News, Kennedy thought Vietnam was 'hopeless' and scorned the idea of Lyndon Johnson as president

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by totsuka

Do some reading. JFK thought Diem was "just not good enough" so he gave the green light.

I have. It's never been proven that JFK specifically ordered Diem to be killed as part of the coup. Which is why I asked for links to see what you base your opinion on.

[totsuka]

Did JFK pull the trigger? Nope, but did he tell the Generals "no coup". No he did not. So he gave the green light and the coup went forward. Was JFK upset about Diem and his brother being murdered or was he upset about being implicated too?

JFK was briefed by the Director of the CIA, July 9, 1963, (DCI briefing July 9, 1963, JFK library) when the South Vietnamese Generals approached the CIA about a coup against Diem. JFK did not tell the Director of the CIA to shut down the South Vietnamese Generals and the coup planning went forward. JFK thought that the Generals would just put Diem on the next plane out, but the Generals knew that they had to kill Diem and his brother or they would face a counter-coup. JFK made a decision, and it turned out to be a fatal one for Diem, his brother and led to the eventual defeat of the USA in Vietnam.
The problem with JFK and his time as President is always clouded by the "myth of JFK" and the need to "cover up" his errors. To an average person the Vietnam War was all LBJ's and Nixon war. But in reality, the seeds of our huge involvement and defeat are traced to JFK.

[totsuka]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

That's not really an accurate picture of how things happened. The CIA already had the US in Vietnam when JFK was elected. This was going on and had, in fact, increased before the Bay of Pigs. However, JFK had also already committed to the plan to begin withdrawing from Vietnam by the end of 1963. After he was killed, LBJ overturned that Executive Order and the war escalated.

JFK was not going to pull out of Vietnam. He wanted to win relection and the war was still popular in the USA. His inaugural speech set the tone for his administration. Was he going to do a 180 and become a dove on Vietnam prior to the 1964 election during the height of the Cold War? Nope...

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by majoun

He was planning to dump LBJ in '64 in favor of Terry Sanford - who would have been a much better choice.

That wouldn't be possible.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis that Kennedy mucked up and lost, the Southern Democrats very politely informed the Northern Democrats that they were withdrawing their support for Kennedy, and that they would begin the process of seeking candidates to run against Kennedy in the primaries.

That was horrific news for the Northern Democrats, who could only see the party fracturing and giving the 1964 Election to the Republicans.

Originally Posted by Capt. Dan

And that is the problem with picking a VP running mate based solely on how many votes he/she brings to the ticket. JFK was more concerned with getting Southern votes [not an easy task for a Yankee Catholic in the 60's] than he was with the welfare of the country. And sadly not much has changed since then.

JFK had no choice in the matter. It was made for him. The Southern Democrats and Dixecrats would not support Kennedy without a southerner on the ticket.

That is why the DNC chose LBJ as JFK's running mate.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Someone here hypothesized that Johnson was involved in a plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

Not likely and highly improbable, as well as illogical.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Ultimately, I think Johnson saw his own mistakes and decided not to run again for the Presidency...

No, LBJ was told to sit down and shut up by the DNC after he got his ass kicked in the New Hampshire primary.

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

Medicare is an efficiently administered, well thought out program that has broken-even up until fairly recently.

I take it you have ever read even one single Medicare actuarial report. It is a Ponzi Scheme that is about to collapse, much sooner than you think. The June 2011 actuarial report says 2024, but the reality is 2018, just 6 years from now.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

It is obvious from the historical record that JFK was NOT going to keep expanding our role in Viet Nam.

There is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

On October 11, 1963, National Security Action Memorandum 263 was issued in which JFK approved the withdrawal of the first 1000 troops from Vietnam by the end of the year.

That is false and misleading:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...

Kennedy approved an idea proffered by the military to withdraw 1,000 troops and directed no official announcement.

The idea to withdraw troops, in this case military advisors (real ones - not civilian technicians) originated with the military, not Kennedy.

Kennedy simply went along with whatever his staff suggested, and they suggested he withdraw 1,000 troops.

