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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526077
label
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, January 10, 1968
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526077
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, January 10, 1968
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Compulsory national service
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526077
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1968-01-31
month
1
year
1968
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-01-01
month
1
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
0b5227777e66b9f7
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D23, folder "Stevens Institute of Technology,
Hoboken, NJ, January 10, 1968" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D23 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Notes for Stevens Institute of Technology Speaking Engagement, Hoboken, N.J.
Jan. 10, 1968.
Subject: Vietnam and the Draft.
--On Vietnam, there is little to add to notes worked up for Duquesne U.
appearance except that we should be alert to the possibility that some in
the Johnson Administration will be so anxious to get the war over with that
they will lean toward a tenuous peace. The Administration indicated such a
possibility during the Manila Conference when it was announced that the U.S.
was prepared to withdraw its forces from Vietnam if the North Vietnamese also
agreed to withdraw, thus leaving the South Vietnamese government to cope with
the Vietcong. I can only conclude that the North Vietnamese considered this
to be a trick and therefore did not respond. Had they believed the offer was
sincerely made, they would have been fools not to accept because the view of
many senior U.S. officers in Vietnam was that this arrangement would have
produced the ultimate collapse of the South Vietnam government and a certain
Vietcong takeover. There probably is no valid basis for peace talks on
Vietnam except a mutual cease-fire. It is difficult to envision a satis-
factory minimum de-escalation by the Northvietnamese in exchange for a cessation
of bombing of the North, for instance. It is actually unrealistic to insist
that there be a halt both in movement of supplies and troops from the North
into the South in exchange for a bombing halt. I say this because we
certainly would go on supplying our own troops during a bombing halt, and
therefore we could not expect the enemy not to supply theirs. It might make
more sense to insist on a halt in enemy reinforcements in exchange for a
bombing halt, but with no provisio on supplies. This of course would give
the enemy unimpeded access to fresh supplies until such time as the supplies
crossed from the North into the South and would be a tremendous boost for
them. The halt in the bombing also would be a tremendous relief for the
enemy. We would gain nothing except talks that might produce no results
-2-
while the killing went on in South Vietnam. As for conducting talks while a
cease-fire is in effect, we have seen how the enemy observes an official cease-
fire. But if a cease-fire were declared and talks were begun, the eyes of the
world would be turned on the Communists and any cease-fire violations they might
perpetrate. We come back, then, to the original premise that negotiations
for the sake of negotiations--while the fighting continues but bombing of the
North stops--appears to be completely unrealistic in the absence of meaning-
ful reciprocity on the part of the enemy.
War is a tragedy, but it is the duty of every American to serve his country
when called upon to do so. If he is a conscientious objector, he must be
allowed to serve the Nation in some way other than that of bearing arms. But
apart from making room for the conscientious objector, we must all face up to
our responsibilities as American citizens enjoying the rights and privileges
that come to us as a birthright. It is an unusual man who deliberately and gladly
risks his life, but millions of Americans have done so in defense of their
country. In the case of Vietnam, it would be a happy circumstance indeed if
we had enough volunteers so that we would not have to employ the draft. But
we must use the draft, and so the Congress last year extended the draft for
four years beyond June 30 when the Selective Service Act was due to expire.
The President proposed a lottery system in place of drafting men through the
call of local draft boards under general rules applying to selection and
deferments. The Congress. wisely refused to allow the President to carry out
his lottery plan. I personally opposed it because I don't think we should
blindly take some of the best brains in the country into the military service
under a blind-chance lottery system. College should not become a haven for
draft dodgers but neither should we indiscriminately draft college students
-3-
for Army duty. So Congress passed a new draft law prohibiting the President
from drafting young men by lot without congressional approval in the form
of new legislation. We also sought to end the uncertainty that many college
students feel about the draft, so we specifically granted an automatic
deferment to any draft registrant "satisfactorily pursuing a fulltime course
of instruction at a college, university or similar institution of learning"
until he gains his baccalaureate degree or becomes 24 years of age. During
debate on the draft legislation, a group of House Republicans pushed hard
for an all-volunteer Army. But we need 3 million 300 thousand men under
arms to carry out our mission in Vietnam and elsewhere in the world--and
experience shows we could hope to attract no more than 2 million men to a
purely voluntary force.
Now we find certain Americans urging young men to avoid the draft or to
refuse to enter military service. As you know, five individuals including
the chaplain of Yale University have been indic ted for such activity. I do
not want to prejudge the guilt of the individuals so charged, but if they are
guilty of the count specified they certainly have violated federal law.
Title 50, Section 462 (a) of the United States Code, provides that:
"Any member of the Selective Service System or any other person who knowingly
counsels, aids or abets another to refuse or evade registration or service in
the armed forces or any of the requirements of this title
shall, upon
conviction in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction,
be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more
by
than $10,000, or/both such fine and imprisonment."
