Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Robert McNamara.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526048
label
49th Convention of the American Legion, Boston, MA, August 30, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526048
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
49th Convention of the American Legion, Boston, MA, August 30, 1967
description
This file contains material relating to Robert McNamara.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526048
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-08-31
month
8
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-08-01
month
8
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
30a4732f8ca2a21e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "49th Convention of the American
Legion, Boston, MA, August 30, 1967" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary
and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
BEFORE THE 49TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION
10 A.M., AUGUST 30, 1967, AT BOSTON, MASS.
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
Legionnaires, it is a distinct pleasure and a great honor to be with you.
It's a bit like Old Home Week. I am a Legionnaire--a member of Furniture City
Post No. 258 for 21 years--and proud of it. In fact, I suspect there might be
some of my old shipmates in this audience--men of the aircraft carrier Monterey
on which I spent two of my four years in the Navy.
I'm proud to be associated with the Legion because it is a good, sound,
common sense organization dedicated to the advancement of all Americans, with
a long-standing record of insistence on military preparedness.
One reason I take pride in being a Legionnaire is that our organization
stands up for America. Legionnaires love America--its principles, its people
and its history. The American Legion has been unwaveringly determined to protect
America's security and, at the same time, promote the cause of peace throughout
the world.
We are all working for peace--all of us, whether we're called hawks or
doves--and never more than at this moment.
Now we have arrived at a critical point in time and history, a time of great
national perplexity, a time of choosing and decision--yes, a moment of truth.
Millions of Americans who have never doubted the rightness of our being in
Vietnam are asking themselves a soul-searching, devastatingly disturbing question:
Is the Vietnam War "winnable?" Can we really win in Vietnam? Not "win" in the
sense of unconditional surrender. Not "win" in the sense of bringing the Viet
Cong and the North Vietnamese to their knees. But "win" in terms of assuring the
South Vietnamese the right to choose the government under which they will live.
"Win" in the sense of protecting the security of the United States and bolstering
the Free World in its struggle against Communism.
My objective--I want the United States to succeed in Vietnam.
I hope the Administration also has the same clear-cut objective.
When our Nation became actively engaged in the fighting in Vietnam in
February, 1965, the American people supported the action.
But our involvement in Vietnam has since generated a giant cloud of con-
fusion and a great gulf between the people and the Administration.
(more) GERA FORD LIBRARY
-2-
The reason is simple. For more than two years the Administration has been
playing it by ear. The Administration's conduct of the war has been based on a
new and naive theory--that if we gradually do just a little bit more, the enemy
will some day lay down his arms and talk peace.
Initially we achieved a success. We stopped a quick communist take-over.
Then we threw away our advantage by fighting the war on the enemy's terms.
Today the United States is bogged down in a massive land war in Southeast
Asia, contrary to the views of great military strategists like the late General
Douglas MacArthur.
For 2½ years we have fought a war of gradualism. We have allowed the enemy
ample time to adjust to every turn of the screw. We have made it possible for
Ho Chi Minh to anticipate and counter nearly every move we have made.
Is this any way to get an enemy to talk peace?
The Administration has followed a course of gradualism in Vietnam that has
not worked because it could not work. It was contrary to all sound military
strategy.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower recently said that when you must use force
to support a national aim, for example in the defense of another country, there
is no higher authority to which you can appeal. Therefore, you must win. To do
that, Ike said, you need sufficient force and you must use it quickly and
secretly so as to achieve surprise. He warned that a war of gradualism cannot
be won.
Our fighting men have been tragically handicapped by the Administration's
policy of gradualism. At the same time, the Southvietnamese have not done
enough in their own behalf. In the first instance, too much political instability.
Then a shoring up of a tenuous military regime. And now an election that may
have too many American overtones.
Meantime, our leaders have almost completely Americanized the war.
There are two equally important fronts in South Vietnam--- the military war
and the program of pacification.
How are we doing? We and our allies--South Korea, The Philippines,
Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand must succeed on both fronts if we are to
achieve our basic objective in Vietnam.
The pacification effort is aimed at winning the people's allegiance to
their government with social, economic and political reforms.
(more)
-3-
Let's not mince words. The Southvietnamese regular army thus far has failed
to meet the military challenge. The local militia has failed to provide the
security needed to make the pacification program work.
Tragically, the Saigon Government probably would collapse if both the
Americans and North Vietnamese were to withdraw from the battlefield and let
the South Vietnamese military and the Vietcong fight it out.
The reason--the basic problems in South Vietnam have gone unsolved.
Whatever the outcome of the Sept. 3 presidential election in Vietnam, the
United States must insist that the post-election regime fully carry out a number
of reforms, notably land reform. Such reforms must be achieved if a Saigon
government is to have genuine support. Otherwise military success in Vietnam
will be meaningless.
What is the military situation?
In recent days we have seen what amounts to an Administration propaganda
campaign on our chances for success in Vietnam. It is obviously aimed at counter-
ing a rising wave of frustration among the American people.
I hope there is a basis for such optimism. But the record does not seem to
justify it. Secretary MacNamara, judging from his latest public statement,
certainly does not share it. More than 90,000 Americans have been killed or
wounded in combat in this war of gradualism. There have been more than 250,000
casualties from all causes. To what end? We and our allies have been able to
secure only a fraction of a country roughly the size of my own state of Michigan.
We and our allies have killed an estimated 200,000 of the enemy. Yet we
now face the largest force the Communists have yet put together in Vietnam--
nearly 300,000.
The war in Vietnam is pretty much of a standoff right now--certainly this
is the view of the American people--even though we have increased the American
manpower commitment in Vietnam from 15,000 to 525,000 in the past 2½ years.
We have inflicted heavy losses on the enemy--with mounting American
casualties--but the supply of Communist cannon fodder seems unlimited.
We are told the North Vietnamese have committed only one-fifth of their
regular army to the war in South Vietnam. At the same time we are reaching the
bottom of our ready manpower pool.
Because the Soviets have had 2½ years to deliver the most modern weapons
and train the enemy in their use, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
(more)
-4-
are now fighting a much tougher war. Today the Communists are employing missiles,
heavy artillery, and powerful mortars, all emplaced and fortified during the
Administration's war of gradualism.
A way to the peace table must be found in Vietnam. I submit that the
American people have the correct formula--succeed or get out.
To succeed in Vietnam we need a clear and coordinated plan with the
determination at the top to see it through. If this fails, then the story of
American participation in the Vietnam war will be written in five words in the
history books--too little and too late. Too little early in the war--and too
late now.
On Dec. 13, 1965, my party's National Coordinating Committee warned that
we were getting bogged down in what could become an endless land war in Southeast
Asia.
We pleaded for maximum use of our conventional air and sea power. We
begged that the flow of supplies in North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong
be stopped.
These thoughtful recommendations by those who support American objectives
were ignored. The Administration has failed to carry out the first commandment
of military strategy--cut off the enemy's supplies at the source, destroy the
logistical support he needs to make war.
The Administration has not followed this course. Publicly, the Secretary
of Defense has categorically cast it aside.
The Secretary has accused advocates of a more effective air war in the North
of trying to substitute air attacks there for ground fighting in the South.
This charge is ridiculous. What's more, it's a fabrication. I know of no one
who has ever contended that meaningful air attacks against North Vietnam can be
substituted for hard ground action in the South. Mr. McNamara sets up a straw
man with such charges and then knocks it down. That is no defense at all for
the mistaken course the Administration has followed in Vietnam.
A nation at war cannot afford confusion and doubt about its basic policies.
Mr. McNamara's recent argument against making the air war more effective
was that there is no use trying it because it won't work anyway.
Where does the President stand? Does he stand with Mr. McNamara or with
his military chiefs and those members of Congress who believe a meaningful air
war will help us succeed in Vietnam?
(more)
-5-
What is our policy? Is it still Mr. McNamara's policy? What hope is there
for success in Vietnam? That's what the American people wonder, and they want
to hear it from the man in charge, the President of the United States.
