Untitled

I would second that. Wars are fought often for political reasons, and our involvement in Viet Nam, which began during the Eisenhower administration (advisers) expanded dramatically during the Johnson Administration. Johnson was facing an election in a time when Viet Nam was changing governments on a weekly basis, the Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, was a staunch anti-communist at the time, and it was going to be a campaign issue if Johnson didn't send troops to help out the tottering Viet Nam government. He didn't want to be considered "soft on communism", as his opponents would have charged. From what I have heard of recorded telephone con- versations between the persident (Johnson) and his secretary of defense (these at the johnson museum), he truly agonized over sending more troops in to what he perceived as a "no win" situation.

It's interesting to note that during the Kennedy administration, we had advisers in Viet Nam under the auspices of the United Nations. I know some who were assigned to PBR duty on the Mekong River, and they were to patrol the area looking for enemy activity. They were not, however, given any ammunition for their deck guns, or even their side arms. They said the only time they really ventured out onto the river was "when a TV crew came aboard, or some senator or congressman was in country.". So it was more like a political presence then, aimed at giving the appearance of support, without any real offensive (or defensive, for that matter) capability.

nice page, btw.

keep up the good work.

blortz thraggh