posted on February 18, 2001 02:24:53 PM new
Vietnam War Facts vs Democrat Myths:
Eisenhower never referred to Vietnam in his briefing of JFK.
"When Kennedy was briefed by President Eisenhower in January of 1961, President Eisenhower told him about the hotspots around the world. He didn't use the word "Vietnam" at all, he talked about Laos. Time Magazine, in all of 1960, mentioned Vietnam only six times, and four of them had nothing to do with the war. You know, Vietnam was not a hot button. Cuba was, Laos was, Berlin was, and so on. So it's easy to forget the preface to Vietnam when you don't remember these things."
There were a small amount of US military advisors in Vietnam for the purpose of training the South Vietnamese military. However, JFK escalated the US involvement in 1961 to the point that the actual Vietnam conflict is officially Jan/1961 to May./75.
That is (also) why the benefit period for Vietnam veterans is:
"On Vietnam, JFK had remarkable hubris about his ability to control the situation. He did significantly augment American presence there, taking the number of U.S. "advisors" from 342 to 15,000, and assisting the November 1963 coup that toppled Ngo Dinh Diem from power -- and, incidentally, led to Diem's murder. Yet, according to the late George Ball, JFK said, "We won't get into a quagmire the way the French did because I'll stop it."
JFK was unable to stop what he started because he was assassinated. LBJ, a Democrat, could have, but he did not, and you know the rest of the story.
posted on February 18, 2001 02:36:45 PM newJuly 8, 1959 - Two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.
Guess those guys were democrats, huh? Why mention them?
posted on February 18, 2001 03:17:51 PM new
I'm sure that you must have heard of Eisenhower's Domino Theory? "We gotta' stop those commies". Aren't you aware that he committed this country to the ultimate end by agreeing to take over the military role from the French at the UN summit in 1955? That in that year over 400,000 tons of war materials were sent to support the Diem presidency, and that military advisors and the CIA were heavily involved in the country both politically and stategically by 1957? You know that Eisenhower sent two U.S. warships to Siagon in a show of force again in support of Diem?
Kennedy had little choice but to follow the existing program, which had been laid down in the UN following France's withdrawall. although he apparently was quickly convinced that Diem could not win by free election. That was why he agreed with the CIA plan to depose Diem presented to him by John Dulles. He was not aware though that depose meant assassinate.
Kennedy was killed before he could implement a diplomatically acceptable withdrawal from what was obviously a hopeless contest. Johnson, the poor guy, decided that the only way out was through victory by mass of arms.
Everybody was wrong, and the only winners were the Dupont Corp., Ford, Colt, and all other US suppliers to the military.
Nixon's end to Vietnam was laughable, or would have been had not an additional 15,000 or so US troops died during that four year nightmare. He gradually deserted US forces to face the North Vietnamese army essentially by themselves in ever diminishing numbers. The South Vietnamese would not fight--they never did. Yet that entire "Vietnamization" program of Nixon's depended on them to do so.
posted on February 18, 2001 04:16:13 PM new
You're so rushie. Do you think he's got a job for you?
How could Nixon have stopped the war if US troops left in 1973? He'd already run away from the presidency with his tail between his legs.
It was the Catholics anyway.
The communist leader of North Vietnam appoints a Catholic bishop to his government - Catholics want preferential treatment - Scheme for mass exodus of Northern Catholics toward South Vietnam - "Why has the Virgin Mary left the North?" - Catholic mass evacuation from North Vietnam - Results of the Catholic-CIA -Diem propaganda campaign - Catholic priests as Diem's agents - A personal message to Eisenhower - The Seventh Fleet is sent to help Diem
posted on February 18, 2001 09:07:55 PM new
RICHARD NIXON 1968:
"Never has so much power been used so ineffectively as in Vietnam. If after all of this time, and all of this sacrifice and all of this support there is still no end in sight, then I say the time has come for the American people to turn to new leadership, not tied to the policies and mistakes of the past. I pledge to you we shall have an honorable end to the war in Vietnam."
"In July 1969, President Nixon had good news for the troops. They could soon go home, and leave the fighting to the South Vietnamese. He called the policy "Vietnamization."