If the President continues the indecisive and ineffective policies of the
past 2½ years, then the American people are committed to a war of attrition that
could last for 10 to 20 years.
If Mr. McNamara is right in his latest public assessment of the Vietnam
situation--and I do not for a moment concede this--then the United States should
get out of Vietnam at the earliest possible time and under the best possible
terms.
Our last opportunity for success in Vietnam may be fast disappearing.
I have called for a clear and coordinated plan to achieve success in Vietnam.
Such a plan would include more effective and more meaningful bombing of significant
military targets in North Vietnam. Not necessarily more tonnage, but dropping
our bombs on meaningful targets instead of jungle trails or into the sea.
We must by one of several sound military tactics greatly reduce the flow
of supplies through the port of Haiphong. This can be done in such a way that
no enemy, misled by our past mistakes, will misjudge our will or intentions.
The South Vietnamese Army must be forced to shoulder more of the burden
of the fighting in the South.
All of our allies who have enjoyed American aid should be called upon to
join in a big push toward success in Vietnam.
The pacification program must be made to work.
Three weeks ago I disclosed that many highly significant military targets
in North Vietnam were on a list declared off-limits by the President as commander-
in-chief of our armed forces. I said it then and I say it now. I am opposed
to sending one more American foot-soldier to Vietnam if our pilots are prevented
from doing the job that needs doing--a job that should have been done months
before.
Some people are concerned about civilian casualties in North Vietnam.
I am more concerned about the lives of Americans and our allies in South Vietnam.
I am not contending that air power alone will bring success in Vietnam and open
the way to the peace table. It is just one of the paths we must take or accept
the alternative of disengagement.
I am not advocating that civilian centers be bombed.
(more)
-6-
I am not proposing the use of nuclear weapons.
I am not advocating a ground invasion of North Vietnam by American forces.
So far as I know, no responsible Americans advocate these extreme measures.
There is substantial military agreement, and I concur, that if the war is
waged more efficiently in the North it will aid our men in the South and save
American lives.
The American people are saying "let's succeed or get out."
The voice of the people is invariably the voice of wisdom.
The American people know the Vietnam War could go on endlessly unless there
is a concerted joint effort to bring it to the bargaining table. Events make
men, but men also make events. The President of the United States has the power
to change the pattern, to break the mold, to demand that our South Vietnamese
allies shape up or lose our support.
Genuine success in a guerrilla war results when the local population is
willing to fight its own war, with a conviction that their enemy-the Communists--
be defeated. We saw the proof of this in South Korea, the Philippines, in Greece
and in Malaya.
Let us fulfill our commitment in Vietnam. Let us stop labeling each other
as hawks or doves. Let us admit past mistakes--stop defending past failures.
Let us decide we are going to end this bloody war, quickly, successfully and
honorably.
We cannot and should not do it alone.
I call upon the South Vietnamese soldier to engage in the imitation of
excellence to pattern himself after our American soldiers and Marines.
To the South Vietnamese, I say in the words of Pericles: "Take these
men for your example. Freedom is the sure possession alone of those who have
the courage to defend it."
Our objective in Vietnam is honorable. Our cause is just. Let us--we and
our allies--pursue it to an honorable end. Thank you.
###
49TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION
10 A. .M., AUGUST 30, 1967, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
our very special guists the viterans you conflict in V.N
LEGIONNAIRES, IT IS A DISTINCT PLEASURE AND A GREAT
set meald speaking directly 5th Vettran Viterna DO million american deeply grateful Sacrpas for your
HONOR TO BE WITH YOU. IT'S A BIT LIKE OLD HOME WEEK. 1 AM
A LEGIONNAIRE- A MEMBER OF FURNITURE CITY POST NO. 258 FOR
mighty
addition hope
21 YEARS--AND PROUD OF IT. IN FACT, I SUSPECT THERE MIGHT BE
Navy
such asthe
SOME OF MY OLD SHIPMATES IN THIS AUDIENCE MEN OF THE AIRCRAFT
CARRIER MONTEREY ON WHICH I SPENT TWO OF MY FOUR YEARS IN THE
NAVY.
in my own post, The nationally Michigan Department &
I'M PROUD TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGION BECAUSE IT
IS A GOOD, SOUND, COMMON SENSE ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO THE
ADVANCEMENT OF ALL AMERICANS, WITH A LONG-STANDING RECORD OF
INSISTENCE ON MILITARY PREPAREDNESS.
amount ONE REASON I TAKE PRIDE IN BEING A LEGIONNAIRE IS THAT
FORD
OUR ORGANIZATION STANDS UP FOR AMERICA. LEGIONNAIRES LOVE
LIBRARY
AMERICA--ITS PRINCIPLES, ITS PEOPLE AND ITS HISTORY. THE
-2-
AMERICAN LEGION HAS BEEN UNWAVERINGLY DETERMINED TO PROTECT
AMERICA'S SECURITY AND, AT THE SAME TIME, PROMOTE THE CAUSE
OF PEACE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
The Legion forght for preparelnes before w.W II
supports and committent m Vutenan RUSK-
President in torn
WE ARE ALL WORKING FOR PEACE-ALL OF us, WHETHER WE' RE
CALLED HAWKS OR DOVES--AND NEVER MORE THAN AT THIS MOMENT.
NOW WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A CRITICAL POINT IN TIME AND
HISTORY, A TIME OF GREAT NATIONAL PERPLEXITY, A TIME OF
CHOOSING AND DECISION--YES, A MOMENT OF TRUTH.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO HAVE NEVER DOUBTED THE RIGHT-
NESS OF OUR BEING IN VIETNAM ARE ASKING THEMSELVES A SOUL-
SEARCHING, DEVASTATINGLY DISTURBING QUESTION: IS THE VIETNAM
WAR "WINNABLE?" CAN WE REALLY WIN IN VIETNAM? NOT "WIN"
IN THE SENSE OF UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. NOT "WIN" IN THE
SENSE OF BRINGING THE VIET CONG AND THE NORTH VIETNAMESE TO
THEIR KNEES. BUT "WIN" IN TERMS OF ASSURING THE SOUTH
GERALD
LIBRARY
VIETNAMESE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH
-3-
THEY WILL LIVE. "WIN" IN THE SENSE OF PROTECTING THE
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND BOLSTERING THE FREE WORLD
IN ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST COMMUNISM.
MY OBJECTIVE--I WANT THE UNITED STATES TO SUCCEED IN
VIETNAM.
I HOPE THE ADMINISTRATION ALSO HAS THE SAME CLEAR-CUT
OBJECTIVE.
WHEN OUR NATION BECAME ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE FIGHTING
IN VIETNAM IN FEBRUARY, 1965, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORTED
THE ACTION.
BUT OUR INVOLVEMENT IN VIETNAM HAS SINCE GENERATED A
GIANT CLOUD OF CONFUSION AND A GREAT GULF BETWEEN THE PEOPLE
AND THE ADMINISTRATION.
THE REASON IS SIMPLE. FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN PLAYING IT BY EAR. THE
ADMINISTRATION'S CONDUCT OF THE WAR HAS BEEN BASED ON A NEW AND
-4-
NAIVE THEORY-THAT IF WE GRADUALLY DO JUST A LITTLE BIT
MORE, THE ENEMY WILL SOME DAY LAY DOWN HIS ARMS AND TALK
PEACE.
INITIALLY WE ACHIEVED A SUCCESS. WE STOPPED A QUICK
COMMUNIST TAKE-OVER. THEN, WE THREW AWAY OUR ADVANTAGE BY
FIGHTING THE WAR ON THE ENEMY'S TERMS.
TODAY THE UNITED STATES IS BOGGED DOWN IN A MASSIVE
a
LAND WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, CONTRARY TO THE VIEWS OF GREAT
MILITARY STRATEGIST$ LIKE THE LATE GENERAL DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR.
FOR 21/2 YEARS WE HAVE FOUGHT A WAR OF GRADUALISM. WE
HAVE ALLOWED THE ENEMY AMPLE TIME TO ADJUST TO EVERY TURN
OF THE SCREW. WE HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR HO CHI MINH TO
ANTICIPATE AND COUNTER NEARLY EVERY MOVE WE HAVE MADE.
