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

[James DiEugenio]

There were no combat troops in Vietnam on the day JFK was inaugurated.

There were no combat troops in Vietnam on the day JFK was killed.

Within one year after LBJ's election there were 170,000 combat troops in theater.

At the time the war passed from LBJ to Nixon there were over 500,000 combat troops in theater.

Nixon dropped more bomb tonnage over Indochina than Johnson did.

These are all facts that no academic snow job can deny.

[James DiEugenio]

Selverstone worked at the Miller Center, home of Zelikow, former home of Max Holland, and current home of Sabato.

That should tell you something.

This should tell you something else.

After the Commission volumes were published, and the  MSM  could now inspect whether the facts, testimony and exhibits in them matched the 888 page report, not one MSM outlet did so.  And the attempts to do so were crushed at Life magazine and at the Ny Times.  Something else happened though.  Three months after this, Johnson shipped the first detachment of combat troops to Vietnam.  He also had camera equipment on board to record the historic moment when these combat troops landed at Da Nang.

This was just the beginning.  For Johnson had been planning for this moment for months on end. He had literally set up a secret task force to do so. The first leader was Sullivan, who opposed JFK's withdrawal.  The second titular leader was Bill Bundy who wrote the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It was drafted two months before the incident.

The MSM and most of academia missed this whole secret operation that LBJ had created. And how soon it followed on the issuance of the final verdict of the Warren Commission. Consequently no one I know of said one word about the connection between the two at that time.  In fact, the first book I know of that tried to broach the topic was by a conservative author Joe Goulden, in 1969, Truth is the First Casualty. Goulden was the first writer in book form who tried to expose Johnson's secret plan to consciously reverse what Kennedy was doing in extricating the USA from that ill advised, ghastly, and illegal war.  Illegal in the sense that the USA broke the Geneva Accords in order to cut the country in half and install a fiat government in the south.

When John Newman's book minutely destroyed the paradigm that had arisen--that Johnson was continuing JFK's policy in Indochina--and Oliver Stone adapted his and Fletcher Prouty's insights about that phony paradigm, the MSM and academia arose like a roaring MGM lion. Neither liked the fact that they had missed the story on JFK's murder and the fact that Johnson then lied about his continuity with JFK on Indochina. In fact, he consciously broke with what he knew Kennedy was doing.  And we have that on tape in Stone's film JFK Revisited. 

But here is the problem. Other scholars that followed, agreed with Prouty and Newman. Should I name some?  How about Howard Jones, Death of a Generation. Jones said: the last thing I expected to discover was that Prouty and Newman were right, but they were.  His great discovery was an oral history by McNamara's deputy Gilpatric in which he said that McNamara told him that Kennedy had given him instructions to wind this thing down.

Two, Gordon Goldstein with Lessons in Disaster.  Chronicles JFK's refusal to entertain any attempt at sending combat troops into theater.  And how LBJ methodically reversed that.

Three, David Kaiser, American Tragedy. Broader in scope, includes Laos and Vietnam.  Very good on the origins of the withdrawal plan and Bobby Kennedy's role in it. Also good on how Johnson was intent on reversing Kennedy.

Number Four: James Blight, Virtual JFK.  This features an oral debate down in Georgia amid two dozen academics. Selverstone lost that debate. One of the stupidest things anyone said at that affair was by him. He said words to the effect that Kennedy did not know about his own withdrawal plan. (p. 129) 😜.   How can anyone take a guy like this seriously? This is not stupidity, this is having an agenda in hand. Both Kaiser and Newman trace this plan, as did Jamie Galbraith.

Number Five: John Newman's revised version of JFK and Vietnam. I reviewed this and I think its even better than the first one.  An  important meeting he describes is for November 27, 1961.  JFK was very upset about how he and his brother had to fight for the whole NSAM 111 resolution. Kennedy then said if you oppose policy once made, then you get out. He then asked, who is going to carry out my Vietnam policy?  McNamara raised his hand.  Duh Marc, I think that kinds of tell you who implemented JFK's policy.

