Emergency Help Needed: Re JFK and Vietnam

[Paul Rigby]

Paul - a fascinating piece of history. Thanks.

Do you know if De Gaulle's repudiation of NATO was in part due to his disgust at the geopolitical games being played in South-East Asia?

Jan,

De Gaulle's repudiation of US hegemony in NATO was of a piece with his rejection of American policy in SE Asia. He saw NATO for what it really was - the US conscription of the European military-industrial complex for Washington's ends, not least throught the perpetuation of the division of Europe.

I suspect most of European's pols saw this, too, but few had De Gaulle's courage, personal following or elan. Interestingly, the CIA didn't discriminate between the overt oppositionists (De Gaulle, Olaf Palme, Papandreou) and the "keep-your-heads-down-and-they-won't-notice-us" brigage: It toppled, or murdered, the lot of them!

Here's how one US journalist, perhaps the earliest & most consistent opponent of US conduct in Vietnam among mainstream US journalists, saw the respective division in early 1966:

The Washington Daily News, 4 March 1966, p.19

Decline and Fall

By Richard Starnes

The dreary de-escalation of Britain from world power to quaint anachronism is all but complete and in consequence it is small wonder that so little seems to turn on the outcome of the election that Prime Minister Harold Wilson has called for the last day of this month.

The suspicion grows that not even the British much care whether Mr. Wilson or Tory Leader Edward Heath is the Queen’s First Minister when April Fool’s Day dawns. The world that confronts the United Kingdom today is no different from the one that confronted it in other and greater centuries. Power is all that matters among governments and Britain today is powerless in the company of great nations.

It is customary in Britain to lay this decline to two interrelated circumstances – the examination imposed by the nation’s prodigious effort in World War II, and the end of colonialism. Both alibis contain elements of truth, but neither tells the whole story.

France could as well offer both excuses if it found itself seated below the salt at the table of nations. But France finds itself in no such humiliating situation. Its president takes surly delight in tweaking Uncle Sam’s whiskers and in otherwise acting as if he were the chief of state of a first-rate nation.

But Gen. De Gaulle actually brandishes no more real power than Mr. Wilson, and the difference in the influence which the two men command has to be found in their style, their vision and in their understanding of the world as it really exists.

“Mr. Wilson,” grumbles London’s respected Economist, “strove to be a Kennedy; he has turned out to be a Johnson. There is no Wilson charisma. He is where he is because he has outworked all the others. There is little or no Wilson doctrine.”

It is difficult after nearly a year and a half of Prime Minister Wilson’s stewardship to remember that he came into office on a Labor Party (i.e. socialist) ticket. Apart from the what the Economist calls “trivial bits of left-wingery” Mr. Wilson has run a centrist government that bears no relationship in the great Labor Party social schemes of the past.

Nationalization of the steel industry, which was a prime plank in Labor’s platform, got exactly the same sort of support from Mr. Wilson that repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley act got from President Johnson. He had to be for it because much of his support came from organisms that were passionately in favor if it, but no one was fooled.

But it is in the field of foreign policy that Mr. Wilson has so disappointed his own left wing. The war in Viet Nam is intensely unpopular in England, particularly so in the intellectual circles where so much of the Labor Party philosophy is developed and refined.

A Labor Party faithful to its own past would be calculated to follow a line on Viet Nam close to Gen. De Gaulle than Mr. Johnson. And yet Mr. Wilson has dutifully sneezed every time President Johnson took snuff on the Viet Nam issue. He has, with all his considerable skill at practical (that is to say unprincipled) politics, frustrated every attempt by Labor’s left wing to soften Britain’s policy on Viet Nam.

It is popular to ascribe the Prime Minister’s Viet Nam policy to the weakness of the pound and the need to believe that this is true. Mr. Wilson on Viet Nam and Mr. Wilson on Malaysia are part and parcel of the real Wilson – a conservative leader who unaccountably finds himself at the head of a Labor Party.

