[Vision2020] Once upon a time . . .
Ron Force
rforce2003 at yahoo.com
Mon Nov 18 19:30:11 PST 2013
One interpretation of the Memo was to put pressure on the Diem administration to more effectively prosecute the war. Note that it was not made public at the time. In September of 1963, Kennedy gave two TV interviews, quoted here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm
In September of 1963, Kennedy did two TV interviews in which policy toward Vietnam was discussed. The first was with Walter Cronkite on September 2nd. In it, Kennedy made the famous statement that is quoted by Oliver Stone and other conspiracists:
I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it.
Kennedy then goes on to talk about problems with the Diem regime, and concludes:
. . . in the final analysis it is the people and the Government [of South Vietnam] itself who have to win or lose this struggle. All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear. But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.
Not surprisingly, conspiracists rarely if ever quote the latter part of that passage.
One week later, on September 9th, Kennedy was interviewed by Chet Huntley and David Brinkley of NBC. Here is the portion of the interview concerning Vietnam:
Mr. HUNTLEY. Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now?
>The PRESIDENT. I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that.
>Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have you had any reason to doubt this so-called "domino theory," that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will go behind it?
>The PRESIDENT. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.
>[and a little later in the interview]
>What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say, because they don't like events in Southeast Asia or they don't like the Government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay.
>We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw.
Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA
On Monday, November 18, 2013 6:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>There is the National Security Action Memo #263, dated Oct 5, 1963
which called for the reduction of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963.
>
>The following link is from the JFK Library, but it wasn't working
for me. It might be back up later.
>
>http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx
>
>In the meantime, here is another:
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html
>
>I don't know if this means he would have continued to withdraw
troops if he had lived, given the aftermath of the Diem
assassination, but I think it shows a less hawkish view of the
war. He supposedly was trying to get the Vietnamese trained to
handle things themselves and then withdraw.
>
>Paul
>
>On 11/17/2013 09:28 PM, Ron Force wrote:
>
>One must remember the history of the era (which I lived through). It was a time when Communism seemed monolithic and powerful. The Democrats were attacked for having "lost China" in 1949. The McCarthy era (late 50's) made it seem that the government was infiltrated by traitors. Government employees at all levels were required to swear loyalty oaths. Kennedy was assailed early in his term for having botched the invasion of Cuba.
>>
>>
>>Kennedy was trying classical counter-insurgency tactics in Vietnam that the British had used in Malaysia --moving the population into secure villages, building guerrilla armies out of the ethnic minorities-- remember, he pushed the Green Berets to the fore. These policies and the strict Catholic policies of Diem were alienating the population. When the Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem appeared to be losing the support of the Buddhist majority. the CIA funded a military coup that ended in Diem's assassination. Kennedy was assassinated three weeks later.
>>
>>
>>Although some claimed that Kennedy would have withdraw from Vietnam, it's hard to find any support for this theory in his actions. The same foreign policy and military advisers continued with Johnson. Both Kennedy, Johnson, and the people around them firmly believed in the "domino theory". Johnson didn't want the Democrats charged with "losing Vietnam", so as the situation in the country deteriorated excuses were found to escalate the conflict. Given the general psychology. foreign policies, and public anxieties of the period, it's hard to believe that Kennedy wouldn't have sent the troops in, just as Johnson did.
>>
>>Ron Force
>>Moscow Idaho USA
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sunday, November 17, 2013 4:49 PM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Not necessarily. It is possible Kenndy had a way, or would have found a way to end the conflict. He did get us out of the Cuban missle crisis. He also set forth the mission to put a man on the Moon. It is entirely possible his wanting to not escalate Vietnam was a cause of this assassination. How much was made off that war? Why did Johnson refuse to end, even at his demise, and forced Humphrey to tske the same stance.
>>>Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Kai Eiselein <fotopro63 at hotmail.com>;
>>>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com <vision2020 at moscow.com>;
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Once upon a time . . .
>>>Sent: Sun, Nov 17, 2013 8:00:59 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>By the time Kennedy was assassinated, the US had thousands of troops in Vietnam and servicemen had already been coming home in body bags.