IS THIS ANY WAY TO GET AN ENEMY TO TALK PEACE?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS FOLLOWED A COURSE OF GRADUALISM
IN VIETNAM THAT HAS NOT WORKED BECAUSE IT COULD NOT WORK. IT
-5-
WAS CONTRARY TO ALL SOUND MILITARY STRATEGY.
GENERAL DWIGHT ₱. EISENHOWER RECENTLY SAID THAT WHEN
YOU MUST USE FORCE TO SUPPORT A NATIONAL AIM, FOR EXAMPLE
IN THE DEFENSE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, THERE IS NO HIGHER
AUTHORITY TO WHICH YOU CAN APPEAL. THEREFORE, YOU MUST WIN.
TO DO THAT, IKE SAID, YOU NEED SUFFICIENT FORCE AND YOU MUST
USE IT QUICKLY AND SECRETLY SO AS TO ACHIEVE SURPRISE. HE
WARNED THAT A WAR OF GRADUALISM CANNOT BE WON.
OUR FIGHTING MEN HAVE BEEN TRAGICALLY HANDICAPPED BY
THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY OF GRADUALISM. AT THE SAME TIME,
THE SOUTHVIETNAMESE HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH IN THEIR OWN BEHALF.
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, TOO MUCH POLITICAL INSTABILITY. THEN
A SHORING UP OF A TENUOUS MILITARY REGIME. AND NOW AN
ELECTION THAT MAY HAVE TOO MANY AMERICAN OVERTONES.
MEANTIME, OUR LEADERS HAVE ALMOST COMPLETELY
FORD LIBBARY
AMERICANIZED THE WAR.
-6-
THERE ARE TWO EQUALLY IMPORTANT FRONTS IN SOUTH VIETNAM--
THE MILITARY WAR AND THE PROGRAM OF PACIFICATION.
HOW ARE WE DOING? WE AND OUR ALLIES--SOUTH KOREA
THE PHILIPPINES, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND THAILAND MUST
SUCCEED ON BOTH FRONTS IF WE ARE TO ACHIEVE OUR BASIC
OBJECTIVE IN VIETNAM.
THE PACIFICATION EFFORT IS AIMED AT WINNING THE
PEOPLE'S ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT WITH SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REFORMS.
LET'S NOT MINCE WORDS. THE SOUTHVIETNAMESE REGULAR
ARMY THUS FAR HAS FAILED TO MEET THE MILITARY CHALLENGE. THE
LOCAL MILITIA HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY NEEDED TO
MAKE THE PACIFICATION PROGRAM WORK.
TRAGICALLY, THE SAIGON GOVERNMENT PROBABLY WOULD COLLAPSE
IF BOTH THE AMERICANS AND NORTH VIETNAMESE WERE TO WITHDRAW
FROM THE BATTLEFIELD AND LET THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE MILITARY
-7-
AND THE VIETCONG FIGHT IT OUT.
THE REASON--THE BASIC PROBLEMS IN SOUTH VIETNAM HAVE
GONE UNSOLVED.
WHATEVER THE OUTCOME OF THE SEPT. 3 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION IN VIETNAM, THE UNITED STATES MUST INSIST THAT THE
POST-ELECTION REGIME FULLY CARRY OUT A NUMBER OF REFORMS,
NOTABLY LAND REFORM. SUCH REFORMS MUST BE ACHIEVED IF A
SAIGON GOVERNMENT IS TO HAVE GENUINE SUPPORT. OTHERWISE
MILITARY SUCCESS IN VIETNAM WILL BE MEANINGLESS.
WHAT IS THE MILITARY SITUATION?
IN RECENT DAYS WE HAVE SEEN WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN
ADMINISTRATION PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN ON OUR CHANCES FOR SUCCESS
IN VIETNAM. IT IS OBVIOUSLY AIMED AT COUNTERING A RISING
WAVE OF FRUSTRATION AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
RALD
LIBRAR
I HOPE/THERE IS A BASIS FOR SUCH OPTIMISM. BUT THE RECORD
DOES NOT SEEM TO JUSTIFY IT. SECRETARY Mc NAMARA, JUDGING
-8-
FROM HIS LATEST PUBLIC STATEMENT, CERTAINLY DOES NOT SHARE IT.
MORE THAN 90,000 AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED OR WOUNDED IN
COMBAT IN THIS WAR OF GRADUALISM. THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN
american
250,000 CASUALTIES FROM ALL CAUSES. TO WHAT END? WE AND OUR
ALLIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE ONLY A FRACTION OF A COUNTRY
ROUGHLY THE SIZE OF MY OWN STATE OF MICHIGAN.
WE AND OUR ALLIES HAVE KILLED AN ESTIMATED 200,000 OF
THE ENEMY. YET WE NOW FACE THE LARGEST FORCE THE COMMUNISTS
HAVE YET PUT TOGETHER IN VIETNAM--NEARLY 300,000.
THE WAR IN VIETNAM IS PRETTY MUCH OF A STANDOFF RIGHT
NOW--CERTAINLY THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--EVEN
THOUGH WE HAVE INCREASED THE AMERICAN MANPOWER COMMITMENT IN
VIETNAM FROM 15,000 TO 525,000 IN THE PAST 2½ YEARS.
WE HAVE INFLICTED HEAVY LOSSES ON THE ENEMY--WITH
FORD
MOUNTING AMERICAN CASUALTIES--BUT THE SUPPLY OF COMMUNIST
LIBRARY
CANNON FODDER SEEMS UNLIMITED.
-9-
WE ARE TOLD THE NORTH VIETNAMESE HAVE COMMITTED ONLY
ONE-FIFTH OF THEIR REGULAR ARMY TO THE WAR IN SOUTH VIETNAM.
AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE REACHING THE BOTTOM OF OUR READY
MANPOWER POOL.
BECAUSE THE SOVIETS HAVE HAD 2 ½ YEARS TO DELIVER THE
MOST MODERN WEAPONS AND TRAIN THE ENEMY IN THEIR USE, OUR
SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, AND MARINES ARE NOW FIGHTING A
MUCH TOUGHER WAR. TODAY THE COMMUNISTS ARE EMPLOYING
MISSILES, HEAVY all ARTILLERY, AND POWERFUL MORTARS, ALL
EMPLACED AND FORTIFIED DURING THE ADMINISTRATION'S WAR OF
GRADUALISM.
A WAY TO THE PEACE TABLE MUST BE FOUND IN VIETNAM. I
SUBMIT THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE CORRECT FORMULA--
SUCCEED OR GET OUT.
TO SUCCEED IN VIETNAM WE NEED A CLEAR AND COORDINATED
PLAN WITH THE DETERMINATION AT THE TOP TO SEE IT THROUGH.
-10-
IF THIS FAILS, THEN THE STORY OF AMERICAN PARTICIPATION IN
THE VIETNAM WAR WILL BE WRITTEN IN FIVE WORDS IN THE HISTORY
BOOKS--TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE. TOO LITTLE EARLY IN THE WAR--
AND TOO LATE NOW.
ON DEC. 13, 1965, MY PARTY'S NATIONAL COORDINATING
COMMITTEE WARNED THAT WE WERE GETTING BOGGED DOWN IN WHAT
COULD BECOME AN ENDLESS LAND WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA.
WE PLEADED FOR MAXIMUM USE OF OUR CONVENTIONAL AIR AND
SEA POWER. WE BEGGED THAT THE FLOW OF SUPPLIES IN NORTH
VIETNAM THROUGH THE PORT OF HAIPHONG BE STOPPED.
THESE THOUGHTFUL RECOMMENDATIONS BY THOSE WHO SUPPORT
AMERICAN OBJECTIVES WERE IGNORED. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE FIRST COMMANDMENT OF MILITARY
STRATEGY--CUT OFF THE ENEMY'S SUPPLIES AT THE SOURCE, DESTROY
THE LOGISTICAL SUPPORT HE NEEDS TO MAKE WAR.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT FOLLOWED THIS COURSE.
