Heard somewhere that JFK started to pull troops out. The first plane landed on the day he was shot. LBJ turned that plane around. Just what I've heard, sorry, no link. Tom {marinetbryant}
For the record, JFK never intended nor ever started to pull troops out of Vietnam. To the contrary, President Kennedy and SECDEF McNamara developed secret, stealth Vietnam war escalation plans directly after taking office in 1961.
The report that JFK started to pull troops out is just one of those false factoids that are part of the Myth of Kennedy’s Camelot. This myth is perpetrated by the folks who readily embrace and try to keep alive the misty Once Upon a Time Kennedy fairytale mystique of magnetically handsome King John and elegantly beautiful Queen Jacqueline reigning for that one brief, shining moment that was known as Camelot.
I have seen and experienced the other eye of the One-Eyed Jack of Camelot, as related to both Cuba and Vietnam.
ON JFK & CUBA: On April 17, 1961, I was 90 miles from Cuba and saw President Kennedy renege on his promise to provide close air support to the Cuban counter-revolutionaries on the Bay of Pigs [Bahia de Cochinos] Invasion. At the eleventh hour, King Jack turned his royal back and placed a blind eye on the Bay of Pigs counter-revolutionary exiles Invasion Force. Without the promised close air support, the Cuban counter-revolutionaries did not stand a chance of success.
Because of Kennedy’s inaction 45 years ago, Castro is still alive and in power in Cuba with all those surviving Cuban counter-revolutionaries and their families still living in South Florida rather than back in their ancestral homes in Cuba.
ON JFK’S VIETNAM LEGACY: The buck stopped with Truman in post-WWII 1940’s, and on into the transitional 1950’s. Truman’s 1953 Korean Police Action ruffled the U.S. citizenry so much, they decided they Liked IKE more, and elected IKE President.
In 1959, the good General Ike got us into advising and taking over from the Colonial French to assist in fighting the failed French Indo-China (Vietnam) Civil War. It was ole Likeable IKE who stuck our collective toe into that Communist Domino Swamp created by the Colonial French. Ike sent in a handful of U.S. advisors (mostly CIA) to advise and train the South Vietnamese Army. Ike had no desire to escalate U.S. involvement beyond advising, and assisting the democracy inclined South Vietnamese and French interests.
Just months after taking his oath of office in January 1961, JFK ordered Army Special Forces troops into South Vietnam. At the end of 1961 a Navy Helicopter Carrier with USMC aircrews and ground forces arrived in Saigon. In the spring of 1962, Kennedy ordered thousands more U.S. regular troops into Thailand and Laos.
In summer of 1963, the King of Camelot sent out a SECRET USCINC-To-ALL HANDS message trying to recruit me, and any of my adventurous shipmates, to fly helicopters in the Camelot Air Cavalry. He did this via the bureaucratic Inside-The-Beltway mechanism of an Inter-Service Transfer.
JFK’s stealth, in-house Inter-Service Transfer approach permitted him to fly-under-Congress’-radar during the pre-1964 Election Cycle. It kept him from having to go to Congress to request increases in military head-counts, extra funding and to get their permission to raise active duty troop strength ceilings. Jack’s stealthy in-house, Inter-Service Transfer approach meant no requests for increased recruiting and draft quotas during the 1964 Election Cycle. As a result, the Republicans did not have escalation of the war in Indo-China as an election issue.
This stealthy, in-house advanced Inter-Service Transfer recruitment effort resulted in the birth of U.S. Army 1st Cavalry Airmobile and other similar combat forces.
President Kennedy and SECDEF McNamara’s secret, stealth Vietnam War escalation plans were developed directly after Kennedy took office in 1961. These Kennedy-McNamara Vietnam War escalation plans were keyed to a phased escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The initial phase included moderate escalation of U.S. involvement in the years prior to the 1964 Presidential Election. Then, after the Kennedy-Johnson Administration won its second term in the 1964, the Post 1964 Election Follow-On Vietnam War Escalation Plan phase would be fully implemented to significantly accelerate U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
With JFK’s assassination in November 1963, LBJ inherited JFK’s Vietnam War Escalation ''Albatross'' consisting of JFK’s Defense and Cabinet Team and the Kennedy-McNamara Post-1964 Election, Follow-On Vietnam War Escalation Plans. To his later regret, President Lyndon Johnson decided to accept, embrace and directly implement these Follow-On Vietnam War Escalation Plans crafted by Kennedy-McNamara.