HENRY KISSINGER (National Security Adviser)
"We made up our minds from the beginning that we were going to try to disengage from Vietnam. Moreover, all of the debate afterwards were really about, with the moderate critics, were about rates of disengagement, not about the fact of disengagement. So it had to be a high priority."
PRESIDENT NIXON, October 1970
"I propose that all armed forces throughout Indochina cease firing their weapons and remain in the positions they now hold. This would be a cease-fire in place. I do not minimize the difficulty of maintaining a cease-fire in a guerrilla war where there are no front lines. But an unconventional war may require an unconventional truce. Our side is ready to stand still and cease firing."
January 27, 1973
All parties signed the Paris Accord peace agreement. Hanoi celebrated with fireworks.
1975
"Although some North Vietnam and VC factions not in agreement with the Accord delay the ending and total withdrawal, President Gerald Ford completes the US evacuation from Vietnam."
I would have thought that being a Vietnam infantry vet you would know the history.
posted on February 18, 2001 09:57:55 PM new
What made you think that I'm an infantry vet?
"I propose that all armed forces throughout Indochina cease firing their weapons
A nice proposal, but it didn't happen.
"They could soon go home, and leave the fighting to the South Vietnamese. He called the policy "Vietnamization."
Everyone's hopes went on this one. Rumors of immediate withdrawal were everywhere and no one wanted to be the last one killed. Nobody in country at that time needed to worry about that, as it turned out. Someone forgot to propose it to everybody involved, or they just weren't agreeable to it. I did benefit, though. I got a two week drop because of it. So I deros'd 10/31 instead of 11/15 as scheduled. I thanked your man for that.
However, just four months later, I had to sit and watch and read about how many of my friends still there were being slaughtered in Nixon's absurd incursions into Cambodia. It was a helicopter nightmare of 51mm and 37mm anti aircraft guns emplaced for years, and pisspoor planning causing units to fall all over each other. Yes, I know it included operations in Laos but for the First Infantry Div. it was Cambodia.
Mike, as you continue to just spout republican dogma without, usually, any consideration for the full scope of the facts, I don't see any point in playing your game anymore.
Once more, I'll recommend some reading: "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheehan. I really don't have any idea as to his political leanings and the book is in paperback, so it's affordable. It's pretty thick though.
posted on February 18, 2001 10:06:18 PM newkrs
I would recommend Sheehan also...sgt
How do you respond to Sheehan's allegations that the whole thing could have been over in 64 if the "advisors" had befriended the Vietnamese and supplied rice, etc. rather that try to force them to fight the VC with US methods?
If you haven't yet, you (and I mean EVERYONE needs to read this book!!)
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on February 18, 2001 10:25:26 PM new
Appears Sheehan failed to cover the last years of the war. Appears you are now basing your argument on a book in which Sheehan, the author, did not properly research and cover the period you want to be otherwise.
Excerpt from review concerning historical accuracy of Sheehan's book:
"After Vann's death in a helicopter crash in 1972, Sheehan fails to analyze later events including the withdrawal of U.S. troops by 1973 and the fall of South Vietnam in 1975."
posted on February 18, 2001 10:30:36 PM new
Ummmm....
I gues if he died in '72 that negates his involvement in '64?
Sheehan's whole point was to state that the US thinking in the "Conflict" was F**ed up.
You OBVIOUSLY have not read the book, or have decided that the observations of someone who was THERE before the"war" wa declared don't matter!!!
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
posted on February 18, 2001 10:41:57 PM new
Although one could argue that events leading up to the Vietnam War were put into motion when the pilgrims landed, my argument is based on what period of time did who appear to have put the straw on the camel's back.
It appears to have been JFK and LBJ, Democrats.
Regardless how long it took to get completely out, and regardless of actions Nixon and Ford took to get the North back to the tables, Nixon started the process and Ford completed the process, Republicans.
posted on February 18, 2001 11:54:16 PM new
sgtmike - I don't know if this thread was started as a response to another, because I haven't been here today to read them the board.
I can understand your passion about the Vietnam War (yes it was a war). But, you are becoming obsessive about it. You use every excuse to bring it up. This time it's Rebublicans vs. Democrates again, and where to place the blame.