I believe this provision of federal law should be strictly enforced,
particularly in time of war. This is a society of laws. To encourage
-4-
disrespect for the law is to encourage anarchy and a breakdown of our society as
we know it. I believe in responsible dissent. To criticize, to protest, to
condemn policy or individuals is the privilege of every American under the First
Amendment to the Constitution. But the Constitution does not give any American
the right to interfere with the war effort by seeking to persuade young men
to evade the draft or refuse military service.
The degree to dissent being permitted in this country in time of war is nothing
of remarkable. I favor free expression of dissent when it is responsible, when
it does not interfere with the rights of others. But when it degenerates into
violence or deprives others of a right, I disapprove. And I commend those
university officials who have declared they will not tolerate student protests
which actually prevent military or business firm recruiters from interviewing
students who desire an interview. This kind of protest is not responsible.
I also agree with university administrators who frown on demonstrations which
interfere with the pursuit of learning. It has always been my understanding that
a student is in college to learn. Those who use a college campus to stir up
trouble for the college authorities and prevent other students from getting a
college education ought to go out and hire a hall.
But whatever the nature of the protest, I do not think quickie drafting of
individuals should be used as punishment. If an individual has violated the
law, then upon being charged and found guilty he should receive whatever
punishment the law provides for the offense charged. The draft should not
be used as an instrument of repression. Neither should local draft boards
decide the legality of an anti-draft protest.
# # # #
DIPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
NEWS RELEASE
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, D.C. - 20301
PLEASE NOTE DATE
tex
HOLD FOR RELEASE
UNTIL DELIVERY OF ADDRESS
NO. 382-67
EXPECTED ABOUT 12:30 P.M. (EST)
Oxford 7-3189 (Copies)
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1967
tile
OXford 795331 (Info.)
ADDRESS BY
GENERAL W. C. WESTMORELAND, USA
COMMANDER, U. S. MILITARY ASSISTANCE COMMAND, VIETNAM
BEFORE JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1967 - 12:30 P.M. (EST)
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress
I am deeply honored to address the Congress of the United States. I stand in
the shadow of military men who have been here before me, but none of them could have
had more pride than is mine in representing the gallant men fighting in Vietnam
today. Without reservation, I can say that I command the most professional, com-
petent, dedicated and courageous servicemen and women in our military experience.
They are sensitive to their mission and, as the record shows, they are unbeatable
in carrying out that mission.
As their commander in the field I have seen many of you during the last
three years. Without exception you have shown interest, responsibility and concern
for the commitment which we have undertaken.
The Republic of Vietnam is fighting to build a strong nation while aggression
-- organized, directed and supported from without -- attempts to engulf it. This
is an unprecedented chállenge for a small nation such as the Republic of Vietnam.
But it is a challenge which will confront any nation that is marked as a target for
the communist stratagem called "war of national liberation." Incan assure you here
and now that militarily this stratagem will not succeed in Vietnam.
In three years of close study and daily observation, I have seen no evidence
that this is an internal insurrection. And I have seen much evidence to the con-
trary -- documented by the enemy himself -- that it simply is aggression from the
North.
Since 1954, when the Geneva Accords were signed, the North Vietnamese have
been sending leaders, political organizers, technicians and experts on terrorism
and sabotage into the South. Clandestinely directed from the North, they and their
Hanoi-trained southern counterparts have controlled the entire course of the attack
against the Republic of South Vietnam.
MORE
FORD LIBRARY
2
More than two years ago, North Vietnamese divisions began to arrive,
and the control no longer was as clandestine. Since then, the buildup of
enemy forces has been formidable. During the last 22 months, the number of
enemy combat battalions in the South has increased significantly, and nearly
half of them are North Vietnamese. In the same period, overall enemy
strength has nearly doubled in spite of large battle losses.
Enemy commanders are skilled professionals and provide good leadership.
In general, their troops are thoroughly indoctrinated, well trained, ag-
gressive and under tight control.
The enemy's logistic system is primitive in many ways. Forced to
transport most of his supplies down through Southeastern Laos, he uses combina-
tions of trucks, bicycles, men and animals. But he does this with surprising
effectiveness. In South Vietnam, the system is well organized. Many of the
caches we have found and destroyed have been stocked with enough supplies and
equipment to support months of future operations.
The enemy emphasizes what he calls strategic mobility although his tactics
are based on foot mobility, relatively modest firepower, and often primitive
means of communications. However, his operational planning is meticulous. He
gathers intelligence, makes careful plans, assigns specific tasks in detail
and then rehearses the plan of attack until he believes it cannot fail. The
enemy impresses local villagers into his service, demanding that they provide
food, shelter and laborers to carry supplies and equipment for combat units,
and to evacuate the dead and wounded from the battlefield.
When all is ready he moves his large military formations covertly from
concealed bases into the operational area. His intent is to launch a surprise
attack designed to achieve quick victory by the sudden application of over-
whelming power. This tactic has failed because of our firepower and spoiling
attacks.
For months now we have been successful in destroying a number of main
force units. We will continue to seek out the enemy, catch him off guard,
and punish him at every opportunity.
