Re: Forgive Trump's Kissinger elevation/rehab or Nixon & Anna Chennault spiking '68 Paris Peace Talk
Oh, there's no "historical revisionism" going on. JFK was a big fan of special operations like the Bay of Pigs(and sending special forces to Vietnam, obviously) and he certainty ensured that we got involved there as a result.
This isn't entirely accurate.
- Eisenhower committed. In 1956, the U.S. assumed full responsibility of training the South Vietnamese Army from France. According to the Geneva Accords, the U.S. was limited to 342 troops, but through certain "humanitarian" deceits, the numbers came to 692. Between 1955 and 1960, the U.S. poured more than $1.5 billion in economic and military aid. And by 1961, there were already 1500 American troops present; and the U.S. mission in Saigon was the largest in the world. Historically, it was (is) still considered a limited commitment, but it was Eisenhower who ensured that we got involved.
- Kennedy introduced no major policy change to this (though introduced spiraling turning points), plunged deeper; BUT within the context of the Cold War which was reaching a critical stage around the globe in 1961. He first approved an additional $42 million to the annual budget to expand the South Vietnamese Army and first increased Eisenhower's MAAG number by 100 while introducing 400 special forces troops. However, by the end of 1961, he doubled down on Eisenhower's 1500 number. There were now 3,205 troops in South Vietnam. And by the end of 1962, there would be more than 9,000 under various disguises, though it was widely known (outside of the American public) that Kennedy clearly violated the Geneva Accords. By the time he was assassinated, the numbers hovered around 16,300. But like Johnson, the effort in Vietnam remained limited under Kennedy with its focus on the South Vietnamese Army.
- Of course, then Johnson (through more spiraling turning points) blew the door open and Americanized the war completely. His first few months saw further deterioration in South Vietnam (Diem had been assassinated). Like the others, he did not wish to lose, nor did he know how to win. Therefore, he transitioned what was limited into an open-ended commitment between 1963 and 1965. In
NSAM 288 (1964), Johnson elevated the Adviser numbers from 16,300 to 23,300 and expanded economic aid by $50 million. Johnson used the Tonken issue to secure congressional resolution authorizing him to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." This was used to retaliate when a U.S. Army barracks was attacked in February 1965. Johnson initiated sustained and exponential bombing attacks on the North until May. In July he ordered the immediate deployment of 50,000 troops to South Vietnam. All the while, like Kennedy, deceiving the American public. These decisions in late 1964 and throughout 1965 blew the door open. By 1967 there were 485,000 American troops in Vietnam. Now, almost half a million is a very far cry from Kennedy's 16,300. Instead of escalating economic aid and troop numbers to almost half a million, Johnson could have cut American loses way back when the number was only 16,300.
- Nixon inherited a full-scale war. Peak numbers came in 1969 with 543,000 American troops in Vietnam. Nixon went on to try to bomb his way out of Vietnam through a "peace with honor." And again, all the while deceiving the American public. Operation Linebacker II (the infamous Christmas bombing), between December 18 and December 29 of 1972 marked the end of the enthusiasm to look for victory through escalating force. But during Nixon's four years, an additional 20,553 American troops were killed, over 100,000 South Vietnamese troops were killed, and over a million North Vietnamese troops were killed. Who knows how many civilians. All of this..after Nixon's campaign team scuttled Johnson's 1968 peace talks in order to defeat Humphrey in the election. If that's not a betrayal to country and treason, I don't know what it.
The leaked Pentagon Papers proved that, one after the other (Eisenhower to Johnson), each lacked a full understanding of why we were there and what was really happening; and each made it a point to not lose while trying to get out. All of them, to include Nixon, was hammered by contemporary Foreign Policy experts and Generals for more and more. They are all to blame, but I wouldn't accuse Kennedy of getting us "deeply involved." That was Johnson. Kennedy was the bridge between Eisenhower's limited war to Johnson's open-ended full on Americanization.
