Posted on 04/30/2005 4:19:26 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- A 1967 memo on Vietnam, delivered to then-President Johnson in a sealed envelope, eerily foretold what happened in Saigon nearly eight years later.
"There could be a spectacle of panic flight from the country ... and Communist terror and vengeance," said the CIA memo.
The scenario was laid out in one of 174 intelligence documents released by the government Friday, a day before the 30th anniversary of Saigon's fall.
The documents spanning from 1948 to 1975 show where the spy community got it right - and wrong - on Vietnam.
"Implications of an unfavorable outcome in Vietnam," the 1967 memo was entitled.
But even that worst-case scenario envisioned a better outcome than what actually occurred. It assumed a negotiated settlement that favored the North, and called a possible political and military collapse an "entirely implausible hypothesis."
The 1967 memo also bluntly stated what some historians have viewed as one of the central lessons of Vietnam, which still echoes today: that such a loss would demonstrate that the United States "cannot crush a revolutionary movement which is sufficiently large, dedicated, competent, and well-supported."
"In a narrow sense," it added, "this means more simply that the structure of U.S. military power is ill-suited to cope with guerrilla warfare waged by a determined, resourceful, and politically astute opponent."
In an introduction to the compilation of documents, Lloyd Gardner, a Rutgers University history professor, said the intelligence papers lay out the "convictions and doubts of the intelligence community" as they changed over time.
"They are often ahead of the curve and occasionally lag behind the pace of events," said Gardner, a specialist on the Vietnam War.
The documents were released by the National Intelligence Council, the government's leading analysts who coordinate the judgments of the various intelligence agencies and provide them to policy-makers.
They come on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the April 30, 1975, fall of Saigon to communist troops, ending the Vietnam War. All but a small number of Americans were evacuated a few days earlier, along with U.S. Ambassador Graham Martin.
In one estimate from April 1963, intelligence analysts saw "some promise" for political stability. But weeks after the estimate argued that "communist progress has been blunted," Buddhist monks were protesting on street corners, in some cases setting themselves on fire. Americans watched from their television sets in horror.
The "political situation was literally set afire," Gardner wrote.
Only in the fine print of the 1963 document were doubts raised about the South Vietnamese government's ability to turn military success into security.
"Some areas of Viet Cong control, such as the Mekong delta, will be very difficult to pacify, decisive campaigns have yet to be fought, and no quick and easy end to the war is in sight," the assessment said.
Later, in July 1969, an assessment said that U.S. analysts believed "Hanoi has the capability to pursue this military course through 1970 at levels approximating those of the past 12 months." The war actually lasted another five years.
In the collection's final installment, dated March 1975, U.S. intelligence analysts said even if the ongoing North Vietnamese attack were blocked, the South Vietnamese government would find itself in control of very little.
The estimate "foresaw final defeat by early 1976, a prediction still too generous as it turned out," Gardner wrote.
Bu!!$h!t. I guess we should ask the Viet Cong if they agree. Oh, wait, they're all dead, ever since the 1968 Tet offensive. Never mind.
I think that Lyndon Johnson prohibited the military from winning the war. Kennedy is the one who put us in there, before he was taken out. I don't believe that Johnson was behind that, but I don't doubt that he and the leftist establishment and enemies within tied down America's ability to fight their comrades abroad.
Actually Ike was the first POTUS to put 'boots on the ground' in Vietnam.
U.S. Policies in the Vietnam WarAnd if you read the above link you'll note that Ike pretty much 'married us' to Vietnam's problems with the SEATO Treaty in 1954. Not that he was wrong, Communism had to be stopped.
"Kennedy in 1961 sought partnership with Diem, increased US advisors to 16,000, developed methods of a flexible response using counterinsurgency and defoliation and strategic hamlets"
Ike ran for President in 52'; wasn't the US already supporting anti-communists in 1946 (after supporting them in wwII)? I guess this is really a semantic difference, but I guess my point is that JFK is the one that stepped up the US role over there.