But success against his main forces alone is not enough to insure a
swift and decisive end to the conflict.
This enemy also uses terror--murder, mutilation, abduction and the de-
liberate shelling of innocent men, women and children -- to exercise control
through fear. This tactic, which he employs daily, is much harder to counter
than his best conventional moves.
During the week ending 22 April Viet Cong terrorists killed 126 innocent
civilians, wounded 86 and abducted 100 others. The victims included 27
Revolutionary Development workers, 11 village or hamlet officials or candidates,
six policemen, and 13 refugees or defectors from VC control.
3
Last Sunday, terrorists, near Saigon, assassinated a 39-
year old village chief. The same day in the delta, they kidnapped 26 civilians
assisting in arranging for local elections. The next day the Viet Cong at-
tacked a group of Revolutionary Development workers, killing one and wounding
12 with grenades and machine-gun fire in one area, and in another they opened
fire on a small civilian bus and killed three and wounded four of its passengers.
These are cases of calculated enemy attack on civilians to extend by fear that
which they cannot gain by persuasion.
One hears little of this brutality here at home. What we do hear about
is our own aerial bombing against North Vietnam, and I would like to address
this for a moment.
For years the enemy has been blowing bridges, interrupting traffic,
cutting roads, sabotaging power stations, blocking canals and attacking air-
fields in the South, and he continues to do SO. Bombing in the North has
been centered on precisely these same kinds of targets and for the same
military purposes--to reduce the supply, interdict the movement and impair
the effectiveness of enemy military forces.
Within his capabilities the enemy in Vietnam is waging total war all
day--every day--everywhere. He believes in force, and his intensification
of violence is limited only by his resources and not by any moral inhibitions.
To our forces, a cease fire means just that. Our observance of past
truces has been open and subject to public scrutiny. The enemy permits no
such observation. He traditionally has exploited cease fire periods when the
bombing has been suspended to increase his resupply and infiltration activity.
This is the enemy--this has been the challenge. The only strategy which
can defeat such an organization is one of unrelenting military, political
and psychological pressure on his whole structure-at all levels.
From his capabilities and his recent activities, I believe the enemy's
probable course in the months ahead can be forecast.
In order to carry out his battlefield doctrine I foresee that he will
continue his buildup across the Demilitarized Zone and through Laos, and he
will attack us when he believes he has a chance for a dramatic blow. He will
not return exclusively to guerrilla warfare, although he certainly will
continue to intensify his guerrilla activities.
I expect the enemy to continue to increase his mortar, artillery, rocket
and recoilless rifle attacks on our installations. At the same time he will
step up his attacks on hamlet, village and district organizations to intimidate
the people, and to thwart the democratic processes now underway in South
Vietnam.
4.
Given the nature of the enemy, it seems to me that the strategy we are
following at this time is the proper one, and that it is producing results.
While he obviously is far from quitting, there are signs that his morale and
his military structure are beginning to deteriorate. Their rate of decline
will be in proportion to the pressure directed against him.
Faced with this prospect, it is gratifying to note that our forces and
those of the other free world allies have grown in strength and profited from
experience. In this connection it is well to remember that Korea, Australia,
New Zealand, Thailand and the Philippines all have military forces fighting
and working with the Vietnamese and Americans in Vietnam. It also is worthy of
note that 30 other nations are providing non-combat support, and that all of
these free world forces are doing well, whether in combat or in support of
nation-building. Their exploits deserve recognition, not only for their direct
contributions to the overall effort, but for their symbolic reminder that the
whole of free Asia opposes communist expansion.
As the focal point of this struggle in Asia the Republic of Vietnam Armed
Forces merit special mention.
In 1954 South Vietnam had literally no armed forces in being. There was
no tradition of leadership, nor was there an educational system to provide
leaders. The requirement to build an army, navy and air force in the face of
enemy attack and political subversion seems, in retrospect, an almost impos-
sible task. Yet, in their determination to resist the communists, the Viet-
namese have managed to do it.
What I see now in Vietnam is a military force that performs with growing
professional skill. During the last six months, Vietnamese troops have scored
repeated successes against some of the best Viet Cong and North Vietnamese
Army Units.
Perhaps more important in this total effort is the support given by the
Vietnamese military to the government's nation-building or Revolutionary
Development program. Nearly half of the Vietnamese Army now is engaged in or
training for this vital program which will improve the lot of the people.
This is a difficult role for a military force. Vietnamese are not only
defending villages and hamlets, but with spirit and energy they have turned
to the task of nation building as well.
In 1952 there were some who doubted that the Republic of Korea would ever
have a first rate fighting force. I wish those doubters could see the Korean
units in Vietnam today. They rank with the best fighters and the most effec-
tive civic action workers in Vietnam. And so today when I hear doubts about
the Vietnamese armed forces, I am reminded of that example.
