Posted on 11/16/2013 9:48:54 PM PST by fella
And the Cuban Missile Crisis, on some subsequent readings of history, was not a triumph of bold statesmanship as it was hailed at the time, but a piece of foolhardy grandstanding that unnecessarily humiliated the Soviets and precipitated the arms race that defined the Cold War.
Even on civil rights – the subject of one of Kennedy's greatest speeches in June 1963, when he vowed that "Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as he would wish to have his children treated." – the reality never matched the myth.
Kennedy made good on his campaign promises on equal rights but only, we now know, after being forced to intervene by growing violence in the South. Until that point, along with his brother Robert, the attorney-general, it was pragmatism not principle that had governed decision-making.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
From the CS Monitor
“It’s possible he would have dispatched hundreds of thousands of US combat troops to the country, as did LBJ. Kennedy was a cold-war Democrat, meaning he was a committed anti-communist. His brother Robert Kennedy said in a 1964 oral history that JFK never thought about pulling out of Vietnam and was convinced the United States had to stand there against Soviet expansionism.”
“During the course of his presidency, JFK had increased the number of US advisers in Vietnam to more than 16,000 and opened the spigots of US military and financial aid.”
From wikipedia:
“In the 1960 U.S. presidential election, Senator John F. Kennedy defeated sitting Vice President Richard Nixon. Although Eisenhower warned Kennedy about Laos and Vietnam, Europe and Latin America “loomed larger than Asia on his sights.” In his inaugural address, Kennedy made the ambitious pledge to “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.”
“By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower’s 900 advisors”
“It’s a total myth Kennedy caused Viet Nam.
He advocated advisors only.”
So goes the myth, djf.
My dad’s office partner was the Pentagon’s small arms expert in that day. He returned from a tour in Vietnam in ‘62 and said that “they may not be calling it a war but we are using up ammunition just like it is one.” That was well before Johnson and there was plenty of fighting going on that involved American personnel.
And then Kennedy found the President of South Vietnam hard to control and wanted him gone. The result was the assassination of President Diem and his family in early November 1963. This left Vietnam rudderless and unable to fight. Johnson inherited that mess and was the one who eventually sent in American ground combat troops but it was Kennedy’s foolish elimination of President Diem that set that all in motion.
Yep, JFK was moving in troops by the many thousands, more than 16,000.
At the time, after decades of playing it low key and staying out of war in Vietnam, JFK decided that we suddenly needed 16,000 “advisers”, which is a heck of a lot of advising to be throwing into a war zone.
16,000 advisors, Special Forces. That’s what they admit to, sure. But they were doing a lot more than ‘advising’ and giving villagers immunization shots. My father was there ‘advising’ in ‘66. He introduced me to a Green Beret Captain, Roger H.C. Donlon, in the Fort Benning PX and I’ve never forgotten it. Medal of Honor winner, while advising there in 1963.
Kennedy saw himself as a Cold War warrior and his little brother was a real fire-eater. This myth about Kennedy reluctantly engaging in Vietnam was just that. He had been backed down over the U-2 downing, at Vienna and in Cuba. He resented it, unlike a current resident who seems to thrive on self abasement. Anyway, that’s my two cents. I saw it at Eglin AF base during the missile crisis and the buildup at Benning 64-65. The Dems were spoiling for war, so the Tonkin Gulf BS. Then RFK and his punks dumped it all in Nixon’s lap.
Our fighting men then share something with our troops 50 years later: they deserve better leaders. A lot better.
“Source?”
Ansel12 is absolutely right. My father was one of the 16,000 troops Kennedy sent over to Vietnam. The Military Assistance Command- Vietnam commanded by Gen Paul Harkins.
Well, all I can say is I’m glad my number came up 345.
And I can say this, I will not blame VietNam on Kennedy,
It takes 50 years for the general public to get this information.....
...and some folks still believe there was a Camelot
I've never heard ANYTHING credible that after insertion of a large amount of troops, that he had any intention of calling them back.
LBJ simply continued JFKs ramp up. And had LBJ not royally screwed up, we could have actually WON in Vietnam.
Some have argued that after Tet, that we really had broken the backs of the North Vietnamese.
Don't get me started on my dad's opinion.
He was in the service at the time and has told me many things not considered PC with the Kennedy "legacy".
