Discussion:
JFK AND VIETNAM
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-04-14 13:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-15 00:27:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
This is the - or one of the - critical points:

"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."

The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.

But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.

What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.

What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-16 00:48:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <36f5d076-7c86-4270-802e-***@googlegroups.com>, Steve M.
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-17 00:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.

I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-18 01:37:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <11dfe713-4516-4f73-8085-***@googlegroups.com>, Steve M.
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-19 12:46:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
As an admirer of LBJ perhaps you can tell us what HIS military
experience was?



LBJ's WWII Silver Star
Medal For Valous Was 'A Sham'
By Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian - London
www.guardian.co.uk
7-6-1

For most of his political life, Lyndon B Johnson wore a second world war
military decoration for valour under fire despite never having seen
combat, an investigation broadcast on CNN yesterday revealed.

LBJ was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest US combat medal, for
a 1942 fact-finding mission over the Pacific while he was a Texas
congressman and an acting lieutenant commander in the navy.


The citation, issued in the name of General Douglas MacArthur, said the
plane, a B-26 bomber, was "intercepted by eight hostile fighters" and
that Johnson "evidenced coolness".



In fact, according to surviving members of the crew, the plane developed
mechanical problems before reaching its target and never came under
fire. No other crew member received a medal for the mission.



The biographer of LBJ, Robert Dallek, said the medal was the outcome of
a deal with Gen MacArthur, under which Johnson was honoured in return
for a pledge "that he would lobby the president, FDR, to provide greater
resources for the southwest Pacific theatre".

JFK was a war hero and actually fought and risked his life in WWII. Did
your hero LBJ? Did you? Did you get a Silver Star?
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-20 11:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
As an admirer of LBJ perhaps you can tell us what HIS military
experience was?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lyndon+johnson+military+experience


This information is at our fingertips, Anthony. You have absolutely no
edge on knowledge over anyone, anywhere.
Post by Anthony Marsh
LBJ's WWII Silver Star
Medal For Valous Was 'A Sham'
By Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian - London
www.guardian.co.uk
7-6-1
For most of his political life, Lyndon B Johnson wore a second world war
military decoration for valour under fire despite never having seen
combat, an investigation broadcast on CNN yesterday revealed.
LBJ was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest US combat medal, for
a 1942 fact-finding mission over the Pacific while he was a Texas
congressman and an acting lieutenant commander in the navy.
The citation, issued in the name of General Douglas MacArthur, said the
plane, a B-26 bomber, was "intercepted by eight hostile fighters" and
that Johnson "evidenced coolness".
In fact, according to surviving members of the crew, the plane developed
mechanical problems before reaching its target and never came under
fire. No other crew member received a medal for the mission.
The biographer of LBJ, Robert Dallek, said the medal was the outcome of
a deal with Gen MacArthur, under which Johnson was honoured in return
for a pledge "that he would lobby the president, FDR, to provide greater
resources for the southwest Pacific theatre".
JFK was a war hero and actually fought and risked his life in WWII. Did
your hero LBJ? Did you? Did you get a Silver Star?
Bill Clarke
2018-04-23 20:35:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
As an admirer of LBJ perhaps you can tell us what HIS military
experience was?
If you already knew then why did you ask me?
Post by Anthony Marsh
LBJ's WWII Silver Star
Medal For Valous Was 'A Sham'
By Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian - London
www.guardian.co.uk
7-6-1
For most of his political life, Lyndon B Johnson wore a second world war
military decoration for valour under fire despite never having seen
combat, an investigation broadcast on CNN yesterday revealed.
LBJ was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest US combat medal, for
a 1942 fact-finding mission over the Pacific while he was a Texas
congressman and an acting lieutenant commander in the navy.
The citation, issued in the name of General Douglas MacArthur, said the
plane, a B-26 bomber, was "intercepted by eight hostile fighters" and
that Johnson "evidenced coolness".
In fact, according to surviving members of the crew, the plane developed
mechanical problems before reaching its target and never came under
fire. No other crew member received a medal for the mission.
The biographer of LBJ, Robert Dallek, said the medal was the outcome of
a deal with Gen MacArthur, under which Johnson was honoured in return
for a pledge "that he would lobby the president, FDR, to provide greater
resources for the southwest Pacific theatre".
JFK was a war hero and actually fought and risked his life in WWII. Did
your hero LBJ? Did you? Did you get a Silver Star?
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-24 21:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
As an admirer of LBJ perhaps you can tell us what HIS military
experience was?
If you already knew then why did you ask me?
To force you to admit something for once.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
LBJ's WWII Silver Star
Medal For Valous Was 'A Sham'
By Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian - London
www.guardian.co.uk
7-6-1
For most of his political life, Lyndon B Johnson wore a second world war
military decoration for valour under fire despite never having seen
combat, an investigation broadcast on CNN yesterday revealed.
LBJ was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest US combat medal, for
a 1942 fact-finding mission over the Pacific while he was a Texas
congressman and an acting lieutenant commander in the navy.
The citation, issued in the name of General Douglas MacArthur, said the
plane, a B-26 bomber, was "intercepted by eight hostile fighters" and
that Johnson "evidenced coolness".
In fact, according to surviving members of the crew, the plane developed
mechanical problems before reaching its target and never came under
fire. No other crew member received a medal for the mission.
The biographer of LBJ, Robert Dallek, said the medal was the outcome of
a deal with Gen MacArthur, under which Johnson was honoured in return
for a pledge "that he would lobby the president, FDR, to provide greater
resources for the southwest Pacific theatre".
JFK was a war hero and actually fought and risked his life in WWII. Did
your hero LBJ? Did you? Did you get a Silver Star?
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-25 22:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
As an admirer of LBJ perhaps you can tell us what HIS military
experience was?
If you already knew then why did you ask me?
To force you to admit something for once.
You couldn't force anyone to do anything, ever, unless they were already
totally disabled.

But I know it makes you feel good to believe you could.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-27 11:52:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <a2bbcb0b-02a3-4a19-976a-***@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
says...
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
As an admirer of LBJ perhaps you can tell us what HIS military
experience was?
If you already knew then why did you ask me?
To force you to admit something for once.
You couldn't force anyone to do anything, ever, unless they were already
totally disabled.
But I know it makes you feel good to believe you could.
That is why I call him "General". A man of internet action!
Steve BH
2018-04-20 02:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
But the Kennedy's attitude can be fatal, too, as it was in Bay of Pigs.
They listened to their advisors and got sold a lemon.

In regards Vietnam, The Kennedy's favorite general was Max Taylor, who
they brought in to autopsy Bay of Pigs,* and was overruling the Joint
Chiefs by late 62 at the missile crisis. Bobby's named his last son after
Taylor in 65, possibly in gratitude for not being blown up in 1962.

But Taylor was a Vietnam hawk who got JFK to send in 8000 troops. And
later backed Westmoreland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_D._Taylor#Return_to_duty

* Bay of Pigs autopsy shows CIA involvement and clandestine duplicate
ships and people and assassinations. There's Castro on a grassy knoll.
Damn it, you can never get a good autopsy when you want one.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-21 20:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
M.
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of=20
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in whic=
h=20
Post by Bill Clarke
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the=20
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as=
=20
Post by Bill Clarke
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was buil=
t=20
Post by Bill Clarke
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased=20
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
=20
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his=20
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard=20
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Yeah, I think so. No doubt JFK was more confident with foreign affairs in
general than LBJ. No doubt LBJ was some what intimidated by the Best and
Brightest.
But the Kennedy's attitude can be fatal, too, as it was in Bay of Pigs.
They listened to their advisors and got sold a lemon.
And after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK vowed that he woule never trust
the CIA again and took away some of their power.
Post by Steve BH
In regards Vietnam, The Kennedy's favorite general was Max Taylor, who
they brought in to autopsy Bay of Pigs,* and was overruling the Joint
Chiefs by late 62 at the missile crisis. Bobby's named his last son after
Taylor in 65, possibly in gratitude for not being blown up in 1962.
But Taylor was a Vietnam hawk who got JFK to send in 8000 troops. And
later backed Westmoreland.
WOW! 8,000 troops? Were those advisors or ground combat troops.
Post by Steve BH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_D._Taylor#Return_to_duty
* Bay of Pigs autopsy shows CIA involvement and clandestine duplicate
ships and people and assassinations. There's Castro on a grassy knoll.
Damn it, you can never get a good autopsy when you want one.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-18 01:55:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Yes, we've gone round and round and round on this topic for years. "Good
Morning Groundhog Day." Although we have to remember that new
posters/arrivals aren't aware of it.
I do think, though, that JFK clearly showed he was more confident in
challenging the military and others - the Best and Brightest - than LBJ
Maybe you never heard of The CUban Missile Crisis. Everyone else in the
room said Nuke CUba. JFK said NO.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
did. I.e, generally the McMaster's thesis. Although I think McMaster
really underestimates the success of the North in manipulating US opinion.
What's the saying? Armies don't fight wars, nations do.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-17 00:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Bill, you know more about this topic than probably anyone here.

What do you think JFK would have done? Or could have done? I think his
rhetoric, his characterization of the importance that South Vietnam was to
the US, would trap him. Maybe he could get out of it but it'd be a tough
sell.

The problem, it seems to me, is that he would have tried half measures -
maybe send in 25,000 troops - thinking that would work. Then if it failed
he'd succumb to the view that another 25,000 would do it.

The same half measures and incrementalism that LBJ fell for.

Maybe not.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-18 01:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <6a84c968-aad7-4bea-a51b-***@googlegroups.com>, Steve M.
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Bill, you know more about this topic than probably anyone here.
What do you think JFK would have done? Or could have done? I think his
rhetoric, his characterization of the importance that South Vietnam was to
the US, would trap him. Maybe he could get out of it but it'd be a tough
sell.
The problem, it seems to me, is that he would have tried half measures -
maybe send in 25,000 troops - thinking that would work. Then if it failed
he'd succumb to the view that another 25,000 would do it.
The same half measures and incrementalism that LBJ fell for.
Maybe not.
Of course I don't know what he would have done and your point about what
he could have done is important. He was the president so I guess he could
have done whatever he wanted to do. But of course there was a price to
pay for his actions. How much JFK was willing to pay remains a mystery.

Of course this is pure speculation but I don't believe he would have
bugged out of Vietnam. I also don't think he would have done as LBJ did.
I don't think JFK would have had over half a million troops in SVN. And
any troops he had in SVN I believe would have been used much smarter than
Westmoreland and LBJ used them.

It is very sad to see what little attention was given to forming a winning
strategy in SVN. it makes me sick. All Westmoreland and LBJ could come
up with was to kill more of them than they killed of us; a war of
attrition. How simple and stupid. They had our divisions running around
in the mountains when the Viet population was in the coastal areas. I
believe if JFK had lived he would, of course, have faced the same
challenges that LBJ did in early 1965. If he sent in our combat units, and
I admit this is a big if, he would have sent them to the coastal areas for
pacification work. In other words I think he would sent them in much
smarter than did LBJ and Westmorland and our numbers in SVN would never
been as high as half a million.

Westmoreland and LBJ wasted the time the war should have been won and by
won I use the definition agreed to by JFK, Taylor and McNamara; when the
SV government could handle the situation alone. General Abrams and Nixon
(I spit) made great progress in our efforts but by then it was too late.
Time had ran out.

Thanks for the kind words.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-18 01:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Bill, you know more about this topic than probably anyone here.
Ridiculous. He doesn't have the documents. I do.
He's never done any research at the JFK Library. I have.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What do you think JFK would have done? Or could have done? I think his
First, not get assassinated.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
rhetoric, his characterization of the importance that South Vietnam was to
the US, would trap him. Maybe he could get out of it but it'd be a tough
sell.
When did he say that South Vietnam was more important than the US? BTW,
did you realize that we did get out?

And that was done by a Republican. How neat was that exit? Did the South
survive that exit? Of course, you like Goldwater's solution.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The problem, it seems to me, is that he would have tried half measures -
maybe send in 25,000 troops - thinking that would work. Then if it failed
he'd succumb to the view that another 25,000 would do it.
That's what he was doing with the advisors. I know one kook here who
doesn't understand the difference between advisors and ground combat
troops. Who thinks a nuclear tank round is the same as a regular tank
round.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same half measures and incrementalism that LBJ fell for.
So 200,000 ground combat troops is incrementalism?
Where else is the US doing incrementalism right now?

<crickets>
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Maybe not.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-18 22:10:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
Bill, you know more about this topic than probably anyone here.
Ridiculous. He doesn't have the documents. I do.
He's never done any research at the JFK Library. I have.
I'm cracking up here. When Steve said that I knew you was going to have a
hissy fit. Sure nuff, you blundered right into the ambush. Way to go
General. Now listen closely Marsh; I don't give a tinker's damn how many
documents you have or how much time you wasted in the JFK Library. You
remain un-knowledgeable about JFK's role in Vietnam. This could be from
lack of knowledge or you simply make false statements. Either way you are
usually very wrong in you answers. That is why you come out with BS like
JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home. Pure BS. Now Steve and many more
here have a good understanding of the war. You are not among this group.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
What do you think JFK would have done? Or could have done? I think his
First, not get assassinated.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
rhetoric, his characterization of the importance that South Vietnam was to
the US, would trap him. Maybe he could get out of it but it'd be a tough
sell.
When did he say that South Vietnam was more important than the US? BTW,
did you realize that we did get out?
Steve didn't say that. Another of your old tricks.
Post by Anthony Marsh
And that was done by a Republican. How neat was that exit? Did the South
survive that exit? Of course, you like Goldwater's solution.
No one in this thread has come out for Goldwater. Another of your word
tricks.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The problem, it seems to me, is that he would have tried half measures -
maybe send in 25,000 troops - thinking that would work. Then if it failed
he'd succumb to the view that another 25,000 would do it.
That's what he was doing with the advisors. I know one kook here who
doesn't understand the difference between advisors and ground combat
troops. Who thinks a nuclear tank round is the same as a regular tank
round.
I was a ground combat troop, Marsh. No doubt I know more about it than
you. I've had friends that were advisors. One was killed in Laos. The
advisors died in Vietnam too. Here it is again, "JFK had troops engaged
in combat on the ground, in the air and on the water. They didn't die of
old age. PS Marsh; we didn't have nuke tank rounds. We did have tank
rounds with chemical and biological agents.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
The same half measures and incrementalism that LBJ fell for.
So 200,000 ground combat troops is incrementalism?
Where else is the US doing incrementalism right now?
<crickets>
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Maybe not.
Steve BH
2018-04-20 02:36:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
I'm cracking up here. When Steve said that I knew you was going to have a
hissy fit. Sure nuff, you blundered right into the ambush. Way to go
General. Now listen closely Marsh; I don't give a tinker's damn how many
documents you have or how much time you wasted in the JFK Library. You
remain un-knowledgeable about JFK's role in Vietnam. This could be from
lack of knowledge or you simply make false statements. Either way you are
usually very wrong in you answers. That is why you come out with BS like
JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home. Pure BS. Now Steve and many more
here have a good understanding of the war. You are not among this group.
But there's an irony here. After the first Tonkin Gulf incident (Aug 2,
1964), where three NV torpedo boats managed to damage the wing of one US
airplane and put one bullet into a US radar spy ship (and the return fire
crippled one of them), LBJ contented himself with sending a warning
diplomatic note to the NV gov (the first ever communication with that
government). It was Aug 1964, three months to election, and LBJ was
running for election as the "peace president."

Both sides spewed erroneous claims. The US reported sinking two NV torpedo
boats (none were sunk-- one was being towed back). The NV reported downing
two US airplanes (none went down).

The second "incident" two days later, which caused LBJ to go to congress
to get all powers, and got them, and escalated into the Vietnam War we
know--- never happened. It was broad daylight, no fog (hadn't been two
days earlier, either) and the NV and US forces were over 100 miles from
each other and never got any closer.

BUT: The Maddox got some radar contacts that looked like they might be
torpedo boats (not enough to lock). Some sonar operator reported a "noise
spike" (not a torpedo launch) which the combat info people then REPORTED
as a torpedo launch. A launch that misses is as aggressive as a hit,
right? Then the NV got on the air and started talking about two downed US
planes, and the US assumed it had lost two. But the translation was bad,
and the NV were only talking about the (false) reports of two downed US
planes of two days before.

http://www.historynet.com/case-closed-the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident.htm

So: rumor, propaganda, a bad radar lock, and a sonar "impulse" taken for a
launched but missed torpedo. Sounds a lot like the HSCA with their grassy
knoll shooter impulses and misses.

And on that basis we lost 50,000 American men, and killed god knows how
many Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, including women and children.

The good news is, Anthony will tell you that we weren't similarly fooled
by the HCSA. Oh, no. That would be unthinkable, since government agencies
don't screw up that bad.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-21 20:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by Bill Clarke
I'm cracking up here. When Steve said that I knew you was going to have a
hissy fit. Sure nuff, you blundered right into the ambush. Way to go
General. Now listen closely Marsh; I don't give a tinker's damn how many
documents you have or how much time you wasted in the JFK Library. You
remain un-knowledgeable about JFK's role in Vietnam. This could be from
lack of knowledge or you simply make false statements. Either way you are
usually very wrong in you answers. That is why you come out with BS like
JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home. Pure BS. Now Steve and many more
here have a good understanding of the war. You are not among this group.
But there's an irony here. After the first Tonkin Gulf incident (Aug 2,
1964), where three NV torpedo boats managed to damage the wing of one US
airplane and put one bullet into a US radar spy ship (and the return fire
crippled one of them), LBJ contented himself with sending a warning
diplomatic note to the NV gov (the first ever communication with that
government). It was Aug 1964, three months to election, and LBJ was
running for election as the "peace president."
"Peace"? Balony.
Post by Steve BH
Both sides spewed erroneous claims. The US reported sinking two NV torpedo
boats (none were sunk-- one was being towed back). The NV reported downing
two US airplanes (none went down).
OK, damaged. OK, damaged.
Post by Steve BH
The second "incident" two days later, which caused LBJ to go to congress
to get all powers, and got them, and escalated into the Vietnam War we
ALL powers as in dictator? Did you mean war powers?
Post by Steve BH
know--- never happened. It was broad daylight, no fog (hadn't been two
days earlier, either) and the NV and US forces were over 100 miles from
each other and never got any closer.
Sorta like the Battle of the Pips.
Post by Steve BH
BUT: The Maddox got some radar contacts that looked like they might be
torpedo boats (not enough to lock). Some sonar operator reported a "noise
spike" (not a torpedo launch) which the combat info people then REPORTED
as a torpedo launch. A launch that misses is as aggressive as a hit,
right? Then the NV got on the air and started talking about two downed US
planes, and the US assumed it had lost two. But the translation was bad,
and the NV were only talking about the (false) reports of two downed US
planes of two days before.
It's not nice to bomb whales.Save the Whales.
Post by Steve BH
http://www.historynet.com/case-closed-the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident.htm
So: rumor, propaganda, a bad radar lock, and a sonar "impulse" taken for a
launched but missed torpedo. Sounds a lot like the HSCA with their grassy
knoll shooter impulses and misses.
Cheap shot. The Maddox was working on instinct. The HSCA took several
months and called in more experts to verify the grassy knoll shot.
Post by Steve BH
And on that basis we lost 50,000 American men, and killed god knows how
many Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, including women and children.
The good news is, Anthony will tell you that we weren't similarly fooled
by the HCSA. Oh, no. That would be unthinkable, since government agencies
don't screw up that bad.
Do you even know what a government agency is? BBN was not government
agency. They did the science, not the government.
BOZ
2018-04-18 19:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Galbraith says...
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
"This brings us to another contextual factor Prouty fails to take into
account, the fact that the US-backed coup against the Diem regime of
November 1, 1963, unquestionably altered the political landscape in which
all future decisions would be made."
The plan to withdraw the bulk of troops by 1965 was contingent on the
ability of the South to handle the fighting itself. We would withdraw as
they would "build up." The two went together.
But with Diem's death the entire landscape on which that policy was built
changed.
What would the US do if the South couldn't handle these increased
responsibilities? That's what happened.
What would JFK have done? Nobody knew then, not even Kennedy.
I certainly agree with that. I believe Bobby said as much in his
interview with Martin. They hadn't yet been force to make the hard
decisions on Vietnam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2973467/Post-traumatic-stress-doesnt-exist-says-psychiatrist.html
Bill Clarke
2018-04-15 00:40:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-16 12:04:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him. He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-17 00:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX

[snicker]


He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-18 19:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Post by OHLeeRedux
He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-19 00:28:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Well by god Marsh if the shoe fits, and it does, wear it. You come out
with crap like Jack ordered 1,000 men per month home and not expect to be
nailed on it?

Besides that, no one here called you a liar.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-20 18:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Well by god Marsh if the shoe fits, and it does, wear it. You come out
with crap like Jack ordered 1,000 men per month home and not expect to be
nailed on it?
Besides that, no one here called you a liar.
The previous poster just did.
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-21 14:06:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Well by god Marsh if the shoe fits, and it does, wear it. You come out
with crap like Jack ordered 1,000 men per month home and not expect to be
nailed on it?
Besides that, no one here called you a liar.
The previous poster just did.
Show me the words "You are a liar." Didn't think so.

What I did was point out the obvious facts and let everyone come to their
own conclusions. That you see it as calling you a liar says a lot about
what you are not saying.

If you don't want to be called a duck, then stop quacking.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-23 20:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Well by god Marsh if the shoe fits, and it does, wear it. You come out
with crap like Jack ordered 1,000 men per month home and not expect to be
nailed on it?
Besides that, no one here called you a liar.
The previous poster just did.
I never saw the word "liar".
Post by Anthony Marsh
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-24 21:46:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Well by god Marsh if the shoe fits, and it does, wear it. You come out
with crap like Jack ordered 1,000 men per month home and not expect to be
nailed on it?
Besides that, no one here called you a liar.
The previous poster just did.
I never saw the word "liar".
McAdams does not require that the offender us the word "liar."
Stop being childish.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm


Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?

The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)

Summary

A formal planning and budgetary process for the phased withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Vietnam was begun amid the euphoria and optimism of
July 1962, and was ended in the pessimism of March 1964. Initially, the
specific objectives were: (1) to draw down U.S. military personnel then
engaged in advisory, training, and support efforts from a FY 64 peak of
12,000 to a FY 68 bottoming out of 1,500 (just HQ, MAAG); and (2) to
reduce MAP from a FY 64 peak of $180 million to a FY 69 base of $40.8
million. South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to perform all the
functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel. What the U.S.G. was
actually trying to accomplish during this period can be described in
either or both of two ways: (1) a real desire and attempt to extricate
the U.S. from direct military involvement in the war and to make it a
war which the GVN would have to learn to win, and (2) straightforward
contingency planning and the use of a political-managerial technique to
slow down pressures for greater U.S. inputs. A blend of the wish
embodied in the first explanation and the hard-headedness of the second
seems plausible.

Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with
the resulting political instability and deterioration of the military
situation soon were to lead U.S. decision-makers to set aside this
planning process. An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in
December 1963, but this was essentially an accounting exercise--and the
U.S. force level prior to the reduction had already reached 16,732 in
October 1963. By December 1964, U.S. strength had risen to 23,000 and
further deployments were on the way.

What, then, did the whole phased-withdrawal exercise accomplish? It may
have impeded demands for more men and money, but this is doubtful. If
the optimistic reports on the situation in SVN were to be believed, and
they apparently were, little more would have been requested. It may have
frightened the GVN, but it did not induce Diem or his successors to
reform the political apparatus or make RVNAF fight harder. It may have
contributed, however, to public charges about the Administration's
credibility and over-optimism about the end of the conflict. Despite the
carefully worded White House announcement of the phase-out policy on
October 2, 1963, tentative Johnson Administration judgments came to be
regarded by the public as firm predictions. While this announcement made
clear that the U.S. effort would continue "until the insurgency has been
suppressed or until the national security forces of the GVN are capable
of suppressing it," the public tended to focus on the prognosis which
followed--"Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment
that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the
end of 1965 In August 1964, Mr. McNamara further explained the policy:
"We have said--as a matter of fact, I say today--as our training
missions are completed, we will bring back the training forces."

Quite apart from what was actually accomplished by the phase-out policy
and the costs in terms of domestic political perceptions of
Administration statements on Vietnam, there are some important lessons
to be learned from this exercise. What was the U.S. rationale behind the
policy? Was it sound, feasible, and consistent with statements of
national objectives? By what policy and programmatic means were we
trying to bring about the desired results? Were these, in fact, the most
appropriate and effective vehicles? How did the intelligence and
reporting system in Vietnam help or hinder policy formulation? Why was
not the Diem coup in its darkening aftermath grasped as the opportunity
to reexamine policy and unambiguously to decide to phase out, or to do
whatever was deemed necessary?

The rationale behind the phased withdrawal policy was by and large
internally consistent and sensible.

--To put Vietnam in the perspective of other U.S. world interests.
Vietnam, at this time, was not the focal point of attention in
Washington; Berlin and Cuba were. Part of this exercise was to make
clear that U.S. interests in Europe and in the western hemisphere came
first. Even in terms of Southeast Asia itself, Laos, not Vietnam, was
the central concern. So, the phase-out policy made the kind of sense
that goes along with the structuring of priorities.

--To avoid an open-ended Asian mainland land war. Even though
violated by U.S. involvement in the Korean war, this was a central tenet
of U.S. national security policy and domestic politics. The notion of
the bottomless Asian pit, the difference in outlook about a human life,
were well understood.

--To plan for the contingency that events might force withdrawal
upon us. Seen in this light, the planning process was prudential
preparation.

--To treat the insurgency as fundamentally a Vietnamese matter,
best solved by the Vietnamese themselves. Most U.S. decision-makers had
well-developed doubts about the efficacy of using "white faced" soldiers
to fight Asians. This view was invariably coupled publicly and privately
with statements like this one made by Secretary McNamara: "I personally
believe that this is a war that the Vietnamese must fight . . . I don't
believe we can take on that combat task for them. I do believe we can
carry out training. We can provide advice and logistical assistance."

--To increase the pressure on the GVN to make the necessary reforms
and to make RVNAF fight harder by making the extent and future of U.S.
support a little more tenuous. This was explicitly stated in State's
instructions to Ambassador Lodge on how to handle the White House
statement of October, 1963: "Actions are designed to indicate to Diem
Government our displeasure at its political policies and activities and
to create significant uncertainty in that government and in key
Vietnamese groups as to future intentions of United States." In other
words, phased withdrawal was thought of as a bargaining counter with the
GVN.

--To put the lid on inevitable bureaucratic and political pressures
for increased U.S. involvement and inputs into Vietnam. It was to be
expected and anticipated that those intimately involved in the Vietnam
problem would be wanting more U.S. resources to handle that problem.
Pressures for greater effort, it was reasoned, eventually would come
into play unless counteracted. What Secretary McNamara did was to force
all theater justifications for force build-ups into tension with
long-term phase-down plans. On 21 December, 1963, in a memo to the
President after the Diem coup, Mr. McNamara urged holding the line:
"U.S. resources and personnel cannot usefully be substantially
increased...."

--To deal with international and domestic criticism and pressures.
While Vietnam was not a front burner item, there were those who already
had begun to question and offer non-consensus alternatives. During 1963,
for example, both General de Gaulle and Senator Mansfield were strongly
urging the neutralization of Vietnam.

It is difficult to sort out the relative importance of these varying
rationales; all were important. Paramount, perhaps, were the desires to
limit U.S. involvement, and to put pressure on the GVN for greater
efforts. And, the rationales were all consistent with one another. But
they did not appear as being wholly consistent with other statements of
our national objectives in Southeast Asia. For example, on July 17, 1963,
President Kennedy said: "We are not going to withdraw from [bringing about
a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national
independence]. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would
mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia." He added:
"We can think of Vietnam as a piece of strategic real estate. It's on the
corner of mainland Asia, across the East-West trade routes, and in a
position that would make it an excellent base for further Communist
aggression against the rest of free Asia." In a September 9, 1963
interview, the President stated: "I believe ['the domino theory']. I think
that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms up high just
beyond the frontiers, that if South Vietnam went, it would not only give
them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya,
but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in
Southeast Asia was China and the Communists." One could argue that such an
unequivocally strong statement of strategic importance would not be
consistent with any sort of phase-out proposal short of a clear-cut
victory over the communists. Despite the caveats about it being
essentially a South Vietnamese struggle, President Kennedy's statements
were very strong. And, insofar as the U.S. was interested in greater
leverage on the GVN, these statements tended to reduce U.S. bargaining
power because of the explicit and vital nature of the commitment.

The rationales behind the phased withdrawal policy were incorporated into
a formal programming and planning process that began in July 1962 and
ended on 27 March 1964. It was at the Honolulu Conference on 23 July 1962,
the same day that the 14-nation neutralization declaration on Laos was
formally signed, that the Secretary of Defense on guidance from the
President put the planning machine in motion. Noting that "tremendous
progress" had been made in South Vietnam and that it might be difficult to
retain public support for U.S. operations in Vietnam indefinitely, Mr.
McNamara directed that a comprehensive long range program be developed for
building up SVN military capability and for phasing-out the U.S. role. He
asked that the planners assume that it would require approximately three
years, that is, the end of 1965, for the RVNAF to be trained to the point
that it could cope with the VC. On 26 July, the JCS formally directed
CINCPAC to develop a Comprehensive Plan for South Vietnam (CPSVN) in
accordance with the Secretary's directives. Thus began an intricate,
involved and sometimes arbitrary bargaining process, involving mainly
MACV, the Joint Staff, and ISA. There were two main pegs that persisted
throughout this process: MAP planning for the support and build-up of
RVNAF, and draw-downs on U.S. advisory and training personnel.

The first COMUSMACV CPSVN was floated on 19 January 1963. It envisioned
MAP for FY 1963-1964 at a total of $405 million. The total for FY
1965-1968 was $673 million. The RVNAF force level was to peak in FY 64 at
458,000 men. U.S. personnel in SVN were to drop from a high of 12.2
thousand in FY 65 to 5.9 thousand in FY 66, bottoming out in FY 68 at 1.5
thousand (Hq MAAG). No sooner was this first CPSVN cranked into the policy
machinery than it conflicted with similar OSD/ISA planning. This conflict
between ISA/OSD guidance and COMUSMACV/Joint Staff planning was to be
continued throughout the life of the CPSVN.

Secretary McNamara opposed General Harkins version of the plan for a
variety of reasons: (1) it programmed too many RVNAF than were trainable
and supportable; (2) it involved weaponry that was too sophisticated; (3)
it did not fully take account of the fact that if the insurgency came into
control in FY 65 as anticipated, the U.S. MAP investment thereafter should
be held at no more than $50 million per year; (4) the U.S. phaseout was
too slow, and the RVNAF training had to be speeded up. In other words, Mr.
McNamara wanted both a more rapid U.S. withdrawal of personnel, and a
faster reduction in U.S. military/economic support.