As you know we are fighting a war with no front lines since the enemy hides
among the people, in the jungles and mountains, and uses covertly border areas
of neutral countries. Therefore one cannot measure the progress of battle by
lines on a map. We therefore have to use other means to chart progress. Sev-
eral indices clearly point to steady and encouraging success:
Two years ago the Republic of Vietnam had fewer than 30 combat ready
battalions. Today it has 154.
(MORE)
5.
Then there were three jet-capable runways in South Vietnam. Today there
are 14.
In April 1965 there were 15 airfields that could take C-130 transport
aircraft. Now there are 89.
Then there was one deep water port for sea-going ships. Now there are
seven.
In 1965 ships had to wait weeks to unload. Now we turn them around in
as little as one week.
Then there was no long-haul highway transport. Last month alone 161,000
tons of supplies were moved over the highways. During the last year the
mileage of essential highways open for our use has risen from about 52% to
80%.
During 1965 the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces and its allies killed
36,000 of the enemy and lost approximately 12,000 in return. During recent
months this three to one ratio in favor of the allies has risen significantly
and in some weeks has been as high as ten or twelve to one.
In 1965, 11,000 Viet Cong rallied to the side of the government. In
1966 there were 20,000. In the first three months of 1967 there have been
nearly 11,000 ralliers, a figure that equals all of 1965 and more than half
of all of 1966.
In 1964 and the first part of 1965 the ratio of weapons captured was two
to one in favor of the enemy. The ratio for 1966 and the first three months
of this year is two and one-half to one in favor of the Republic of Vietnam
and its allles.
Our President and the representatives of the people of the United States,
the Congress, have seen to it that our troops in the field have been well
supplied and equipped. And when a field commander does not have to look over
his shoulder to see whether he is being supported, he can concentrate on the
battlefield with much greater assurance of success. I speak for my troops,
when I say -- we are thankful for this unprecedented material support.
As I have said before, in evaluating the enemy strategy it is evident to
me that he believes our Achilles' heel is our resolve. Your continued strong
support is vital to the success of our mission.
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen in Vietnam are
the finest ever fielded by our nation. And in this assessment I include Amer-
icans of all races, creeds and colors. Your servicemen in Vietnam are intel-
ligent, skilled, dedicated and courageous. In these qualities no unit, no
service, no ethnic group and no national origin can claim priority.
These men understand the conflict and their complex roles as fighters
and builders. They believe in what they are doing. They are determined to
provide the shield of security behind which the Republic of Vietnam can develop
and prosper for its own sake and for the future and freedom of all Southeast
Asia.
(MORE)
6.
Backed at home by resolve, confidence, patience, determination and con-
tinued support, we will prevail in Vietnam over communist aggression.
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress --
I am sure you are as proud to represent our men serving their country
and the free world in Vietnam as I am to command them.
- END -
House Republican Policy Committee
Viet Nam
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
March 2, 1966
Phone: 225-6168
Immediate Release
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Viet Nam
The deep division within the Democratic Party over American policy in Viet Nam
is prolonging the war, undermining the morale of our fighting men and
encouraging the Communist aggressor. It has confused the people in other
nations about the American purpose and has led North Viet Nam to believe that
in time we may falter, that we do not have the necessary will or determination
to win. As a result, the peace that this nation and the free world seeks has
been delayed, the fighting intensified, and the threat of a major war deepened.
In an effort to please the conflicting elements in the Democratic Party, the
Administration has had to dodge and shift. Its policy and position on Viet
Nam continues to be marred by indecision, sudden change and frequent reinter-
pretation. Under the circumstances, it is little wonder that the enemy has
been encouraged, our friends dismayed, and the "national unity that can do more
to bring about peace negotiations than almost any other thing" delayed.
We, therefore, call upon the President to disavow those within his party who
would divide this country as they have divided the Democratic Party. Certainly,
as the President has stated, "there is much more that unites us than divides us."
However, as long as the party in power cannot agree on such basic issues as
whether Americans should be in Viet Nam at all, what our Nation is trying to
achieve there and whether the right means are being used, there will continue
to be uncertainties, misunderstandings and fears about the war in Viet Nam.
America, indeed the world, is waiting for the President to take command of his
party. Until this is done, the divisive debate will continue, the confusion
will grow, and a peaceful solution will elude us.
Republicans are united in their support of the fighting men in Viet Nam. We
also support a policy that will prevent the success of aggression and the
forceful conquest of South Viet Nam by North Viet Nam.
In addition, we believe that the people of South Viet Nam should have an
opportunity to live their lives in peace under a government of their own
choice, free of Communist aggression.
Certainly, these objectives cannot be realized by admitting the Communists to
a share of power in a coalition government. For this is "arsenic in the
medicine," the "fox in the chicken coop.' It would pave the way for a Communist
takeover as surely as did the coalition governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia,
Rumania, and Hungary. Moreover, it would make a cruel and indefensible mockery
of the sacrifices of the fighting men in Viet Nam.
Roving Ambassador W. Averell Harriman stated:
"I think those who dissent
.
should recognize that it does
give comfort to the enemy - or not comfort, but it does give
encouragement to the enemy."
