If you dig back further you will find that Kennedy was left with many unpleasant options by Eisenhower and that they were the result of bad moves made almost as far back as 1945. Among other things, the US government (as revealed in the Pentagon papers) had attempted to interfere, by acts of sabotage, with free elections in around 1952 or 54. After that, I think men like Kennedy, Johnson and McNamara actually did try to do what was best, but in keeping the truth from the public, they ensured that the wrong track could be followed. But if Americans know then the enemy does as well. It's a fine line.
Notice that he didn't explain the contradiction that Kennedy was shocked by the Diem assassination, while at the same time saying they knew the US government was partially responsible.
I never before picked up on the fact that it was McNamara who was recommending deployment of a smaller force than what the Joint Chiefs were asking for. So he was partially at fault for tying their hands. In LeMay's case, however, that was a good thing.
McNamara's statement that the Vietnamese could have had what they wanted at the outset was not true. They had asked for self rule, and at one time, were prepared to institute a system based on our constitution (A Vietnam History by S. Karnow). But the British handed control back to the French. The French then installed a puppet government, forcing the Vietnamese to fight.
It is unfortunate that this video ended at the point when McNamara left the administration and never got to the issue of the secret bombing of Cambodia under Nixon. It also didn't cover the miscalculations on the part of Westmoreland leading up to Tet. He talked about the protest at the Pentagon, where nothing happened. But left out Kent State U., where students were gunned down by guardsmen and 4 died. I guess that was because Clark Clifford or someone else was Sec. Def. at the time.
Overall, I think he made a case that these things are always ugly, never clear-cut and rarely have a good outcome.
reply
share
SEAL412
17 years ago
Hmm...interesting. I saw an interview where Kennedy was talking to Cronkite and was saying that the US would aid Vietnam in any way they could whether it be weapons etc but in the end it would have to be the Vietnamese who would have to fight this fight.
I have also heard that prior to his death in October 1963 JFK had plans to do a withdrawal with some residual forces in Vietnam.
Do you think that had Kennedy lived, would he have escalated as Johnson did? Or is that aspect of the war entirely in Johnson's hands?
I know its tough to answer sine Kennedy died, but I've heard conflicting thoughts on JFK's intentions.
srobidoux, you seem knowledgable about this stuff more than I do so any info would be appreciated.
reply
share
srobidoux
17 years ago
At times I think I have answers and then other information seems to conflict. I give Kennedy a lot of credit for being wise in such things and yet he got wrapped up in the Bay of Pigs. But if I recall correctly, that was a scheme that was hatched under Ike that Kennedy inherited. I mainly try to correct people who think we weren't much involved until 1964 and it was Kennedy who got us into it. That may have been when the bodies started to add up. But we were busy interfering much earlier. We were on that path before Kennedy was elected.
There's an incredible amount of useful info in Stanley Karnow's Vietnam History or the PBS series based on it. But it also takes the pentagon papers to fill in what was happening behind the scenes.
Back to Kennedy, I heard more than one president and McNamara repeating what Westmorland was claiming about Vietnam, which was that we are making progress and "we have them on the run". We can win this and we must win this. Sound familiar? Meanwhile intelligence was being ignored about an enemy offensive because of what seems like denial by Westmoreland. So there would have been a potential for Kennedy to be misled as well. If instead, Kennedy or Johnson had an Eisenhower, Colin Powell or Norman Schwarzkopf as top commander in Vietnam, I think it would have played out differently. Schwarzkopf was there, but not a general at the time. So who is responsible if the President puts his faith in the wrong commanders or joint Chiefs? How do you know if they are bad or if the enemy is just that determined and well supported? Was Westmorland also misled somehow? I haven't read anything to indicate that he was. I don't think Eisenhower would have strayed from the cold hard facts. I think any of the three would have ensured an end to the police action mode. But would we have ended up in a war with China or would there still be a North and South like Korea? I hate to think about the possibilities.
Other documentaries indicate to me that LeMay was a loose canon who frequently tried to provoke the Russians with over-flights. We lost something close to 130 air crew over Russia during the cold war because of his hard line and apparent determination to make something happen. Both he and MacArthur had requested to use nukes (Mac wanted them to use on China). There is a book called Nuclear Nightmares by Nigel Calder, about possible scenarios leading to use of nukes. It is old now, but it's amazing how much of it is still true today. Good reading. I think if Kennedy had not been in office when he was, LeMay very well could have had his strike on Cuba. Then Vietnam would probably have been shoved aside altogether.
///
reply
share
shurbanm
13 years ago
I Lemay had his strike on Cuba there would be no Vietnam and no United States...
reply
share
Scotty7617
16 years ago
Kennedy said on numerous occasions he was determined not to let Vietnam become America's war. General Doulgas MacArthur had also warned Kennedy to get out of Vietnam.
One month before Kennedy was assassinated, he signed National Security Memorandum 263, which ordered 1000 US troops out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.
That wasn't acceptable to the military industrial complex. No war meant no money for them.
"A talking hat? A talking HAT? I thought that was Ocarina was annoying."
reply
share
williams-59
15 years ago
"That wasn't acceptable to the military industrial complex. No war meant no money for them."
Great comment. The question then becomes had he not been assassinated would they have allowed him to pull the troops out. As other posters have said, Kennedy inherited Vietnam. We were already there. Which makes your comment even more interesting, in that Eisenhower, in his farewell address warned congress and others about the rise and power of the military-industrial complex.
reply
share
RockGrey
15 years ago
What this proves is that " The Fog of War " is important to watch. Whatever one thinks of McNamara he did have many lessons to teach.
Anybody want a peanut ?
- Fezzik, " The Princess Bride " ( 1987 )
reply
share