-11-
PUBLICLY, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAS CATEGORICALLY CAST IT
ASIDE.
THE SECRETARY HAS ACCUSED ADVOCATES OF A MORE EFFECTIVE
AIR WAR IN THE NORTH OF TRYING TO SUBSTITUTE AIR ATTACKS
in the north
THERE FOR GROUND FIGHTING IN THE SOUTH. THIS CHARGE IS
RIDICULOUS. WHAT'S MORE, IT'S A FABRICATION. I KNOW OF NO
ONE WHO HAS EVER CONTENDED THAT MEANINGFUL AIR ATTACKS
AGAINST NORTH VIETNAM CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR HARD GROUND
ACTION IN THE SOUTH. MR. McNAMARA SETS UP A STRAW MAN WITH
SUCH CHARGES AND THEN KNOCKS IT DOWN. THAT IS NO DEFENSE AT
ALL FOR THE MISTAKEN COURSE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS FOLLOWED
IN VIETNAM.
A NATION AT WAR CANNOT AFFORD CONFUSION AND DOUBT ABOUT
ITS BASIC POLICIES.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
MR. McNAMARA'S RECENT ARGUMENT AGAINST MAKING THE AIR WAR
MORE EFFECTIVE IS THAT THERE IS NO USE TRYING IT BECAUSE IT
-12-
WON'T WORK ANYWAY.
WHERE DOES THE PRESIDENT STAND? DOES HE STAND WITH
does he stand
MR. McNAMARA OR WITH HIS MILITARY CHIEFS AND THOSE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS WHO BELIEVE A MEANINGFUL AIR WAR WILL HELP US
SUCCEED IN VIETNAM.
WHAT IS OUR POLICY? IS IT STILL MR. McNAMARA'S POLICY?
WHAT HOPE IS THERE FOR SUCCESS IN VIETNAM? THAT'S WHAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WONDER, AND THEY WANT TO HEAR IT FROM THE MAN
IN CHARGE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
IF THE PRESIDENT CONTINUES THE INDECISIVE AND
INEFFECTIVE POLICIES OF THE PAST 2½ YEARS, THEN THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE COMMITTED TO A WAR OF ATTRITION THAT COULD LAST FOR
10 TO 20 YEARS.
IF MR. McNAMARA IS RIGHT IN HIS LATEST PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF
THE VIETNAM SITUATION--AND I DO NOT FOR A MOMENT CONCEDE
LIBRARY
THIS--THEN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD GET OUT OF VIETNAM AT THE
-13-
EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS.
OUR LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCCESS IN VIETNAM MAY BE
FAST DISAPPEARING.
I HAVE CALLED FOR A CLEAR AND COORDINATED PLAN TO
ACHIEVE SUCCESS IN VIETNAM. SUCH A PLAN WOULD INCLUDE MORE
EFFECTIVE AND MORE MEANINGFUL BOMBING OF SIGNIFICANT MILITARY
TARGETS IN NORTH VIETNAM. NOT NECESSARILY MORE TONNAGE, BUT
DROPPING OUR BOMBS ON MEANINGFUL TARGETS INSTEAD OF JUNGLE
TRAILS OR INTO THE SEA.
WE MUST BY ONE OF SEVERAL SOUND MILITARY TACTICS GREATLY
REDUCE THE FLOW OF SUPPLIES THROUGH THE PORT OF HAIPHONG.
THIS CAN BE DONE IN SUCH A WAY THAT NO ENEMY, MISLEAD BY OUR
PAST MISTAKES, WILL MISJUDGE OUR WILL OR INTENTIONS.
THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE ARMY MUST BE FORCED TO SHOULDER
MORE OF THE BURDEN OF THE FIGHTING IN THE SOUTH.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
ALL OR OUR ALLIES WHO HAVE ENJOYED AMERICAN AID SHOULD
BE CALLED UPON TO JOIN IN A BIG PUSH TOWARD SUCCESS IN VIETNAM.
THE PACIFICATION PROGRAM MUST BE MADE TO WORK.
THREE WEEKS AGO I DISCLOSED THAT MANY HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT
MILITARY TARGETS IN NORTH VIETNAM WERE ON A LIST DECLARED
OFF-LIMITS BY THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF OUR ARMED
FORCES. I SAID IT THEN AND I SAY IT NOW. I AM OPPOSED TO
SENDING ONE MORE AMERICAN FOOT-SOLDIER TO VIETNAM IF OUR PILOTS
ARE PREVENTED FORM DOING THE JOB THAT NEEDS DOING--A JOB THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MONTHS BEFORE.
SOME PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN
NORTH VIETNAM. I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIVES OF
AMERICANS AND OUR ALLIES IN SOUTH VIETNAM. I AM NOT CONTENDING
THAT AIR POWER ALONE WILL BRING SUCCESS IN VIETNAM AND OPEN
THE WAY TO THE PEACE TABLE. IT IS JUST ONE OF THE PATHS WE
MUST TAKE OR ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE OF DISENGAGEMENT.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT CIVILIAN CENTERS BE BOMBED.
I AM NOT PROPOSING THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
-15-
I AM NOT ADVOCATING A GROUND INVASION OF NORTH VIETNAM
BY AMERICAN FORCES.
SO FAR AS I KNOW, NO RESPONSIBLE AMERICANS ADVOCATE
THESE EXTREME MEASURES.
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL MILITARY AGREEMENT, AND I CONCUR,
THAT IF THE WAR IS WAGED MORE EFFICIENTLY IN THE NORTH IT
WILL AID OUR MEN IN THE SOUTH AND SAVE AMERICAN LIVES.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SAYING "LET'S SUCCEED OR GET
OUT."
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS INVARIABLY THE VOICE OF
WISDOM.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THE VIETNAM WAR COULD GO ON
ENDLESSLY UNLESS THERE IS A CONCERTED JOINT EFFORT TO BRING
IT TO THE BARGAINING TABLE. EVENTS MAKE MEN, BUT MEN ALSO
MAKE EVENTS. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS THE
POWER TO CHANGE THE PATTERN, TO BREAK THE MOLD, TO DEMAND
THAT OUR SOUTH VIETNAMESE ALLIES SHAPE UP OR LOSE OUR SUPPORT.
GENUINE SUCCESS IN A GUERRILLA WAR RESULTS WHEN THE
LOCAL POPULATION IS WILLING TO FIGHT ITS OWN WAR, WITH A
CONVICTION THAT THEIR ENEMY-THE COMMUNISTS-BE DEFEATED. WE
SAW THE PROOF OF THIS IN SOUTH KOREA, THE PHILIPPINES, GREECE
AND IN MALAYA.
LET US FULFILL OUR COMMITMENT IN VIETNAM. LET US STOP
LABELING EACH OTHER AS HAWKS OR DOVES. LET US ADMIT PAST
MISTAKES--STOP DEFENDING PAST FAILURES. LET US DECIDE WE ARE
GOING TO END THIS BLOODY WAR, QUICKLY, SUCCESSFULLY AND
HONORABLY.
WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT DO IT ALONE.
I CALL UPON THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE SOLDIER TO ENGAGE IN
THE IMITATION OF EXCELLENCE--TO PATTERN HIMSELF AFTER OUR
AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND MARINES.
TO THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE, I SAY IN THE WORDS OF
PERICLES: "TAKE THESE MEN FOR YOUR EXAMPLE. FREEDOM IS THE
-17-
SURE POSSESSION ALONE OF THOSE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO
DEFEND IT."
OUR OBJECTIVE IN VIETNAM IS HONORABLE. OUR CAUSE IS
JUST. LET US--WE AND OUR ALLIES--PURSUE IT TO AN speedy HONORABLE
END. THANK YOU.
-END-
FORD in LIBRARY 07V830
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
BEFORE THE 49TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION
10 A.M., AUGUST 30, 1967, AT BOSTON, MASS.
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
Legionnaires, it is a distinct pleasure and a great honor to be with you.