In an article datelined 'Saigon', February 27, and entitled
"Look Is Different Where Action Is", Washington Post correspondent
Ward Just stated:
"From Washington it may seem that the war aims of the U. S.
Government have not been defined and Senators may believe the
Vietcong represent the will of the Vietnamese people, but in
Saigon this talk strikes officials as neither instructive nor
ameliorating.
It unhinges friends and fence sitters in the Ky government and now
it has unhinged American diplomats."
In his 1963 Berlin speech President John F. Kennedy stated:
"I am not impressed by the opportunities open to popular
fronts throughout the world. I do not believe that any democrat
can successfully ride that tiger."
New York Times columnist C. L. Sulzberger concluded that:
"both Peking and Hanoi must have gained fresh encouragement
by the joining of our Know-Nothings with our Know-It-Alls."
Richard L. Strout, staff correspondent of the Christian Science
Monitor, has stated:
"Hubert H. Humphrey has embarked on an all-out counteroffensive to
sell the Vietnam war to the American people, and overcome the
uneasiness, restlessness, and doubts which have appeared in the
past month.
Roving Ambassador W. Averell Harriman, who accompanied the Vice-
President on his whirlwind tour of nine nations, has come back
just as firmly determined as Mr. Humphrey to combat what seems
to be interpreted as defeatism. Both Humphrey and Harriman take
the position that it was providential they were in Asia at the
time of the Fulbright hearings in order to counter there the
misapprehension over American resolve.
Humphrey also said that the "ADA" (Americans for Democratic Action)
are "just the people" he will try to persuade.
REPUBLICAN RESEARCH REPORT V-N
REPUBLICAN
Prepared by the
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
NATURAL COMMITTEE
Research Division
1625 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
ROBERT L.L. McCORMICK
RAY C. BLISS
Director of Research
Chairman
REPORT No. 5 -- Series B
May 20, 1966
VIETNAM
Anatomy of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's Misleading
Statements Concerning the Conduct of the War in
Vietnam
B-FORD is LIBRARY 938839
U.S. MILITARY COMMITMENTS ABROAD
1966
U.S. Men
Under Arms
2.7 million
OUT OF 2.7 MILLION
835,000 STATIONED ABROAD
About 1/3 Stationed Abroad
10% in Viet Nam
Europe
450,000
Vietnam
255,000
(Okinawa,
Japan,
Guam,
Greenland,
Iceland,
Canada,
Cyprus,
Turkey)
Other
100,000
Korea
50,000
Thailand
Puerto
Panama
Dominican
Guantanamo
12,000.
Rico
Republic
Formosa
Base
10,000
9,000
7,000
4,000
4,000
II. UNITED STATES COMBAT CASUALTIES IN SOUTH VIETNAM FIGHTING 1961 THROUGH 1965
In the Presidential campaign of 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson said:
"Some others are eager to enlarge the conflict. They call upon us to supply
American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do. They ask us to take
reckless action which might risk the lives of millions."
(Public Papers of the Presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964, p.953 8/12/64)
U.S. COMBAT CASUALTIES IN VIET NAM
FIGHTING 1961 THROUGH 1965
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
20000
1000
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
deaths
Projected 1966 on basis
of 400,000 U. S. Servicemen
wounded
in Viet Nam
Deaths
Wounded
Deaths
Wounded
1961
1
1
Jan 1, 1961
1962
31
74
1,616
Jan 1, 1966
7,493
1963
77
411
Jan 1, 1966)
1964
142
1,038
1,618
10,121
May 7, 1966.
1965
1,365
5,969
Total* 1,616
7,493
Total*
3,234
17,614
*Figures from News Release, Office of
*Figures from News Release, Office
Assistant Secretary of Defense
of Assistant Secretary of Defense
BERALD FORD LEBRARY
(Public Affairs) April 7, 1966.
(Public Affairs) May 7, 1966.
U.S. TROOP BUILD-UP IN VIET NAM
400,000
350,000
(Projected)
300,000
250,000
200,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
23,000
16,000
1,300 10,000
0
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
I. UNITED STATES TROOP BUILD-UP IN SOUTH VIETNAM.
In the Presidential campaign of 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson said:
"We don't want our American boys to do the fighting for Asian boys. We
don't want to get involved in a nation with 700 million people and get
tied down in a land war in Asia."
(Public Papers of the Presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-1964, p.1126 9/25/64.)
3
-4-
III. UNITED STATES SOUTH VIETNAM MILITARY POSTURE
A. Global Commitments:
1. The New York Times military writer, Hanson Baldin, concluded
in an article, February 21, 1966:
"The Nation's armed services have almost exhausted their
trained and ready military units, with all available forces
spread thin in Vietnam and elsewhere."