The memo does not say that all troops will be withdrawn, or that there is a plan to withdraw troops, rather it simply says there is a report made by the military, and that report made by the military suggests 1,000 troops be withdrawn.

If you actually read the report, those 1,000 troops were non-essential personnel who really didn't need to be there in the first place, which is why they were withdrawn. No sense having people in a combat zone if you don't really need them.

I would also point out the fact that there is a reason why Kennedy did not make a public announcement.

Why?

Because if he does, and if the tactical situation in Vietnam changes, then Kennedy would have to escalate and send more troops, and then people would question his decisions: "What the hell are you doing ass-hat? You just took 1,000 troops out and now you're sending 5,000 back? Do you have a freaking clue about foreign policy?"

JFK wanted to keep his options open.

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Well, given that any demographer could have looked at the general aging trends and seen the problems down the road, I'm not sure how you can make that assessment.

Any demographer? A freaking 8th Grader could have figured it out that it was destined to fail. And it will. Smashingly so.

Originally Posted by cpg35223

I remember reading articles 30 years ago projecting the coming fiscal problems of Johnson's brainchildren and, right on schedule, here they come as the Baby Boomers begin retiring and aging en masse.

Yup. Try to warn them, and they stare at you like a cow chewing cud.

Originally Posted by cpg35223

What's more, you fail to mention how government intervention into health care might have contributed to costs spiraling out of control. In the early 60s, healthcare constituted roughly 5% of the GDP. Today, despite being the most heavily subsidized and regulated industry in the American economy, it's around 20%. Even more amazingly, this mushrooming of costs has taken place despite enormous strides in technology that have actually boosted productivity--quite an achievement if you think about it.

Right again. One day they'll figure out that this isn't Norway.

Originally Posted by cpg35223

A terrible president. Add to Medicare his housing programs that wound up destroying the inner cities....

LBJ totally destroyed the Black Family.

When Medicare is gone and all of his idiot give-away programs are ended, the only thing left will be his legacy as the man who single-handedly destroyed the Black Family for decades.

Originally Posted by Strelnikov

I don't think we should read too much into NSAM 263. Kennedy had increased strength from something like 1,000 in 1961 to 12,000 in 1962. That same year, Robert Kennedy said "The solution lies in our winning it, and that is just what the President intends to do. Kennedy opposed a move to end the war by a diplomatic settlement, De Gaulle's recommended "neutralization" of the country. Kennedy was probably correct in his assessment that this would not have been honored by the North in the long run, but it would have provided him an opportunity to exit. What Kennedy wanted was to stop the insurgency, but to do it without a major troop commitment.

When he drafted NSAM 263, the Taylor-McNamara report was very optimistic about the ability of South Vietnam to contain the Insurgents. The military generally concurred, and was not particularly horrified by NSAM 263. Based on this optimism, Kennedy foresaw an end to the US troop presence by 1965, but this seems to have been based on the South
Vietnamese successfully combating the Communists.

Nice analysis.

The military suggested that a number of troops (1,000) be withdrawn and Kennedy went along with it.

It has no bearing on the escalation or de-esclation of the conflict. If read the report, those 1,000 troops were largely non-essential anyway.

Here's where I think the murder of Ngo Diem was a mistake, because it led to the Barracks Presidents, and idiots like Nguyen Cao Ky and ARVN sort of self-destructed and was never able to effectively deal with the Viet Cong or the NVA.

Originally Posted by Strelnikov

According to Robert Kennedy, Schlesinger, and Sorensen, there was no plan to definitely pull out of Vietnam. This would have flown in the face of Kennedy's public statements.

Indeed. That's why seeing NSAM 263 for anything other than it was is silly. It was not a plan to end the war or escalate or de-escalate.

Originally Posted by AnnieA

My understanding, from all of the reading I have done on Johnson, was that his heart health was so bad and was the reason he declined to run for a second term.

Then you need to read more.

LBJ was to told with withdraw after he got blown out in the New Hampshire primary.

On November 30, 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy announced for the Democratic nomination for President, stating, "My decision to challenge the President's position, and the administration's position, has been strengthened by recent announcements out of the administration — the evident intention to intensify the war in Vietnam and, on the other hand, the absence of any positive indications or suggestions for a compromise or for a negotiated settlement. I am concerned that the administration seems to have set no limits to the price that it is willing to pay for a military victory."