This follow-on implementation was done under LBJ in 1964 when, on August 7, 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Johnson the power to resolve the Vietnam conflict by any means necessary.
LBJ continued juggling the Kennedy Vietnam War Escalation Hot Potato he inherited, continuing on plan as he raised troop levels to the hundreds of thousands level. LBJ embracing and implementing JFK’s Vietnam War Plan is what got us so deeply immersed in the military muck and mire of the swamp of Vietnam’s civil war.
In 1968, U.S. Combat Armed Force troop strength reached ~540,000 troops in the Vietnam combat theater, with 14,000+ Americans killed in combat and 150,000 wounded during that same year.
This was not the original Likeable IKE style swamp draining military advisors solution, but rather multiple hundreds of thousands of teenager and 20-Something Camelot alligator hunters delivering multiple mega-tonnage of ordnance to the NVA-VC bullet-by-bullet, mortar-by-mortar and bomb-by-bomb. Likeable Ike’s original swamp draining advisor approach was clearly supplanted by the JFK-McNamara Get-a-Bigger-Ball-Bat, full-scale war escalation plans that LBJ followed by chapter and verse.
The failed results from the Kennedy-McNamara Vietnam War Plan Legacy, that LBJ inherited and Johnson-McNamara implemented, caused the incumbent Johnson to sit out Election 1968. Johnson’s decision not to run set up Nixon’s election win over Vice President Humphrey. Nixon was not able to beat Kennedy in 1960, but the legacy of the King of Camelot’s own Vietnam War Plans led to Johnson bowing out and Nixon winning both the 1968 and 1972 Elections.
On January 23, 1973, three days after his second inauguration, Nixon went forward initialing-signing the Paris Peace Accords ending American combat in Vietnam. The U.S. military draft ended four days later with a cease-fire going into effect the day after that, on January 28. Five months later, on July 1, 1973, Nixon signed the legislation that gave birth to the non-egalitarian U.S. All-Volunteer Military (AVM) we use to fight our wars with today.
John Kennedy and his war plan legacy escalated our involvement in Vietnam from Eisenhower’s few CIA military and political advisors in 1960, to multiple hundreds of thousands of Regular Combat Armed Forces in the field seven years later.
The 15+ year military action was finally and formally brought to a dishonorable rather than an honorable end under President Ford, twelve years after Kennedy’s death. This event occurred on April 29, 1975, at the precise moment the wheels of U.S. Ambassador Martin’s helicopter lifted off the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. The very next day Saigon fell to the Communist and became Ho Chi Minh City.
While I recognize that the flesh & blood Jack Kennedy only spent 34 months as USCINC, JFK’s spectre and his Team Camelot Departments of Defense and State under McNamara and Rusk carried forth the JFK Vietnam War Plans and Legacy into and through the Johnson Administration. LBJ’s Secretaries of Defense and State, McNamara and Rusk, were Kennedy’s “Camelot” Cabinet Faithful. They continued serving their King of Camelot in those Cabinet-level roles throughout the Johnson Administration until the Kennedy-Johnson-McNamara-Rusk Administration finally ended in 1968.
The macho, war plans of the Kennedy-Johnson-McNamara-Rusk Team caused us to wade derrière deep into the black-water communist domino swamp for the seven years of 1961-1968. The Nixon-Ford-Kissinger Cut & Run, Desert & Depart Defense Policy back-pedaled us out in a bit more then seven more years.
My personal Bushido Code causes me to become sickened each time I view the History Channel or other historic news footage showing the teaming, scurrying and terror-stricken South Vietnamese and Cambodian masses of civilian families Nixon, Congress and the majority Citizen Herd left flapping in the breeze during 1973-1975.
To me there is no national or personal honor in cutting, running and abandoning defenseless civilians and comrades-in-arms to NVA-VC alligators as we did in Vietnam. JP ![]()
Thanks. That's why I don't believe everything I hear or see.
Tom
... to have lived through all of those administrations (and even earlier ones) are aware of the history.
There also have been several excellent books written about it. (One of my favorites... ''Our own Worse Enemy''.)