I think the focus should be put on current events concerning this selected Rebublican President and his preoccupation with power and missles, just like the last Republican President (who he happens to be related to).
posted on February 19, 2001 01:34:32 AM newchococake:
Best read again. I did not initiate this subject this time, nor do I recall ever doing so in the past.
If you will read other posts, you will determine how the subject came up. Some people like a thread "locked" when they are losing ground.
Some like to post and run and do not like anyone to challenge with the other side of the story.
Also, you need to look at the title of this thread again.
Last, if the topic of thread is not of your interest, and you do not have anything to contribute in the form a challenge, even strongly argumentive, you have total freedom to pass or move on.
PS: If you are into spotting "obsessivness," you passed by quite a few threads that fit your profile before you landed here to reveal (your} obsessiveness regarding your displeasure with Bush.
posted on February 19, 2001 04:46:03 AM newsgtmike posted on February 19, 2001 01:34:32 AM
chococake:
Best read again. I did not initiate this subject this time, nor do I recall ever doing so in the past.
What a wonderfully inept way to lose personal credibility!:
sgtmike posted on February 17, 2001 01:26:34 PM
World War 1: US military committed by Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
World War 2: US military committed by Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat)
*History now reveals Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen to provide a reason for the US to enter the war.
World War 2: Two atom bombs dropped on Japan at the order of Harry S. Truman (Democrat)
Korean War: US military committed by Harry S. Truman (Democrat)
Bay of Pigs: Secret operation against Cuba at the order of John F. Kennedy (Democrat)
Vietnam War: Kennedy involves US. John F. Kennedy (Democrat}
Vietnam War: US military committed by Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)
Is that your post, sgtmike?
I thought so.
chocolate,
You're absolutely right about obsessiveness on the subject. I can tell you from long experience that such obsessiveness is fairly common amongst men who for whatever reason , however they did it, got out of service in vietnam -- particularly amongst ex-marines who did not go there. Vets often refer to them as 'wannabes', and no matter how many people tell them how lucky they are NOT to have gone to that place, they continue to either pretend that they did, or pretend that they know all about it, or to spend any chance they find to attack anyone who did go there.
It would be a pitiable condition, I guess, this sort of guilt, except that in most cases the people who suffer from it are endlessly, boringly, obnoxious.
posted on February 19, 2001 05:16:46 AM new
I see all kinds of anger here I don't understand. I was graduated from high school in 1966 and a large number of my blue collar class died in 'nam. They can call it anything they want and set end dates all they want - a dead soldier smells the same after 4 days no matter how you label it.
Sorry for the multiple posts - sometimes I get an "invisable" browser open and it can't be seen until I do the three finger dance.
[ edited by gravid on Feb 19, 2001 05:31 AM ]
It appears you and those who support your arguments, or you supporting theirs, lost sight of what the real subject (point) is. It was not (the) wars or conflicts.
Identifying certain major wars or conflicts was for the purpose of identifying what political party the sitting President was loyal too, and how much the President unnecessarily contributed to getting the US involved; and what political party seemingly is always getting the US uninvolved, or limiting the involvement.
The arguments and the examples I have provided evolved from countering watered-down, incomplete, or insupportable information constantly given to discredit President Bush and Republicans.
Here is where it begun….this time.
"He isn't a member of the invited group of USS Missouri members, he just got to go along on their last mission to kill the enemy."
"Missouri-->Marke-->Bush--->Japan surrender--->characterize Japanese women as whores---->Bush---->coverup. Believe evrything they say, if you like."
"No, they were playing a glorified in realtime submarine warfare game. The old war vets, and the new bush cronie was brought along so that the pres would tell the navy to give them whatever they wanted. He's in debt to Hall, big time. So they got the best possible treatment--an actual tracking of an 'enemy' ship complete with simulated sinking."
"Republican WARMONGERING Hawks want ONE MORE SHOT at the Japanese!!"
It never fails; every time I put the soup in a different bowl and serve it back, there are those who do not recognize their own recipe and complain about the taste.
I just love this statement following my chastisement for the subject matter I chose to counter the constant lambasting of Bush and Republicans.