BTW, you don't need to tell me, I have no doubt that the US could have won the war.
>>But even that worst-case scenario envisioned a better outcome than what actually occurred. It assumed a negotiated settlement that favored the North, and called a possible political and military collapse an "entirely implausible hypothesis."
The analysts didn't forsee a Dem Congress totally cutting military support to our ally, while the Soviets continued pouring it on to their proxy.
/forsee/foresee/
I really ought to use that new-fangled spell-checker thingie.
Many people just erroneously believe JFK was the first POTUS to get us involved in Vietnam.
Actually, the military had the war won around 1970
It was the likes of John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark et. al that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Add to Fonda, et. al., the CIA employees who lectured at the Vietnam Training Center, Rosslyn, Virginia, in the nineteen sixties. It's not as though they thought the US would lose; rather, they wanted the US to lose.
>The 1967 memo also bluntly stated what some historians have viewed as one of the central lessons of Vietnam, which still echoes today: that such a loss would demonstrate that the United States "cannot crush a revolutionary movement which is sufficiently large, dedicated, competent, and well-supported."<
BullShite!
It was the W.D.C. stupidity that didn't allow taking out actual military targets. 'Bomb around them and scare them, but don't take out the target.'
Fear of making the Soviets and the Chineese mad, by being too strong and effective.
Didn't want to show them what we could really do.
Yes, we could've crushed NV. But was there ever a real SV ?
From: http://www.archives.gov/research_room/jfk/house_select_committee/print_friendly.html?page=committee_report_findings_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20JFK%20Assassination%20Records%20%7C%20U.S.%20House%0D%0ASelect%20Committee%20on%20Assassinations%20Report%2C%20Introduction
Southeast Asia
Abandoning the Eisenhower administration's mistrust of neutral nations, Kennedy pursued a cautious approach in Laos where Communists had captured many of the northern provinces in 1961. In July 1962, the United States was able to get all parties in Laos to agree to a tripartite coalition government and withdrawal of all foreign troops.
In South Vietnam, however, the administration decided to take a stand against Communist inspired "wars of liberation." U.S. involvement dated back to 1956, when the Eisenhower administration backed the decision of the South Vietnamese Government to postpone elections there because Communist victory appeared imminent. The United States was pledged to support the pro-American regime of Ngo Dinh Diem in the fear that if one Southeast Asian nation fell to the Communists, others would soon follow. Kennedy continued that policy, although with growing reluctance by 1963.
In 1961, Viet Cong guerrillas backed by Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam attacked South Vietnamese troops, murdered officials, and placed the Diem regime in jeopardy. Kennedy responded initially by sending more than 4,000 military advisers to South Vietnam and, over the following months, U.S. participation grew steadily. In his move away from the "all or nothing" nuclear arsenal strategy of the 1950's, Kennedy emphasized a varied military capability to meet the jungle warfare tactics of the enemy in countries such as Vietnam. He also directed economic aid to Southeast Asia to meet the Communist threat there. In November 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara announced that the United States was winning the war in south Vietnam.
When the Chinese invaded northern India in 1962, Kennedy authorized an airlift of arms to halt the Chinese Communist advance.
When I was in the USAF there was a dark joke going around as to the solution.
"Put all of the loyal S. V.'s on a boat, then nuke Vietnam, then sink the boat."
It reflected the frustration that S.V. "loyalty" ran hot and cold.
I thought this was "Nixon's War".
"The analysts didn't forsee a Dem Congress totally cutting military support to our ally, while the Soviets continued pouring it on to their proxy."
I'm glad there's someone else out there who understands who the true villains in the VN War were, the Dims in Congress who withdrew funding thereby sealing the fate of the SVN and handing victory to the Commies.
Sure was. Ask any lib. Lyndon who ?
Ping
Check the links.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.