the end of 1965, but 1500 troops would remain for supply purposes.

4. Training would end, but military aid to South Vietnam in the form of equipment, money, etc. would continue indefinitely. 

5. JFK “had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.” 

6. The withdrawal of military advisors/training personnel was contingent on the situation on the ground. 

In other words, the most aggressive possible scenario for American involvement in Vietnam under JFK’s policy was basically the scenario at the time of his death?

This is supposed to debunk the theory that JFK was killed because he was winding down American involvement in Vietnam and refused to wage the full scale American war sought by hawks in the Military Industrial Complex to make billions and billions of dollars “fighting Communism”. Do you see the problem here? 

For the benefit of those who don’t really see the point of pursuing Selverstone’s theory - which as described in this thread so far is functionally identical to Oliver Stone’s theory - it might be worth it for you or Michael to provide a better summary of Selverstone’s overall thesis. Telling busy people to read a book or watch a video that according to the summary adds nothing to the overall debate is not really an effective education strategy, IMO.

I will watch the videos when I get a chance, legitimately - but based on the comments in this thread I’m not the only one thinking this. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Vietnam is not my area of expertise, at all, but I’m having trouble understanding how Selverstone’s thesis is functionally any different from unconditional withdrawal. 

Granted I have not read the book, but I will watch the videos you provided and try to get up to speed later. Until then, these are the key points I’m reading from Michael: 

1. JFK was withdrawing American troops from Vietnam and transferring the war effort to the South Vietnamese. 

2. JFK was committed to not send combat troops to Vietnam under any circumstances. “…with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch.” 

3. The withdrawal plan was scheduled to be completed by the end of 1965, but 1500 troops would remain for supply purposes.

4. Training would end, but military aid to South Vietnam in the form of equipment, money, etc. would continue indefinitely. 

5. JFK “had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.” 

6. The withdrawal of military advisors/training personnel was contingent on the situation on the ground. 

In other words, the most aggressive possible scenario for American involvement in Vietnam under JFK’s policy was basically the scenario at the time of his death?

This is supposed to debunk the theory that JFK was killed because he was winding down American involvement in Vietnam and refused to wage the full scale American war sought by hawks in the Military Industrial Complex to make billions and billions of dollars “fighting Communism”. Do you see the problem here? 

For the benefit of those who don’t really see the point of pursuing Selverstone’s theory - which as described in this thread so far is functionally identical to Oliver Stone’s theory - it might be worth it for you or Michael to provide a better summary of Selverstone’s overall thesis. Telling busy people to read a book or watch a video that according to the summary adds nothing to the overall debate is not really an effective education strategy, IMO.

I will watch the videos when I get a chance, legitimately - but based on the comments in this thread I’m not the only one thinking this. 

Broadly speaking, I agree with Tom.

How is 1,500 advisers in SV the same as the Vietnam War that happened (with more than 500,000 troops, Agent Orange, Operation Phoenix, bombing Hanoi and Haiphong, and 200 million cluster bombs in Laos, among many other atrocities). 

Likely, JFK would have waited until after the 1964, and then pulled the remaining 1,500 troops out of what would be a death trap. 

My own guess is the JFKA was more likely related to Cuba than Vietnam. There were literally thousands of CIA assets in the US at that time, due to Cuban exiles, mercenaries, former military and others who had been involved in the fight against Castro. 

A minute portion of those angry assets might have found their way to Dallas....

 

[Steve Roe]

18 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Vietnam is not my area of expertise, at all, but I’m having trouble understanding how Selverstone’s thesis is functionally any different from unconditional withdrawal. 

Granted I have not read the book, but I will watch the videos you provided and try to get up to speed later. Until then, these are the key points I’m reading from Michael: 

1. JFK was withdrawing American troops from Vietnam and transferring the war effort to the South Vietnamese. 

2. JFK was committed to not send combat troops to Vietnam under any circumstances. “…with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch.” 

3. The withdrawal plan was scheduled to be completed by the end of 1965, but 1500 troops would remain for supply purposes.

4. Training would end, but military aid to South Vietnam in the form of equipment, money, etc. would continue indefinitely. 

