# Rethinking LBJ...Was He That Bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429 "2010-02-18T02:49:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/41 "2010-02-18T15:33:49Z")
In [_Vietnam: The Necessary War_](http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Necessary-War-Reinterpretation-Disastrous/dp/0684842548) (which is well worth reading for many different reasons) [Michael Lind](http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_lind) argues it was a war worth fighting even if it could not be won and even if the South Vietnamese regime was not worth fighting for – because of the **global** implications. It was but one theater in the Cold War. In the '60s and '70s, the Western and Communist blocs were fighting for the allegiance of the non-aligned Third World countries; that was essentially a political battle, a battle of perceptions. It was far from clear, at the time, which side represented The Future. If the Communist side **appeared** stronger at a crucial moment, that might lead to a “bandwagon effect” which would swing more and more countries around to their side, success feeding on success. The Vietnam War was necessary simply to shore up American/Western credibility, to make clear we would not give up easily. You might disagree that that **was** strictly necessary, you might even disagree that the Cold War as a whole was worth fighting or worth winning, but it is at any rate a very well-reasoned thesis and not to be rejected out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/42 "2010-02-18T17:10:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In [_Vietnam: The Necessary War_](http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-Necessary-War-Reinterpretation-Disastrous/dp/0684842548) (which is well worth reading for many different reasons) [Michael Lind](http://www.newamerica.net/people/michael_lind) argues it was a war worth fighting even if it could not be won and even if the South Vietnamese regime was not worth fighting for – because of the **global** implications. It was but one theater in the Cold War. In the '60s and '70s, the Western and Communist blocs were fighting for the allegiance of the non-aligned Third World countries; that was essentially a political battle, a battle of perceptions. It was far from clear, at the time, which side represented The Future. If the Communist side **appeared** stronger at a crucial moment, that might lead to a “bandwagon effect” which would swing more and more countries around to their side, success feeding on success. The Vietnam War was necessary simply to shore up American/Western credibility, to make clear we would not give up easily. You might disagree that that **was** strictly necessary, you might even disagree that the Cold War as a whole was worth fighting or worth winning, but it is at any rate a very well-reasoned thesis and not to be rejected out of hand. I’ll gladly reject it out of hand, because it’s an inherently self-defeating thesis. You know _why_ Communism could get away with looking like it represented The Future? Because, over and over again, throughout the Cold War, we were the ones supporting authoritarian strongmen like Diem, Somoza, and the Shah, which ceded to the Communists the role of supporting ‘popular’ insurgencies, some of which were genuinely popular, and some of which weren’t. But we always put ourselves on the wrong side of that argument, even to the extent of undermining the regimes of people like Allende and Mossadegh. In a straight-up comparison between the USA and the USSR, we were of course on the right side of history: we were great, and they were both evil and awful. But the Cold War mostly took place in proxy wars throughout the Third World, and almost never, in all those proxy wars, were we meaningfully trying to bring our freedoms to the countries whose struggles we took sides in. By siding with Diem and Thieu in Vietnam, and siding with similar despots around the world, we conferred moral legitimacy to the Communists that they would have been unable to earn based on the lives of the people in the countries where they actually governed. They were never The Future, but we did our damnedest to give them the opportunity to make it look like they were. Vietnam was right at the heart of that effort. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/43 "2010-02-18T17:28:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I remember the beagle incident, but I don’t recall it taking on quite the depth of outrage that you seem too. 😛 It was probably a white liberal thing, ehe? > > -XT It was huge and very important. I have 2 beagles now, so I am totally impartial. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/44 "2010-02-18T17:38:06Z")
For a Texas politician, LBJ was surprisingly cynical. He didn’t give a sh\*t about the thousands of deaths he caused in Vietnam. All he cared about was his “honor”. He was personally corrupt and gross (insisted on making his staff work while he was sitting on a toilet.) He also freely admitted his corrupt senate campaign (he and Connoly’s goons stuffed ballot boxes). And steering fighter contracts (to General Dynamics in Texas) was SOP with him…not to mention the Manned Spaceflight Center (which was to have been in Cambridge, MA-LBJ had it moved to Houston). So, in the balance, he was a corrupt and devious man, who should presently be enjoying one of the warmer regions of Hell. ---
