Public Papers of JFK 1961

[Bill Moore]

Mike,

Thanks for popping my bubble . The good news is that his lack of combat experience helps explain his naivism to some extent. The bad news is my memory is failing me. I could of swore I saw commercials during the election of him manning a AAA weapon and firing at Japanese Zeros. That begs the question how many Presidents have actual combat experience? I'm thinking at a minimum you have George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike commanded in combat, not sure he saw any, JFK, and Bush Sr.

Definitely not a requirement, and the impact of the experience doesn't seem to be consistent. Washington and Bush emerged from combat and other life experiences more cautious and mature politically, while both Teddy Roosevelt and JFK remained risk seekers while serving as President.

[jmm99]

I have to mention our first 100% Scots-Irish president, Andrew Jackson (parents from Carrickfergus, County Antrim), who had a lot of combat experience - in and out of military service - starting as a 13-year old militiaman in the Revolutionary War.

My memory conflates a lot of things, but it's been doing that for a number of decades.

Regards

Mike

[Bill Moore]

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/.../jfk23_61.html

Special Message to the Congress on Gold and the Balance of
Payments Deficit. February 6, 1961

To the Congress o f the United States:
The gold outflow of the past three years has dramatically focused world attention on a fundamental change that has been occurring in the economic position of the United States. Our balance of payments - the accounting which shows the result of all of our trade and financial relations with the outside world - has become one of the key factors in our national economic life. Mainly because that balance of payments has been in deficit we have lost gold.
This loss of gold is naturally important to us, but it also concerns the whole free world. For we are the principal banker of the free world and any potential weakness in our dollar spells trouble, not only for us but also for our friends and allies who rely on the dollar to finance a substantial portion, of their trade. We must therefore manage our balance of payments in accordance with our responsibilities. This means that the United States must in the decades ahead, much more than at any time in the past, take its balance of payments into account when formulating its economic policies and conducting its economic affairs.
Economic progress at home is still the first requirement for economic strength abroad.

Certain firm conclusions follow:
1. The United States official dollar price of gold can and will be maintained at $35 an ounce. Exchange controls over trade and investment will not be invoked. Our national security and economic assistance programs will be carried forward. Those who fear weakness in the dollar will find their fears unfounded. Those who hope for speculative reasons for an increase in the price of gold will find their hopes in vain.
2. We must now gain control of our balance of payments position so that we can achieve over-all equilibrium in our international payments. This means that any sustained future outflow of dollars into the monetary reserves of other countries should come about only as the result of considered judgments as to the appropriate needs for dollar reserves.
3. In seeking over-all equilibrium we must place maximum emphasis on expanding our exports. Our costs and prices must therefore be kept low; and the government must play a more vigorous part in helping to enlarge foreign markets for American goods and services.
4. A return to protectionism is not a solution. Such a course would provoke retaliation; and the balance of trade, which is now substantially in our favor, could be turned against us with disastrous effects to the dollar.

Bill C. will love bullet number 3

[Bill Moore]

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/...jfk435_61.html

Letter to President Ngo Dinh Diem on the Sixth Anniversary of the Republic of Viet-Nam.
October 26, 1961

Mr. President, America is well aware of the increased intensity which in recent months has marked the war against your people, and of the expanding scale and frequency of the Communist attacks. I have read your speech to the Vietnamese National Assembly in which you outline so clearly the threat of Communism to Viet-Nam. And I have taken note of the stream of threats and vituperation, directed at your government and mine, that flows day and night from Hanoi. Let me assure you again that the United States is determined to help Viet-Nam preserve its independence, protect its people against Communist assassins, and build a better life through economic growth.

I am awaiting with great interest the report of General Maxwell Taylor based on his recent talks and observations in Viet-Nam, supplementing reports I have received from our Embassy there over many months.

I will then be in a better position to consider with you additional measures that we might take to assist the republic of Viet-Nam in its struggle against the Communist aggressors.

[Madhu]

Actually, for most Foreign Policy and Military Affairs, you can read documents right out of the post World War II period and pretty much sum up the current conventional wisdom.

For my particular hobby horse, American policy toward South Asian countries, it's even more maddening. Not a new thought in decades and decades, despite evidence to the contrary. IMO.

PS: Okay, I don't really know that for everything. I am such an exaggerator. Amend that to, "for the few things I read, it seems like nothing new under the sun...."

[Bob's World]

http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/...jfk435_61.html

Letter to President Ngo Dinh Diem on the Sixth Anniversary of the Republic of Viet-Nam.
October 26, 1961

Dejavu. Change a few words and this could be a letter from President Obama to Mr. Karzai on the 6th anniversary of the Republic of Afghanistan...

In both cases, it was US action by the previous US President that both created the republic in question and elevated that partner President into power. This then left to the successor US president the difficult task of sustaining a system so illegitimate in its roots against a growing opposition by those disposed of a power they had earned through warfare.

We intervene for our interests, then confuse the picture when we attempt to justify our actions in the context of the interests of the systems we create. But for Ike's intervention there would most likely have been a fairly stable, unified Vietnam by 1961, albeit with a communist system of governance, under a president with local legitimacy. This independent country would most likely have turned to the US to help protect it from unwanted controlling influence out of the Soviet Union or China. But our opposition to that served to push them into those very camps to generate sufficient capacity to stand up to what the US brought to the fight.