No responsible scholar could ignore the above.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/john-newman-s-jfk-and-vietnam-2017-version

Finally, that sub title that Mike put on this thread is not the sub title of the book.  And anyone can see that by just looking at the book cover.  That is his editorializing,

Edited January 15, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Amazon.com: The Kennedy Withdrawal: Camelot and the American Commitment to Vietnam: 9780674048812: Selverstone, Marc J.: Books

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Selverstone worked at the Miller Center, home of Zelikow, former home of Max Holland, and current home of Sabato.

That should tell you something.

This should tell you something else.

After the Commission volumes were published, and the  MSM  could now inspect whether the facts, testimony and exhibits in them matched the 888 page report, not one MSM outlet did so.  And the attempts to do so were crushed at Life magazine and at the Ny Times.  Something else happened though.  Three months after this, Johnson shipped the first detachment of combat troops to Vietnam.  He also had camera equipment on board to record the historic moment when these combat troops landed at Da Nang.

This was just the beginning.  For Johnson had been planning for this moment for months on end. He had literally set up a secret task force to do so. The first leader was Sullivan, who opposed JFK's withdrawal.  The second titular leader was Bill Bundy who wrote the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It was drafted two months before the incident.

The MSM and most of academia missed this whole secret operation that LBJ had created. And how soon it followed on the issuance of the final verdict of the Warren Commission. Consequently no one I know of said one word about the connection between the two at that time.  In fact, the first book I know of that tried to broach the topic was by a conservative author Joe Goulden, in 1969, Truth is the First Casualty. Goulden was the first writer in book form who tried to expose Johnson's secret plan to consciously reverse what Kennedy was doing in extricating the USA from that ill advised, ghastly, and illegal war.  Illegal in the sense that the USA broke the Geneva Accords in order to cut the country in half and install a fiat government in the south.

When John Newman's book minutely destroyed the paradigm that had arisen--that Johnson was continuing JFK's policy in Indochina--and Oliver Stone adapted his and Fletcher Prouty's insights about that phony paradigm, the MSM and academia arose like a roaring MGM lion. Neither liked the fact that they had missed the story on JFK's murder and the fact that Johnson then lied about his continuity with JFK on Indochina. In fact, he consciously broke with what he knew Kennedy was doing.  And we have that on tape in Stone's film JFK Revisited. 

But here is the problem. Other scholars that followed, agreed with Prouty and Newman. Should I name some?  How about Howard Jones, Death of a Generation. Jones said: the last thing I expected to discover was that Prouty and Newman were right, but they were.  His great discovery was an oral history by McNamara's deputy Gilpatric in which he said that McNamara told him that Kennedy had given him instructions to wind this thing down.

Two, Gordon Goldstein with Lessons in Disaster.  Chronicles JFK's refusal to entertain any attempt at sending combat troops into theater.  And how LBJ methodically reversed that.

Three, David Kaiser, American Tragedy. Broader in scope, include Laos and Vietnam.  Very good on the origins of the withdrawal plan and Bobby Kennedy's role in it. Also good on how Johnson was intent on reversing Kennedy.

Number Four: James Blight, Virtual JFK.  This features an oral debate down in Georgia amid two dozen academics. Selverstone lost that debate. One of the stupidest things anyone said at that affair was by him. He said words to the effect that Kennedy did not know about his own withdrawal plan. (p. 129) 😜.   How can anyone take a guy like this seriously. This is not stupidity, this is having an agenda in hand. Both Kaiser and Newman trace this plan, as did Jamie Galbraith.

Number Five: John Newman's revised version of JFK and Vietnam. I reviewed this and I think its even better than the first one.  An  important meeting he describes is for November 27, 1961.  JFK was very upset about how he and his brother had to fight for the whole NSAM 111 resolution. Kennedy then said if you oppose policy once made, then you get out. He then asked, who is going to carry out my Vietnam policy?  McNamara raised his hand.  Duh Marc, I think that kinds of tell you who implemented JFK's policy.

No responsible scholar could ignore the above.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/john-newman-s-jfk-and-vietnam-2017-version

Finally, that sub title that Mike put on this thread is not the sub title of the book.  And anyone can see that by just looking at the book cover.  That is his editorializing,

Yes, it is galling to read Michael Griffith's bogus sub-title on this thread, especially since the general public FINALLY got the definitive story about JFK and Vietnam in JFK-- Destiny Betrayed, after 58 years of mainstream media BS by Neil Sheehan, David Halberstam, Ken Burns, et.al.