2. At a Press Conference on March 2, 1966, Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara said:
"Far from over-extending ourselves we have actually strengthened
our military posture." (New York Times, March 3, 1966, Jack
Raymond)
3. Senator John Stennis (D-Miss.), Chairman of the Senate Preparedness
Subcommittee, in a speech before the Reserve Officers Association,
said:
"The heavy drain of Vietnam has brought on serious problems
in personnel, equipment repair parts and other materials."
(New York Times, Jack Raymond, March 3, 1966)
4. The Pentagon announced on April 9, 1966, that 15,000 United States
troops were being recalled from Europe and the New York Times
editorial of April 10, 1966 observed "the temporary withdrawal
from West Germany to meet military needs in Vietnam confirms
the strain." (New York Times, April 11, 1966)
B. Military Shortages:
Secretary of Defense McNamara on March 2, 1966 said:
"It can be stated categorically that no shortages have impeded
our combat operations in Southeast Asia or affected the morale
or welfare of our men." (Washington Post, March 3, 1966)
The Pentagon acknowledged on April 12, 1966 that:
"... both local and world wide shortages of some types of bombs--
particularly the latest 750-pounders best suited for Vietnam
targets--influenced the reduction in air strikes."
"A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged 'we are reacquiring some
excess stocks of war material. (Washington Post, April 12,
1966, John G. Norris)
Senator Richard Russell was quoted as "utterly astounded" by the
announced shortages of bombs in Vietnam:
"I was assured no later than last week by Secretary of Defense
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-5-
McNamara and others in the Defense Department that we had
adequate ammunition of every kind in Vietnam." (Washington
Post, April 12, 1966)
C. Combat Readiness:
1. "A high Pentagon spokesman acknowledged yesterday that Army
divisions in the United States have been reduced below
full combat readiness by the demands of the Vietnam war and the
defense expansion program." (Washington Post, March 3, 1966,
John G. Norris)
2. "Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara denied today suggestions
that the Army's home-based strategic reserves were seriously
below combat readiness." (New York Times, March 31, 1966,
Benjamin Welles)
D. South Vietnamese Armed Forces:
1. General Maxwell Taylor, retiring United States Ambassador to
South Vietnam stated on Meet The Press, August 8, 1965:
"I am quite confident in the course of the next year, 1966,
the Vietnamese can raise considerably more forces than in
the past."
2. On February 22, 1966, a Washington Post article by Stanley Karnow
stated:
"...a crucial problem confronting planners here is whether
the United States, South Vietnam and other nations committed
to this war effort can muster sufficient manpower...
"A serious shortage of both civilian and military manpower
exists within the South Vietnamese government structure."
3. On February 24, 1966, Neil Sheehan, writing in the New York Times,
reported:
"...about 113,000 men deserted from the South Vietnamese
armed forces last year, a total equivalent to nearly half
of the American force that has been committed to the defense
of this country."
4. Reuben Salazar of the Washington Post, February 25, 1966, noted:
"In 1964 a total of 8.3% of the armed forces deserted. In
1965 the percentage rose to 14.2%."
5. Neil Sheehan on May 13, 1966, stated in The New York Times:
FORD
"For the record time in five weeks the number of
American troops killed and wounded in a week has
exceeded South Vietnamese losses
-6-
"American casualties exceeded the South Vietnamese
for the first time during the week ended April 9,
when United States troops suffered 95 killed, 501
wounded and 4 missing or captured. In the same
period the South Vietnamese losses were 67 killed
and 204 wounded, missing or captured
"In the week ended Saturday (5/7/66) 82 American
servicemen were killed and 615 wounded in the
fighting throughout the country."
IV UNITED STATES BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM
A. The Decision to Bomb
"When asked if the Communist attacks indicated a need to carry
the war to North Vietnam, McNamara said that Communist 'terror
tactics' required counter action 'on the soil of South Vietnam.'
Military action against North Vietnam would not be a 'proper
response' to the Communist infiltrators."
(Robert S. McNamara, quoted in The Washington Post, 5/14/64)
In the Presidential campaign of 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson said:
"There are those that say we ought to go North and drop bombs,
to try and wipe out the supply lines.'
(Remarks in Oklahoma at the Dedication of the Eufaula Dam,
9/25/64)
"But we must not go around over the world rattling our rockets
and threatening our bombs."
(Remarks in Springfield, Illinois, at the Sangamon County
Courthouse, 10/7/64)
On February 7, 1965, United States carrier based planes bombed North
Vietnam in retaliation for the Viet Cong attack upon the United States com-
pound at Pleiku. (Facts on File, 1965, p.49.)
B. The Effectiveness of the Bombing
Before the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting of January 21,
1966, Secretary McNamara testified:
"I submit to you that it is not correct to state that the
initial objectives of the bombing have not been met."
(U.S. News and World Report, February 28, 1966.)
Stanley Karnow, The Washington Post, February 8, 1966, quoted a top
United States Defense Department official as saying:
"We can quadruple bombings against North Vietnam without affecting
the war significantly."
