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

[Steve Roe]

11 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

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.

I think you mean the remaining 15,000 advisors. There were 16,000+ advisors in country before NSAM 263. There's really no telling what Kennedy would have done. It was a volatile situation, especially after the Diem/Nhu coup, that Kennedy supported (shocked that they were murdered, plan gone wrong). 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

I think you mean the remaining 15,000 advisors. There were 16,000+ advisors in country before NSAM 263. There's really no telling what Kennedy would have done. It was a volatile situation, especially after the Diem/Nhu coup, that Kennedy supported (shocked that they were murdered, plan gone wrong). 

My understanding is that according to this new book, JFK was going to remove the 16000 advisors by 1965 and leave 1500 military personnel in south Vietnam to handle the military and economic aid that would continue after 1965.

What I think could have been JFKs plan was that when South Vietnam would collapse in say 1966 JFK would say well we were giving them all the help they needed but they had no interest in fighting and so JFK was prepared to let South Vietnam fall in that kind of a situation. When it would be obvious that south Vietnam was falling, JFK would quietly pull out the 1500 military personnel that had been handling military and economic aid. As these 1500 were not combat troops, the American public would not notice these 1500 personnel being brought back home.

I think JFK may have suspected south Vietnam would fall, he just didn't want US military advisors or combat troops there when it did. In a best case scenario, south Vietnam would not fall until 1969 in which case it would be the next presidents problem.

What I'm basing this on is the Sept 1963 Cronkite interview. JFK emphasized that it was the south Vietnames' fight, and they would have to fight it themselves.

This would have to have been JFKs plan as he must have known it was a real possibility that south Vietnam could collapse after 1965 if it was only receiving military and economic aid.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Gerry Down

[James DiEugenio]

THese people really look like they are suffering under a brutal authoritarian communist regime do they not?

https://www.holidify.com/pages/nightlife-in-hanoi-349.html

 

 

So the question becomes, was it worth killing about 5.8 million people, if the above was the eventual result?

To me its a no brainer.  JFK was correct. I give him a lot of credit for that.  This issue really shows the difference between him and LBJ and RMN.

Edited January 25, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Gerry Down]

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

THese people really look like they are suffering under a brutal authoritarian communist regime do they not?

https://www.holidify.com/pages/nightlife-in-hanoi-349.html

 

 

So the questions becomes, was it worth killing about 5.8 million people, if the above was the eventual result?

To me its a no brainer.  JFK was correct. I give him a lot of credit for that.  This issue really shows the difference between him and LBJ and RMN.

Read here:

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/vietnam

The link states:

Vietnam did little to improve its abysmal human rights record in 2019. The government continues to restrict all basic civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and the rights to freely practice beliefs and religion. It prohibits the formation and operation of any organization or group deemed threatening to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power.

Authorities block accesses to websites and request that social media and/or telecommunications companies remove contents deemed to be politically sensitive. Those who criticize the one party regime face police intimidation, harassment, restricted movement, physical assault, detention, and arrest and imprisonment. Police detain political detainees for months without access to legal counsel and subject them to abusive interrogations. Party-controlled courts sentence bloggers and activists on bogus national security charges. In 2019, authorities convicted at least 25 people in politically motivated cases.

[Steve Roe]

4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

My understanding is that according to this new book, JFK was going to remove the 16000 advisors by 1965 and leave 1500 military personnel in south Vietnam to handle the military and economic aid that would continue after 1965.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. I thought you were referring to pre-NSAM 263. I believe you are correct about the 1500 by 1965, a gradual draw down was the "plan". 

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

Read here:

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/vietnam

The link states:

Vietnam did little to improve its abysmal human rights record in 2019. The government continues to restrict all basic civil and political rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, and the rights to freely practice beliefs and religion. It prohibits the formation and operation of any organization or group deemed threatening to the Communist Party’s monopoly of power.

Authorities block accesses to websites and request that social media and/or telecommunications companies remove contents deemed to be politically sensitive. Those who criticize the one party regime face police intimidation, harassment, restricted movement, physical assault, detention, and arrest and imprisonment. Police detain political detainees for months without access to legal counsel and subject them to abusive interrogations. Party-controlled courts sentence bloggers and activists on bogus national security charges. In 2019, authorities convicted at least 25 people in politically motivated cases.