He STILL hates the guy.
For some reason he blames JFK more than LBJ. And he served under both.
“16,000 advisors, Special Forces. That’s what they admit to, sure. But they were doing a lot more than ‘advising’ and giving villagers immunization shots. My father was there ‘advising’ in ‘66. He introduced me to a Green Beret Captain, Roger H.C. Donlon, in the Fort Benning PX and I’ve never forgotten it. Medal of Honor winner, while advising there in 1963.”
You’re quite right, advisors outside of Saigon weren’t exactly sitting quietly in a schoolroom. Kennedy was a big proponent of the Green Berets. One major difference between his policy in Vietnam and Johnson’s was that Kennedy thought that unconventional warfare could do the job. But then he got Diem killed and the North began sending conventional forces south.
“And I can say this, I will not blame VietNam on Kennedy,”
That’s a triumph of emotion over the facts, but I imagine you will find lots of company.
“Some have argued that after Tet, that we really had broken the backs of the North Vietnamese.”
It was the Viet Cong that was destroyed during Tet, not the NVA. The Viet Cong were irregulars, a Communist militia in the South. North Vietnam’s regular army was still very much intact.
“LBJ simply continued JFKs ramp up. And had LBJ not royally screwed up, we could have actually WON in Vietnam.”
Johnson kept Kennedy’s SecDef Robert McNamara, perhaps one of the worst we have ever had, so there was definitely continuity there.
LBJ and McNamara decided that they could manage the war better than the generals and the two of them managed to violate about every known rule for winning a war. Ho Chi Minh and General Giap couldn’t have designed it much better.
It's isn't me.
John and Bobby died for our sins..... /sarc
Well, however you measure it, emotion is involved in everything.
I have no comment about Eisenhower, as I was alive then, but about that time, still nursing!
My judgement is this. And it is only my opinion based on what I lived and saw.
History will be the great judge.
It will be kind to Kennedy.
There is chit about Johnson that is buried so deep you might never smell it but history will rip him to pieces.
It will also, begrudgingly, be kind to Nixon. In my opinion, Nixon was a good man who got in too deep.
Ford? He tried hard. After all, he was an excellent FB player.
Carter? He also tried hard. His southern hospitality and genteel nature I think is something we should recognize and respect. I can tell you that IF the Iranian hostage mission had succeeded, there is no doubt in my mind, he would have been re-elected.
Reagan? Balls.
The two things no other president in my lifetime has had.
Bush I? A total Wall Streeter, Military/Industrial/Intelligence tool. Cripes he was head of the CIA for a while. Does anybody actually think he could have worried more about votes than his friends in high places?
Clinton?
Most FReepers will be amazed that I say this. But I think history will treat Bill Clinton as one of the greatest presidents ever. During his tenure, we had the computer revolution, there were many advances in agricultural output, in fact quite a bit of that “peace” thing was out there during the Clinton years. And when one compares the reception Clinton got in the international community VS. the reception George Bush II got, it shows quite a distinction.
Bush II? I think Bush the second will be viewed unfavorably. Too many conflicting forces surrounded him. I sincerely believe that he is an honest man, but we are at the point it almost makes one wonder “Is the job of Presidency too big for a single man?”
Obama? Zero.
But compared to Barack Obama, he's RR.
Rush occasionally makes that point, and, when he does, it really annoys the leftards.
Interesting. I really want to get to that book about JFK being involved. They are talking about it on coast to coast tonight.
I have too much to say, but I will give you, this.
I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, on a Continental military defense installation.
I met, and talked, not in a crowd, but one-on-one, with the late JFK.
He was the LAST combat-wounded-veteran President. (Bush01 was shot down, but unharmed.) His book, “Profiles in Courage”, acted as a literary mentor for many Americans.
He was the LAST fiscal conservative Democratic President.
He was the LAST Democratic President of this country, who stood face to face, against the now dissolved (sorta) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Lastly, he WAS an American, in the time when television was still new.
The Brits will never get what it is, “being an American”, because it is not in their DNA.
The last decent Democrat President was Grover Cleveland. The Socialist element began their purge of him and his Conservatives in 1896.
Stood face to face against the USSR ? Khruschev ate his lunch. Nixon never would’ve folded like a cheap suit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.