Showing posts with label false flag. Show all posts
Showing posts with label false flag. Show all posts

Monday, March 10, 2008

Operation Northwoods - Pentagon Proposed Pretext for Cuba Invasion

National Security Archive
GWU.EDU
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba [includes cover memoranda], March 13, 1962, TOP SECRET, 15 pp.

Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Discussing Provocation

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Running Out of Time

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Planning for After the War

The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.

"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo


Tony Blair and George Bush at a press conference in the White House on January 31 2003. Photograph: Shawn Thew/AFP

Tony Blair and George Bush at a press conference in the White House on January 31 2003. Photograph: Shawn Thew/AFP

Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.

Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.

Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.

"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."

Prof Sands says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Lord Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".

On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.

LBJ Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Source: John Prados, The White House Tapes
(New York: The New Press, 2003)

Note: These clips are in Windows Media Audio format (.wma)

gwu.edu

AUGUST 3, 1964: PRESIDENT JOHNSON DISCUSSES AN INCIDENT IN THE GULF OF TONKIN WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT S. McNAMARA (IN TWO CONVERSATIONS)

On August 2, 1964, the American destroyer Maddox, on patrol off the coast of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, was attacked by several North Vietnamese torpedo boats. The attack happened hours after South Vietnamese raiders struck at two targets on the North Vietnamese coast as part of a U.S. program of graduated covert pressure against the North that was known as Operations Plan (OPLAN)-34A. This marked the beginning of a series of events that has come to be called the Tonkin Gulf incident.
The Maddox was actually on an intelligence mission off the northern coast, carrying with a van of extra communications and electronics gear along with a complement of specialists from the Naval Security Group, a naval complement to the National Security Agency. Their task was to intercept North Vietnamese communications. The ship was in international waters when attacked, but had been inside territorial waters claimed by North Vietnam when Hanoi's torpedo boats were sent to sea. Vietnamese authorities have disclosed that the response was ordered by local commanders without reference to Hanoi. The Maddox did not expect any attack-the mission commander had been briefed in Taiwan previously that there would be none - but she was also completely unaware of the provocation to North Vietnam that had occurred simultaneously in the form of the OPLAN-34A strikes. There was no real surprise, however. The North Vietnamese torpedo boats' communications were intercepted, as well as the orders sending them out, and the craft were detected as they approached the U.S. warship. In the ensuing battle two of the three boats were sunk and the third badly damaged, with no losses to the Maddox. The action in the Tonkin Gulf took place in the afternoon local time, which was before dawn in Washington, and by early morning in the capital there was a scramble to decide what to do about the situation.

This telephone call represents the first conversation between President Johnson and defense secretary Robert McNamara on the incident. Johnson had already had some conversations with political advisers, and it is noteworthy that his talk with McNamara centers on handling political aspects of the incident. It is also notable that McNamara in this conversation clearly favors explaining to Congress the link between the incident and the OPLAN-34A activities. McNamara would take the position in later public hearings that he was unaware of any such link and as a result would be the target of intense criticism. LBJ himself was well aware of the connection and had explained it to an adviser in a different conversation less than an hour earlier. The president here tells McNamara to limit discussion to key congressional figures, including Speaker of the House John McCormick, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. From this telephone call it appears that McNamara's later public comments were made under instruction from Lyndon Johnson.

Clip 1: Lyndon B. Johnson
Monday, August 3, 1964, 10:30 A.M. (3:34)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident(s) Involving the Destroyer U.S.S. Maddox

