John F. Kennedy
3
Fortunately, the myth of Camelot is beginning to fade away and the Kennedy presidency is beginning to be examined objectively in order to determine just how John F. Kennedy should be regarded as a leader. Despite my reputation as being somewhat "emotionally attatched" to Kennedy, I still manage to see things in perspective and realize that Kennedy had his faults, both in his public and private life (moreso in the latter). In this comment, I will attempt to clarify my position on Kennedy, and hope to achieve balance. I will first examine Kennedy's negative attributes, both as a leader and as a man, and then I will examine his strengths. [Negative Attributes:] (1) Although VirileVagabond and I, through our e-mails, have disagreed on the dynamics of the Bay of Pigs invasion, I do think that we agree on the overall issue itself: Kennedy was wrong to let the invasion go forth. And when he did give the CIA the green light for the invasion after he assumed office, Kennedy should've been willing to use all the resources of the U.S. military to ensure its success. While a report released in 1998 determined that the CIA misinformed Kennedy Administration officials, this is still no excuse. The Bay of Pigs was a major embarassment to U.S. prestige throughout the world, and it gave the world the impression that the Communists had the upper hand. Kennedy lacked the experience and the wisdom to realize that a covert paramilitary invasion of Cuba by a few thousand exhiles would not be enough to oust Castro. Kennedy was also wrong to underestimate the resolve of the Castro regime. While it can be claimed that the problems that the U.S. faced with regards to Cuba in 1961 were hardly any of Kennedy's making, he still must bear responsibiliy for the failure of the invasion. The buck stopped at Kennedy's desk, and the final decision to abort or proceed with the invasion rested with him. (2) The conflict in Vietnam had prompted President Eisenhower to send 800 military advisers to South Vietnam in an effort to train the South Vietnamese to win the war. Kennedy's strategy (or lack-there-of) was very much the same. During his tenure, Kennedy increased the number of military advisers to 16,700. The Kennedy mentality with regards to Vietnam was that the military advisers were there to train and equip the South Vietnamese with the tools that they needed to win their own war. Throughout his entire term, Kennedy resisted pleas from his advisers to send combat troops to the country. However, Kennedy made a grave mistake in approving the coup (although he did not approve the murder) of Vietnamese President Diem. Kennedy believed that Diem's corrupt government was slowing the war effort, and ousting him and replacing him with a cooperative leader would help expediate the withdrawl of U.S. militray personnel. Ironically, Diem's death resulted in the exact opposite. While Diem was a corrupt leader, he managed to ensure stability in the nation (and at the same time contained the conflict- there were only 82 American deaths in November of 1963). With Diem's death came a period of instability. The puppet government instilled by Lyndon Johnson was even more corrupt and lacked the moral authority to manage the war. The Diem assassination was an incentive for Lyndon Johnson to send combat troops into Vietnam to ensure that the South did not fall in the wake of Diem's death. While Kennedy may have persued other options, his actions provided the logic that made Johnson believe that sending U.S. combat troops into Vietnam would ensure stability. While its nice to believe that Kennedy would've avoided Johnson's course of action, the fact is that Kennedy's actions just weeks before his death is exactly what prompted Johnson to handle the war the way he did. Kennedy may have handled it differently had he lived, but in a real sense, LBJ's decision to send combat troops into Vietnam was a result of Kennedy's actions in Vietnam. (3) Kennedy, as we know now, had very little moral character. While he loved his wife, he still pursued his womanizing relentlessly, never considering the feelings of his wife, and moreover, never considering that if the affairs were made public, it would've been a huge embarassment for the United States. [Positive Attributes] (1) Kennedy brought a sense of hope and idealism to the American people at a time of great national peril. Through the Peace Corps, he encouraged young Americans to take an interest in world affairs. (2) Kennedy was a Cold Warrior who hated Communism. He cared deeply for foreign aid programs, and his establishment of the Alliance for Progress, while in the long-term proved to be ineffective, was good in that it attempted to combat Communist subversion in Latin America. (3) He responded well to the crises in Berlin and Cuba. In the latter, me and VirileVagabond have a dynamic disagreement. My research has determined that the missiles in Turkey were of a defensive nature- those conventional weapons were there in order to ensure the protection of an American ally that was in hostile territory (Turkey). The Soviets did the same with Cuba- they placed CONVENTIONAL weapons in Cuba. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis came when the Soviets followed up that conventional weapons buildup (defensive weapons) with an offensive weapons buildup and the introduction of MRBM nuclear missiles (much more powerful than those located in Turkey). In any event, Kennedy responsed well to the crisis and the crisis eventually led to improved relations between the two superpowers (at least for a time). (4) He pursued peace with the Soviet Union and worked hard for the passage of the historic Test Ban Treaty. Kennedy said just a few weeks before his death that the Test Ban Treaty was his most important accomplishment thus far. FINAL ANALYSIS: Kennedy's record is indeed a mixed one. He made a wrong call on the Bay of Pigs, and made a grave mistake in Vietnam just two weeks before his death. However, his resposne to the Missile Crisis and the crisis in Berlin was impressive, and he brought a sense of hope and idealism at a time of maximum danger. However, the man does not deserve four or five stars. One can argue that had Kennedy lived, he would've been a good leader, but as my friend VirileVagabond says, what happened is what's important. We must judge history as it is, not as it may have been. To ignore Kennedy's policy flaws is a disgrace to the man himself, as he would want his place in history to be based on objectivity and true facts, not mythical bologna.