Isn't That *Special*! Obama DOD Revising Vietnam History.

[Smarmie Doofus]

You'd think that the post-b-boomers would at least wait til the rest of us are actually... ya' know ....*dead* before they started to do the VN revisionism thing.

On a related note... the political alignment really hasn't changed at all since 1968 . GOP cold war demagogues still aligned w. RW DEMs like LBJ and Scoop Jackson. Pushing the same, profoundly flawed world view with the ... look around you, folks... the same catastrophic war-without -end results.

Anyways................................... from today's NYT:

>>>WASHINGTON — It has been nearly half a century since a young antiwar protester named Tom Hayden traveled to Hanoi to investigate President Lyndon B. Johnson’s claims that the United States was not bombing civilians in Vietnam. Mr. Hayden saw destroyed villages and came away, he says, “pretty wounded by the pattern of deception.”

Now the Pentagon — run by a Vietnam veteran, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel — is planning a 50th anniversary commemoration of the Vietnam War. The effort, which is expected to cost taxpayers nearly $15 million by the end of this fiscal year, is intended to honor veterans and, its website says, “provide the American public with historically accurate materials” suitable for use in schools.

But the extensive website, which has been up for months, largely describes a war of valor and honor that would be unrecognizable to
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/pentagons-web-timeline-brings-back-vietnam-and-protesters-.html

[Atman]

1. "Look, Martha. Here come the bombs."

[JayhawkSD]

3. We don't talk about how many civilians are killed by drones.

That information is kept secret for "national security" reason, to keep the enemy from finding out. Think about that for a minute. Do we really think that they do not know how many of their women and children we have killed?

"Secret bombing," forsooth.

[Scuba]

2. Valor and honor were both on display during the Vietnam war.

So were mangled bodies, burned children and other atrocities found only in war. Wonder how much of that the "commemoration" will have on display.

[upaloopa]

5. As a Vietnam vet I have much trouble with the

concepts of valor and honor. To me war is mankind at its worst. Life loses most of it's value since in combat it is kill or be killed. And even more when you sacrifice little when the killing is done as was the case of the early B-52 raids in South Vietnam and Cambodia, there is no valor or honor. I think words like that are for use by those who were not in the war to somehow paint a more acceptable picture of the killing.
Deep down I hate those words.

[upaloopa]

4. I went to the historical time line

looking up the Tet Offensive since that remains a big part of my memories of my time in Vietnam. There isn't much at the website, just a ststement that it happened and some numbers of North Vietnam troops.
I can't see much to agree with or disagree with there.

[Bigmack]

6. I hope the website points out that 58,000 Americans died..

... along with a couple of million Vietnamese...

FOR NOTHING!

[UTUSN]

7. LBJ is "RW"?!1 n/t

[Octafish]

8. Stinks like the time they revised World War II atomic bombing exhibit at The Smithsonian.

Except it's worse, as Cass Sunstein and his minions are real pros. Here's a what they want to avoid mentioning at all costs:

[font size="6"][font color="red"]US Vietnam policy changed after the assassination of President Kennedy.[/font color][/font size]

JFK wanted to withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam and approved National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 263. A few days after JFK was dead, LBJ ordered the opposite -- to extend military aid to South Vietnam in NSAM 273.

In the year before JFK's assassination, the Pentagon and CIA gave LBJ, as veep, a more accurate picture of what was happening in Vietnam than they provided JFK, as president. John M. Newman, in "JFK and Vietnam,"documented all that, work originally sourced by Canadian diplomat and educator Peter Dale Scott in the later 1970s.

Why did JFK want to withdraw from Vietnam? JFK said he would not get into a land war in Southeast Asia and he certainly was not going to place US draftees in the middle of Vietnam's civil war. Note: Johnson did and he went along with the CIA/NSA lie that North Vietnam intentionally attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Vietnam Withdrawal Plans

The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled in—with spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.

The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the "what if" scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?

At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?

The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military's own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman's analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK's murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.

But declassifications since Newman's 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy's plan regardless of the war's success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that era—four Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.

CONTINUED with very important IMFO links:

http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm

New Deal economist and Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith worked to bring a back-door peace to Vietnam with Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru:

Galbraith and Vietnam

by RICHARD PARKER
The Nation, March 14, 2005 issue

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.

Early that November, just as Taylor and his team arrived back in Washington, Galbraith arrived from New Delhi for the state visit of Prime Minister Nehru. Hoping to gain a quick upper hand over Taylor and his mission, he arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. Ten days earlier, Galbraith, in one of his back-channel messages, had shared with Kennedy his growing concerns about Vietnam. From India, he'd played a role in defusing the Laos situation that spring, but over the summer, the Berlin crisis had sent a sharp chill through relations with the Soviets, with the risks of nuclear confrontation for a time all too real. About this, Galbraith now told the President:

Although at times I have been rather troubled by Berlin, I have always had the feeling that it would be worked out. I have continued to worry far, far more about South Viet Nam. This is more complex, far less controllable, far more varied in the factors involved, far more susceptible to misunderstanding. And to make matters worse, I have no real confidence in the sophistication and political judgment of our people there.

This was advice Kennedy was hearing from no one else in his Administration, but clearly welcomed.

CONTINUED...

http://www.johnkennethgalbraith.com/index.php?display=10&page=articles

I hope I'm wrong, but that's not going to get mentioned in the new, revised, official history.