President Lyndon B. Johnson: Now I wonder if you don't think it'd be wise for you and Rusk to get Mac, uh, the Speaker and Mansfield to call a group of fifteen to twenty people together eh from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations to tell them what happened. A good many of them are saying to me
Secretary Robert McNamara: Right. I've been thinking about this myself, and I thought that uh
President Johnson: They're going to start an investigation
Secretary McNamara: Yeah.
President Johnson: if you don't.
Secretary McNamara: Yeah.
President Johnson: And you got Dirksen up there
Secretary McNamara: Yeah
President Johnson: and he's saying you've got to study it further, and say to Mansfield, "Now the President wants us, you, to get the proper people." And we come in and you say, "They fired at us. We responded immediately. And we took out one of their boats and put the other two running. And we kept our..., we're puttin' our boats right there, and we're not running on in."
Secretary McNamara: And it's hard to destroy.
President Johnson: That's right
Secretary McNamara: Right. And we're going to, and I think I should also, or we should also at that time, Mr. President, explain this Op Plan 34-A, these covert operations. There's no question but what that had bearing on. And on Friday night, as you probably know, we had four TP [McNamara means PT] boats from Vietnam manned by Vietnamese or other nationals, attack two is lands. And we expended, oh, a thousand rounds of ammunition of one kind or another against them. We probably shot up a radar station and a few other miscellaneous buildings. And following twenty-four hours after that, with this destroyer in that same area, undoubtedly led them to connect the two events.
President Johnson: Well say that to Dirksen.
Secretary McNamara: That's what I know he'll like.
President Johnson: You notice Dirksen says this morning, that "we got to reassess the situation, do something about it." I'd tell him that we're doing what he's talking about.
Secretary McNamara: Well, I, I was, I was thinking doing this myself in personal visits. But I think your thought is better. We'll get the group together. You want us to do it at the White House or would you rather do it at State or Defense?
President Johnson: I believe it'd be better to do it uh up on the Hill.
Secretary McNamara: All right.
President Johnson: I believe it'd be better if you say to Mansfield, "You call"
Secretary McNamara: Yup
President Johnson: Foreign Relations
Secretary McNamara: Yup, OK.
President Johnson: Armed Services
Secretary McNamara: OK. OK.
President Johnson: and and get Speaker to do it over on his side [i.e., within the House of Representatives, as opposed to the Senate].
Secretary McNamara: We'll do it
President Johnson: And just say it's very, I'd tell him awfully quiet, though, so they won't go in and be making a bunch of speeches. And tell Rusk that a, that's my idea.
Secretary McNamara: Great. .
President Johnson: And he's in New York, so I don't know whether's he's got back.
Secretary McNamara: Well I just talked to George Ball a few minutes ago, and I'll have George arrange it. Or at least I'll tell him that, and then I'll call the Speaker and Mansfield himself.
President Johnson: Now I wish that uh you'd give me some guidance on what we ought to say. I want to leave an impression on the background in the people we talk to over here that we're gonna be firm as hell without saying something that's dangerous. Now what do you think? Uh, uh, the people that are calling me up, I just talked to a New York banker, I just talked to a fellow in Texas, they all feel that the Navy responded wonderfully and that's good. But they want to be damned sure I don't pull 'em out and run, and they want to be damned sure that we're firm. That's what all the country wants because Goldwater's raising so much hell about how he's gonna blow 'em off the moon, and they say that we oughten to do anything that the national interest doesn't require. But we sure oughta always leave the impression that if you shoot at us, you're going to get hit.
Secretary McNamara: Well I think you would want to instruct George Reedy this morning at his news conference to say that you you personally have ordered the, the Navy to carry on the routine patrols uh off the coast of North Vietnam, uh to add an additional destroyer to the one that has been carrying on the patrols, to provide an air cap, and to issue instructions to the commanders to destroy any uh force that attacks our force in international waters.
President Johnson: [speaks over McNamara] Bob, if you don't mind,
Secretary McNamara: . . . I think that's the way...
President Johnson: If you don't mind, call Walter Jenkins and tell him
Secretary McNamara: Sure
President Johnson: that you want to dictate this to me
Secretary McNamara: I'll do it right now
President Johnson: to give to my people or George Reedy because I'm over at the Mansion with some folks here
Secretary McNamara: I'll do it right now.
President Johnson: OK. Right.

Clip 2: Lyndon B. Johnson
Monday, August 3, 1964, 1:21 P.M. (1:42)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

President Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes?
Secretary Robert McNamara: Mr. President, I set up those meetings for this afternoon with the Senate and House leaders and I thought if it was agreeable with you, I would say to them that some months ago you asked us to be pre pared for any eventuality in the Southeast Asia area and as a result of that we have prepared and just completed in great detail target analyses of the targets of North Vietnam. As a mailer of fact in ten minutes I'm going over with the Chiefs [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] the final work on this. We have pictures, analyses, numbers of sorties, bomb loadings, everything prepared for all the target systems of of North Vietnam, and I would describe this to the the leaders, simply indicating your desire that we be fully prepared for whatever may develop. And furthermore we've prepared detailed movement studies of any contingency forces required, air squadrons, et cetera.
President Johnson: So obviously now, if you go put this in the paper...
Secretary McNamara: Yeah, and I, I'm going to tell 'em that
President Johnson: and your enemy reads about it then he thinks we're already taking off and obviously you've got us in a war. But I've got to be candid with you and I want to tell you the truth.
Secretary McNamara: Exactly. I was going to start my remarks by that, but be damn sure it doesn't, or try to be sure it doesn't get in the paper.
President John And uh, uh I think it's right, and I, I will tell 'em that yesterday morning that uh, uh they reported the Maddox incident and uh during the day yesterday we sent we sent out this order and read them the statement I made this morning.
Secretary McNamara: Right, I'll do that.
President Johnson: And, so that Dirksen doesn't think that we have to wait on him, and that we...
Secretary McNamara: Yeah.
President Johnson: did go out when.
Secretary McNamara: Yes, I'll tell them the order went out yesterday and you were simply repeating it to the press this morning.
President Johnson: OK.

