New LBJ Tapes Reveal Iraq Vietnam Comparison

It was a Democrat President then, but he apparently had no love for the New York Times. And Eisenhower's characterization of Vietnam could just as well serve for a basic assessment of the challenges in Iraq today.

While the military has tried to learn different approaches to low intensity conflicts and insurgencies, it appears the press is still banging the same old drum.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- As American involvement in Vietnam deepened, President Lyndon Johnson railed against "the bunch of commies" running The New York Times and complained about the newspaper's criticism of the war, according to taped phone conversations released Friday.

The recordings, released by the LBJ Library, covered August to December 1966. Johnson had many of his calls from the Oval Office and his Texas ranch recorded on Dictabelt equipment.

In one conversation, Johnson blasted the "commies" he said ran the Times.

"They want to get out of Vietnam and yield it to them, and I don't think I can quite do that," the president said.

In a discussion about the war with former President Dwight Eisenhower, Johnson said he was "trying to win it just as fast as I can in every way that I know how." He added: "I need all the help I can get."

Eisenhower, who was president in the 1950s during the tail end of the Korean War, told Johnson that Vietnam was different: "Here is a war that is the most nasty and unpredictable that we've ever been in, and it's just as much political as military."

In the midterm elections, the Democrats suffered numerous defeats in the House but maintained control of Congress.

LBJ Library link.

Comments

[Ken Larson]

You make many good points in your article. I would like to supplement them with some information:

I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak.

If you are interested in a view of the inside of the Pentagon procurement process from Vietnam to Iraq please check the posting at my blog entitled, “Odyssey of Armements”

The Pentagon is a giant, incredibly complex establishment,budgeted in excess of $500B per year. The Rumsfelds, the Adminisitrations and the Congressmen come and go but the real machinery of policy and procurement keeps grinding away, presenting the politicos who arrive with detail and alternatives slanted to perpetuate itself.

How can any newcomer, be he a President, a Congressman or even the Sec. Def. to be - Mr. Gates- understand such complexity, particulary if heretofore he has not had the clearance to get the full details?

Answer- he can’t. Therefor he accepts the alternatives provided by the career establishment that never goes away and he hopes he makes the right choices. Or he is influenced by a lobbyist or two representing companies in his district or special interest groups.

From a practical standpoint, policy and war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results.

This situation is unfortunate but it is ablsolute fact. Take it from one who has been to war and worked in the establishment.

This giant policy making and war machine will eventually come apart and have to be put back together to operate smaller, leaner and on less fuel. But that won’t happen unitil it hits a brick wall at high speed.

We will then have to run a Volkswagon instead of a Caddy and get along somehow. We better start practicing now and get off our high horse. Our golden aura in the world is beginning to dull from arrogance.

[Phoenix]

Ken,

Very interesting. I have two questions from a lack of comprehension on my part: "This situation is unfortunate but it is absolute fact." Unfortunate because war decisions are made far below the levels of the talking heads who take the heat or the credit for the results, or because those people do not make the decisions? Also: "....beginning to dull from arrogance." Whose arrogance?

[Ken Larson]

In response to question by Phoenix, my regrets for not being clearer in my comment. There is much beaurocratic distance between our elected officials who are asked to make decisions and those who develop the alternatives from which the pols choose. As fast as the world is moving these days, much gets lost in the translation on the way.

We must find a way to slim down this costly, giant,machine so the people who are supposed to do the driving can see the road.

The arrogence I refer to is the aura of invincibility we have reflected by unilaterally waging war and making occupation our MO ever since Desert Storm. This has to cease and it will because the machine is so costly and running so inefficiently that it will come apart.

For further details see "Odyssey of Armaments" at http://www.rosevoveredglasses.blogspot.com

[Phoenix]

Thanks, Ken.

My brain inhales metaphor, so I understand better now. Whose side are you on?

This 'aura of invincibility we have reflected by...' is passive voice. Who is receiving the action of 'reflected'?

Do you agree that Rumsfeld tried his best to slim down the costly machine?