**Author:** ![Ffperson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ffperson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ffperson)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/45 "2010-02-18T18:03:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, if you really want to debate it, you need to start. You are the one making a claim. You have the burden of proof. Let’s see some cites and figures to back it up. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’ll gladly reject it out of hand, because it’s an inherently self-defeating thesis. > > You know _why_ Communism could get away with looking like it represented The Future? Because, over and over again, throughout the Cold War, we were the ones supporting authoritarian strongmen like Diem, Somoza, and the Shah, which ceded to the Communists the role of supporting ‘popular’ insurgencies, some of which were genuinely popular, and some of which weren’t. But we always put ourselves on the wrong side of that argument, even to the extent of undermining the regimes of people like Allende and Mossadegh. > > In a straight-up comparison between the USA and the USSR, we were of course on the right side of history: we were great, and they were both evil and awful. But the Cold War mostly took place in proxy wars throughout the Third World, and almost never, in all those proxy wars, were we meaningfully trying to bring our freedoms to the countries whose struggles we took sides in. > > By siding with Diem and Thieu in Vietnam, and siding with similar despots around the world, we conferred moral legitimacy to the Communists that they would have been unable to earn based on the lives of the people in the countries where they actually governed. They were never The Future, but we did our damnedest to give them the opportunity to make it look like they were. Vietnam was right at the heart of that effort. I don’t think the goal of US foreign policy at any time was to promote “freedom” and “democracy” abroad, people outside of the US aren’t naive to believe that sort of rhetoric. The goal was to stop communism/socialism, and keep political stability. (keep friendly dictators in power). We supported our dictators, They supported theirs (Cuba, Eastern Bloc…) They overthrew our dictators with communist revolutionary rhetoric we overthrew theirs with the CIA. (maybe their KGB operations didn’t get media criticism because they don’t live in a free society) Korea worked out eventually… Vietnam didn’t… not sure why though. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/46 "2010-02-18T18:09:53Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > And steering fighter contracts (to General Dynamics in Texas) was SOP with him..not to mention the Manned Spaceflight Center (which was to have been in Cambridge, MA-LBJ had it moved to Houston). Porkbarrel either way . . . Why did nobody propose putting it at Cape Kennedy, where the spaceships were launched from? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/47 "2010-02-18T18:31:44Z")
LBJ gets no love in our house. He sent my FIL to Vietnam, and he tried to kill my father with crony contracts on the F4. For his escalation of Vietnam and incompetency in managing it - he can burn in hell. Some aspects of the Great Society were poorly thought out and planned for. I consider that to be more of a partisan battle that can be fought elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/48 "2010-02-18T18:48:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Porkbarrel either way . . . Why did nobody propose putting it at Cape Kennedy, where the spaceships were launched from? Nitpick - while it is the Kennedy Space Center, it hasn’t been Cape Kennedy since 1973. At that time it properly reverted to the historical name of Cape Canaveral. [The Straight Dope article on this topic.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/613/why-did-they-change-the-name-of-cape-kennedy-back-to-cape-canaveral) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/49 "2010-02-18T19:07:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Porkbarrel either way . . . Why did nobody propose putting it at Cape Kennedy, where the spaceships were launched from? Why is Basic Training generally at a different base than the one to which a soldier is eventually assigned? Houston is a large facility that includes a lot more than just manned spacecraft mission control - and NASA has other facilities as well handling other jobs. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/50 "2010-02-18T19:21:36Z")
> [@Ffperson](#): > > I don’t think the goal of US foreign policy at any time was to promote “freedom” and “democracy” abroad, people outside of the US aren’t naive to believe that sort of rhetoric. The goal was to stop communism/socialism, Well, sure. But if the means you choose for stopping communism turns out to be an accelerant for communist-backed insurgencies, then your means and your goal aren’t matching up. > [@](#): > > and keep political stability. (keep friendly dictators in power). This seemed to be our true priority, far too often during the Cold War. It was pretty obvious that we didn’t give a good goddamn about how things worked out for the people living in the countries whose strongmen we supported. Whether the communists did or not can be debated, but even if they didn’t, we let them support the insurgencies that could at least claim to care. > [@](#): > > We supported our dictators, They supported theirs (Cuba, Eastern Bloc…) The problem here is that after the very early days of the Cold War, Europe wasn’t a battleground anymore: it was static. The rest of the Cold War was fought in the Third World. And there, the Communists were largely supporting insurgencies, or Fidel. And Castro’s Cuba was always a better argument for Communism than Americans gave it credit for, while Batista was just another corrupt Latin American strongman. > [@](#): > > They overthrew our dictators with communist revolutionary rhetoric we overthrew theirs with the CIA. (maybe their KGB operations didn’t get media criticism because they don’t live in a free society) Well, which of their dictators did we overthrow with the CIA? Allende and Mossadegh were neither dictators nor ‘theirs.’ They were not our puppets, but we could have at least been their allies. Except we didn’t. > [@](#): > > Korea worked out eventually… Vietnam didn’t… not sure why though. Time is one factor. South Korea was a repressive dictatorship for 35 years after the end of the Korean War. 35 years after the end of the Vietnam War, Vietnam is a repressive dictatorship. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/51 "2010-02-18T19:45:20Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 35 years after the end of the Vietnam War, Vietnam is a repressive dictatorship. It is . . . Like China, however, it is not quite so Communist as it used to be. In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=422789) from 2007, the only Vietnamese (not Vietnamese-American, but living in Vietnam) Doper I’ve ever seen, **Geekmustnotdie,** expressed (at posts #28 and #59) general satisfaction with the government, and not the slightest wish the U.S. forces had stayed in the country a day longer. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/52 "2010-02-18T23:20:49Z")
How much responsibility did he have for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? While well intended, the unintended consequence is that California is sliding into bankruptcy. Also, it has actually hurt african americans when LBJ had hoped to help them with other programmes. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/53 "2010-02-19T02:46:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Well, if you really want to debate it, you need to start. You are the one making a claim. You have the burden of proof. Let’s see some cites and figures to back it up. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great\_Society](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society) > [@](#): > > Conservative economist Thomas Sowell argues that the Great Society programs only contributed to the destruction of African American families, saying “the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.” [14] Professor William L. Anderson also criticized the War on Poverty, noting the increase of dependency on the government as being harmful to the lower classes.[15] > [@Svejk\_1](#): > > You certainly don’t think very highly of world history if this is one of our greatest accomplishments. BTW, it is quite outrageous to credit HST with ‘stopping the tidal wave of communism’ when it had already largely come to a standstill by the end of WW II, when the Iron Curtain was drawn. Anyway, back to debating Johnson everyone! No it did not: 1. In Greece a civil war broke out between the Communists and the anti-Communists-after Britain withdrew Truman sent American aid saving the anti-Communists. 2. In the Korean War despite public opposition Truman sent troops and saved the Republic of Korea. 3. In Germany Stalin tried to make the Free World surrender West Berlin by blockading it-Truman oversaw the Berlin Airlift. > [@Mach Tuck](#): > > **Curtis** , I don’t even know where to begin with your viewpoint on Vietnam. One of the big mistakes we made there was our almost complete lack of understanding of the country and its history - a trait I suspect you share. A lot of that (but certainly not all) was enabled by Johnson. > > He increased our involvement in Vietnam in a way that was doomed to failure. What’s more, he knew it as time went by and felt he couldn’t do anything about it. > > Not sure what you’re reading on that subject, but you might start with [Backfire, by Loren Baritz](http://www.amazon.com/Backfire-History-American-Culture-Vietnam/dp/0801859530). > > LBJ handled certain things with mastery, and others with disastrous results. He was certainly one of the most powerful presidents in recent history, I’ll say that for him. And had President Johnson been more aggressive it might have worked. South Vietnam did survive with heavy US aid until Congress more or less cut off funding for South Vietnam. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > What was worse – the beagle incident, or showing off his gall bladder scar? 😉 > I’d also suggest McNamara’s _In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam_. (Yes, it’s self-serving and McNamara didn’t fully accept the blame he should have, but it paints a good picture of what a collossal fuck-up Vietnam was from start to finish) > > And invade North Vietnam? Where the hell do you come up with this kind of bullshit, **Curtis**? > > (Why am I reminded of MacArthur insisting we invade China during the Korean War?) Invading North Vietnam would not have started World War 3! > [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Looking at today’s fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, it makes me wonder if we are doomed to repeat history. Thankfully we seem to be winning in Iraq and Afghanistan has yet to divide us like Vietnam. > [@Voyager](#): > > You can say that again. > > That JFK, a Brahimin from liberal Boston, Minor nitpick here: Boston Brahmins refer to WASP Bostonians (such as the Adamses) > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The villain part was, of course, Vietnam. LBJ was damned certain he was not going to be tagged with “losing Vietnam” the same way Truman was about “losing China”. Republicans had spent more than a dozen years demogoguing China being taken over by communists and the Kuomintang being booted to Taiwan. That too, continues to this day. And of course, it is bullshit. China was never ours to win or lose, and there was no way that the US could have prevented the Koumintang’s fall to the communists. The Nationalists were too ineffective and corrupt to have any hope of beating Mao. Actually Chiang Kei-Sheik was on the brink of crushing the Communists in Manchuria when George Marshall forced them to negotiate instead. > [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > HOw could LBJ have done so much stuff in such a short time? In comparison, Clinton did nothing at all in two full terms. > > Say what you will but the guy had Congress wired like a pinball machine. I’ll have to defend Bill Clinton there-he DID accomplish some good: comprehensive welfare reform and he intervened in the Balkans to prevent the mass murders and ethnic cleansing there. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It is . . . Like China, however, it is not quite so Communist as it used to be. > > In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=422789) from 2007, the only Vietnamese (not Vietnamese-American, but living in Vietnam) Doper I’ve ever seen, **Geekmustnotdie,** expressed (at posts #28 and #59) general satisfaction with the government, and not the slightest wish the U.S. forces had stayed in the country a day longer. Of course-he is a communist (or at least someone sympathetic to it)-but I don’t blame him. Considering Vietnam is a dictatorship you may not want to criticize the government. ---
**Author:** ![Ffperson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ffperson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ffperson)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/54 "2010-02-19T02:51:14Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Well, sure. But if the means you choose for stopping communism turns out to be an accelerant for communist-backed insurgencies, then your means and your goal aren’t matching up. > This seemed to be our true priority, far too often during the Cold War. It was pretty obvious that we didn’t give a good goddamn about how things worked out for the people living in the countries whose strongmen we supported. Whether the communists did or not can be debated, but even if they didn’t, we let them support the insurgencies that could at least claim to care. The problem here is that after the very early days of the Cold War, Europe wasn’t a battleground anymore: it was static. The rest of the Cold War was fought in the Third World. And there, the Communists were largely supporting insurgencies, or Fidel. And Castro’s Cuba was always a better argument for Communism than Americans gave it credit for, while Batista was just another corrupt Latin American strongman. > > Well, which of their dictators did we overthrow with the CIA? Allende and Mossadegh were neither dictators nor ‘theirs.’ They were not our puppets, but we could have at least been their allies. Except we didn’t. > > Time is one factor. South Korea was a repressive dictatorship for 35 years after the end of the Korean War. 35 years after the end of the Vietnam War, Vietnam is a repressive dictatorship. Eastern Europe did have its rebeliions, Hungary and Czech, we would have supported them if we could like we did in Afghanistan. CIA went overboard with the overthrows with any dictator suspected of socialist leanings, probably a result of cold war paranoia. CIA attempted plenty of well-known coups in SE Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East. I think people will only protest for the vote and free elections (Gahndi, Polish guy in 80’s, Tienamen Square, Iran today). People only will pick up guns and go che guevara if they get to be in charge at the end. If there are foriegn troops everybody will take up arms (Vietnam, Iraq) I think the difference in Vietnam and Korea, is that the Vietnamese kicked the French out so their insurgent movement was stronger. If South Korean communist movement was more experienced, organized and armed from kicking out the Japanese then the same would have happened in Korea. Vietnam had the template from China’s Mao. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/55 "2010-02-19T02:53:31Z")
Chiming in- His civil rights work was stellar. His foreign work (Vietnam) was abysmal. It’s a wash, and he’ll be ranked right in the middle because of it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/56 "2010-02-19T02:55:16Z")