It is tempting to stretch the analogy between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Johnson too fine. But it is quite clear that both men have adopted the same basic tactics to insure personal power at the price of any real doctrinal convictions. The left wing in Britain and the left wing in the United States have no place else to go. If Mr. Wilson and Mr. Johnson can command the loyalty of the great mass of voters whose commitment is to the middle of the road, then each is politically invulnerable. The election this month will show how well this Johnsonian policy will reward Mr. Wilson.

[Paul Rigby]

Do you know if De Gaulle's repudiation of NATO was in part due to his disgust at the geopolitical games being played in South-East Asia?

French diplomacy in the region was much more supportive of Kennedy's efforts to extricate the US from the mire there than the Joe Alsops of the period would have us believe:

From our special correspondent (Geneva, May 23), "France submits proposals for a neutral Laos/ Drafts supported by Britain and U.S.," The Times, Wednesday, 24 May 1961, p.10:

From France today came the first detailed proposals for an internationally guaranteed neutral Laos to be submitted by any of the western Powers attending the 14-nation conference on Laos. Two draft declarations - one to be signed by a new Laotian Government and the other for signature by all the conference powers - were presented by M. Jean Chauvel, the French Ambassador to London and deputy leader of the French delegation.

A third phase of this French initiative, inspired by M. Couve de Murville, will follow next week, with a protocol on the structure and functions of the international control commission.

Britain's proposals for a Laos settlement, based on Lord Home's outline of last week, are still to be presented, but it is understood that both British and American approval to the French drafts was given by the representatives of both Governments, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald and Mr. Averell Harriman, to M. Couve de Murville before he returned to Paris this morning for tomorrow's state visit by the Belgian King and Queen.

POLICY REAFFIRMED

The first of the proposed French declarations to be signed by the Royal Laotian Government reaffirmed the principles of the second declaration made at the 1954 Geneva conference that the Laotian peoples wished to live in a sovereign and independent state and to have their united and territorial integrity respected in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It proclaimed the Laos Government's intention to pursue a policy of neutrality debarring itself from entering military alliances and from agreeing to the presence or passage of foreign troops or bases on its territory, or help from foreign military instructors, other than those provided for by the 1954 agreement.

In the second declaration the conference powers were to declare their respect for the independence and neutrality of Laos and undertake not to interfere directly or indirectly in its internal affairs.

Although M. Chauval today confined himself strictly to the French charter for Laos, he and his delegation see a genuine desire by the Russians and Chinese to reach agreement with the west here, clearly implied is their eagerness to conferee. And in line with the other western groups, the French see the most urgent problem as that of ensuring a complete and permanent cease-fire. This aspect of the conference became more pressing today with the arrival of a report from the control commission chairman dealing only with various aspects of the cease-fire and political developments in Laos. The commission are still working on the technical list of their requirements (requested by the conference co-chairman on Friday), and this may take a day or two to complete.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Thanks Paul. I owe you a firstborn but what about our 3rd Treasury Sec C.O.D? Im clear with the numbers from sixty four on, just needed to get my fractions right for class in which i fully intend on being a middle aged white guy bloviating about Kennedy. I will wear my I am a cliche sweatshirt and dream that Polly Styrene was born just once.

[David Healy]

Hi im taking three grad classes and taking care of my alledged child so I am so busy and losing my mind-remainder.

One of my classes is on the Cold War from non us and russian perspective. In reality, thought the title makes it sound groovy, the class is far right with a pangloss of superficial multiculturalism... Sort of a Fareed Zakaria magaziny distortion written largely in accord with CIA injunction.

These past two weeks have been a real eyeopener into just how UNBELIVABLY BRAVE NEW WORLD we have fallen even in academic history departments.

If you had to read what I just read about Vietnam in this youthful X-file generation historian named Jeremi Suri you would lose your body hair and write similar posts into the wilderness. It is far far far far far beyond anything that could ever be imagined in the USSR.

