Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
23. If you want to attack LBJ on Vietnam, get your facts straight.
Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:25 PM
Jan 2012

Once it was decided to remove Diem from the office of the President of South Vietnam, the US was going into Vietnam with troops (Technically JFK never approved of killing Diem, but it was clear JFK knew that was possible and accepted that possibility). Even Ho Chin Minh saw that the US was going into Vietnam once Diem was killed (and Ho Chin Minh was the the President of NORTH Vietnam). The reason was quite simple, Diem was the only real political opposition to the Communists with any support among the peasants and working class people of South Vietnam. Without the support at least PARTS of those two groups, the Army of South Vietnam could NOT stop the Communists.

The US problem with Diem is his efforts to keep at least part of the peasantry and working class on his side, meant he had massive opposition from the money elites of South Vietnam who controlled most of the land which the peasants worked on. The money elites also owned most of the businesses in what was still an basically agricultural society.

In many ways the Viet Cong fight against the Government of South Vietnam was less a Marxist revolution then a traditional Asiatic Peasant revolt but this time lead by people who called themselves Communists. The fight for the support of the peasantry was more important then the actual fighting occurring, most of the fighting being the South Vietnamese moves to retake areas controlled by the Viet Cong, so that the South Vietnamese elite could collect their rents from the peasants (Who preferred to pay the much lower "Taxes" demanded by the Viet Cong). This continued after the US intervention, US Troops would go in, clear an area of the Viet Cong, and then the South Vietnamese Army would follow so that the Money Elites in Saigon could use the South Vietnamese troops to collect the rent NOT paid while the Viet Cong Controlled the area,

I give this background for Diem saw this as a problem and was addressing it, but in a way to make sure he received the support of the peasants for the change. Diem also knew (He was a Politician) that if he left US troops in, whatever he gave the peasants would be viewed as Diem's attempt to stop them from supporting the Viet Cong NOT as a grant of land to them from Diem. Thus Diem OPPOSED US Intervention, even as the Viet Cong was taking over more and more of South Vietnam. Diem knew that such gains were NOT important in the political game he was playing with the North, nor would re-taking such land help his long term efforts to hold onto South Vietnam.

On the other hand the ruling elites disliked the lost of income do to the increase in territories controlled by the Viet Cong. They wanted US intervention so they could retake those areas and get the money from the peasants working those fields. The US just saw the lost of control over huge sections of South Vietnam and wanted to intervene to prevent another Cuba (This is how Castro took over Cuba, sections by section of the Island of Cuba, but the real effort was to get the support of the peasants and working class people of Cuba, the taking over of sections of the Island was just a way to show the peasants and working class people that Castro was a SERIOUS threat to the controlling elite of Cuba).

Mao had done the same in China, i.e. take over sections of the Country to show he was a serious contender to rule the entire country. Mao imposed his plans for the entire country, more to show the peasants of China he was serious not just saying he supports what the peasants wanted. Survival and control over sections of the Country was just to show other CHinese Mao and his Communists were for what was best for the peasants and thus the peasants should support them.

Yes, if you understand Marxist revolutionary theory, the takeover of Cuba, China and later South Vietnam, were NOT Marxist communist revolts but traditional Asiatic peasants revolts. The problem was JFK and the CIA saw it as a Communist take over and demanded that any such revolt be smashed. JFK first choice was to use whatever local troops he could use, including any South Vietnamese force. That seems to have been JFK's position. Diem
s opposition to such intervention was the cause of Diem removal (and his assassination). LBJ seems to have been the only official in JFK's cabinet to understand what was happening in Vietnam and thus OPPOSED the coup that overthrew Diem. LBJ had been imposed on JFK as his VP in the 1960 convention and thus was the only non-JFK man in the administration but his advice was ignored.

Diem was removed form office days before JFK's own assassination, thus LBJ was left with the result of JFK's decision. The problem was as soon as LBJ was in charge, the situation in Vietnam started to go downhill. The Buddhist stopped their opposition (The Buddhists had been the excuse for the coup NOT the cause of the Coup, most were tied in with the land owning elite of South Vietnam) but the peasants working the land came out more and more for the Viet Cong. The Military situation deteriorated all during 1964, by 1965 it was clear, the US had to send in troops to stop the surge of the Viet Cong OR see the whole country under Viet Cong Control within two years.

Thus the worse case scenario that JFK had dismissed in 1963 was coming to pass AND when polls of Americans were taken, they supported sending in troops (The majority of Americans would support the War in Vietnam till the summer of 1968).

Thus in 1964 LBJ was caught between two hard points, he could NOT afford for South Vietnam to fall to the Communists, but the war in Vietnam had already been lost with the death of Diem. If LBJ left South Vietnam fall, the GOP would be all over him and the Democratic party for leaving another country fall to the Communists (It is forgotten now, but the GOP mantra of the 1950s was "Who lost China" pointing out the Democrats were in the White House when the Communists took over China, it was a constant attack on the Democrats as being in league with the Communists for the Communists to take over the US).