The Secretary's views prevailed. The embodiment of Mr. McNamara's desire
to quicken the pace of phase-out planning was embodied first in a Model M
plan prepared by the JCS and later in what came to be called the
Accelerated Model Plan of the CPSVN. The Accelerated Plan provided for a
rapid phaseout of the bulk of U.S. military personnel. It also provided
for building up GVN forces at a faster pace, but at a more reduced scale.
MAP costs for FY 1965-1969 totaled $399.4 million, or nearly $300 million
lower than the original projection.

All of this planning began to take on a kind of absurd quality as the
situation in Vietnam deteriorated drastically and visibly. Strangely, as
a result of the public White House promise in October and the power of
the wheels set in motion, the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in
December of 1963. All the planning for phase-out, however, was either
ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964 that
preceded NSAM 288. The thrust of this document was that greater U.S.
support was needed in SVN. Mr. McNamara identified these measures as
those that "will involve a limited increase in U.S. personnel and in
direct Defense Department costs." He added: "More significantly they
involve significant increases in Military Assistance Program costs plus
"additional U.S. economic aid to support the increased GVN budget." On
27 March 1964, CINCPAC was instructed not to take any further action on
the Accelerated Plan. Quickly, requests for more U.S. personnel poured
into Washington. The planning process was over, but not forgotten.
Secretary McNamara stated in his August 1964 testimony on the Tonkin
Gulf crisis that even today "if our training missions are completed, we
will bring back the training forces."

While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
the Diem coup, it is important to understand that the vehicles chosen to
effect that policy--MAP planning, RVNAF and U.S. force levels--were the
right ones. They were programmatic and, therefore, concrete and visible.
No better way could have been found to convince those in our own
government and the leaders of the GVN that we were serious about
limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South
Vietnamese themselves. The public announcement of the policy, on October
2, 1963, after the McNamara-Taylor trip to Vietnam was also a wise
choice. Even though this announcement may have contributed to the
so-called "credibility gap," publication was a necessity. Without it,
the formal and classified planning process would have seemed to be
nothing more than a drill.

While the choice of means was appropriate for getting a handle on the
problem, it proceeded from some basic unrealities. First, only the most
Micawberesque predictions could have led decision-makers in Washington
to believe that the fight. against the guerrillas would have clearly
turned the corner by FY 65. Other nations' experience in internal
warfare pointed plainly in the other direction. With more propitious
circumstances, e.g. isolation from sanctuaries, the Philippine and
Malayan insurgencies each took the better part of a dozen years to bring
to an end.

Second, there was an unrealistic contradiction within the CPSVN itself.
As directed by Secretary McNamara, U.S. MAP was to decrease as RVNAF
increased. In practical terms, MAP costs should have been programmed to
increase as the South Vietnamese Army increased, and as they themselves
began to bear most of the burden. The desire to keep MAP costs down
after FY 65 could, at best, be perceived as a budgeting or program
gimmick not a serious policy.

Three, the political situation in South Vietnam itself should have
prompted more realistic contingency plans against failure of the
Vietnamese, in order to give the U.S. some options other than what
appeared as precipitous withdrawal. The intelligence and reporting
systems for Vietnam during this period must bear a principal
responsibility for the unfounded optimism of U.S. policy. Except for
some very tenuous caveats, the picture was repeatedly painted in terms
of progress and success.

In the July 1962 Honolulu Conference the tone was set. Secretary
McNamara asked COMUSMACV how long it would take before the VC could be
expected to be eliminated as a significant force. In reply, COMUSMACV
estimated about one year from the time RVNAF and other forces became
fully operational and began to press the VC in all areas. Mr. McNamara
was told and believed that there had been "tremendous progress" in the
past six months. This theme was re-echoed in April of 1963 by COMUSMACV
and by the intelligence community through an NIE. All the statistics and
evaluations pointed to GVN improvement. While noting general progress,
the NIE stated that the situation remains flexible. Even as late as July
1963 a rosy picture was being painted by DIA and SACSA. The first
suggestion of a contrary evaluation within the bureaucracy came from
INR. Noting disquieting statistical trends since July, an unpopular INR
memo stated that the "pattern showed steady decline over a period of
more than three months duration." It was greeted with a storm of
disagreement, and in the end was disregarded.

The first, more balanced evaluation came with the McNamara-Taylor trip
report late in September and October, 1963. While it called the
political situation "deeply serious," even this report was basically
optimistic about the situation, and saw little danger of the political
crisis affecting the prosecution of the war.

Not until after the Diem coup, the assassination of President Kennedy,
and the December Vietnam trip of Secretary McNamara was the Vietnam
situation accurately assessed. In Secretary McNamara's December memo to
the President, after his trip, he wrote: "The situation is very
disturbing. Current trends, unless reversed in the next 2-3 months, will
lead to a neutralization at best and more likely to a
communist-controlled state." One of the most serious deficiencies he
found was a "grave reporting weakness on the U.S. side." Mr. McNamara's
judgment, apparently, was not predominant. He noted in the concluding
paragraph of his memo that he "may be overly pessimistic, inasmuch as
the ambassador, COMUSMACV, and General Minh were not discouraged and
look forward to significant improvements in January."

By 6 March 1964 when another major Secretary of Defense Conference
convened at CINCPAC Headquarters, the consensus was that the military
situation was definitely deteriorating. The issue was no longer whether
there was or was not satisfactory progress; the question was how much of
a setback had there been and what was needed to make up for it. Mr.
McNamara observed that attention should now be focused on near term
objectives of providing for necessary greater U.S. support. It was
finally agreed that the insurgency could be expected to go beyond 1965.

The intelligence and reporting problem during this period cannot be
explained away. In behalf of the evaluators and assessors, it can be
argued that their reporting up until the Diem coup had some basis in
fact. The situation may not have been too bad until December 1963.
Honest and trained men in Vietnam looking at the problems were reporting
what they believed reality to be. In retrospect, they were not only
wrong, but more importantly, they were influential. The Washington
decision-makers could not help but be guided by these continued reports
of progress.

Phased withdrawal was a good policy that was being reasonably well
executed. In the way of our Vietnam involvement, it was overtaken by
events. Not borne of deep conviction in the necessity for a U.S.
withdrawal or in the necessity of forcing the GVN to truly carry the
load, it was bound to be submerged in the rush of events. A policy more
determined might have used the pretext and the fact of the Diem coup and
its aftermath as reason to push for the continuation of withdrawal.
Instead, the instability and fear of collapse resulting from the Diem
coup brought the U.S. to a decision for greater commitment.

End of Summary

CHRONOLOGY

23 Jul 62 Geneva Accords on Laos

14-Nation declaration on the neutrality of Laos.

23 Jul 62 Sixth Secretary of Defense Conference, Honolulu

Called to examine present and future developments in South
Vietnam--which looked good. Mr. McNamara initiated immediate planning
for the phase-out of U.S. military involvement by 1965 and development
of a program to build a GVN military capability strong enough to take
over full defense responsibilities by 1965.

26 Jul 62 JCS Message to CINCPAC

CINCPAC was formally instructed to develop a "Comprehensive Plan
for South Vietnam" (CPSVN) in line with instructions given at Honolulu.

14 Aug 62 CINCPAC Message to MACV

MACV was directed to draw up a CPSVN designed to ensure GVN
military and para-military strength commensurate with its sovereign
responsibilities. The CPSVN was to assume the insurgency would be under
control in three years, that extensive US support would be available
during the three-year period; that those items essential to development
of full RVNAF capability would be (largely) available through the
military assistance program (MAP).

Oct-Nov. 1962 GVN National Campaign Plan developed

In addition to the CPSVN, MACV prepared an outline for an
integrated, nationwide offensive military campaign to destroy the
insurgency and restore GVN control in South Vietnam. The concept was
adopted by the GVN in November.

26 Nov 62 Military Reorganization Decreed

Diem ordered realignment of military chain of command,
reorganization of RVNAF, establishment of four CTZ's and a Joint
Operations Center to centralize control over current military
operations. (JOC became operational on 20 December 1962.)

7 Dec 62 First Draft of CPSVN Completed

CINCPAC disapproved first draft because of high costs and
inadequate training provisions.

19 Jan 63 MACV Letter to C!NCPAC, 3010 Ser 0021

MACV submitted a revised CPSVN. Extended through FY 1968 and
concurred in by the Ambassador, it called for GVN military forces to
peak at 458,000 in FY 1964 (RVNAF strength would be 230,900 in FY 1964);
cost projected over six years would total $978 million.

22 Jan 63 OSD(ISA) Message to CINCPAC

MAP-Vietnam dollar guide lines issued. Ceilings considerably
different from and lower than those in CPSVN.

25 Jan 63 CINCPAC Letter to JCS, 1010, Ser 0079

Approved the CPSVN, supported and justified the higher MAP costs
projected by it.

7 Mar 63 JCSM 190-63

JCS recommended SecDef approve the CPSVN; supporting the higher MAP
costs, JCS proposed CPSVN be the basis for revision of FY 1964 MAP and
development of FY 1965-69 programs.

20 Mar 63 USMACV "Summary of Highlights, 9 Feb 62-7 Feb 63"

Reported continuing, growing RVNAF effectiveness, increased GVN
strength economically and politically. The strategic hamlet program
looked especially good. MACV forecast winning the military phase in
1963-barring "greatly increased" VC reinforcement and resupply.

17 Apr 63 NIE 53-63

Although "fragile," the situation in SVN did not appear serious;
general progress was reported in most areas.

6 May 63 Seventh SecDef Honolulu Conference

Called to [word illegible] the CPSVN. Largely because of prevailing
optimism over Vietnam, Mr. McNamara found the CPSVN assistance too
costly, the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces too slow and RVNAF
development misdirected.

9 May 63 Buddhist Crisis Begins

GVN forces fired on worshipers celebrating Buddha's birthday
(several killed, more wounded) for no good cause. Long standing
antipathy toward GVN quickly turned into active opposition.

8 May 63 Two SecDef Memoranda for ASD/ISA

First: Directed joint ISA/JCS development of plans to replace US
forces with GVN troops as soon as possible and to plan the withdrawal of
1,000 US troops by the end of 1963.
Second: Requested the Office, Director of Military Assistance, ISA,
"completely rework" the MAP program recommended in the CPSVN and submit
new guidelines by 1 September. The Secretary felt CPSVN totals were too
high (e.g., expenditures proposed for FY's 1965-68 could be cut by $270
Million in his view).

9 May 63 JCS Message 9820 to CINCPAC

Directed CINCPAC to revise the CPSVN and program the with drawal of
1,000 men by the end of 1963. Force reduction was to be by US units (not
individuals); units were to be replaced by specially trained RVNAF
units. Withdrawal plans were to be contingent upon continued progress in
the counterinsurgency campaign.

11 May 63 CINCPAC Letter to JCS, 3010 Ser 00447-63

CINCPAC recommended some changes, then approved MACV's revision of
the CPSVN and the MACV plan for withdrawal of 1,000 men. As instructed,
those 1,000 men were drawn from logistic and service support slots;
actual operations would be unaffected by their absence.

17 May 63 ASD/JSA Memorandum for the Secretary

ISA's proposed MAP-Vietnam program based on the Secretary's
instructions was rejected as still too high.

29 May 63 OSD/JSA Message to CJNCPAC

CINCPAC was directed to develop three alternative MAP plans for FYs
1965-69 based on these levels:
$585 M (CPSVN recommendation)
$450 M (Compromise)
$365 M (SecDef goal)
MAP for FY 1964 had been set at $180 M.

16 Jun 63 GVN-Buddhist Truce (State Airgram A-781 to Embassy Saigon, 10
June)

Reflected temporary and tenuous abatement of GVN-Buddhist
hostilities which flared up in May. The truce was repudiated almost
immediately by both sides. Buddhist alienation from the GVN polarized;
hostilities spread.

17 Jul 63 DIA Intelligence Summary

Reported the military situation was unaffected by the political
crisis; GVN prospects for continued counterinsurgency progress were
"certainly better" than in 1962; VC activity was reduced but VC
capability essentially unimpaired.

18 Jul 63 CINCPAC-proposed MAP program submitted to JCS

CINCPAC suggested military assistance programs at the three levels
set by the JCS but recommended adoption of a fourth Plan developed by
CINCPAC. "Plan J" totalled $450.9 M over the five year period.

4 Aug 63 DIA Intelligence Bulletin

Rather suddenly, Viet Cong offensive actions were reported high for
the third consecutive week; the implication was that the VC were
capitalizing on the political crisis and might step up the insurgency.

14 Aug 63 SACSA Memorandum for the Secretary

Discounted the importance of increased VC activity; the comparative
magnitude of attacks was low; developments did not yet seem salient or
lasting.

20 Aug 63 Diem declared martial law; ordered attacks on Buddhist pagodas

This decree plus repressive measures against the Buddhists
shattered hopes of reconciliation, and irrevocably isolated the Diem
government.

20 Aug 63 JCSM629-63

CINCPAC/MACV proposed plan for 1,000-man withdrawal in three to
four increments for planning purposes only; recommended final decision
on withdrawal be delayed until October.

21 Aug 63 Director, DIA Memorandum for SecDef

Estimated that Diem's acts will have "serious repercussions"
throughout SVN: foresaw more coup and counter-coup activity. But
reported military operations were so far unaffected by these events.

27 Aug 63 JCSM 640-63

JCS added yet a fifth "Model M" Plan to CINCPAC's four alternative
MAP levels. Providing for higher force levels termed necessary by the
JCS, the Model M total was close to $400 M. JCS recommended the Model M
Plan be approved.

30 Aug 63 OSD/JSA Memorandum for the Secretary

Recommended approval of JCSM 629-63. But noted many "units" to be
withdrawn were ad hoc creations of expendable support personnel,
cautioned that public reaction to "phony" withdrawal would be damaging:
suggested actual strength and authorized ceiling levels be publicized
and monitored.

3 Sep 63 SecDef Memorandum to CJCS

Approved JCSM-629-63. Advised JCS against creating special units as
a means to cut back unnecessary personnel; requested the projected US
strength figures through 1963.

5 Sep 63 ASD/JSA Memorandum to the Secretary

Concurred in JCS recommendation with minor reservations that the
Model M Plan for military assistance to SVN be approved.

6 Sep 63 SecDef Memorandum for C/CS

Approved Model M Plan as the basis for FY 65-69 MAP planning;
advised that US materiel turned over to RVNAF must be charged to and
absorbed by the authorized Model M Plan ceilings.

11 Sep 63 C/CS Memorandum for SecDef

Forwarded the military strength figures (August thru December) to
SecDef; advised that the 1,000-man withdrawal would be counted against
the peak October strength (16,732). First increment was scheduled for
withdrawal in November, the rest in December.

21 Sep 63 Presidential Memorandum for the SecDef

Directed McNamara and Taylor (CJCS) to personally assess the
critical situation in SVN--both political and military; to determine
what GVN action was required for change and what the US should do to
produce such action.

27 Sep 63 ASD/ISA (ODMA) "MAP Vietnam: Manpower and Financial Summary"

Approved MAP totals reflected the Model M Plan:

FY 1964: $180.6 M
FY 1965-69: $211.6 M

Total: $392.2M

The GVN force levels proposed were substantially below the January
CPSVN (from a peak strength in FY 1964 of 442,500, levels were to fall
to 120,200 in FY 1969).

26 Sep- 2 Oct 63 SecDef C/CS Mission to South Vietnam

Positive detailed evidence presented in numerous briefings
indicated conditions were good and would improve. Hence, the Secretary
ordered acceleration of the planned U.S. force phase-out.

2 Oct 63 McNamara-Taylor Briefing for the President, and later, the NSC

Concluded the military campaign has made great progress and
continues to progress, but warned that further Diem-Nhu repression could
change the "present favorable military trends."

3 Oct 63 McNamara-Taylor met with President and NSC

The President approved the military recommendations made by the
Secretary and Chairman:

--that MACV and Diem review changes necessary to complete the
military campaign in I, II, and III Corps by the end of 1964, in IV
Corps by 1965:
--that a training program be established to enable RVNAF to
take over military functions from the US by the end of 1965 when the
bulk of US personnel could be withdrawn:
--that DOD informally announce plans to withdraw 1,000 men by
the end of 1963.

no further reductions in US strength would be made until
requirements of the 1964 campaign were clear.

11 Oct 63 NSAM 263

Approved the military recommendations contained in the
McNamara-Taylor Report; directed no formal announcement be made of
implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963.

22 Oct 63 State Department INR Memo RFE-90

Assessed trends since July 1963 as evidence of an unfavorable shift
in military balance. (This was one of the first indications that all was
not as rosy as MACV et al had led McNamara and Taylor to believe.)

1 Nov 63 Diem Government Overthrown

The feared political chaos, civil war and collapse of the war did
not materialize immediately; US Government was uncertain as to what the
new circumstances meant. General Minh headed the junta responsible for
the coup.

20 Nov 63 All-agency Conference on Vietnam, Honolulu

Ambassador Lodge assessed prospects as hopeful; recommended US
continue the policy of eventual military withdrawal from SVN; said
announced 1,000-man withdrawal was having salutary effects. MACV agreed.
In this light, officials agreed that the Accelerated Plan (speed-up of
force withdrawal by six months directed by McNamara in October) should
be maintained. McNamara wanted MAP spending held close to OSD's $175.5
million ceiling (because of acceleration, a FY 64 MAP of $187.7 million
looked possible).

22 Nov 63 President Kennedy Assassinated

One result: US Government policies in general were maintained for
the sake of continuity, to allow the new administration time to settle
and adjust. This tendency to reinforce existing policies arbitrarily,
just to keep them going, extended the phase-out, withdrawal and MAP
concepts-probably for too long.

23 Nov 63 SecDef Memorandum for the President

Calling GVN political stability vital to the war and calling
attention to GVN financial straits, the Secretary said the US must be
prepared to increase aid to Saigon. Funding well above current MAP plans
was envisaged.

26 Nov 63 NSAM 273

President Johnson approved recommendations to continue current
policy toward Vietnam put forward at the 20 November Honolulu meeting:
reaffirmed US objectives on withdrawal.

3 Dec 63 [material missing]

Region/ISA Memorandum for the ASD/ISA [words missing]

nam developments, for a "fresh new look" at the problem, second
echelon leaders outlined a broad interdepartmental "Review of the South
Vietnam Situation." This systematic effort did not culminate in high
level national reassessment of specific policy re-orientation.

5 Dec 63 CINCPAC Message to JCS

Submitted the Accelerated Model Plan version of CPSVN. From a total
of 15,200 in FY 1964, US military strength in Vietnam would drop to
11,500 in FY 1965 (vice 13,100 recommended by the Model M Plan), to
about 3,200 in FY 1966 and 2,600 in FY 1967. GVN force levels were a bit
lower but GVN force build-up a bit faster than recommended by the Model
M Plan. MAP costs for FYs 1965-1969 totalled $399.4 million (vice $392.2
million under Model M Plan).

11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef

The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000
men were technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was
achieved. The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October
level.

13 Dec 63 Director, DIA Memorandum for the Secretary

Reported the VC had improved combat effectiveness and force posture
during 1963, that VC capability was unimpaired. (Quite a different
picture had been painted by SACSA in late October: "An Overview of the
Vietnam War, 1960-1963," personally directed to the Secretary, was a
glowing account of steady militaryprogress.)

30 Jan 64 Second Coup in Saigon

General Minh's military regime was replaced by a junta headed by
General Khanh.

10, 11, 14, 19 Feb 64 Deputy Director, CIA Memoranda for SecDef,
SecState, et al

Suspicious of progress reports, CIA sent a special group to "look
at" South Vietnam. Its independent evaluation revealed a seriousand
steadily deteriorating GVN situation. Vietcong gains and, significantly,
the quality and quantity of VC arms had increased. The Strategic Hamlet
Program was "at virtual standstill." The insurgency tide seemed to be
"going against GVN" in all four Corps.

6 Mar 64 Eighth SecDef Conference on Vietnam, Honolulu

Participants agreed that the military situation was definitely
deteriorating, that insurgency would probably continue beyond 1965, that
the US must immediately determine what had to be done to make up for the
setback(s).

9-16 Mar 64 McNamara/Taylor Trip to Vietnam

Personally confirmed the gravity of the Vietnam situation.

16 Mar 64 SecDef Memorandum for the President: "Report on Trip to Vietnam"

Mr. McNamara reported the situation was "unquestionably" worse than
in September. (RVNAF desertion rates were up: GVN military position was
weak and the Vietcong, with increased NVN support, was strong.)
Concluding that more US support was necessary, the Secretary made twelve
ecommendations. These included:

--More economic assistance, military training, equipment and
advisory assistance, as needed.
--Continued high-level US overflights of GVN borders; authorization
for "hot pursuit" and ground operations in Laos.
--Prepare to initiate--on 72 hours' notice--Laos and Cambodia
border control operations and retaliatory actions against North Vietnam.
--Make plans to initiate--on 30 days' notice--a "program of
Graduated Overt Military Pressures" against North Vietnam.

Mr. McNamara called the policy of reducing existing US personnel
where South Vietnamese could assume their functions "still sound" but
said no major reductions could be expected in the near future. He felt
US training personnel could be substantially reduced before the end of 1965.

17 Mar 64 NSAM 299

The President approved the twelve recommendations presented by Mr.
McNamara and directed all agencies concerned to carry them out promptly.

[material missing]

forces was superseded by the policy of providing South Vietnam
assistance and support as long as required to bring aggression and
terrorism under control (as per NSAM 288).

6 May 64 CINCPAC Message to MACV

Indicated growing US military commitment: this 1500-man
augmentation raised the total authorized level to 17,000.

1-2 Jun 64 Special Meeting on Southeast Asia, Honolulu

Called in part to examine the GVN National Campaign Plan--which was
failing. The conferees agreed to increase RVNAF effectiveness by
extending and intensifying the US advisory effort as MACV recommended.

25 Jun 64 MACV Message 325390 to JCS

Formal MACV request for 900 additional advisory personnel. His
justification for advisors at the battalion level and for more advisors
at district and sector levels was included. Also, 80 USN advisors were
requested to establish a Junk Force and other maritime counterinsurgency
measures.

4 Jul 64 CJNCPAC Message to JCS

CINCPAC recommended approval of the MACV proposal for
intensification of US advisory efforts.

15 Jul 64 Saigon EMBTEL 108

Ambassador Taylor reported that revised VC strength estimates now
put the enemy force between 28,000 and 34,000. No cause for alarm, he
said the new estimate did demonstrate the magnitude of the problem and
the need to raise the level of US/GVN efforts. Taylor thought a US
strength increase to 21,000 by the end of the year would be sufficient.

16 Jul 64 MACV Message 6180 to CINCPAC

MACV requested 3,200 personnel to support the expansion (by 900) of
US advisory efforts-or 4,200 more men over the next nine months.

17 Jul 64 EMBTEL

Ambassador Taylor concurred in MACV's proposed increase,
recommended prompt approval and action.

21 Jul 64 State 205 to Saigon

Reported Presidential approval (at the 21 July NSC meeting) of the
MACV deployment package.

Dec 64 Further increases

Total US strength was 23,000: further deployments were on the way

I. 1962

A. EARLY 1962

From mid-1962 to early 1964 the U.S. government went through a formal
planning process, ostensibly designed to disengage the U.S. from direct
and large-scale military involvement in Vietnam. In retrospect, this
experience falls into place as a more or less isolated episode of
secondary importance; eventually abortive, it had little impact on the
evolution of the Vietnam war. It does, however, serve as a vehicle for
understanding one long phase of the war and the U.S. role in it.

The genesis lay in a conjuncture of circumstances during the first half
of 1962 that prompted the U.S. to shift its Vietnam perspective from the
hitherto restricted one of largely tactical responses to current,
localized, and situational requirements, to fitting these to more
strategic and purposeful long-range courses of action. The expanded
perspective was programmatic in outlook, and oriented toward specific
goals-end the insurgency and withdraw militarily from Vietnam.

At the outset, the motivation for the idea of phased withdrawal of U.S.
forces was threefold: in part, the belief that developments in Vietnam
itself were going well; in part, doubt over the efficacy of using U.S.
forces in an internal war; and in part, the demands of other crises in
the world that were more important to Washington than Vietnam. In the
course of materializing into policy and assuming form as plans, these
premises were transformed into conclusions, desiderata institutionalized
as objectives, and wish took on the character and force of imperative.

For example, in March 1962, Secretary McNamara testified before Congress
that he was "optimistic" over prospects for U.S. success in aiding
Vietnam, and "encouraged at the progress the South Vietnamese are
making." He expressed conviction that the U.S. would attain its
objectives there. But he emphasized that the U.S. strategy was to avoid
participating directly in the war while seeking an early military
conclusion:

I would say definitely we are approaching it from the point of view
of trying to clean it up, and terminating subversion, covert aggression,
and combat operations....

.....We are wise to carry on the operations against the Communists
in that area by assisting native forces rather than by using U.S. forces
for combat.
Not only does that release U.S. forces for use elsewhere in the
world or for stationing in the United States, but also it is probably
the most effective way to combat the Communist subversion and covert
aggression. To introduce white forces--U.S. forces--in large numbers
there today, while it might have an initial favorable military impact
would almost certainly lead to adverse political and in the long run
adverse military operations. And therefore, we think the program we are
carrying out is the most effective one and certainly it is directed
toward termination of operations as rapidly as possible.

In late spring of 1962, the military situation in South Vietnam showed
hopeful signs of at last having turned a corner. The various programs
under way, initiated the previous fall as a result of decisions in NSAM
No. 111, appeared to be bearing out the basic soundness of the new
approach. Assessments and evaluations being reported from the field
indicated a pattern of progress on a broad front, and their consistency
through time reinforced the impression. By midyear the prospects looked
bright. Continuing favorable developments flOW held forth the promise of
eventual success, and to many the end of the insurgency seemed in sight.
This optimism was not without the recognition that there were unsolved
political problems and serious soft spots in certain areas of the
military effort. But U.S. leadership, both on the scene in Vietnam as
well as in Washington, was confident and cautiously optimistic. In some
quarters, even a measure of euphoria obtained.

At the same time, events outside Vietnam, some of them ostensibly
unrelated, were asserting a direct and immediate relevance for U.S.
policy and strategy in Vietnam. As competing priorities, they far
overshadowed Vietnam. In the larger scheme of things, an indefinite
military commitment in Southeast Asia was being relegated perforce to a
parenthetical diversion the nation could then ill afford. More central
issues in Berlin, Cuba, and in Laos were at stake, perhaps even to the
extent of survival.

Looming foremost was the Berlin problem. Fraught with grave overtones of
potential nuclear confrontation with the USSR, it reached crisis
proportions in the spring of 1962 over the air corridor issue, and after
a temporary lull, flared anew in early summer. By the first of July it
was again as tense as ever. U.S. reserves had been recalled to active
duty, additional forces were deployed to Europe, and domestic Civil
Defense activities, including shelter construction programs, were
accelerated.

The burgeoning Cuba problem too was taking on a pressing urgency by
virtue of both its proximity and growing magnitude. The Castro aspects
alone were becoming more than a vexing localized embarrassment. Given
the volatile Caribbean political climate, Cuban inspired mischief could
raise tensions to the flash point momentarily. Moreover, by early summer
of 1962 increasing evidence of Soviet machinations to exploit Cuba
militarily was rapidly adding an alarming strategic dimension. Though
the nature and full significance of these latter developments would not
be revealed until the climactic Cuban Missile Crisis a few months later,
the U.S. was already apprehensive of serious danger on its very
doorstep. Official interpretive evaluations at the time saw an intimate
causal nexus between Berlin and Cuba.

Finally, another set of factors altering the strategic configuration in
Southeast Asia and affecting the U.S. position there also came to a head
in mid-summer of 1962. These were developments regarding Laos, which
impinged upon and helped reshape the U.S. relationship toward Vietnam.
In the fall of 1961 and through the spring of 1962 the U.S., its
objectives frustrated in Laos, had decided to salvage as much as
possible by settling for neutralization. After lengthy and complex
diplomatic maneuvering, this was essentially achieved by early summer.
On 23 July 1962 the 14-nation declaration and protocol on the neutrality
of Laos was signed formally, ending the 15-month Geneva Conference on
Laos. The outcome had at once the effect of extricating the U.S. from
one insoluble dilemma and serving as a stark object lesson for another.
The Laos settlement now both allowed the U.S. a free hand to concentrate
on Vietnam and provided the incentive and determination to bring to a
close its military commitment there as well-but this time successfully.

It was in this spirit and context that the U.S. decided to pursue
actively the policy objective of divesting itself of direct military
involvement of U.S. per-sonnet in the Vietnam insurgency. The aim was to
create militarily favorable conditions so that further U.S. military
involvement would no longer be needed. To this end, two prerequisites
had to be satisfied: bringing the insurgency effectively under control;
and simultaneously, developing a militarily viable South Vietnam capable
of carrying its own defense burden without U.S. military help. In phase
with the progress toward both these goals, there then could be
proportionate reductions in U.S. forces.

B. THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HONOLULU DECISIONS OF JULY 1962

In July 1962, as the prospect of the neutralization of Laos by the
Geneva Conference became imminent, policy attention deliberately turned
toward the remaining Vietnam problem. At the behest of the President,
the Secretary of Defense undertook to reexamine the situation there and
address himself to its future-with a view to assuring that it be brought
to a successful conclusion within a reasonable time. Accordingly, he
called a full-dress conference on Vietnam at CINCPAC Headquarters in
Hawaii. On 23 July, the same day that the 14-nation neutralization
declaration on Laos was formally signed in Geneva, the Sixth Secretary
of Defense Conference convened in Honolulu.

The series of briefings and progress reports presented at the conference
depicted a generally favorable situation. Things were steadily improving
and promised to continue. Most programs underway were moving forward, as
the statistical indicators clearly demonstrated. Those directly related
to prosecution of the counterinsurgency effort showed measurable
advances being made toward winning the war. Programs for expanding and
improving RVNAF capability were likewise coming along well, and in most
cases were ahead of schedule. Confidence and optimism prevailed.

Impressed, Mr. McNamara acknowledged that the "tremendous progress" in
the past six months was gratifying. He noted, however, that these
achievements had been the result of short-term ad hoc actions on a crash
basis. What was needed now was to conceive a long-range concerted
program of systematic measures for training and equipping the RVNAF and
for phasing out major U.S. advisory and logistic support activities. The
Secretary then asked how long a period it would take before the VC could
be expected to be eliminated as a significant force. COMUSMACV, in reply
to the direct question, estimated about one year from the time the
RVNAF, the Civil Guard, and the Self-Defense Corps became fully
operational and began to press the VC in all areas.

The Secretary said that a conservative view had to be taken and to
assume it would take three years instead of one, that is, by the latter
part of 1965. He observed that it might be difficult to retain public
support for U.S. operations in Vietnam indefinitely. Political pressures
would build up as losses continued. Therefore, he concluded, planning
must be undertaken now and a program devised to phase out U.S. military
involvement. He, therefore, directed that a comprehensive long-range
program be developed for building up South Vietnamese military
capability for taking over defense responsibilities and phasing out the
U.S. role, assuming that it would require approximately three years (end
1965) for the RVNAF to be trained to the point that they could cope with
the VC. The program was to include training requirements, equipment
requirements, U.S. advisory requirements, and U.S. units.