By thinking hard, we can also recall some of the good things done by each of them, and I don't think any of them merit the distain you express.
I am very aware of the impact the Vietnam era had on this country, especially on attitudes toward our government.
A correction. The voters did not choose Ike over Truman. Truman became President upon the death of FDR, finished that term, then ran for the next term, against Thomas E.Dewey. Ike's opponent was Adlai Stevenson.
There are a couple of other iffy ones, but I realize that can happen when comments are marked by emotion.
Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com
amendment was put in place because of concerns of a future FDR becoming a dictator. Truman was grandfathered out from under it, but chose to consider his first full term as his second, and 'bow to the popular will.' Not many like him anymore.
Hello Angeline,
I also qualify as Those of us old enough... and am aware of the Adlai Stevenson versus Dwight D. Eisenhower presidential races. I am particularly aware and familiar with “The Man From Libertyville,” Adlai Stevenson, because I was raised in the Libertyville, IL area. Ike vs Adlai was a regular topic of discussion at our dinner table during the 1952 and 1954 election cycles. To the residents of Lake County, Illinois, Adlai was a Hometown Boy. My mother, a Democrat, was a supporter of and voted for, Illinois’ favorite son, Stevenson “The Man From Libertyville”.
I am aware that Truman announced he would not run in 1952 because he believed he had technically served two terms, as specified by the 22nd Amendment. He also was having popularity problems stemming from the Korean “Police Action.” Truman supported the Democrats picking Adlai Stevenson as their nominee in for 1952 and 1954, and believed the intellectual Stevenson could beat military man, GEN Eisenhower.
I can see where my sentence ….Truman’s 1953 Korean Police Action ruffled the U.S. citizenry so much, they decided they Liked IKE more, and elected IKE President. could have been interpreted as implying that Truman ran against Eisenhower. My editing to try to keep the length of my original post down caught me on that sentence. My intended meaning was that voters were so unhappy with Truman’s (the Democratic Administration’s) handling of the Korean War that they elected Eisenhower (a Republican Administration). The next time I write about that particular point I will be assure it will not be easily misconstrued. Thanks for the input.
By thinking hard, we can also recall some of the good things done by each of them, and I don’t think any of them merit the distain you express. – Angeline Booher CNET SE 06/22/2006
I think using the word disdain to characterize the opinion I expressed about the merits of the five U.S. Presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon is a bit strong, and off-the-mark. But since it is your opinion honestly expressed, I will respect it even if I do not agree with it.
For your information, I am a big fan of Harry Truman. I think and thought he was a fine president. Though he was a good president, he surely was a Missouri and Midwestern politician. In my opinion, Truman is the only plain talking, common sense man we have had as a president during my lifetime. In essence, he got into office around the system of the King Maker political machine that has operated in U.S. politics to pick and install presidents since I have been on the planet.
I am neutral on Eisenhower. Ike was an O.K. president who pursued moderate domestic and international policies, did no substantive harm and a little good, and left office with a minimal “body count” of G.I.s and civilians. Ike’s military and civilian “body count” pales against the numbers racked up by presidents Truman (WWII & Korea), Kennedy (Cuba & Vietnam), Johnson (Vietnam) and Nixon (Vietnam).
Since my SE Forum post was in response to a statement by Tom Bryant on Kennedy, its main focus was on John F. Kennedy’s Camelot and the Kennedy-Johnson Administration’s handling of the Vietnam War. Therefore, I assume the thrust of your comment was on my reporting of and comments about JFK’s Legacy.
I know you are one of the FDR faithful, and sense that you also are one of the Kennedy true-believers. I understand how my critical view of Kennedy-Johnson Administration legacy, from Cuba into Vietnam, might cause you to go, ”Ouchy, Ouch!!!”
My view of John Kennedy is much like all the five presidents I discussed, except Truman and possibly Johnson, as Johnson also “inherited” the presidency along with JFK’s DoD and DoS Cabinet Team and Vietnam War Strategy & Plans.
Where JFK was a Political Machine selected presidential candidate, as were Eisenhower and Nixon; neither Truman nor Johnson would ever have been selected as Democratic Party Presidential Candidates. Truman (Missouri-Midwest) and Johnson (Texas-Heartland) were picked as V.P. candidates to gain strategic electoral votes. It was Destiny who selected and installed them as U.S. President, not U.S. Voters.
