How would Kennedy have handled the Tonkin Gulf?

I believe had JFK not been assassinated in 1963 that he would have handled the Tonkin Gulf incident with the Maddox and Turner Joy differently, he certainly would have taken more time to get all the information before making the decision to respond with air strikes against North Vietnam, even in the election year of 1964. Kennedy might have reduced troop numbers as some claim but he would not have completely pulled out of the situation in South east Asia...after all he did send US ground troops to Thailand to blunt suspected infiltration by Pol Pot's maniacs on the Thai/Cambodian boarder.

I think Kennedy would have turned to strong demonstrations and a public warning to the North Vietnamese rather than ordering air strikes.
 
I believe had JFK not been assassinated in 1963 that he would have handled the Tonkin Gulf incident with the Maddox and Turner Joy differently, he certainly would have taken more time to get all the information before making the decision to respond with air strikes against North Vietnam, even in the election year of 1964. Kennedy might have reduced troop numbers as some claim but he would not have completely pulled out of the situation in South east Asia...after all he did send US ground troops to Thailand to blunt suspected infiltration by Pol Pot's maniacs on the Thai/Cambodian boarder.

I think Kennedy would have turned to strong demonstrations and a public warning to the North Vietnamese rather than ordering air strikes.

Kennedy would have gone into Vietnam anyway, granted I think every knew that the Gulf of Tonkin or at least the actual strikes were fabricated. Post-Cuban Missle Crisis the Domino Theory changed from we have to stop the spread of Communism to we have to stop the spread of Chinese Communism, because if they "win" in Vietnam will then cause the Soviets to be more aggressive in response.
 
Badly for all the hype and the shine that his assassination gave Kennedy you have to remember that he was really bad at signaling the Russians and reading the signals that the Russians were sending. That's the root cause of the Cuban missile crisis. He was also reaponcible for the united states initial foray into Vietnam and his team was responsible for its escalation
 

hipper

Banned
He Apologises to the North Vietnamese for the Maddox opening fire on them, Shuts down the clandestine raids into north Vietnam by the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group, and Disbands the CIA as he had prevously threatened. The withdrawal of American troops continues. North Vietnam invades the south in the late sixties putting an end to an era of detente. Nixon comes to power in 1968.

perhaps.

 
The Tonkin incident was wrapped in uncertainty, and Kennedy did not deal with things until he got to properly understand them. To move to war without understanding the reality with certainty would be heinous to Kennedy. And it was not so great as to require the reaction it did. It's an excuse for war if you want one, which Kennedy preferred to avoid. You can argue that Kennedy would have been pressed by events to eventually intervene. This is a position I disagree with, because his treatment of other foreign policy issues and of Vietnam do not lend to that, and Vietnam is only so great to our minds because we did go there. It's a third world, forgettable nation in another world. I cannot accept as reasonable the position that JFK was itching to go into Vietnam, however. I cannot see him doing much more than ignoring Tonkin. It would take something really egregious to push Kennedy to the point of considering his options in reaction. Tonkin is not even a blip on the radar if you do not want it to be.

There's also the matter that the be all and end all of treatment to Vietnam is not war. We get short sighted on this because we did go to war. There are creative solutions to Vietnam. There are diplomatic solutions to Vietnam. There were ways to treat the situation in Vietnam beyond the scope of war. I will not term it as "short of war" because that makes it sound like war is an end point or an inevitability in a limited, straight line of events, and that is a problem with the psychology of this matter. War is a pursuit when all else has failed.

 
Last edited:
That's because we're ignorant liberals who think JFK was absolutely perfect and the world is made of flowers and sunshine, though. Right?

No, course not. Kennedy's failures would not be in foreign policy, but in domestic policy, I think.

And if Kennedy intervenes, he'll intervene in a much smarter way than Johnson.
 
No, course not. Kennedy's failures would not be in foreign policy, but in domestic policy, I think.

And if Kennedy intervenes, he'll intervene in a much smarter way than Johnson.


Also, contrary to Robert Caro, LBJ was not magic in domestic affairs and it was the Liberal Congress that moved those grand policies and programs to fruition. Johnson could not move things before the Liberals were elected in 1964. It got to the point he could not move things after the Republicans and Conservatives made a comeback in 1966 onward. I think Caro has been too long in LBJ's world to the point he took the point of view that LBJ was necessary for everything. Though even Johnson admitted he could not do anything without a cooperative Congress.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?323710-1/fierce-urgency-now
 
Top