For the record, the formulation of the decisions made and the directives
for action to be taken resulting from the Conference was as follows:

a. Prepare plans for the gradual scaling down of USMACV during the
next 3-year period, eliminating U.S. units and detachments as Vietnamese
were trained to perform their functions.
b. Prepare programs with the objective of giving South Vietnam an
adequate military capability without the need for special U.S. military
assistance, to include (1) a long-range training program to establish an
officer corps able to manage GVN military operations, and (2) a
long-range program and requirements to provide the necessary materiel to
make possible a turnover to RVNAF three years from July 1962.

The U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group, Vietnam, had been augmented
in 1961 by aviation, communications, and intelligence units, as well as
by Special Forces and other advisers. The Secretary of Defense plainly
intended that plans be devised for terminating the mission of the
augmenting units.

Three days later on 26 July, the JCS formally directed CINCPAC to
develop a Comprehensive Plan for South Vietnam (CPSVN) in accordance
with the Secretary's decisions of 23 July. CINCPAC, in turn, so
instructed COMUSMACV on 14 August, at the same time furnishing
additional guidance and terms of reference elaborating on the original
SecDef decisions at Honolulu and the JCS directive. The stated objective
of the CPSVN was given as:

Develop a capability within military and para-military forces of
the GVN by the end of CY 65 that will help the GVN to achieve the
strength necessary to exercise permanent and continued sovereignty over
that part of Vietnam which lies below the demarcation line without the
need for continued U.S. special military assistance.

Development of the plan was to be based on the following assumptions:

a. The insurgency will be under control at the end of three years
(end of CY 65).
b. Extensive U.S. support will continue to be required during the
three year period, both to bring the insurgency under control and to
prepare GVN forces for early take-over of U.S. activities.
c. Previous MAP funding ceilings for SVN are not applicable.
Program those items essential to do this job.

C. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN PLAN

Planning, in two complementary modes, got underway, immediately.
Concurrently with development of the unilateral U.S. CPSVN, USMACV
planners prepared a concept and proposed outline of a GVN National
Campaign Plan (NCP) for launching an integrated nation-wide campaign of
offensive military operations to eliminate the insurgency and restore
the country to GVN control. A central purpose was to reorganize and
redispose the VNAF and streamline the chain of command, in order to
improve responsiveness, coordination, and general effectiveness of the
military effort against the VC. Greater authority would be centralized
in the Vietnamese Joint General Staff (JGS); Corps Tactical Zones (CTZs)
would be increased from three to four; and each CTZ would have its own
direct air and naval support.

Over and above organizational considerations, the NCP provided for
systematic intensification of aggressive operations in all CTZs to keep
the VC off balance, while simultaneously conducting clear and hold
operations in support of the expanding Strategic Hamlet Program.
Priority of military tasks was first to concentrate on areas north of
Saigon, then gradually shift toward the south to Saigon and the Delta.

The proposed NCP was submitted to the GVN in October and a month later
was adopted in concept and outline. On 26 November, President Diem
promulgated the necessary implementing decrees and directives to effect
the reorganization of the SVN armed forces and realign the chain of
command. An integrated Joint Operations Center (JOC) was also
established and became operational on 20 December, with representation
from JGS and its counterpart in USMACV to centralize control over
current operations. The following January the draft of a detailed
implementing plan for the NCP itself was completed and subsequently
approved.

II. 1963

A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SOUTH VIETNAM

Meanwhile, the first cut at the CPSVN was also completed by the MACV
planners. It was forwarded to CINCPAC on 7 December, but CINCPAC, upon
reviewing the proposed plan, considered it infeasible because of the
high costs involved and the marginal capacity of the RVNAF to train the
necessary personnel in the required skills within the time frame
specified. As a result of CINCPAC's reaction to the initial version, the
CPSVN was revised and resubmitted by COMUSMACV on 19 January 1963. The
new CPSVN covered the period FY 1963-1968. In transmitting it, COMUSMACV
recommended that future Military Assistance Programs (MAPs) be keyed
therefore to the CPSVN. He also indicated that the CPSVN had been
coordinated with the Ambassador, who concurred in it.

Force levels laid out in the CPSVN provided for total personnel
increases reaching a peak of 458,000 (regular and para-military) in FY
64, with RVNAF manning strength raised from 215,000 to a peak of 230,000
in the same FY period and remaining on that plateau thereafter. Order of
magnitude costs (in $ millions) of the CPSVN would come to:
FY63

FY64

FY65

FY66

FY67

FY68

Total
187

218

153

138

169

113

978

CINCPAC approved the CPSVN as submitted and sent it on to the JCS.
However, in the interim, OSD had issued dollar guidelines for MAP
planning for Vietnam. The ceilings indicated therein were significantly
at variance with the costing figures employed by MACV in developing the
CPSVN. When CINCPAC forwarded the plan, therefore, he went to
considerable lengths to explain the discrepancies and to support and
justify the higher costs. Comparison of the DOD dollar guidelines with
the CPSVN, projected through FY 69, showed a net difference of
approximately 66 million dollars, with the preponderance of the increase
occurring in FY 64. Most of this difference was accounted for by
additional Packing-Crating-Handling-Transportation (PCHT) costs
associated with the CPSVN but not accommodated in the DOD guideline figures.

The body of the CPSVN laid out the costs in relation to the DOD dollar
guidelines, as follows:

CPSVN-DOD DOLLAR GUIDELINES COST COMPARISON ($ millions)
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY 68 FY 69 Total
CPSVN * 218 153 138 169 113 110 901
DOD Guidelines 160 165 160 150 140 122 897

Difference
+58 -12 -22 +19 -27 -12 +4

PORT Added
+11 +11 +11 +11 +10 +8 +62

Difference
+69 -1 -11 +30 -17 -4 +66

* Excludes PCHT.

The rationale offered was that, in order to prosecute the
counter-insurgency to a successful conclusion, while at the same time
building up GVN capability to allow early withdrawal of U.S. forces, the
major costs of the program had to be compressed into the FY 63-65 time
frame, with a particular increase in FY 64 and another following U.S.
withdrawal in FY 67. But clearly most of the greater cost throughout the
period reflected PCHT.

The pattern of force levels for all South Vietnamese forces that the
CPSVN provided for, including the separate non-MAP funded Civilian
Irregular Defense Group, is shown in Figure 1. [Figure 1 missing.]

Since the ultimate objective of the CPSVN was early withdrawal of U.S.
special military assistance, the plan provided for phasing out U.S.
advisory forces. The affected major commands of USMACV that would
largely not be required after FY 66 were:

1. The U.S. Marine Element which provided helicopter transportation
support.

2. The 2d Air Division which provided the USAF portion of the
special military assistance support performed in SVN. This support
included "Farmgate" (Fighter), "Mule Train" (Transportation), and "Able
Mable" (Reconnaissance). It also provided USAF administration and
logistical support for USAF personnel and equipment engaged in special
military assistance to SVN.

3. U.S. Army Support Group Vietnam (USASGV) which provided the U.S.
Army portion of the special military assistance support for SVN (except
that performed by MAAG and Headquarters MACV), including helicopter and
fixed wing air transportation, signal communications, and special
forces. It also provided U.S. administrative and logistical support for
assigned and attached personnel and equipment engaged in the special
military assistance.

4. Headquarters Support Activity Saigon (HSAS) which provided
administrative support to the U.S. Headquarters and other U.S.
government sponsored agencies and activities located in Saigon.

5. MAAG Vietnam would have its strength reduced by one-half after
FY 65. Only 1,500 MAAG personnel were to remain in country after FY 68.

The target schedule for U.S. force withdrawal, as then forecast, is
contained in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

CPSVN - Forecast of Phase-Out of U.S. Forces
(thousands)
Organization FY 63 FY 64 FY 65 FY 66 FY 67 FY 68
HQ USMACV .3 .4 .4 .1 .0 .0
HQ MAAG 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 1.6 1.5
2D Air DIV 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.1 .0 .0
USASG (V) 5.1 5.5 5.5 2.7 .0 .0
USMC Helicopter Unit .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .0
HSAS .5 .5 .5 .3 .0 .0
TOTAL 11.6 12.2 12.2 5.9 1.6 1.5

On 7 March 1963, the JCS accepted the MACV CPSVN in toto and forwarded
it to the Secretary of Defense. They recommended approval, and proposed
that it be the basis for both revising the FY 64 MAP and development of
the FY 65-69 MAPs. They requested an early decision on the CPSVN because
the greatest increase would occur in the FY 64 MAP. The JCS fully
supported the higher costs of the CPSVN above the DOD dollar guidelines.

In OSD, the proposed CPSVN underwent staffing review in ISA MA Plans and
elsewhere. Draft responses to the JCS were prepared and then withdrawn.
Secretary McNamara was not satisfied with either the high funding levels
or the adequacy of the plan regarding exactly how the RVN forces were to
take over from the U.S. to effect the desired phase-out of the U.S.
military commitment. In mid-April he decided to withhold action pending
full review of the CPSVN at another Honolulu conference which he
expressly scheduled for that purpose for 6 May. Meantime, the various
OSD agencies concerned were instructed to prepare detailed analyses and
background studies for him.

The main focus of interest of the Secretary of Defense was on the policy
objective behind the CPSVN, namely, to reduce systematically the scale
of U.S. involvement until phased out completely. However, the beginnings
of a counter-current were already evident. New demands for increases all
around were to overwhelm the phasing out objective. Ad hoc requirements
for more U.S. forces were being generated piecemeal, each in its own
right sufficiently reasonable and so honored. This current,
counter-current dynamic can be illustrated well by Mr. McNamara's
decisions of late March. As part of the Secretary's policy of demanding
strict accounting and tight control on authorized U.S. in-country
strength ceilings, he asked for the latest reading on projected U.S.
military strength to be reached in Vietnam. He was reassured by the
Chairman, JCS, that the estimated peak would not exceed 15,640
personnel. Yet, on this very same day, the Secretary approved a
substantial force augmentation, requested earlier, for FARMGATE and
airlift support, involving 111 additional aircraft and a total of
approximately 1475 additional personnel. Other similar special
requirements and ad hoc approvals soon were to follow.

Assessments of continuing favorable developments in the improving
Vietnam situation in the spring of 1963 seemed to warrant more than ever
going ahead with the planned phase out. The general tenor of appraisals
at the USMACV level were that the RVNAF had regained the initiative from
the VC and that the GVN position had improved militarily, economically,
and politically. Evaluations expressed in the "Summary of Highlights"
covering the first year of MACV's existence cited in detail the record
of the increasing scale, frequency, and effectiveness of RVNAF
operations, while those of the VC were declining. Casualty ratios
favored RVNAF by more than two to one, and the balance of weapons
captured vs weapons lost had also shifted to the GVN side. Cited as
perhaps the most significant progress was the Strategic Hamlet Program.
The future looked even brighter, e.g., ". . . barring greatly increased
resupply and reinforcement of the Viet Cong by infiltration, the
military phase of the war can be virtually won in 1963."

Other evaluations, though more conservative, still tended to corroborate
this optimism. NIE 53-63, issued 17 April 1963, found no particular
deterioration or serious problems in the military situation in South
Vietnam; on the contrary, it saw some noticeable improvements and
general progress over the past year. The worst that it could say was
that the situation "remains fragile."

B. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HONOLULU DECISIONS OF MAY 1963

At the 6 May Honolulu Conference, briefing reports again confirmed
gratifying progress in the military situation. Addressing the CPSVN, Mr.
McNamara questioned the need for more Vietnamese forces in FY 68 (224.4
thousand) than the present level of 215 thousand. His reasoning was that
a poor nation of 12 million like Vietnam could not support that many men
under arms. Qualitatively, furthermore, the planned evolution of VNAF
seemed over-ambitious in terms of sophisticated weaponry such as fighter
aircraft. In sum, the Secretary felt the CPSVN assumed an
unrealistically high force level for the SVN military establishment and
assigned it equipment that was both unduly complicated to operate and
expensive to procure and maintain.

Based on these considerations, the Secretary of Defense concluded that,
if the insurgency came under control in FY 65 as anticipated, the U.S.
MAP investment in SVN thereafter should not be more than at the rate of
about $50 million per year. In his view, thus, the $573 million MAP
proposed in the CPSVN for the period FY 65 through FY 68 was at least
$270 million higher than an acceptable program.

With regard to phasing out U.S. forces, the Secretary of Defense stated
that the pace contemplated in the CPSVN was too slow. He wanted it
revised to accomplish a more rapid withdrawal by accelerating training
programs in order to speed up replacement of U.S. units by GVN units as
fast as possible. While recognizing that the build-up of RVNAF was
inherently a slow process, he stressed that in the instance of some U.S.
units which had been in SVN since 1961, it would be possible more
rapidly to transfer functions to Vietnamese. Specifically toward this
end, he decided that 1,000 U.S. military personnel should be withdrawn
from South Vietnam by the end of CY 63 and directed that concrete plans
be so drawn up.

On returning to Washington the Secretary of Defense instructed the
ASD(ISA) on 8 May to develop, in coordination with the Joint Staff, a
plan for replacing U.S. forces currently deployed in Vietnam with
indigenous SVN forces as rapidly as possible, and particularly, to
prepare a plan for withdrawing 1,000 U.S. troops before the end of 1965.
In another memorandum the same day to the ASD(ISA) regarding the MAP, he
noted that "the plan needs to be completely reworked." He therefore
instructed ISA also to develop a new, lower MAP for Vietnam for the
period FY 65 through 69, requesting that the ISA recommendations be
submitted by the first of September.

A day later, on 9 May, the JCS formally directed CINCPAC to take the
necessary actions resulting from the Honolulu Conference and revise the
CPSVN. Guidance and terms of reference were provided reflecting the
Secretary of Defense reactions and specifying the decisions reached.
Singled out especially was the requirement for U.S. force withdrawal.
The JCS directive read:

As a matter or urgency a plan for the withdrawal of about 1,000
U.S. troops before the end of the year should be developed based upon
the assumption that the progress of the counterinsurgency campaign would
warrant such a move. Plans should be based upon withdrawal of US units
(as opposed to individuals) by replacing them with selected and
specially trained RVNAF units.

COMUSMACV in turn was tasked to draft the revised CPSVN and prepare a
plan for the 1000-man reduction. CINCPAC, after some changes and
revisions, concurred in the proposed plans and forwarded them to the JCS
on 11 May. The revised outline CPSVN now provided for the following SVN
force levels (in thousands):
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY68 FY69
Total Military and Para-military 447.4 445.5 362.9 317.1 268.8 214.7

MAP levels provided for were as follows (in $ millions):
FY 64 FY 65 FY 66 FY 67 FY 68 FY 69 Grand Total
178.9 149.0 130.3 120.4 100.5 85.0 764.1

The proposed plan for withdrawal of the first increment of U.S. forces,
in compliance with instructions, emphasized units rather than
individuals, but the list of so-called "units" scheduled to be included
were all smaller than company size. All Services were represented. The
criteria employed, also based on earlier guidance, were to select most
of the personnel from service support and ogistics skills most easily
spared and whose release would have least effect on )perations. The
total came to 1,003 U.S. military personnel to be withdrawn rom South
Vietnam by the end of December 1963.

7. MAP PLANNING

ISA meanwhile developed tentative dollar guidelines for MAP planning for
Vietnam. The first cut, based on the Secretary of Defense's own
suggested total for
the FY 65-69 period, was rejected by the Secretary of Defense as too
high and returned, with various desired reductions entered by the
Secretary of Defense. Reconciling the MAP with the CPSVN proved to be a
difficult problem. As CPSVN succeeded, it was logical that MAP would
have to increase; yet CPSVN tried to cut back MAP as well. For instance,
the contemplated phase-out of U.S. artillery-spotter aircraft squadrons
entailed an add-on to MAP to accommodate the squadron's equipment and
maintenance after transferral to the Vietnamese.

[Material missing]

therefore would have to be absorbed within the authorized Model Plan
ceilings.

Nonetheless, there were still further refinements made. As finally
published, the approved MAP reflecting the Model M Plan version of the
CPSVN provided for the following SVN active military strength levels (in
thousands):
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY68 FY69
ARVN 207.5 201.3 177.5 124.5 104.8 103.9
Total (All Services regular and para-military) 442.5 437.0 340.2
142.1 122.2 120.2

Costing levels were as follows (in $ millions):
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY68 FY69 Total
180.6 153.0 107.7 46.2 44.6 40.7 392.2

This final product represented a radical reduction in both force levels
and financial investment after FY 66, consistent with the
Administration's original policy goal of ending the war and the U.S.
military involvement by December
1965.

D. 1000-MAN WITHDRAWAL PLAN

Meanwhile, planning for the 1000-man withdrawal directed by the
Secretary of Defense on 6 May was split off from the CPSVN proper and
the MAP, and was being treated as a separate entity. On 20 August, the
JCS, concurring in the proposed plan developed by COMUSMACV and CINCPAC,
forwarded it to the Secretary of Defense. They recommended approval at
this time for planning purposes only; final decision was to depend upon
circumstances as they developed. The JCS also seconded CINCPAC's added
proposal to withdraw the 1000 troops in three or four increments, rather
than all at one time. The reasons given were that this would be more
practical and efficient for the U.S., would minimize the impact on
on-going military operational activities within South Vietnam, and would
afford the opportunity for "news prominence and coverage over an
extended period of time."

ISA, with certain reservations, recommended approval of the withdrawal
plan submitted by JCS. ISA pointed out to the Secretary of Defense that
the plan as it stood would not draw all of the 1000 troops from U.S.
units that were to be relieved by adequately trained SVN units, as had
been intended. Many of the so-called "units" designated therein actually
were not bona fide existing units but were specially formed "service
support units" made up of random individuals most easily spared
throughout USMACV. ISA cautioned that the arbitrary creation of such ad
hoc "units" solely for the purpose of the withdrawal might backfire in
press reaction. ISA also recommended, in order to show credibly that the
final year-end U.S. in-country strength had dropped by 1000 from peak
strength, that U.S. military strength figures in Vietnam be made public,
and that the actual strength as well as the authorized ceilings at any
given time be carefully monitored to insure that the desired reductions
were indeed achieved.

A few days later the Secretary of Defense approved the 1000-man
withdrawal plan forwarded in JCSM-629-63 as recommended. He agreed,
however. with ISA and advised the JCS against creating special units if
their only purpose was to be a holding unit as a vehicle for withdrawal
of individuals. He also requested that he be provided with a projection
of U.S. military strength in South Vietnam, by month, for the period
September through December 1963.

The following week the Chairman, JCS, responded to the Secretary of
Defense's request and furnished the following projection of end-of-month
U.S. military strengths in South Vietnam:

August: 16,201
September: 16,483
October: 16,732
November: 16,456
December: 15,732

It was noted that the planned 1000-man withdrawal would represent a
reduction based on the October peak strength. The first increment of 276
personnel would be withdrawn during November and the remaining
increments in December. This, as it turned out, was destined to be
changed somewhat before the withdrawal was executed.

E. THE BUDDHIST CRISIS

While the CPSVN-MAP and withdrawal planning were going on, significant
developments altering the character of the entire situation to which the
plan-fling effort was addressed--in fact threatening to invalidate the
very premises from which the planning sprung--were occurring within
South Vietnam. The Buddhist crisis was rocking the foundations of what
precarious political stability the Diem government enjoyed and there was
growing concern about its effect on the prosecution of the war against
the VC and on improvements of RVNAF.

A series of incidents beginning early in May revealed the deep divisions
between militant Buddhist factions, who purported to speak for the bulk
of the South Vietnamese population, and the Government. Lack of popular
support for the Diem regime had now turned to open opposition. As
passions flared and Buddhist activism was met with increasingly severe
countermeasures, violence spread and grew more serious. A tenuous truce
was reached briefly between Buddhist leaders and the GVN on 10 June
(formally signed on 16 June) in a mutual effort to reduce tensions-but
proved short-lived. Almost immediately the actions of both sides
repudiated the agreements.

The U.S. began to be apprehensive about the possible consequences of the
Diem government falling as the result of a coup. By early July, the
crisis was recognized as serious at the highest levels of the U.S.
Government.

Through mid-July assessments remained reasonably reassuring. There was
little evidence of impact on the military sector. In fact, indications
pointed to the military situation continuing to improve. DIA reported on
17 July that the general level of VC-initiated actions during the first
six months of 1963 was considerably lower than for the same period the
year before. Battalion and company-size attacks were at about half the
1962 level. It was noted, however, that despite reduced activity, VC
capability remained essentially unimpaired. Regarding the progress of
South Vietnamese counterinsurgency efforts, the DIA evaluation was
cautiously optimistic: though there was still a long way to go, GVN
prospects "are certainly better than they were one year ago."

Quite abruptly, a disturbing element began to emerge. Little more than
two weeks later, the DIA Intelligence Bulletin of 4 August reported a
significant increase in the level of VC offensive actions. Moreover, the
rate was high for the third week in a row since mid-July. The clear
implication was that the VC at last were taking advantage of the
opportunity presented by the Buddhist crisis. It had been expected--and
feared--that they would seek to hasten political collapse and exploit
whatever military vulnerabilities there were. The U.S. was thus
justifiably concerned lest the recent revived VC aggressiveness be the
opening phase of a stepped up insurgency. Within ten days of this DIA
report, however, a reevaluation of the significance to be attached to
the increased rate of enemy actions allayed fears somewhat. On 14
August, SACSA, reporting to the Secretary of Defense, discounted the
upsurge in VC activity over the past month. Its magnitude,
comparatively, was below the average of the preceding year and fell far
short of the previous high. In this perspective, SACSA saw no cause to
read undue implications into developments that were as yet neither
particularly salient nor of long duration.

The political crisis meanwhile took a turn for the worse. President
Diem, in an attempt to regain control, declared martial law on 20
August. The decree was accompanied by forcible entry into pagodas and
mass arrests of Buddhist leaders and laity, and was immediately followed
by a series of preemptory repressive measures. Any hope of
reconciliation was now shattered, and the Diem government was
irrevocably isolated.

The Director, DIA, in a special report to the Secretary of Defense,
expressed concern that the declaration of martial law "will have serious
repercussions throughout the country." He foresaw further coup or
counter-coup activity in the making, though for the time being the
military had effectively assumed full control. So far, he saw little
military effect on the war effort; relatively few troops had been
withdrawn from normal missions. At an August 31 review of the problem
for Vice President Johnson, Secretary of State Rusk and Secretary
McNamara agreed that U.S. planning had to be based on two
principles--that the U.S. would not pull out of Vietnam until the war
were won, and that it would not participate in a coup d'etat against Diem.

For the next month, as the precarious political situation balanced on
the brink of imminent disaster, U.S. anxieties mounted. The
Administration was confronted by a dilemma. It was helpless to
ameliorate conditions as long as Diem remained in power-nor did it want
to approve and support such a regime. Yet at the same time, it was
equally helpless to encourage a change of government-there was no
feasible replacement anywhere on the South Vietnamese political horizon.
The upshot was an ambivalent policy of watchful waiting toward the GVN,
while the main preoccupation and focus of attention was on the conduct
of the South Vietnamese military forces and the progress of the
counterinsurgency programs. These still remained the first order of
business.

F. MCNAMARA-TAYLOR MISSION TO SOUTH VIETNAM, OCTOBER 1963

By the middle of September, the President was deeply concerned over the
critical political situation, but more importantly, over its effect on
the war. A decision juncture had been reached. At issue was the U.S.
military commitment in South Vietnam; a redirection of U.S. policy and
objectives might be required. On 21 September, the President directed
the Secretary of Defense, in company with the Chairman, JCS, to proceed
to South Vietnam for a personal examination of the military aspects of
the situation. The President gave as the purpose of the trip ". . . my
desire to have the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military
and para-military effort to defeat the Viet Cong." He stated that there
had been, at least until recently, "heartening results," but that
political deterioration since May had raised serious questions about the
continued effectiveness of these efforts and the prospects for success.
The President, therefore, needed an assessment of the present situation,
and if the McNamara-Taylor prognosis were not hopeful, they were to
recommend needed actions by the SVN and steps the U.S. should take to
bring about those actions. [Doc. 139]

The Secretary of Defense and the CJCS, accompanied by a team of civilian
and military assistants to help in the survey, arrived in South Vietnam
on 26 September and returned to Washington on 2 October. During their
visit, detailed data were compiled for them, presentations prepared,
extensive briefings given, conferences convened, and consultations held.
Emerging from the investigations and appraisals was a body of positive
evidence indicating that conditions were good and prospects improving.
In fact, in the course of these reassurances, the Secretary of Defense
decided to order a speed up of the planned program for release of U.S.
forces. In guidance furnished at the time, he directed that the
projected schedules for force reduction provided for in the currently
approved Model M Plan version of the CPSVN be accelerated by
approximately six months. Accordingly, necessary planning revisions were
undertaken immediately on a priority basis.

In contrast to the generally favorable military situation, however,
there were grave misgivings about the political state of affairs.
Earlier, a draft text of a proposed letter from the President of the
United States to President Diem of the RVN had been forwarded by cable
to the Secretary of Defense and the Ambassador, with a request for their
reaction and comments. President Kennedy himself thought the letter too
extreme, and would reluctantly resort to it only if the situation was
found so serious that such direct US Presidential pressure was
necessary. The text of the proposed letter was characterized by harsh,
blunt candor. In effect it laid down an ultimatum: unless the GVN
changed the repressive policies, methods, and actions practiced by some
individual officials and gained for itself a broad base of popular
political support, the United States might have to consider
disassociating itself from the Diem Government, and further US support
of Vietnam might become impossible. The Secretary of Defense and the
Ambassador promptly responded with a strong recommendation against
transmitting the proposed letter. Both agreed that the situation was
indeed very serious, but that it was not likely to be influenced by such
a letter to Diem.

The proposed Presidential letter was not sent. Instead, many of the
points were conveyed in conversations with Diem, and, just before the
departure of the McNamara-Taylor Mission from Vietnam, another letter to
President Diem was composed and sent in its place. The new version was
not only much softer in tone and more circumspect but went out over the
signature of General Taylor as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
letter was dated 1 October 1963, but was delivered on 2 October, with
the approval of the Secretary of Defense and with the concurrence of the
US Ambassador to Vietnam (Lodge).

In this letter the CJCS offered his personal, professional comments on
the military situation, in response to Diem's earlier expressed interest
in receiving them. After acknowledging the encouraging military progress
over the preceding two years, the CJCS stated, "It was not until the
recent political disturbances beginning in May and continuing through
August and beyond that I personally had any doubt as to the ultimate
success of our campaign against the Viet Cong." He then added:

Now, as Secretary McNamara has told you, a serious doubt hangs over
our hopes for the future. Can we win together in the face of the
reaction to the measures taken by your Government against the Buddhists
and the students? As a military man I would say that we can win
providing there are no further political setbacks. The military
indicators are still generally favorable and can be made more so by
actions readily within the power of your Government. If you will allow
me, I would mention a few of the military actions which I believe
necessary for this improvement.

The Chairman noted that though the military situation in I, II, and III
Corps areas was generally good, some of the hard-core war zones of the
Viet Cong remained virtually untouched. There were not enough offensive
actions against the enemy in the field and, in his opinion, the full
potential of the military units was not being exploited, for ". . . only
a ruthless, tireless offensive can win the war."

The principal military problems, he pointed out, were now in the Delta,
and the time had come to concentrate efforts there. An overhaul of the
Strategic Hamlet Program was needed. For it to succeed, there must be a
related clear-and-hold campaign by the combat units of IV Corps, and the
tactics should be oriented to the waterways that were a natural
characteristic of the region. Furthermore, infantry line units would
have to operate at full strength, without diversion of combat power to
rear echelon functions. The CJCS suggested that this latter problem was
the case in ARVN generally, which President Diem might want to examine
closely.

Finally he summed up what was intended as the statement of the US position:

In closing, Mr. President, may I give you my most important overall
impression? Up to now, the battle against the Viet Cong has seemed
endless; no one has been willing to set a date for its successful
conclusion. After talking to scores of officers, Vietnamese and
American, I am convinced that the Viet Cong insurgency in the north and
center can be reduced to little more than sporadic incidents by the end
of 1964. The Delta will take longer but should be completed by the end
of 1965. But for these predictions to be valid, certain conditions must
be met. Your Government should be prepared to energize all agencies,
military and civil, to a higher output of activity than up to now.
Ineffective commanders and province officials must be replaced as soon
as identified. Finally, there should be a restoration of domestic
tranquility on the homefront if political tensions are to be allayed and
external criticism is to abate. Conditions are needed for the creation
of an atmosphere conducive to an effective campaign directed at the
objective, vital to both of us, of defeating the Viet Cong and of
restoring peace to your community.

The results of the survey conducted by the McNamara-Taylor mission were
consolidated into a lengthy, formal report to the President containing
specific findings, general evaluations, and recommendations. The
substance of the report was presented in an hour-long, oral briefing to
the President immediately upon the return of the mission on the morning
of 2 October. Attending the briefing were the Under Secretary of State,
the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the Director of the
CIA, and the Special Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs. Following the personal report, the President called a special
meeting of the full National Security Council, which was held from six
to seven that same evening.

The McNamara-Taylor Report generally was optimistic about the military
situation and saw little direct effect of the political crisis on the
prosecution of the war. Their conclusions, inter alia, were that despite
serious political tensions and the increasing unpopularity of the
Diem-Nhu regime, "The military campaign has made great progress and
continues to progress." GVN military officers, though hostile to the
government and its repressive policies, continued to perform their
military duties in the larger cause of fighting the Viet Cong enemy.
This reassuring evaluation, however, was caveated to the effect that ".
. . further repressive actions by Diem and Nhu could change the present
favorable military trends."

Specific findings in their appraisal of the military situation bore out
the general evaluation. In the body of the report they stated:

With allowances for all uncertainties, it is our firm conclusion
that the GVN military program has made great progress in the last year
and a half, and that the progress has continued at a fairly steady rate
in the past six months even through the period of greatest political
unrest in Saigon. The tactics and techniques employed by the Vietnamese
under U.S. monitor-ship are sound and give promise of ultimate victory.

Especially noteworthy, in their view, was the progress clearly being
achieved in the northern areas (I and II) Corps. Their appraisal of the
progress of the Strategic Hamlet Program was also largely favorable. In
both connections, they cited the effectiveness of the U.S. military
advisory and support effort.

Included among their military recommendations were:

a. General Harkins [COMUSMACV] review with Diem the military
changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and
Central areas (I, II, III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta
(IV Corps) by the end of 1965.

b. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential
functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by
Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the
bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

c. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese
to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce
in the near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S.
military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained
in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S.
personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Germane to the above recommendations, however, it was stated elsewhere
in the report, "No further reductions should be made until the
requirements of the 1964 campaign become firm."

Following the NSC meeting of 2 October, the White House issued a formal
purlic announcement of the major policy aspects of the McNamara-Taylor
Mission Report. The White House statement is reproduced below.