5. JFK “had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.” 

6. The withdrawal of military advisors/training personnel was contingent on the situation on the ground. 

In other words, the most aggressive possible scenario for American involvement in Vietnam under JFK’s policy was basically the scenario at the time of his death?

This is supposed to debunk the theory that JFK was killed because he was winding down American involvement in Vietnam and refused to wage the full scale American war sought by hawks in the Military Industrial Complex to make billions and billions of dollars “fighting Communism”. Do you see the problem here? 

For the benefit of those who don’t really see the point of pursuing Selverstone’s theory - which as described in this thread so far is functionally identical to Oliver Stone’s theory - it might be worth it for you or Michael to provide a better summary of Selverstone’s overall thesis. Telling busy people to read a book or watch a video that according to the summary adds nothing to the overall debate is not really an effective education strategy, IMO.

I will watch the videos when I get a chance, legitimately - but based on the comments in this thread I’m not the only one thinking this. 

Tom,

Kennedy's policy towards Vietnam is a very complex issue. To understand it does require reading and studying if you really want to grasp what Kennedy was faced with. Selverstone's book outlines the emerging policy changes in the Kennedy administration. I'm now reading the book, about 1/3 of the way through. What I can say so far is that Selverstone carefully outlines this meticulously. 

Your 6 points of Michael's comments look correct. Although he has read the book in full, I'm sure I would agree with him on his points once I have finished reading. 

There was a plan by McNamara in place. It was a plan contingent on current circumstances that could be changed or adjusted in the volatile situation in South Vietnam under Diem. 

Was Kennedy going to cut and run out of Vietnam? Absolutely not, he remained committed to supporting the stop of communist aggression in that country. 

Here's what Oliver Stone apologists will not show you. Kennedy approved the overthrow of Diem, a coup. It went badly of course, resulting in Diem's and Nhu's death. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A503eoKwLhY&t=191s

Edited January 18, 2023 by Steve Roe
Clarify point.

[Simon Andrew]

Instead of trying to think what may or may not have happened to JFK’s Vietnam policy given certain events had he lived, isn’t the most salient point what the Chiefs Of Staff thought in 63.

Following the conference where they were told to put plans together to get out, and given the extreme hawkish nature of some of them, that is enough motive.

Second guessing what may or may not have happened seems irrelevant- what really matters in the context of the assassination is whether there was enough to provide motive.

I think there is a decent case that there was motive. The rest simply muddies the water.

 

[Joseph McBride]

The Selverstone book arrived, and I went through it looking for

references to John Newman's excellent book

JFK AND VIETNAM. Selverstone mentions various

books on the subject but not that one, a glaring omission that

offended me. I found Newman cited in a footnote

to an article he wrote, and that is all. Any author

who does not acknowledge and deal with important

scholarship that precedes him disqualifies himself

for that reason alone.

And now I am reading it through to see what

else Selverstone does with the subject.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Joseph McBride

[Chuck Schwartz]

Joseph , I agree with you.

[Michael Griffith]

I think it would be worthwhile to quote JFK's entire statement against withdrawing and for staying the course in Vietnam in his 9/2/63 interview with Walter Cronkite, and then to quote what he said on the subject in his 9/9/63 interview with Chet Huntley. First, from his interview with Cronkite:

          All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.

          We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia.

          Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week?

          THE PRESIDENT: NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened.

          What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway.

          It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies."

JFK's comments on withdrawal and staying the course in his interview with Huntley:

          Mr. Huntley: Mr. President, in respect to our difficulties in South Viet-Nam, could it be that our Government tends occasionally to get locked into a policy or an attitude and then finds it difficult to alter or shift that policy?

          THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is true. I think in the case of South Viet-Nam we have been dealing with a government which is in control, has been in control for 10 years. In addition, we have felt for the last 2 years that the struggle against the Communists was going better. Since June, however, the difficulties with the Buddhists, we have been concerned about a deterioration, particularly in the Saigon area, which hasn't been felt greatly in the outlying areas but may spread. So we are faced with the problem of wanting to protect the area against the Communists. On the other hand, we have to deal with the government there. That produces a kind of ambivalence in our efforts which exposes us to some criticism. We are using our influence to persuade the government there to take those steps which will win back support. That takes some time and we must be patient, we must persist.