"This time it's Rebublicans vs. Democrates again, and where to place the blame.
and ending with this statement:
"I think the focus should be put on current events concerning this selected Rebublican President and his preoccupation with power and missles, just like the last Republican President (who he happens to be related to)."
posted on February 19, 2001 06:47:50 AM newgravid,
This BS goes back some, and there is a persistance of ignorant and obstinate posting by [sgtmike[/b] whenever he finds an opportunity (he spends quite a bit of time on the bench, so to speak). I do believe that it is based in the sort of jealosy to which I gently alluded above. In spite of his "some people" evasions he is posting to insult me and my service in Vietnam. He's as predictable as a sunset in that all it takes to bring him to such posting is my statement that I'm leaving the subject, as you can see occurred here.
This time, he claims to want facts, but given facts, he ignores them or tries to refute them from his own (and probably Rush Limbaugh's) misinformation.
The subject is now his claim that: [b]Vietnam War: Kennedy involves US. John F. Kennedy (Democrat}/b], and no matter how or by whom he is told otherwise, he continues in his pestulant way.
So, for sgtmike's edification, in the spirit of assistance toward a more accurate and less dogmatic point of view, I've taken the time to excerpt a few facts for him as he requests, facts which he can verify himself at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/research/ay1995/awc/slatonjf.htm and there is an extensive list of references included so that should the doubtful happenstance of an awakening of desire in sgtmike for truly factual information on the subject take place, he will not be left as a fish without water to swim in.
excerpts from link:
Dulles pushed for a more active role and Eisenhower
agreed that the United States should be more involved. At the outset of his Presidency, he
made attempts, against French opposition, to pursue a more active role. Addressing an
Illinois crowd, he stated “We don't want Asia to feel that the white man of the West is his
enemy. If there must be a war, let it be Asians against Asians, with our support on the
side of freedom.”
Speaking to the French National Political Science Institute in May of
1952, Dulles told them “I should be personally glad to see us do more, for you have really
been left too much alone to discharge a task which is vital to us all.”
Signs of this new, more active role appeared when the State Department announced that “...A U.S. military
mission headed by Lt. Gen. John W. O'Daniel, present commander U.S. Army Pacific, will
arrive at Saigon on June 20 (1953)...It is believed essential to insure an increasingly close
integration of U.S. assistance with the plans developed by the authorities of France and of
the Associated States.”
In Jan 1954, the President's special committee on Indochina decided to augment
the U.S. Military Mission in Indochina by 200 men, technicians and airplane mechanics,
and to send 22 B-26 medium bombers to the French.
In March, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Admiral Arthur Radford presented Eisenhower a
memorandum from the President's Special Committee on Indochina.
February 1954 news conference, Eisenhower stated, “I say that I cannot conceive of a
greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of
those regions, particularly with large units.”
BATTLE LINES ARE DRAWN
In September, 1956, Eisenhower signed NSC 5612/1, Statement of Policy on U.S.
Policy in Mainland Southeast Asia. Among several other points, it stated the U.S. will,
“1) Support the position of the Government of Free Vietnam that all-Vietnam elections
may take place only after it is satisfied that genuinely free elections can be held throughout
both zones of Vietnam, 2) Assist Free Vietnam to build up indigenous armed forces, 3)
Treat the Vietminh as not constituting a legitimate government, and 4) Prevent the
Vietminh from expanding their political influence and territorial control in Free Vietnam
and Southeast Asia.”
It was clear the line against Communist expansion had been drawn
in Vietnam and the Geneva agreements would play no part in the formulation of American
policy.
SUPPORT FOR FRANCE, BUT...
Determined to 'save' Vietnam Eisenhower told a group of legislative leaders “...we can't get anywhere in
Asia by just sitting here in Washington and doing nothing - my God, we must not lose Asia...”.
He explained his belief that indigenous Asian forces would have to do most of
the fighting, “with the United States providing a mobile reserve for the overall security of
the free world.”