-7-
V. COMMUNIST INFILTRATION ACROSS THE 17TH PARALLEL
General Maxwell Taylor speaking on Face the Nation said:
"I think even today the fact that a Viet Cong or a North Viet-
namese battalion fights only about one or two days a month is
indicative of the fact that they can't support combat on an
enlarged scale."
(The Washington Post, February 14, 1966)
Later, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, February 17,
1966, General Taylor testified:
"Another limiting factor is the logistic difficulty of the Viet Cong
in supporting increased numbers of troops in combat."
(The Washington Post, February 18, 1966)
On April 4, 1966, The New York Times reported a high ranking United
States official in Saigon as saying:
"North Vietnam has vastly increased the flow of men and material
to the South in the last two months what has been occurring
for many months constitutes an invasion of South Vietnam from
the North."
VI. POLITICAL INSTABILITY
A. Non-Interference in Vietnamese Politics:
Max Frankel reported in the New York Times (April 9, 1966) that the
Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, William Bundy,
in an interview on the Today Show referred to the Buddhist movements
as follows:
"One is, perhaps, the more moderate one, which wants to get
ahead with the constitution and the rest That's Tam Chau.
"The other, which is associated and, I think, led by Tri
Quange, wants to accelerate the timetable very, very much indeed,
and wants to see procedures established for a constitution
and elections that would be dominated by them, I think is a
fair way to describe it."
Under Secretary of State, George Ball, however, was quoted as saying
on Face the Nation, (April 10, 1966):
"But the last thing in the world we want to do is to try to inject
an American view as to what the South Vietnamese people should
choose in the way of their government or which leaders are more
useful to them. This is a decision that they should make
"We cannot interfere in the internal affairs of South Vietnam
or any other country."
B. Instability Impairing the War Effort:
Seymour Topping, Far Eastern correspondent for the New York Times,
reported April 5, 1966:
-8-
"The war effort against the Vietcong is faltering while South
Vietram's Government strives to crush an internal challenge to
its authority by a Buddhist led political movement.
"The pacification and rural reconstruction programs assigned
high priorities at the Honolulu Conference two months ago
by President Johnson and the South Vietnamese leaders have
lost impetus because the Government is preoccupied with the
political crisis.'
Under Secretary of State George Ball declared on Face the Nation
(April 10, 1966):
"The interesting thing is that while the newspaper headlines have
been filled with the political turbulence in South Vietnam, the
very silent, serious effective work looking towards the improvement
of the social and economic and political base in South Vietnam has
been going forward--as have the military operations. There has
been no particular reduction in them."
On April 12, 1966, Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Sylvester
issued a statement confirming news reports from Saigon that:
"There has been a temporary reduction in sorties within South
Vietnam
"There has been a temporary problem in the distribution of bombs
within the country. This distribution problem has resulted
primarily from the disorder at Danang which caused diversion
of ordnance-carrying vessels to other unloading areas. Steps
are being taken to alleviate the distribution problem."
VII. "ADMINISTRATION COVER-UP?"
1. Democratic Congressman Richard L. Ottinger of New York was
quoted in the New York Times, March 31, 1966 as saying:
"Congressmen returning from South Vietnam reported they had
been 'badly misled' by United States officials who had shown
them around. He said, that information indicated that Congress-
men who visited South Vietnam were shown and told only things
that made the United States look good. Mr. Ottinger said the
reports strengthened his belief that top Government officials
were misinforming the public on other vital issues besides
the Vietnam War. (New York Times, March 31, 1966)
2. Two days later, April 2, 1966, it was announced:
" the Administration ordered a postponement today of all
Congressional trips to South Vietnam. The Administration's
underlying concern was brought into the open by the imminent
plan of a House Government Operations Subcommittee, headed
by Representative John E. Moss of California, to go to South
Vietnam to investigate the aid program. " (New York Times,
April 2, 1966, John W. Finney)
RLL
Planning and Research Committee
October 11, 1966
House Republican Conference
VIETNAM
The Eisenhower Administration Is Not Responsible for the Present U.S. Involvement
When Eisenhower left office, there were 700 U.S. military advisers in Vietnam, but
there was no war, no U.S. casualties, no U.S. combat troops, and no commitment to
send any. John F. Kennedy wrote, " saw a near miracle take place" in South
Vietnam between the Geneva Conference of 1954 and 1960.
The 1954 SEATO Treaty did not obligate the U.S. to use its forces in Vietnam.
Senator Smith (N.J.), a signer of the Treaty, explained to the Senate that it was
not "a compulsory arrangement for our military participation in case of attack."
Regarding "the commitment of American ground forces to the Asian mainland," he
said, "We carefully avoided any possible implication regarding an arrangement of
that kind."
Republicans Support U.S. Troops and a Quest for a Peace That Maintains the
Independence of South Vietnam
An independent South Vietnam has been a U.S. objective since 1954. Under Eisenhower
it was achieved without war. Every effort should be made to bring about a peace
which preserves this independence.
As long as American troops fight there, they must be supported fully by Congress.