I believe I shared a bit about Kennedy’s winning Chicago and the State of Illinois’ electoral votes in 1960, sometime earlier in the SE Forum.
I was born in the same Chicago neighborhood that Chicago’s Mayor Richard J. Daley was born in. Daley went on to work for his Bridgeport neighborhood from out of the local Bridgeport Alderman’s office, and then went on as their “Republican” Representive before becoming the Democrat Mayor of Chicago. Most all of my uncles, aunts and cousins worked in and voted in Chicago’s Cook County during that 1940s-thru-1960s time-period. Many of them had lifelong patronage city jobs tied to Chicago’s Democratic Machine, as doled out by Richard J. Daley.
In the 1960 Presidential Election, Kennedy was able to win Chicago and Illinois over Nixon, because “Big Boss” Mayor Richard J. Daley’s Democratic Machine delivered Chicago and the state’s electoral votes to Kennedy. I am sure that even my dearly departed grandparents, who passed away in the 1940s, voted for John Kennedy in the November 1960 election.
I have observed JFK from a distance of two paces away. From what I know of Kennedy, he was a personable and charming kind of fellow whom would likely have been nice to chat with beachside on the Cape over a few rounds of drinks. Of course, you would have to be prepared to pick up the tab because he was known to regularly [i[ “not have any cash on him.” When I saw him in-the-flesh, JFK appeared to be neither royal nor charismatic. He displayed neither a halo nor did he radiate an aura. The fellow I saw was a Boston, Irish-American man dressed in an expensive hand-tailored business suit.
My personal remembrances about Cuba and Indo-China [Vietnam] of the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, and the associated legacy of President Kennedy and the Kennedy-Johnson Administration, are drawn from my personal mémoire. They are largely supported by independently correlated historical facts.
As I have written elsewhere, my brief shining Camelot Odyssey may not marry up with the commonly accepted, generously heroic, royal and gentlemanly portrayal of Jack and Jackie’s Camelot.
I can only attest that it did happen to me as I reported it. It is this sailor-technologist’s view of JFK’s Camelot and Cuba-Vietnam Legacy as I lived, experienced and remember the events; during that one brief, shining moment when I got a peek at the Other Eye of the One-Eyed Jack of Camelot.
Again, if you view the reporting of my life and times under President Kennedy and the Kennedy-Johnson, and the Nixon-Ford Administrations, as being disdainful, I take it as an honest expression of how you feel.
As always, I respect the southern civility you used in sharing your opinions about my post to the SE Forum. JP ![]()
The invasion of Cuba was a plan inherited from the CIA under the Eisenhower administration, just look at the dates. You don't work up an invasion plan in 4 months or less. The committment for air support was not Kennedy's but the CIA's under Eisenhower/Nixon and particularly Allen Dulles. This has been discussed in extensis in several scholarly books. The commitment of the Anti-Castro invaders was a certain level or success on the ground which they failed entirely to pull off, they never got off the beach. It is a military axiom that you don't reinforce failure, that way lies the meat grinder. Kennedy agonized for a couple of hours knowing he was going to wear the failure for the rest of his term or terms, and that it would affect relations with Russia, and other countries especially in the Caribbean. He decided to let the attempt die on the vine rather than risk global escalation. You may think him wrong, others not nearly so liberal as I (such as Henry Kissinger) thought it was the right thing to do.
Kennedy never pulled troops out of Viet Nam, but there was a great deal of talk over how large the participation should be. There were a number of meetings during his last week and most who were there say he tended to limit involvement (not decrease it, but not increase it either unless there was a very compelling reason to. I have never heard that Kennedy pulled troops out of Viet Nam, in all my 40 years of reading about thisl. This sounds like an Anti-Kennedy smear from some source or other. There was no newspaper report of pull outs at the time (I was in my late teens, just turned 17 and a rabid reader and studier of foreign affairs and what would become history) I have very clear memories of what I read during that period. As you have very correctly pointed out it was Eisenhower who wished (pushed very hard by Allen Nulles) to replace the French. Kennedy continued the "Military Advisor's" role but he too looked uncomfortable and unlikely to increase the US presence. The Domino Theory was more of a political talking point than an actual product of the State Department or the CIA. I remember it as a favorite of hard right Republicans and Birchers rather than a serious fear. As things played out North Viet Nam took first Laos then South Viet Nam, and finally took Cambodia away from the horrific home-grown Communist regime there the Khmer Rouge. There was no extension past the borders of the old French Indo China, no threat to New Guinea thePhilipines or Australia which was the core hysteria of the Domino Theory.
