JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

[Bolo Boffin]

254. Bolo Points Out That Forrestal Is Not Bundy Which Jim Appears To Be Confused About

Last edited Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Forrestal was Bundy's aide, true enough, but the quote I was trying to draw your attention to was made to him, not Bundy. I'll wait here while you verify that for the historical record.

Please let me know the name of the university at which you mentor master and doctoral candidates in history.

Now correct me if I am wrong, mentor at TBD University, but the withdrawal plan had been in place since July 1962. At that point, withdrawal was expected to be completed by July 1966. So the December 1965 date put into place was pushing up the withdrawal date long in place by six months.

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146535&relPageId=9
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146535&relPageId=17

And according to page 9 there of the November 20, 1963 Honolulu conference, the July 1962 withdrawal date was based "on the assumption that the insurgent action would be reduced, by the end of calendar year 1965, to a level which the Vietnamese themselves could control". And the "differences between the current Comprehensive Plan and the objectives arising from the McNamara-Taylor mission are not great."

Why was that? Because even on November 20, the withdrawal was victory-based, victory here being Vietnamese being able to control the region, and that process was still being seen as successful and thus accommodating of a December 1965 deadline.

I am not saying Kennedy would have escalated. I'm not saying he would not have, either. It's on the context of this conference that Kennedy said what he said to Forrestal. The December 1965 date was a modification of the July 1962 plan and operated under those assumptions. Kennedy was getting ready for a new comprehensive plan, one in which simple withdrawal would have been on the table. But so would escalation! That's what all options means.

I completely agree that Kennedy may well have gotten out of Vietnam after the election. But the final decision had not been made. Why would Kennedy be ordering a complete review if his mind was already made up? He could have just said, here is the new goal, gentlemen, go make it work.

The insertion of certainty where there can be none is a failure of your historical methods, Mr. DiEugenio, especially when put into service of the ludicrous assertion that the military then killed JFK so they could withdraw in July 1966 instead of December 1965. That was, after all, the plan, correct?