AUGUST 1964: THE GULF OF TONKIN INCIDENT CONTINUES- PRESIDENT JOHNSON DISCUSSES BOMBING NORTH VIETNAM WITH ROBERT S. McNAMARA (IN FOUR CONVERSATIONS)

Following the original incident of August 2, the Johnson administration wanted to underline its belief that U.S. Navy warships had the freedom to pass any where in international waters, naturally including most of the Gulf of Tonkin. Consequently President Johnson approved a move under which the destroyer Maddox was reinforced by the C. Turner Joy, and both ships entered the Gulf together. With the American warships in a state of hyperalert, on the night of August 3/4 the warships recorded a series of sound (sonar) and electronic (radar) readings interpreted to be attacking torpedo boats. Amid the confusion of that night, radio signals pertaining to the August 2 incident were read as Hanoi ordering a fresh attack, and expectant sailors on watch saw things they decided were enemy boats. Washington was initially told the warships were under attack. Although the commander on the scene, Captain John D. Herrick, quickly amplified the initial, excited reports with one stating he doubted the reality of the attacks, Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp nevertheless proceeded as if the attacks were genuine.

Because of the time difference between Washington and the Tonkin Gulf, and the time needed to transmit and receive messages from the remote naval forces involved, this sequence of President Johnson telephone calls on August begins at a moment when Washington was as yet unaware of the claimed second attack. McNamara's statement in the 9:43 AM. conversation that "this ship is allegedly to be attacked tonight" is highly significant-it means that Washington was already operating on the basis of the radio intercepts mistakenly attributed to August 4th. Equally important, LBJ and McNamara discuss retaliatory action against North Vietnam in spite of the fact that no attack has yet occurred. Also of interest is President Johnson's statement that the United States "should pull one of these things that you've. . . been doing. . . on one of their bridges or something." This is a clear reference to the OPLAN-34A raids, confusion about which had been a factor in the initial Tonkin Gulf engagement on August 2. Here LBJ suggests a measure that would actually increase Hanoi's incentives to fight.

A little over an hour later, at 10:53 AM., McNamara has a second conversation with the president in which Johnson's concern centers on the details of the supposed combat in the Gulf. McNamara tells LBJ that the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga sent out aircraft to help defend the two destroyers, and he mistakenly reports that the planes have seen two unidentified vessels and three planes near the American warships (Admiral John Stockdale, pilot of one of the Ticonderoga aircraft that night, affirms that the U.S. planes saw nothing at all). McNamara goes on to tell the president that he has developed a list of targets in North Vietnam that can be struck in retaliation. He promises to bring the list over to the White House.

Less than ten minutes later, McNamara comes back on the phone to tell President Johnson that Pacific theater commander Admiral Sharp has told him the destroyers are under torpedo attack. Here the secretary of defense reports information now known to be false, although McNamara did not know this at the time. LBJ responds by ordering the secretary of defense and other top officials to meet and coordinate a retaliatory bombing. There is no tape of that meeting, but a memorandum recording the meeting of the National Security Council that day notes McNamara entering the meeting and discussing the alleged attack. Secretary Dean Rusk comments that recommendations are being prepared but are not yet ready. Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon warns, "There is a limit on the number of times we can be attacked by the North Vietnamese without hilling their naval bases." For almost two hours following the NSC meeting, LBJ lunched with McNamara, Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, the CIA's John McCone, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus R. Vance. It was at lunch, according to a Pentagon chronology of these events, that LBJ agreed to a swift retaliatory air strike and a specific set of targets. During this lunch (at 1:27 P.M.), Washington received the message from Captain Herrick on the Maddox that cast doubt on the veracity of the attack. This report had no effect on the actions of Washington officials.

