The Silence of American Hawks

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

OK Deez, now that I have your attention, and you seem like you're doing some reading on stuff that you never knew before (which is a good thing), resuming class.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

Once you get through the Guillion info, read this:

www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx

(P.S. This was the NSAM that I'd meant to post earlier, but was in a hurry and posted the wrong number, my apologies)

Once you get through with those, I'll provide some more in depth info on JFK's views and statements on the ultimate WITHDRAWAL of all troops, "INCLUDING THE HELO PILOTS" (as JFK himself shouted out to a departing McNamara in '63) , by end of 1965.

NSAM 273 will, after you've gone through all the above, provide a gleaming insight into the subsequent events in vietnam under LBJ.

Edit: It always helps to understand history and to put it in the right context, by reading more than a few person/s perspective about a certain situation. In this case -- Vietnam. That's where General David M. Shoup comes in!

If you get a chance, read up on Gen. Shoup's bio, paying SPECIAL attention to why Eisenhower favored him over other generals (hint: Shoup was opposed to the MI complex), as well as why JFK trusted Shoup's judgement.

Edit: I'm guessing you're well past the saigon fact-finding mission and such, so here is one other topics that will help in understanding/fortifying guillion's impact on jfk, and jfk's general reluctance for interventionism (and get a chance to truly understand the vicious hatred that LeMay, Lemnitzer et al, had for jfk):



SIOP 62 -- JFK's disgust for it

 

[Roger35]

Deez, here is some more info that should support the read on Guillion/JFK/Saigon:In reply to:

---

---

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mr. Deez]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[pasotex]

I guess I will use Winston Churchill as my example. I do not think you should take someone's younger political leanings seriously particularly when they evolve into something quite the opposite in later life.

I also find the Republican propensity to disown their own quite amusing at times. Bush is now a RINO among many for bizarre reasons.

I also think conflating containment as a policy with rolling back is problematic. Democrats were very much in the containment camp, but not so much in the rolling back camp (neither were most Republicans).

I think neo-cons particularly in the most recent Bush administration thought they could remake the Middle East with an invasion and rebuilding of Iraq. This did not turn out so well. It was a disaster.

Blaming this policy disaster on anyone other than the Republicans seems very odd.

I honestly have never gotten into the origins of neo-cons because it does not really interest me. I care about what they did when they had power and who let them do it.

I do think the Kennedy question is an interesting one. I still think he would have gotten us deeper into Vietnam (I base this primarily on the Best and the Brightest), but may not have escalated it like Johnson.

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---