[lbo-talk] JFK - withdrawal from Vietnam?

Joseph Wanzala jwanzala at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 22 14:18:55 PDT 2003


Yes, I believe Chomsky has contested this contention, and Alex Cockburn has debated Peter Dale Scott in the Nation magazine on this question. Much though certainly not all the research on this issue has overlapped with (sometimes tengential) research re the Kennedy assasination, but here is a site with some references that I have found useful. Personally, I remain agnostic.

Joe W. ______________

http://history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm

Recommended Books JFK and Vietnam, by Dr. John Newman, Warner Books, 1992. Dr. Newman's groundbreaking study of the intrigue and deception within the Kennedy government regarding Vietnam has only been further corroborated by later declassifications.

American Tragedy, by David Kaiser, Harvard University Press, 2000. While presenting a less nuanced view of the internal dynamics of the divided Kennedy administration, Kaiser's work nonetheless adds further documentation to the thesis that Kennedy was inalterably opposed to a widened conflict in Vietnam, a view vehemently not shared by his military chiefs.

Also worth reading is the controversial memoirs of Robert McNamara: In Retrospect, Random House, 1995. McNamara, in a better position to know that most, wrote: "I think it highly probable that, had President Kennedy lived, he would have pulled us out of Vietnam." ____________________

Essays The Kennedy Assassination and the Vietnam War, by Peter Dale Scott. This 30-year-old essay, discussing the subtle but important Vietnam policy changes which immediately followed Kennedy's death, is still relevant. The declassified record has, where it hasn't disappeared altogether as in a few key places, borne out Peter Scott's analysis.

http://history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/KennedyVietnam1971/KennedyVietnam1971.htm

The Kennedy Assassination and the Vietnam War (1971) Peter Dale Scott Excerpts from Text

With respect to events in November 1963, the bias and deception of the original Pentagon documents are considerably reinforced in the Pentagon studies commissioned by Robert McNamara. Nowhere is this deception more apparent than in the careful editing and censorship of the Report of a Honolulu Conference on November 20, 1963, and of National Security Action Memorandum 273, which was approved four days later. Study after study is carefully edited so as to create a false illusion of continuity between the last two days of President Kennedy’s presidency and the first two days of President Johnson’s. The narrow division of the studies into topics, as well as periods, allows some studies to focus on the “optimism”[1] which led to plans for withdrawal on November 20 and 24, 1963; and others on the “deterioration” and “gravity”[2] which at the same meetings led to plans for carrying the war north. These incompatible pictures of continuous “optimism” or “deterioration” are supported generally by selective censorship, and occasionally by downright misrepresentation.

…National Security Action Memorandum 273, approved 26 November 1963. The immediate cause for NSAM 273 was the assassination of President Kennedy four days earlier; newly-installed President Johnson needed to reaffirm or modify the policy lines pursued by his predecessor. President Johnson quickly chose to reaffirm the Kennedy policies…

Emphasis should be placed, the document stated, on the Mekong Delta area, but not only in military terms. Political, economic, social, educational, and informational activities must also be pushed: “We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief…” Military operations should be initiated, under close political control, up to within fifty kilometers inside of Laos. U.S. assistance programs should be maintained at levels at least equal to those under the Diem government so that the new GVN would not be tempted to regard the U.S. as seeking to disengage.


>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
>Subject: [lbo-talk] JFK - withdrawal from Vietnam?
>Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:51:46 -0400
>
>Jamie Galbraith (whose father was an influential advisor to JFK) argues
>that Kennedy *did* want to withdraw from Vietnam:
><http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html>. Noam Chomsky
>disagrees.
>
>Maybe someone who knows this territory better than I can comment.
>
>Doug
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________ Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list