[James DiEugenio]

I agree William, but as many writers have commented there is an industry called Rent a Scholar. 

Which is an oxymoron, since theoretically scholarship cannot be bought.

But we know it can.

The academic establishment did not like what Prouty, Stone and Newman did--to say the least.

But as time went on, more and more historians joined in endorsing that view.

Especially after the ARRB declassified 800 pages on the subject.  Even the Ny TImes admitted Kennedy was withdrawing at the time of his death.

But I guess Selverstone did not like losing that debate.

[Benjamin Cole]

 Given Kennedy's enduring enthusiasm for those activities, he may well have authorized their continuation, regardless of whether NSAM 273 referenced a South Vietnamese or an American role in their execution; after all, actions against the North were always dependent upon U.S. support, both prior to Dallas as well as thereafter. (pp. 206-207)

-- JFK was viscerally, adamantly opposed to sending regular combat troops to South Vietnam.

Huh?

This is what I have been saying. Sure, JFK made mistakes, every human being and President makes mistakes. JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs. A mistake. And then, JFK fired top people involved in the Bay of Pigs. He altered course. 

The US, under JFK, never would have had 500,000 troops in Vietnam. Operation Phoenix, dropping cluster bombs on Laos, Agent Orange and a thousand other unforgivable atrocities. Oh, and six million dead in the wider theater of war. Oh, that. 

JFK knew that the US was wearing the clothing of a colonial power in Vietnam, and that was a losing garb. 

Some wars are counterproductive and fantastically expensive. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

If the US could side-step wars like that, the nation would be better off.

Let alone the horrible human carnage.  

JFK would have side-stepped a large war in Vietnam. If JFK had lived, and his views on foreign policy sustained, the US would have sidestepped Iraq and Afghanistan too. 

You know, a few trillion dollars and few million lives saved. Just small stuff? No real difference in policy?  I beg to differ. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[David G. Healy]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

[...]

Three, David Kaiser, American Tragedy. Broader in scope, includes Laos and Vietnam.  Very good on the origins of the withdrawal plan and Bobby Kennedy's role in it. Also good on how Johnson was intent on reversing Kennedy.

[...]

The below link may alert you to pre Vietnam War activity, prior to 1963... all the names in and at the bottom of the documents should be well known to you... much a do about SEATO (South East Asian Treaty organization). 170-205,000 combat troops contemplated for South Vietnam in 1961... I did a standard Google search concerning my old MAAG-Vietnam unit: (DCS Starcom Station Saigon) ... under the general public's radar? Maybe it will provide some general, Vietnam situ insight of the early 60's? I was in-country when Kennedy was assassinated, 3 weeks prior I was in Saigon (and caught up in) when President Diem and his brother's administration were overthrown and murdered... Interesting times those days to say the least... take a peek...

https://books.google.com/books?id=7-tEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=dcs+starcom+sta+saigon+vietnam&source=bl&ots=XQGAoObHQO&sig=ACfU3U1JuMbHtfvrSynBBpODjyOSjpLbbw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWrOj3-MX8AhVYHjQIHVFhABsQ6AF6BAghEAM#v=onepage&q=dcs starcom sta saigon vietnam&f=false

[Michael Griffith]

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

JFK Had Ordered Full Withdrawal from Vietnam: Solid Evidence - WhoWhatWhy

by James K. Galbraith

September 26, 2017

One, Selverstone's book contains information that Galbraith did not know about in 2017.

Two, even Galbraith admits that even under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam:

        Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com)

Debate on this subject has been marred by Oliver Stone's false assumption that withdrawal meant abandonment. In Stone's narrative, JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam to the Communists. But JFK had no such intention. He wanted to get as many U.S. military personnel out of South Vietnam as quickly as feasible, i.e., depending on the situation on the ground, but, as Selverstone shows, he had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Simon Andrew]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

One, Selverstone's book contains information that Galbraith did not know about in 2017.