U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM:
WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.]
Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National
Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of
classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of
further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all
members of the Security Council and the following statement of United
States policy was approved by the President on the basis of
recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United
States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working
with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to
communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported
insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective
performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy
in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is
sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is
needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the
national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable
of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that
the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of
1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited
number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this
year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to
the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam
can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply
serious. The United States had made clear its continuing opposition to
any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not
yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the
future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as
in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of
that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.

Considerable emphasis was given to the White House statement, and to the
McNamara-Taylor Mission generally, in news media. Played up particularly
was the U.S. force withdrawal, especially the prospective 1000-man
reduction.

Three days later, on 5 October, in another meeting with the President,
followed by another NSC meeting, the McNamara-Taylor recommendations
themselves were addressed. The President "approved the military
recommendations contained in the report." The President also directed,
in line with their suggestion, that no formal announcement be made of
the implementation of plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel
from South Vietnam by the end of 1963.

The effect of the McNamara-Taylor mission, thus, was to revalidate the
existing U.S. policy position regarding Vietnam. Reaffirmed were the
military objectives, courses of action, and programs essentially as they
were laid out by the Secretary of Defense at the Honolulu Conference
over a year earlier on 23 July 1962. The underlying premises and
soundness of the rationale seemed more cogent than ever. In fact, a new
impetus was thereby given to pursing the same goals with even greater
thrust and purpose. Such an outcome could have been forecast, as noted
earlier, when Mr. McNamara set in motion another CPSVN planning cycle to
revise the Model M Plan and develop an accelerated plan to withdraw U.S.
forces.

Part of the motivation behind the stress placed on U.S. force
withdrawal, and particularly the seemingly arbitrary desire to effect
the 1000-man reduction by the end of 1963, apparently was as a signal to
influence both the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese and set the
stage for possible later steps that would help bring the insurgency to
an end. With regard to the SVN, the demonstration of determination to
pull out U.S. forces was intended to induce the South Vietnamese to
increase the effectiveness of their military effort. State's
instructions to Ambassador Lodge resulting from NSC action on the
McNamara-Taylor mission indicated that:

Actions are designed to indicate to Diem Government our displeasure
at its political policies and activities and to create significant
uncertainty in that government and in key Vietnamese groups as to future
intentions of United States. At same time, actions are designed to have
at most slight impact on military or counterinsurgency effort against
Viet Cong, at least in short term....

With respect to Hanoi, it might present an opportunity for a
demarche--exploiting withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Vietnam by a
specified date as exchange for North Vietnam's abandoning its aggression
against South Vietnam. But events were already conspiring otherwise, and
would soon frustrate such expectations and intentions as developed. The
internal SVN situation was about to undergo rapid transformation.

By late October, there was increasing skepticism in some quarters about
the military situation in South Vietnam. Indeed, it was beginning to be
suspected that reports of progress by U.S. military sources actually
cloaked a situation that was not only bleak, but deteriorating. A State
Department intelligence evaluation of 22 October showed markedly
pessimistic statistical trends since July 1963, in most areas of
enemy-friendly relative progress measurement, indicating an unfavorable
shift in the military balance. What was disquieting was that the pattern
showed steady decline over a period of more than three months' duration.

Circulation of the INR evaluation occasioned controversy and no little
recrimination. Substantive differences degenerated into a procedural
issue. The outcome was a personal memorandum from the Secretary of State
to the Secretary of Defense on 8 November, amounting to an apology for
the incident. The Secretary of State stated in regard to INR's RFE-90 of
22 October:

....It is not the policy of the State Department to issue military
appraisals without seeking the views of the Defense Department. I have
requested that any memoranda given inter-departmental circulation which
include military appraisals be coordinated with your Department.

G. THE NOVEMBER COUP AND OVERTHROW OF DIEM

On 1 November, the political situation fell apart. The long-anticipated
coup occurred. The Diem regime was overthrown, and both Diem and Nhu
were assassinated. A military junta of politically inexperienced
generals took over the government as their successors.

The significance of the great change, for good or ill, was not readily
apparent. Over the next three weeks the feared political chaos, civil
war, and collapse of the war effort following a coup did not seem to be
materializing. For the United States, the important question was what
did the new circumstances mean militarily for existing policy and plans
oriented to bringing the insurgency under control and to phasing out US
force commitments.

On 20 November, at the President's direction, a special all-agencies
conference on Vietnam was convened in Honolulu for a "full-scale review"
in depth of all aspects of the situation and to reassess U.S. plans and
policies in the political, military, economic and information fields
since the change of government. Attending were some 45 senior U.S.
officials, military and civilian, including: the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, Special Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, Chairman, JCS, Director of CIA, CINCPAC, ambassador to
Vietnam, and COMUSMACV. Ambassador Lodge assessed the prospects for
Vietnam as hopeful. In his estimation the new government was not without
promise. Vietnamese military leadership appeared to be united and
determined to step up the war effort. The Ambassador advocated
continuing to pursue the goal of setting dates for phasing out U.S.
activities and turning them over to the Vietnamese, and he volunteered
that the announced withdrawal of 1000 troops by the end of 1963 was
already having a salutary effect. COMUSMACV agreed with the Ambassador
that the conduct of the war against the VC was coming along
satisfactorily. Admitting that the VC-incidents rate shot up 300 to 400
percent after the coup, he noted that since 6 November, however, it had
dropped down to "normal" and remained so to the present. Military
operational statistics now generally showed a more or less favorable
balance. In short, the briefings and assessments received at the
conference constituted "an encouraging outlook for the principal
objective of joint U.S.-Vietnamese policy in South Vietnam-the
successful prosecution of the war against the Viet Cong communists."
Moreover, "excellent working relations between U.S. officials and the
members of the new Vietnamese government" had been established. All
plans for the U.S. phasing out were to go ahead as scheduled.

In this light the U.S. military plans and programs for Vietnam were
addressed. The revision of the Model M Plan of the CPSVN, ordered by the
Secretary of Defense during his last visit to Vietnam in October was
progressing apace and the finished Accelerated Plan was expected to be
forwarded shortly. It would cost $6.4 million more than the Model Plan,
however. Indications were that the FY 64 MAP would also cost more
because of the acceleration-to a total now of $187.5 million. The
Secretary of Defense made it clear that he felt that the proposed
CINCPAC MAP could be cut back and directed that the program be reviewed
to refine it and cut costs to stay as close as possible to the OSD
ceiling of $175.5 million. He was equally emphatic, however, that while
he would not tolerate fat or inefficiency in the program he was prepared
to provide whatever funds might be required under MAP to support the
GVN. In fact, he observed that the GVN was already running into
"tremendous financial deficits," and opined that neither AID nor MAP had
budgeted enough to provide for the emergencies which were likely to
arise during 1964.

H. ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY

On 22 November 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated. The
consequences were to set an institutional freeze on the direction and
momentum of U.S. Vietnam policy. Universally operative was a desire to
avoid change of any kind during the critical interregnum period of the
new Johnson Administration. Both the President and the governmental
establishment consciously strove for continuity, with respect to Vietnam
no less than in other areas. In Vietnam this continuity meant that the
phase-out concept, the CPSVN withrdawal plan, and the MAP programs
probably survived beyond the point they might have otherwise.

The immediate Johnson stamp on the Kennedy policy came on 26 November.
At a NSC meeting convened to consider the results of the 20 November
Honolulu Conference, the President "reaffirmed that U.S. objectives with
respect to withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the
White House statement of October 2, 1963." The only hint that something
might be different from on-going plans came in a Secretary of Defense
memo for the President three days prior to this NSC meeting. In that
memo, Mr. McNamara said that the new South Vietnamese government was
confronted by serious financial problems, and that the U.S. must be
prepared to raise planned MAP levels.

In early December, the President began to have, if not second thoughts,
at least a sense of uneasiness about Vietnam. In discussions with his
advisors, he set in motion what he hoped would be a major policy review,
fully staffed in depth, by Administration principals. The President
wanted "a fresh new look taken" at the whole problem. In preparation for
such a basic reappraisal, an interdepartmental meeting of second-echelon
principals accordingly convened on 3 December and laid out a broad
outline of basic topics to be addressed and staff papers to be developed
by various departments and agencies. This attempt at a systematic and
comprehensive reexamination, however, did not culminate in a fundamental
national reassessment.

I. ACCELERATED MODEL PLAN OF THE CPSVN

With no indication of policy change in the offing, U.S. military
planning thus went forward with hardly a break in stride. On 5 December
CINCPAC submitted the Accelerated Model Plan to the JCS. It was the
revision to the Model M Plan version of the CPSVN that the Secretary of
Defense had ordered during his early October visit to Vietnam. The
Accelerated Plan provided for more rapid phase-out of the bulk of U.S.
military personnel and units and a decrease in the residual strength
remaining thereafter. It also provided for building up GVN forces at a
faster pace but on a more reduced scale, then cutting back from peak
sooner and leveling out somewhat lower. MAP costs for the FY 1965-69
period would be little higher than the $392.2 million under the Model M
Plan, coming to $399.4 million in the Acelerated Plan.

J. THE 1000-MAN WITHDRAWAL OF DECEMBER 1963

During the month of December, the planned 1000-man reduction was
executed. It proved essentially an accounting exercise. Technically,
more than a thousand U.S. personnel did leave, but many of these were
part of the normal turnover cycle, inasmuch as rotation policy alone,
not to mention medical evacuation or administrative reasons, resulted in
an average rate of well over a thousand returnees per month. Though the
replacement pipeline was slowed somewhat, year-end total in-country
strength nevertheless was close to 16,000. This did not even represent a
decline of 1000 from the October peak of 16,732.

That the avowed goal of 1000 would not be reached had in fact been
anticipated and acknowledged before mid-December. Despite close
monitoring of authorized ceilings and actual strengths, the force level
kept rising. On 11 December, for example, the estimate of projected
year-end U.S. strength in Vietnam had to be revised upward to reflect
additional deployments approved since September. The adjusted figure now
came to 15,894, a net increase of 162 over the earlier estimate. This
new strength ceiling was what would be left after the 1000-man
withdrawal then in progress was completed.

III. 1964

A. THE VIETNAM SITUATION WORSENS

In December conflicting estimates of the situation in Vietnam indicated
that the bright hopes and predictions of the past were increasingly less
than realistic. A McNamara memo to the President written following a
trip to Vietnam of 21 December, was laden with gloom. [Doc. 156] He
wrote:. "The situation is very disturbing. Current trends, unless
reversed in the next 2-3 months, will lead to neutralization at best and
more likely to a communist-controlled state." He went on to note that
"the new government is the greatest source of concern," and that "it is
indecisive and drifting." The Country Team, he added, "lacks leadership,
and has been poorly informed." One of the most serious deficiencies be
found was a "grave reporting weakness" on the U.S. side. "Viet Cong
progress has been great during the period since the coup, with my best
guess being that the situation has in fact been deteriorating in the
countryside since July to a far greater extent than we realize because
of our undue dependence on distorted Vietnamese reporting." Mr. McNamara
clearly concluded that none of these conditions could be reversed by the
influx of more American personnel, nor did he even mention that the U.S
could continue to withdraw troops at all or as scheduled. His proposal
was to hold the line: "U.S. resources and personnel," he said, "cannot
usefully be substantially increased although he did announce his
intention to increase staffs "to sizes that will give us a reliable,
independent U.S. appraisal of the status of operations." In his
concluding paragraph, however, the Secretary of Defense admitted that
his own estimate "may be overly pessimistic," inasmuch as the
Ambassador, COMUSMACV, and General Minh were not discouraged and looked
forward to significant improvements in January. [Doc. 156]

Vestiges of optimism still persisted in one degree or another in some
quarters. The earlier sense of confidence that had been established was
deep-rooted and not easily shaken. A retrospective evaluation of the
Vietnam situation ostensibly covering the period 1960 through 1963,
prepared by SACSA (General Krulak) is indicative. Although intended as a
broad overview (and so called), and though actually cut off as of
sometime in October 1963, it was forwarded in late October or November
directly to the Secretary of Defense. The SACSA report presented nothing
less than a glowing account of steady progress across the board in the
military situation. Significantly, it contained no hint that the rate of
progress possibly might have temporarily slowed somewhat in the second
half of 1963, despite the fact that it expressly treated events as late
as October. Yet by this time, other evaluations giving a quite different
picture were already asserting themselves. Near the close of 1963 the
Director, DIA, reported to the Secretary of Defense that year-end review
and reassessment of the enemy situation revealed VC capabilities had not
been impaired over the past year. On the contrary, the VC had in many
regards improved in combat effectiveness and now enjoyed a generally
improved force posture for insurgency.

Hopeful bias alone does not explain the endurance of past firmly rooted
optimism--such as the SACSA overview. The difference between those who
stressed the positive and those who saw decline was, in part, the
product of viewing the situation in greater or shorter time frames.
Those who applied a macroscopic perspective, believed-and not without
certain logic-that current unfavorable reports were, at worse, a
temporary lapse in the larger curve of progress over the years. Those
who took spot checks tended to be more impressed by the immediate
situation, and at this time, the immediate situation was critical. The
feelings of this latter group were buttressed when on 30 January another
coup, this time largely bloodless, ousted the ruling Minh government. It
was a factional power struggle in which one military group replaced
another, this time with General Khanh emerging as Premier. The latest
development held forth little promise of giving the country the
political stability so desperately needed in the midst of a war for
survival. The event would prove only symptomatic as part of a sequence
of similar government upheavals that were to follow.

In the U.S., the coincidence of domestic tragedy and patent instability
in Vietnam evoked a chorus urging a Laos-like resolution of the Vietnam
conflict. In late August, 1963, President de Gaulle had issued a policy
statement on Vietnam which was subsequently officially interpreted as a
proposal for "independence and neutrality" for Vietnam-meaning eventual
U.S. withdrawal. In the aftermath of the assassinations, speculation
turned increasingly to this solution. For example, Senator Mansfield
wrote to President Johnson to propose a division of Vietnam between the
GVN and the Viet Cong, coupled with a U.S. withdrawal. In early January,
1964, Secretary McNamara furnished the President the following counters
to Senator Mansfield's arguments:

1. We should certainly stress that the war is essentially a
Vietnamese responsibility, and this we have repeatedly done,
particularly in our announced policy on U.S. troop withdrawal. At the
same time we cannot disengage U.S. prestige to any significant degree.....

2. The security situation is serious, but we can still win, even on
present ground rules....

3 .....Any deal either to divide the present territory of South
Vietnam or to "neutralize" South Vietnam would inevitably mean a new
government in Saigon that would in short order become Communist-dominated.

4. The consequences of a Communist-dominated South Vietnam are
extremely serious both for the rest of Southeast Asia and for the U.S.
position in the rest of Asia and indeed in other key areas of the world.....

5. Thus, the stakes in preserving an anti-Communist South Vietnam
are so high that, in our judgment, we must go on bending every effort to
win.....And, I am confident that the American people are by and large in
favor of a policy of firmness and strength in such situations.

Secretary McNamara in his testimony before Congress on the fiscal year
1965 budget in early February, 1964, declined to link the previously
planned U.S. withdrawals with either "pessimism" or "optimism" regarding
events in Vietnam, saying simply that the withdrawals had all along been
conditioned upon Vietnamese capability to assume full responsibility
from the U.S. trainers, and that there would be a "substantial reduction
in our force as we train them." Further:

Last fall . . . I wasn't as optimistic perhaps about the course of
the war as I was about being able to bring back our personnel in certain
numbers by the end of last year and also in increments between then and
the end of 1965.

I still am hopeful of doing that. We did, of course, bring back
1,000 men toward the latter part of last year. I am hopeful we can bring
back additional numbers of men later this year and certainly next year.
I say this because I personally believe that this is a war that the
Vietnamese must fight . . . I don't believe we can take on that combat
task for them. I do believe we can carry out training. We can provide
advice and logistical assistance.

But after all, the training, by the very nature of the work, comes
to an end at a certain point. We will have started this expanded
training and carried it out for a period of 4 years, by the end of next
year. We started at the end of 1961. The end of next year will have been
4 years later and certainly we should have completed the majority of the
training task by that time. This, in General Taylor's view and mine, is
what we should be able to do. If we do, we should bring our men back.

I don't believe we should leave our men there to substitute for
Vietnamese men who are qualified to carry out the task, and this is
really the heart of our proposal. I think it was a sound proposal then
and I think so now.....

Unsureness about the actual state of affairs in Washington spread
eventually to the highest levels of government, and prompted the
dispatching to South Vietnam in early February of a CIA "Special CAS
Group" for an independent evaluation of the military situation. A series
of four reports, dated 10, 11, 14 and 18 February 1964, were produced,
each transmitted by the Deputy Director, CIA, to the Secretary of
Defense, Secretary of State, and others as soon as it came out. Instead
of finding progress, these reported a serious and steadily deteriorating
situation. Cited were VC gains in the past several months, and
particularly noted was that VC arms were increasing in quantity and
quality. As for the Strategic Hamlet Program, they found it "at present
at virutal standstill." The Special CAS Group's concluding appraisal was
pessimistic: "Tide of insurgency in all four corps areas appears to be
going against GVN." COMUSMACV (who had no prior knowledge of the Special
CAS Group's reports) took issue with the Group's findings, contesting
less the date used than the conclusions, especially the "personal"
evaluational opinions as to degree of deterioration. He suggested that
in the future such reports be first coordinated before being dispatched.

On 6 March a major Secretary of Defense Conference again convened at
CINCPAC headquarters for a broad reassessment. The consensus was that
the military situation was definitely deteriorating. No longer was the
issue whether it was progressing satisfactorily or not. The question now
was how much of a setback had there been and what was needed to make up
for it. An opinion shared by many was that the insurgency could be
expected to go beyond 1965. This general reorientation of perspective
was reflected in the Secretary of Defense's observation that attention
should be focused on the near-term objectives of providing the greater
U.S. support that would be necessary, and suspending for the time being
consideration of longer-range concerns such as 5-year MAP projections.
The visit to Vietnam on 8 March corroborated the gravity of the
immediate problems at hand.

Following his return from Vietnam, Mr. McNamara, on 16 March, submitted
to the President a formal report. In it the Secretary of Defense
acknowledged, "The situation has unquestionably been growing worse, at
least since September." RVNAF desertion rates were increasing, and the
GVN military position generally was weakening noticeably. The VC
position, on the other hand, showed signs of improving. He referred
pointedly to the increase in North Vietnamese support. The conclusion
was that greater U.S. support was needed.

In describing what was required to improve the situation in South
Vietnam, Mr. McNamara identified measures that "will involve a limited
increase in U.S. personnel and in direct Defense Department costs. More
significantly they involve significant increases in Military Assistance
Program costs plus "additional U.S. economic aid to support the
increased GVN budget." The estimated additional annual MAP costs would
come to between $30 and $40 million each year, plus a one-time
additional cost of $20 million for military equipment. In the
recommendation section of the report, the Secretary listed the following
12 items:

1. To make it clear that we are prepared to furnish assistance and
support to South Vietnam for as long as it takes to bring the insurgency
under control.
2. To make it clear that we fully support the Khanh government and
are opposed to any further coups.
3. To support a Program for National Mobilization (including a
national service law) to put South Vietnam on a war footing.
4. To assist the Vietnamese to increase the armed forces (regular
plus paramilitary) by at least 50,000 men.
5. To assist the Vietnamese to create a greatly enlarged Civil
Administrative Corps for work at province, district and hamlet levels.
6. To assist the Vietnamese to improve and reorganize the
para-military forces and to increase their compensation.
7. To assist the Vietnamese to create an offensive guerrilla force.
8. To provide the Vietnamese Air Force 25 A-1H aircraft in exchange
for the present T-28s.
9. To provide the Vietnamese army additional M-1 13 armored
personnel carriers (withdrawing the M-114s there), additional river
boats, and approximately $5-b million of other additional material.
10. To announce publicly the Fertilizer Program and to expand it
with a view within two years to trebling the amount of fertilizer made
available.
11. To authorize continued high-level U.S. overflights of South
Vietnam's borders and to authorize "hot pursuit" and South Vietnamese
ground operations over the Laotian line for the purpose of border
control. More ambitious operations into Laos involving units beyond
battalion size should be authorized only with the approval of Souvanna
Phouma. Operations across the Cambodian border should depend on the
state of relations with Cambodia.
12. To prepare immediately to be in a position on 72 hours' notice
to initiate the full range of Laotian and Cambodian "Border Control"
actions (beyond those authorized in paragraph 11 above) and the
"Retaliatory Action" against North Vietnam, and to be in a position on
30 days' notice to initiate the program of "Graduated Overt Military
Pressure" against North Vietnam.

As for the future of the phased-withdrawal plans, the Secretary of
Defense's report contained the following:

The U.S. policy of reducing existing personnel where South
Vietnamese are in a position to assume the functions is still sound. Its
application will not lead to any major reductions in the near future,
but adherence to this policy as such has a sound effect in portraying to
the U.S. and the world that we continue to regard the war as a conflict
the South Vietnamese must win and take ultimate responsibility for.
Substantial reductions in the numbers of U.S. military training
personnel should be possible before the end of 1965. However, the U.S.
should continue to reiterate that it will provide all the assistance and
advice required to do the job regardless of how long it takes. [Doc. 158]

By formal decision at the NSC session of 17 March, the President
approved the Secretary of Defense report of 16 March 1964 and directed
all agencies to carry out the 12 recommendations contained therein. A
White House statement, reproduced below, was issued the same day.

March 17, 1964

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor, following their initial oral
report of Friday, today reported fully to President Johnson and the
members of the National Security Council. The report covered the
situation in South Vietnam, the measures being taken by General Khanh
and his government, and the need for United States assistance to
supplement and support these measures. There was also discussion of the
continuing support and direction of the Viet Cong insurgency from North
Vietnam.

At the close of the meeting the President accepted the report and its
principal recommendations, which had the support of the National
Security Council and Ambassador Lodge.

Comparing the situation to last October, when Secretary McNamara and
General Taylor last reported fully on it, there have unquestionably been
setbacks. The Viet Cong have taken maximum advantage of two changes of
government, and of more long-standing difficulties, including a serious
weakness and over-extension which had developed in the basically sound
hamlet program. The supply of arms and cadres from the north has
continued; careful and sophisticated control of Viet Cong operations has
been apparent; and evidence that such control is centered in Hanoi is
clear and unmistakable.

To meet the situation, General Khanh and his government are acting
vigorously and effectively. They have produced a sound central plan for
the prosecution of the war, recognizing to a far greater degree than
before the crucial role of economic and social, as well as military,
action to ensure that areas cleared of the Viet Cong survive and prosper
in freedom.

To carry out this plan, General Khanh requires the full enlistment of
the people of South Vietnam, partly to augment the strength of his
anti-guerrilla forces, but particularly to provide the administrators,
health workers, teachers and others who must follow up in cleared areas.
To meet this need, and to provide a more equitable and common basis of
service, General Khanh has informed us that he proposes in the near
future to put into effect a National Mobilization Plan that will provide
conditions and terms of service in appropriate jobs for all able-bodied
South Vietnamese between certain ages.

In addition, steps are required to bring up to required levels the pay
and status of the paramilitary forces and to create a highly trained
guerrilla force that can beat the Viet Cong on its own ground. Finally,
limited but significant additional equipment is proposed for the air
forces, the river navy, and the mobile forces.

In short, where the South Vietnamese Government now has the power to
clear any part of its territory, General Khanh's new program is designed
to clear and to hold, step by step and province by province.

This program will involve substantial increases in cost to the South
Vietnamese economy, which in turn depends heavily on United States
economic aid. Additional, though less substantial, military assistance
funds are also needed, and increased United States training activity
both on the civil and military side. The policy should continue of
withdrawing United States personnel where their roles can be assumed by
South Vietnamese and of sending additional men if they are needed. It
will remain the policy of the United States to furnish assistance and
support to South Vietnam for as long as it is required to bring
Communist aggression and terrorism under control.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their overall conclusion
that with continued vigorous leadership from General Khanh and his
government, and the carrying out of these steps, the situation can be
significantly improved in the coming months.

B. DEMISE OF THE CPSVN

Before the month of March was over the CPSVN, as well as the MAP
plan-fling that had been such an integral part of it, finally received
the coup de grace. Sacrificed to the U.S. desire "to make it clear that
we fully support" the GVN, they were formally terminated, for the
record, on 27 March in the OSD message reproduced below:

Date: 27 March 1964

FROM: OSD WASH DC DEF 963208
(Col. W. J. Yates)
TO: CINCPAC
REFS: a. CINCPAC Mar 64
b. DEF 959615 DTG Mar 64

1. As indicated in ref. b., ceiling for Vietnam FY 66 MAP is $143.0
million against $143.1 million for FY 65. Requirements above these
program levels should be identified as separate packages.

2. Submission of five-year programs FY 66-70 for Vietnam is
suspended until further notice.. Your best estimates of FY 66
requirements are necessary inasmuch line detail as feasible by 1 Jul 64
in order that (a) the Military Departments can review for pricing, lead
time, availabilities, and prepare for procurement action and (b)
requirements can be processed within DoD, State/AID and BoB for
budget/Congressional Presentation purposes.

3. Previous guidance re Model Plan projection for phasedown of U.S.
forces and GVN forces is superseded. Policy is as announced by White
House 17 Mar 64: Quote The policy should continue of withdrawing U.S.
personnel where their roles can be assumed by South Vietnamese and of
sending additional men if they are needed. It will remain the policy of
the U.S. to furnish assistance and support of South Vietnam for as long
as is required to bring Communist aggression and terrorism under
control. Unquote.

4. No further action required or being taken here relative to
accelerated model plan.

Thus ended de jure the policy of phase out and withdrawal and all the
plans and programs oriented to it. Shortly, they would be cancelled out
de facto.

C. BUILD-UP OF THE U.S. FORCE COMMITMENT

Soon the whole evolutionary direction of the U.S. military commitment
began to change. Rather than diminishing, the magnitude rose thereafter.
In early May the approved U.S. military strength ceiling for South
Vietnam was raised by more than 1500 so that total in-country
authorization came to over 17,000. Further increases were in sight. As
the military situation in Vietnam failed to show signs of ameliorating,
pressures began to develop in late spring for an even more significant
increase in U.S. forces.

A special meeting on Southeast Asia was called at PACOM Headquarters in
Honolulu for 1-2 June because of the unsatisfactory progress in
execution of the National Pacification Plan. There, COMUSMACV proposed
extending and intensifying the U.S. advisory effort in order to improve
the operational effectiveness of the VNAF performance generally. The
idea was discussed and supported in principle, and a staff working paper
outlining the concept was prepared by the conferees. Near the end of
June, COMUSMACV submitted to JCS (info CINCPAC, DOD, State, White House)
his formal proposal recommending enlargement of the advisory assistance
program. He reiterated, and offered further justification for, the need
to augment the current advisory detachments at the battalion level and
to extend the advisory effort at both the district and sector levels.
His detailed breakout of primary personnel requirements came to a total
of 9000 more advisors as the net in-country increase, but conceded that
additional administrative and logistic support requirements would be
substantial and would be submitted separately. Also, approximately 80
additional U.S. Navy advisors would be requested, in connection with
recommendations made earlier in the "Bucklew Report" for a Junk Force
and other measures to counter infiltration by sea. CINCPAC indicated
concurrence and recommended approval of the proposal on 4 July.

In the middle of July, the new U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, General
Maxwell Taylor, sent an evaluation of the military situation to the
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and JCS that lent strong
support to COMUSMACV's proposal. The Ambassador advised that formal
estimates of regular VC strength in South Vietnam had been revised and
now were raised to between 28,000 and 34,000. He explained that this did
not reflect a sudden dramatic increase, but had been suspected for the
past two or three years, though confirmatory evidence had become
available only in the last few months. There was thus no occasion for
alarm, but the new estimate emphasized the growing magnitude of the
problem and the need to increase the level of U.S./GVN efforts.
Therefore, additional requirements were being formulated, including U.S.
military personnel requirements, to support U.S. plans during the
ensuing months to cope with the new understanding of the realities of
the situation. He forecast an increase in U.S. military strength to
around 21,000 over the next six-month period to meet projected needs.

Immediately the size of the estimated force requirements connected with
the proposed expansion of the advisory effort began to climb. On 16 July
COMUSMACV submitted the support requirements associated with the
program. For the next year he would need, over and above the original
900 additional advisors requested, more than 3200 other personnel, for a
total gross military strength increase of about 4200. The Ambassador in
Saigon concurred in COMUSMACV's proposed increase in U.S. military
strength by 4200 over the next nine months, bringing the total
in-country to nearly 22,000, and he urged prompt action. The Secretary
of State also recommended approval, as did CINCPAC and JCS, and on 20
July, at the JCS-SecDef meeting, overall support was given to the
COMUSMACV requested deployment package. The following day, at the NSC
meeting of 21 July, the President gave it final approval, though that
action was not included in the NSAM issued the next day.

As eventually refined, the total force increment actually came to over
4900 U.S. personnel. In addition, other requirements not directly
related to the advisory effort itself were being generated and met
independently. By the close of 1964 the year-end U.S. in-country
strength figure had climbed to approximately
23,000 personnel and further authorized deployments were under way or in
preparation.

The actual effect of "phased withdrawals" was minimal. Though 1,000
spaces among the personnel authorized MACV were eliminated in 1963,
add-ons overtook cut-backs. As an example, U.S. Army strength in
Vietnam--the bulk of the advisory effort--was allocated as follows:

PERCENTAGE OF U.S. ARMY STRENGTH IN VIETNAM
Total Army
Strength Hq & Spt Units Aviation Units Communication Units Special
Forces Other Advisers
Nov 63 10,000 17 35 15 6 27
Mar 64 10,000 19 34 13 7 27
Nov 64 14,000 28 30 12 8 22

D. POSTSCRIPT TO WITHDRAWAL PLANNING

The official termination of formal planning towards withdrawal by no
means ended its attraction as one issue in the growing public debate
over Vietnam policy. In August, 1964, the Tonkin Gulf crisis brought
Congressmen back in perplexity to Secretary McNamara's statements on
withdrawals, and elicited the following exchange:

....[Secretary McNamara, you] have again always indicated that you
hoped that by the end of this year there would have been a substantial
reduction. . . Where we had a planned reduction of the number of troops,
and what appeared to be a withdrawal of the United States from the area,
then this attack comes, which would put us firmly in the area, or at
least change our mind. The whole thing, to me, is completely, at least,
not understanding.

SECRETARY McNAMARA: The period, December 1961, through the summer
of 1963 was a period of great progress within South Vietnam, in
countering the effort of the Viet Cong to overthrow that government.
However, starting in May, 1963, you will recall, a series of religious
riots developed, controversy within the country developed, leading
eventually upon November 2nd to the overthrow of the Diem government.
Prior to that time in September, 1963, General Taylor and I had advised
and visited that country. At that time, the progress of the counter
insurgency effort was so great it appeared that we would be able to
withdraw much of our training force by the end of 1965, and not 1964,
and we would-we so stated upon our return. But following that-and I
should also mention that in that same statement, we made in September,
1963, we pointed out the very serious nature of the political
difficulties that were building up in South Vietnam, because of the
conflict between the Buddhists and the Catholics, and the government.

