JFK got the U.S into Vietnam (not Johnson)

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Why do you think JFK authorized on paper in Oct 1963 the withdrawal of 1000 military personal by the end of 1963? To help him win re-election the following year rather than genuinely being sure the US would be pulling out of Vietnam in 1965?

The withdrawal was, in my view, to put pressure on Diem to change his policies on the Buddhists. The plan to withdraw troops over time was always contingent on the ability of the South to take on more of the war. The US would draw down as the South ramped up its efforts.

The question then was what would happen if the South couldn't ramp up those efforts? RFK answered that question in 1964. Well, not directly:

Question: "And if [the South] Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he [JFK] propose to go in on land if he had to?

Kennedy: "Well, we'd face that when we came to it."

In November of 1963 they hadn't had to face that yet.

RFK also said this about the war:

Question: "What was the overwhelming reason [for our support of the South]?

Kennedy: "Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall."

Question:  "What if it did?"

Kennedy: "Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam."

Question: "There was never any consideration given to pulling out?"

Kennedy: "No."

I don't think that was RFK engaging in public relations or blowing smoke. The Pentagon Papers and the biographies of McNamara and Rusk show this was true. There was no consideration at that time to simply leave.

Full RFK interview here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here is RFK explaining how the Kennedy Administration viewed the importance of Vietnam and the ramifications if it fell (1964):

Kennedy: "Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall."

Question: "What if it did?"

Kennedy: "Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam."

If you tell the public these things - that a loss in Vietnam would have "profound effects" on the US position globally - then it's hard to walk that back and say "Nevermind" and simply leave. This is what JFK would have had to face. And what LBJ did face.

[Colin Crow]

[John Tonkovich]

JFK biographer Mr. Reeves says JFK caused the Vietnam war by authorizing the overthrow of Diem which occurred on Nov 1st 1963. 29-35 minutes on the below video:

This goes very much against the narrative James Douglas portrays in his book JFK And The Unspeakable in which he portrays JFK as a peace-loving hippie.

I wonder if JFK thought he could settle things in Vietnam using the overthrow in order to prevent Vietnam becoming an issue at the 1964 election. If so it was a very selfish thing to do as alot of people got killed in that war. Not of course did he intend that to happen, but he may have started the whole thing just to try and help him win the 1964 election.

peace loving hippie ?   

Hyperbole?
Strawman?
Maybe both?

[Colin Crow]

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

It's quite simple. JFK wanted to stabilize and normalize relations with Cuba and the USSR and withdraw from Viet Nam. He made this clear in October by issuing NSAM 263 which directed the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops from Viet Nam by the end of 1963 and of the bulk of US forces by the end of 1965. Before the orders of the President could be carried out, he was shot through the head, the Johnson administration took the Gulf of Tonkin incident from the How to create a Casus Belli for Dummies book and the rest is history.

People pretend that November 22, 1963 was nothing more than a smooth transition of power and policy didn't change. It wasn't and it did. And not for the better.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's quite simple. JFK wanted to stabilize and normalize relations with Cuba and the USSR and withdraw from Viet Nam. He made this clear in October by issuing NSAM 263 which directed the withdrawal of 1,000 American troops from Viet Nam by the end of 1963 and of the bulk of US forces by the end of 1965. Before the orders of the President could be carried out, he was shot through the head, the Johnson administration took the Gulf of Tonkin incident from the How to create a Casus Belli for Dummies book and the rest is history.

People pretend that November 22, 1963 was nothing more than a smooth transition of power and policy didn't change. It wasn't and it did. And not for the better.

Sorry, it's more complicated then your explanation. JFK's supposed desire to "stabilize" relations was meaningless if the Soviets and Castro and North Vietnamese didn't want to do so as well. They had a vote on the matter; it wasn't simply up to JFK's wishes. He certainly wanted to avoid a confrontation with Moscow; he showed that during the missile crisis. But avoiding war is different then making peace, especially with an opponent that showed little if any interest in it.

In Vietnam, after Diem's overthrow (which, as noted in the original post, JFK approved of), the North stepped up its attacks on the South and at the same time the South couldn't put together a stable government that was capable of defending itself. It was the worst of both worlds. This was the situation LBJ inherited and one that JFK would have likely had to face.

In 1964 Khrushchev was overthrow by hardliners in the Politburo who were upset at his policies. They in turn took a harder line against the US, especially in Vietnam.

And in Cuba, LBJ ended almost all of the covert war on Cuba that the Kennedys put into place. JFK and RFK, in my view, didn't want to "stabilize" relations with Castro; they wanted Castro removed from power. And Castro didn't want to normalize relations with the US; he showed that for the entirety of his rule of the island.

As to the troop withdrawal from Vietnam: The withdrawal was always contingent on the ability of the South to take on the war at the same time. There was never a consideration at that time to simply leave. Read the first section of NSAM 263; that explains what the objective was. And it wasn't just to leave.

RFK himself said this in 1964:

Question:  "There was never any consideration given to pulling out?"

Kennedy:  "No."

Yes, there was no desire to go "all in" either; not at that time.

If you read McNamara's books on the issue he too said there was never a discussion of simply leaving. The idea was to help the South defend itself; not simply to cut and run. And the projected withdrawal of most troops by 1965 was overtaken by other events. Events that JFK and then LBJ had to face.

Again, JFK may have wanted normal relations with the communist world; the problem was that the other side had to agree with his wishes.