>>>In 1960 there were 900 US troops
in Vietnam, in 1961 that number
increased to 3,205, the number
jumped to 11,300 in 1962 and was
16,300 by the end of 1963.
>>>The US was going to be in Vietnam
under Kennedy, that is clear
because the numbers show it.
>>>I think Kennedy's legacy would
have been far different had he not
been killed. Vietnam would have
been his debacle.
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013
09:55:18 -0800
>>>> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>> To: thansen at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020]
Once upon a time . . .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Had he not been assassinated,
I think we would be in a far
better place
>>>> as a nation right now. I
don't think we would have sent
combat troops
>>>> into Vietnam, and I don't
think the intelligence agencies
and the
>>>> military industrial complex
would be so large.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether L. Fletcher
Prouty's contention that his
assassination
>>>> was a coup d'etat by the
intelligence communities and the
military
>>>> industrial complex was
correct. It would explain a lot,
and as
>>>> Kennedy's Chief of Special
Operations on the Joint Chiefs of
Staff at
>>>> the time he would be in a
position to know.
>>>>
>>>> Was our current President
shown details of Kennedy's
assassination
>>>> after he took office, with
the message being that he wasn't
as safe as
>>>> he thought he was? I don't
know, but it would explain a lot
about why
>>>> he suddenly reversed his
stance on many of the things he
was elected to
>>>> take care of, such as abuses
of the Patriot Act and Gitmo.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen anything to
make me think that was the case
beyond a
>>>> doubt, but it does make me
wonder.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2013 09:04 AM, Tom
Hansen wrote:
>>>> [https://blu174.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=797ab025-4fb1-11e3-9305-00215ad9bb8e&attindex=0&cp=-1&attdepth=0&imgsrc=cid%3apart1.08020709.07090902%40yahoo.com&cid=1f65f128adc44fc7&hm__login=fotopro63&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.43.236.8&d=d3437&mf=128&hm__ts=Sun%2c%2017%20Nov%202013%2019%3a50%3a40%20GMT&st=fotopro63&hm__ha=01_602fb84cc4603f9c909c359236110d8275a5814184808c60b0a90fd08b8b1f8e&oneredir=1]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "High Hopes - Jack Kennedy"
by Frank Sinatra
>>>> http://www.tomandrodna.com/songs/High_Hopes_Kennedy_Sinatra.mp3
>>>>
>>>> "Everyone is voting for
Jack
>>>> 'Cause he's got what all
the rest lack
>>>> Everyone wants to back
--Jack
>>>> 'Cause he's got high hopes
>>>> He's got high hopes
>>>> Nineteen Sixty's the year
for his high hopes.
>>>> Come on and vote for
Kennedy
>>>> Vote for Kennedy
>>>> And We'll come out on top!
>>>> Oops, there goes the
opposition - ker -
>>>> Oops, there goes the
opposition - ker -
>>>> Oops, there goes the
opposition - KERPLOP!
>>>>
>>>> K--E--DOUBLE N--E--D--Y
>>>> Jack's the nations'
favorite guy
>>>> Everyone wants to back
--Jack
>>>> Jack is on the right track.
>>>> 'Cause he's got high hopes
>>>> He's got high hopes
>>>> Nineteen Sixty's the year
for his high hopes.
>>>> Come on and vote for
Kennedy
>>>> Vote for Kennedy
>>>> Keep America strong.
>>>> Kennedy, he just keeps
rollin' - a -
>>>> Kennedy, he just keeps
rollin' - a -
>>>> Kennedy, he just keeps
rollin' along."
>>>>
>>>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow,
because . . .
>>>>
>>>> "Moscow Cares" (the most
fun you can have with your pants
on)
>>>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>>>
>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>
>>>> "There's room at the top
they are telling you still
>>>> But first you must learn
how to smile as you kill
>>>> If you want to be like the
folks on the hill."
>>>>
>>>> - John Lennon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
=======================================================
>>>> List services made
available by First Step
Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>
=======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
=======================================================
List services
>>>> made available by First
Step Internet, serving the
communities of the
>>>> Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>
=======================================================
>>>
>>>=======================================================
>>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>=======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20131118/31098b78/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list