          Mr. Huntley: Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now?

          THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that.

Selverstone makes a powerful case from internal documents and from White House tapes that these views were identical to the views that JFK expressed in meetings and conversations with his advisors and with cabinet officials. 

[Michael Griffith]

It's important that we understand one key fact that often gets ignored in discussions on JFK's Vietnam policy vs. LBJ's Vietnam policy: JFK never had to deal with a large-scale escalation of the war by North Vietnam. Until JFK's death, North Vietnam only sent small numbers of NVA regulars to South Vietnam. However, in 1964, North Vietnam began sending much larger numbers of NVA troops to South Vietnam and began carrying out more attacks on South Vietnam than they had ever done before. (South Vietnam's small-scale sabotage raids and naval coastal attacks were in response to this increase in hostile activity by North Vietnamese forces.) 

Because of the increase in North Vietnamese infiltration and attacks in 1964, South Vietnan was in serious trouble by the end of 1964 and going into 1965. 

We simply do not know what JFK would have done in resonse to this situation because the situation in South Vietnam as of the day he died was much different than it was by late 1964. 

When Bobby Kennedy was specifically asked about a scenario where South Vietnam was about to collapse in his 4/30/1964 oral interview, his answer did not rule out the option "to go in on land," i.e., direct American intervention on the ground (infantry units and/or artillery units to provide direct artillery support to ARVN units):

Quote

Martin: And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy: Well, we'd face that when we came to it.

If you read the entire interview, you see that Bobby repeatedly said that JFK was determined to keep South Vietnam free, to aid South Vietnam until the war was won, etc.

I should add that when Bobby gave this interview, the war in Vietnam was facing increasing attacks in the news media (attacks that we know JFK considered distorted and exaggerated, as Selverstone notes). A number of news outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, had been voicing criticisms and doubts about the war effort since 1963, as had a few members of Congress.

Media skepticism about the war effort as of April 1964 was not nearly as loud or emphatic as it would be a few years later, but it was not slight or inconsequential either. So it seems doubtful that Bobby said what he said merely because he felt safe in supporting the war at that point.

And, as Selverstone documents, Bobby's later statements about JFK's intentions behind the withdrawal plan not only contradict his April 1964 remarks but contradict the documentary record of the plan's development and JFK's own private and public statements about his determination to keep South Vietnam free.

Anyway, the point is that no one knows what JFK would have done if he had lived and had faced North Vietnam's substantial escalation of the war in 1964.

The weight of the evidence seems to favor the view that JFK would have responded to that escalation with more military aid, more advisers, and probably air strikes (as Bobby indicated), and that he may have introduced infantry and artillery troops as a last resort but not to the degree that LBJ did. But we cannot know for sure.

My own personal opinion is that JFK would not have placed the absurd, suicidal restrictions on our air operations that LBJ did. I think JFK was made of sterner stuff when it came to such matters. But, we have no firm evidence that settles the matter, because JFK never had to confront a situation where air strikes would have had to be considered.

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

I have been through this so many times, I am getting really weary.

The Cronkite interview was done before JFK signed NSAM 263.  And it was Kennedy who placed the withdrawal plan back into the returning package from the Taylor/McNamara report. Sullivan wanted it removed.

In other words, the Cronkite talks came  before withdrawal and turning over the war to VIetnam became policy.

Also about the whole thing about North Vietnamese attacks:  as Mani Kang wrote for K and K years ago after an interview in Vietnam, Giap knew that Kennedy was withdrawing from the war at the time of his murder.  And as many sources note, Hanoi also knew rather quickly--in 1964-- that Johnson was not going to follow that policy. So they knew they would have to escalate.

Edited January 25, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

Michael Griffith:

You have extolled the virtue of the US war against authoritarian communism in SE Asia. 

I loathe authoritarian communism also.

If there had been a reasonable way to bring about a different outcome in Vietnam, perhaps that war would not have been the grave and large blunder it was.  

So...how do you feel about today, when US and multinational elites vie for favor in Beijing---which runs an increasingly authoritarian, cruel and communist regime? 

You know that Apple, the NBA, Disney, NBC-Universal, GM, Walmart, Tesla, BlackRock, Microsoft, Citigroup, Nike et al are just delighted to do business with the CCP? 

