LBJ's Secret War

Washington Post ^ | 12/01/2001 | Michael Beschloss

[Pokey78]

Jack Valenti argues in his op-ed piece [Nov. 29] that to understand the new secret tapes of President Lyndon B. Johnson's private conversations on Vietnam, contained in my recently published book, "Reaching for Glory," you must know this about him: that LBJ did not seek a World War II-style unconditional-surrender victory in Vietnam, that his aim was instead to break the back of the enemy and force him to negotiate.

[Elihu Burritt]

Johnson would have been aided in this had he asked for help from Sen. Russell, a Georgia hawk known as "Mr. Defense" who was head of the Armed Services Committee. In private, Russell told LBJ repeatedly that Vietnam was not our war. In the summer of 1965, he confided to Johnson his horror that Vietnam's leader, Gen. Nguyen Cao Ky, was saying he would let Americans do the fighting in Vietnam while his own troops hung back, engaging in pacification. Russell told LBJ, "If they're going to try to fight that kind of war, I'm in favor of getting out of there."

There's a flip side to this too. Ho Chi Minh got to know America as a crewmember of French cruise ships that docked periodically at New Orleans. He kept a collection of lynching memoriabilia he picked up on shore leave. He also wrote articles for a French publication about them. It was not a good introduction, and as much as he admired America, it's a good chance his firmness in resisting us had something to do with his awareness that we had in us some of those sterling qualitities so reminiscent of the gracious French colonialism. The real horrors of Nam had their roots in that Colonialism, and it made the Japanese occupation seem relatively benign.

For some reason, Georgians have always had a profound sense of when it is that war crosses the ideals of the founders; a sense that is largely missing in a lot of other states. They gave Jefferson Davis a really hard time in that way.

[Robe]

This realy pisses me off!
How dare a US President commit troops WITHOUT the expressed purpose of overwhelming the enemy.
I think of the young lives lost, the friends incinerated, and the injuries and trauma that I/we are still coping with today. My only hope is that Johnson and McNamara are burning in hell!! For they have the blood of a lot of good boys on their hands.

[fliberman]

Check the history of the billions pumped into the infamous Viet Nam era "Military-Industrial Complex."

We're seeing it again.

DUH! Go to the secret wars in Laos & Cambodia with the all-too-familiar heroin connection.

Viet Nam was about off-shore oil.

[185JHP]

If you haven't read the book "Dereliction of Duty", the West Point grad who wrote it lays out the dishonesty of the leftists who enabled LBJ to run his scam on the American people. OTOH, how many guys who already had two, three, or four stars took early retirement and told the truth about the dishonesty? (none)

[Valin]

If you're inerested in more you might look at "Dereliction of Duty" By H.R. McMasters.

[RLK]

Lyndon Johnson was a not too bright dishonest blowhard with a touch of grandiosity who should not have been president. He put his money on Robert McNamara who was a subversive.

[RLK]

My only hope is that Johnson and McNamara are burning in hell!!

------------------

I believe McNamara is still alive and heads the socialist world band that distributes money to developing countries.

[RLK]

band=bank

[RLK]

The united states has had a series of very poor presidents in the last 40 years with the exception of Reagan and probably Nixon, who was so hamstrung by riots and the disaster handed to him as to be, practically, overthrown.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

ping

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

ping

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

ping

[jackbob]

Check the history of the billions pumped into the infamous Vietnam era "Military-Industrial Complex," ... to the secret wars in Laos & Cambodia with the all-too-familiar heroin connection.

Vietnam was about off-shore oil.

True enough. But it also was about freedom, and stopping communism.

What the above article does not tell you, is that Johnson was wrong. The Viet Cong were defeated. The last of them were mopped up in 1969. From then on, it was a different war, against a different enemy. That second war, easier to win, and was being won hands down. But victories were reversed politically, in the United States.

[backhoe]

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Early provocation, or early example of "spin..."

[B4Ranch]

I saw too many wounded and too many corpses of Americans to even think that Johnson or Nixon was acting with honor. The damn cease-fires enraged all of us.

[Colt .45]

We all got the shaft that were in uniform back then. I still have some deep animosity and mistrust of not only the Government but also of America's citizenry.

I know most who say they are supporting the military now days mean it, but how many are just paying lip service?

We were wrongfully blamed for the loss of that war, and were scapegoats for waaaaaaaaaay too many years! It would be nice to hear John Q. Public say "We were wrong for what we did", but I don't think that will happen.

Brother ... we know what really happened ... we know. Our own government and the American people sold us out, while we did our best fighting LBJ's dirty war.