It's a bit like Old Home Week. I am a Legionnaire--a member of Furniture City
Post No. 258 for 21 years--and proud of it. In fact, I suspect there might be
some of my old shipmates in this audience-men of the aircraft carrier Monterey
on which I spent two of my four years in the Navy.
I'm proud to be associated with the Legion because it is a good, sound,
common sense organization dedicated to the advancement of all Americans, with
a long-standing record of insistence on military preparedness.
One reason I take pride in being a Legionnaire is that our organization
stands up for America. Legionnaires love America--its principles, its people
and its history. The American Legion has been unwaveringly determined to protect
America's security and, at the same time, promote the cause of peace throughout
the world.
We are all working for peace--all of us, whether we're called hawks or
doves--and never more than at this moment.
Now we have arrived at a critical point in time and history, a time of great
national perplexity, a time of choosing and decision--yes, a moment of truth.
Millions of Americans who have never doubted the rightness of our being in
Vietnam are asking themselves a soul-searching, devastatingly disturbing question:
Is the Vietnam War "winnable?" Can we really win in Vietnam? Not "win" in the
sense of unconditional surrender. Not "win" in the sense of bringing the Viet
Cong and the North Vietnamese to their knees. But "win" in terms of assuring the
South Vietnamese the right to choose the government under which they will live.
"Win" in the sense of protecting the security of the United States and bolstering
the Free World in its struggle against Communism.
My objective--I want the United States to succeed in Vietnam.
I hope the Administration also has the same clear-cut objective.
When our Nation became actively engaged in the fighting in Vietnam in
February, 1965, the American people supported the action.
But our involvement in Vietnam has since generated a giant cloud of con-
fusion and a great gulf between the people and the Administration.
-2-
The reason is simple. For more than two years the Administration has been
playing it by ear. The Administration's conduct of the war has been based on a
new and naive theory-that if we gradually do just a little bit more, the enemy
will some day lay down his arms and talk peace.
Initially we achieved a success. We stopped a quick communist take-over.
Then we threw away our advantage by fighting the war on the enemy's terms.
Today the United States is bogged down in a massive land war in Southeast
Asia, contrary to the views of great military strategists like the late General
Douglas MacArthur.
For 2½ years we have fought a war of gradualism. We have allowed the enemy
ample time to adjust to every turn of the screw. We have made it possible for
Ho Chi Minh to anticipate and counter nearly every move we have made.
Is this any way to get an enemy to talk peace?
The Administration has followed a course of gradualism in Vietnam that has
not worked because it could not work. It was contrary to all sound military
strategy.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower recently said that when you must use force
to support a national aim, for example in the defense of another country, there
is no higher authority to which you can appeal. Therefore, you must win. To do
that, Ike said, you need sufficient force and you must use it quickly and
secretly so as to achieve surprise. He warned that a war of gradualism cannot
be won.
Our fighting men have been tragically handicapped by the Administration's
policy of gradualism. At the same time, the Southvietnamese have not done
enough in their own behalf. In the first instance, too much political instability.
Then a shoring up of a tenuous military regime. And now an election that may
have too many American overtones.
Meantime, our leaders have almost completely Americanized the war.
There are two equally important fronts in South Vietnam----the military war
and the program of pacification.
How are we doing? We and our allies--South Korea, The Philippines,
Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand--must succeed on both fronts if we are to
achieve our basic objective in Vietnam.
The pacification effort is aimed at winning the people's allegiance to
their government with social, economic and political reforms.
(more)
-3-
Let's not mince words. The Southvietnamese regular army thus far has failed
to meet the military challenge. The local militia has failed to provide the
security needed to make the pacification program work.
Tragically, the Saigon Government probably would collapse if both the
Americans and North Vietnamese were to withdraw from the battlefield and let
the South Vietnamese military and the Vietcong fight it out.
The reason--the basic problems in South Vietnam have gone unsolved.
Whatever the outcome of the Sept. 3 presidential election in Vietnam, the
United States must insist that the post-election regime fully carry out a number
of reforms, notably land reform. Such reforms must be achieved if a Saigon
government is to have genuine support. Otherwise military success in Vietnam
will be meaningless.
What is the military situation?
In recent days we have seen what amounts to an Administration propaganda
campaign on our chances for success in Vietnam. It is obviously aimed at counter-
ing a rising wave of frustration among the American people.
I hope there is a basis for such optimism. But the record does not seem to
justify it. Secretary MacNamara, judging from his latest public statement,
certainly does not share it. More than 90,000 Americans have been killed or
wounded in combat in this war of gradualism. There have been more than 250,000
casualties from all causes. To what end? We and our allies have been able to
secure only a fraction of a country roughly the size of my own state of Michigan.
We and our allies have killed an estimated 200,000 of the enemy. Yet we
now face the largest force the Communists have yet put together in Vietnam--
nearly 300,000.
The war in Vietnam is pretty much of a standoff right now--certainly this
is the view of the American people--even though we have increased the American
manpower commitment in Vietnam from 15,000 to 525,000 in the past 2½ years.
We have inflicted heavy losses on the enemy--with mounting American
casualties--bu the supply of Communist cannon fodder seems unlimited.
We are told the North Vietnamese have committed only one-fifth of their
regular army to the war in South Vietnam. At the same time we are reaching the
bottom of our ready manpower pool.
Because the Soviets have had 2½ years to deliver the most modern weapons
and train the enemy in their use, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
(more)
-4-
are now fighting a much tougher war. Today the Communists are employing missiles,
heavy artillery, and powerful mortars, all emplaced and fortified during the
Administration's war of gradualism.
A way to the peace table must be found in Vietnam. I submit that the
American people have the correct formula--succeed or get out.
To succeed in Vietnam we need a clear and coordinated plan with the
determination at the top to see it through. If this fails, then the story of
American participation in the Vietnam war will be written in five words in the
history books--too little and too late. Too little early in the war--and too
late now.
On Dec. 13, 1965, my party's National Coordinating Committee warned that
we were getting bogged down in what could become an endless land war in Southeast
Asia.
We pleaded for maximum use of our conventional air and sea power. We
begged that the flow of supplies in North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong
be stopped.
These thoughtful recommendations by those who support American objectives
were ignored. The Administration has failed to carry out the first commandment
of military strategy--cut off the enemy's supplies at the source, destroy the
logistical support he needs to make war.
The Administration has not followed this course. Publicly, the Secretary
of Defense has categorically cast it aside.
The Secretary has accused advocates of a more effective air war in the North
of trying to substitute air attacks there for ground fighting in the South.
This charge is ridiculous. What's more, it's a fabrication. I know of no one
who has ever contended that meaningful air attacks against North Vietnam can be
substituted for hard ground action in the South. Mr. McNamara sets up a straw
man with such charges and then knocks it down. That is no defense at all for
the mistaken course the Administration has followed in Vietnam.
A nation at war cannot afford confusion and doubt about its basic policies.
Mr. McNamara's recent argument against making the air war more effective
was that there is no use trying it because it won't work anyway.
Where does the President stand? Does he stand with Mr. McNamara or with
his military chiefs and those members of Congress who believe a meaningful air
war will help us succeed in Vietnam?
(more)
-5-
What is our policy? Is it still Mr. McNamara's policy? What hope is there
for success in Vietnam? That's what the American people wonder, and they want
to hear it from the man in charge, the President of the United States.
If the President continues the indecisive and ineffective policies of the
past 2½ years, then the American people are committed to a war of attrition that
could last for 10 to 20 years.
If Mr. McNamara is right in his latest public assessment of the Vietnam
situation--and I do not for a moment concede this--then the United States should
get out of Vietnam at the earliest possible time and under the best possible
terms.
Our last opportunity for success in Vietnam may be fast disappearing.
I have called for a clear and coordinated plan to achieve success in Vietnam.
Such a plan would include more effective and more meaningful bombing of significant
military targets in North Vietnam. Not necessarily more tonnage, but dropping
our bombs on meaningful targets instead of jungle trails or into the sea.
We must by one of several sound military tactics greatly reduce the flow
of supplies through the port of Haiphong. This can be done in such a way that
no enemy, misled by our past mistakes, will misjudge our will or intentions.
