WI No US Ground troops in Vietnam

Suppose Johnson decided not to send ground troops to Vietnam. I have an idea that had the Republicans ran a different candidate in 64 Tonkin gulf might not have been such a big thing.

Imagine Johnson beats Dirkson and Wallace in 64. Probably Johnson wins I see something like a margin of 51/37 / 8 in the popular vote. I suspect that Dirkson might even come 3rd in the electoral vote.

A section of the Republican party will try to make the 'loss' or risk of losing Vietnam a big issue.

I wonder how much 68 would resemble 64 were Goldwater to be nominated
 
Good morning, actually there were already "advisor" ground troops in Vietnam under President Truman under the name "Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG)" to assist the French in 1950 (several hundred), which grew to over 700 under Eisenhower and then Kennedy in 1961 to over 3,400 before MAAG Vietnam was placed under MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam). By 1963, Kennedy increased the number of US "advisors" and support personnel to over 16,000.

Unfortunately, only Presidential administrations seemed to tell the difference between "combat troops" and "advisors" in order to persuade the public we aren't in a war, while our adversaries don't see the difference.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Good morning, actually there were already "advisor" ground troops in Vietnam under President Truman under the name "Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG)" to assist the French in 1950 (several hundred), which grew to over 700 under Eisenhower and then Kennedy in 1961 to over 3,400 before MAAG Vietnam was placed under MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam). By 1963, Kennedy increased the number of US "advisors" and support personnel to over 16,000.

Unfortunately, only Presidential administrations seemed to tell the difference between "combat troops" and "advisors" in order to persuade the public we aren't in a war, while our adversaries don't see the difference.

But the decision whether to commit whole units (combat troops) or not (advisors) is consequential. First off, without whole units, South Vietnam could well have a shorter lifespan. Even if LBJ had things go on at the "advisory" scale of 1964 for several years, it makes a difference in terms of US casualties. They are at levels much less like OTL's Vietnam War and much more like OTL's worst phases of the Iraq War (2005-2007). That is going to have smaller resonance in US society at home.
 
Honestly, the 3,500 US Marines (2 battalions) wading ashore on 8 March 1965 at Danang probably did very little compared to the already entrenched "advisors" who were in the field with the South Vietnamese Army units. Yes, by the end of 1965 there were something like 275,000 troops in country. That said, how many of those "troops" were actually shooters that get into combat and how many are support personnel. Those 2 battalions of US Marines were actually brought in to protect the air fields that were flying the Rolling Thunder missions.

Johnson's approval ratings had dropped from 70 percent in mid-1965 to below 40 percent by 1967. The combination of Vietnam (casualties, escalation, lies, and miscalculations), the Great Society expensive idea that he cut short, the Civil Rights protests, and the women's lib movement basically collapsed the Johnson administration. In 1964, Johnson had campaigned on a peace platform but he reneged on that and that ended his ability to control the very same Congress he so masterfully controlled when he was Majority leader of the Senate.

My thought is, Johnson's administration didn't go down in flames just because of Vietnam escalation, but it sure was a major factor.
 
I didn't say IT did, I said it was one of multiple factors. Anytime an administration is being torn in multiple directions from internal and external priorities, then it is very difficult to get legislation (or whatever you are trying to get done) completed.
 
Top