Insight into the President's leadership style was provided in May 1954 by Robert Cutler, Special Assistant to the
President, in a memo to the Secretary of Defense and CJCS. Eisenhower had reviewed
the draft of a speech Dulles was going to make and made quite a few suggestions and
changes in the text. He thought the speech should include some easy to understand
slogans, such as “The U.S. will never start a war,” “The U.S. will not go to war without
Congressional authority,” “The U.S., as always, is trying to organize cooperative efforts
to sustain peace.”
Finally he decided the least painful way to accomplish his goals was
to support the French effort by contributing American aid. A meeting of the President's
Special Committee on Indochina reported that “ Ten B-26 aircraft are on the way to
Indochina this week. These would contribute to filling the French request for aircraft to
bring two B-26 squadrons up to a strength of 25 operational aircraft each. In summary, it
was agreed, “A. To provide a total of 22 B-26 aircraft as rapidly as practicable.
B. To provide 200 uniformed U.S. Air Force mechanics.”
By January 1954, American aid accounted for almost 80% of the French war effort.
Although Eisenhower's first State of the Union Address described France's
struggle against the Vietminh as holding “the line of freedom” against “Communist
aggression throughout the world”, overall he was unhappy with France's performance.
. The Vietnamese people are ripe for an active change away from the
Vietminh and toward the free Vietnamese government. A position of military strength is
basic to the attitude necessary for popular support of the Diem government.”
SUPPORT FOR DIEM
Eisenhower decided to follow O'Daniel's advice to support Diem and proceed with
U.S. aid to his government. He attributed France's failure in Vietnam primarily to
attempts to perpetuate colonialism and was confident that without that problem, the U.S.
could build a viable Non-Communist alternative to the Vietminh. “We must work with
these people, and then they themselves will soon find out that we are their friends and that
they can't live without us.”
Eisenhower sent “nation building” expert, Colonel Edward Lansdale, to Saigon to assist Diem. Lansdale arrived from the Philippines where he
had
helped secure the countryside against a Communist rebellion. Among other things,
Lansdale was to “set forth a program of action without resort to overt combat operations
by U.S. forces, designed to secure the military defeat of Communist forces in Indochina.”
After a month in country, he concluded the French had made no movement toward
Vietnamese independence and were very sensitive about any American dealings with
“their” Vietnamese.
Eisenhower knew he was putting the U.S. into the middle of a
probable civil war in Southeast Asia.
The question Eisenhower had to answer was how deep should American
involvement be. National Security Adviser, Robert Cutler, asked him “If the warfare
must be localized in Indochina, cannot there be imaginatively conceived a type of action".
Eisenhower felt, however, that by following the models of Korea and Greece of building an indigenous
army, they could defend the country by themselves, with American arms.
As he told a news conference, “I think that when the freedom of a man in Vietnam...is taken away from
him, I think our freedom has lost a little. I just don't believe that we can continue to exist
in the world, geographically isolated as we are, if we just don't find a concerted, positive
plan of keeping these free nations so tightly bound together that none of them will give
up.”
A major foreign aid program was undertaken and, between 1955 and 1961, the
U.S. provided Diem's government $1 billion in economic and military assistance.
Speaking to the National Editorial Association, Eisenhower defended his decision to stay
engaged in Indochina, “...if we will not try to defend in any way the Southeast Asian area
where she has a partial trade opportunity, what is to happen to Japan? It is going to the
Communists.”
A BREAKDOWN OF PRINCIPLES
Following the decision to support Diem, several actions taken by Eisenhower and
his staff, with regard to Vietnam were inconsistent with long standing American principles.
Vietnamese self-determination was abandoned, lack of democratic reform was
rationalized, and covert operations, including bribery, were ordered. In September 1954,
the President sent a letter to Diem explaining the purpose of American aid was “in
developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted
subversion or aggression through military means. The government of the United States
expects that this aid will be met by performance on the part of the government of Vietnam
in undertaking needed reforms.”
This letter, along with the SEATO alliance extending
protection to Vietnam, contradicted the Geneva accords in two ways. First, Geneva
stated neither side would enter into an alliance; second, it escalated South Vietnam's
position from part of a divided country into a sovereign state.