Yep, you have to forgive DiEugenio, he's not plugged into reality and often embarrasses himself here. Vietnam is still one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. 

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Yep, you have to forgive DiEugenio, he's not plugged into reality and often embarrasses himself here. Vietnam is still one of the biggest human rights abusers in the world. 

Unfortunately some westerns now flirt with the idea of how nice it would be to live under a brutal communist dictatorship, if such authoritarianism meant no Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson would be allowed to speak.

[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.

It tells me that you're a rabid ideologue who jumps to invalid conclusions based on your ideology. You know that Ken Hughes, whom you've cited repeatedly on the decent interval, is also on the staff of the Miller Center, right? Right? No. You apparently did not know that, or else I doubt you would have made such a sweeping, unfounded attack on the Miller Center.

And, FYI, Larry Sabato is a moderate mainstream conservative. But, since you are on the very fringe of the left wing, you automatically view him as unreliable, untrustworthy, extreme, etc., etc. And also just FYI, Sabato has been one of Trump's most strident, most vituperative critics. Just one example:

GOP Demands Investigation of Professor for Anti-Trump Tweets (nymag.com)

The professor whom the GOP wanted investigated was Sabato, as you'll see if you read the article.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Oh please with HRW.

Same thing with Cuba.

Except in Vietnam you have much more trade and tourism.

Yeah, all those shops and stores and singing on a Saturday night,  that really looks like  brutal communist repression.  Gulag all the way.

[Michael Griffith]

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please with HRW.

Same thing with Cuba.

Except in Vietnam you have much more trade and tourism.

Yeah, all those shops and stores and singing on a Saturday night,  that really looks like  brutal communist repression.  Gulag all the way.

Huh? What does this have to do with my point that your baseless tar-brush attack on the Miller Center is further evidence that you are a rabid ideologue who doesn't know what he's talking about on the Vietnam War? 

"Enough with HRW [Human Rights Watch]" and the video of "stores and singing on a Saturday night" in one city in Vietnam???!!! This is genuine wingnut material. It is also  shameful propaganda that ignores the mountain of evidence of egregious human rights abuses in Vietnam, which started with the reign of terror that North Vietnam imposed on the South Vietnamese after the war. 

My goodness, so now you're attacking Human Rights Watch! Why? Because HRW has never stopped telling the truth about the brutality and oppression of Communist rule in Vietnam. But, since you can't face the truth about Communist Vietnam, you are now attacking HRW. Anyone can Google "Human Rights Watch" and learn about the group's noble history and its work in defense of human rights around the globe. Here's a short blurb from Wikipedia's article on HRW:

          Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an international non-governmental organization headquartered in New York City that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. The group pressures governments, policymakers, companies, and individual human rights abusers to denounce abuse and respect human rights, and often works on behalf of refugees, children, migrants, and political prisoners.

          In 1997, Human Rights Watch shared the Nobel Peace Prize as a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. It played a leading role in the 2008 treaty banning cluster munitions. . . .

          Pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Human Rights Watch opposes violations of what the UDHR considers basic human rights. This includes capital punishment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. HRW advocates freedoms in connection with fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press. It seeks to achieve change by publicly pressuring governments and their policymakers to curb human rights abuses, and by convincing more powerful governments to use their influence on governments that violate human rights.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 1/25/2023 at 9:16 AM, Gerry Down said:

My understanding is that according to this new book, JFK was going to remove the 16000 advisors by 1965 and leave 1500 military personnel in south Vietnam to handle the military and economic aid that would continue after 1965.

What I think could have been JFKs plan was that when South Vietnam would collapse in say 1966 JFK would say well we were giving them all the help they needed but they had no interest in fighting and so JFK was prepared to let South Vietnam fall in that kind of a situation. When it would be obvious that south Vietnam was falling, JFK would quietly pull out the 1500 military personnel that had been handling military and economic aid. As these 1500 were not combat troops, the American public would not notice these 1500 personnel being brought back home.

I think JFK may have suspected south Vietnam would fall, he just didn't want US military advisors or combat troops there when it did. In a best case scenario, south Vietnam would not fall until 1969 in which case it would be the next presidents problem.