By late afternoon the comings and goings at the White House and the Pentagon had put the press on notice that something was going on, and leaks became inevitable. Shortly after 5:00 P.M., President Johnson talked to McNamara again. This time they shared the news that the Associated Press and United Press wire services had both put out the story that another attack had taken place in the Tonkin Gulf. LBJ now approved an official Pentagon statement on the supposed attack (although as recently as twenty minutes earlier McNamara had been meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to "overcome [the] lack of a clear and convincing showing that an attack on the destroyers had in fact occurred" he Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a message ordering execution of the retaliatory bombing and it was sent out at 5:19. A follow-up NSC meeting took place an hour later. That meeting gave pro forma consideration to the alleged North Vietnamese attack and the retaliation, again not taking into account the doubts of the on-scene destroyer commander, Captain Herrick. The White House meeting also tabled a prospective resolution approving the use of force by Congress. LBJ raised the matter of a resolution at a briefing of senior legislators which began at 6:45. The administration supplied a text as discussed by the NSC and then between LBJ and the legislators, and that draft became the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was subsequently used to justify the entire U.S. war in Vietnam.

There was a final conversation between LBJ and McNamara at 9:15 P.M., at which time the president was caught up in the drama of Mississippi. Then the questions were largely ones of coordinating the actual launch of the attack with LBJ's public statement. President Johnson finally made the statement at 11:36 P.M., approximately half an hour prior to the expected time of arrival of the U.S. strike aircraft over their targets in North Vietnam.

Thus the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam went forward based on the mistaken belief in a second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. In a certain sense, because the resolution that passed Congress was used to justify the U.S. military commitment, the entire Vietnam War can be said to have been based on a misunderstanding. Just over a month afterward, when another pair of American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin also thought they had come under attack, LBJ began to express doubts about the reality of the August incident. In 1997, in Hanoi, Robert McNamara, in a conversation with Vietnamese Commander General Vo Nguyen Giap, also concluded that the August 4, 1964, incident had never occurred. That is now the general consensus among historians of the Vietnam War.

Clip 3: Lyndon B. Johnson
Tuesday, August 4, 1964, 9:43 A.M. (6:09)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McMamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Incident in the Gulf of Tonkin with the Destroyers U.S.S.
Maddox and U.S.S. C. Turner Joy

Male Voice: Yes, sir. Off limits.
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Hello?
Female Voice: Secretary Robert McNamara's calling you again, sir. "0"
Secretary Robert McNamara: Mr. President, uh, General Wheeler and I are sitting here together. We just received a cable from Admiral Sharp [Ulysses S. Grant Sharp Jr. was the American commander for the Pacific] making three recommendations with respect to our destroyer tracks and enemy action responses. And I wanted to mention them to you with a recommendation. I discussed this with with Dean Rusk [secretary of state] and he and I are in agreement on the recommendations.
Sharp recommends first that the uh, the track of the destroyer be shifted from eleven miles offshore to eight miles offshore. This makes no sense to us; we would recommend against it. His purpose, by shifting the track, is simply to make clear that we we believe the twelve-mile limit is not an effective limit on us. We don't, we think we do that adequately by sailing at eleven miles as opposed to eight.
Secondly, Sharp recommends that we authorize the task
President Johnson: What reason does he give for his eight?
Secretary McNamara: Simply that it more clearly indicates our, our refusal to accept a twelve-mile restriction. We think we've clearly indicated our refusal to accept a twelve-mile restriction with the, the eleven-mile limit; we see no need to change the track at this time.
President Johnson: Why, what, what other objections do you have?
Secretary McNamara: It, it, uh, changes a program that that uh shouldn't be changed frequently. These orders are very precise; the tracks are laid down very clearly; they go through the three command channels to get out there; this ship is allegedly uh to be attacked tonight-we don't like to see a change in operation plan of this kind at this time. And we don't think it achieves any any uh international purpose, so no, certainly no military purpose is served by it.
President Johnson: All right.
Secretary McNamara: Secondly, he recommends that the task force commander be authorized to pursue the attacking vessels in the event he is attacked and destroy their bases. In this case, it would be
President Johnson: Wait just a minute. [Speaking away from the telephone: I've got a call. I can't hear him. I've got a real important thing… ]. Go ahead, Mac.
Secretary McNamara: Secondly, he recommends that the task force commander be authorized to pursue any attacker and destroy the base of the attacker. In this instance, if he were attacked by patrol boats, it would mean that he would pursue the patrol craft into the shore line, uh identify the base of the patrol craft and destroy that base. Now this is an action that we might well wish to consider after the second attack. But I think it would be inappropriate, and General Wheeler agrees, and Dean Rusk agrees, inappropriate to provide the task force commander that authority. There will be ample time for us, after a second attack, to bring this problem to your attention, and you can then decide how far you wish to pursue the attacker into his base area.
President Johnson: What objections do you have to pursuing it?
Secretary McNamara: With only the objection that if we give such authority, you have, in a sense, lost control of, of the degree of our uh response to the North Vietnamese. If you don't op, exactly what bases will be attacked, where they are in relation to population centers, how much force will be applied to attack them, when it will occur. I, I personally would recommend to you, after a second attack on our ships, that we do retaliate against the coast of North Vietnam some way or other. And we'll be prepared
President Johnson: What I was thinking about when I was eating breakfast, but I couldn't talk it-I was thinking that it looks to me like the weakness of our position is that, uh, we respond only to an action and we don't have any of our own. But when they, when they move on us, and they shoot at us, I think we not only ought to shoot at them, but almost simultaneously, uh, uh, pull one of these things that you've, you've been doing
Secretary McNamara: Right.
President Johnson: on one of their bridges or something.
Secretary McNamara: Exactly. I, I quite agree with you, Mr. President. And I'm not, not sure that the response ought to be as Admiral Sharp suggests
President Johnson: Well me not, I'm not either, I'm not either. I don't know, unless I knew what base it was
Secretary McNamara: Yes.
President Johnson: and what is compelled, but I wish we could have something that we already picked out, and uh
Secretary McNamara: We'll see
President John and just hit about three of them damned quick. Right after
Secretary McNamara: We will have that, and, and I, I've talked to Mac Bundy [national security adviser] a moment ago and told him that I thought that was the most important subject we should consider today, and, and be prepared to recommend to you a response, a retaliation move against North Vietnam in the event this attack takes place within the next six to nine hours. And we
President Johnson: All right. Now we better do that at lunch. There's some things I don't want to go in with these other, I want to keep this as close as I can. So let's just try to keep it to the two.
Secretary McNamara: I, I
President Johnson: three…
Secretary McNamara: I will be prepared to do so at lunch.
President Johnson: All right.
Secretary McNamara: Now, thirdly, Sharp recommends that, that, uh, the, uh, task force commander be authorized to engage in hot pursuit beyond the eleven-mile limit in as far as the three-mile limit, which we [i.e., the United States] accept as the definition of territorial waters. At present the instructions to the commander are: do not pursue an attacker, uh, closer to shore than eleven miles. Uh, Sharp recommends that that eleven mile limit be shifted to three miles. I've talked to Dean about this; he agrees, uh, as far as air pursuit is concerned. Pursue by air as close as three miles to shore. Do not pursue by sea closer than eleven miles. Uh, his reason for differentiating sea from air is that we can always argue that the, uh, the uh, air, uh, uh, was further out than three miles and he is concerned about taking the ships in as close as three miles to shore. I'm willing to accept his, his point for a different reason, how ever. I don't think ship pursuit uh, between eleven miles and three miles, would be effective anyhow because our ships travel at about twenty-seven knots, and these patrol boats travel at fifty knots, and the possibility of a ship being effective in that eleven to three mile area is not very great. The air power is likely the most effective power anyhow. And I would, therefore, recommend that we accept Sharp's recommendation but limit it to air.
President Johnson: All right. OK.
Secretary McNamara: Fine.