LBJ doesn't get a majority. McCarthy comes within 230 votes of defeating him in the New Hampshire Primary. The DNC tells LBJ to take a hike after RFK reconsiders and decides to run after LBJ gets stomped in New Hampshire.

LBJ's "excuse" for withdrawing from the race is that "he is tied up with the war in that ****-ant country."

Originally Posted by markg91359

Johnson's health was undoubtedly a factor in his decision not to seek a second term as President.

LBJ's health had nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, had Kennedy been re-elected (highly unlikely), he would have died in office.

Originally Posted by xiansheng_g

Nothing riveting about that fact: JFK was supposedly going to issue an executive order or make a public announcement on the topic right after his Dallas trip, November 1963.

"Supposedly" doesn't get. We deal with facts. It looks like you failed to understand the highlighted part of the memo:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...

Originally Posted by mensaguy

However, JFK had also already committed to the plan to begin withdrawing from Vietnam by the end of 1963.

There was no plan to withdraw from Vietnam. Read the memo carefully:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...

Originally Posted by mensaguy

That's not quite accurate. National Security Action Memorandum # 263 (issued November 21, 1963) contained the President's approval of the plan to reduce forces by 1000 before the end of the year. It was overturned by National Security Action Memorandum # 273 signed by LBJ just 5 days later.

Again, read the memo:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...

The report suggests that 1,000 non-essential personnel be withdrawn. Those were mostly intelligence analysts and order of battle specialists who did not need to be in Vietnam to do their jobs. They can do that from anywhere. I know, I was the order of battle specialist in my unit. I don't have to be in the field getting shot at to do my job.

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Did you even read this thread? My posts (#34 and #39) both have some facts relevant to your assertions.

Facts which you have ignored.

Those were military recommendations based on the environment and tactical situation at the time, which, by the way, can change in an instant.

JFK simply approved the recommendations made by the military, which was to withdraw 1,000 effectively non-essential personnel.

That's it. There is nothing else. It does not mean the US was completely withdrawing from Vietnam.

And...what's more....Kennedy didn't "order" anything. He merely approved of the military's recommendations.

And those recommendations were to withdraw 1,000 largely unessential personnel.

Those recommendations did not include withdrawing all military personnel, nor did they including ending whatever US involvement existed.

The only thing JFK did order is that no public announcement be made.

Why?

We already covered that.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Mircea

.....

That is false and misleading:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...

Kennedy approved an idea proffered by the military to withdraw 1,000 troops and directed no official announcement.

The idea to withdraw troops, in this case military advisors (real ones - not civilian technicians) originated with the military, not Kennedy.

Kennedy simply went along with whatever his staff suggested, and they suggested he withdraw 1,000 troops.

The memo does not say that all troops will be withdrawn, or that there is a plan to withdraw troops, rather it simply says there is a report made by the military, and that report made by the military suggests 1,000 troops be withdrawn.

If you actually read the report, those 1,000 troops were non-essential personnel who really didn't need to be there in the first place, which is why they were withdrawn. No sense having people in a combat zone if you don't really need them.

I would also point out the fact that there is a reason why Kennedy did not make a public announcement.

Why?

Because if he does, and if the tactical situation in Vietnam changes, then Kennedy would have to escalate and send more troops, and then people would question his decisions: "What the hell are you doing ass-hat? You just took 1,000 troops out and now you're sending 5,000 back? Do you have a freaking clue about foreign policy?"

JFK wanted to keep his options open.

.....

Nice analysis.

The military suggested that a number of troops (1,000) be withdrawn and Kennedy went along with it.

It has no bearing on the escalation or de-esclation of the conflict. If read the report, those 1,000 troops were largely non-essential anyway.

Here's where I think the murder of Ngo Diem was a mistake, because it led to the Barracks Presidents, and idiots like Nguyen Cao Ky and ARVN sort of self-destructed and was never able to effectively deal with the Viet Cong or the NVA.



Indeed. That's why seeing NSAM 263 for anything other than it was is silly. It was not a plan to end the war or escalate or de-escalate.