What I'm basing this on is the Sept 1963 Cronkite interview. JFK emphasized that it was the south Vietnames' fight, and they would have to fight it themselves.

This would have to have been JFKs plan as he must have known it was a real possibility that south Vietnam could collapse after 1965 if it was only receiving military and economic aid.

There are others more learned on the primary materials than me, but this just comes across to me as about the most sensible explanation of the issue of JFK and Vietnam.

Isn't it obvious: a pullout from Vietnam and South Vietnam would not stand. Everybody knew it, including Nixon when he promised to end the war via a secret plan in 1968, trust me, then promised again in 1972 that he really, really would do it if elected again, and this time he did ... and South Vietnam fell. The choices therefore were a permanent South Korea-like situation in which major US military force parked in a southeast Asian country prevents reunification of that country from a northern communist (and popular) government. Or, withdrawal and a North Vietnamese takover of South Vietnam.

And I am convinced JFK was intent on getting out of Vietnam (contrary to Michael Griffith), and that the reason for doing it in 1965 instead of 1963 was because of the knowledge that South Vietnam would fall, that would be a political hit, and these things of life and death for millions of innocent people in other parts of the world get decided based on US election cycle considerations.

Very unlikely JFK would have gone in full like LBJ did, it seems to me. It seems like a real difference in counterfactual history depending on whether JFK had continued as president into a second term. However I do not think Vietnam was a major reason for JFK's assassination. No evidence it was, and I just don't see high plausibility that it would have been a major factor. The difference in outcome in Vietnam was a consequence of JFK's assassination, but not the reason he was assassinated. That would be like assassinating Biden for planning to pull out of Afghanistan--generals argue this way and that way on these things, but it isn't in itself cause to assassinate.

[Michael Griffith]

49 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

There are others more learned on the primary materials than me, but this just comes across to me as about the most sensible explanation of the issue of JFK and Vietnam.

Isn't it obvious: a pullout from Vietnam and South Vietnam would not stand. Everybody knew it, including Nixon when he promised to end the war via a secret plan in 1968, trust me, then promised again in 1972 that he really, really would do it if elected again, and this time he did ... and South Vietnam fell. The choices therefore were a permanent South Korea-like situation in which major US military force parked in a southeast Asian country prevents reunification of that country from a northern communist (and popular) government. Or, withdrawal and a North Vietnamese takover of South Vietnam.

And I am convinced JFK was intent on getting out of Vietnam (contrary to Michael Griffith), and that the reason for doing it in 1965 instead of 1963 was because of the knowledge that South Vietnam would fall, that would be a political hit, and these things of life and death for millions of innocent people in other parts of the world get decided based on US election cycle considerations.

Very unlikely JFK would have gone in full like LBJ did, it seems to me. It seems like a real difference in counterfactual history depending on whether JFK had continued as president into a second term. However I do not think Vietnam was a major reason for JFK's assassination. No evidence it was, and I just don't see high plausibility that it would have been a major factor. The difference in outcome in Vietnam was a consequence of JFK's assassination, but not the reason he was assassinated. That would be like assassinating Biden for planning to pull out of Afghanistan--generals argue this way and that way on these things, but it isn't in itself cause to assassinate.

I would encourage you to read Selverstone's new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Among other things, Selverstone documents that the White House tapes show that JFK privately expressed his determination to win the war over and over and over again. Again, these were his private comments, and they exactly mirrored every public statement he made on the subject in the last months of his life. 

A key thing that we must understand, to put the situation in its proper context, is that by 1963 the war was going very well. Newly available/disclosed North Vietnamese sources confirm this fact. The war was going so well, the South Vietnamese army and local forces were doing such a good job of attacking and defeating Communist forces, that even Max Taylor believed we could safely start withdrawing American troops, and this was a key factor behind the withdrawal plan. 

One of the biggest flaws with Newman's book is that he makes the erroneous assumption that the war was going badly, when in fact we know from a wide range of sources--including North Vietnamese sources--that the war was going quite well. The problem is that Newman chooses to believe the likes of Forrestal, Hilsman, Harriman, Halberstam, etc., and appears unaware of the historic new information from North Vietnamese sources.