Doubt now arises whether LBJ is holding to this objective. The doubt is based on
1) the Administration's endorsement of the 1954 Geneva Agreements as a basis for
peace; 2) LBJ's refusal to say whether he rules out imposing a coalition government
including Communists on South Vietnam; and 3) Goldberg's proposals to the UN for a
withdrawal of U.S. and North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam. Any of these
three courses involve grave risks of ending in a Communist victory.
The Administration's Shortcomings in Vietnam
LBJ held off military action until South Vietnam was near collapse. He has failed
to use the economic power of the U.S. in the struggle. He has not been candid
about the military situation, the mission of U.S. troops, war costs, enemy casual-
ties, or peace feelers.
In 1964 he played politics with Vietnam by denouncing "those who say you ought to
go north and drop bombs," and saying, "We are not about to send American boys 9 or
10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
These things, as much as the differences among Democrats about Vietnam, encourage
the enemy to believe that they will eventually win.
What Should Be Done
This is the third biggest war in U.S. history in terms of the American troop commit-
ment. We cannot accept an endless war in Vietnam fought principally by the U.S.
On the other hand, withdrawal would lead to a bigger war later in Asia. In an
effort to end this war on honorable terms, the U.S. must repair its alliances and
secure more military, economic, and political support from others. It must more
effectively encourage the South Vietnamese to do their part in the war and to
hasten political and economic progress. If the Administration has good reasons for
not shutting off the port of Haiphong as recommended by General Taylor in February
1966, it should explain them.
We hope that the Manila Conference, held just before the election, will result in
progress toward an honorable peace and failing that more support from other
nations in the military effort.
#
#
#
PROTESTERS
NY TIMES, 4/13/67, edit. :
Draft Ine
In an enlightened ruling a three-man Federal court has written an opinion that re-
affirms the right of protest in time of war.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held unconstitutional the amendment
to the Selective Service Act that forbids destruction or mutilation of a draft card
the law has always required that a registrant have a card in his possession. It
was under this provision
that the Appeals Court upheld the defendant's conviction of
violating the Selective Service Act. In doing so, the court pointed out that Congress
could not impose a special punishment for those who expressed their views by burning a
card in public any more than it could punish them for peaceful picketing. Both are
symbolic gestures that are an integral part of one's right to speak freely.
This ruling goes counter to decisions reached in similar cases in the Second and
Eighth Circuits, but it is in accord with the judiciary's responsibility to protect the
individual liberties of all
Failure to possess a draft card properly leads to punishment for these youthful dis-
senters. Freedom is not served by piling on additional and severely repressive penalties
against symbolic actions of the dissenters in expressing their dissent.
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
File Vict-ham
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Following Statement was Approved Unanimously
by The Republican Coordinating Committee meeting
in Washington, D. C. December 13, 1965
Questions are being raised both at home and abroad as to the devotion
of the American people to peace. One cause of this confusion has been the
inability of the Johnson Administration to establish a candid and consistently
credible statement of our position in Viet Nam. Official statements of the
Administration have been conflicting and repeatedly over optimistic. The
Communists have skillfully exploited this inadequacy of our present leadership.
We Republicans believe that the people of South Viet Nam should have
an opportunity to live their lives in peace under a government of their own
choice free of Communist aggression.
We believe that our national objectives should be not the unconditional
surrender of North Viet Nam, but unconditional freedom for the people of
South Viet Nam and support of their struggle against aggression.
Our nation, with vigorous Republican support and leadership, has
dedicated itself to successful resistance to Communist aggression through
programs for Greece and Turkey; in Iran, Lebanon and Quemoy-Matsu; in
Austria, Trieste and Guatemala; by timely action in the Dominican Republic,
and today in Viet Nam.
Under our present policy in Viet Nam, there is a growing danger that
the United States is becoming involved in an endless Korean-type jungle war.
A land war in Southeast Asia would be to the advantage of the Communists.
MORE --
GEBALD FORD LIBRABY
- 2 - -
Since it appears that the major portion of North Vietnamese military
supplies arrive by sea, our first objective should be to impose a Kennedy-type
quarantine on North Viet Nam.
To accomplish our objectives we also recommend the maximum use
of American conventional air and sea power against significant military targets.
Our purpose is and must be, once again to repel Communist aggression,
to minimize American and Vietnamese casualties, and to bring about a swift and
secure peace.
- 30 -
NOTES
HOBOKEN, N.J. JAN 10, 68
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.
OFFICE OF THE MINORITY LEADER
Herald R. 3rd
PUBLIC DOCUMENT
M.C.
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
STEVENS INST. OF TECH.
Vritnam E Draft
FORD
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
The Detroit News
May 9,
1966
5/9/66
VIETNAM REPORT
and
Special Color Map
dura
HOW THE TROUBLE BEGAN
GERALD LIBRARY
By AUSTIN WHEATLEY
from the South; Laos and Cambodia
Editorial Writer and
Detroit News Foreign Affairs Specialist
were barred from all military alli-
ances: there were to be no military