Two, even Galbraith admits that even under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam:

        Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com)

Debate on this subject has been marred by Oliver Stone's false assumption that withdrawal meant abandonment. In Stone's narrative, JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam to the Communists. But JFK had no such intention. He wanted to get as many U.S. military personnel out of South Vietnam as quickly as feasible, i.e., depending on the situation on the ground, but, as Selverstone shows, he had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.

 

Sorry but didn’t you have exactly the same argument a few weeks ago in a different thread.

Is it necessary to have another jumbo sized thread on the same topic with the same people making the same points.

It feels that the only reason is to start a fire. Certainly the arguments you make only hold water when filtered through a conservative lens, so they are not going to sway anyone one way or the other.

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, Simon Andrew said:

Sorry but didn’t you have exactly the same argument a few weeks ago in a different thread.

Is it necessary to have another jumbo sized thread on the same topic with the same people making the same points.

It feels that the only reason is to start a fire. Certainly the arguments you make only hold water when filtered through a conservative lens, so they are not going to sway anyone one way or the other.

First of all, Selverstone is not a conservative, and I am not a conservative in the commonly understood sense of the word (I am an eclectic, a centrist Independent, with liberal views on some issues, moderate views on other issues, and conservative views on other issues). Second, Selverstone's book only came out barely two months ago, and I only finished reading it last week, which is why 95% of the info in my opening post is new. Third, we are talking about facts, not just "arguments." You'd know that if you'd bother to read his book. 

My intent in discussing Selverstone's book was not to "start a fire," and it says a lot about your objectivity that you would make such an accusation. To use this standard, anytime anyone presents evidence that doesn't fit your narrative, they are merely trying to "start a fire." Perhaps you should try to be more dispassionate and objective and engage in more critical thinking, instead of reacting to new information that you find troubling by making accusations about the motive behind the posting of that information. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

One, Selverstone's book contains information that Galbraith did not know about in 2017.

Two, even Galbraith admits that even under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam:

        Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com)

Debate on this subject has been marred by Oliver Stone's false assumption that withdrawal meant abandonment. In Stone's narrative, JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam to the Communists. But JFK had no such intention. He wanted to get as many U.S. military personnel out of South Vietnam as quickly as feasible, i.e., depending on the situation on the ground, but, as Selverstone shows, he had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.

 

You know this, but the obvious question here is what would JFK do if the South Vietnamese were losing the war? If there was “no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy’s watch”, and the North Vietnamese were about to take over Saigon, I’m not seeing a huge difference here with unconditional withdrawal. 

You argued previously that JFK would have sent in combat troops in that scenario. He certainly would have been under immense pressure to do so - but it seems like the evidence overall is pretty compelling that JFK would not have sent in combat troops under any circumstances. “It’s their war, they’re the ones who have to win it or lose it”, etc. etc. What is Selverstone’s position on this issue? 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You know this, but the obvious question here is what would JFK do if the South Vietnamese were losing the war? If there was “no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy’s watch”, and the North Vietnamese were about to take over Saigon, I’m not seeing a huge difference here with unconditional withdrawal. 

You argued previously that JFK would have sent in combat troops in that scenario. He certainly would have been under immense pressure to do so - but it seems like the evidence overall is pretty compelling that JFK would not have sent in combat troops under any circumstances. “It’s their war, they’re the ones who have to win it or lose it”, etc. etc. What is Selverstone’s position on this issue? 

 

Right.

The sad reality is the US could not prevail even with 500,000 troops in SV. Anymore than the US could prevail in Afghanistan or Iraq.

If the domestic population is not inclined to fight....does not have strong desire---to the point of being willing to die in battle--- to replicate a Western-style government, then the US is embroiled in a losing war. 

So JFK was not going to prevail with 1,500 troops in SV. In brief, JFK would conclude that 1,500 "advisers' in SV were likely on a suicide mission and pull them out.....