The South Vietnamese Army must be forced to shoulder more of the burden
of the fighting in the South.
All of our allies who have enjoyed American aid should be called upon to
join in a big push toward success in Vietnam.
The pacification program must be made to work.
Three weeks ago I disclosed that many highly significant military targets
in North Vietnam were on a list declared off-limits by the President as commander-
in-chief of our armed forces. I said it then and I say it now. I am opposed
to sending one more American foot-soldier to Vietnam if our pilots are prevented
from doing the job that needs doing--a job that should have been done months
before,
Some people are concerned about civilian casualties in North Vietnam.
I am more concerned about the lives of Americans and our allies in South Vietnam.
I am not contending that air power alone will bring success in Vietnam and open
the way to the peace table. It is just one of the paths we must take or accept
the alternative of disengagement.
I am not advocating that civilian centers be bombed.
(more)
-6-
I am not proposing the use of nuclear weapons.
I am not advocating a ground invasion of North Vietnam by American forces.
So far as I know, no responsible Americans advocate these extreme measures.
There is substantial military agreement, and I concur, that if the war is
waged more efficiently in the North it will aid our men in the South and save
American lives.
The American people are saying "let's succeed or get out."
The voice of the people is invariably the voice of wisdom.
The American people know the Vietnam War could go on endlessly unless there
is a concerted joint effort to bring it to the bargaining table. Events make
men, but men also make events. The President of the United States has the power
to change the pattern, to break the mold, to demand that our South Vietnamese
allies shape up or lose our support.
Genuine success in a guerrilla war results when the local population is
willing to fight its own war, with a conviction that their enemy--the Communists--
be defeated. We saw the proof of this in South Korea, the Philippines, in Greece
and in Malaya.
Let us fulfill our commitment in Vietnam. Let us stop labeling each other
as hawks or doves. Let us admit past mistakes--stop defending past failures.
Let us decide we are going to end this bloody war, quickly, successfully and
honorably.
We cannot and should not do it alone.
I call upon the South Vietnamese soldier to engage in the imitation of
excellence-- to pattern himself after our American soldiers and Marines.
To the South Vietnamese, I say in the words of Pericles: "Take these
men for your example. Freedom is the sure possession alone of those who have
the courage to defend it."
Our objective in Vietnam is honorable. Our cause is just. Let us--we and
our allies--pursue it to an honorable end. Thank you.
###
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., BEFORE THE 49TH NATIONAL CONVENTION
OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, 10 A.M., AUGUST 30, 1967, AT BOSTON, MASS.
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
Legionnaires, it is a distinct pleasure and a great honor to be with you.
It's a bit like Old Home Week. I am a Legiennaire--a member of Furniture City
Post No. 258 for 21 years--and proud of it. In fact, I suspect there might be
some of my old shipmates in this audience-men of the aircraft
Monterey on which I spent two years of my fur years is the Havy susing
I'm proud to be associated with the Legion because it is a good, sound,
common sense organization dedicated to the advancement of all Americans, with
a long-standing record of insistence on military preparedness.
One reason I take pride in being a Legionnaire is that our organization
stands up for America. Legionnaires love America--its principles, its people
and hits history. The American Legion has been unwaveringly determined to protect
America's sdcurity and, at the samagtime, promote the cause of peace throughout
the world.
We are all working for peace--all of us, whether we're aalled hawks or
doves--and never more than at this moment.
Now we have arrived at a critical point in time and history, a time of great
national perplexity, a time of choosing and decision--yes, a moment of truth.
Millions of Americans who have never doubted the rightness of our being in
Vietnam are asking themselves a soul-searching, devastatingly disturbing question:
Is the Vietnam War "winnable?" Can we really win in Vietnam? Not "win" in the
sense of undonditional surrender. Not "win" in the sense of bringing the Viet
LIBRARY
Cong and the North Vietnamese to their knees. But "win" in terms of assuring the
-2-
South Vietnamese the right to choose the government under which they will live.
"Win" in the sense of protecting the security of the United States and bolstering
the Free World in its struggle against Communism.
My objective--I want the United States to succeed in Vietnam.
I had hoped the Administration also had the same clear-cut objective.
When our Nation became actively engaged in the fighting in Vietnam in
February, 1965, the American people supported the action.
But our involvement in Vietnam has since generated a giant cloud of con-
fusion and a great gulf between the people and the Administration.
The reason is simple. For more than two years the Administration has been
playing it by ear. The Administration's conduct of the was is based on a new
and naive theory-that if we gradually do just a little bit more, the enemy will
some day lay down his Exp army and talk peace.
Initially we achieved a success. We stopped a quick communist take-over.
Then we threw away our advantage by fighting the war on the enemy's terms.
Today the United States is bogged down in a massive land war in Southeast
Asia, contrary to the views of great military strategists like the late General
Douglas MacArthur.
For 24 years we have fought a war of gradualism. We have allowed the enemy
ample time to adjust to every turn of the screw. We have made it possible
for Ho Chi Minh to anticipate and counter nearly every move we have made.
Is this any way to get an enemy to talk peace?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-3-
The Administration has followed a course of gradualism in Vietnam that hasn't
worked because it couldn't work. It was contrary to all sound military strategy.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower secently said that when you must use force
to support a national aim, for example in the defense of another country, there
is no higher authority to which you can appeal. Therefore, you must win. To do
that, Ike said, you need sufficient force and you must use it quickly and
secretly so as to achieve surprise. He warned that a war of gradualism cannot
be won.
Our fighting men have been tragically handicapped by the Administrations'
policy of gradualism. At the same time, the Southvietnamese have not done
enough
their own behalf. In the first instance, too much political instability.
Then a shoring up of a tenuous military regime. And now an election that may
have too many American overtones.
Meantime, our leaders have almost completely Americanized the war.
There are two equally important fronts in South Vietnam----the military war
and the program of pacification.
How are we doing? We and our allies-South Korea, The Philippines, Australia,
New Zealand, and Thailand--must succeed on both fronts if we are to achieve our
basic objective in Vietnam.
The pacification effort is simed at winning the people's allegiance to
their own Government with social, economic and political reforms.
Let's not mince words. The Southvietnamese regular army thus far has failed
to meet the military challenge. The local militis has failed to provide the
+
security needed to make the pacification program work.
Tragically, the Saigon Government simest cortainly would probably collapse if both
the Americans and North Vietnamese were to withdraw from the battlefield and
let the South Vietnamese military and the Vietcong fight it out.
The reason--the basic problems in South Vietnam have gone unsolved.
Whatever the outcom of the Sept. 3 presidential election in Vie tnam, the
United States must insist that the post-election regime fully carry out a number
of reforms, notably land reform. Such reforms must be achieved if a Saigon
government is to have genuine support. Otherwise military success in Vietnam
will be meaningless.
What is the military situation?
In recent days we have seen that amounts to an Administration propaganda
campaign on phances for for success in Vietnam. It is obviously simed at countering
a rising wave of frustration among the American people.
I hope there is a basis for such optimism. But the facts don't seem to
justify it. Secretary MacHamara, judging from his latest statement, certainly
does not share it. More than 90,000 Americans have been killed or wounded in
Jhone benefen morethan 250,000 casuelties fromall causes.
this war of gradualism. A To what and? We and our allies have been able to secure
only a fraction of a country roughly the size of myown state of Michigan.
We and our allies have killed an estimated 200,000 of the enemy. Yet we
now face the largest force the Communists have yet put together in Vietnam--
nearly 300,000.
BERAAD FORD LIBRARY
The war in Vietnam is pretty much at a standoff right now even though we
-3-
have increased the American manpower commitment in Vietnam from 15,000 to 525,000
in the past 24 years.
We have inflected heavy lesses on the enemy--with mounting American casualties--
but the supply of Communist cannon fodder seems unlimited.
We are told the North Vietnamese have committed only one-fifth of their
regular army to the war in South Vietnam. At the same time we are reaching the
bottom of our ready manpower pool.
