« Booyakasha! | Main | Census Data Misused in World War II »
March 31, 2007
August 18, 1967: Ronald Reagan Calls for U.S. Withdrawal from South Vietnam, While LBJ Says U.S. Presence Will Continue
THE PRESIDENT. The people of Vietnam are in the middle of an election campaign to select a President and a Vice President, and about 60 members of their Senate. In October they will elect a House of Representatives.From time to time there seems to be-from news reports and operations reports-accelerations, escalations, lulls, and other various types of descriptions of our activities out there.
Our policy in Vietnam is the same: We are there to deter aggression.
We are there to permit the people of South Vietnam to determine for themselves who their leaders should be and what kind of government they should have.
It is remarkable that a young country, fighting a tough war on its own soil, has moved so far, so fast, toward a representative government. . . .
So far as this Government is concerned, our policy has not changed. It remains the same. We are steadfast in our determination to make our pledges good, to keep our commitments, and to resist the attempt to take over this little country by brute force.
That very same day, then-governor Ronald Reagan of California called for the United State's immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam citing the difficulties of winning a war when "too many qualified targets have been put off limits to bombing."
The parallels between Iraq and So. Vietnam are not close to perfect. But Reagan's call to withdraw seems rich with irony now, given his mythic status among Republicans. His problem was LBJ's mishandling of the American military's execution of its mission. So Reagan made the practical suggestion that the U.S. pull up stakes and leave.
Reagan's point remains equally sound today. When a president so botches a foreign adventure as Bush -- and perhaps more so Cheney -- has in Iraq, then withdrawal is a perfectly sound policy.
Are you forgetting your history, David Brooks?
Posted by shertaugh at March 31, 2007 2:43 PM
Comments
"Reagan's call to withdraw is rich with irony, given his mythic status among Republicans."
What's ironic about this? Reagan was a hawk who wanted much more military aggression. He thought there were too many targets that were off limits. He wanted a wider war, he wanted to attack more places.
Therefore, this little tidbit, far from being "ironic," actually solidifies the status of Reagan (mythic or otherwise) among Republicans. Reagan was casting himself (and fellow Republicans) as a tough, macho warrior, and was simultaneously trying to make LBJ and the Democrats look like wimps who were losing a worthy war.
I would like to see his full remarks, but I don't think Reagan was ever actually in favor of "immediate" withdrawal during any point in the Vietnam war. If he actually said so in August 1967 (which I doubt), I suspect it was more as a way to tweak LBJ than as a straight-faced proposal that Reagan truly endorsed.
"Reagan's point remains equally sound today."
Reagan was pushing for escalation, and I don't think you're trying to endorse that point. Reagan's comment was anticipating the Rambo-era refrain that America tried to fight in Vietnam with one hand tied behind its back. (Again, without seeing what Reagan actually said, as opposed to a summary, I could be wrong here. I will happily stand corrected if you can show that Reagan was staunchly and seriously in favor of "immediate" withdrawal.) What Reagan was saying in 1967, just like the hawks are saying today, is not sound.
Posted by: Jim E. at March 31, 2007 4:03 PM