The Brits defeated the Malayan Communists who were unrelated to and uncoordinated with North Viet Nam and Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh was a communist nationalist and anti-colonialist, with the accent on anti=colonialism. He was not the ideologue that many other Communists were. He was more an Indo China for the Indo Chinese person.
I think your Anti-Kennedy agenda/bias is leading you down the wrong path. Thereis little to indicate a large change from Eisenhower's cautious policy until after Kennedy's death when Rusk McNamara and Co thought they could repeat the British victory over the Communists.
A question on my son's History exam this year you may be interested to know was to compare and contrast the Korean versus the Viet Nam Wars. And that's a Canadian High School History exam.
I would respectfully suggest that you substitute Johnson and Nixon as the Presidents who pushed the Viet Nam war since all the escalation and expansion occurred under Johnson's and Nixon's watch. Also, no mention of Henry the K, Nobel Travesty Winner and the true author of the withdrawal.
I admit to not liking Nixon and Kissinger either personally or politically but even as a person of the left I was sickened by the dishonorable course he worked out and his talking about Peace with Honor, rather than as "Cutting and Running" as you have accurately pointed out.
We have a number of disagreements about details, but in my assessment we come to roughly the same point, shich was that the war was poorly conceived, badly carried forward with too much political interference, and that the conclusion was a travesty concocted tomake Kissinger and Nixon look halfway good.
I don't know if you agree with me that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. I saw it as an internal civil war that we shouldn't have been involved in. But I certainly won't mind if you disagree.
Rob
didn't US involvement start here?
further info/insight (extremely well written)here
i can still feel the horror that an 8 year old feels when i read reports from that era....
.
WOW !! You are partly correct. it wasn't 4 months, it was closer to one month. The original planned called for the landing at Trinidad and JFK changed it.
" Richard Bissell (CIA)states, “It is hard to believe in retrospect that the president and his advisers felt the plans for a large-scale, complicated military operation that had been ongoing for more than a year could be reworked in four days and still offer a high likelihood of success. It is equally amazing that we in the agency agreed so readily.”
JFK started changes in the plan around March 11
works for more than a year under Eisenhower and Allen Dulles, and that Kennedy did not like those plans and attempted to diminish the dependence on full US backing and US Military involvementthe in what was supposed to be an Anti-Castro Cuban operation. It is certainly understandable that Kennedy may not have wanted to carry out an Eisenhower/Dulles plan if he didn't believe in it. Please check the index of Foreign Affairs Quarterly where there is an extensive article around 1978 or so about the differences in the views of the two regimes, and the differences in the planned involvement of the US Military. The Eisenhower/Dulles scheme was predominantly a US invasion spearheaded by ex-Battista adherents. It assumed enormous popular support in Cuba based on hope not evidence. The Kennedy/Rusk/McGeorge Bundy discussions and assessment did not believe the former Battista loyalists reports of popular support and the plan was reworked to remove US Military support. As it happened the Battista loyalists were met by Cuban militia more or less on the beaches, there was so much popular opposition to the invasion that nothing the US could have done short of a full scale Air Attack followed by US military landings would have worked, and then you would have had a rebellious colony on your hands.
You need to do some serious reading here. Dick Bissel is a good indication of the standard CIA view on many things but he does not accurately represent either the situation as it existed in Cuba or as it existed in the Kennedy administration. He was part of the original plan under Eisenhower and Dulles and represents Allen Dulles' views very well. Whether his views were congruent to the situation on the ground in Cuba or wheter the plan he enunciates was sustainable are both generaly considered untrue.
Again, there are good sources in the specialist magazines Commentary, Foreign Affairs Quarterly et al. and in a number of more scholarly books that canvass a range of opinion. I would not base any conclusions in 2006 on Richard Bissel's memories alone, you need more than one person as a source.