He pins the whole thing -- including the basic creation of the DIEM project on JFK!!!!!!! He treats LBJ as a saintly grandfather whose only mission is to spread the NEW DEAL to Vietnam. It is cartoon and I am trying not to go epileptic on Tueday night so I have...


THESE QUESTIONS...

1) CAN SOMONE GIVE ME SOLID NUMBERS OF HOW MANY US TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL THERE WERE IN VIETNAM ON 11-22-63 HOPEFULLY THE BREAKDOWN . ALSO NUMBERS OF INTEL PEOPLE. ( I REALIZE THERE MAY BE AN OVERLAP) I AM ALMOST CERTAIN THAT OUR SORDID LYING TEXT VASTLY OVERSTATED THESE NUMBERS.

...

I was in Saigon the day JFK was assassinated. At the Plaza Hotel on Tra Hung Dao, Saigon. Had been since the revolution that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem less than 3 weeks earlier. Located less than 2 blocks from where the first Buddhist self immolation occurred, which I witnessed.

Roughly 17,000 (military support, military advisors, Special Forces, USAID, CIA, Embassy, US civilians, American school, American missionaries and some families the above) Americans were in country that day.

US Military Advisors (MAAG-Vietnam) of which I was assigned, accounted for no more than 1,000 military field advisors assigned to various Republic of South Vietnam military units...

below numbers are fairly accurate.

Year Troop Level

1959 760

1960 900

1961 3,025

1962 11,300

1963 16,300

1964 23,300

1965 184,300

1966 385,300

1967 485,600

1968 536,100

1969 475,200

1970 334,600

1971 156,800

1972 24,200

1973 50

a few other interesting stats....

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm#VI...STATISTICS

this you may find interesting regarding Johnson's handling of the war:

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Thanks David, very usefull.

[Paul Rigby]

I was in Saigon the day JFK was assassinated. At the Plaza Hotel on Tra Hung Dao, Saigon. Had been since the revolution that overthrew Ngo Dinh Diem less than 3 weeks earlier. Located less than 2 blocks from where the first Buddhist self immolation occurred, which I witnessed.

Roughly 17,000 (military support, military advisors, Special Forces, USAID, CIA, Embassy, US civilians, American school, American missionaries and some families the above) Americans were in country that day.

US Military Advisors (MAAG-Vietnam) of which I was assigned, accounted for no more than 1,000 military field advisors assigned to various Republic of South Vietnam military units...

below numbers are fairly accurate.

Year Troop Level

1959 760

1960 900

1961 3,025

1962 11,300

1963 16,300

1964 23,300

1965 184,300

1966 385,300

1967 485,600

1968 536,100

1969 475,200

1970 334,600

1971 156,800

1972 24,200

1973 50

a few other interesting stats....

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm#VI...STATISTICS

this you may find interesting regarding Johnson's handling of the war:

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html

So much for Kennedy the uber-hawk!

[David Guyatt]

It is popular to ascribe the Prime Minister’s Viet Nam policy to the weakness of the pound and the need to believe that this is true. Mr. Wilson on Viet Nam and Mr. Wilson on Malaysia are part and parcel of the real Wilson – a conservative leader who unaccountably finds himself at the head of a Labor Party.

At least we can say of Wilson that he was the last Prime Minister not to bend his knee to US pressure and commit British troops to one of their numerous wars. In saying this I realize that he did send SAS there, but otherwise held his ground.

[Paul Rigby]

Thanks Paul. I owe you a firstborn

Gentlemen prefer cash: I am prepared to imitate one to facilitate that happy end. Failing that, copious quantities of Guinness, or a ticket for the FA Cup semi-final, should do the trick.