Even though Eisenhower had publicly stated that the U.S. had not been a party
to the Geneva agreements, it was clear the U.S. was pursuing a course of action
contradictory to the stated position ofallowing ”peoples to determine their own future”
as presented by Bedell Smith in Geneva.
The future of South Vietnam was now being determined in Washington D.C.
This did not go unnoticed by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) Foreign
Minister, Pham Van Dong. He sent a note to the two co-chairmen of the Geneva
Conference seeking their intervention to take “all necessary measures” to ensure
An alternative view of these actions is that for democratic reform in Vietnam to succeed in the long
term, the U.S. had to provide S. Vietnam protection from Communist aggression. Only through U.S.
intervention could the Vietnamese truly “determine their own future.”
Assistant Secretary of State Robertson in a June 1956 address
stated, “ In him, [Diem] his country has found a truly worthy leader whose integrity and
devotion to his country's welfare have become generally recognized among his people.
Asia has given us in President Diem another great figure; and the entire free world has
become the richer for his example of determination and moral fortitude... Vietnam today is
progressing rapidly to the establishment of democratic institutions by elective processes,
its people resuming peaceful pursuits, its army growing in effectiveness, sense of mission,
and morale, the puppet Vietnamese politicians discredited, the refugees well on the way to
permanent resettlement, the countryside generally orderly and calm, the predatory sects
eliminated and the venal leaders exiled or destroyed.”
Eisenhower's policy of supporting Diem had been established, would not change regardless of reports from inside
Vietnam, and it was now up to his foreign policy staff to implement it.
Several times Eisenhower would reaffirm his support for Diem, the man he hailed
as a “tough miracle man” and the “savior” of South Vietnam.
In an address dealing mostly with the new Soviet leadership before the American Society of Newspaper Editors,
Eisenhower told them, “In foreign affairs, the new regime has seemingly moderated the
policy of violence and hostility which has caused the free nations to band together to
defend their independence and liberties...They [the Communists] were stopped finally in
the northern part of Vietnam; and Diem, the leader of the Southern Vietnamese, is doing all that I expected"
The loss of South Vietnam would set in motion a crumbling process that
could, as it progressed, have grave consequences for us and for freedom...we reach the
inescapable conclusion that our own national interests demand some help from us in
sustaining in Vietnam the morale, the economic progress, and the military strength
necessary to its continued existence in freedom.”
FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE VIETMINH
For all Eisenhower's idealistic views of the world, he and his staff failed to account
for third party influences, in this case the importance of the Vietminh (an arm of the Lao
Dong Party). A National Intelligence Estimate in May, 1959 indicated, “that the potential
for urban political unrest would be limited by South Vietnam's relatively high standard of
living, thanks to U.S. economic assistance. It discounted the danger of a North
Vietnamese military move against the South, asserting that such a decision would
'probably be made by Peiping and Moscow rather than by Hanoi.'”
But several documents that came to light in the last few years of Eisenhower's tenure indicated the
Vietminh were indeed calling their own shots.
In May, 1959, a communiqué issued by the Lao Dong Party Central Committee,
broadcast in English over the Vietnam News Agency reaffirmed “that the socialist
transformation and construction in North Vietnam was still the most urgent task of the
revolution...the use of armed force in the South was...not to interfere with North
FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE VIETMINH
For all Eisenhower's idealistic views of the world, he and his staff failed to account
for third party influences, in this case the importance of the Vietminh (an arm of the Lao
Dong Party). A National Intelligence Estimate in May, 1959 indicated, “that the potential
for urban political unrest would be limited by South Vietnam's relatively high standard of
living, thanks to U.S. economic assistance. It discounted the danger of a North
Vietnamese military move against the South, asserting that such a decision would
'probably be made by Peiping and Moscow rather than by Hanoi.'”
But several documents that came to light in the last few years of Eisenhower's tenure indicated the
Vietminh were indeed calling their own shots.