Because the Soviets have had 24 years to deliver the most modern weapons
and train the enemy in their use, we're now fighting a much tougher war. Today
the Communists are employing missiles, heavy artillery, and powerful mortars,
all explaced and fortified during the Administration's war of gradualism.
A way to the peace table must be found in Vietnam. I submit that the
American people have the correct formula-succood or get out. To succeed in
Vietnam we need a clear and coordinated plan with the determination at the top
to see it through. If this fails, then the story of American participation in
the Vietnam war will be written in five words in the history books--toe little
and too late. Too little early in the war--and too late now.
On Dec. 13, 1965, my party's National Coordinating Committee warned that we
were getting bogged down in what could become an endless land war in Southeast
Asia.
FORD
We pleaded for maximum use of our conventional air and sea power. We begged
that the flow of supplies in North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong be stopped.
These thoughtful recommendations by those who support American objectives
-6-
were ignored. The Administration has failed to carry out the first commandment
of military strategy--cut off the enewy's supplies at the source, destroy the
logistical support he needs to make war.
The Administration has not followed this course. Even worse the Secretary
of Defense has categorieally cast it aside.
The Secretary has accused advocates of a more effective air war in the North
of trying to substitute air attacks there for ground fighting in the South.
This is ridiculous. What's more, it's a fabrication. Mobody, myself included,
has ever contended that successful air attacks against North Vietmm can be
substituted for hard ground action in the South. Mr. Machamara sets up a straw
man with such charges and then knocks it down. That is no defense at all for the
mistaken course the Administration has followed in Vietnam.
A nation at war cannot afford confusion and doubt about its basic policies.
Mr. MemMamara's attitude on proposals for making the air war more effective
is that there is no use trying it because it won't work anyway.
Where does the President stand? Does he stand with Mr. MacHamara or with
his military chiefs and those members of Congress who believe a meaningful air
war will help us succeed in Vietnam?
still
What is our policy? Is it/Mr. MacHamara's policy? What hôpe is there for
success in Vietnam? That's what the American people wonder, was and they want
to hear it from the man in charge, the President of the United States.
Is Mr. MacHamara a disciple of defeat? If he is and the President stands
with Mr. McNamara, then the American people are committed to a war of attrition
-7-
that could last for 10 to 20 years.
If Mr. McNamara is right in his current assessment of the Vietnam situation--
and I do not for a mement concede this--then the United States should get out of
Vietnam at the earliest possible time and under the best possible terms.
Our last opportunity for success in Vietnam may be fast disappearing.
I have called for 8 clear and coordinated plan to achieve success in Vietnam.
Such a plan would include more effective and more meaningful bombing of significant
military targets in North Vietnam. Not more tonage, but dropping our bombs on
meaningful targets instead of on jungle trails or into the sea.
We must by one of several sound military tacties shut off or, at the very
least, greatly reduce the flow of supplies through the port of Maiphong.
The Southvietnamese Army must be forced to shoulder more of the burden of
the fighting in the South and the and
All of our allies who have been enjoyed beneficiaries of American aid should be
join
called upon to in a big push toward success in Vietnam.
The pacification program must be made to work.
Three weeks ago I disclosed that nearly half the significant military targets
in North Vietnam were on a list declared off-limits by the President as counander-
in-chief of our armed forees. I said it then and I say it now. I am opposed to
sending one more American foot soldier to Vietnam if our pilots are prevented from
doing the job that needs doing*** job that should have been done months before.
Some are concerned constavilian casualties in
I'm interested in caving the lives of sur man in Vietnam. The way to
Jammore concerned about the lives of ameri cans and South
this in to htt the onewy where it really
Victramese,
+
I am not contending that bombing alone will bring success in Vietnam and
open the way to the peace table. It is just one of the paths we must take or
accept the alternative of disengagement.
I an not advocating that civilian centers be bombed.
Jam not
Due ml experts are net proposing the use of nuclear weapons.
Jam There is notadoreating advocecy.ol
no a ground invasion of North Vietnam by American
forces.
-and I concur -
There is military agreement - that if the war is waged more
efficiently in the North it will aid our men in the South and save American
lives.
The American people are saying "let's succeed or get out."
The voice of the people is inveriably the voice of wisdom.
Many have said the Vietnam War could go on endlessly unless we make a
concerted, joint
effort to bring it to the bergaining table. Events make men, but men also
The Presidentofth United Stateshas
make events. We-bave the power to change the pattern, break the mold, to demand
that our South Vietnamese allies shape up or lose our support.
Genuine success in a guerrilla war results when the local population is
willing to fight its own war, with a conviction that their enemy-the Communists--
be defeated. We saw the proof of this in South Korea, the Philippines, in Greece
and in Malaya.
LIBRARY
Let us fulfall our commitment in Vietnam.
leasther
Let us stop labeling each other as havks or
successfully
doves. Let us decide we are going to end this bloody war, quickly and honorably.
-9-
We eannot and should not do it alone.
I call upon the South Vietnamese soldier to engage in the imitation of
excellence--to pattern himself after our American soldiers and Marines.
To the Southvistnamsse, I say in the words of Pericles: "Take these men
for your example. Freedom is the sure possession alone of those who have the
courage to defend it."
Our objective in Vietnam is honorable. Our cause is just. Let us--we and
our allies-pursus it to an honorable end. Thank you.
###
GERALD
LIBRARY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
BEFORE THE 49TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION
10 A.M., AUGUST 30, 1967, AT BOSTON, MASS.
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
Legionnaires, it is a distinct pleasure and a great honor to be with you.
It's a bit like Old Home Week. I am a Legionnaire--a member of Furniture City
Post No. 258 for 21 years--and proud of it. In fact, I suspect there might be
some of my old shipmates in this audience--men of the aircraft carrier Monterey
on which I spent two of my four years in the Navy
I'm proud to be associated with the Legion because it is a good, sound,
common sense organization dedicated to the advancement of all Americans, with
a long-standing record of insistence on military preparedness.
One reason I take pride in being a Legionnaire is that our organization
stands up for America. Legionnaires love America--its principles, its people
and its history. The American Legion has been unwaveringly determined to protect
America's security and, at the same time, promote the cause of peace throughout
the world.
We are all working for peace--all of us, whether we're called hawks or
doves--and never more than at this moment.
Now we have arrived at a critical point in time and history, a time of great
national perplexity, à time of choosing and decision--yes, a moment of truth.
Millions of Americans who have never doubted the rightness of our being in
Vietnam are asking themselves a soul-searching, devastatingly disturbing question:
Is the Vietnam War "winnable?" Can we really win in Vietnam? Not "win" in the
sense of unconditional surrender. Not "win" in the sense of bringing the Viet
Cong and the North Vietnamese to their knees. But "win" in terms of assuring the
South Vietnamese the right to choose the government under which they will live.
"Win" in the sense of protecting the security of the United States and bolstering
the Free World in its struggle against Communism.
My objective--I want the United States to succeed in Vietnam.
I hope the Administration also has the same clear-cut objective.
When our Nation became actively engaged in the fighting in Vietnam in
February, 1965, the American people supported the action.
RALD FORD LIBRARY
But our involvement in Vietnam has since generated a giant cloud of con-
fusion and a great gulf between the people and the Administration.
(more)
-2-
The reason is simple. For more than two years the Administration has been
playing it by ear. The Administration's conduct of the war has been based on a
new and naive theory-that if we gradually do just a little bit more, the enemy
will some day lay down his arms and talk peace.
Initially we achieved a success. We stopped a quick communist take-over.
Then we threw away our advantage by fighting the war on the enemy's terms.
Today the United States is bogged down in a massive land war in Southeast
Asia, contrary to the views of great military strategists like the late General
Douglas MacArthur.
For 2½ years we have fought a war of gradualism. We have allowed the enemy
ample time to adjust to every turn of the screw. We have made it possible for
Ho Chi Minh to anticipate and counter nearly every move we have made.
Is this any way to get an enemy to talk peace?