On a mildly serious note, your students are lucky to have a teacher prepared to hunt down some serious history. I wish my own school days had been similarly blessed.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

Pre-Kennedy inauguration (Jan 1961) coup and assassination attempts against Diem:

In late February 1957, an “armored car regiment stationed at Go Vap, six miles from Saigon stood paused to roll on the capital, when the plot was disclosed by a sergeant” (1). Days later, that perennial spook favourite, an angry “young student,” shot at Diem in the village of Ban Me Thuot (2). It is probable that these attempts were organised outside the aegis of the Agency’s Saigon station, most likely by the Agency-within-an-Agency that was the counter-intelligence (and much else besides) section of James Angleton.

Here's a contemporary - nay, topical, even - example of the kind of operation I mean:

Seymour Hersh: Secret US Forces Carried Out Assassinations in a Dozen Counties, Including in Latin America

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh created a stir earlier this month when he said the Bush administration ran an “executive assassination ring” that reported directly to Vice President Dick Cheney. “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving,” Hersh said. Seymour Hersh joins us to explain. [includes rush transcript]

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/31/se...es_carried

In the good old days, CIA used to run this kind of end-run round its station chiefs through Angleton’s CI department.

[Jan Klimkowski]

With apologies to Nathaniel, I'm going to take this thread off on a slight tangent to expand upon the notion of CIA station chiefs and/or "mainstream" CIA being cut out of the loop for certain deep black operations.

I originally posted this excerpt from the late, great, Walter Bowart elsewhere, in response to a post from Bill Kelly, and it no longer exists there.

I have a copy of the expanded limited researcher's edition of Walter Bowart's seminal "Operation Mind Control" (1994). I don't have a copy of the original 1978 book, so I don't know how much of this material is in the original.

Bill - Chapter 20 of my version, "The Four Faces of a Zombie", is all about Castillo. Bowart was pretty convinced he was a Manchurian Candidate.

Chapter 25, "The Patriotic Assassin", is worth reviewing in this context.

p357, Bowart is writing about an interview he conducted with a (retired) high ranking military officer who Bowart was convinced was both an assassin and an overseer of deep black assassination programmes & programming:

Bowart: "OK, who killed JFK, RFK, King, and who was behind Bremer?" I asked. He didn't remember who Bremer was, so I explained he was the man who'd shot Wallace.
"Oh yeah," he said. "Bremer was just a kook. But whoever got the Kennedys and King probably got a gold medal."
(Evidence indicates that Bremmer was programmed at one of the cryptocracy's mind control academies.)
"We were set to wipe Castro out. Kennedy interfered at the last minute. You want to take a guess at who killed him?... Oswald was just a patsy. I've fired the same kind of rifle Oswald was supposed to have used. You can't rapid-fire that think like he was supposed to have done. Now who do you suppose killed Kennedy?... Don't kid youself. This country is controlled by the Pentagon. All the major decisions in this country are made by the military, from my observations on the clandestine side of things.
"The CIA's just the whipping boy. NSA are the ones who have the hit teams. Look into their records... you won't find a thing. Look into their budget - you can't. For the life of you, you can't find any way they could spend the kind of money they've got on the number of people who are suppposed to be on their payroll. Even if they had immense research and development programs, they couldn't spend that kind of money.
"The CIA's just a figurehead. They are more world-wide - like the FBI is. They're accountants, lawyers, file clerks, schoolboys. They are information gatherers. They've pulled a lot of shenanigans, I'm not going to deny that but as far as intelligence goes the NSA's far superior to them - far in advance in the 'black arts'.
"The CIA gets blamed for what NSA does. NSA is far more vicious and far more accomplished in their operations. The American people are kept in ignorance about this - they should be, too.

p359 same interview, interviewee speaking:

"What people don't know is that the global corporations have their own version of the CIA. Where they don't interface with the CIA, they have their own organizations - all CIA trained. They also have double agents inside CIA and other intelligence organizations who are loyal to those corporations - I mean where's the bread buttered? Would you rather take the government pensions, or would you rather work a little for the corporation on the side and get both government pensions and corporate benefits after your retire?"