Gulf of Tonkin electron intel release

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Siciliano
Some of you may have seen that the signal intercepts during the Gulf of Tonkin incident were recently released under the Freedom of Information Act (2003). Now, a book has been published taking the position the incident did not occur as it was reported to Congress when the declaration of war against North Vietnam was requested.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/

Since I served in RVN, it's a little disconcerting to see this data. Do any of you have thoughts on this? Would we have entered the war anyway? What does this say about the credibility of that administration?

Best,

Dave
 
Dave,

There is little that surprises me any more about the doings of any Administration & their rationale for going to war. The Congress is supposed to provide a counterbalance, but since the Administration (and I mean that to be any Administration holds the cards with respect to intel data there is only so much advice & consent they can provide.

Personally, I believe that we would have ended up in RVN anyway. If it were not Tonkin, it would have been something else.

I've also come to the conclusion that politics is not about credibility (it's more about power and re-election), so yes, I would agree that the credibility of that Administration is questionable. But I think a lot of it stems from McNamara, who was absolutely instrumental in the decision to go to war. As I understand it, the Administration policy (started by Kennedy) was one of strategic and defensive positions. It was also very anti-communist. McNamara was very calculating - he took a very statistical approach. In the face of policy, then, the only way to engage in war was to respond to an attack. Tonkin offered the opportunity. Johnson himself played hardball - there are plenty of examples of that.

Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no.
 
It sadens me to know that 58 thousand Americans died and many more civilians died during and after the VN war. due to a few in DC willing to make decisions knowing they won't.

Yet it proves that America's foreign policy has been very flawed as far back as the Spanish American war.
 
Last edited:
Dave,

There is little that surprises me any more about the doings of any Administration & their rationale for going to war. The Congress is supposed to provide a counterbalance, but since the Administration (and I mean that to be any Administration holds the cards with respect to intel data there is only so much advice & consent they can provide.

Personally, I believe that we would have ended up in RVN anyway. If it were not Tonkin, it would have been something else.

I've also come to the conclusion that politics is not about credibility (it's more about power and re-election), so yes, I would agree that the credibility of that Administration is questionable. But I think a lot of it stems from McNamara, who was absolutely instrumental in the decision to go to war. As I understand it, the Administration policy (started by Kennedy) was one of strategic and defensive positions. It was also very anti-communist. McNamara was very calculating - he took a very statistical approach. In the face of policy, then, the only way to engage in war was to respond to an attack. Tonkin offered the opportunity. Johnson himself played hardball - there are plenty of examples of that.

Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no.

Thanks for your thoughts Bill. This was a crazy time in American history. To be an Army officer at the time posed a lot of moral challenges. LBJ was President when it all began and this reflects on his creditilibty. Of course, Nixon was Commander and Chief at the end of the war and he was removed from office. Many younger folks don't seem to recall the Constitutional crisis that developed when U.S. Marshals attempted to deliver a subpoena to the White House and Marine guards turned them away.

Recently, I was having an informal discussion with an officer sworn to report to the commander and chief and I raised the question of his responsibility to not just show blind loyalty. He disagreed and said he reported to the Commander and Chief, period. Oh well.

Best,

Dave
 
Recently, I was having an informal discussion with an officer sworn to report to the commander and chief and I raised the question of his responsibility to not just show blind loyalty. He disagreed and said he reported to the Commander and Chief, period. Oh well.

And that is why I fear for our country at times. Blind loyalty to the CiC as opposed to the Constitution is something that is very, very troubling.
 
Back
Top