From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: In politics, why as why?
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:12:14 GMT
Followup-To: > <2378@ <bzs.92aug13194248@ussr.std.com>

Organization: Mitech Corporation, Concord MA

In article <BZS.92Aug13194248@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette)
>>p.s. Can you name a rather significant war that the Republican Party
>>got us into? A war that makes Vietnam and Korea look like a cake walk?
> 
> Yes, Vietnam. You should study the history of the war more carefully
> rather than basing your view on popular perceptions. We had "advisors"
> there as early as 1956.

Of course I know about what Eisenhower was doing.

> The Eisenhower administration's refusal to participate in or sign the
> Geneva Accords of (I believe 1956) partitioning Vietnam and ceasing
> hostilities after the French pulled out was a critical step in what
> happened a few years later.

Did you know that Truman had made some commitments to France
as to what U.S. policy in Vietnam would be?

> Or do you really think that in 1962 when the US essentially shoved
> Diem in power a few months after JFK took office is when it all
> started? 

The Diem power-play was definitely a blow. It was a radical change
in policy. Sort of like, "we are going to save South Vietnam even
if we have to destroy it in order to save it."

I definitely do not think that Eisenhower, or Nixon in 1962 instead
of Kennedy, who have gotten us into Vietnam.

> How many "advisors" were in Vietnam on the day JFK took
> office? I think a few thousand.

Right, but the big change in 1962 was in the "advisors" to the president
of the USA, not to the advisors to south Vietnam.

The kind of people who were brought in by JFK were considerably
more idealistic. More *activist* in the approach to government.
(Government can change things, and if we first have to change the government
...)

Now Eisenhower had dealt with everyone from the likes of the
british military high command to the free french and DeGaul, and all manner
of foreign true beleivers and cynics alike.

JFK by contrast, was a virgin, and he acted like one.

Nixon on the other hand, would have been, well NIXON.

Remember the debate between Nixon and the head of the communist party?

Nixon conceded that, "yes you guys make better ICBM's" but
we capitalists make "better T.V. sets"

So then the communist (who appeared to be having the upper hand
in the debate) said: "all right then, that will be the contest/struggle:
whichever side is better at making consumer goods will be
the winner."

So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

> I'm not saying that LBJ handled it well, he handled it all awfully,
> and of course it destroyed him ultimately.

LBJ was merely applying techniques that had learned from his
domestic experience (double meaning) to foreign affairs.

> And it is hard to put one's finger on exactly who is really at fault,
> it's only possible by deciding to ignore some very significant facts
> in any case.

First you have to recognize the radical change in policy goals
in vietnam between the republican and democratic administrations.

> But it's also a bit over-simplified to put the blame on who fired the
> first shot, sort of the "he hit me first" approach to history.

Certainly, which is why I didn't mention the involvement of Eisenhower,
since Eisenhower (or perhaps Truman) was the one who shot first.

In was the JFK braintrust, serving under JFK and LBJ
who formulated the theorectical background for the *HOT* u.s.
involvement in indochina, and who "did the work" to make it happen.

That braintrust did not serve under Eisenhower and would have
not served under Nixon.

-gjc
Newsgroups: ne.politics