|
Continuing into 1964, we find the same pattern of planning and debate as under Kennedy, modified only in that the 1962-1963 optimism about imminent victory is abandoned, as the truth about the military situation finally penetrated and the US failed to impose a government that would unleash the requisite resources of "great violence" and control its population with Hitler-style efficiency, thus overcoming the defects that dismayed Lodge. As the year opened, Lodge reported to LBJ that while the overthrow of Diem prevented "certain catastrophe," we are "now just beginning to see the full extent of the dry rot and lassitude in the Government of Viet-Nam and the extent to which we were given inaccurate information" (January 1). McCone reported that the military field officers "had been grossly misinformed" by their Vietnamese associates, urging that US intelligence bypass them henceforth and make its own assessments (January 7). McNamara and others also learned more about the "grossly inaccurate picture" on which they had been basing their plans (Forrestal, January 8).79
A few weeks later, the Joint Chiefs recommended that the US "Induce the Government of Vietnam to conduct overt ground operations in Laos of sufficient scope to impede the flow of personnel and material southward," and "Arm, equip, advise and support the Government of Vietnam in its conduct of aerial bombing of critical targets in North Vietnam and in mining the sea approaches to that country." They recommended further that the US itself "Conduct aerial bombing of key North Vietnam targets," "Commit additional US forces, as necessary, in support of the combat action within South Vietnam," and "Commit US forces as necessary in direct actions against North Vietnam" (Taylor, January 22).80
McNamara's DOD rejected this advice, proposing only to "continue our present policy of providing training and logistical support for the South Vietnam forces," without direct US involvement (March 2). LBJ uneasily dragged his feet. In a meeting with the Joint Chiefs on March 4, he made it clear "that he does not want to lose South Vietnam before next November nor does he want to get the country into war" (Taylor Memorandum). On March 17, he rejected the JCS request for "putting in more U.S. forces" and refused to authorize even "reconnaissance over North Vietnam."81
By then, some of the Kennedy doves were tending towards escalation. Forrestal observed on March 18 that "I am somewhat more worried by those who argue for a bug out in Southeast Asia than I am by the adherents of Rostow," the superhawk; that these were the alternatives was becoming the consensus view. As the US position in the South deteriorated, Forrestal increasingly favored escalation of actions against the North along with an intensified counterinsurgency program, later supporting the Joint Chiefs on air and ground operations in Laos as well.82
Hilsman's position was similar. On leaving the government, he wrote a secret memorandum (March 14) in which he emphasized the need to assure Asians, friend or enemy, of "U.S. determination to use appropriate force, tailored to the essentially limited political objectives...." We must show that "we are determined to take whatever measures are necessary in Southeast Asia to protect those who oppose the Communists and to maintain our power and influence in the area," and therefore "must urgently begin to strengthen our overall military posture in Southeast Asia in ways which will make it clear that we are single-mindedly improving our capability to take whatever military steps may be necessary to halt Communist aggression in the area" (crucially, Viet Cong "aggression"). We might station a Marine battalion in Saigon on the pretext of protecting American dependents. Attacks against the North might be "a useful supplement to an effective counterinsurgency program," but not "an effective substitute" for it. We must "continue the covert, or at least deniable, operations" against the North in order to keep "the threat of eventual destruction alive in Hanoi's mind."83
Recall that Hilsman had made the same recommendations in April 1963, in virtually the same words, including the advice to "continue" the ongoing covert operations against the North with their implicit threat of destruction; that he had advised the deployment of US combat forces to assist the rebel generals in the event of any hint that Diem and Nhu were seeking a political settlement, and the use of unlimited force against the DRV if they sought "to counter our actions"; and that after the assassination, he had assured the GVN that "we shall keep in Viet-Nam whatever forces are needed for victory."
By March 30, "all the Chiefs except General Taylor wanted to go north," the White House was informed. Forrestal supported the Chiefs' call for "overt SVN action with U.S. covert support," but wanted "direct U.S. action as a contingency," for the moment. LBJ continued to reject either withdrawal or escalation. Mansfield approved, as noted. We must "help the Vietnamese to help themselves," LBJ informed Lodge, nothing more (April 28).84
In late May, McGeorge Bundy advised "selected and carefully graduated military force against North Vietnam," while Forrestal, after a two-week visit to South Vietnam, reported his "very strong personal opinion" that "the United States must take a fairly dramatic step soon against the North," along with an eventual "increase both in the American military and civilian presence in the countryside" in the South. On June 2, the Joint Chiefs again called for "military actions to accomplish destruction of the North Vietnamese will and capabilities as necessary to compel [the DRV] to cease providing support" for insurgent activities in Laos and Vietnam. LBJ continued to hold back. When two US reconnaissance planes were shot down in Laos, he approved a retaliatory attack on an antiaircraft installation only "with grave reservations."
