BBC 1965: US orders 50,000 troops to Vietnam

[madfloridian]

President Johnson has committed a further 50,000 US troops to the conflict in Vietnam.

Monthly draft calls will increase from 17,000 to 35,000 - the highest level since the Korean War, when between 50,000 and 80,000 men were called up each month.

It will take the US force in Vietnam up to 125,000 but officials say at this stage demands should be met by conscription, without calling upon the reserves.

President Johnson Speaking in a televised address from the White House President Johnson said: "We do not want an expanding struggle with consequences no one can foresee."

"Nor will we bluster, bully or flaunt our power. But we will not surrender, nor will we retreat," he continued.

He also said:

"I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth...into battle"

Mrs Johnson and her daughter looked close to tears as Mr Johnson admitted: "I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our finest young men, into battle."

Some more statistics from the 1965 BBC site:

By the end of the year 180,000 US troops had been sent to Vietnam.

In 1966 the figure doubled.

80,000 Americans had been killed or wounded in the Vietnam War by summer 1967.

..."In March 1968 President Johnson announced a pause in the US bombings of Vietnam and said he would not be standing for re-election later that year.

Lyndon Johnson's words on Vietnam delivered that year at John Hopkins:

April 7, 1965

Viet-Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives on Viet-Nam's steaming soil.

Why must we take this painful road?

Why must this Nation hazard its ease, and its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny. And only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure.

This kind of world will never be built by bombs or bullets. Yet the infirmities of man are such that force must often precede reason, and the waste of war, the works of peace.

By the end of the war about 54,000 had died.

More from his speech at John Hopkins:

"This will be a disorderly planet for a long time. In Asia, as elsewhere, the forces of the modern world are shaking old ways and uprooting ancient civilizations. There will be turbulence and struggle and even violence. Great social change--as we see in our own country now--does not always come without conflict.

We must also expect that nations will on occasion be in dispute with us. It may be because we are rich, or powerful; or because we have made some mistakes; or because they honestly fear our intentions. However, no nation need ever fear that we desire their land, or to impose our will, or to dictate their institutions.

But we will always oppose the effort of one nation to conquer another nation.

We will do this because our own security is at stake.

But there is more to it than that. For our generation has a dream. It is a very old dream. But we have the power and now we have the opportunity to make that dream come true."

LBJ speaks on Vietnam

There is no draft now. I remember that draft all too well. Too many classmates and friends went there, some came back, some did not.

We have private military doing so much of the work. The economy is so bad that many enlist in the volunteer army to provide for their families.

Wars have changed in some ways. But overall they are not much different. Many of the words used are basically the same. There are only so many words one can use to describe an escalation and defend it.

[dipsydoodle]

1. You never learn

Do you. :sarcasm:

[BeFree]

2. Only so many words...

"There are only so many words one can use to describe an escalation and defend it. "

...stick around, I think we'll hear them all, right here on DU.

[AndyA]

4. Indeed they have already started.

:eyes:

Like moths to a flame, it would seem.

[madfloridian]

13. Yes.

Every one of them.

[leftstreet]

3. Eisenhower, Farewell Address to the Nation, January 17, 1961:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

sigh

[madfloridian]

6. That warning from a Republican general and president never took hold.

He warned us. Few listened.

[defendandprotect]

26. The corporate impact then wasn't as well understood...people were living "New Deal"/

American Dream -- at least a lot of them --

[madfloridian]

5. Bless Tom Paxton: "Lyndon Johnson told the nation" music from 1965

This was written by Tom Paxton in 1965 in response to LBJ's sending of the 50,000 troops.

"I got a letter from L. B. J.
It said this is your lucky day.
It's time to put your khaki trousers on.
Though it may seem very queer
We've got no jobs to give you here
So we are sending you to Viet Nam


Lyndon Johnson told the nation,
"Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn't really war,
We're sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Viet nam from Viet Namese."

http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Audio/lbj-paxton.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. And, how's that Great Society thingy going Mr. President?

[Echo In Light]