And just remember what happened a year and a half later, when Kennedy successfully faced down both the Cubans and the Soviet Union without losing more than a couple of recconnaissance pilots, not hundreds or thousands of soldiers in an invasion. The US was able to achieve and maintain the moral high ground based on Kennedy and Stevenson's actions and words through that period. It was not they who threatened the status quo or looked like agressors but the Soviets and the Cubans.
I keep talking here at SE of the US achieving a sort of moral high ground in its foreign policy. No Administration seems to have attempted to achieve that since the quagmire of Viet Nam, in other words the Johnson Administration.
Same thing is true in my opinion about Israel. Israel maintained a moral ascendancy through the Golda Meir era but seemed to lose it with the strengthening of Likud and other conservative parties. Now Israel seems caught in a permanent *** for tat conflict with the Palestinians which will only end if one side or the other can bring themselves to stop. I have more faith in the Israelis than in Hamas, but this means that Israel will have to take casualties without responding, and then making its ultimate response look better than the current shelling versus missile attacks. They need something like the Entebbe raid to decapitate Hamas and put them on trial, rather than looking like one of 2 four year olds in a sandbox throwing sand at each other and screaming.
Rob
What a laughable idea that Kennedey changed the plan because he didn't believe in it . Why do it at all then? YOU need to do some reading
contingencies with the hope they will never be executed. It's a wise leader who is prepared in the best way for what might happen and not be blindsided. Preparing for confrontation openly is also a good propaganda tool. We will never know how many military events were avoided by using such. The continuous training exercises of the military during peace time are not just for preparedness but often developed around real or perceived future threats. Contingencies......
the commitment for air support was CUT BY KENNEDY
just subsitute Bush for Kennedy
Rob,
The body of your post was a good read, but its contents do not seem to marry up with and support your claim of Some errors and sloppiness. I can see where we may have differing views on the subject, but that difference is neither “erroneous” nor “sloppy.”
From what I know about your life experiences from my visits to the SE Forum and interacting with you here over the years, you never served in the military nor worked in the federal government. I have served in the U.S. Military, both inside and out “The Beltway.” I also have worked within the government as an employee, and as a contractor and consultant to various U.S. Federal government agencies and organizations. So let me try to give you a top-level, thumbnail tutorial on how the bureaucracy of the U.S. Military and Federal Government works, and has been working in the recent modern era, as regards plans and planning. This government operations thumbnail is based on my personal experience and knowledge of U.S. government plans, programs and procurement operations and practices.
First, a bit in the way of foundation. The U.S. government bureaucracy, as I know it, consists of two basic parts. Its overall operating bureaucracy and organization might be modeled as two concentric spheres. Much like the relationship of the earth’s crust to its massive subterranean core. The inside or core of the sphere is the permanent Government Civil Service and its surrogate worker “Beltway Bandit Drones.”.
This large, inner core of government is essentially permanent, and largely independent of any changes in the individuals who happen to be in top-level government leadership at any particular time. This core, and its bureaucratic processes, keep the government operations going and entitlements flowing no matter which politician is in office or which political party purports to be running the government. The thin outside layer of the spherical model represents these politicians and political appointees who come and go into and out of the government like migratory carrion eaters.
One group of politicos roosts for two, four, six or eight years to eat their fill at the government trough, then they are displaced as a new flock arrives for the next cycle of fiscal feasting. The proportions between the “migratory” politicians and political appointee shell, and the “job-for-life” civil servants and pseudo-civil servant government contractor core, are like the proportional relationship between the tip of an iceberg, and all the rest of it that floats beneath the ocean surface.
The tip of the iceberg is the politicians, with the invisible rest of it being the permanent government bureaucracy that actually runs the government.
The various acronyms that describe the various planning and programming elements regularly change on the whims of the “new leadership” that arrives to prove they are “reforming and reorganizing” the government to “improve efficiency and save taxpayer money.”
At the simplest level, the government planning works on a Five Year Plan and Ten Year Plan basis. These plans are revised annually. Therefore, you are correct that Kennedy “inherited” the Eisenhower Administration’s Defense Plan in 1961 when he came into office just four months before his Bay of Pigs Fiasco. In fact, JFK “inherited” Ike's Five Year and a Ten Year Plans. In a like manner, the incoming Bush II Administration “inherited” the Clinton Administration’s Anti-Terrorist Plan when Bush became President in 2001, just eight months before 20010911.