.....

On the other hand, had Kennedy been re-elected (highly unlikely), he would have died in office.

"Supposedly" doesn't get. We deal with facts. It looks like you failed to understand the highlighted part of the memo:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...


There was no plan to withdraw from Vietnam. Read the memo carefully:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...


Again, read the memo:

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made...

The report suggests that 1,000 non-essential personnel be withdrawn. Those were mostly intelligence analysts and order of battle specialists who did not need to be in Vietnam to do their jobs. They can do that from anywhere. I know, I was the order of battle specialist in my unit. I don't have to be in the field getting shot at to do my job.


Facts which you have ignored.

Those were military recommendations based on the environment and tactical situation at the time, which, by the way, can change in an instant.

JFK simply approved the recommendations made by the military, which was to withdraw 1,000 effectively non-essential personnel.

That's it. There is nothing else. It does not mean the US was completely withdrawing from Vietnam.

And...what's more....Kennedy didn't "order" anything. He merely approved of the military's recommendations.

And those recommendations were to withdraw 1,000 largely unessential personnel.

Those recommendations did not include withdrawing all military personnel, nor did they including ending whatever US involvement existed.

The only thing JFK did order is that no public announcement be made.

Why?

We already covered that.

The memorandum was signed on November 21, 1963. That was the day before JFK was killed. He was traveling in Texas that day. There is no way to know why he said not to make a public announcement. It is possible, and entirely plausible, that he wanted to get back to Washington and make an announcement on his own terms. We just simply don't know.

In 1963, all the troops inn Vietnam were referrred to as "advisers," so the use of that term is as meaningless as referring to the Korean Was as a "police action."

I haven't seen any credible evidence to suggest that JFK would have died in office during a second term.

You said it first. "That's It. There is nothing else." There is no way to know why JFK directed that no public announcement be made, or what other actions might have been taken. We DO know that National Security Action Memorandums ARE IN FACT orders from the President, not just a concurrence with some adviser's recommendation.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to an opinion. The FACTS only support these opinions to a point because JFK died and nobody (so far as I know) is capable of reading the mind of a dead man.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by totsuka

JFK was not going to pull out of Vietnam. He wanted to win relection and the war was still popular in the USA. His inaugural speech set the tone for his administration. Was he going to do a 180 and become a dove on Vietnam prior to the 1964 election during the height of the Cold War? Nope...

I disagree. JFK withheld air support during the CIA orchestrated Bay Of Pigs disaster. There is no way to tell what he might have decided about any other issue. It would certainly have been easy for him to have escalated other issues, such as the Berlin Wall or the Blockade of Cuba, but he chose to use diplomacy instead.

It's just not reasonable for us to assume that you can read JFK's mind and be so sure of what he would have done.

[totsuka]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

I disagree. JFK withheld air support during the CIA orchestrated Bay Of Pigs disaster. There is no way to tell what he might have decided about any other issue. It would certainly have been easy for him to have escalated other issues, such as the Berlin Wall or the Blockade of Cuba, but he chose to use diplomacy instead.

It's just not reasonable for us to assume that you can read JFK's mind and be so sure of what he would have done.

It is hard to guess what JFK "might have done", but I think the myth that he was going to abandon Vietnam is more about "protecting the JFK legacy.

JFK was a pretty strong hawk and anti-communist.l (He admired and was a close friend with Joe McCarthy, who was a pretty strong anti-communist too). Look at his actions and those of his brother RFK. There were still trying to toss out Castro and/or have him killed. He would not want to give the Republicans an issue "JFK lost Vietnam" going into the 1964 election. JFK like all the Kennedy's look at issues with "what is good for me", vice what is good for the country. I think had he not got killed he would have increased troops after Diem got killed to try and bolster the new government. He most likely would have been reelected. He had the same advisers that LBJ had so I think he would have pushed troop levels to at least 50,000 with an all out effort to win the war and enhance his legacy as a "standing up to Communism", "go anywhere, pay any price etc...etc..etc...

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by totsuka

and the war was still popular in the USA..

Which war? The Vietnam War? In 1963?