Customer Reviews

Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In a sharply argued, thoroughly researched book, Noam Chomsky shreds the notion that JFK was some kind of angel who would have ended the Vietnam War by bringing the US armed forces out of Vietnam, and letting the Vietnamese win. Rather, as Chomsky shows all too clearly, Kennedy was the criminal who escalated this war into outright aggression, and planned to withdraw - after victory. Chomsky's comparison of the Kennedy administration with the Reagan administration is certainly thought-provoking; it is good to know that there are Americans brave enough to expose men like JFK for what they are. One only hopes that books like this will destroy once and for all, the lies, deceptions and myths surrounding Camelot.

Excellent overview of the relationship between American political/corporate culture and the origens of the Vietnam War. In this case, Chomsky looks at the historical revisionism that clouded the discourse on the assassination of JFK. The book does not debunk the notion that a conspiracy in Dallas occurred; rather the emphasis is on how JFK simply continued (and, in some cases,expanded) the basic thrust of American foreign policy. Using mostly the internal record, Chomsky details JFK and his virulent hawkish and anti-communist ideology, a fact which Camelot propogandists attempt to hide or minimize. Once again, the point is to highlight the reality: a single political party exists today to do the bidding for the corporate sector (of which the military-industrial complex is a large component). Remember, JFK had increased defense spending and forced through a great deal of pro-corporate legislation (while also dragging his heels on Civil Rights legislation and scolding the Warren Court for its progressive leanings) prior to the assassination. All in all, another worthy contribution from one of the great American intellectuals of the 20th century.

Although I do not always find Chomsky's political analyses persuasive, this book is a well-presented, sharp rebutal to the theory that JFK planned to pull the US out of Vietnam. Chomsky examines the evidence to support this theory, clearly demonstrating the circumstantial and ambiguous nature of that evidence. He then proceeds to present well-documented information which indicates Kennedy's commitment to avoid losing Vietnam to the Communists. In addition, Chomsky raises a number of critical questions about the nature and intent of the policies which JFK was pursuing during the months prior to his assassination (particularly the coup against Diem), and asks how these can be reconciled with the withdrawal theory. This book should be read by anyone who has read the arguments (e.g. Newman, Prouty) in support of the "Kennedy was going to withdraw" theory before they make up their minds. At the very least Chomsky raises serious questions which must be answered by anyone claiming that John Kennedy had already decided to pull the US out of Vietnam, but was assassinated before being able to do so.

Utilizing the declassified documentary record during the Kennedy Administration, Chomsky makes quite clear the unpleasant fact that John F. Kennedy was essentially no different from Eisenhower, Johnson or even Nixon with regard to foreign policy.

While I am a fan of Oliver Stone's JFK, this book provides a detailed refutation of many claims and assumptions the film implies. For example, the notion that John F. Kennedy was secretly against U.S. intervention in Vietnam (yet the troops remained there the entire 3 years he was in office), and National Security Memo 263 has been totally taken out of context, as Kennedy made it quite clear that he didn't want withdrawal with failure, and that the "overriding objective" was victory in Vietnam. And National Security Memo 273, the memo which essentially reversed the "withdrawal" plan noted in 263, was drafted on November 21st (while Kennedy was still alive), and signed by LBJ on November 26th, clearly indicating that Johnson was simply continuing JFK's policies in Nam. As for his remarks, he gave similar remarks to that of why Bush gives that the US should stay in Iraq. On June 17th, 1963, Kennedy said, "For us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there", then saying, "I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw" - that's just a sample. On November 22nd, 1961, Kennedy authorized a large scale attack on South Vietnam (yes, South), napalm and "counter-terror" (U.S. terror). It's interesting that this authorization was signed on November 22nd, 1961, exactly 2 years before Kennedy suffered the fate he authorized - murder.

As well, Kennedy authorized the invasion of Cuba on April 17th, 1961, and authorized Operation Mongoose, and only turned down Operation Northwoods because he was he knew it wouldn't work. Kennedy, according to the official documents, sanctioned crop burnings, germ warfare, sinking fishing boats, etc. John and Bobby knew all about almost everything that happened, and anyone who says otherwise is full of it.

Cross reference everything Chomsky says with the declassified documentary record, which is available in book form in the book The Kennedys and Cuba, assembled by Mark J. White.

Once you learn about Kennedy's policies, his assassination, and all the conspiracies become completely irrelevant because he didn't do ANYTHING different from his predecessor and successors. He wanted Vietnam to be a sphere of influence of the United States, regardless how many civilians died, he wanted Castro to be murdered, and Cuba to return back to being mafia and US Corporation ran, and even implemented the fascist dictatorship of Brazil to take power, which they did in 1964, all of which break international law. But then again, since when does the US observe international law?