Another crucial fact to understand is that the withdrawal plan called for the continuation of aid to South Vietnam even if the situation on the ground enabled us to withdraw all U.S. military personnel (even then, a small support force was to remain in country). There was never any intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election, and Bobby himself confirmed this fact in his April 1964 oral interview.

Again, if you care about this issue, I suggest you read Selverstone's new book. 

Edited May 23, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Gerry Down]

21 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I would encourage you to read Selverstone's new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Among other things, Selverstone documents that the White House tapes show that JFK privately expressed his determination to win the war over and over and over again. Again, these were his private comments, and they exactly mirrored every public statement he made on the subject in the last months of his life. 

A key thing that we must understand, to put the situation in its proper context, is that by 1963 the war was going very well. Newly available/disclosed North Vietnamese sources confirm this fact. The war was going so well, the South Vietnamese army and local forces were doing such a good job of attacking and defeating Communist forces, that even Max Taylor believed we could safely start withdrawing American troops, and this was a key factor behind the withdrawal plan. 

One of the biggest flaws with Newman's book is that he makes the erroneous assumption that the war was going badly, when in fact we know from a wide range of sources--including North Vietnamese sources--that the war was going quite well. The problem is that Newman chooses to believe the likes of Forrestal, Hilsman, Harriman, Halberstam, etc., and appears unaware of the historic new information from North Vietnamese sources.

Another crucial fact to understand is that the withdrawal plan called for the continuation of aid to South Vietnam even if the situation on the ground enabled us to withdraw all U.S. military personnel (even then, a small support force was to remain in country). There was never any intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election, and Bobby himself confirmed this fact in his April 1964 oral interview.

Again, if you care about this issue, I suggest you read Selverstone's new book. 

But did JFK and his team have access to those north Vietnamese sources at the time?

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

But did JFK and his team have access to those north Vietnamese sources at the time?

No, but JFK was receiving a wealth of accurate information on the war's progress from multiple sources, including Harkins and the British mission in Saigon (especially Sir Robert Thompson, the legendary British counterinsurgency expert). The problem was that JFK was also receiving lots of distortions and falsehoods about the war from Hilsman, Forrestal, McNaughton, Ball, Harriman, and Lodge (sometimes), etc.

One key point about the North Vietnamese sources is that they prove that those who were reporting to JFK that the war was going well were correct. 

Yet, Newman seems unaware of the historic information in the North Vietnamese sources. Throughout his book, Newman assumes that those who were telling JFK the war was going well were feeding him false information. 

The only two liberal historians who have made any use of the North Vietnamese sources have been Greg Daddis and Max Hastings. Daddis has made very limited, selective use of them, whereas Hastings has made substantial use of them. If other liberal scholars have used them, I stand ready to be corrected.

Conservative scholars have been the ones who have made the most extensive use of the North Vietnamese sources, since those sources demolish virtually every liberal myth about the war, which also probably explains why most liberal scholars have ignored them.

One "centrist" scholar, Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen, has also made extensive use of the North Vietnamese sources. I put "centrist" in quotes because Dr. Nguyen is hard to categorize. She is Vietnamese. She takes a very measured approach. She goes out of her way to avoid making strident statements and absolutist pronouncements on the war. Anyway, her excellent and widely acclaimed book Hanoi's War makes extensive use of the North Vietnamese sources. Overall, generally speaking, her position on the war falls slightly to the right of center.  

Edited May 24, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

Interesting comments by Daniel Ellsberg regards Kennedy's policy on Viet Nam versus Eisenhower, LBJ and Nixon's.

Ellsberg lumps JFK's Viet Nam policy ideology in with the other 3 presidents as imperialistic.

See this JFK mention not long after the Amy Goodman "Democracy Now" interview of Ellsberg begins.

Jim Di...any comments?

Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who recently announced that he has been diagnosed ...

 

 

 

 

24:23NOW PLAYING

 

 

Daniel Ellsberg Warns Risk of Nuclear War Is Rising as Tension Mounts over Ukraine & Taiwan

 

 

 

 

133K views1 month ago

 

Democracy Now!