Read "Death of a Generation" by Howard Jones. Diem, for better or worse, had that country locked down. When JFK had him "shockingly" assassinated, the Vietcong were able to seize power in the provinces. JFK never figured that even a momentary vacuum would enable the Communist forces to gain control.
Yes, the Russians and the Chinese were able to escalate the war, but it would not have been as successful nor have happened so quickly if we had left Diem (as bad as he was) alone. We got rid of him because he wouldn't cooperate with us and take a subordinate role in the then anti-guerrilla war against the Vietcong.
I was furious at our government's policy in Vietnam. I felt that it was criminal to draft young Americans to fight a war and not put the full weight of our nation's resources behind the effort. Johnson was so afraid of the media's reaction that he didn't call up the reserves and the National Guard. This resulted in our sending into combat a US Army and Marine Corps of privates and 2nd Lieutenants. I am of that generation and drew a high number in the first Draft Lottery.
Lately, I have come to the conclusion that Nixon, LBJ, RFK, McCarthy, Humphrey, McGovern were ALL lying to us. They knew that there was absolutely no incentive for the North to negotiate. They all knew that we were going to lose the war eventually, they just didn't want it to happen on their watch. Since when does stopping the bombing of the enemy convince him to talk peace? It is exactly the other way around. You put pressure on them until they decide that fighting on is a lost cause. "Fight, Fight, Talk, Talk" was just one part of the North's strategy. THAT is the real tragedy of Vietnam, a half-hearted effort that made the fighting drag on and kill many more Americans than if we had fought hard and fast.
For the record, as a teenager, I attended the Nixon For President rally at Madison Square Garden on Halloween, 1968, where former NY Governor Thomas E. Dewey announced to the crowd that President Johnson had decided to suspend the bombing of North Vietnam.
reply
share
riversideriverside
8 years ago
At worst, JFK only acquiesced to the assassination. The displeasure with Diem was essentially internal among the principal Vietnamese. What JFK thought about a vacuum there is nothing more than speculation. Jones's claim is only another version of the "wrong turn" theory of history. History is mostly too complex for such simplicity. Besides, the communists never had control until the very end of the war. They never gained substantial ground until then--nor did they ever gain political favor. All their major offensives met with devastating failure. They crazily believed before each one that the South Vietnamese people would rise up and join them. That's how nuts they were. Tet in '68 was portrayed as a communist victory even though the Vietcong were almost 100% destroyed. While the NVA took another devastating beating.
I agree that we showed too much restraint. But I also believe that JFK, LBJ, and RFK believed in victory. RFK during his run was not the pacifist of lore. Nixon was just plain nuts about it all. McCarthy was a clueless peacenik without smarts.
I was living in the Bronx in late '68 and don't remember the Nixon event. I do recall seeing Allen Ginsberg and Paul Krasner at a "be-in" in Ft Dix during that time. Both those creatures proved to be unfortunate excesses of democratic largess.
reply
share
[email protected]
8 years ago
Riversideriverside, we agree on the basics of the disaster that was the Vietnam War. I disagree with you in that LBJ believed in victory. Every decision he made was half hearted and too late with an eye on the political issues and popular opinion as opposed to victory.
Early on, the powers that be realized that, in the words of McNamara "we may not be able to beat these people", however, if we did not make an effort, our allies would abandon us as our promises under SEATO would mean nothing.
Watch the excellent "Path To War" to see the arguements made by McNamara and Clark Clifford to LBJ regarding Vietnam.
The only way to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia after Diem's deposal would have been to fight an-all out conventional war beginning in 1964. This would include bombing Hanoi, mining Haiphong Harbor, stopping infiltration along the DMZ, incursions into Laos and Cambodia and a full-scale implementing of the US Marines CAP program.
Unfortunately, LBJ determined that the American people would not stomach such a war, so we were left with a half-hearted effort, always checking popular opinion before each move. Not calling up the reserves or the National Guard left us with a military devoid of experienced NCOs; the backbone of any combat force.
I don't know what JFK actually thought about creating a vacuum , but "Death of A Generation" states that any possibility of a withdrawal of American advisors ended with the chaos brought upon by Diem's deposal. The book speculates that JFK's threat of withdrawing the advisors was merely a ploy to force Diem to cooperate.
The widely held belief that JFK, the ultimate Cold Warrior, would abandon Southeast Asia to the Communists is nonsense, for if that had come about in 1964, the "Domino Effect" would have come true. Our decade long effort in Vietnam spared several of Vietnam's neighbors from that fate.
reply
share