Vietnam was not vital to US interests. That war was insanity. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 1/14/2023 at 7:56 PM, David G. Healy said:

The below link may alert you to pre Vietnam War activity, prior to 1963... all the names in and at the bottom of the documents should be well known to you... much a do about SEATO (South East Asian Treaty organization). 170-205,000 combat troops contemplated for South Vietnam in 1961... I did a standard Google search concerning my old MAAG-Vietnam unit: (DCS Starcom Station Saigon) ... under the general public's radar? Maybe it will provide some general, Vietnam situ insight of the early 60's? I was in-country when Kennedy was assassinated, 3 weeks prior I was in Saigon (and caught up in) when President Diem and his brother's administration were overthrown and murdered... Interesting times those days to say the least... take a peek...

https://books.google.com/books?id=7-tEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=dcs+starcom+sta+saigon+vietnam&source=bl&ots=XQGAoObHQO&sig=ACfU3U1JuMbHtfvrSynBBpODjyOSjpLbbw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWrOj3-MX8AhVYHjQIHVFhABsQ6AF6BAghEAM#v=onepage&q=dcs starcom sta saigon vietnam&f=false

That's a bunch of documents David.  Interesting.  Letters from the Bundy's, Lemnitzer, and Kilpatrick among others.  I wonder if I'm even half through.  The bar on the right is not descending much as I change pages.  That statement from William Bundy about white men can't win this kind of fight is an interesting governmental perspective for 1961.

[Michael Griffith]

On 1/14/2023 at 4:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Selverstone worked at the Miller Center, home of Zelikow, former home of Max Holland, and current home of Sabato.

That should tell you something.

This should tell you something else.

After the Commission volumes were published, and the  MSM  could now inspect whether the facts, testimony and exhibits in them matched the 888 page report, not one MSM outlet did so.  And the attempts to do so were crushed at Life magazine and at the Ny Times.  Something else happened though.  Three months after this, Johnson shipped the first detachment of combat troops to Vietnam.  He also had camera equipment on board to record the historic moment when these combat troops landed at Da Nang.

This was just the beginning.  For Johnson had been planning for this moment for months on end. He had literally set up a secret task force to do so. The first leader was Sullivan, who opposed JFK's withdrawal.  The second titular leader was Bill Bundy who wrote the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It was drafted two months before the incident.

The MSM and most of academia missed this whole secret operation that LBJ had created. And how soon it followed on the issuance of the final verdict of the Warren Commission. Consequently no one I know of said one word about the connection between the two at that time.  In fact, the first book I know of that tried to broach the topic was by a conservative author Joe Goulden, in 1969, Truth is the First Casualty. Goulden was the first writer in book form who tried to expose Johnson's secret plan to consciously reverse what Kennedy was doing in extricating the USA from that ill advised, ghastly, and illegal war.  Illegal in the sense that the USA broke the Geneva Accords in order to cut the country in half and install a fiat government in the south.

When John Newman's book minutely destroyed the paradigm that had arisen--that Johnson was continuing JFK's policy in Indochina--and Oliver Stone adapted his and Fletcher Prouty's insights about that phony paradigm, the MSM and academia arose like a roaring MGM lion. Neither liked the fact that they had missed the story on JFK's murder and the fact that Johnson then lied about his continuity with JFK on Indochina. In fact, he consciously broke with what he knew Kennedy was doing.  And we have that on tape in Stone's film JFK Revisited. 

But here is the problem. Other scholars that followed, agreed with Prouty and Newman. Should I name some?  How about Howard Jones, Death of a Generation. Jones said: the last thing I expected to discover was that Prouty and Newman were right, but they were.  His great discovery was an oral history by McNamara's deputy Gilpatric in which he said that McNamara told him that Kennedy had given him instructions to wind this thing down.

Two, Gordon Goldstein with Lessons in Disaster.  Chronicles JFK's refusal to entertain any attempt at sending combat troops into theater.  And how LBJ methodically reversed that.

Three, David Kaiser, American Tragedy. Broader in scope, includes Laos and Vietnam.  Very good on the origins of the withdrawal plan and Bobby Kennedy's role in it. Also good on how Johnson was intent on reversing Kennedy.

Number Four: James Blight, Virtual JFK.  This features an oral debate down in Georgia amid two dozen academics. Selverstone lost that debate. One of the stupidest things anyone said at that affair was by him. He said words to the effect that Kennedy did not know about his own withdrawal plan. (p. 129) 😜.   How can anyone take a guy like this seriously? This is not stupidity, this is having an agenda in hand. Both Kaiser and Newman trace this plan, as did Jamie Galbraith.