8. Interesting take on the draft by Chomsky:

"I think it’s extremely unlikely. I should tell you this as a word of personal background. I was very much involved in the resistance movement in the 1960’s. In fact, I was just barely—the only reason I missed a long jail sentence is because the Tet Offensive came along and the trials were called off. So I was very much involved in the resistance, but I was never against the draft. I disagreed with a lot of my friends and associates on that, for a very good reason, I think at least as nobody seems to agree. In my view, if there’s going to be an army, I think it ought to be a citizen’s army. Now, here I do agree with some people, the top brass, they don’t want a citizen’s army. They want a mercenary army, what we call a volunteer army. A mercenary army of the disadvantaged. And in fact, in the Vietnam war, the U.S. military realized, they had made a very bad mistake. I mean, for the first time I think ever in the history of European imperialism, including us, they had used a citizen’s army to fight a vicious, brutal, colonial war, and civilians just cannot do that kind of a thing. For that, you need the French foreign legion, the Gurkhas or something like that. Every predecessor has used mercenaries, often drawn from the country that they’re attacking like England ran India with Indian mercenaries. You take them from one place and send them to kill people in the other place. That’s the standard way to run imperial wars. They’re just too brutal and violent and murderous. Civilians are not going to be able to do it for very long. What happened was, the army started falling apart. One of the reasons that the army was withdrawn was because the top military wanted it out of there. They were afraid they were not going to have an army anymore. Soldiers were fragging officer. The whole thing was falling apart. They were on drugs. And that’s why I think that they’re not going to have a draft. That’s why I’m in favor of it. If there’s going to be an army that will fight brutal, colonial wars, and that’s the only likely kind of war, I’m not talking about the militarization of space and that kind of thing, I mean ground wars, it ought to be a citizen’s army so that the attitudes of the society are reflected in the military."

I don't fully agree, but he makes good points as to the mentality within the military, and what they're looking for - and hence the increase in private contracting: mercenaries WANT to do what they do

[madfloridian]

10. As long as there is no draft, few will really fight against wars

Look how the media still talks about all the "fringe" rebels of the 60s.

With private military and volunteers....they won't get much argument.

That why posts that remind us of the road we are going down will drop like rocks.

[defendandprotect]

27. Agree with you...Chomsky makes sense re "mercenaries" ...but I'd prefer that

we bar them -- either you raise a citizens' volunteer army or you go without -- !!!

I'd bar Blackwater and other mercenary forces!!

[Javaman]

9. All wars are the same, the only difference is the means by which we kill each other. nt

[madfloridian]

20. True indeed.

[Union Yes]

11. And 58000+ came home dead. FOREVER!

[madfloridian]

14. And probably never really understood the reason they were there.

They were doing their duty for their country and its leaders.

[madrchsod]

16. "the domino effect"...

now we are buying clothes and other goods from vietnam and china`s centuries old conflict with vietnam is now over cheaper labor...

.

[Zomby Woof]

21. And only 930 (U.S) have died in Afghanistan...

...in an 8 year period. The 58,000 covers roughly 10 years. (The coalition total is 1,500).

550,000 U.S. troops were committed to Vietnam, and less than 25% of that total have been, or will be, committed to Afghanistan.

58,000/550,000 = 10.5% casualty rate. 930/93,000 (so far) = 1%.

A wasteful death is a wasteful death, so I don't want to belabor the percentage difference. But still, it borders on the absurd to compare.

So... I am not condoning U.S. action in Afghanistan, but I really tire of the specious and misleading argument that this is Vietnam II.

It's not. There may be valid parallels in terms of empire, resource control, and whatnot, but there are facts, and then there are handwringing and rhetorical nonsense. Too much of the latter, and not enough of the former, when "Vietnam" and "Afghanistan" are mentioned in the same thread.

[madfloridian]

22. I hate the word "specious".....dead is dead...one escalation or the other.

The word "specious" implies that something is based on pretense or deceptiveness.

I despise that kind of argument.

The dead in Iraq and Afghanistan are just as dead as those who died in Vietnam and Korea.

The escalation in Afghanistan has no more reality than did the escalation in Vietnam.

None.

It is all smoke and mirrors and profit for the military complex. Of course we can compare the two, this war is as hopeless and useless as Vietnam.

Your use of the word "specious" is insulting.

[Zomby Woof]

28. Blinded by your self-righteous angst again, I see

You must have skipped the parts where I said "a wasteful death is a wasteful death", and that I don't condone the Afghan enterprise.

As for nitpicking my use of "only", that says more about you than me. I am not trivializing anyone's death - just pointing out the hard truth that Afghanistan hasn't even remotely come close to being the bloodbath that was Vietnam. I am trivializing your argument, not the lives lost. In fact, YOU trivialize the soldiers and civilians killed in BOTH wars when you SPECIOUSLY compare them. It distorts history, which is bad enough when the media does that - but must you enable that distortion from the other direction?

If you are going to engage yourself in being an armchair historian, beware of the false seduction of "history repeating itself". Which brings me to my use of the word "specious".

I use "specious" as defined by having a deceptive allure, i.e., it sure sounds plausible and attractive as an argument, but it's false once you break it down.

I think you skipped over what I said because I didn't grant you the 100% fealty you and other hyperbolic screamers expect when you post your absurdities on here.

[madfloridian]

29. "you and other hyperbolic screamers expect when you post your absurdities on here."

Wow....

[madfloridian]

23. Dear God, zomby, I hope your use of the word "only" gets noticed

by a family member who lost a loved one in Afghanistan.

Your quote:

"And only 930 (U.S) have died in Afghanistan.."

[madfloridian]

12. LBJ and McNamara audio from 1964....

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/prestapes/lbj_rm_043064.html

"LBJ: --tell me, .I saw a little glimmer of hope on Vietnam in some, uh, paper today, where we'd routed some and killed a few and run 'em out or something. Do you have any--are you getting good cables on them at all?