In May, 1959, a communiqué issued by the Lao Dong Party Central Committee,
broadcast in English over the Vietnam News Agency reaffirmed “that the socialist
transformation and construction in North Vietnam was still the most urgent task of the
revolution...the use of armed force in the South was...not to interfere with North
PART VI: CONCLUSION, THE EISENHOWER LEGACY
The leadership and system strengths that had served Eisenhower well in the period
leading up to Dienbienphu, failed him after Geneva. His staff system, rather than being
helpful, did little to alleviate the problem of comprehending the complexity of the
situation. Instead, the situation was simplified into an 'East' versus 'West' scenario. By
failing to accept an internal Vietnamese solution to political authority, he acted far from
statesmanlike by placing U.S. actions in conflict with the move towards independence and
failing to acknowledge Diem's increasing dependence on U.S. support.
Because of his rigid preconception regarding Communist expansion, evidence indicating independent
action by the North Vietnamese was ignored. The “snowballing” effect of taking over
Vietnamese responsibility from the French and continual support for Diem, foretold the
ultimate American involvement, ground force participation. The die had been cast.
Eisenhower had failed to use his military and political prestige to disengage the U.S. from
the area. He had kept America out of war, but in Vietnam.
President Eisenhower's legacy was one of keeping the anti-Communist flame
burning in general and in Indochina in particular. In a radio and television address to the
American public in May 1957 he stated, “We must recognize that whenever any country
falls under the domination of Communism, the strength of the free world-and of America-is
by that amount weakened and Communism strengthened. If this process, through our
neglect or indifference, should proceed unchecked, our continent would be gradually
encircled. Our safety depends upon recognition of the fact that the Communist design for
such encirclement must be stopped before it gains momentum-before it is again too late to
save the peace...We must maintain a common worldwide defense against the menace of
International Communism. And we must demonstrate and spread the blessings of
liberty.”
When one considers the Cold War rhetoric at the time, Eisenhower showed
remarkable restraint in avoiding U.S. military involvement during the crisis at
Dienbienphu. Superb handling of his staff and extensive military and political experience
resulted in providing America the best solution available under the circumstances.
However, his actions following Geneva tended toward the negative. The issue had
essentially become one of nation building and Eisenhower pinned all his hopes on a
Vietnamese leader who was unable to establish any form of broad based support and
lacked the qualities required to meet the growing internal dissension. He was confident
that new methods could reverse the deteriorating situation, but introduced only superficial
changes.
In an overview of American policy regarding Indochina, Eisenhower briefed
congressional leaders, “The United States is the central key, the core of democracy,
economically, militarily, and spiritually...We are establishing international outposts where
people can develop their strength to defend themselves...We are trying with these
programs to build up for the United States a position in the world of freedom of
action.”
His ambitious economic aid programs failed to provide any substantive
solutions to the problem and only heightened American responsibility, while diminishing
Diem's credibility. In the end, Eisenhower had kept the U.S. out of war, but had not
established peace. Instead, he left his successors with no answers and ever narrowing
options that would eventually lead to the American tragedy of Vietnam.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Stephen E. Ambrose, Eisenhower, The President. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.
David L. Anderson, Shadow on the White House, Presidents and the Vietnam War, 1945-1975.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1993.
James R. Arnold, The First Domino: Eisenhower, The Military, and America's Intervention in
Vietnam. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991.
Department of Defense, United States - Vietnam Relations 1945-1967, Volume 1. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.
Department of State Bulletin. Washington D.C.: April 19, 1954.
Department of State Bulletin. Washington D.C.: May 17, 1954.
Department of State Bulletin. Washington D.C.: June 28, 1954.
Department of State Bulletin. Washington D.C.: October 25, 1960.
Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate For Change, 1953-1956. New York:
Doubleday, 1963.
John Lewis Gaddis, The Long Peace, Inquiries Into the History of the Cold War. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National
Security Policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Lloyd C. Gardner, Approaching Vietnam, From World War II Through Dienbienphu, 1941-1954.
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1988.
Leslie H. Gelb, Richard K. Betts, The Irony of Vietnam: The System Worked. Washington
D.C.:The Brookings Institution, 1979.
Senator Mike Gravel, The Pentagon Papers, The Defense Department History of United States
Decision Making on Vietnam, Volume 1. Boston, Massachusetts: The Beacon Press, 1971.
George C. Herring, America's Longest War. 2nd ed. New York: Random House, Inc., 1986.
Stanley Karnow, Vietnam, A History. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1991.