Number Five: John Newman's revised version of JFK and Vietnam. I reviewed this and I think its even better than the first one.  An  important meeting he describes is for November 27, 1961.  JFK was very upset about how he and his brother had to fight for the whole NSAM 111 resolution. Kennedy then said if you oppose policy once made, then you get out. He then asked, who is going to carry out my Vietnam policy?  McNamara raised his hand.  Duh Marc, I think that kinds of tell you who implemented JFK's policy.

No responsible scholar could ignore the above.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/john-newman-s-jfk-and-vietnam-2017-version

Finally, that sub title that Mike put on this thread is not the sub title of the book.  And anyone can see that by just looking at the book cover.  That is his editorializing,

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 works 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.

FYI, Selverstone is no conservative. Also FYI, some of the best research and some of the most important witness interviews on the JFK case have been done by Anthony Summers, who is quite conservative in his politics. Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter, yet he wrote one of the best-selling and most influential books ever published on the case. You need to stop making the erroneous assumption that only liberals can produce valuable research on the case. But, again, Selverstone is no conservative. 

I guess you missed the part in my OP where I mention that Selverstone cites Newman's book and article a number of times. Why don't you read the evidence that Selverstone presents before you go on a crusade to discredit his book?

If you ever bother to read the book, you'll discover that Selverstone does not argue that JFK "did not know about his own withdrawal plan." That is a rather gross oversimplification of what Selverstone says in his book. Are you ever going to read his book, or are you going to refuse to read the other side and just continue to repeat your arguments as you have done with the Vietnam War?

It is sad that you are still making the fraudulent argument that we "violated the Geneva Accords." As our own State Department noted in 1961, and as JFK himself noted, North Vietnam rendered the Geneva Accords null and void by their egregious violations of the Accords, especially their aggression against South Vietnam. 

If you will read Selverstone's book, you will discover, as he notes in the book's introduction, that his findings come down in the middle between the Camelot view (total disengagement after the '64 election) and the Cold Warrior view (large-scale escalation would have occurred even if JFK had lived).

If you will read Selverstone's book, you will find much that you will like, especially the evidence he presents that JFK was ardently determined to avoid sending regular combat troops to South Vietnam. But, what you will not like is the evidence he marshals to show that JFK did not intend to abandon South Vietnam but was determined to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch. He understood that a Communist conquest of South Vietnam would be a terrible human tragedy.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

Another thing that impresses me about Selverstone's book is that he includes some of the important new information we have learned from North Vietnamese sources. He notes that Communist archives confirm that the war effort was going well in 1962:

          But optimism continued to dominate official thinking about Vietnam. Military operations against the Communists seemed increasingly effective, and the Strategic Hamlet program was accelerating and apparently resilient. Indeed, Communist archives have attested to that perceived early success. (pp. 88-89) 

The footnote for this observation cites Pierre Asselin's book Hanoi's Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (University of California Press, 2013), Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (Cambridge University Press, 2006), and Peter Busch's book All the Way with JFK? Britain, the US, and the Vietnam War (Oxford University Press, 2003). As I've noted before, liberal anti-war scholars have ignored the trove of new information from North Vietnamese sources because that information destroys their portrayal of the war.

Selverstone also notes that even British counterinsurgency expert Robert Thompson agreed that the war effort was going well in 1962:

          BRIAM [British Advisory Mission] chief Robert Thompson was particularly encouraged and conveyed his sense of progress over the previous six months, especially in the Strategic Hamlet program. (p. 89)

Thompson's assessment is significant because Thompson was not only opposed to a large-scale U.S. presence in South Vietnam but was one of the most honest, objective observers on the ground.

These facts, and others, refute the view held by most of my fellow conspiracy theorists that U.S. military officials in South Vietnam were deliberately giving JFK false/overly optimistic assessments of the war effort. If anyone was giving JFK inaccurate assessments of the war effort, it was liberal officials who refused to acknowledge progress in the war because they were trying to persuade JFK to adopt a Laos-style neutralization solution in Vietnam.