RMC: Well, I read that article, Mr. President, the, the uh-

LBJ:

Give me another one of those.

RMC: The official battle report wasn't as good as the newspaper report, for once. We got a little, we got a break in the press.

LBJ: Has Carl Rowan getting any of his propaganda people out there now?

..."LBJ: Let's get some more of something, my friend, because I'm gonna have a heart attack if you don't get me something. I'm just sitting here every day and uh, this war that I'm winning and I'm not doing much about fightin' it, and uh I'm not doing much about winnin' it, and I just read about it . And uh-- Let's get somebody that wants to do something besides drop a bomb, but that can go in and take in after these damn fellas and run them back where they belong. It looks like-"

...."LBJ: Well, what I want is somebody to lay up some plans to trap these guys and whoop the hell out of 'em. Kill some of 'em. That's what I want to do. If this Army Chief of Staff is not going to do it, let's get somebody else that'll do it.

RMC: I'll try and bring something back that will meet that objective. "

Looking back is interesting, but painful.

[madrchsod]

15. my high school current events teacher said the next day----

boys you`re going to be fighting in this war...

some of my school mates came back in a box and some came back psychically and mentally disabled.

we are the last generation who`s lives revolved around our draft number and classification.

[madfloridian]

17. I knew many who never came back.

There were so many POWs and MIAs in our area. The not knowing was horrible.

[Sancho]

18. The scariest moment of my life:

I actually remember LBJ's announcement of sending troops to Vietnam. We discussed it in school.

In 1970 I was forced to register for the draft. My father was a retired Army Major. I burned my A1 draft card at a protest. My home life was a constant battle, and many of my friends from HS and College were killed or maimed. From 1968 to 1972, all I did was plan to run to Canada if my number was picked, constantly looked for opportunities for deferment, and joined the anti-war activities.

I was never drafted, and it was pure luck.

I cannot express how much I hate spending half the federal budget on the military, continuing to fight foreign wars, and rich war mongers who sell arms to the rest of the world. It is truly insane.

[madfloridian]

19. I was watching American Graffiti again the other night.

Followed by More American Graffiti. Part 2. I realized how poignant it was to remember those times. We had our hamburger joints with the car hops, and the guys about to graduate standing around and acting tough so as not to show their fear of what would happen after graduation.

It was a like a flashback in time to our two favorite hangouts, and I remembered some who did not come back.

I think there was probably more fear than a strong feeling of patriotism, because no one seemed to know exactly why they would be going to Vietnam. There was no stirring sense of purpose.

[defendandprotect]

25. Agree . . . and we need to hear more about all of this here at DU, especially now -- !!

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Exactly 30 days after I got out of the Marine Crotch.

They had asked me to extend my enlistment to go Vietnam (well, I had to ask what would likely happen if I did extend), in May of '65, I refused and told them what they could do with their war. I was young and outspoken at the time. Got me 30 days of mess duty for my remarks about LBJ and his war.

[madfloridian]

30. Heh Heh I gather you did not extend your enlistment.

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. You gather correctly.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Well then, it's a good thing we're not sending any troops to Vietnam. n/t

[madfloridian]

32. Oh, yeh, we are only sending them to the vast wasteland

called Afghanistan. :shrug:

There's a big difference. I am sure that country will not break our financial back like it did that of Russia?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. I think the people of Afghanistan...

...would take issue with their country being called a "vast wasteland." It might not be Florida, but then most places aren't.

[madfloridian]

35. It is in terms of war.

Why are there so many upset that Vietnam comes to mind? Many of us here saw the guys we knew head off to that war.

They sent more troops, then more. No one really believed it was a winnable war. There are similarities.

I have noticed that those of us who speak up now about sending more troops are being talked in condescending terms. New posts are being started to make it sound like we are ignorant.

We knew the MIAs and POWs...they were personal.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Because Vietnam has been used as an avatar in every US military action since Vietnam.

I remember when the Balkan war was Vietnam.

[madfloridian]

38. Because Vietnam was the epitome of needless wars.

It will always be remembered by people like me when the same rhetoric is used to justify an escalation.

Those of us who remember the pain of that war, those for whom it hit home...will do that comparison automatically.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Vietnam is hardly the epitome of needless wars.

Needless American wars, maybe. Actually, no. The Spanish-American war was equally stupid.

[knightinwhitesatin]

33. My dad was in that cohort

and shrapnel in his back near his spine for the rest of his life was his prize.

[TexasObserver]

37. 50,000 is all it will take to clean up that mess in Vietnam

[A-Schwarzenegger]

39. And that escalation helped us get out of Vietnam

only ten (10) years later,
with the mission accomplished. :*

[madfloridian]

40. "We've got no jobs to give you here So we are sending you to Viet Nam"

http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Audio/lbj-paxton.html