The CCP hires mouthpieces like William Cohen, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary. 

So what was the Vietnam War, in a smallish country with little importance to the US, about? 

Fighting communism? 

Then...what about communist China today? 

The ugly irony: The VW was not about fighting communism. It was about fighting communists who did not do business with multinationals. 

Beijing communists are fine and dandy. Even with concentration camps and throwing Jimmy Lai into prison. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

 

[Gerry Down]

I think this new book could have a good point. Here is a quote from JFK on Nov 22nd 1963 of all dates:

 
The important quote is "Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight." If JFK was planning on withdrawing fully from Vietnam, then he would not have made this statement as he would be shooting himself in the foot by admitting beforehand that South Vietnam would collapse if the U.S. withdrew.

JFKs plan therefore seems to have been to withdraw all military personnel by 1965 but continue providing military aid (weapons etc.) and economic aid in order to help South Vietnam fend off North Vietnam. This is much like Biden today giving military and economic aid to Ukraine but not sending in US military personnel. 

This was quite a clever tactic from JFK on a political level. What he was doing was a stalling the situation in such a way that South Vietnam would not collapse on his watch during his second presidential term, but instead the problem would be passed on to whoever became president in 1968. That new President in 1968 would then have to decide if he/she was to continue on JFKs policy of military and economic aid to South Vietnam.

This way JFK could not be accused of losing South Vietnam to the communists, while at the same time avoiding a US military presence in South Vietnam. 

[Gerry Down]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have been through this so many times, I am getting really weary.

The Cronkite interview was done before JFK signed NSAM 263.  And it was Kennedy who placed the withdrawal plan back into the returning package from the Taylor/McNamara report. Sullivan wanted it withdrawn. 

In other words, the Cronkite talks came  before withdrawal and turning over the war to VIetnam became policy.

NSAM 263 is a mute point because on the morning of Nov 22nd 1963 JFK was publicly saying:

"Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight."

This is perfectly in line with his statements during the Cronkite interview. JFK therefore seems to have been intending to continue military and economic aid to South Vietnam after 1965, but all military personnel would be withdrawn. 

[Steve Roe]

On 1/24/2023 at 8:13 AM, Gerry Down said:

NSAM 263 is a mute point because on the morning of Nov 22nd 1963 JFK was publicly saying:

"Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight."

This is perfectly in line with his statements during the Cronkite interview. JFK therefore seems to have been intending to continue military and economic aid to South Vietnam after 1965, but all military personnel would be withdrawn. 

Gerry that is right. Kennedy remained committed to aiding South Vietnam.

Stone/DiEugenio's false assertion that Kennedy was assassinated because he was pulling out of Vietnam is a mockery of the true historical events. It's laughable Hollywood pseudo history revision.

Even in his never delivered Trade Mart speech in Dallas, he remained committed. 

Quote

 

In November 1963, however, the president seemed very much committed to remaining in the fight. In remarks prepared for delivery at the Dallas Trade Mart on November 22 and designed to secure what remained of his foreign aid package, Kennedy planned to frame the Vietnamese conflict as part of the nation’s broader responsibilities in the Cold War. American assistance, he intended to say, played a “key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice.” That assistance could be “painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task.”114

Selverstone, Marc J.. The Kennedy Withdrawal (p. 203). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. 

 

Quote

 

 

[Gerry Down]

45 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Gerry that is right. Kennedy remained committed to aiding South Vietnam.

Stone/DiEugenio's false assertion that Kennedy was assassinated because he was pulling out of Vietnam is a mockery of the true historical events. It's laughable Hollywood pseudo history revision.

Even in his never delivered Trade Mart speech in Dallas, he remained committed. 

 

Part of me wonders though if this plan could be construed as JFK pulling out of Vietnam. It's possible that after 1965 when South Vietnam would most likely collapse that JFK would simply say well he helped them with military and economic aid but they had no interest in fighting and so when South Vietnam would collapse in say 1966 or so, JFK would quietly pull out the last 1500 military supply personnel and say the US can't help a country that has no interest in fighting. And be quiet happy to let South Vietnam collapse.