Thus LBJ looked at Vietnam as his albatross, he could NOT stay out, but it was sure to defeat him. All LBJ could do is delay the fall, hopefully till such time as the America People accept that Vietnam was lost after the Democrats had done everything possible to save Vietnam from the Communists. Thus the US pour money and troops into Vietnam because the American people not only support the war but demanded it, for the US was committed to stopping communism everywhere (going back to JFK's Speech on the subject). If Vietnam fell on his watch, the Democrats would take the blame. LBJ did try to work out a compromise, but Nixon in 1968 sent a letter to the then President of South Vietnam NOT to agree to anything, for if Nixon won the election, Nixon would give him better terms. Thus the negotiations stalled on ending the war in Vietnam (Nixon actually agreed to the same terms the North Vietnamese Government offered in 1968 in 1972, after Nixon finally forced the South Vietnamese Government to agree to those same terms).

Just pointing out, LBJ did all he could to make sure the Democrats did NOT get full blame for Vietnam. You may dislike how LBJ did it and disagree with him for doing so, but it kept the FDR Democratic Coalition together till Reagan (Humphrey would win Texas in 1968, the last time Texas went Democratic except for Carter in 1976). Diem's assassination approved by JFK had forced whoever was in power in 1965 to send in US Troops, be it LBJ, Goldwater or even JFK himself. Just pointing out the US was going into Vietnam as soon as JFK approved of the removal of Diem.

Articles like this are just poking them with a stick jberryhill Jan 2012 #1
I'm really enjoying George Will being upset about this ... after all, he helped cause it. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #2
Yup. City Lights Jan 2012 #3
I don't eat popcorn but Responder3 Jan 2012 #43
Well said, JoePhilly. russspeakeasy Jan 2012 #4
exactly riverwalker Jan 2012 #5
Brilliant analysis of the Newt's appeal... Surya Gayatri Jan 2012 #13
They created a monster, and it's fun to watch. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #42
Getting someone like the opponent to Goldwater would be a good thing? AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #6
Obama *is* the Democratic candidate, regardless of whom the Republicans nominate. tblue37 Jan 2012 #9
If you want a liberal candidate, you do not keep the candidate from knowing such views. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #10
If you want to attack LBJ on Vietnam, get your facts straight. happyslug Jan 2012 #23
If LBJ would have stuck with Civil Rights and not reversed NSAM 263 w NSAM 273, no lengthy defense AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #24
No way he would have forced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 or the voting act of 1965 happyslug Jan 2012 #33
Believe what you want. It's not convincing. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #37
the SCOTUS argument is specious Doctor_J Jan 2012 #18
You're right, the SCOTUS argument is specious. But if history is a guide, Reid will simply say that AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #27
Obama got Sotomayor and Kagan confirmed. nt tblue37 Jan 2012 #39
You are pulling the string too hard. The comparison is as follows: Goldwater=Batshit Crazy. MADem Jan 2012 #11
No. Obama WILL BE chosen. Obama WILL WIN the general election. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #12
Six of one, half dozen of the other. He's the guy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deep in fantasy MADem Jan 2012 #14
The "mushy middle" is a term of disparagement and contempt, not endearment or respect. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #17
The "mushy middle" wants Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and probably single payer health care Doctor_J Jan 2012 #19
We can agree without thinking of the middle as the "mushy middle." AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #22
No it isn't. It's reality. There is a big mushy mess of people in the middle. They are not like MADem Jan 2012 #26
There's a good reason why you never suggested that Obama used the term "mushy middle." AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #28
Excuse me but YOU were the one who said that he never used the term "in public." MADem Jan 2012 #34
Nonsense. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #38
He had a Dem congress his first two years Doctor_J Jan 2012 #21
People like you will make SURE he doesn't have a greater majority. MADem Jan 2012 #25
ah, yes, the familiar lament from the right - "Don't tell me the truth - it's too depressing" Doctor_J Jan 2012 #29
You are entitled to your flawed opinion. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true than it was MADem Jan 2012 #30
So you are admitting that he won't have bigger majorities than he did the first time Doctor_J Jan 2012 #31
I am not "admitting" anything. And you have a bad tendency to go on with the MADem Jan 2012 #32
Absolutely right. Well said. AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #36
I don't remember a Kornacki landslide back then. Kablooie Jan 2012 #7
K & R !!! WillyT Jan 2012 #8
Gingrich, the perfect first abuser of Evidence-Free Indefinite Detention of US Citizens. blkmusclmachine Jan 2012 #15
One thing to never forget DonCoquixote Jan 2012 #16
We've been reading about the Repuke suicide for at least 15 years Doctor_J Jan 2012 #20
You have to wonder what moderate Republicans are going to do if the right wing continues neverforget Jan 2012 #35
Join them on the fringe - Exhibit A Doctor_J Jan 2012 #40
This batch of crazies would call Goldwater an evil socialist, today. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #41
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Salon: When a party flir...»Reply #23