Gareth Porter, Ph.D., Vietnam: The Definitive Documentation of Human Decisions. Stanfordville,
N.Y.:Earl M. Coleman Enterprises, Inc., 1979.
posted on February 19, 2001 07:01:50 AM new
Excuse me, sgtmike, but were you trying to change the subject of this thread?
These are your posts, are they not, including the originating post in this thread?:
sgtmike posted on February 18, 2001 02:24:53 PM
Vietnam War Facts vs Democrat Myths:
Eisenhower never referred to Vietnam in his briefing of JFK. "When Kennedy was briefed by President Eisenhower in January of 1961, President Eisenhower told him about the hotspots around the world. He didn't use the word "Vietnam" at all, (aside:the word then was "Indochina" which includes Laos) he talked about Laos. Time Magazine, in all of 1960, mentioned Vietnam only six times, and four of them had nothing to do with the war. You know, Vietnam was not a hot button. Cuba was, Laos was, Berlin was, and so on. So it's easy to forget the preface to Vietnam when you don't remember these things."
There were a small amount of US military advisors in Vietnam for the purpose of training the South Vietnamese military.
However, JFK escalated the US involvement in 1961 to the point that the actual Vietnam conflict is officially Jan/1961 to May./75.
That is (also) why the benefit period for Vietnam veterans is: February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975
"On Vietnam, JFK had remarkable hubris about his ability to control the situation. He did significantly augment American presence there,taking the number of U.S. "advisors" from 342 to 15,000, and assisting the November 1963 coup that toppled Ngo Dinh
Diem from power -- and, incidentally, led to Diem's murder. Yet, according to the late George Ball, JFK said, "We won't get into a quagmire the way the French did because I'll stop it."
JFK was unable to stop what he started because he was assassinated. LBJ, a Democrat, could have, but he did not, and you know the rest of the story.
posted on February 19, 2001 07:15:01 AM new
LOL @ "Although one could argue that events leading up to the Vietnam War were put into motion when the pilgrims landed," Very good, SgtMike
gravid What you are seeing here is a continuation of what some here refer to as a 'pissing contest'. I usually view these discussions as others just voicing their opposing opinions. SgtMike gives another view, another opinion and that's not too popular here on these threads.
posted on February 19, 2001 07:35:46 AM new
What I found in Britannica was this:
quote/U.S. President John F. Kennedy sent more noncombat military personnel after the North Vietnamese unified the South Vietnamese communist insurgents in an organization called the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam (NLF) in December 1960. By the end of 1962 the number of U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam had increased from 900 (in 1960) to 11,000, and Kennedy authorized them to fight if they were fired upon./end quote
And if one wanted to argue when our 'involvement' (vs. the troops fighting) started, then one could also argue that it didn't really end in 1975....as our 'involvement' with Vietnam, it's people, it's economy etc. went on for years and years.
posted on February 19, 2001 07:43:46 AM newsgtmike,
The plain fact is that US policy formulated at the beginning of the cold war, even prior to Korea, led the country irretrievable into Vietnam. I like Ike, and the dangers of the time were real, I think. The agreements that he entered us into, and the stance that he took, even though he knew that full involvement in Vietnam would be a losing proposition, gave Kennedy almost no choices in the matter but to continue the chain because it was already in motion. You speak of the few advisors, but don't speak of all of the technical and aviation people who were there to provide training in the use of the billions in US military equipment that Eisenhower provided to the Diem regime. But even without those facts, the policies of this country as stated by Eisenhower himself in his 1957 Inaugural Address http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres55.html leave no doubt about the path that the country would take in international dealings with the communist threat. You attempt to blame Kennedy because he was a democrat, but you really can't do that, especially when you are apparently devoid of all but the most rudimentary understanding of the forces at work in international diplomacy following world war two.
posted on February 19, 2001 07:46:07 AM new
Have we yet reached the same repetitive, boring level as the [Bush won illegally, Bush is "Texas" stupid, and the Florida recounts] topics?
posted on February 19, 2001 08:21:32 AM new
Actually, JFK started paving the way for (his) war in 1951, should he become President as planned by his father.