On August 2, the US destroyer Maddox was attacked in Tonkin Gulf. Forrestal urged that US naval units should operate within the 12-mile limit "probably" claimed by North Vietnam and suggested that thought be given to "hot pursuit" to a distance of three miles as well as aerial mining of harbors and "an unidentified air strike against one or more of these harbors." He recognized at once that "the North Vietnamese and perhaps the Chicoms" had probably taken the Maddox to be accompanying the "OPLAN 34A harassing action by SVN forces against two islands off the DRV coast" at the same time. CIA Director McCone informed the National Security Council that "The North Vietnamese are reacting defensively to our attacks on their off-shore islands." The State Department assumed the same, as it issued a strong public condemnation of the "unprovoked attack," and the Administration drafted the congressional resolution denouncing "unprovoked armed attacks" that was later used as the justification for escalation.85
By late August, JCS appeals for direct US military involvement became more strident. They advised McNamara that "accelerated and forceful action with respect to North Vietnam is essential to prevent a complete collapse of the US position in Southeast Asia." Bundy informed the President that "landing a limited number of Marines to guard specific installations" was under discussion, though McNamara was "very strongly against" that course. Bundy thought that "before we let this country go we should have a hard look" at the "grim alternative" of using "substantial U.S. armed forces" (August 31).86
Note that this is almost a year after the assassination, which, it is alleged, gave the hawks free rein to take over and escalate the war (or even was perpetrated by them to place their man, the hawkish LBJ, in power).
With intelligence reporting (September 8) that "the present situation is far more serious than that of November 1963," the consensus of the President's advisers was that it would be necessary to resume US naval patrols and "34A operations by the GVN," along with "limited GVN air and ground operations" in southern Laos, though only after a stable base was established in South Vietnam. LBJ agreed, opposing "those advocating immediate and extensive action against the North." NSAM 314 (September 10) approved US naval patrols "well beyond [outside] the 12-mile limit" and "clearly dissociated from 34A maritime operations" by the GVN, with no GVN air strikes considered for the present, and an emphasis on "economic and political actions," at LBJ's insistence. After another alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident a week later, the President was "very skeptical about the evidence" and rejected the advice for "rapid escalation," indeed any response. He "again found [considerable] force" in George Ball's qualms about conducting naval patrols at all, again lining up with the more extreme Kennedy doves.
On October 1, intelligence reported further deterioration in South Vietnam, and the JCS reiterated their demand for "strong military actions...to prevent the collapse of the US position in Southeast Asia" (October 27). Taylor, who had replaced Lodge as Ambassador, continued to oppose the use of US forces (see below). On November 23, the Chiefs advised a "controlled program of intense military pressures against the DRV." Taylor informed Washington that "the northern provinces of South Viet-Nam which a year ago were considered almost free of Viet-Cong are now in deep trouble," and only "heroic treatment" could revive the counterinsurgency program, which is "bogged down" everywhere. No options remain except compelling the DRV to "make the Viet-Cong desist." After an unattributed bombing in the South, Taylor and the military command recommended "forty strike sorties" against the DRV in "retaliation," which would "do wonders for the morale of U.S. personnel in South Vietnam," McGeorge Bundy urged the President (December 28). The President rejected these proposals, proposing instead that Rangers, Special Forces, and Marines might be used "to stiffen the aggressiveness of Vietnamese military units."87
So 1964 ends, and with it, the extensive record of newly-released documents. Their contribution is to undermine much further the already implausible contention that JFK intended to withdraw without victory and that the assassination caused dramatic changes in policy (or, indeed, had any effect). Just as there is no hint in the record of any such intention on JFK's part, there is also no indication that his advisers, however dovish, felt that President Johnson was urging too aggressive a course or had departed from JFK's stand. On the contrary, Johnson remained skeptical and reluctant about US military action throughout, earning the applause of Ball and Mansfield for his "wise caution," while other JFK doves urged stronger US military actions. The belief that JFK might have responded differently as the optimistic projections of 1962-1963 collapsed is an act of faith, based on nothing but the belief that the President had some spiritual quality absent in everyone around him, leaving no detectable trace.
79 FRUSV-64, 1ff.
80 PP, III 496-9; FRUSV-64, 35.
81 Ibid., 120, 129, 167ff.
82 Ibid., 174, 206-7, 387-8, 806.
83 His emphasis. Ibid., 176ff. The quotes in the last sentence appear in an excerpt in Hilsman's memoir To Move a Nation, 536, with the word "continue" and a later reference to ongoing operations deleted.
84 FRUSV-64, 197-8, 206, 224, 273.
85 Ibid., 374, 387-8, 437f., 475, 598ff.
86 Ibid., 717, 723.
87 Ibid., 742f., 759, 778f., 806, 847, 933, 948f., 1049f., 1057f.
|