This is a must read.


Anton Batey
Anton_Batey@yahoo.com

Rethinking Camelot is perhaps one of the most important books in Noam Chomsky's body of work. The reason is as follows: Rethinking Camelot tackles a shift in violence whose thin rationale Chomsky himself largely missed as it occurred -- in late 1961 / early 1962.

The other conflicts Chomsky has written about, he has seen evolve closely, step by step: the Middle East, Latin America, Bush War One, Bush War Two, etc. The violence-to-more-violence adventurism -- whether or not the reader is in favor of abuse and bloodshed -- Chomsky monitored gradually they developed. Some of them, he spoke about even before they crystallized; e.g., a prescient speech given about Iraq in late December 1998, after Clinton bombed the country.

As opposed to his other books, Rethinking Camelot is not the document of Chomsky's real-time, blow-by-blow lucidity regarding the destruction of South Vietnam by the U.S. of A.

The book, I feel, was written by the author for the purpose of encapsulating the understanding of a period for which records emerged on an after-the-fact basis (Daniel Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers, etc.).

Other factors contribute to the hard-to-comprehend nature of U.S. intervention in South Vietnam.

One such factor is as follows: Moneyed people are unable to distinguish various forms of popular movements in poor areas. For a non-poor person, there is only one or two words to describe those popular movements: Bolshevism and Communism.

Rethinking Camelot is a brief, dense book. It is not a history textbook and therefore does not attempt to educate the reader in that regard.

When poor peasants organize, it is not necessarily because a foreign regime is manipulating them.

That sentence is extremely difficult to understand. It is beyond comprehension for most university-educated minds (whether in Europe, India, China, Columbia, etc.).

When one asserts that Moscow's Communism was about "to envelope the planet", like Kent Beuchert does above, the statement is void of information. It amounts to saying "unregulated capitalism is about to envelope the planet" or "global warming is about to envelope the planet". These sentences can be true; they can be untrue. Their veracity is unhelpful. What is helpful [and even required] is to address the root causes behind them.

The book Rethinking Camelot expects the reader to understand that poor peasants in an already-decimated country (decimated by French colonialism) will display a tendency to form a popular movement that combats concentration of power.

To the outside spectator, South Vietnam's villagers looked as though they were being manipulated by a foreign regime ("Moscow" in this case).

Hence the B-52s, the war crimes, etc. South Vietnam's peasants were not Milton Friedman afficianados. They were ultra-nationalists. They were ultra-socialists. But having the U.S. Air Force carpet-bombing them was only going to encourage their radicalism.

Compared to classics such as, say, Deterring Democracy, Chomsky's Rethinking Camelot has been forgotten. It shouldn't be. A similar campaign of destruction is being carried out today by the Indian federal state in Kashmir, Gujarat, etc. The justify-all-atrocities word there is not "communists" but "maoists". "Maoists are about to envelope India" (therefore sending the army, the massacres and concentration camps are a necessary evil).

The word "maoist" in this particular context does not carry much information. It is useful if one is in favor of slaughters. But beyond that particular function, any thorough mind ought to look at the reality on the ground. Why are the non-rich civilians being killed en masse? What is at stake? Why do the victims display "bizarre" behaviors such as resistance, solidarity and violent rebellion.

If a given army begins a campaign that consists in wiping dirt-poor populations of civilian, it must finish the job: grave war crimes. The question that underlies Rethinking Camelot is a serious one and it is still topical.

The individuals who criticize for Chomsky not showing any respect for the JFK veneer, are simply deflecting the above question. So do those who helpfully remind us that the author "has gone unchallenged" (being excluded from the media is apparently not sufficient). Do not attack the author's person. Tackle the fundamental question: Why do centers of power resort to bombs and war crimes in order to quell any form of spontaneous movement in poor areas? Why do those centers of power keep talking about democracy? How can one gather hard facts and understand the true motivations behind the large-scale murder campaigns.

Believe it or not I am a Chomsky fan, but one that is growing more and more skeptical with age and deeper reading into Cold War History.

This book really truly bites. If you have not read a lot about Cold War history and a lot about the period 1960-63 you might find it convincing. The Chomper here argues that JFK was just another Cold Warrior. This is a straw dog. Certainly one can find TONS of evidence backing up that topic sentence. Nobody who was not a Cold Warrior would have been elected President in 1960. The problem is that Chomsky presents 30% of JFK as if it was all 100% in order to make the left blink at period in US history where one has to be the most awake.

