Nixon, Kissinger, and the Peace Talks. Treason?

By now, likely you have heard about this.

Scenario: South Vietnam President Thieu is being pressured towards the Paris peace talks, under the cloud that the likeliest result is unfavorable to his regime. Candidate Nixon, with the connivance of Kissinger, sends a back channel message via Claire Chennault to Thieu (toot!).

Substance of message: hold out, stiff the talks, and when we win we will commit to enough military force to make sure that the North Vietnamese cut you a better deal.

And so the war went on.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that this scenario is essentially correct. Cites available.

Does this, or does it not, constitute treason, as you define it?

Doesn’t sound so like treason so much as it sounds like stupidity.

The way you describe it, Nixon/Kissinger were utterly confident that they’d get things the way they wanted. While this is an incredibly idiotic move, it isn’t treason.

Keeping in mind that the war might well have been over?. No more body bags in our living rooms. No more American lives squandered.

Keeping mind that Nixon was a candidate with no legitimate standing whatsoever to interfere in the negotiations? While, at the same time, proclaiming publicly about his “secret plan” to end the war?

If not “treason”, what? Premature statesmanship?