The Administration has followed a course of gradualism in Vietnam that has
not worked because it could not work. It was contrary to all sound military
strategy.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower recently said that when you must use force
to support a national aim, for example in the defense of another country, there
is no higher authority to which you can appeal. Therefore, you must win. To do
that, Ike said, you need sufficient force and you must use it quickly and
secretly so as to achieve surprise. He warned that a war of gradualism cannot
be won.
Our fighting men have been tragically handicapped by the Administration's
policy of gradualism. At the same time, the Southvietnamese have not done
enough in their own behalf. In the first instance, too much political instability.
Then a shoring up of a tenuous military regime. And now an election that may
have too many American overtones.
Meantime, our leaders have almost completely Americanized the war.
There are two equally important fronts in South Vietnam----the military war
and the program of pacification.
How are we doing? We and our allies--South Korea, The Philippines,
Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand--must succeed on both fronts if we are to
achieve our basic objective in Vietnam.
The pacification effort is aimed at winning the people's allegiance to
their government with social, economic and political reforms.
(more)
-3-
Let's not mince words. The Southvietnamese regular army thus far has failed
to meet the military challenge. The local militia has failed to provide the
security needed to make the pacification program work.
Tragically, the Saigon Government probably would collapse if both the
Americans and North Vietnamese were to withdraw from the battlefield and let
the South Vietnamese military and the Vietcong fight it out.
The reason--the basic problems in South Vietnam have gone unsolved.
Whatever the outcome of the Sept. 3 presidential election in Vietnam, the
United States must insist that the post-election regime fully carry out a number
of reforms, notably land reform. Such reforms must be achieved if a Saigon
government is to have genuine support. Otherwise military success in Vietnam
will be meaningless.
What is the military situation?
In recent days we have seen what amounts to an Administration propaganda
campaign on our chances for success in Vietnam. It is obviously aimed at counter-
ing a rising wave of frustration among the American people.
I hope there is a basis for such optimism. But the record does not seem to
justify it. Secretary MacNamara, judging from his latest public statement,
certainly does not share it. More than 90,000 Americans have been killed or
wounded in combat in this war of gradualism. There have been more than 250,000
casualties from all causes. To what end? We and our allies have been able to
secure only a fraction of a country roughly the size of my own state of Michigan.
We and our allies have killed an estimated 200,000 of the enemy. Yet we
now face the largest force the Communists have yet put together in Vietnam--
nearly 300,000.
The war in Vietnam is pretty much of a standoff right now--certainly this
is the view of the American people--even though we have increased the American
manpower commitment in Vietnam from 15,000 to 525,000 in the past 2½ years.
We have inflicted heavy losses on the enemy--with mounting American
casualties--but the supply of Communist cannon fodder seems unlimited.
We are told the North Vietnamese have committed only one-fifth of their
regular army to the war in South Vietnam. At the same time we are reaching the
bottom of our ready manpower pool.
Because the Soviets have had 2½ years to deliver the most modern weapons
and train the enemy in their use, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
(more)
-4-
are now fighting a much tougher war. Today the Communists are employing missiles,
heavy artillery, and powerful mortars, all emplaced and fortified during the
Administration's war of gradualism.
A way to the peace table must be found in Vietnam. I submit that the
American people have the correct formula--succeed or get out.
To succeed in Vietnam we need a clear and coordinated plan with the
determination at the top to see it through. If this fails, then the story of
American participation in the Vietnam war will be written in five words in the
history books--too little and too late. Too little early in the war--and too
late now.
On Dec. 13, 1965, my party's National Coordinating Committee warned that
we were getting bogged down in what could become an endless land war in Southeast
Asia.
We pleaded for maximum use of our conventional air and sea power. We
begged that the flow of supplies in North Vietnam through the port of Haiphong
be stopped.
These thoughtful recommendations by those who support American objectives
were ignored. The Administration has failed to carry out the first commandment
of military strategy--cut.off the enemy's supplies at the source, destroy the
logistical support he needs to make war.
The Administration has not followed this course. Publicly, the Secretary
of Defense has categorically cast it aside.
The Secretary has accused advocates of a more effective air war in the North
of trying to substitute air attacks there for ground fighting in the South.
This charge is ridiculous. What's more, it's a fabrication. I know of no one
who has ever contended that meaningful air attacks against North Vie tnam can be
substituted for hard ground action in the South. Mr. McNamara sets up a straw
man with such charges and then knocks it down. That is no defense at all for
the mistaken course the Administration has followed in Vietnam.
A nation at war cannot afford confusion and doubt about its basic policies.
Mr. McNamara's recent argument against making the air war more effective
was that there is no use trying it because it won't work anyway.
Where does the President stand? Does he stand with Mr. McNamara or with
his military chiefs and those members of Congress who believe a meaningful air
war will help us succeed in Vietnam?
(more)
-5-
What is our policy? Is it still Mr. McNamara's policy? What hope is there
for success in Vietnam? That's what the American people wonder, and they want
to hear it from the man in charge, the President of the United States.
If the President continues the indecisive and ineffective policies of the
past 2½ years, then the American people are committed to a war of attrition that
could last for 10 to 20 years.
If Mr. McNamara is right in his latest public assessment of the Vietnam
situation--and I do not for a moment concede this--then the United States should
get out of Vietnam at the earliest possible time and under the best possible
terms.
Our last opportunity for success in Vietnam may be fast disappearing.
I have called for a clear and coordinated plan to achieve success in Vietnam.
Such a plan would include more effective and more meaningful bombing of significant
military targets in North Vietnam. Not necessarily more tonnage, but dropping
our bombs on meaningful targets instead of jungle trails or into the sea.
We must by one of several sound military tactics greatly reduce the flow
of supplies through the port of Haiphong. This can be done in such a way that
no enemy, misled by our past mistakes, will misjudge our will or intentions.
The South Vietnamese Army must be forced to shoulder more of the burden
of the fighting in the South.
All of our allies who have enjoyed American aid should be called upon to
join in a big push toward success in Vietnam.
The pacification program must be made to work.
Three weeks ago I disclosed that many highly significant military targets
in North Vietnam were on a list declared off-limits by the President as commander-
in-chief of our armed forces. I said it then and I say it now. I am opposed
to sending one more American foot-soldier to Vietnam if our pilots are prevented
from doing the job that needs doing--a job that should have been done months
before.
Some people are concerned about civilian casualties in North Vietnam.
I am more concerned about the lives of Americans and our allies in South Vietnam.
I am not contending that air power alone will bring success in Vietnam and open
the way to the peace table. It is just one of the paths we must take or accept
the alternative of disengagement.
I am not advocating that civilian centers be bombed.
(more)
-6-
I am not proposing the use of nuclear weapons.
I am not advocating a ground invasion of North Vietnam by American forces.
So far as I know, no responsible Americans advocate these extreme measures.
There is substantial military agreement, and I concur, that if the war is
waged more efficiently in the North it will aid our men in the South and save
American lives.
The American people are saying "let's succeed or get out."
The voice of the people is invariably the voice of wisdom.
The American people know the Vietnam War could go on endlessly unless there
is a concerted joint effort to bring it to the bargaining table. Events make
men, but men also make events. The President of the United States has the power
to change the pattern, to break the mold, to demand that our South Vietnamese
allies shape up or lose our support.
Genuine success in a guerrilla war results when the local population is
willing to fight its own war, with a conviction that their enemy--the Communists--
be defeated. We saw the proof of this in South Korea, the Philippines, in Greece
and in Malaya.
Let us fulfill our commitment in Vietnam. Let us stop labeling each other
as hawks or doves. Let us admit past mistakes--stop defending past failures.
Let us decide we are going to end this bloody war, quickly, successfully and
honorably.
We cannot and should not do it alone.
I call upon the South Vietnamese soldier to engage in the imitation of
excellence--to pattern himself after our American soldiers and Marines.
To the South Vietnamese, I say in the words of Pericles: "Take these
men for your example. Freedom is the sure possession alone of those who have
the courage to defend it."
Our objective in Vietnam is honorable. Our cause is just. Let us--we and
our allies--pursue it to an honorable end. Thank you.
###