The more you read about the JFK years IN TERMS OF POLICY NOT JUST THE ASSASSINATION the more your realize that JFK was up against a permanent military intelligence bureaucracy that was forcing his hand and actively subverting his orders at every point from Vietnam to Cuba. See the Excellent book House of War By James Carol for how much pressure the CIA and JCS was putting on JFK for a nuclear first strike.

Not a word on this by MR. ""left"" Kennedy basher!

See the incredibly important book The Perils of Dominance by Gareth Porter for long term institutional pressures that undermined the Presidents control over Vietnam policy Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam

Above all see the best book on US Cold War Policy in 40 years JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. THIS IS NOT A NAIVE LIBERAL BOOK SO TRAINED NAMECALLERS CHILLAXJFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters I am going to type much more about why this book is so terrible later. Just dont believe what Chomsky types about JFK anymore. Either he knows nothing, or ...... See History of Encounter Magazine in this bookThe Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters

Chomsky's pseudo-dissidence is revealed by, among many other lies found throughout his oeuvre, his repeated insistence upon the CIA's unwavering fidelity to successive Presidents. Where the evidence is contrary, he ignores it. Nowhere is the suppression more systematic than in Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture. Consider, in particular, his Stalinoid survey of the Vietnam coverage of the New York Times from October 3 to December 4, 1963 (in this paperback edition, pp.82-83). One omission, among many, will suffice.

On October 3, 1963, the NYT carried a column entitled "The Intra-Administration War In Vietnam." It opened: "The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press in despatches from Vietnam..."

Its author, Arthur Krock, proceeded to quote extensively from one such despatch, "Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders in Vietnam", by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard group. The quotes below are from Starnes's courageous and hauntingly prophetic original.

According to Starnes's source, "Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge", even though one set had been brought direct from Washington. Likening the CIA's growth to a "malignancy", which he was "not sure event the White House could control any longer", the source predicted: "If the United States ever experiences a Seven Days in May it will come from the CIA" (Washington Daily News, October 2).

Chomsky was, and remains, the creation and creature of the Central Intelligence Agency. Rethinking Camelot represented the cashing of the CIA's most important dissident chip in its unending war against both genuine dissent, and JFK's memory. It is a measure of the fear, corruption and cowardice prevalent in mainstream Anglo-American academia and media that Chomsky's imposture has gone unchallenged for so long.

What is missing from Chomsky's book is the notion that if anyone told JFK right to his face precisely what the United States was going to do in Nam for the following ten years (I think George Ball tried to do this), the president himself wouldn't have believed it, and could have told him, "You're crazy . . . " (as I remember this, the president expressed himself with an expletive) and really meant it. Anyone who thinks that American policy in Vietnam ever made sense is underestimating the ability of the government to lie whenever it is trying to picture what its national honor adds up to in evens and odds. I knew that something was crazy when I read in Rethinking Camelot that John Newman had written a letter to "The Nation" in which he said, "Let's get serious." Actually, the policy always begged to be compared with some outrageous joke, and "The Nation" has been great at coming up with jokes (I have even read the admission by Calvin Trillin that he used jokes in his column) to match such situations. Possibly the funniest thing that I ever read just showed up again in the April 10, 2000 issue of "The Nation," in a book review by John Leonard. "It's worth recalling that when Freud finally got permission to leave Vienna in 1938, the Gestapo obliged him to sign a certificate saying that he had been well treated by the authorities. He added a sentence of his own: 'I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone.'" (p. 26) American policy in Vietnam was always a dream of imposing that kind of order in a country in which a majority of the people were not Americans, and might even try to kill Americans, if you want to know the truth. I can name one Kennedy adviser who was willing to tell LBJ in November, 1965, that the odds were about even that things were getting worse in Vietnam, and were going to get a lot worse as the plans at that stage were implemented, but he wouldn't have even been keeping his job if he told everybody what he thought. I'm actually glad McNamara didn't resign in protest, because he knew that other people could do his job worse than he could, and he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the country from the kind of stupidity that was assumed for anyone in his position, of which he was highly aware.

Just finished reading this book and found the portion
debunking JFK idolators' revisionist history to be well done,
although rather long winded. The rest of the book is pure paranoia - I was alive during the Vietnam buildup and well remember the motives that led to intervention. Surprisingly,
Chomsky attributes dark motives to practically everything
the US did during those times, and virtually never touches on the motives most often at play - the defeat and containment of Communism, which at times looked as though it was going to win.
Chomsky seems to think that Communism was essentially just a sort of ultra socialism. That is his biggest error in the book:
a severe naivete about what Communism was and why much was sacrificed to ensure that it didn't envelope the planet. In other words, he displays an extreme case of tunnel vision.