Inevitably the best interests of the people caught in the middle of such internal and external power plays are the ones who suffer most.

Are we similarly pushing Afghans deeper into the arms of those we intervened to block the influence of in the first place? I doubt many Pashtuns would have been willing to support an AQ operation against a foreign target prior to 9/11. After the past 11 years of US intervention in Afghanistan I suspect that is no longer the case.

Tactically, the conflicts in Vietnam and Afghanistan are/were two very different places (though very similar programs have been tried in both). Strategically, however, they are/were very similar and we have made many of the same strategic decisions for very similar rationale that led framed an unwindable situation in Vietnam to frame an equally unwindable situation in Afghanistan. This the problem of focusing on tactics (programs, actions, lessons learned, metrics, etc). It detracts from the larger issues that frame from the outset the conditions those tactics will take place within.

Vietnam was lost in the 50s, not the 70s. Everything in between was in many ways as unnecessary as it was ineffective. Similarly Afghanistan was lost in '02-'04 in how we framed both the problem and the solution strategically. We need to get better at strategy, and studying paper such as these shared by Bill with an open mind are a critical step in that process.

I am finding a wealth of strategic products organized by administration here:

https://www.hsdl.org/?collection/stratpol&id=pd&pid=rr

[Steve Blair]

Mike,

Thanks for popping my bubble . The good news is that his lack of combat experience helps explain his naivism to some extent. The bad news is my memory is failing me. I could of swore I saw commercials during the election of him manning a AAA weapon and firing at Japanese Zeros. That begs the question how many Presidents have actual combat experience? I'm thinking at a minimum you have George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike commanded in combat, not sure he saw any, JFK, and Bush Sr.

Definitely not a requirement, and the impact of the experience doesn't seem to be consistent. Washington and Bush emerged from combat and other life experiences more cautious and mature politically, while both Teddy Roosevelt and JFK remained risk seekers while serving as President.

There's also Grant (2 wars), Garfield, McKinley, Truman...

Eisenhower was a politician in uniform...one of the reasons he was selected to command Allied ground forces in Europe. His foreign policy judgement was always hazy, and we continue to pay for how he framed issues to this day. TR's risk seeking is in some ways over-emphasized, as he seemed to have a good instinct for when NOT to get involved with overseas things.

[Bob's World]

Don't forget Private Buchanan (war of 1812) and several others...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank

[Bill Moore]

There's also Grant (2 wars), Garfield, McKinley, Truman...

Eisenhower was a politician in uniform...one of the reasons he was selected to command Allied ground forces in Europe. His foreign policy judgement was always hazy, and we continue to pay for how he framed issues to this day. TR's risk seeking is in some ways over-emphasized, as he seemed to have a good instinct for when NOT to get involved with overseas things.

Steve,

I have a couple of friends that are historians of note that also critical of Ike as President, but based on my limited studies I think if we followed his guidance not to over hype the threat (though hard to over hype the very real threat of the USSR, but we could control how we responded to it), and to live within our means we would be in a better place today. Below an interesting excerpt from one of his speeches after he left office.

Excerpts from pages 40-42

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/a...l_speeches.pdf

Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, January 31, 1962

Should the majority of our citizens abandon or surrender to the State their personal responsibilities, the state itself cannot, for long, sustain the restraint which its citizens have foregone. In such circumstances, if we and our government lack the political courage either to raise taxes or to limit spending only to the necessary, deficits are inevitable. Long pursued, such a policy invites retribution. Inflation appears, with all its evil effects both on our economic health and on our national character. The dollar is depreciated at home and abroad. If we do not discipline ourselves and put our domestic fiscal affairs in order, we must suffer both in credit and in prestige.

For a trustworthy currency is more than a mark of solvency; it is one aspect of sovereignty and evidence of national self-respect. And perhaps we should emphasize more the mutual dependence between self-respect and self-reliance, both individually and nationally.

It is sometimes the fashion for critics to deprecate these qualities of character which helped shape our past. We hear it said that the extraordinary complexities of modern life - the Cold War, accelerating technology, urbanization - all make obsolete the strengths of the past. Such critics do not over-estimate the difficulties of our times. But they have lost faith in the ability of the American people to overcome the intricate problems confronting us - and conclude that we must rely more on a powerful, dominating, central government rather than on the strength of the nation’s character. Such critics are defeatists. The problems are complex - but it is only a resolute, resourceful, responsible people who can provide their ultimate solution.

So, as a people, I devoutly hope we will always be vigilant in detecting and breaking up monopoly or concentrated power of every kind. I likewise trust that we will make it our business to repudiate feather-bedding and to glorify hard work at all levels; to rely on ourselves rather than seek selfish advantage from a compliant government; to pay our way rather than pile up mounting debt on our children; to draw inspiration from freedom’s accomplishments rather than to fear its future; to be alert in combating weakening trends in the national character. Above all, may we never be tempted, on any excuse whatever, to belittle or demean our nation and her accomplishments and power. America is not merely a continent filled with teeming millions - it is a way of life that commands the best efforts and everlasting devotion of every loyal citizen.

Theodore Roosevelt put it this way: “Americanism means the virtues of courage, honor, justice, sincerity and hardihood - the virtues that made America. The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love-of-self-living and the get-rich-quick theory of life.”