Every incoming president “inherits” the Defense and Contingency Plans of every outgoing president. This is a given.
The committment for air support was not Kennedy’s but the CIA’s under Eisenhower/Nixon and particularly Allen Dulles. This has been discussed in extensis in several scholarly books. The commitment of the Anti-Castro invaders was a certain level or success on the ground which they failed entirely to pull off, they never got off the beach. –Rob {Ziks511}
After being sworn in as President in 1961, John Kennedy signed up to and committed to the Anti-Castro counter-revolutionaries, that you call “Invaders,” that the U.S. would provide close air support for the invasion, and gave them the go ahead for the invasion. Then, just few months later, he withdrew the promised support and hung them out to dry.
The evening of April 16, 1961, I was “saddled up” on the alert at the ready on the ramp at Boca Chica Field. I saw President Kennedy, not Eisenhower, break his 1961 post-inaugural promise that the U.S. would support invasion of the Bay of Pigs by the Anti-Castro counter-revolutionaries.
I know JFK turned his back on the Anti-Castro counter-revolutionaries at the eleventh hour, on the evening of April 16, 1961, because I was ringside. On that fateful eve of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Naval Air Station was locked-down. All aircraft, including a couple squadrons of AD Skyraiders, were “loaded for bear” with bullets, bombs, rockets and aircrews sitting in their cockpits ready for launch. The Key West chain of islands and other U.S. locations also had ground, maritime and air forces waiting at the ready to go in to provide invasion support.
At the last minute, and we all were mysteriously told to stand down. USCINC JFK had cancelled the critical Close Air Support Mission and the rest of the support needed to support the Cuban exile invasion forces. We all were kept in the dark regarding exactly what had happened. We finally learned what actually had happened from reading about the Bay of Pigs Fiasco in the headlines of the Miami-Herald the next day.
As I said previously, Kennedy’s inaction 45 years ago, contributed to Castro still being alive and in power in Cuba, and to all those Cuban Anti-Castro counter-revolutionaries and their families having to live in South Florida rather than back in their ancestral homes in Cuba.
I have also talked to Anti-Castro counter-revolutionary veterans who managed to survive the Bay of Pigs Invasion as well as evade capture by Castro’s Forces that April of 1961. Their eye witness accounts of the Invasion speak factual volumes about what did or did not happen during 17-19 April 1961. Their version of the Bay of Pigs obviously did not appear in the “several scholarly books” you cite in support of your position.
I have talked to no Anti-Castro counter-revolutionary veteran who thinks John Kennedy “agonized” in his decision to withdraw support from them. None of them think Kennedy was a prince of a man, or “American Royalty.”
If Kennedy feared failure and the effect it would have on his legacy so much, he should not have rescinded the original Close Air Support plan that would have helped assure the Bay of Pigs Invasion would have been a success.
The facts of the Cuban Crisis that followed in 1962, show how relations with Russia were affected. Kennedy’s inaction and last minute withdrawal of support from the Bay of Pigs Invasion did nothing to cut the risk of global escalation. Rather it looks to have emboldened the Soviets and Khrushchev into viewing Kennedy as an indecisive and weak commander-in-chief. Castro’s success, and 47 continuous years in power, are also evidence of whether Kennedy’s decision regarding the Bay of Pigs was wrong or right, not what I happen opine here.
You be the judge. The Bay of Pigs Fiasco followed by nuclear brinksmanship which ended up with the Soviets agreeing to remove their missiles from Cuba, only if the U.S. agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey.
Trotting out Henry Kissinger, the architect of Nixon’s Cut & Run, Desert & Depart Defense Policy that back-pedaled us out of Vietnam crayfish style, as an expert on what “was the right thing to do” does nothing to sway me toward your position. In my experience, diplomatic and defense “experts” like Kissinger & Schlesinger [McNamara & Rusk...Albright & Cohen...Rumsfeld & Rice] are usually part of the problem, not the solution.
In the interest of posting response brevity, and the fact that my Bride-For-Life is beckoning me to attend to her, I will leave further whipping of the Vietnam water buffalo for another time.
Have a great weekend. JP ![]()
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |