Kennedy Had No Intention of Withdrawing From Vietnam |
Posted by
Marcello
(Guest)
- Sunday, February 9 2014, 15:06:36 (UTC) from 71.107.52.17 - pool-71-107-52-17.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net Network - Windows NT - Safari Website: http://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=301k206hqtc24 Website title: Redirect |
WEEKEND EDITION FEBRUARY 7-9, 2014 Kennedy Had No Intention of Withdrawing From Vietnam JFK, RFK and Some Myths About American Foreign Policy by WILLIAM BLUM http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/07/jfk-rfk-and-some-myths-about-american-foreign-policy/ On April 30, 1964, five months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, was interviewed by John B. Martin in one of a series of oral history sessions with RFK. Part of the interview appears in the book “JFK Conservative” by Ira Stoll, published three months ago. (pages 192-3) RFK: The president … had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam. MARTIN: What was the overwhelming reason? RFK: Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall. MARTIN: What if it did? RFK: Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just as it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of those countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists. MARTIN: There was never any consideration given to pulling out? RFK: No. MARTIN: … The president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there … RFK: Yes. MARTIN: … And couldn’t lose it. RFK: Yes. These remarks are rather instructive from several points of view: 1. Robert Kennedy contradicts the many people who are convinced that, had he lived, JFK would have brought the US involvement in Vietnam to a fairly prompt end, instead of it continuing for ten more terrible years. The author, Stoll, quotes a few of these people. And these other statements are just as convincing as RFK’s statements presented here. And if that is not confusing enough, Stoll then quotes RFK himself in 1967 speaking unmistakably in support of the war. It appears that we’ll never know with any kind of certainty what would have happened if JFK had not been assassinated, but I still go by his Cold War record in concluding that US foreign policy would have continued along its imperial, anti-communist path. In Kennedy’s short time in office the United States unleashed many different types of hostility, from attempts to overthrow governments and suppress political movements to assassination attempts against leaders and actual military combat; with one or more of these occurring in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, British Guiana, Iraq, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba and Brazil. 2. “Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world.” Ah yes, a vital part of the world. Has there ever been any part of the world, or any country, that the US has intervened in that was not vital? Vital to American interests? Vital to our national security? Of great strategic importance? Here’s President Carter in his 1980 State of the Union Address: “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America”. “What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war.” – Simone Weil (1909-1943), French philosopher 3. If the US lost Vietnam “everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall.” As I once wrote: Thus it was that the worst of Washington’s fears had come to pass: All of Indochina – Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos – had fallen to the Communists. During the initial period of US involvement in Indochina in the 1950s, John Foster Dulles, Dwight Eisenhower and other American officials regularly issued doomsday pronouncements of the type known as the “Domino Theory”, warning that if Indochina should fall, other nations in Asia would topple over as well. In one instance, President Eisenhower listed no less than Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Indonesia amongst the anticipated “falling dominos”. (New York Times, April 8, 1954) Such warnings were repeated periodically over the next decade by succeeding administrations and other supporters of US policy in Indochina as a key argument in defense of such policy. The fact that these ominous predictions turned out to have no basis in reality did not deter Washington officialdom from promulgating the same dogma up until the 1990s about almost each new world “trouble-spot”, testimony to their unshakable faith in the existence and inter-workings of the International Communist Conspiracy. William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Rogue State: a guide to the World’s Only Super Power . His latest book is: America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy. He can be reached at: BBlum6@aol.com --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
Host: www.insideassyria.com Content-length: 5921 Cache-control: max-age=0 Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,image/webp,*/*;q=0.8 Origin: http://www.insideassyria.com User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1700.107 Safari/537.36 Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?.Aasy. Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.8 Cookie: *hidded* X-onecom-forwarded-ip: 71.107.52.17 X-onecom-forwarded-proto: http X-forwarded-for: 71.107.52.17 X-varnish: 809775318 Connection: close |