> [@Chen019](#): > > How much responsibility did he have for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? While well intended, the unintended consequence is that California is sliding into bankruptcy. :rolleyes: 1. Care to make an argument, as to that cause-effect relationship? 2. Bear in mind that the immigration regime at that time was the national-origins-quota system of the [Immigration Act of 1924,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924) which was blatantly racist in intention and effect, limiting substantial immigration to Europeans with the avowed aim of preserving America’s character as a white man’s country. You won’t defend **that,** I hope, and “unintended consequences” be damned. Justice often has costs. The abolition of slavery arguably was devastating to the economy and society of the South; that doesn’t mean it was worth keeping. > [@Chen019](#): > > Also, it has actually hurt african americans when LBJ had hoped to help them with other programmes. How? ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/57 "2010-02-19T03:30:28Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > And had President Johnson been more aggressive it might have worked. South Vietnam did survive with heavy US aid until Congress more or less cut off funding for South Vietnam. Again, I’m nearly shocked into silence. Johnson ramped things up so heavily in Vietnam, the only way we could have been more aggressive was by using nukes. This would have accomplished nothing strategically or tactically, and worsened the entire geopolitical situation. You’ve said you’re interested in becoming a politician - well then learn something from history and the mistakes of others. The U.S. involvement in Vietnam was run by people who espoused the same theories as your namesake. They saw every problem as a nail, so their only solution was a hammer. And I’ll use a word to describe that thinking which I rarely use in life: Stupid. What they did was stupid, and we’ve had decades to analyze why. Yet you think we weren’t aggressive enough. I don’t care how smart you think you are - that’s just stupid. You’re the first person who has gotten me to use that word in years. You’ve said in other threads that you consider yourself quite intelligent. Robert McNamara was quite a smart man too. He worked with Curtis LeMay in WWII - or didn’t you know that? But he made grievous errors in policy, particularly with regard to Vietnam. McNamara has admitted his errors, and we’re fortunate to learn from them. Will you be as brave? Read the Baritz book I suggested. You’ll see that the U.S. didn’t bring a knife to a gunfight in Vietnam. We brought a sack of unsuitable weapons to a place we had only vaguely heard about, and had no idea how many people we were up against. The U.S. acted stupidly, and refusing to learn how dooms us to more stupidity. If you’re going to go into politics, learn from the mistakes of people like Johnson and McNamara. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/58 "2010-02-19T03:40:49Z")
[QUOTE=Mach Tuck] Again, I’m nearly shocked into silence. Johnson ramped things up so heavily in Vietnam, the only way we could have been more aggressive was by using nukes. This would have accomplished nothing strategically or tactically, and worsened the entire geopolitical situation. [/QUOTE] I’m really trying to avoid the discussion about Vietnam here, but this is simply not true. Whether it would have been a good idea or not is debatable, but there were most certainly a wide range of options that Johnson COULD have taken that would have been well short of using nuclear weapons. For instance, he COULD order a full scale invasion of the North. Or a limited scale invasion. Or deep strike raids with special forces. Or a complete land and sea blockade. Whether or not these would have been good things is certainly debatable (I think they would not have been, FWIW), but I’m fairly sure that they could have certainly accomplished quite a bit both tactically and strategically. For instance, it would have been rather hard for the North to continue to support operations and guerrilla groups in the South if they were attempting to fend off an armored division pushing into Ho Chi Minh City or Marines in Haiphong. And had this pushed the Russians and/or the Chinese into getting into the act, that would CERTAINLY have changed the strategic and tactical picture. For some reason people today (as well as people of my generation who lived through the war) think that the North Vietnamese were almost magical beings who couldn’t lose. This was definitely not the case. They came within a hairs breath of losing several times, and the conflict could have gone either way…it was all a matter of who would flinch first and how long the funding would hold out. If the US was willing to pay the price in blood and treasure and stay there we could almost certainly have ‘won’ in the same way we ‘won’ in Korea…i.e. there would be a South Vietnam (probably being propped up by the US) and a North Vietnam, with a level of hostility and even low level conflict continuing to this day. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/59 "2010-02-19T03:57:41Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > **I’m really trying to avoid the discussion about Vietnam here, but this is simply not true.** Whether it would have been a good idea or not is debatable, but there were most certainly a wide range of options that Johnson COULD have taken that would have been well short of using nuclear weapons. For instance, he COULD order a full scale invasion of the North. Or a limited scale invasion. Or deep strike raids with special forces. Or a complete land and sea blockade. > > Whether or not these would have been good things is certainly debatable (I think they would not have been, FWIW), **but I’m fairly sure that they could have certainly accomplished quite a bit both tactically and strategically**. For instance, it would have been rather hard for the North to continue to support operations and guerrilla groups in the South if they were attempting to fend off an armored division pushing into Ho Chi Minh City or Marines in Haiphong. And had this pushed the Russians and/or the Chinese into getting into the act, that would CERTAINLY have changed the strategic and tactical picture. > > **For some reason people today (as well as people of my generation who lived through the war) think that the North Vietnamese were almost magical beings who couldn’t lose.