Kennedy vs the CIA

[Barry Pollard]

...
   Instead of combat troops, Kennedy agreed to a substantial increase in American advisors.  This

decision was implemented under the provisions of NSAM-111.  Those observers who cite this decision as

evidence that Kennedy pushed a reluctant military into Vietnam obviously haven't a clue about the context

in which this decision was made.  When the situation, the recommendations and Kennedy's decision are

looked at as a whole, they boil down to this:  even when Kennedy was told the only workable solution

was conventional American forces, he would only agree to assisting the South Vietnamese army fight their

war."

~snip~

Quick sketch of an average fighter for the southern army; he's forced into service, refusal isn't an option, everyone of his "enemies" is potentially a family member who had to flee because of political beliefs, or a cousin, a friend or a neighbor, so every time he's not being watched he's shooting over their heads and if by chance his commander gets shot, they stop shooting and invite the other side across for a chat and some tea. Good luck winning that "war".

Now here's my question regarding Newman and the above(I haven't read it), does he really believe they were just advisors(does anyone?), does he deal with the reality or not and does he go into the report that NSAM-111 originated from?  I'll have to refresh my memory to why but the report/study in the second question has it's own controversy.
Biased, trumped up, one sided, something along those lines.

[Barry Pollard]

IF STONES analysis of the International Control Commision's report which both Kennedy and Johnson used to invade South Vietnam.
Ignore the bold text at the top and elsewhere and it's easier to follow.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u_hAXHDJEc4J:http://www.ifstone.org/weekly/IFStonesWeekly-1965mar08.pdf%2Bif+stone's+weekly+volume+xiii+no9&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&ct=clnk

Most foreign made weapons captured from the NFL were from the communist block, that amounts to about 2.5% of the total, where did the other 97.5% come from? The USA of course but just ignore the second part and you're okay.
Also ignore how the US itself violated the Geneva accords on numerous occasions and even stopped the ICC itself from fully checking their own stockpiles of arms and again, you're good to go.

This is what NSAM-111 is based on, a completely one sided view of that same report.
Ring any bells from the not too distant past?


Want to know why the Vietnam domino theory has it's roots in Japan's economy(the super domino)?
Type Japan into the small box in the following link and hit "search inside", then click on each hit in turn and read the text.
Dulles and the CIA were searching for an area to help secure Japan's economic future, since it's trade with China would no longer be an option.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Preponderance_of_Power.html?id=pIIeG_yn72wC&redir_esc=y

April 1954, Eisenhower's press conference, scroll down to the Q. from Robert Richard's and read the full A.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10202

[Matt Grantham]

 One would think that destroying the country would hurt its economic viability There is also the question if the US was really out to win it

[Barry Pollard]

All of SE Asia was considered.
Letting Vietnam decide for itself who it would trade with was worse than bombing it to bits. The former sets a bad example to others who may follow it's lead, the latter teaches a valuble lesson on who they shouldn't mess with and like Cuba they've never been allowed to recover, no way, thus continuing the lesson for future generations.
The rotten apple theory.

Was the US out to win it? Well I think Kennedy was, right till the end. In his last press conference, he said as much and I have no trouble believing him.
New government, new situation "and we hope [as if he didn't know] an increased effort in the war..."
Never tried to understand Johnson or Nixon and doubt I ever will.

Reporter sees "Coup" but says "Shoe"
@7:40

[Richard Rubio]

You used "DiEugenio" and "facts" on the same line. Those two words aren't even on the same planet.

Anyway, Cable 243 was sent on August 24, 1963. The coup would not occur until the first of November. Even then, the August cable referred to a coup plot that had unraveled by the end of August. There was plenty of opportunity to walk away from Cable 243 after September 1st. The administration chose to continue down the road to November 1.

And yes, JFK was mad at Hilsman, Harriman, and Forrestal, but not so much that any of them were canned (as you've noted) or even demoted. On the other hand, at a meeting of administration grandees on 31 August after the first coup fizzled, Paul Kattemberg became the first administration official to opine that the best course would be "to get out honorably." Kattenberg's reward was to be summarily exiled from any further advisory role by Rusk and McNamara.

Cable 243 essentially advised Lodge to tell Diem that the US wanted Nhu out. If Diem would not remove his brother from any position of power, then Lodge was then to signal to the ARVN generals that the US would be OK with Diem's replacement via coup. Lodge read the tea leaves, realized that Diem would never cash out his own brother, and skipped the first bit. From what I recall, he consulted with Harkins and Richardson on the matter and they backed his judgement as to the strength of Diem's relationship with Nhu. In fact, I can't think of anyone who figured that the US would have been able to get Diem to turn out his brother, so you can't really fault Lodge for going straight to Plan B. 

As for whether or not JFK would have committed troops, that's beyond the scope of this particular topic.


 

Outstanding answer. I do know bits of the history here but I could not tie it together. You are a real asset to the forum. I usually, do not believe in just gratuitous compliments but I've read some of your other answers as well. Very knowledgeable and insightful.

[Bill Chapman]

DiEugenio has been agitating for months to have DVP served with a permanent ban from that 'other place'. DVP is more than able to stand up for himself so a tag team approach is in play to bully him into submission and eventual banishment. It is plain to see as now there's a mod on board who is sympathetic to their cause.

This forum (The JFK Assassination Forum) is a model democracy in comparison. I wonder if it's because no one here is continually spruiking their latest book. Whatever the reason well done to Duncan.

'Their latest book'

 

Are you sure any CTer here could even write a coherent paragraph, let alone a book?

[Gary Craig]

Quick sketch of an average fighter for the southern army; he's forced into service, refusal isn't an option, everyone of his "enemies" is potentially a family member who had to flee because of political beliefs, or a cousin, a friend or a neighbor, so every time he's not being watched he's shooting over their heads and if by chance his commander gets shot, they stop shooting and invite the other side across for a chat and some tea. Good luck winning that "war".

Now here's my question regarding Newman and the above(I haven't read it), does he really believe they were just advisors(does anyone?), does he deal with the reality or not and does he go into the report that NSAM-111 originated from?  I'll have to refresh my memory to why but the report/study in the second question has it's own controversy.
Biased, trumped up, one sided, something along those lines.

"Now here's my question regarding Newman and the above(I haven't read it), does he really believe they were just advisors(does anyone?), does he deal with the reality"

 


http://www.jfk-info.com/files.htm

THE KENNEDY-JOHNSON TRANSITION:
THE CASE FOR POLICY REVERSAL
 by DR. JOHN M. NEWMAN.

~snip~

"Such arguments blur the crucial distinction between a policy of advising the South Vietnamese army how

to fight the war and a policy using the American army to fight the war.  From any perspective, not the

least of which was the Viet Cong's, the difference between the South Vietnamese army and the American

army was not subtle, and neither was the difference between the Special Forces, on the one hand, and the

Marines or 82D  Airborne Division, on the other.  These differences are fundamental, and to construe a

large increase in advisors as something only slightly less or a little different than brigades and divisions of

ground forces is just nonsense."

~snip~