In any event, as I say, in November, 1963, the government was
overthrown. There was another change of government January 30th, and
this completely changed the outlook and the political instability that
followed the two coups has given the Viet Cong an opportunity to take
advantage of the political and military weakness. They have taken
advantage of it. It is now necessary to add further U.S. military
assistance to counter that Viet Cong offensive....

We have never made the statement since September, 1963, that we
believed we could bring the bulk of the training forces out by the end
of 1965, because the actions in November and January made it quite clear
that would not be possible.

We have said--as a matter of fact, I say today--as our training
missions are completed, we will bring back the training forces. I think
this is only good sense, and good judgment. We have certain training
missions that I hope we can complete this year, and others next year,
and the forces associated with those missions should be brought back.

We have forces there training the Vietnamese to fly spotter
aircraft, for artillery spotting purposes. I am very hopeful that we can
bring the U.S. forces out as the Vietnamese acquire that capability.

On the other hand, the Vietnamese quite clearly need additional
assistance in training for counter guerilla operations, because of the
increased guerrilla activities of the Viet Cong, and we are sending
additional special forces to Vietnam for that purpose.

There will be a flow in both directions, but I am certain in the
next several months the net flow will be strongly toward South Vietnam.

After Tonkin Gulf, the policy objective of gradual disengagement from
Vietnam was no longer relevant. The hope, as well as the concept of
phase out and withdrawal, dwindled, since such withdrawal was now seen
as tantamount to surrendering SVN to Hanoi. The issue for the future
would no longer be withdrawals, but what additional U.S. forces would be
required to stem the tide- and how fast they would have to be thrown
into the breach.

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "Background to the
Conflict, 1940-1950." pp. 1-52

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Involvement in
the Franco-Viet Minh War, 1950-1954," pp. 53-107

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 3 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Geneva
Conference, May-July, 1954," pp. 108-178.

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 4 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. and France in
Indochina, 1950-56," pp. 179-241

Go to Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Pentagon Papers, "Origins of the
Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960," pp. 242-314

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Kennedy
Commitments and Programs, 1961,"pp. 1-127

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Strategic Hamlet
Program, 1961-1963," pp. 128-159.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 3, of the Pentagon Papers, "Phased Withdrawal of
U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 4, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Overthrow of Ngo
Dinh Diem, May-November, 1963," pp. 201-276.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 5 of the Pentagon Papers, "US-GVN Relations,
1964-1967," pp. 277-407.

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 6 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Advisory
Build-up, 1961-67," pp. 408-514

Go to Volume 2, Chapter 7 of the Pentagon Papers, "Re-Emphasis on
Pacification: 1965-1967," pp. 515-623.

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Programs in
South Vietnam, Nov. 1963-Apr. 1965," pp. 1-105.

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "Military Pressures
Against North Vietnam, February 1964-January 1965," pp. 106-268.

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 3, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Air War in North
Vietnam: Rolling Thunder Begins, February-June, 1965," pp. 269-388

Go to Volume 3, Chapter 4, of the Pentagon Papers, "American Troops
Enter the Ground War, March-July 1965," pp. 389-485

Go to Volume 4, Chapter 1, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Air War in North
Vietnam, 1965-1968," pp. 1-276.

Go to Volume 4, Chapter 2, of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Ground Strategy
and Force Deployments, 1965-1968," pp. 277-604.