** This was definitely not the case. They came within a hairs breath of losing several times, and the conflict could have gone either way…it was all a matter of who would flinch first and how long the funding would hold out. If the US was willing to pay the price in blood and treasure and stay there we could almost certainly have ‘won’ in the same way we ‘won’ in Korea…i.e. there would be a South Vietnam (probably being propped up by the US) and a North Vietnam, with a level of hostility and even low level conflict continuing to this day. > > -XT Bolding mine. I don’t think we could have done much more strategically or tactically, and not because of the magical properties of the Vietnamese. For one, I think the surroundings were such that simply driving an armored division into the north would have been a lot tougher than it sounds. I suppose it would have been possible, but the losses would have been unacceptable. Heck, they were unacceptable without doing that. But that’s the sort of “aggressiveness” that I think wouldn’t have gotten us anywhere but into a deeper hole. Our military was just not set up for combat in Vietnam. The only time our forces really got to fight with preferred tactics was in the battle of Hue, and that was no picnic. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429/60 "2010-02-19T04:38:29Z")
Let me preface this by clearly saying that I don’t think we should ever have been in Vietnam in the first place, and that we were foolish in the extreme to side with the French (the FRENCH!! Sheesh) over the Vietnamese who had been our allies during WWII. [QUOTE=Mach Tuck] For one, I think the surroundings were such that simply driving an armored division into the north would have been a lot tougher than it sounds. I suppose it would have been possible, but the losses would have been unacceptable. Heck, they were unacceptable without doing that. [/QUOTE] With the exception of the Soviet Union, the US was THE preeminent military during this period. While driving a single armored division into the North would probably not have worked, the US could certainly have invaded North Vietnam fairly easily had we wanted too (and leaving aside the question of what the Russians and Chinese might have done). There was, simply put, nothing the North Vietnamese could have done to stop us in a set piece battle such as this would have been. I doubt it would have even been all that costly in terms of lives…during the initial invasion. Of course, holding North Vietnam would have been a different proposition. It would have been very similar to how things worked out in Iraq except that the North Vietnamese would have had support from one super power (Russia) and one regional power (China) at a minimum…so, it would have been costly and bloody. It would have boiled down to…how badly did we want to be there? If we REALLY wanted to stay then we would have soaked up the causalities and the cost and we would have stayed for exactly as long as the American people would tolerate the costs (which, depending on when this fictitious invasion might have happened, could have been measured in days or weeks, at best). > [@](#): > > But that’s the sort of “aggressiveness” that I think wouldn’t have gotten us anywhere but into a deeper hole Couldn’t agree more. But there is a big difference between whether we COULD have done something and whether we SHOULD have done something. We most certainly COULD have invaded North Vietnam, for instance, and there was literally nothing the North could have done to stop us. Russia COULD have done something to stop us, of course, and China COULD have made things difficult, but North Vietnam, regardless of how brave and resolute it’s fighters were, could not have prevented it. Just like the Iraqi’s couldn’t prevent it when we invaded their country, and the Afghans couldn’t prevent us from invading them either. All they could do is hurt us, and possibly make things hard enough that eventually the public back home threw in the towel and screamed to bring the troops home. Which is what ultimately happened in Vietnam and almost happened in Iraq (and still might) and Afghanistan. > [@](#): > > . Our military was just not set up for combat in Vietnam. No, it wasn’t…which didn’t prevent us from winning most if not all of the major confrontations, and wouldn’t have prevented us in the slightest from winning a conventional offensive in the North, had we chosen to go that route. During the years we were in Vietnam, as unprepared and with a conscript army, we lost something like 50,000 troops, while the Vietnamese lost over a million, many of them hardened and seasoned fighters, masters of guerrilla warfare…and this while the US stayed mainly in a defensive posture, at least on the ground, and fought in a way that was least favorable to our military strengths. If, early on, we had gone for a more conventional strategy of invasion (and assuming it didn’t end in the entire world being a large smoking nuclear ash heap), we would have probably lost FEWER troops than we ultimately lost in over a decade of defensive warfare. Anyway, I don’t want to really re-fight the Vietnam war, especially since I wish to hell we’d never even been involved there at all, so I’ll leave it at that. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rethinking-lbj-was-he-that-bad/529429.md?page=4)