Johnson could't bomb outside South VietNam because we were not "at war" with North VietNam. It was a "military action." Remember? The President does not declare war, that's reserved by the constitution for the Senate.
Actually it's Congress who declares war, Article 1 Section 8. There was no declaration of war during Korea, it was "a police action", and that lawyerly distinction didn't amount to squat. We not only bombed them, MacArthur was urging the use of nukes on the Chinese before Truman cashiered him. President Eisenhower achieved the ceasefire by letting Peking know he was willing to do just that, and they believed him enough to pressure North Korea to accept an end to the fighting. Clinton is dropping something resembling bombs on Yugoslavia, and there's no declaration of war here, either. Don't hold your breath waiting for one. What held Johnson and Nixon back was their own willingness to put politics ahead of the lives of the troops in the field.
The idea that JFK was responsible for Diem's death is as old as the event itself. Kennedy had been complaining of Diem's intransigence. He wanted someone more compliant to run the show. Lodge, or Knowlton, whoever was in Saigon, let this be known. The locals interpreted this in a manner which wasn't exactly what Americans think of when they get a new head of state, but isn't uncommon in other parts of the world. If someone produces a comment by JFK that runs something like "Good, it worked, I'm glad Diem's dead" then I'd concede the point, but otherwise I don't see it as much more than the failure to understand another culture. |
