Archives show JFK sought way out of Vietnam

[2RHPZ]

Archives show JFK sought way out of Vietnam

By Bryan Bender The Boston Globe

TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2005

WASHINGTON Newly uncovered documents from both American and Polish archives show that President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union secretly sought ways to find a diplomatic settlement to the war in Vietnam, starting three years before the United States sent combat troops.

Kennedy, relying on his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, planned to reach out to the North Vietnamese in April 1962 through a senior Indian diplomat, according to a secret State Department cable that was never dispatched.

Back-channel discussions also were attempted in January 1963 through the Polish government, which relayed the overture to Soviet leaders. Newly available Polish records indicate Moscow was much more open than previously thought to using its influence with North Vietnam to cool a cold war flash point.

The attempts to use India and Poland as go-betweens ultimately fizzled, partly because of North Vietnamese resistance and partly because Kennedy faced pressure from advisers to expand U.S. military involvement, according to the documents and interviews with scholars.


Article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/06/news/jfk.php)

[ogukuo72]

I notice that there is a tradition of narrative about the Vietnam War that tries to dis-associate JFK from the decision to expand US commitments to South Vietnam. In this narrative, JFK was described as:

a) reluctant to commit troops to bolster South Vietnam;

b) the decision to commit the troops came as a result of pressure from his advisors and the military, who were seeking a war in Vietnam, for whatever reason;

c) despite his earlier decision to commit troops to South Vietnam, he either subsequently intended to withdraw the troops, or he had intended to withdraw the troops all along;

d) his assassination stopped his plans to end US commitments to South Vietnam, leading to the subsequent agonies over the Vietnam War with LBJ, as part of the clique dedicated towards expanding the Vietnam War, coming to power.

Here's my 2cents' worth:

a) Seeking to whitewash him by blaming his advisers actually presented an unflattering account of JFK as a weak president unable to resist pressure from his advisers and make up his own mind. It also showed a President that was not in control of his administration, and any president that is not in control of his administration is a bad president.

b) As President, JFK should ultimately be held responsible for the decisions that he made, and the consquences that came from them. The initial decision to expand the involvement in Vietnam was his, and whether or not he had an intention to cut back that involvement is irrelevant to how much responsibility he bear in expanding US commitment in the first place. Again, not holding him responsible for this decision will only present an image of JFK as being a puppet and not his own master.

c) If JFK actually did have an intention to scale back US involvement in South Vietnam, this is a sign of his weakness, not his strength. It presented a picture of JFK as vacillating and changing his mind on a very critical foreign policy issue. Having make a commitment, then breaking that commitment, the US would be seen as an unreliable ally. After having affirmed its commitment, it suddenly packed up and go. How would the US be trusted? Thus, JFK's "changing of mind" would constitute a very bad foreign policy mistake.

d) The same vacillation would send all the wrong messages to the Soviet Union. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, what would a withdrawal from the fight in South Vietnam be seen as? A weakening of US resolve, and this would invite another confrontation. Interestingly, any change of mind by JFK would likely occur in 1964, following the elections as he would be unlikely to make such a decision before then. This would coincide with the fall of Khruschev and the coming to power of Brezhnev. If JFK made such a decision in the face of a hardening of the Soviet leadership, it will be a sure demonstration of weakness, and his inability to lead the free world.

e) It would demonstrate the same "cut-and-run" mentality in JFK that he first demonstrated in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. After expanding US commitments, and approving the assassination of the Diem brothers, he then decided to cut back on US involvement just when things seem to go south.