Document
28b. Memorandum From Senator Mike Mansfield to President Johnson
(1)
Washington,
June 9, 1965.
SUBJECT
Viet Name
Pursuant
to our telephone conversation last night,(2)
here are some additional thoughts.
The
formal delegation of authority to Restore to commit American combat
troops comes at a time when the last semblance of constituted
government (the Quart group) in Saigon is disappearing. As I understand
it, Restore will respond to requests from the Vietnamese military
not the Vietnamese government. This underscores the fact that
there is not a government to speak of in Saigon. In short we are
now at the point where we are no longer dealing with anyone who
represents anybody in a political sense. We are simply acting
to prevent a collapse of the Vietnamese military forces which
we pay for and supply in any event and who presumably are going
in the same direction we are going. That reality is not going
to be lost on any government--friend or foe--anywhere in the world.
It
raises again the question, and it is a crucial one: In what direction
are we going in Viet Name? We can talk of negotiations, conferences
and peace. We can talk of the independence and welfare of the
people of South Viet Name We can talk of unconditional discussions.
But the question is going to be asked increasingly: What do we
mean when we say we are going to stay in South Viet Name and for
what specific United States or Vietnamese ends are we going to
stay there? The question will be asked increasingly at home no
less than abroad.
And
it is the crucial question because the answer to it should control
the extent and nature of our military involvement in Viet Name
As I see it, at this point, we can mean one of three things when
we say we are going to stay in South Viet Name I am no military
expert but, on the basis of our past experience elsewhere and
developments in Viet Name since the first of the year, it seems
to me that the military costs of each of these three alternatives
would look something like this:
1.
Do we mean that we are going to stay in Viet Name until we or
our Vietnamese military allies prevail everywhere south of the
17th parallel down to the smallest hamlet? If that is what we
mean, we are talking in terms of years or decades, and upwards
of a million American soldiers on the ground in South Viet Name,
assuming that the Chinese do not become involved with men.
2.
Or are we talking about holding the military situation about where
it is now? So far as I can judge, from second hand reports, this
would mean that our side must retain the provincial capitals,
the larger towns in the interior, Saigon, and the coastal cities
and we must be able to maintain at least tenuous lines of communication
on the ground in between. If that is what we are talking about
when we say we are going to stay in Viet Name, then the 300,000
Manama estimate is probably too low but something in the range
of 500,000 might do it, at least if Gap's army does not move in
full and open force across the 17th parallel.
3.
Or are we talking about staying in Viet Name in order to hold
a bargaining position for negotiations which might be expected
to permit some reasonable choice--self-determination--on the part
of the South Vietnamese people as to their political future, some
protection for Vietnamese who have been on our side and some prospect
of a bona fide peace based on eventual withdrawal of all foreign
forces. If that is what we are talking about, then it would appear
to me that instead of committing United States combat forces to
the difficult-to-defend Vietnamese outpost cities and towns scattered
in the interior, we ought to be drawing the Vietnamese garrisons
in those towns into the coastal bases and into Saigon where they
would add to our strength, rather than the reverse. And at the
same time, we should stop waiting for signals but rather launch
a powerful diplomatic peace-offensive to try to get to a conference
table. Unless the situation is already totally hopeless, this
kind of holding of South Viet Name may be feasible--at least for
a year or so with something on the order of 100,000 or less United
States combat forces on the ground backed by powerful naval and
air units.
Moreover,
if a sustained peace offensive, simultaneously, succeeds in bringing
about a conference during the next six months, new elements will
inevitably be introduced into the situation and it is conceivable
that they could begin to point the way to a resolution of the
problem.
The
absence of a decision as to which of the above approaches really
serves our national interests, seems to me to be the crux of the
difficulty which has confronted us all along. I think you know
my personal view as to which course is preferable in the national
interest. But as things are now going, it is apparent that you
are being advised to continue to take at least the second course.
The rate of commitment is accelerating and it is quite likely
that it will lead rapidly to pressure to follow the first course,
if not to go beyond it to all-out war with China. That may not
be the way it looks now but a course once set in motion, as you
know, often develops its own momentum and rationale whatever the
initial intentions.
As
for the question of Taylor's replacement, as I told you, Lodge's
name may set off an immediate and hostile debate of the whole
situation in the Senate. You have got U. Alexis Johnson out there
already. He has played a major role and has had a major responsibility
in this situation for years. It would seem to me that if we are
going to continue on the course of getting in deeper he is the
logical man to continue with it.
With
respect to another Congressional resolution on the situation,
I cannot see the value of it at this point whether it originates
here or with you. The Senate cannot direct you in the conduct
of foreign relations even if it wanted to and I think you know
that there is no substantial group in the Senate which is going
to take the initiative in urging you to put more American ground
forces into South Viet Name I think you know too, that what has
been done to date in the way of resolutions, however one-sided
the votes, has been done with grave doubts and much trepidation
on the part of many Senators. It has been done largely on faith,
out of loyalty to you and on the basis of the general view that
when the President has the responsibility and when he requests
legislative support in a crisis, he should have it.
But
if you make another request, at this time, in connection specifically
with the use of ground forces, I am concerned at the possible
reaction. It is not nearly as predictable as in the past when
the requests have been for support of policy in general terms
or for funds. A request at this time could set off a wave of criticism
and of demands for inquiries which, in the end, even though a
resolution were overwhelmingly approved, would not in any way
strengthen your hand, render your task easier or make your burden
of responsibility lighter. (3)
Footnotes:
(1)
Source:
Johnson Library, National Security File, Name File, Vietnam--Mansfield
Memo and Reply. No classification marking.
(2)
The
President telephoned Mansfield at 5:05 p.m. on June 8. (Ibid.,
President's Daily Diary) A tape recording of their conversation
is ibid., Recordings of Telephone Conversations.
(3)
Mc George Buddy responded on June 27 to this and two other Mansfield
memoranda concerning Vietnam. See footnote 3, Document 334.
|