Return to Vinnie's Home Page

Return to Vietnam War Page
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-26 00:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
Well by god Marsh if the shoe fits, and it does, wear it. You come out
with crap like Jack ordered 1,000 men per month home and not expect to be
nailed on it?
Besides that, no one here called you a liar.
The previous poster just did.
I never saw the word "liar".
McAdams does not require that the offender us the word "liar."
Stop being childish.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Well Marsh, if you can find anything in this large reference you gave me
that says "JFK ordered 1,000 men per month home" or any similar words
please do, in fact, mark them in BOLD. Nothing here says anyone even
recommended removal of 1,000 men per month much less JFK ordered or
approved an order for such. So your false statement about this remains
.......another false statement by Marsh. Pure crap.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
So you think "phased" means every month? Really?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
A formal planning and budgetary process for the phased withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Vietnam was begun amid the euphoria and optimism of
July 1962, and was ended in the pessimism of March 1964. Initially, the
specific objectives were: (1) to draw down U.S. military personnel then
engaged in advisory, training, and support efforts from a FY 64 peak of
12,000 to a FY 68 bottoming out of 1,500 (just HQ, MAAG); and (2) to
reduce MAP from a FY 64 peak of $180 million to a FY 69 base of $40.8
million. South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to perform all the
functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel. What the U.S.G. was
actually trying to accomplish during this period can be described in
either or both of two ways: (1) a real desire and attempt to extricate
the U.S. from direct military involvement in the war and to make it a
war which the GVN would have to learn to win, and (2) straightforward
contingency planning and the use of a political-managerial technique to
slow down pressures for greater U.S. inputs. A blend of the wish
embodied in the first explanation and the hard-headedness of the second
seems plausible.
Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with
the resulting political instability and deterioration of the military
situation soon were to lead U.S. decision-makers to set aside this
planning process. An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in
December 1963, but this was essentially an accounting exercise--and the
U.S. force level prior to the reduction had already reached 16,732 in
October 1963. By December 1964, U.S. strength had risen to 23,000 and
further deployments were on the way.
What, then, did the whole phased-withdrawal exercise accomplish? It may
have impeded demands for more men and money, but this is doubtful. If
the optimistic reports on the situation in SVN were to be believed, and
they apparently were, little more would have been requested. It may have
frightened the GVN, but it did not induce Diem or his successors to
reform the political apparatus or make RVNAF fight harder. It may have
contributed, however, to public charges about the Administration's
credibility and over-optimism about the end of the conflict. Despite the
carefully worded White House announcement of the phase-out policy on
October 2, 1963, tentative Johnson Administration judgments came to be
regarded by the public as firm predictions. While this announcement made
clear that the U.S. effort would continue "until the insurgency has been
suppressed or until the national security forces of the GVN are capable
of suppressing it," the public tended to focus on the prognosis which
followed--"Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment
that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the
"We have said--as a matter of fact, I say today--as our training
missions are completed, we will bring back the training forces."
Quite apart from what was actually accomplished by the phase-out policy
and the costs in terms of domestic political perceptions of
Administration statements on Vietnam, there are some important lessons
to be learned from this exercise. What was the U.S. rationale behind the
policy? Was it sound, feasible, and consistent with statements of
national objectives? By what policy and programmatic means were we
trying to bring about the desired results? Were these, in fact, the most
appropriate and effective vehicles? How did the intelligence and
reporting system in Vietnam help or hinder policy formulation? Why was
not the Diem coup in its darkening aftermath grasped as the opportunity
to reexamine policy and unambiguously to decide to phase out, or to do
whatever was deemed necessary?
The rationale behind the phased withdrawal policy was by and large
internally consistent and sensible.
--To put Vietnam in the perspective of other U.S. world interests.
Vietnam, at this time, was not the focal point of attention in
Washington; Berlin and Cuba were. Part of this exercise was to make
clear that U.S. interests in Europe and in the western hemisphere came
first. Even in terms of Southeast Asia itself, Laos, not Vietnam, was
the central concern. So, the phase-out policy made the kind of sense
that goes along with the structuring of priorities.
--To avoid an open-ended Asian mainland land war. Even though
violated by U.S. involvement in the Korean war, this was a central tenet
of U.S. national security policy and domestic politics. The notion of
the bottomless Asian pit, the difference in outlook about a human life,
were well understood.
--To plan for the contingency that events might force withdrawal
upon us. Seen in this light, the planning process was prudential
preparation.
--To treat the insurgency as fundamentally a Vietnamese matter,
best solved by the Vietnamese themselves. Most U.S. decision-makers had
well-developed doubts about the efficacy of using "white faced" soldiers
to fight Asians. This view was invariably coupled publicly and privately
with statements like this one made by Secretary McNamara: "I personally
believe that this is a war that the Vietnamese must fight . . . I don't
believe we can take on that combat task for them. I do believe we can
carry out training. We can provide advice and logistical assistance."
--To increase the pressure on the GVN to make the necessary reforms
and to make RVNAF fight harder by making the extent and future of U.S.
support a little more tenuous. This was explicitly stated in State's
instructions to Ambassador Lodge on how to handle the White House
statement of October, 1963: "Actions are designed to indicate to Diem
Government our displeasure at its political policies and activities and
to create significant uncertainty in that government and in key
Vietnamese groups as to future intentions of United States." In other
words, phased withdrawal was thought of as a bargaining counter with the
GVN.
--To put the lid on inevitable bureaucratic and political pressures
for increased U.S. involvement and inputs into Vietnam. It was to be
expected and anticipated that those intimately involved in the Vietnam
problem would be wanting more U.S. resources to handle that problem.
Pressures for greater effort, it was reasoned, eventually would come
into play unless counteracted. What Secretary McNamara did was to force
all theater justifications for force build-ups into tension with
long-term phase-down plans. On 21 December, 1963, in a memo to the
"U.S. resources and personnel cannot usefully be substantially
increased...."
--To deal with international and domestic criticism and pressures.
While Vietnam was not a front burner item, there were those who already
had begun to question and offer non-consensus alternatives. During 1963,
for example, both General de Gaulle and Senator Mansfield were strongly
urging the neutralization of Vietnam.
It is difficult to sort out the relative importance of these varying
rationales; all were important. Paramount, perhaps, were the desires to
limit U.S. involvement, and to put pressure on the GVN for greater
efforts. And, the rationales were all consistent with one another. But
they did not appear as being wholly consistent with other statements of
our national objectives in Southeast Asia. For example, on July 17, 1963,
President Kennedy said: "We are not going to withdraw from [bringing about
a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national
independence]. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would
"We can think of Vietnam as a piece of strategic real estate. It's on the
corner of mainland Asia, across the East-West trade routes, and in a
position that would make it an excellent base for further Communist
aggression against the rest of free Asia." In a September 9, 1963
interview, the President stated: "I believe ['the domino theory']. I think
that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms up high just
beyond the frontiers, that if South Vietnam went, it would not only give
them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya,
but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in
Southeast Asia was China and the Communists." One could argue that such an
unequivocally strong statement of strategic importance would not be
consistent with any sort of phase-out proposal short of a clear-cut
victory over the communists. Despite the caveats about it being
essentially a South Vietnamese struggle, President Kennedy's statements
were very strong. And, insofar as the U.S. was interested in greater
leverage on the GVN, these statements tended to reduce U.S. bargaining
power because of the explicit and vital nature of the commitment.
The rationales behind the phased withdrawal policy were incorporated into
a formal programming and planning process that began in July 1962 and
ended on 27 March 1964. It was at the Honolulu Conference on 23 July 1962,
the same day that the 14-nation neutralization declaration on Laos was
formally signed, that the Secretary of Defense on guidance from the
President put the planning machine in motion. Noting that "tremendous
progress" had been made in South Vietnam and that it might be difficult to
retain public support for U.S. operations in Vietnam indefinitely, Mr.
McNamara directed that a comprehensive long range program be developed for
building up SVN military capability and for phasing-out the U.S. role. He
asked that the planners assume that it would require approximately three
years, that is, the end of 1965, for the RVNAF to be trained to the point
that it could cope with the VC. On 26 July, the JCS formally directed
CINCPAC to develop a Comprehensive Plan for South Vietnam (CPSVN) in
accordance with the Secretary's directives. Thus began an intricate,
involved and sometimes arbitrary bargaining process, involving mainly
MACV, the Joint Staff, and ISA. There were two main pegs that persisted
throughout this process: MAP planning for the support and build-up of
RVNAF, and draw-downs on U.S. advisory and training personnel.
The first COMUSMACV CPSVN was floated on 19 January 1963. It envisioned
MAP for FY 1963-1964 at a total of $405 million. The total for FY
1965-1968 was $673 million. The RVNAF force level was to peak in FY 64 at
458,000 men. U.S. personnel in SVN were to drop from a high of 12.2
thousand in FY 65 to 5.9 thousand in FY 66, bottoming out in FY 68 at 1.5
thousand (Hq MAAG). No sooner was this first CPSVN cranked into the policy
machinery than it conflicted with similar OSD/ISA planning. This conflict
between ISA/OSD guidance and COMUSMACV/Joint Staff planning was to be
continued throughout the life of the CPSVN.
Secretary McNamara opposed General Harkins version of the plan for a
variety of reasons: (1) it programmed too many RVNAF than were trainable
and supportable; (2) it involved weaponry that was too sophisticated; (3)
it did not fully take account of the fact that if the insurgency came into
control in FY 65 as anticipated, the U.S. MAP investment thereafter should
be held at no more than $50 million per year; (4) the U.S. phaseout was
too slow, and the RVNAF training had to be speeded up. In other words, Mr.
McNamara wanted both a more rapid U.S. withdrawal of personnel, and a
faster reduction in U.S. military/economic support.
The Secretary's views prevailed. The embodiment of Mr. McNamara's desire
to quicken the pace of phase-out planning was embodied first in a Model M
plan prepared by the JCS and later in what came to be called the
Accelerated Model Plan of the CPSVN. The Accelerated Plan provided for a
rapid phaseout of the bulk of U.S. military personnel. It also provided
for building up GVN forces at a faster pace, but at a more reduced scale.
MAP costs for FY 1965-1969 totaled $399.4 million, or nearly $300 million
lower than the original projection.
All of this planning began to take on a kind of absurd quality as the
situation in Vietnam deteriorated drastically and visibly. Strangely, as
a result of the public White House promise in October and the power of
the wheels set in motion, the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in
December of 1963. All the planning for phase-out, however, was either
ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964 that
preceded NSAM 288. The thrust of this document was that greater U.S.
support was needed in SVN. Mr. McNamara identified these measures as
those that "will involve a limited increase in U.S. personnel and in
direct Defense Department costs." He added: "More significantly they
involve significant increases in Military Assistance Program costs plus
"additional U.S. economic aid to support the increased GVN budget." On
27 March 1964, CINCPAC was instructed not to take any further action on
the Accelerated Plan. Quickly, requests for more U.S. personnel poured
into Washington. The planning process was over, but not forgotten.
Secretary McNamara stated in his August 1964 testimony on the Tonkin
Gulf crisis that even today "if our training missions are completed, we
will bring back the training forces."
While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
the Diem coup, it is important to understand that the vehicles chosen to
effect that policy--MAP planning, RVNAF and U.S. force levels--were the
right ones. They were programmatic and, therefore, concrete and visible.
No better way could have been found to convince those in our own
government and the leaders of the GVN that we were serious about
limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South
Vietnamese themselves. The public announcement of the policy, on October
2, 1963, after the McNamara-Taylor trip to Vietnam was also a wise
choice. Even though this announcement may have contributed to the
so-called "credibility gap," publication was a necessity. Without it,
the formal and classified planning process would have seemed to be
nothing more than a drill.
While the choice of means was appropriate for getting a handle on the
problem, it proceeded from some basic unrealities. First, only the most
Micawberesque predictions could have led decision-makers in Washington
to believe that the fight. against the guerrillas would have clearly
turned the corner by FY 65. Other nations' experience in internal
warfare pointed plainly in the other direction. With more propitious
circumstances, e.g. isolation from sanctuaries, the Philippine and
Malayan insurgencies each took the better part of a dozen years to bring
to an end.
Second, there was an unrealistic contradiction within the CPSVN itself.
As directed by Secretary McNamara, U.S. MAP was to decrease as RVNAF
increased. In practical terms, MAP costs should have been programmed to
increase as the South Vietnamese Army increased, and as they themselves
began to bear most of the burden. The desire to keep MAP costs down
after FY 65 could, at best, be perceived as a budgeting or program
gimmick not a serious policy.
Three, the political situation in South Vietnam itself should have
prompted more realistic contingency plans against failure of the
Vietnamese, in order to give the U.S. some options other than what
appeared as precipitous withdrawal. The intelligence and reporting
systems for Vietnam during this period must bear a principal
responsibility for the unfounded optimism of U.S. policy. Except for
some very tenuous caveats, the picture was repeatedly painted in terms
of progress and success.
In the July 1962 Honolulu Conference the tone was set. Secretary
McNamara asked COMUSMACV how long it would take before the VC could be
expected to be eliminated as a significant force. In reply, COMUSMACV
estimated about one year from the time RVNAF and other forces became
fully operational and began to press the VC in all areas. Mr. McNamara
was told and believed that there had been "tremendous progress" in the
past six months. This theme was re-echoed in April of 1963 by COMUSMACV
and by the intelligence community through an NIE. All the statistics and
evaluations pointed to GVN improvement. While noting general progress,
the NIE stated that the situation remains flexible. Even as late as July
1963 a rosy picture was being painted by DIA and SACSA. The first
suggestion of a contrary evaluation within the bureaucracy came from
INR. Noting disquieting statistical trends since July, an unpopular INR
memo stated that the "pattern showed steady decline over a period of
more than three months duration." It was greeted with a storm of
disagreement, and in the end was disregarded.
The first, more balanced evaluation came with the McNamara-Taylor trip
report late in September and October, 1963. While it called the
political situation "deeply serious," even this report was basically
optimistic about the situation, and saw little danger of the political
crisis affecting the prosecution of the war.
Not until after the Diem coup, the assassination of President Kennedy,
and the December Vietnam trip of Secretary McNamara was the Vietnam
situation accurately assessed. In Secretary McNamara's December memo to
the President, after his trip, he wrote: "The situation is very
disturbing. Current trends, unless reversed in the next 2-3 months, will
lead to a neutralization at best and more likely to a
communist-controlled state." One of the most serious deficiencies he
found was a "grave reporting weakness on the U.S. side." Mr. McNamara's
judgment, apparently, was not predominant. He noted in the concluding
paragraph of his memo that he "may be overly pessimistic, inasmuch as
the ambassador, COMUSMACV, and General Minh were not discouraged and
look forward to significant improvements in January."
By 6 March 1964 when another major Secretary of Defense Conference
convened at CINCPAC Headquarters, the consensus was that the military
situation was definitely deteriorating. The issue was no longer whether
there was or was not satisfactory progress; the question was how much of
a setback had there been and what was needed to make up for it. Mr.
McNamara observed that attention should now be focused on near term
objectives of providing for necessary greater U.S. support. It was
finally agreed that the insurgency could be expected to go beyond 1965.
The intelligence and reporting problem during this period cannot be
explained away. In behalf of the evaluators and assessors, it can be
argued that their reporting up until the Diem coup had some basis in
fact. The situation may not have been too bad until December 1963.
Honest and trained men in Vietnam looking at the problems were reporting
what they believed reality to be. In retrospect, they were not only
wrong, but more importantly, they were influential. The Washington
decision-makers could not help but be guided by these continued reports
of progress.
Phased withdrawal was a good policy that was being reasonably well
executed. In the way of our Vietnam involvement, it was overtaken by
events. Not borne of deep conviction in the necessity for a U.S.
withdrawal or in the necessity of forcing the GVN to truly carry the
load, it was bound to be submerged in the rush of events. A policy more
determined might have used the pretext and the fact of the Diem coup and
its aftermath as reason to push for the continuation of withdrawal.
Instead, the instability and fear of collapse resulting from the Diem
coup brought the U.S. to a decision for greater commitment.
End of Summary
CHRONOLOGY
23 Jul 62 Geneva Accords on Laos
14-Nation declaration on the neutrality of Laos.
23 Jul 62 Sixth Secretary of Defense Conference, Honolulu
Called to examine present and future developments in South
Vietnam--which looked good. Mr. McNamara initiated immediate planning
for the phase-out of U.S. military involvement by 1965 and development
of a program to build a GVN military capability strong enough to take
over full defense responsibilities by 1965.
26 Jul 62 JCS Message to CINCPAC
CINCPAC was formally instructed to develop a "Comprehensive Plan
for South Vietnam" (CPSVN) in line with instructions given at Honolulu.
14 Aug 62 CINCPAC Message to MACV
MACV was directed to draw up a CPSVN designed to ensure GVN
military and para-military strength commensurate with its sovereign
responsibilities. The CPSVN was to assume the insurgency would be under
control in three years, that extensive US support would be available
during the three-year period; that those items essential to development
of full RVNAF capability would be (largely) available through the
military assistance program (MAP).
Oct-Nov. 1962 GVN National Campaign Plan developed
In addition to the CPSVN, MACV prepared an outline for an
integrated, nationwide offensive military campaign to destroy the
insurgency and restore GVN control in South Vietnam. The concept was
adopted by the GVN in November.
26 Nov 62 Military Reorganization Decreed
Diem ordered realignment of military chain of command,
reorganization of RVNAF, establishment of four CTZ's and a Joint
Operations Center to centralize control over current military
operations. (JOC became operational on 20 December 1962.)
7 Dec 62 First Draft of CPSVN Completed
CINCPAC disapproved first draft because of high costs and
inadequate training provisions.
19 Jan 63 MACV Letter to C!NCPAC, 3010 Ser 0021
MACV submitted a revised CPSVN. Extended through FY 1968 and
concurred in by the Ambassador, it called for GVN military forces to
peak at 458,000 in FY 1964 (RVNAF strength would be 230,900 in FY 1964);
cost projected over six years would total $978 million.
22 Jan 63 OSD(ISA) Message to CINCPAC
MAP-Vietnam dollar guide lines issued. Ceilings considerably
different from and lower than those in CPSVN.
25 Jan 63 CINCPAC Letter to JCS, 1010, Ser 0079
Approved the CPSVN, supported and justified the higher MAP costs
projected by it.
7 Mar 63 JCSM 190-63
JCS recommended SecDef approve the CPSVN; supporting the higher MAP
costs, JCS proposed CPSVN be the basis for revision of FY 1964 MAP and
development of FY 1965-69 programs.
20 Mar 63 USMACV "Summary of Highlights, 9 Feb 62-7 Feb 63"
Reported continuing, growing RVNAF effectiveness, increased GVN
strength economically and politically. The strategic hamlet program
looked especially good. MACV forecast winning the military phase in
1963-barring "greatly increased" VC reinforcement and resupply.
17 Apr 63 NIE 53-63
Although "fragile," the situation in SVN did not appear serious;
general progress was reported in most areas.
6 May 63 Seventh SecDef Honolulu Conference
Called to [word illegible] the CPSVN. Largely because of prevailing
optimism over Vietnam, Mr. McNamara found the CPSVN assistance too
costly, the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces too slow and RVNAF
development misdirected.
9 May 63 Buddhist Crisis Begins
GVN forces fired on worshipers celebrating Buddha's birthday
(several killed, more wounded) for no good cause. Long standing
antipathy toward GVN quickly turned into active opposition.
8 May 63 Two SecDef Memoranda for ASD/ISA
First: Directed joint ISA/JCS development of plans to replace US
forces with GVN troops as soon as possible and to plan the withdrawal of
1,000 US troops by the end of 1963.
Second: Requested the Office, Director of Military Assistance, ISA,
"completely rework" the MAP program recommended in the CPSVN and submit
new guidelines by 1 September. The Secretary felt CPSVN totals were too
high (e.g., expenditures proposed for FY's 1965-68 could be cut by $270
Million in his view).
9 May 63 JCS Message 9820 to CINCPAC
Directed CINCPAC to revise the CPSVN and program the with drawal of
1,000 men by the end of 1963. Force reduction was to be by US units (not
individuals); units were to be replaced by specially trained RVNAF
units. Withdrawal plans were to be contingent upon continued progress in
the counterinsurgency campaign.
11 May 63 CINCPAC Letter to JCS, 3010 Ser 00447-63
CINCPAC recommended some changes, then approved MACV's revision of
the CPSVN and the MACV plan for withdrawal of 1,000 men. As instructed,
those 1,000 men were drawn from logistic and service support slots;
actual operations would be unaffected by their absence.
17 May 63 ASD/JSA Memorandum for the Secretary
ISA's proposed MAP-Vietnam program based on the Secretary's
instructions was rejected as still too high.
29 May 63 OSD/JSA Message to CJNCPAC
CINCPAC was directed to develop three alternative MAP plans for FYs
$585 M (CPSVN recommendation)
$450 M (Compromise)
$365 M (SecDef goal)
MAP for FY 1964 had been set at $180 M.
16 Jun 63 GVN-Buddhist Truce (State Airgram A-781 to Embassy Saigon, 10
June)
Reflected temporary and tenuous abatement of GVN-Buddhist
hostilities which flared up in May. The truce was repudiated almost
immediately by both sides. Buddhist alienation from the GVN polarized;
hostilities spread.
17 Jul 63 DIA Intelligence Summary
Reported the military situation was unaffected by the political
crisis; GVN prospects for continued counterinsurgency progress were
"certainly better" than in 1962; VC activity was reduced but VC
capability essentially unimpaired.
18 Jul 63 CINCPAC-proposed MAP program submitted to JCS
CINCPAC suggested military assistance programs at the three levels
set by the JCS but recommended adoption of a fourth Plan developed by
CINCPAC. "Plan J" totalled $450.9 M over the five year period.
4 Aug 63 DIA Intelligence Bulletin
Rather suddenly, Viet Cong offensive actions were reported high for
the third consecutive week; the implication was that the VC were
capitalizing on the political crisis and might step up the insurgency.
14 Aug 63 SACSA Memorandum for the Secretary
Discounted the importance of increased VC activity; the comparative
magnitude of attacks was low; developments did not yet seem salient or
lasting.
20 Aug 63 Diem declared martial law; ordered attacks on Buddhist pagodas
This decree plus repressive measures against the Buddhists
shattered hopes of reconciliation, and irrevocably isolated the Diem
government.
20 Aug 63 JCSM629-63
CINCPAC/MACV proposed plan for 1,000-man withdrawal in three to
four increments for planning purposes only; recommended final decision
on withdrawal be delayed until October.
21 Aug 63 Director, DIA Memorandum for SecDef
Estimated that Diem's acts will have "serious repercussions"
throughout SVN: foresaw more coup and counter-coup activity. But
reported military operations were so far unaffected by these events.
27 Aug 63 JCSM 640-63
JCS added yet a fifth "Model M" Plan to CINCPAC's four alternative
MAP levels. Providing for higher force levels termed necessary by the
JCS, the Model M total was close to $400 M. JCS recommended the Model M
Plan be approved.
30 Aug 63 OSD/JSA Memorandum for the Secretary
Recommended approval of JCSM 629-63. But noted many "units" to be
withdrawn were ad hoc creations of expendable support personnel,
suggested actual strength and authorized ceiling levels be publicized
and monitored.
3 Sep 63 SecDef Memorandum to CJCS
Approved JCSM-629-63. Advised JCS against creating special units as
a means to cut back unnecessary personnel; requested the projected US
strength figures through 1963.
5 Sep 63 ASD/JSA Memorandum to the Secretary
Concurred in JCS recommendation with minor reservations that the
Model M Plan for military assistance to SVN be approved.
6 Sep 63 SecDef Memorandum for C/CS
Approved Model M Plan as the basis for FY 65-69 MAP planning;
advised that US materiel turned over to RVNAF must be charged to and
absorbed by the authorized Model M Plan ceilings.
11 Sep 63 C/CS Memorandum for SecDef
Forwarded the military strength figures (August thru December) to
SecDef; advised that the 1,000-man withdrawal would be counted against
the peak October strength (16,732). First increment was scheduled for
withdrawal in November, the rest in December.
21 Sep 63 Presidential Memorandum for the SecDef
Directed McNamara and Taylor (CJCS) to personally assess the
critical situation in SVN--both political and military; to determine
what GVN action was required for change and what the US should do to
produce such action.
27 Sep 63 ASD/ISA (ODMA) "MAP Vietnam: Manpower and Financial Summary"
FY 1964: $180.6 M
FY 1965-69: $211.6 M
Total: $392.2M
The GVN force levels proposed were substantially below the January
CPSVN (from a peak strength in FY 1964 of 442,500, levels were to fall
to 120,200 in FY 1969).
26 Sep- 2 Oct 63 SecDef C/CS Mission to South Vietnam
Positive detailed evidence presented in numerous briefings
indicated conditions were good and would improve. Hence, the Secretary
ordered acceleration of the planned U.S. force phase-out.
2 Oct 63 McNamara-Taylor Briefing for the President, and later, the NSC
Concluded the military campaign has made great progress and
continues to progress, but warned that further Diem-Nhu repression could
change the "present favorable military trends."
3 Oct 63 McNamara-Taylor met with President and NSC
The President approved the military recommendations made by the
--that MACV and Diem review changes necessary to complete the
military campaign in I, II, and III Corps by the end of 1964, in IV
--that a training program be established to enable RVNAF to
take over military functions from the US by the end of 1965 when the
--that DOD informally announce plans to withdraw 1,000 men by
the end of 1963.
no further reductions in US strength would be made until
requirements of the 1964 campaign were clear.
11 Oct 63 NSAM 263
Approved the military recommendations contained in the
McNamara-Taylor Report; directed no formal announcement be made of
implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963.
22 Oct 63 State Department INR Memo RFE-90
Assessed trends since July 1963 as evidence of an unfavorable shift
in military balance. (This was one of the first indications that all was
not as rosy as MACV et al had led McNamara and Taylor to believe.)
1 Nov 63 Diem Government Overthrown
The feared political chaos, civil war and collapse of the war did
not materialize immediately; US Government was uncertain as to what the
new circumstances meant. General Minh headed the junta responsible for
the coup.
20 Nov 63 All-agency Conference on Vietnam, Honolulu
Ambassador Lodge assessed prospects as hopeful; recommended US
continue the policy of eventual military withdrawal from SVN; said
announced 1,000-man withdrawal was having salutary effects. MACV agreed.
In this light, officials agreed that the Accelerated Plan (speed-up of
force withdrawal by six months directed by McNamara in October) should
be maintained. McNamara wanted MAP spending held close to OSD's $175.5
million ceiling (because of acceleration, a FY 64 MAP of $187.7 million
looked possible).
22 Nov 63 President Kennedy Assassinated
One result: US Government policies in general were maintained for
the sake of continuity, to allow the new administration time to settle
and adjust. This tendency to reinforce existing policies arbitrarily,
just to keep them going, extended the phase-out, withdrawal and MAP
concepts-probably for too long.
23 Nov 63 SecDef Memorandum for the President
Calling GVN political stability vital to the war and calling
attention to GVN financial straits, the Secretary said the US must be
prepared to increase aid to Saigon. Funding well above current MAP plans
was envisaged.
26 Nov 63 NSAM 273
President Johnson approved recommendations to continue current
reaffirmed US objectives on withdrawal.
3 Dec 63 [material missing]
Region/ISA Memorandum for the ASD/ISA [words missing]
nam developments, for a "fresh new look" at the problem, second
echelon leaders outlined a broad interdepartmental "Review of the South
Vietnam Situation." This systematic effort did not culminate in high
level national reassessment of specific policy re-orientation.
5 Dec 63 CINCPAC Message to JCS
Submitted the Accelerated Model Plan version of CPSVN. From a total
of 15,200 in FY 1964, US military strength in Vietnam would drop to
11,500 in FY 1965 (vice 13,100 recommended by the Model M Plan), to
about 3,200 in FY 1966 and 2,600 in FY 1967. GVN force levels were a bit
lower but GVN force build-up a bit faster than recommended by the Model
M Plan. MAP costs for FYs 1965-1969 totalled $399.4 million (vice $392.2
million under Model M Plan).
11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef
The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000
men were technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was
achieved. The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October
level.
13 Dec 63 Director, DIA Memorandum for the Secretary
Reported the VC had improved combat effectiveness and force posture
during 1963, that VC capability was unimpaired. (Quite a different
picture had been painted by SACSA in late October: "An Overview of the
Vietnam War, 1960-1963," personally directed to the Secretary, was a
glowing account of steady militaryprogress.)
30 Jan 64 Second Coup in Saigon
General Minh's military regime was replaced by a junta headed by
General Khanh.
10, 11, 14, 19 Feb 64 Deputy Director, CIA Memoranda for SecDef,
SecState, et al
Suspicious of progress reports, CIA sent a special group to "look
at" South Vietnam. Its independent evaluation revealed a seriousand
steadily deteriorating GVN situation. Vietcong gains and, significantly,
the quality and quantity of VC arms had increased. The Strategic Hamlet
Program was "at virtual standstill." The insurgency tide seemed to be
"going against GVN" in all four Corps.
6 Mar 64 Eighth SecDef Conference on Vietnam, Honolulu
Participants agreed that the military situation was definitely
deteriorating, that insurgency would probably continue beyond 1965, that
the US must immediately determine what had to be done to make up for the
setback(s).
9-16 Mar 64 McNamara/Taylor Trip to Vietnam
Personally confirmed the gravity of the Vietnam situation.
16 Mar 64 SecDef Memorandum for the President: "Report on Trip to Vietnam"
Mr. McNamara reported the situation was "unquestionably" worse than
in September. (RVNAF desertion rates were up: GVN military position was
weak and the Vietcong, with increased NVN support, was strong.)
Concluding that more US support was necessary, the Secretary made twelve
--More economic assistance, military training, equipment and
advisory assistance, as needed.
--Continued high-level US overflights of GVN borders; authorization
for "hot pursuit" and ground operations in Laos.
--Prepare to initiate--on 72 hours' notice--Laos and Cambodia
border control operations and retaliatory actions against North Vietnam.
--Make plans to initiate--on 30 days' notice--a "program of
Graduated Overt Military Pressures" against North Vietnam.
Mr. McNamara called the policy of reducing existing US personnel
where South Vietnamese could assume their functions "still sound" but
said no major reductions could be expected in the near future. He felt
US training personnel could be substantially reduced before the end of 1965.
17 Mar 64 NSAM 299
The President approved the twelve recommendations presented by Mr.
McNamara and directed all agencies concerned to carry them out promptly.
[material missing]
forces was superseded by the policy of providing South Vietnam
assistance and support as long as required to bring aggression and
terrorism under control (as per NSAM 288).
6 May 64 CINCPAC Message to MACV
Indicated growing US military commitment: this 1500-man
augmentation raised the total authorized level to 17,000.
1-2 Jun 64 Special Meeting on Southeast Asia, Honolulu
Called in part to examine the GVN National Campaign Plan--which was
failing. The conferees agreed to increase RVNAF effectiveness by
extending and intensifying the US advisory effort as MACV recommended.
25 Jun 64 MACV Message 325390 to JCS
Formal MACV request for 900 additional advisory personnel. His
justification for advisors at the battalion level and for more advisors
at district and sector levels was included. Also, 80 USN advisors were
requested to establish a Junk Force and other maritime counterinsurgency
measures.
4 Jul 64 CJNCPAC Message to JCS
CINCPAC recommended approval of the MACV proposal for
intensification of US advisory efforts.
15 Jul 64 Saigon EMBTEL 108
Ambassador Taylor reported that revised VC strength estimates now
put the enemy force between 28,000 and 34,000. No cause for alarm, he
said the new estimate did demonstrate the magnitude of the problem and
the need to raise the level of US/GVN efforts. Taylor thought a US
strength increase to 21,000 by the end of the year would be sufficient.
16 Jul 64 MACV Message 6180 to CINCPAC
MACV requested 3,200 personnel to support the expansion (by 900) of
US advisory efforts-or 4,200 more men over the next nine months.
17 Jul 64 EMBTEL
Ambassador Taylor concurred in MACV's proposed increase,
recommended prompt approval and action.
21 Jul 64 State 205 to Saigon
Reported Presidential approval (at the 21 July NSC meeting) of the
MACV deployment package.
Dec 64 Further increases
Total US strength was 23,000: further deployments were on the way
I. 1962
A. EARLY 1962
From mid-1962 to early 1964 the U.S. government went through a formal
planning process, ostensibly designed to disengage the U.S. from direct
and large-scale military involvement in Vietnam. In retrospect, this
experience falls into place as a more or less isolated episode of
secondary importance; eventually abortive, it had little impact on the
evolution of the Vietnam war. It does, however, serve as a vehicle for
understanding one long phase of the war and the U.S. role in it.
The genesis lay in a conjuncture of circumstances during the first half
of 1962 that prompted the U.S. to shift its Vietnam perspective from the
hitherto restricted one of largely tactical responses to current,
localized, and situational requirements, to fitting these to more
strategic and purposeful long-range courses of action. The expanded
perspective was programmatic in outlook, and oriented toward specific
goals-end the insurgency and withdraw militarily from Vietnam.
At the outset, the motivation for the idea of phased withdrawal of U.S.
forces was threefold: in part, the belief that developments in Vietnam
itself were going well; in part, doubt over the efficacy of using U.S.
forces in an internal war; and in part, the demands of other crises in
the world that were more important to Washington than Vietnam. In the
course of materializing into policy and assuming form as plans, these
premises were transformed into conclusions, desiderata institutionalized
as objectives, and wish took on the character and force of imperative.
For example, in March 1962, Secretary McNamara testified before Congress
that he was "optimistic" over prospects for U.S. success in aiding
Vietnam, and "encouraged at the progress the South Vietnamese are
making." He expressed conviction that the U.S. would attain its
objectives there. But he emphasized that the U.S. strategy was to avoid
participating directly in the war while seeking an early military
I would say definitely we are approaching it from the point of view
of trying to clean it up, and terminating subversion, covert aggression,
and combat operations....
.....We are wise to carry on the operations against the Communists
in that area by assisting native forces rather than by using U.S. forces
for combat.
Not only does that release U.S. forces for use elsewhere in the
world or for stationing in the United States, but also it is probably
the most effective way to combat the Communist subversion and covert
aggression. To introduce white forces--U.S. forces--in large numbers
there today, while it might have an initial favorable military impact
would almost certainly lead to adverse political and in the long run
adverse military operations. And therefore, we think the program we are
carrying out is the most effective one and certainly it is directed
toward termination of operations as rapidly as possible.
In late spring of 1962, the military situation in South Vietnam showed
hopeful signs of at last having turned a corner. The various programs
under way, initiated the previous fall as a result of decisions in NSAM
No. 111, appeared to be bearing out the basic soundness of the new
approach. Assessments and evaluations being reported from the field
indicated a pattern of progress on a broad front, and their consistency
through time reinforced the impression. By midyear the prospects looked
bright. Continuing favorable developments flOW held forth the promise of
eventual success, and to many the end of the insurgency seemed in sight.
This optimism was not without the recognition that there were unsolved
political problems and serious soft spots in certain areas of the
military effort. But U.S. leadership, both on the scene in Vietnam as
well as in Washington, was confident and cautiously optimistic. In some
quarters, even a measure of euphoria obtained.
At the same time, events outside Vietnam, some of them ostensibly
unrelated, were asserting a direct and immediate relevance for U.S.
policy and strategy in Vietnam. As competing priorities, they far
overshadowed Vietnam. In the larger scheme of things, an indefinite
military commitment in Southeast Asia was being relegated perforce to a
parenthetical diversion the nation could then ill afford. More central
issues in Berlin, Cuba, and in Laos were at stake, perhaps even to the
extent of survival.
Looming foremost was the Berlin problem. Fraught with grave overtones of
potential nuclear confrontation with the USSR, it reached crisis
proportions in the spring of 1962 over the air corridor issue, and after
a temporary lull, flared anew in early summer. By the first of July it
was again as tense as ever. U.S. reserves had been recalled to active
duty, additional forces were deployed to Europe, and domestic Civil
Defense activities, including shelter construction programs, were
accelerated.
The burgeoning Cuba problem too was taking on a pressing urgency by
virtue of both its proximity and growing magnitude. The Castro aspects
alone were becoming more than a vexing localized embarrassment. Given
the volatile Caribbean political climate, Cuban inspired mischief could
raise tensions to the flash point momentarily. Moreover, by early summer
of 1962 increasing evidence of Soviet machinations to exploit Cuba
militarily was rapidly adding an alarming strategic dimension. Though
the nature and full significance of these latter developments would not
be revealed until the climactic Cuban Missile Crisis a few months later,
the U.S. was already apprehensive of serious danger on its very
doorstep. Official interpretive evaluations at the time saw an intimate
causal nexus between Berlin and Cuba.
Finally, another set of factors altering the strategic configuration in
Southeast Asia and affecting the U.S. position there also came to a head
in mid-summer of 1962. These were developments regarding Laos, which
impinged upon and helped reshape the U.S. relationship toward Vietnam.
In the fall of 1961 and through the spring of 1962 the U.S., its
objectives frustrated in Laos, had decided to salvage as much as
possible by settling for neutralization. After lengthy and complex
diplomatic maneuvering, this was essentially achieved by early summer.
On 23 July 1962 the 14-nation declaration and protocol on the neutrality
of Laos was signed formally, ending the 15-month Geneva Conference on
Laos. The outcome had at once the effect of extricating the U.S. from
one insoluble dilemma and serving as a stark object lesson for another.
The Laos settlement now both allowed the U.S. a free hand to concentrate
on Vietnam and provided the incentive and determination to bring to a
close its military commitment there as well-but this time successfully.
It was in this spirit and context that the U.S. decided to pursue
actively the policy objective of divesting itself of direct military
involvement of U.S. per-sonnet in the Vietnam insurgency. The aim was to
create militarily favorable conditions so that further U.S. military
involvement would no longer be needed. To this end, two prerequisites
had to be satisfied: bringing the insurgency effectively under control;
and simultaneously, developing a militarily viable South Vietnam capable
of carrying its own defense burden without U.S. military help. In phase
with the progress toward both these goals, there then could be
proportionate reductions in U.S. forces.
B. THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HONOLULU DECISIONS OF JULY 1962
In July 1962, as the prospect of the neutralization of Laos by the
Geneva Conference became imminent, policy attention deliberately turned
toward the remaining Vietnam problem. At the behest of the President,
the Secretary of Defense undertook to reexamine the situation there and
address himself to its future-with a view to assuring that it be brought
to a successful conclusion within a reasonable time. Accordingly, he
called a full-dress conference on Vietnam at CINCPAC Headquarters in
Hawaii. On 23 July, the same day that the 14-nation neutralization
declaration on Laos was formally signed in Geneva, the Sixth Secretary
of Defense Conference convened in Honolulu.
The series of briefings and progress reports presented at the conference
depicted a generally favorable situation. Things were steadily improving
and promised to continue. Most programs underway were moving forward, as
the statistical indicators clearly demonstrated. Those directly related
to prosecution of the counterinsurgency effort showed measurable
advances being made toward winning the war. Programs for expanding and
improving RVNAF capability were likewise coming along well, and in most
cases were ahead of schedule. Confidence and optimism prevailed.
Impressed, Mr. McNamara acknowledged that the "tremendous progress" in
the past six months was gratifying. He noted, however, that these
achievements had been the result of short-term ad hoc actions on a crash
basis. What was needed now was to conceive a long-range concerted
program of systematic measures for training and equipping the RVNAF and
for phasing out major U.S. advisory and logistic support activities. The
Secretary then asked how long a period it would take before the VC could
be expected to be eliminated as a significant force. COMUSMACV, in reply
to the direct question, estimated about one year from the time the
RVNAF, the Civil Guard, and the Self-Defense Corps became fully
operational and began to press the VC in all areas.
The Secretary said that a conservative view had to be taken and to
assume it would take three years instead of one, that is, by the latter
part of 1965. He observed that it might be difficult to retain public
support for U.S. operations in Vietnam indefinitely. Political pressures
would build up as losses continued. Therefore, he concluded, planning
must be undertaken now and a program devised to phase out U.S. military
involvement. He, therefore, directed that a comprehensive long-range
program be developed for building up South Vietnamese military
capability for taking over defense responsibilities and phasing out the
U.S. role, assuming that it would require approximately three years (end
1965) for the RVNAF to be trained to the point that they could cope with
the VC. The program was to include training requirements, equipment
requirements, U.S. advisory requirements, and U.S. units.
For the record, the formulation of the decisions made and the directives
a. Prepare plans for the gradual scaling down of USMACV during the
next 3-year period, eliminating U.S. units and detachments as Vietnamese
were trained to perform their functions.
b. Prepare programs with the objective of giving South Vietnam an
adequate military capability without the need for special U.S. military
assistance, to include (1) a long-range training program to establish an
officer corps able to manage GVN military operations, and (2) a
long-range program and requirements to provide the necessary materiel to
make possible a turnover to RVNAF three years from July 1962.
The U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group, Vietnam, had been augmented
in 1961 by aviation, communications, and intelligence units, as well as
by Special Forces and other advisers. The Secretary of Defense plainly
intended that plans be devised for terminating the mission of the
augmenting units.
Three days later on 26 July, the JCS formally directed CINCPAC to
develop a Comprehensive Plan for South Vietnam (CPSVN) in accordance
with the Secretary's decisions of 23 July. CINCPAC, in turn, so
instructed COMUSMACV on 14 August, at the same time furnishing
additional guidance and terms of reference elaborating on the original
SecDef decisions at Honolulu and the JCS directive. The stated objective
Develop a capability within military and para-military forces of
the GVN by the end of CY 65 that will help the GVN to achieve the
strength necessary to exercise permanent and continued sovereignty over
that part of Vietnam which lies below the demarcation line without the
need for continued U.S. special military assistance.
a. The insurgency will be under control at the end of three years
(end of CY 65).
b. Extensive U.S. support will continue to be required during the
three year period, both to bring the insurgency under control and to
prepare GVN forces for early take-over of U.S. activities.
c. Previous MAP funding ceilings for SVN are not applicable.
Program those items essential to do this job.
C. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN PLAN
Planning, in two complementary modes, got underway, immediately.
Concurrently with development of the unilateral U.S. CPSVN, USMACV
planners prepared a concept and proposed outline of a GVN National
Campaign Plan (NCP) for launching an integrated nation-wide campaign of
offensive military operations to eliminate the insurgency and restore
the country to GVN control. A central purpose was to reorganize and
redispose the VNAF and streamline the chain of command, in order to
improve responsiveness, coordination, and general effectiveness of the
military effort against the VC. Greater authority would be centralized
in the Vietnamese Joint General Staff (JGS); Corps Tactical Zones (CTZs)
would be increased from three to four; and each CTZ would have its own
direct air and naval support.
Over and above organizational considerations, the NCP provided for
systematic intensification of aggressive operations in all CTZs to keep
the VC off balance, while simultaneously conducting clear and hold
operations in support of the expanding Strategic Hamlet Program.
Priority of military tasks was first to concentrate on areas north of
Saigon, then gradually shift toward the south to Saigon and the Delta.
The proposed NCP was submitted to the GVN in October and a month later
was adopted in concept and outline. On 26 November, President Diem
promulgated the necessary implementing decrees and directives to effect
the reorganization of the SVN armed forces and realign the chain of
command. An integrated Joint Operations Center (JOC) was also
established and became operational on 20 December, with representation
from JGS and its counterpart in USMACV to centralize control over
current operations. The following January the draft of a detailed
implementing plan for the NCP itself was completed and subsequently
approved.
II. 1963
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SOUTH VIETNAM
Meanwhile, the first cut at the CPSVN was also completed by the MACV
planners. It was forwarded to CINCPAC on 7 December, but CINCPAC, upon
reviewing the proposed plan, considered it infeasible because of the
high costs involved and the marginal capacity of the RVNAF to train the
necessary personnel in the required skills within the time frame
specified. As a result of CINCPAC's reaction to the initial version, the
CPSVN was revised and resubmitted by COMUSMACV on 19 January 1963. The
new CPSVN covered the period FY 1963-1968. In transmitting it, COMUSMACV
recommended that future Military Assistance Programs (MAPs) be keyed
therefore to the CPSVN. He also indicated that the CPSVN had been
coordinated with the Ambassador, who concurred in it.
Force levels laid out in the CPSVN provided for total personnel
increases reaching a peak of 458,000 (regular and para-military) in FY
64, with RVNAF manning strength raised from 215,000 to a peak of 230,000
in the same FY period and remaining on that plateau thereafter. Order of
FY63
FY64
FY65
FY66
FY67
FY68
Total
187
218
153
138
169
113
978
CINCPAC approved the CPSVN as submitted and sent it on to the JCS.
However, in the interim, OSD had issued dollar guidelines for MAP
planning for Vietnam. The ceilings indicated therein were significantly
at variance with the costing figures employed by MACV in developing the
CPSVN. When CINCPAC forwarded the plan, therefore, he went to
considerable lengths to explain the discrepancies and to support and
justify the higher costs. Comparison of the DOD dollar guidelines with
the CPSVN, projected through FY 69, showed a net difference of
approximately 66 million dollars, with the preponderance of the increase
occurring in FY 64. Most of this difference was accounted for by
additional Packing-Crating-Handling-Transportation (PCHT) costs
associated with the CPSVN but not accommodated in the DOD guideline figures.
The body of the CPSVN laid out the costs in relation to the DOD dollar
CPSVN-DOD DOLLAR GUIDELINES COST COMPARISON ($ millions)
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY 68 FY 69 Total
CPSVN * 218 153 138 169 113 110 901
DOD Guidelines 160 165 160 150 140 122 897
Difference
+58 -12 -22 +19 -27 -12 +4
PORT Added
+11 +11 +11 +11 +10 +8 +62
Difference
+69 -1 -11 +30 -17 -4 +66
* Excludes PCHT.
The rationale offered was that, in order to prosecute the
counter-insurgency to a successful conclusion, while at the same time
building up GVN capability to allow early withdrawal of U.S. forces, the
major costs of the program had to be compressed into the FY 63-65 time
frame, with a particular increase in FY 64 and another following U.S.
withdrawal in FY 67. But clearly most of the greater cost throughout the
period reflected PCHT.
The pattern of force levels for all South Vietnamese forces that the
CPSVN provided for, including the separate non-MAP funded Civilian
Irregular Defense Group, is shown in Figure 1. [Figure 1 missing.]
Since the ultimate objective of the CPSVN was early withdrawal of U.S.
special military assistance, the plan provided for phasing out U.S.
advisory forces. The affected major commands of USMACV that would
1. The U.S. Marine Element which provided helicopter transportation
support.
2. The 2d Air Division which provided the USAF portion of the
special military assistance support performed in SVN. This support
included "Farmgate" (Fighter), "Mule Train" (Transportation), and "Able
Mable" (Reconnaissance). It also provided USAF administration and
logistical support for USAF personnel and equipment engaged in special
military assistance to SVN.
3. U.S. Army Support Group Vietnam (USASGV) which provided the U.S.
Army portion of the special military assistance support for SVN (except
that performed by MAAG and Headquarters MACV), including helicopter and
fixed wing air transportation, signal communications, and special
forces. It also provided U.S. administrative and logistical support for
assigned and attached personnel and equipment engaged in the special
military assistance.
4. Headquarters Support Activity Saigon (HSAS) which provided
administrative support to the U.S. Headquarters and other U.S.
government sponsored agencies and activities located in Saigon.
5. MAAG Vietnam would have its strength reduced by one-half after
FY 65. Only 1,500 MAAG personnel were to remain in country after FY 68.
The target schedule for U.S. force withdrawal, as then forecast, is
contained in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
CPSVN - Forecast of Phase-Out of U.S. Forces
(thousands)
Organization FY 63 FY 64 FY 65 FY 66 FY 67 FY 68
HQ USMACV .3 .4 .4 .1 .0 .0
HQ MAAG 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 1.6 1.5
2D Air DIV 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.1 .0 .0
USASG (V) 5.1 5.5 5.5 2.7 .0 .0
USMC Helicopter Unit .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .0
HSAS .5 .5 .5 .3 .0 .0
TOTAL 11.6 12.2 12.2 5.9 1.6 1.5
On 7 March 1963, the JCS accepted the MACV CPSVN in toto and forwarded
it to the Secretary of Defense. They recommended approval, and proposed
that it be the basis for both revising the FY 64 MAP and development of
the FY 65-69 MAPs. They requested an early decision on the CPSVN because
the greatest increase would occur in the FY 64 MAP. The JCS fully
supported the higher costs of the CPSVN above the DOD dollar guidelines.
In OSD, the proposed CPSVN underwent staffing review in ISA MA Plans and
elsewhere. Draft responses to the JCS were prepared and then withdrawn.
Secretary McNamara was not satisfied with either the high funding levels
or the adequacy of the plan regarding exactly how the RVN forces were to
take over from the U.S. to effect the desired phase-out of the U.S.
military commitment. In mid-April he decided to withhold action pending
full review of the CPSVN at another Honolulu conference which he
expressly scheduled for that purpose for 6 May. Meantime, the various
OSD agencies concerned were instructed to prepare detailed analyses and
background studies for him.
The main focus of interest of the Secretary of Defense was on the policy
objective behind the CPSVN, namely, to reduce systematically the scale
of U.S. involvement until phased out completely. However, the beginnings
of a counter-current were already evident. New demands for increases all
around were to overwhelm the phasing out objective. Ad hoc requirements
for more U.S. forces were being generated piecemeal, each in its own
right sufficiently reasonable and so honored. This current,
counter-current dynamic can be illustrated well by Mr. McNamara's
decisions of late March. As part of the Secretary's policy of demanding
strict accounting and tight control on authorized U.S. in-country
strength ceilings, he asked for the latest reading on projected U.S.
military strength to be reached in Vietnam. He was reassured by the
Chairman, JCS, that the estimated peak would not exceed 15,640
personnel. Yet, on this very same day, the Secretary approved a
substantial force augmentation, requested earlier, for FARMGATE and
airlift support, involving 111 additional aircraft and a total of
approximately 1475 additional personnel. Other similar special
requirements and ad hoc approvals soon were to follow.
Assessments of continuing favorable developments in the improving
Vietnam situation in the spring of 1963 seemed to warrant more than ever
going ahead with the planned phase out. The general tenor of appraisals
at the USMACV level were that the RVNAF had regained the initiative from
the VC and that the GVN position had improved militarily, economically,
and politically. Evaluations expressed in the "Summary of Highlights"
covering the first year of MACV's existence cited in detail the record
of the increasing scale, frequency, and effectiveness of RVNAF
operations, while those of the VC were declining. Casualty ratios
favored RVNAF by more than two to one, and the balance of weapons
captured vs weapons lost had also shifted to the GVN side. Cited as
perhaps the most significant progress was the Strategic Hamlet Program.
The future looked even brighter, e.g., ". . . barring greatly increased
resupply and reinforcement of the Viet Cong by infiltration, the
military phase of the war can be virtually won in 1963."
Other evaluations, though more conservative, still tended to corroborate
this optimism. NIE 53-63, issued 17 April 1963, found no particular
deterioration or serious problems in the military situation in South
Vietnam; on the contrary, it saw some noticeable improvements and
general progress over the past year. The worst that it could say was
that the situation "remains fragile."
B. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HONOLULU DECISIONS OF MAY 1963
At the 6 May Honolulu Conference, briefing reports again confirmed
gratifying progress in the military situation. Addressing the CPSVN, Mr.
McNamara questioned the need for more Vietnamese forces in FY 68 (224.4
thousand) than the present level of 215 thousand. His reasoning was that
a poor nation of 12 million like Vietnam could not support that many men
under arms. Qualitatively, furthermore, the planned evolution of VNAF
seemed over-ambitious in terms of sophisticated weaponry such as fighter
aircraft. In sum, the Secretary felt the CPSVN assumed an
unrealistically high force level for the SVN military establishment and
assigned it equipment that was both unduly complicated to operate and
expensive to procure and maintain.
Based on these considerations, the Secretary of Defense concluded that,
if the insurgency came under control in FY 65 as anticipated, the U.S.
MAP investment in SVN thereafter should not be more than at the rate of
about $50 million per year. In his view, thus, the $573 million MAP
proposed in the CPSVN for the period FY 65 through FY 68 was at least
$270 million higher than an acceptable program.
With regard to phasing out U.S. forces, the Secretary of Defense stated
that the pace contemplated in the CPSVN was too slow. He wanted it
revised to accomplish a more rapid withdrawal by accelerating training
programs in order to speed up replacement of U.S. units by GVN units as
fast as possible. While recognizing that the build-up of RVNAF was
inherently a slow process, he stressed that in the instance of some U.S.
units which had been in SVN since 1961, it would be possible more
rapidly to transfer functions to Vietnamese. Specifically toward this
end, he decided that 1,000 U.S. military personnel should be withdrawn
from South Vietnam by the end of CY 63 and directed that concrete plans
be so drawn up.
On returning to Washington the Secretary of Defense instructed the
ASD(ISA) on 8 May to develop, in coordination with the Joint Staff, a
plan for replacing U.S. forces currently deployed in Vietnam with
indigenous SVN forces as rapidly as possible, and particularly, to
prepare a plan for withdrawing 1,000 U.S. troops before the end of 1965.
In another memorandum the same day to the ASD(ISA) regarding the MAP, he
noted that "the plan needs to be completely reworked." He therefore
instructed ISA also to develop a new, lower MAP for Vietnam for the
period FY 65 through 69, requesting that the ISA recommendations be
submitted by the first of September.
A day later, on 9 May, the JCS formally directed CINCPAC to take the
necessary actions resulting from the Honolulu Conference and revise the
CPSVN. Guidance and terms of reference were provided reflecting the
Secretary of Defense reactions and specifying the decisions reached.
Singled out especially was the requirement for U.S. force withdrawal.
As a matter or urgency a plan for the withdrawal of about 1,000
U.S. troops before the end of the year should be developed based upon
the assumption that the progress of the counterinsurgency campaign would
warrant such a move. Plans should be based upon withdrawal of US units
(as opposed to individuals) by replacing them with selected and
specially trained RVNAF units.
COMUSMACV in turn was tasked to draft the revised CPSVN and prepare a
plan for the 1000-man reduction. CINCPAC, after some changes and
revisions, concurred in the proposed plans and forwarded them to the JCS
on 11 May. The revised outline CPSVN now provided for the following SVN
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY68 FY69
Total Military and Para-military 447.4 445.5 362.9 317.1 268.8 214.7
FY 64 FY 65 FY 66 FY 67 FY 68 FY 69 Grand Total
178.9 149.0 130.3 120.4 100.5 85.0 764.1
The proposed plan for withdrawal of the first increment of U.S. forces,
in compliance with instructions, emphasized units rather than
individuals, but the list of so-called "units" scheduled to be included
were all smaller than company size. All Services were represented. The
criteria employed, also based on earlier guidance, were to select most
of the personnel from service support and ogistics skills most easily
spared and whose release would have least effect on )perations. The
total came to 1,003 U.S. military personnel to be withdrawn rom South
Vietnam by the end of December 1963.
7. MAP PLANNING
ISA meanwhile developed tentative dollar guidelines for MAP planning for
Vietnam. The first cut, based on the Secretary of Defense's own
suggested total for
the FY 65-69 period, was rejected by the Secretary of Defense as too
high and returned, with various desired reductions entered by the
Secretary of Defense. Reconciling the MAP with the CPSVN proved to be a
difficult problem. As CPSVN succeeded, it was logical that MAP would
have to increase; yet CPSVN tried to cut back MAP as well. For instance,
the contemplated phase-out of U.S. artillery-spotter aircraft squadrons
entailed an add-on to MAP to accommodate the squadron's equipment and
maintenance after transferral to the Vietnamese.
[Material missing]
therefore would have to be absorbed within the authorized Model Plan
ceilings.
Nonetheless, there were still further refinements made. As finally
published, the approved MAP reflecting the Model M Plan version of the
CPSVN provided for the following SVN active military strength levels (in
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY68 FY69
ARVN 207.5 201.3 177.5 124.5 104.8 103.9
Total (All Services regular and para-military) 442.5 437.0 340.2
142.1 122.2 120.2
FY64 FY65 FY66 FY67 FY68 FY69 Total
180.6 153.0 107.7 46.2 44.6 40.7 392.2
This final product represented a radical reduction in both force levels
and financial investment after FY 66, consistent with the
Administration's original policy goal of ending the war and the U.S.
military involvement by December
1965.
D. 1000-MAN WITHDRAWAL PLAN
Meanwhile, planning for the 1000-man withdrawal directed by the
Secretary of Defense on 6 May was split off from the CPSVN proper and
the MAP, and was being treated as a separate entity. On 20 August, the
JCS, concurring in the proposed plan developed by COMUSMACV and CINCPAC,
forwarded it to the Secretary of Defense. They recommended approval at
this time for planning purposes only; final decision was to depend upon
circumstances as they developed. The JCS also seconded CINCPAC's added
proposal to withdraw the 1000 troops in three or four increments, rather
than all at one time. The reasons given were that this would be more
practical and efficient for the U.S., would minimize the impact on
on-going military operational activities within South Vietnam, and would
afford the opportunity for "news prominence and coverage over an
extended period of time."
ISA, with certain reservations, recommended approval of the withdrawal
plan submitted by JCS. ISA pointed out to the Secretary of Defense that
the plan as it stood would not draw all of the 1000 troops from U.S.
units that were to be relieved by adequately trained SVN units, as had
been intended. Many of the so-called "units" designated therein actually
were not bona fide existing units but were specially formed "service
support units" made up of random individuals most easily spared
throughout USMACV. ISA cautioned that the arbitrary creation of such ad
hoc "units" solely for the purpose of the withdrawal might backfire in
press reaction. ISA also recommended, in order to show credibly that the
final year-end U.S. in-country strength had dropped by 1000 from peak
strength, that U.S. military strength figures in Vietnam be made public,
and that the actual strength as well as the authorized ceilings at any
given time be carefully monitored to insure that the desired reductions
were indeed achieved.
A few days later the Secretary of Defense approved the 1000-man
withdrawal plan forwarded in JCSM-629-63 as recommended. He agreed,
however. with ISA and advised the JCS against creating special units if
their only purpose was to be a holding unit as a vehicle for withdrawal
of individuals. He also requested that he be provided with a projection
of U.S. military strength in South Vietnam, by month, for the period
September through December 1963.
The following week the Chairman, JCS, responded to the Secretary of
Defense's request and furnished the following projection of end-of-month
August: 16,201
September: 16,483
October: 16,732
November: 16,456
December: 15,732
It was noted that the planned 1000-man withdrawal would represent a
reduction based on the October peak strength. The first increment of 276
personnel would be withdrawn during November and the remaining
increments in December. This, as it turned out, was destined to be
changed somewhat before the withdrawal was executed.
E. THE BUDDHIST CRISIS
While the CPSVN-MAP and withdrawal planning were going on, significant
developments altering the character of the entire situation to which the
plan-fling effort was addressed--in fact threatening to invalidate the
very premises from which the planning sprung--were occurring within
South Vietnam. The Buddhist crisis was rocking the foundations of what
precarious political stability the Diem government enjoyed and there was
growing concern about its effect on the prosecution of the war against
the VC and on improvements of RVNAF.
A series of incidents beginning early in May revealed the deep divisions
between militant Buddhist factions, who purported to speak for the bulk
of the South Vietnamese population, and the Government. Lack of popular
support for the Diem regime had now turned to open opposition. As
passions flared and Buddhist activism was met with increasingly severe
countermeasures, violence spread and grew more serious. A tenuous truce
was reached briefly between Buddhist leaders and the GVN on 10 June
(formally signed on 16 June) in a mutual effort to reduce tensions-but
proved short-lived. Almost immediately the actions of both sides
repudiated the agreements.
The U.S. began to be apprehensive about the possible consequences of the
Diem government falling as the result of a coup. By early July, the
crisis was recognized as serious at the highest levels of the U.S.
Government.
Through mid-July assessments remained reasonably reassuring. There was
little evidence of impact on the military sector. In fact, indications
pointed to the military situation continuing to improve. DIA reported on
17 July that the general level of VC-initiated actions during the first
six months of 1963 was considerably lower than for the same period the
year before. Battalion and company-size attacks were at about half the
1962 level. It was noted, however, that despite reduced activity, VC
capability remained essentially unimpaired. Regarding the progress of
South Vietnamese counterinsurgency efforts, the DIA evaluation was
cautiously optimistic: though there was still a long way to go, GVN
prospects "are certainly better than they were one year ago."
Quite abruptly, a disturbing element began to emerge. Little more than
two weeks later, the DIA Intelligence Bulletin of 4 August reported a
significant increase in the level of VC offensive actions. Moreover, the
rate was high for the third week in a row since mid-July. The clear
implication was that the VC at last were taking advantage of the
opportunity presented by the Buddhist crisis. It had been expected--and
feared--that they would seek to hasten political collapse and exploit
whatever military vulnerabilities there were. The U.S. was thus
justifiably concerned lest the recent revived VC aggressiveness be the
opening phase of a stepped up insurgency. Within ten days of this DIA
report, however, a reevaluation of the significance to be attached to
the increased rate of enemy actions allayed fears somewhat. On 14
August, SACSA, reporting to the Secretary of Defense, discounted the
upsurge in VC activity over the past month. Its magnitude,
comparatively, was below the average of the preceding year and fell far
short of the previous high. In this perspective, SACSA saw no cause to
read undue implications into developments that were as yet neither
particularly salient nor of long duration.
The political crisis meanwhile took a turn for the worse. President
Diem, in an attempt to regain control, declared martial law on 20
August. The decree was accompanied by forcible entry into pagodas and
mass arrests of Buddhist leaders and laity, and was immediately followed
by a series of preemptory repressive measures. Any hope of
reconciliation was now shattered, and the Diem government was
irrevocably isolated.
The Director, DIA, in a special report to the Secretary of Defense,
expressed concern that the declaration of martial law "will have serious
repercussions throughout the country." He foresaw further coup or
counter-coup activity in the making, though for the time being the
military had effectively assumed full control. So far, he saw little
military effect on the war effort; relatively few troops had been
withdrawn from normal missions. At an August 31 review of the problem
for Vice President Johnson, Secretary of State Rusk and Secretary
McNamara agreed that U.S. planning had to be based on two
principles--that the U.S. would not pull out of Vietnam until the war
were won, and that it would not participate in a coup d'etat against Diem.
For the next month, as the precarious political situation balanced on
the brink of imminent disaster, U.S. anxieties mounted. The
Administration was confronted by a dilemma. It was helpless to
ameliorate conditions as long as Diem remained in power-nor did it want
to approve and support such a regime. Yet at the same time, it was
equally helpless to encourage a change of government-there was no
feasible replacement anywhere on the South Vietnamese political horizon.
The upshot was an ambivalent policy of watchful waiting toward the GVN,
while the main preoccupation and focus of attention was on the conduct
of the South Vietnamese military forces and the progress of the
counterinsurgency programs. These still remained the first order of
business.
F. MCNAMARA-TAYLOR MISSION TO SOUTH VIETNAM, OCTOBER 1963
By the middle of September, the President was deeply concerned over the
critical political situation, but more importantly, over its effect on
the war. A decision juncture had been reached. At issue was the U.S.
military commitment in South Vietnam; a redirection of U.S. policy and
objectives might be required. On 21 September, the President directed
the Secretary of Defense, in company with the Chairman, JCS, to proceed
to South Vietnam for a personal examination of the military aspects of
the situation. The President gave as the purpose of the trip ". . . my
desire to have the best possible on-the-spot appraisal of the military
and para-military effort to defeat the Viet Cong." He stated that there
had been, at least until recently, "heartening results," but that
political deterioration since May had raised serious questions about the
continued effectiveness of these efforts and the prospects for success.
The President, therefore, needed an assessment of the present situation,
and if the McNamara-Taylor prognosis were not hopeful, they were to
recommend needed actions by the SVN and steps the U.S. should take to
bring about those actions. [Doc. 139]
The Secretary of Defense and the CJCS, accompanied by a team of civilian
and military assistants to help in the survey, arrived in South Vietnam
on 26 September and returned to Washington on 2 October. During their
visit, detailed data were compiled for them, presentations prepared,
extensive briefings given, conferences convened, and consultations held.
Emerging from the investigations and appraisals was a body of positive
evidence indicating that conditions were good and prospects improving.
In fact, in the course of these reassurances, the Secretary of Defense
decided to order a speed up of the planned program for release of U.S.
forces. In guidance furnished at the time, he directed that the
projected schedules for force reduction provided for in the currently
approved Model M Plan version of the CPSVN be accelerated by
approximately six months. Accordingly, necessary planning revisions were
undertaken immediately on a priority basis.
In contrast to the generally favorable military situation, however,
there were grave misgivings about the political state of affairs.
Earlier, a draft text of a proposed letter from the President of the
United States to President Diem of the RVN had been forwarded by cable
to the Secretary of Defense and the Ambassador, with a request for their
reaction and comments. President Kennedy himself thought the letter too
extreme, and would reluctantly resort to it only if the situation was
found so serious that such direct US Presidential pressure was
necessary. The text of the proposed letter was characterized by harsh,
blunt candor. In effect it laid down an ultimatum: unless the GVN
changed the repressive policies, methods, and actions practiced by some
individual officials and gained for itself a broad base of popular
political support, the United States might have to consider
disassociating itself from the Diem Government, and further US support
of Vietnam might become impossible. The Secretary of Defense and the
Ambassador promptly responded with a strong recommendation against
transmitting the proposed letter. Both agreed that the situation was
indeed very serious, but that it was not likely to be influenced by such
a letter to Diem.
The proposed Presidential letter was not sent. Instead, many of the
points were conveyed in conversations with Diem, and, just before the
departure of the McNamara-Taylor Mission from Vietnam, another letter to
President Diem was composed and sent in its place. The new version was
not only much softer in tone and more circumspect but went out over the
signature of General Taylor as Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
letter was dated 1 October 1963, but was delivered on 2 October, with
the approval of the Secretary of Defense and with the concurrence of the
US Ambassador to Vietnam (Lodge).
In this letter the CJCS offered his personal, professional comments on
the military situation, in response to Diem's earlier expressed interest
in receiving them. After acknowledging the encouraging military progress
over the preceding two years, the CJCS stated, "It was not until the
recent political disturbances beginning in May and continuing through
August and beyond that I personally had any doubt as to the ultimate
Now, as Secretary McNamara has told you, a serious doubt hangs over
our hopes for the future. Can we win together in the face of the
reaction to the measures taken by your Government against the Buddhists
and the students? As a military man I would say that we can win
providing there are no further political setbacks. The military
indicators are still generally favorable and can be made more so by
actions readily within the power of your Government. If you will allow
me, I would mention a few of the military actions which I believe
necessary for this improvement.
The Chairman noted that though the military situation in I, II, and III
Corps areas was generally good, some of the hard-core war zones of the
Viet Cong remained virtually untouched. There were not enough offensive
actions against the enemy in the field and, in his opinion, the full
potential of the military units was not being exploited, for ". . . only
a ruthless, tireless offensive can win the war."
The principal military problems, he pointed out, were now in the Delta,
and the time had come to concentrate efforts there. An overhaul of the
Strategic Hamlet Program was needed. For it to succeed, there must be a
related clear-and-hold campaign by the combat units of IV Corps, and the
tactics should be oriented to the waterways that were a natural
characteristic of the region. Furthermore, infantry line units would
have to operate at full strength, without diversion of combat power to
rear echelon functions. The CJCS suggested that this latter problem was
the case in ARVN generally, which President Diem might want to examine
closely.
In closing, Mr. President, may I give you my most important overall
impression? Up to now, the battle against the Viet Cong has seemed
endless; no one has been willing to set a date for its successful
conclusion. After talking to scores of officers, Vietnamese and
American, I am convinced that the Viet Cong insurgency in the north and
center can be reduced to little more than sporadic incidents by the end
of 1964. The Delta will take longer but should be completed by the end
of 1965. But for these predictions to be valid, certain conditions must
be met. Your Government should be prepared to energize all agencies,
military and civil, to a higher output of activity than up to now.
Ineffective commanders and province officials must be replaced as soon
as identified. Finally, there should be a restoration of domestic
tranquility on the homefront if political tensions are to be allayed and
external criticism is to abate. Conditions are needed for the creation
of an atmosphere conducive to an effective campaign directed at the
objective, vital to both of us, of defeating the Viet Cong and of
restoring peace to your community.
The results of the survey conducted by the McNamara-Taylor mission were
consolidated into a lengthy, formal report to the President containing
specific findings, general evaluations, and recommendations. The
substance of the report was presented in an hour-long, oral briefing to
the President immediately upon the return of the mission on the morning
of 2 October. Attending the briefing were the Under Secretary of State,
the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the Director of the
CIA, and the Special Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs. Following the personal report, the President called a special
meeting of the full National Security Council, which was held from six
to seven that same evening.
The McNamara-Taylor Report generally was optimistic about the military
situation and saw little direct effect of the political crisis on the
prosecution of the war. Their conclusions, inter alia, were that despite
serious political tensions and the increasing unpopularity of the
Diem-Nhu regime, "The military campaign has made great progress and
continues to progress." GVN military officers, though hostile to the
government and its repressive policies, continued to perform their
military duties in the larger cause of fighting the Viet Cong enemy.
This reassuring evaluation, however, was caveated to the effect that ".
. . further repressive actions by Diem and Nhu could change the present
favorable military trends."
Specific findings in their appraisal of the military situation bore out
With allowances for all uncertainties, it is our firm conclusion
that the GVN military program has made great progress in the last year
and a half, and that the progress has continued at a fairly steady rate
in the past six months even through the period of greatest political
unrest in Saigon. The tactics and techniques employed by the Vietnamese
under U.S. monitor-ship are sound and give promise of ultimate victory.
Especially noteworthy, in their view, was the progress clearly being
achieved in the northern areas (I and II) Corps. Their appraisal of the
progress of the Strategic Hamlet Program was also largely favorable. In
both connections, they cited the effectiveness of the U.S. military
advisory and support effort.
a. General Harkins [COMUSMACV] review with Diem the military
changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and
Central areas (I, II, III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta
(IV Corps) by the end of 1965.
b. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential
functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by
Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the
bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
c. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese
to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce
in the near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S.
military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained
in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S.
personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.
Germane to the above recommendations, however, it was stated elsewhere
in the report, "No further reductions should be made until the
requirements of the 1964 campaign become firm."
Following the NSC meeting of 2 October, the White House issued a formal
purlic announcement of the major policy aspects of the McNamara-Taylor
Mission Report. The White House statement is reproduced below.
WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963
Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.]
Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National
Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of
classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of
further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all
members of the Security Council and the following statement of United
States policy was approved by the President on the basis of
recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United
States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working
with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to
communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported
insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective
performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy
in South Viet-Nam.
2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is
sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is
needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the
national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable
of suppressing it.
Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that
the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of
1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited
number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this
year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to
the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam
can be withdrawn.
4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply
serious. The United States had made clear its continuing opposition to
any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not
yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the
future.
5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as
in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of
that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
Considerable emphasis was given to the White House statement, and to the
McNamara-Taylor Mission generally, in news media. Played up particularly
was the U.S. force withdrawal, especially the prospective 1000-man
reduction.
Three days later, on 5 October, in another meeting with the President,
followed by another NSC meeting, the McNamara-Taylor recommendations
themselves were addressed. The President "approved the military
recommendations contained in the report." The President also directed,
in line with their suggestion, that no formal announcement be made of
the implementation of plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel
from South Vietnam by the end of 1963.
The effect of the McNamara-Taylor mission, thus, was to revalidate the
existing U.S. policy position regarding Vietnam. Reaffirmed were the
military objectives, courses of action, and programs essentially as they
were laid out by the Secretary of Defense at the Honolulu Conference
over a year earlier on 23 July 1962. The underlying premises and
soundness of the rationale seemed more cogent than ever. In fact, a new
impetus was thereby given to pursing the same goals with even greater
thrust and purpose. Such an outcome could have been forecast, as noted
earlier, when Mr. McNamara set in motion another CPSVN planning cycle to
revise the Model M Plan and develop an accelerated plan to withdraw U.S.
forces.
Part of the motivation behind the stress placed on U.S. force
withdrawal, and particularly the seemingly arbitrary desire to effect
the 1000-man reduction by the end of 1963, apparently was as a signal to
influence both the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese and set the
stage for possible later steps that would help bring the insurgency to
an end. With regard to the SVN, the demonstration of determination to
pull out U.S. forces was intended to induce the South Vietnamese to
increase the effectiveness of their military effort. State's
instructions to Ambassador Lodge resulting from NSC action on the
Actions are designed to indicate to Diem Government our displeasure
at its political policies and activities and to create significant
uncertainty in that government and in key Vietnamese groups as to future
intentions of United States. At same time, actions are designed to have
at most slight impact on military or counterinsurgency effort against
Viet Cong, at least in short term....
With respect to Hanoi, it might present an opportunity for a
demarche--exploiting withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Vietnam by a
specified date as exchange for North Vietnam's abandoning its aggression
against South Vietnam. But events were already conspiring otherwise, and
would soon frustrate such expectations and intentions as developed. The
internal SVN situation was about to undergo rapid transformation.
By late October, there was increasing skepticism in some quarters about
the military situation in South Vietnam. Indeed, it was beginning to be
suspected that reports of progress by U.S. military sources actually
cloaked a situation that was not only bleak, but deteriorating. A State
Department intelligence evaluation of 22 October showed markedly
pessimistic statistical trends since July 1963, in most areas of
enemy-friendly relative progress measurement, indicating an unfavorable
shift in the military balance. What was disquieting was that the pattern
showed steady decline over a period of more than three months' duration.
Circulation of the INR evaluation occasioned controversy and no little
recrimination. Substantive differences degenerated into a procedural
issue. The outcome was a personal memorandum from the Secretary of State
to the Secretary of Defense on 8 November, amounting to an apology for
the incident. The Secretary of State stated in regard to INR's RFE-90 of
....It is not the policy of the State Department to issue military
appraisals without seeking the views of the Defense Department. I have
requested that any memoranda given inter-departmental circulation which
include military appraisals be coordinated with your Department.
G. THE NOVEMBER COUP AND OVERTHROW OF DIEM
On 1 November, the political situation fell apart. The long-anticipated
coup occurred. The Diem regime was overthrown, and both Diem and Nhu
were assassinated. A military junta of politically inexperienced
generals took over the government as their successors.
The significance of the great change, for good or ill, was not readily
apparent. Over the next three weeks the feared political chaos, civil
war, and collapse of the war effort following a coup did not seem to be
materializing. For the United States, the important question was what
did the new circumstances mean militarily for existing policy and plans
oriented to bringing the insurgency under control and to phasing out US
force commitments.
On 20 November, at the President's direction, a special all-agencies
conference on Vietnam was convened in Honolulu for a "full-scale review"
in depth of all aspects of the situation and to reassess U.S. plans and
policies in the political, military, economic and information fields
since the change of government. Attending were some 45 senior U.S.
officials, military and civilian, including: the Secretary of State,
Secretary of Defense, Special Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, Chairman, JCS, Director of CIA, CINCPAC, ambassador to
Vietnam, and COMUSMACV. Ambassador Lodge assessed the prospects for
Vietnam as hopeful. In his estimation the new government was not without
promise. Vietnamese military leadership appeared to be united and
determined to step up the war effort. The Ambassador advocated
continuing to pursue the goal of setting dates for phasing out U.S.
activities and turning them over to the Vietnamese, and he volunteered
that the announced withdrawal of 1000 troops by the end of 1963 was
already having a salutary effect. COMUSMACV agreed with the Ambassador
that the conduct of the war against the VC was coming along
satisfactorily. Admitting that the VC-incidents rate shot up 300 to 400
percent after the coup, he noted that since 6 November, however, it had
dropped down to "normal" and remained so to the present. Military
operational statistics now generally showed a more or less favorable
balance. In short, the briefings and assessments received at the
conference constituted "an encouraging outlook for the principal
objective of joint U.S.-Vietnamese policy in South Vietnam-the
successful prosecution of the war against the Viet Cong communists."
Moreover, "excellent working relations between U.S. officials and the
members of the new Vietnamese government" had been established. All
plans for the U.S. phasing out were to go ahead as scheduled.
In this light the U.S. military plans and programs for Vietnam were
addressed. The revision of the Model M Plan of the CPSVN, ordered by the
Secretary of Defense during his last visit to Vietnam in October was
progressing apace and the finished Accelerated Plan was expected to be
forwarded shortly. It would cost $6.4 million more than the Model Plan,
however. Indications were that the FY 64 MAP would also cost more
because of the acceleration-to a total now of $187.5 million. The
Secretary of Defense made it clear that he felt that the proposed
CINCPAC MAP could be cut back and directed that the program be reviewed
to refine it and cut costs to stay as close as possible to the OSD
ceiling of $175.5 million. He was equally emphatic, however, that while
he would not tolerate fat or inefficiency in the program he was prepared
to provide whatever funds might be required under MAP to support the
GVN. In fact, he observed that the GVN was already running into
"tremendous financial deficits," and opined that neither AID nor MAP had
budgeted enough to provide for the emergencies which were likely to
arise during 1964.
H. ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
On 22 November 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated. The
consequences were to set an institutional freeze on the direction and
momentum of U.S. Vietnam policy. Universally operative was a desire to
avoid change of any kind during the critical interregnum period of the
new Johnson Administration. Both the President and the governmental
establishment consciously strove for continuity, with respect to Vietnam
no less than in other areas. In Vietnam this continuity meant that the
phase-out concept, the CPSVN withrdawal plan, and the MAP programs
probably survived beyond the point they might have otherwise.
The immediate Johnson stamp on the Kennedy policy came on 26 November.
At a NSC meeting convened to consider the results of the 20 November
Honolulu Conference, the President "reaffirmed that U.S. objectives with
respect to withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the
White House statement of October 2, 1963." The only hint that something
might be different from on-going plans came in a Secretary of Defense
memo for the President three days prior to this NSC meeting. In that
memo, Mr. McNamara said that the new South Vietnamese government was
confronted by serious financial problems, and that the U.S. must be
prepared to raise planned MAP levels.
In early December, the President began to have, if not second thoughts,
at least a sense of uneasiness about Vietnam. In discussions with his
advisors, he set in motion what he hoped would be a major policy review,
fully staffed in depth, by Administration principals. The President
wanted "a fresh new look taken" at the whole problem. In preparation for
such a basic reappraisal, an interdepartmental meeting of second-echelon
principals accordingly convened on 3 December and laid out a broad
outline of basic topics to be addressed and staff papers to be developed
by various departments and agencies. This attempt at a systematic and
comprehensive reexamination, however, did not culminate in a fundamental
national reassessment.
I. ACCELERATED MODEL PLAN OF THE CPSVN
With no indication of policy change in the offing, U.S. military
planning thus went forward with hardly a break in stride. On 5 December
CINCPAC submitted the Accelerated Model Plan to the JCS. It was the
revision to the Model M Plan version of the CPSVN that the Secretary of
Defense had ordered during his early October visit to Vietnam. The
Accelerated Plan provided for more rapid phase-out of the bulk of U.S.
military personnel and units and a decrease in the residual strength
remaining thereafter. It also provided for building up GVN forces at a
faster pace but on a more reduced scale, then cutting back from peak
sooner and leveling out somewhat lower. MAP costs for the FY 1965-69
period would be little higher than the $392.2 million under the Model M
Plan, coming to $399.4 million in the Acelerated Plan.
J. THE 1000-MAN WITHDRAWAL OF DECEMBER 1963
During the month of December, the planned 1000-man reduction was
executed. It proved essentially an accounting exercise. Technically,
more than a thousand U.S. personnel did leave, but many of these were
part of the normal turnover cycle, inasmuch as rotation policy alone,
not to mention medical evacuation or administrative reasons, resulted in
an average rate of well over a thousand returnees per month. Though the
replacement pipeline was slowed somewhat, year-end total in-country
strength nevertheless was close to 16,000. This did not even represent a
decline of 1000 from the October peak of 16,732.
That the avowed goal of 1000 would not be reached had in fact been
anticipated and acknowledged before mid-December. Despite close
monitoring of authorized ceilings and actual strengths, the force level
kept rising. On 11 December, for example, the estimate of projected
year-end U.S. strength in Vietnam had to be revised upward to reflect
additional deployments approved since September. The adjusted figure now
came to 15,894, a net increase of 162 over the earlier estimate. This
new strength ceiling was what would be left after the 1000-man
withdrawal then in progress was completed.
III. 1964
A. THE VIETNAM SITUATION WORSENS
In December conflicting estimates of the situation in Vietnam indicated
that the bright hopes and predictions of the past were increasingly less
than realistic. A McNamara memo to the President written following a
trip to Vietnam of 21 December, was laden with gloom. [Doc. 156] He
wrote:. "The situation is very disturbing. Current trends, unless
reversed in the next 2-3 months, will lead to neutralization at best and
more likely to a communist-controlled state." He went on to note that
"the new government is the greatest source of concern," and that "it is
indecisive and drifting." The Country Team, he added, "lacks leadership,
and has been poorly informed." One of the most serious deficiencies be
found was a "grave reporting weakness" on the U.S. side. "Viet Cong
progress has been great during the period since the coup, with my best
guess being that the situation has in fact been deteriorating in the
countryside since July to a far greater extent than we realize because
of our undue dependence on distorted Vietnamese reporting." Mr. McNamara
clearly concluded that none of these conditions could be reversed by the
influx of more American personnel, nor did he even mention that the U.S
could continue to withdraw troops at all or as scheduled. His proposal
was to hold the line: "U.S. resources and personnel," he said, "cannot
usefully be substantially increased although he did announce his
intention to increase staffs "to sizes that will give us a reliable,
independent U.S. appraisal of the status of operations." In his
concluding paragraph, however, the Secretary of Defense admitted that
his own estimate "may be overly pessimistic," inasmuch as the
Ambassador, COMUSMACV, and General Minh were not discouraged and looked
forward to significant improvements in January. [Doc. 156]
Vestiges of optimism still persisted in one degree or another in some
quarters. The earlier sense of confidence that had been established was
deep-rooted and not easily shaken. A retrospective evaluation of the
Vietnam situation ostensibly covering the period 1960 through 1963,
prepared by SACSA (General Krulak) is indicative. Although intended as a
broad overview (and so called), and though actually cut off as of
sometime in October 1963, it was forwarded in late October or November
directly to the Secretary of Defense. The SACSA report presented nothing
less than a glowing account of steady progress across the board in the
military situation. Significantly, it contained no hint that the rate of
progress possibly might have temporarily slowed somewhat in the second
half of 1963, despite the fact that it expressly treated events as late
as October. Yet by this time, other evaluations giving a quite different
picture were already asserting themselves. Near the close of 1963 the
Director, DIA, reported to the Secretary of Defense that year-end review
and reassessment of the enemy situation revealed VC capabilities had not
been impaired over the past year. On the contrary, the VC had in many
regards improved in combat effectiveness and now enjoyed a generally
improved force posture for insurgency.
Hopeful bias alone does not explain the endurance of past firmly rooted
optimism--such as the SACSA overview. The difference between those who
stressed the positive and those who saw decline was, in part, the
product of viewing the situation in greater or shorter time frames.
Those who applied a macroscopic perspective, believed-and not without
certain logic-that current unfavorable reports were, at worse, a
temporary lapse in the larger curve of progress over the years. Those
who took spot checks tended to be more impressed by the immediate
situation, and at this time, the immediate situation was critical. The
feelings of this latter group were buttressed when on 30 January another
coup, this time largely bloodless, ousted the ruling Minh government. It
was a factional power struggle in which one military group replaced
another, this time with General Khanh emerging as Premier. The latest
development held forth little promise of giving the country the
political stability so desperately needed in the midst of a war for
survival. The event would prove only symptomatic as part of a sequence
of similar government upheavals that were to follow.
In the U.S., the coincidence of domestic tragedy and patent instability
in Vietnam evoked a chorus urging a Laos-like resolution of the Vietnam
conflict. In late August, 1963, President de Gaulle had issued a policy
statement on Vietnam which was subsequently officially interpreted as a
proposal for "independence and neutrality" for Vietnam-meaning eventual
U.S. withdrawal. In the aftermath of the assassinations, speculation
turned increasingly to this solution. For example, Senator Mansfield
wrote to President Johnson to propose a division of Vietnam between the
GVN and the Viet Cong, coupled with a U.S. withdrawal. In early January,
1964, Secretary McNamara furnished the President the following counters
1. We should certainly stress that the war is essentially a
Vietnamese responsibility, and this we have repeatedly done,
particularly in our announced policy on U.S. troop withdrawal. At the
same time we cannot disengage U.S. prestige to any significant degree.....
2. The security situation is serious, but we can still win, even on
present ground rules....
3 .....Any deal either to divide the present territory of South
Vietnam or to "neutralize" South Vietnam would inevitably mean a new
government in Saigon that would in short order become Communist-dominated.
4. The consequences of a Communist-dominated South Vietnam are
extremely serious both for the rest of Southeast Asia and for the U.S.
position in the rest of Asia and indeed in other key areas of the world.....
5. Thus, the stakes in preserving an anti-Communist South Vietnam
are so high that, in our judgment, we must go on bending every effort to
win.....And, I am confident that the American people are by and large in
favor of a policy of firmness and strength in such situations.
Secretary McNamara in his testimony before Congress on the fiscal year
1965 budget in early February, 1964, declined to link the previously
planned U.S. withdrawals with either "pessimism" or "optimism" regarding
events in Vietnam, saying simply that the withdrawals had all along been
conditioned upon Vietnamese capability to assume full responsibility
from the U.S. trainers, and that there would be a "substantial reduction
Last fall . . . I wasn't as optimistic perhaps about the course of
the war as I was about being able to bring back our personnel in certain
numbers by the end of last year and also in increments between then and
the end of 1965.
I still am hopeful of doing that. We did, of course, bring back
1,000 men toward the latter part of last year. I am hopeful we can bring
back additional numbers of men later this year and certainly next year.
I say this because I personally believe that this is a war that the
Vietnamese must fight . . . I don't believe we can take on that combat
task for them. I do believe we can carry out training. We can provide
advice and logistical assistance.
But after all, the training, by the very nature of the work, comes
to an end at a certain point. We will have started this expanded
training and carried it out for a period of 4 years, by the end of next
year. We started at the end of 1961. The end of next year will have been
4 years later and certainly we should have completed the majority of the
training task by that time. This, in General Taylor's view and mine, is
what we should be able to do. If we do, we should bring our men back.
I don't believe we should leave our men there to substitute for
Vietnamese men who are qualified to carry out the task, and this is
really the heart of our proposal. I think it was a sound proposal then
and I think so now.....
Unsureness about the actual state of affairs in Washington spread
eventually to the highest levels of government, and prompted the
dispatching to South Vietnam in early February of a CIA "Special CAS
Group" for an independent evaluation of the military situation. A series
of four reports, dated 10, 11, 14 and 18 February 1964, were produced,
each transmitted by the Deputy Director, CIA, to the Secretary of
Defense, Secretary of State, and others as soon as it came out. Instead
of finding progress, these reported a serious and steadily deteriorating
situation. Cited were VC gains in the past several months, and
particularly noted was that VC arms were increasing in quantity and
quality. As for the Strategic Hamlet Program, they found it "at present
at virutal standstill." The Special CAS Group's concluding appraisal was
pessimistic: "Tide of insurgency in all four corps areas appears to be
going against GVN." COMUSMACV (who had no prior knowledge of the Special
CAS Group's reports) took issue with the Group's findings, contesting
less the date used than the conclusions, especially the "personal"
evaluational opinions as to degree of deterioration. He suggested that
in the future such reports be first coordinated before being dispatched.
On 6 March a major Secretary of Defense Conference again convened at
CINCPAC headquarters for a broad reassessment. The consensus was that
the military situation was definitely deteriorating. No longer was the
issue whether it was progressing satisfactorily or not. The question now
was how much of a setback had there been and what was needed to make up
for it. An opinion shared by many was that the insurgency could be
expected to go beyond 1965. This general reorientation of perspective
was reflected in the Secretary of Defense's observation that attention
should be focused on the near-term objectives of providing the greater
U.S. support that would be necessary, and suspending for the time being
consideration of longer-range concerns such as 5-year MAP projections.
The visit to Vietnam on 8 March corroborated the gravity of the
immediate problems at hand.
Following his return from Vietnam, Mr. McNamara, on 16 March, submitted
to the President a formal report. In it the Secretary of Defense
acknowledged, "The situation has unquestionably been growing worse, at
least since September." RVNAF desertion rates were increasing, and the
GVN military position generally was weakening noticeably. The VC
position, on the other hand, showed signs of improving. He referred
pointedly to the increase in North Vietnamese support. The conclusion
was that greater U.S. support was needed.
In describing what was required to improve the situation in South
Vietnam, Mr. McNamara identified measures that "will involve a limited
increase in U.S. personnel and in direct Defense Department costs. More
significantly they involve significant increases in Military Assistance
Program costs plus "additional U.S. economic aid to support the
increased GVN budget." The estimated additional annual MAP costs would
come to between $30 and $40 million each year, plus a one-time
additional cost of $20 million for military equipment. In the
recommendation section of the report, the Secretary listed the following
1. To make it clear that we are prepared to furnish assistance and
support to South Vietnam for as long as it takes to bring the insurgency
under control.
2. To make it clear that we fully support the Khanh government and
are opposed to any further coups.
3. To support a Program for National Mobilization (including a
national service law) to put South Vietnam on a war footing.
4. To assist the Vietnamese to increase the armed forces (regular
plus paramilitary) by at least 50,000 men.
5. To assist the Vietnamese to create a greatly enlarged Civil
Administrative Corps for work at province, district and hamlet levels.
6. To assist the Vietnamese to improve and reorganize the
para-military forces and to increase their compensation.
7. To assist the Vietnamese to create an offensive guerrilla force.
8. To provide the Vietnamese Air Force 25 A-1H aircraft in exchange
for the present T-28s.
9. To provide the Vietnamese army additional M-1 13 armored
personnel carriers (withdrawing the M-114s there), additional river
boats, and approximately $5-b million of other additional material.
10. To announce publicly the Fertilizer Program and to expand it
with a view within two years to trebling the amount of fertilizer made
available.
11. To authorize continued high-level U.S. overflights of South
Vietnam's borders and to authorize "hot pursuit" and South Vietnamese
ground operations over the Laotian line for the purpose of border
control. More ambitious operations into Laos involving units beyond
battalion size should be authorized only with the approval of Souvanna
Phouma. Operations across the Cambodian border should depend on the
state of relations with Cambodia.
12. To prepare immediately to be in a position on 72 hours' notice
to initiate the full range of Laotian and Cambodian "Border Control"
actions (beyond those authorized in paragraph 11 above) and the
"Retaliatory Action" against North Vietnam, and to be in a position on
30 days' notice to initiate the program of "Graduated Overt Military
Pressure" against North Vietnam.
As for the future of the phased-withdrawal plans, the Secretary of
The U.S. policy of reducing existing personnel where South
Vietnamese are in a position to assume the functions is still sound. Its
application will not lead to any major reductions in the near future,
but adherence to this policy as such has a sound effect in portraying to
the U.S. and the world that we continue to regard the war as a conflict
the South Vietnamese must win and take ultimate responsibility for.
Substantial reductions in the numbers of U.S. military training
personnel should be possible before the end of 1965. However, the U.S.
should continue to reiterate that it will provide all the assistance and
advice required to do the job regardless of how long it takes. [Doc. 158]
By formal decision at the NSC session of 17 March, the President
approved the Secretary of Defense report of 16 March 1964 and directed
all agencies to carry out the 12 recommendations contained therein. A
White House statement, reproduced below, was issued the same day.
March 17, 1964
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
Secretary McNamara and General Taylor, following their initial oral
report of Friday, today reported fully to President Johnson and the
members of the National Security Council. The report covered the
situation in South Vietnam, the measures being taken by General Khanh
and his government, and the need for United States assistance to
supplement and support these measures. There was also discussion of the
continuing support and direction of the Viet Cong insurgency from North
Vietnam.
At the close of the meeting the President accepted the report and its
principal recommendations, which had the support of the National
Security Council and Ambassador Lodge.
Comparing the situation to last October, when Secretary McNamara and
General Taylor last reported fully on it, there have unquestionably been
setbacks. The Viet Cong have taken maximum advantage of two changes of
government, and of more long-standing difficulties, including a serious
weakness and over-extension which had developed in the basically sound
hamlet program. The supply of arms and cadres from the north has
continued; careful and sophisticated control of Viet Cong operations has
been apparent; and evidence that such control is centered in Hanoi is
clear and unmistakable.
To meet the situation, General Khanh and his government are acting
vigorously and effectively. They have produced a sound central plan for
the prosecution of the war, recognizing to a far greater degree than
before the crucial role of economic and social, as well as military,
action to ensure that areas cleared of the Viet Cong survive and prosper
in freedom.
To carry out this plan, General Khanh requires the full enlistment of
the people of South Vietnam, partly to augment the strength of his
anti-guerrilla forces, but particularly to provide the administrators,
health workers, teachers and others who must follow up in cleared areas.
To meet this need, and to provide a more equitable and common basis of
service, General Khanh has informed us that he proposes in the near
future to put into effect a National Mobilization Plan that will provide
conditions and terms of service in appropriate jobs for all able-bodied
South Vietnamese between certain ages.
In addition, steps are required to bring up to required levels the pay
and status of the paramilitary forces and to create a highly trained
guerrilla force that can beat the Viet Cong on its own ground. Finally,
limited but significant additional equipment is proposed for the air
forces, the river navy, and the mobile forces.
In short, where the South Vietnamese Government now has the power to
clear any part of its territory, General Khanh's new program is designed
to clear and to hold, step by step and province by province.
This program will involve substantial increases in cost to the South
Vietnamese economy, which in turn depends heavily on United States
economic aid. Additional, though less substantial, military assistance
funds are also needed, and increased United States training activity
both on the civil and military side. The policy should continue of
withdrawing United States personnel where their roles can be assumed by
South Vietnamese and of sending additional men if they are needed. It
will remain the policy of the United States to furnish assistance and
support to South Vietnam for as long as it is required to bring
Communist aggression and terrorism under control.
Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their overall conclusion
that with continued vigorous leadership from General Khanh and his
government, and the carrying out of these steps, the situation can be
significantly improved in the coming months.
B. DEMISE OF THE CPSVN
Before the month of March was over the CPSVN, as well as the MAP
plan-fling that had been such an integral part of it, finally received
the coup de grace. Sacrificed to the U.S. desire "to make it clear that
we fully support" the GVN, they were formally terminated, for the
Date: 27 March 1964
FROM: OSD WASH DC DEF 963208
(Col. W. J. Yates)
TO: CINCPAC
REFS: a. CINCPAC Mar 64
b. DEF 959615 DTG Mar 64
1. As indicated in ref. b., ceiling for Vietnam FY 66 MAP is $143.0
million against $143.1 million for FY 65. Requirements above these
program levels should be identified as separate packages.
2. Submission of five-year programs FY 66-70 for Vietnam is
suspended until further notice.. Your best estimates of FY 66
requirements are necessary inasmuch line detail as feasible by 1 Jul 64
in order that (a) the Military Departments can review for pricing, lead
time, availabilities, and prepare for procurement action and (b)
requirements can be processed within DoD, State/AID and BoB for
budget/Congressional Presentation purposes.
3. Previous guidance re Model Plan projection for phasedown of U.S.
forces and GVN forces is superseded. Policy is as announced by White
House 17 Mar 64: Quote The policy should continue of withdrawing U.S.
personnel where their roles can be assumed by South Vietnamese and of
sending additional men if they are needed. It will remain the policy of
the U.S. to furnish assistance and support of South Vietnam for as long
as is required to bring Communist aggression and terrorism under
control. Unquote.
4. No further action required or being taken here relative to
accelerated model plan.
Thus ended de jure the policy of phase out and withdrawal and all the
plans and programs oriented to it. Shortly, they would be cancelled out
de facto.
C. BUILD-UP OF THE U.S. FORCE COMMITMENT
Soon the whole evolutionary direction of the U.S. military commitment
began to change. Rather than diminishing, the magnitude rose thereafter.
In early May the approved U.S. military strength ceiling for South
Vietnam was raised by more than 1500 so that total in-country
authorization came to over 17,000. Further increases were in sight. As
the military situation in Vietnam failed to show signs of ameliorating,
pressures began to develop in late spring for an even more significant
increase in U.S. forces.
A special meeting on Southeast Asia was called at PACOM Headquarters in
Honolulu for 1-2 June because of the unsatisfactory progress in
execution of the National Pacification Plan. There, COMUSMACV proposed
extending and intensifying the U.S. advisory effort in order to improve
the operational effectiveness of the VNAF performance generally. The
idea was discussed and supported in principle, and a staff working paper
outlining the concept was prepared by the conferees. Near the end of
June, COMUSMACV submitted to JCS (info CINCPAC, DOD, State, White House)
his formal proposal recommending enlargement of the advisory assistance
program. He reiterated, and offered further justification for, the need
to augment the current advisory detachments at the battalion level and
to extend the advisory effort at both the district and sector levels.
His detailed breakout of primary personnel requirements came to a total
of 9000 more advisors as the net in-country increase, but conceded that
additional administrative and logistic support requirements would be
substantial and would be submitted separately. Also, approximately 80
additional U.S. Navy advisors would be requested, in connection with
recommendations made earlier in the "Bucklew Report" for a Junk Force
and other measures to counter infiltration by sea. CINCPAC indicated
concurrence and recommended approval of the proposal on 4 July.
In the middle of July, the new U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, General
Maxwell Taylor, sent an evaluation of the military situation to the
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and JCS that lent strong
support to COMUSMACV's proposal. The Ambassador advised that formal
estimates of regular VC strength in South Vietnam had been revised and
now were raised to between 28,000 and 34,000. He explained that this did
not reflect a sudden dramatic increase, but had been suspected for the
past two or three years, though confirmatory evidence had become
available only in the last few months. There was thus no occasion for
alarm, but the new estimate emphasized the growing magnitude of the
problem and the need to increase the level of U.S./GVN efforts.
Therefore, additional requirements were being formulated, including U.S.
military personnel requirements, to support U.S. plans during the
ensuing months to cope with the new understanding of the realities of
the situation. He forecast an increase in U.S. military strength to
around 21,000 over the next six-month period to meet projected needs.
Immediately the size of the estimated force requirements connected with
the proposed expansion of the advisory effort began to climb. On 16 July
COMUSMACV submitted the support requirements associated with the
program. For the next year he would need, over and above the original
900 additional advisors requested, more than 3200 other personnel, for a
total gross military strength increase of about 4200. The Ambassador in
Saigon concurred in COMUSMACV's proposed increase in U.S. military
strength by 4200 over the next nine months, bringing the total
in-country to nearly 22,000, and he urged prompt action. The Secretary
of State also recommended approval, as did CINCPAC and JCS, and on 20
July, at the JCS-SecDef meeting, overall support was given to the
COMUSMACV requested deployment package. The following day, at the NSC
meeting of 21 July, the President gave it final approval, though that
action was not included in the NSAM issued the next day.
As eventually refined, the total force increment actually came to over
4900 U.S. personnel. In addition, other requirements not directly
related to the advisory effort itself were being generated and met
independently. By the close of 1964 the year-end U.S. in-country
strength figure had climbed to approximately
23,000 personnel and further authorized deployments were under way or in
preparation.
The actual effect of "phased withdrawals" was minimal. Though 1,000
spaces among the personnel authorized MACV were eliminated in 1963,
add-ons overtook cut-backs. As an example, U.S. Army strength in
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. ARMY STRENGTH IN VIETNAM
Total Army
Strength Hq & Spt Units Aviation Units Communication Units Special
Forces Other Advisers
Nov 63 10,000 17 35 15 6 27
Mar 64 10,000 19 34 13 7 27
Nov 64 14,000 28 30 12 8 22
D. POSTSCRIPT TO WITHDRAWAL PLANNING
The official termination of formal planning towards withdrawal by no
means ended its attraction as one issue in the growing public debate
over Vietnam policy. In August, 1964, the Tonkin Gulf crisis brought
Congressmen back in perplexity to Secretary McNamara's statements on
....[Secretary McNamara, you] have again always indicated that you
hoped that by the end of this year there would have been a substantial
reduction. . . Where we had a planned reduction of the number of troops,
and what appeared to be a withdrawal of the United States from the area,
then this attack comes, which would put us firmly in the area, or at
least change our mind. The whole thing, to me, is completely, at least,
not understanding.
SECRETARY McNAMARA: The period, December 1961, through the summer
of 1963 was a period of great progress within South Vietnam, in
countering the effort of the Viet Cong to overthrow that government.
However, starting in May, 1963, you will recall, a series of religious
riots developed, controversy within the country developed, leading
eventually upon November 2nd to the overthrow of the Diem government.
Prior to that time in September, 1963, General Taylor and I had advised
and visited that country. At that time, the progress of the counter
insurgency effort was so great it appeared that we would be able to
withdraw much of our training force by the end of 1965, and not 1964,
and we would-we so stated upon our return. But following that-and I
should also mention that in that same statement, we made in September,
1963, we pointed out the very serious nature of the political
difficulties that were building up in South Vietnam, because of the
conflict between the Buddhists and the Catholics, and the government.
In any event, as I say, in November, 1963, the government was
overthrown. There was another change of government January 30th, and
this completely changed the outlook and the political instability that
followed the two coups has given the Viet Cong an opportunity to take
advantage of the political and military weakness. They have taken
advantage of it. It is now necessary to add further U.S. military
assistance to counter that Viet Cong offensive....
We have never made the statement since September, 1963, that we
believed we could bring the bulk of the training forces out by the end
of 1965, because the actions in November and January made it quite clear
that would not be possible.
We have said--as a matter of fact, I say today--as our training
missions are completed, we will bring back the training forces. I think
this is only good sense, and good judgment. We have certain training
missions that I hope we can complete this year, and others next year,
and the forces associated with those missions should be brought back.
We have forces there training the Vietnamese to fly spotter
aircraft, for artillery spotting purposes. I am very hopeful that we can
bring the U.S. forces out as the Vietnamese acquire that capability.
On the other hand, the Vietnamese quite clearly need additional
assistance in training for counter guerilla operations, because of the
increased guerrilla activities of the Viet Cong, and we are sending
additional special forces to Vietnam for that purpose.
There will be a flow in both directions, but I am certain in the
next several months the net flow will be strongly toward South Vietnam.
After Tonkin Gulf, the policy objective of gradual disengagement from
Vietnam was no longer relevant. The hope, as well as the concept of
phase out and withdrawal, dwindled, since such withdrawal was now seen
as tantamount to surrendering SVN to Hanoi. The issue for the future
would no longer be withdrawals, but what additional U.S. forces would be
required to stem the tide- and how fast they would have to be thrown
into the breach.
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
Go to Volume 1, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "Background to the
Conflict, 1940-1950." pp. 1-52
Go to Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Involvement in
the Franco-Viet Minh War, 1950-1954," pp. 53-107
Go to Volume 1, Chapter 3 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Geneva
Conference, May-July, 1954," pp. 108-178.
Go to Volume 1, Chapter 4 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. and France in
Indochina, 1950-56," pp. 179-241
Go to Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Pentagon Papers, "Origins of the
Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960," pp. 242-314
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Kennedy
Commitments and Programs, 1961,"pp. 1-127
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Strategic Hamlet
Program, 1961-1963," pp. 128-159.
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 3, of the Pentagon Papers, "Phased Withdrawal of
U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 4, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Overthrow of Ngo
Dinh Diem, May-November, 1963," pp. 201-276.
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 5 of the Pentagon Papers, "US-GVN Relations,
1964-1967," pp. 277-407.
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 6 of the Pentagon Papers, "The Advisory
Build-up, 1961-67," pp. 408-514
Go to Volume 2, Chapter 7 of the Pentagon Papers, "Re-Emphasis on
Pacification: 1965-1967," pp. 515-623.
Go to Volume 3, Chapter 1 of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Programs in
South Vietnam, Nov. 1963-Apr. 1965," pp. 1-105.
Go to Volume 3, Chapter 2 of the Pentagon Papers, "Military Pressures
Against North Vietnam, February 1964-January 1965," pp. 106-268.
Go to Volume 3, Chapter 3, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Air War in North
Vietnam: Rolling Thunder Begins, February-June, 1965," pp. 269-388
Go to Volume 3, Chapter 4, of the Pentagon Papers, "American Troops
Enter the Ground War, March-July 1965," pp. 389-485
Go to Volume 4, Chapter 1, of the Pentagon Papers, "The Air War in North
Vietnam, 1965-1968," pp. 1-276.
Go to Volume 4, Chapter 2, of the Pentagon Papers, "U.S. Ground Strategy
and Force Deployments, 1965-1968," pp. 277-604.
Return to Vinnie's Home Page
Return to Vietnam War Page
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
Post by Anthony Marsh
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-26 00:53:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.

Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;

?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?

?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;

?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?

?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?

Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;

I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."

I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-27 00:18:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
Bill Clarke
2018-04-28 00:09:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-28 23:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.

The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-04-29 22:51:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.

At the very top of 263 it reads:

1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.

It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.

This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-30 22:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-02 02:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-03 14:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-04 01:53:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 00:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't. You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-06 19:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
I know that General. But you were talking about what JFK SAID in
November. That was my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't.
Yes he damn well did. You don't believe your own reference? Here it
again Marsh. Read it and weep.

"The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 3, "Phased
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971) 11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef"

"The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000 men were
technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was achieved.
The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October level."

This would be because of the normal rotation agreement between JFK and
McNamara, as I've told you numerous times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Another false statement by Marsh. Here is exactly what I said; ">>
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered". You might be confused that I said the
total number of troops didn't change due to the normal rotation ordered by
JFK and McNamara.

Or you might just be pulling another false statement but your credibility
is too low here for you to slip that one by.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-10 01:08:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
I know that General. But you were talking about what JFK SAID in
November. That was my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't.
Yes he damn well did. You don't believe your own reference? Here it
again Marsh. Read it and weep.
"The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 3, "Phased
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971) 11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef"
"The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000 men were
technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was achieved.
The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October level."
This would be because of the normal rotation agreement between JFK and
McNamara, as I've told you numerous times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Another false statement by Marsh. Here is exactly what I said; ">>
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered". You might be confused that I said the
total number of troops didn't change due to the normal rotation ordered by
JFK and McNamara.
Or you might just be pulling another false statement but your credibility
is too low here for you to slip that one by.
It is okay Marsh. I'd slip away too if I posted a reference that blows my
false statements out of the water.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 19:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
I know that General. But you were talking about what JFK SAID in
November. That was my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't.
Yes he damn well did. You don't believe your own reference? Here it
again Marsh. Read it and weep.
"The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 3, "Phased
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971) 11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef"
"The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000 men were
technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was achieved.
The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October level."
This would be because of the normal rotation agreement between JFK and
McNamara, as I've told you numerous times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Another false statement by Marsh. Here is exactly what I said; ">>
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered". You might be confused that I said the
total number of troops didn't change due to the normal rotation ordered by
JFK and McNamara.
Or you might just be pulling another false statement but your credibility
is too low here for you to slip that one by.
It is okay Marsh. I'd slip away too if I posted a reference that blows my
false statements out of the water.
You are incoherent. You lost the argument, move on.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-11 17:50:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
I know that General. But you were talking about what JFK SAID in
November. That was my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't.
Yes he damn well did. You don't believe your own reference? Here it
again Marsh. Read it and weep.
"The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 3, "Phased
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971) 11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef"
"The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000 men were
technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was achieved.
The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October level."
This would be because of the normal rotation agreement between JFK and
McNamara, as I've told you numerous times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Another false statement by Marsh. Here is exactly what I said; ">>
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered". You might be confused that I said the
total number of troops didn't change due to the normal rotation ordered by
JFK and McNamara.
Or you might just be pulling another false statement but your credibility
is too low here for you to slip that one by.
It is okay Marsh. I'd slip away too if I posted a reference that blows my
false statements out of the water.
You are incoherent. You lost the argument, move on.
See Anthony run.

Run, Anthony, run!
Bill Clarke
2018-05-12 03:10:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
I know that General. But you were talking about what JFK SAID in
November. That was my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't.
Yes he damn well did. You don't believe your own reference? Here it
again Marsh. Read it and weep.
"The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 3, "Phased
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971) 11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef"
"The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000 men were
technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was achieved.
The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October level."
This would be because of the normal rotation agreement between JFK and
McNamara, as I've told you numerous times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Another false statement by Marsh. Here is exactly what I said; ">>
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered". You might be confused that I said the
total number of troops didn't change due to the normal rotation ordered by
JFK and McNamara.
Or you might just be pulling another false statement but your credibility
is too low here for you to slip that one by.
It is okay Marsh. I'd slip away too if I posted a reference that blows my
false statements out of the water.
You are incoherent. You lost the argument, move on.
I lost the argument? How could I when you couldn't reply to a single
answer I gave you using a reference supplied by you. Now wonder you
"moved on".
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-13 20:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
The goal was not to pull out the troops; the goal - as is clearly stated
in the documents - was to help the South "win their contest" against the
aggression from the North.
That was October 11th.
His last press conference was on November 14th.
You want to dredge up what he said in 1954?
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to
assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest
against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The
test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the
effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose.
It was only when the South could take on the war OR when the insurgency
had been defeated that the US would then withdraw the troops.
No, his plan was to START withdrawing the troops in December.
Be advised Marsh; nothing in NSAM 263 that says no new troops will be
introduced to SVN. In fact, the normal rotation plan that JFK and
McNamara agreed to means that as one goes home one comes over. McNamara
said the 1,000 men did come home in December but the total number of
troops in SVN did not change. That is normal rotation for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
This has been pointed out to you dozens of times but you ignore it.
The only thing Marsh knows about the JFK policy in Vietnam is how to
regurgitate the Camelot Shiners propaganda BS. It is all he knows about
the subject and he will never be able to accept the historical facts. No
matter how often we point them out.
You seem to suffer from Temporal Displacement Order. You don't seem
understand how things can change over time.
Try hot chocolate.
Try pulling your head out.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You point to things in October and ignore what JFK said in November.
And what LBJ did in December.
I point to October because that is the month of NSAM 263 Now do you
understand? What Jack or any other politician says doesn't mean a lot.
An NSAM is an order, not ust talk.
I know that General. But you were talking about what JFK SAID in
November. That was my point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered.
No, he didn't.
Yes he damn well did. You don't believe your own reference? Here it
again Marsh. Read it and weep.
"The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 3, "Phased
Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971) 11 Dec 63 CM 1079-63 for SecDef"
"The adjusted year-end strength figure was 15,394. Although 1,000 men were
technically withdrawn, no actual reduction of US strength was achieved.
The December figure was not 1,000 less than the peak October level."
This would be because of the normal rotation agreement between JFK and
McNamara, as I've told you numerous times.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You admitted that no troops were withdrawn.
Another false statement by Marsh. Here is exactly what I said; ">>
Written orders do. What LBJ did in December is to withdraw 1,000 men from
SVN, just like JFK had ordered". You might be confused that I said the
total number of troops didn't change due to the normal rotation ordered by
JFK and McNamara.
Or you might just be pulling another false statement but your credibility
is too low here for you to slip that one by.
It is okay Marsh. I'd slip away too if I posted a reference that blows my
false statements out of the water.
You are incoherent. You lost the argument, move on.
I lost the argument? How could I when you couldn't reply to a single
answer I gave you using a reference supplied by you. Now wonder you
"moved on".
I didn't move on. Stop the slander. I'm right here. Blab away.

Bill Clarke
2018-04-29 23:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
You posted the reference General. Didn't read it did you? My drinking
buddies know a lot more about JFK and Vietnam than you do. Of course that
is placing the bar very high. Still nothing on the 1,000 men per month
BS?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
Being a Camelot Shiner doesn't make you right. We have shown this time
and time again.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
If so they didn't help you much. You still don't know jack squat about
the subject.
BOZ
2018-04-29 23:51:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-30 22:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
US government documents?
WHat, you call them a CIA hoax? Don't be a Rossley.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-02 02:37:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
US government documents?
WHat, you call them a CIA hoax? Don't be a Rossley.
No matter how many documents you have you remain less than knowledgeable
about the subject. You'll never get any better at it because you have a
very closed mind and can't admit that you are wrong (1,000 men per month
comes to mind).

I notice you didn't comment on my post listing the references in the
Pentagon Papers. I'd withdraw too if I posted a reference that proved
myself wrong. I chortle. Shot yourself in the foot didn't you Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-03 14:34:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
US government documents?
WHat, you call them a CIA hoax? Don't be a Rossley.
No matter how many documents you have you remain less than knowledgeable
about the subject. You'll never get any better at it because you have a
Oh, I see. Because I have seen documents that you have not you call
yourself the expert?
Post by Bill Clarke
very closed mind and can't admit that you are wrong (1,000 men per month
comes to mind).
I notice you didn't comment on my post listing the references in the
Pentagon Papers. I'd withdraw too if I posted a reference that proved
myself wrong. I chortle. Shot yourself in the foot didn't you Marsh.
I get bored with attacking you. It's too easy and I have an unfair
advantage.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-04 01:52:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
US government documents?
WHat, you call them a CIA hoax? Don't be a Rossley.
No matter how many documents you have you remain less than knowledgeable
about the subject. You'll never get any better at it because you have a
Oh, I see. Because I have seen documents that you have not you call
yourself the expert?
Post by Bill Clarke
very closed mind and can't admit that you are wrong (1,000 men per month
comes to mind).
I notice you didn't comment on my post listing the references in the
Pentagon Papers. I'd withdraw too if I posted a reference that proved
myself wrong. I chortle. Shot yourself in the foot didn't you Marsh.
I get bored with attacking you.
"Attacking"? That's funny, Marsh. You "attacking" someone summons up
images of an ancient, crippled Chihuahua attacking a pit bull.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-05 01:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <0c640afe-f0d5-4bfd-acb4-***@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
says...
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 5:04:47 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
In article
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing
where
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about
1,000
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with
the
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects
of
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963,
but
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
US government documents?
WHat, you call them a CIA hoax? Don't be a Rossley.
No matter how many documents you have you remain less than knowledgeable
about the subject. You'll never get any better at it because you have a
Oh, I see. Because I have seen documents that you have not you call
yourself the expert?
Post by Bill Clarke
very closed mind and can't admit that you are wrong (1,000 men per month
comes to mind).
I notice you didn't comment on my post listing the references in the
Pentagon Papers. I'd withdraw too if I posted a reference that proved
myself wrong. I chortle. Shot yourself in the foot didn't you Marsh.
I get bored with attacking you.
"Attacking"? That's funny, Marsh. You "attacking" someone summons up
images of an ancient, crippled Chihuahua attacking a pit bull.
That is rather funny. A ferocious rabbit indeed.
Bill Clarke
2018-05-04 01:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
And I documented my claim about withrawal of troops.
You sure as hell did not. You posted some references, none showing where
JFK ordered 1,000 men peer month home from Vietnam. You got your head
handed to you on that false statement.
I posted the documents which you had never seen before.
I can mark them in BOLD if that would help.
By all means, please do.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/SecDef2.htm
Have you ever figured out what the word PHASED means?
The Pentagon Papers
Gravel Edition
Volume 2
Chapter 3, "Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," pp. 160-200.
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)
Summary
Thanks Marsh. I had lost my reference to McNamara saying the 1,000 men
had indeed been withdrawn from Vietnam. Now I have a reference again.
In fact much of your reference, while not supporting your crap about 1,000
men per month, support what I have told you and you claimed were untrue.
Why don't we look at your reference a bit.
Diems assassination caused an unstable SVG;
?Needless to say, the phase-out never came to pass. The Diem coup with the
resulting political instability and deterioration of the military?
?While the phase-out policy was overtaken by the sinking after-effects of
Post by Anthony Marsh
the Diem coup?
1,000 man withdrawal by end of year;
?An ostensible cut-back of 1000 men did take place in >December 1963, but
this was essentially an accounting exercise?
No. it didn't. JFK was dead by then and LBJ did not follow his plans.
The part of the Pentagon Papers you referenced say YES IT DID. Read it
again, directly above your reply. McNamara says the same thing. Now I
know McNamara is a congentile liar but I believe him over your BS. At
least he never told me JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 men per month.
You believe your rightwing driking buddies over JFK. JFK said the goal
was to bring Americans home.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
?the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963.?
No.
Your reference says YES. You saying no counts as much as a hill of beans.
"the U.S. did effect a 1000 man withdrawal in December of 1963".
False.
JFK gave the order. LBJ ignored it.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Withdrawal depended on ARVN becoming able to handle the situation;
No.
Yes again. Your reference; "South Vietnamese forces were to be trained to
perform all the functions then being carried out by U.S. personnel'.
That's what I said. It said nothing about sending in ground combat
troops it the training failed. You have to give the training a chance to
succeed.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I (McNamara) say today--as our training missions are completed, we will
bring back the training forces."
As, not if.
I'll go slow here Marsh. "As the training missions are completed" means
the mission will be completed. It makes "not if", like so much of your
BS, not really matter.
Just being a warmonger does not make you right.
The GOAL was to bring Americans home. There was no guarantee of success,
but it an honest try. There was no guarantee that JFK's gambit to solve
the Cuban Missile Crsis would work, but at least try it before starting
WWIII.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
I believe you deny That these things are accurate. Shot yourself in the
foot didn't you.
I posted the documents which you never saw.
I guess I could research how long the Pentagon Papers have been available
to the public but I'll let you rest thinking you have the only copy.
Maybe some of us had them before YOU saw them.
DISINFORMATION
US government documents?
WHat, you call them a CIA hoax? Don't be a Rossley.
No matter how many documents you have you remain less than knowledgeable
about the subject. You'll never get any better at it because you have a
Oh, I see. Because I have seen documents that you have not you call
yourself the expert?
Now that really isn't fair, Marsh. What you have seen out in la la land
has been seen only by you (like the 1,000 men/month doc). I can't keep up
with you in fantasy land.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
very closed mind and can't admit that you are wrong (1,000 men per month
comes to mind).
I notice you didn't comment on my post listing the references in the
Pentagon Papers. I'd withdraw too if I posted a reference that proved
myself wrong. I chortle. Shot yourself in the foot didn't you Marsh.
I get bored with attacking you. It's too easy and I have an unfair
advantage.
To have an advantage you certainly get your butt kicked a lot. And I
never get bored exposing your false statements about JFK and Vietnam. I
really rather enjoy it.
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-19 12:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
We are allowed to point out obvious facts here, Anthony. And that is one
of the most blatantly obvious facts in existence.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-20 12:01:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
We are allowed to point out obvious facts here, Anthony. And that is one
of the most blatantly obvious facts in existence.
You weren't even at that conference.
You are just paid to call me a liar no matter what I say.
OHLeeRedux
2018-04-21 14:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
We are allowed to point out obvious facts here, Anthony. And that is one
of the most blatantly obvious facts in existence.
You weren't even at that conference.
You are just paid to call me a liar no matter what I say.
If that were true, it would be the easiest job on the face of the earth.
Like searching for oranges in Florida.
BOZ
2018-04-21 17:12:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him.
HOAX
[snicker]
So McAdams allows you to call me a liar.
We are allowed to point out obvious facts here, Anthony. And that is one
of the most blatantly obvious facts in existence.
You weren't even at that conference.
You are just paid to call me a liar no matter what I say.
You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and
those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?
You, Lieutenant Marsh? I have a greater responsibility than you can
possibly fathom. You weep for Lee Harvey Oswald and you curse the Marines.
You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that
Oswald's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence,
while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want
the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties,
you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like
"honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life
spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps
under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions
the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank
you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and
stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are
entitled to!
BOZ
2018-04-17 14:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him. He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
I had dinner with Prouty. Prouty told me that you had breakfast with him.
Anthony Marsh
2018-04-18 19:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by BOZ
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100vietnam.html
It is hard for me to believe that anyone would pay any attention to what
Prouty had to say.
I had breakfast with him. He was an absolute kook and fraud. He did not
pass my test of his bona fides. I suspect that he was the guy who doomed
the Bay of Pigs invasion because he got the wrong model of B-26 bombers.
I had dinner with Prouty. Prouty told me that you had breakfast with him.
So why did out Troll say I was lying about it.

Do you believe that Cruz had Breakfast With Oswald?
Loading...