Clip 4: Lyndon B. Johnson
Tuesday, August 4, 1964, 10:53 A.M. (3:06)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Woman's Voice: Secretary McNamara calling. Line "0."
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes.
Second Woman's Voice: Hello?
President Johnson: I'm trying to take this call.
Second Woman's Voice: Thank you. Yes. I'm sorry. Secretary McNamara.
Secretary Robert McNamara: Hello?
President Johnson: Yeah.
Secretary McNamara: Mr. President, we had, just had a report from the commander of that task force out there that they have sighted two unidentified vessels, uh, and three unidentified prop aircraft; and therefore the, uh, carrier launched, uh, two F-8s, two A-4Ds and four A-is, which are prop
President Johnson: Go back over those again. What, what did we launch?
Secretary McNamara: We launched two F-8 fighter aircraft, two A- which are jet attack aircraft, and four A-1Hs, which are prop-driven aircraft. So we have launched eight aircraft from the carrier to, uh, uh, examine what's in the vicinity of the destroyers and to protect the destroyers. The report is that they have observed, and we don't know by what means, whether this is radar or otherwise-I suspect it's radar-two unidentified vessels and three unidentified prop aircraft in the vicinity of the destroyers.
President Johnson: What else do we have out there?
Secretary McNamara: We have the, only the Ticonderoga, with its aircraft, uh, and a protective destroyer screen. I think there are three destroyers with the Ticonderoga. We have the Constellation [an aircraft carrier], which is moving out of Hong Kong, and which I uh sent orders to about an hour or two ago to move down towards South Vietnam. We don't know exactly how long it'll take; we guess about 30 hours. We have ample forces to respond not only to these attacks on the destroyers but also to retaliate should you wish to do so against targets on the land. And when I come over at noontime, I'll bring you a list of alternative target systems. We can mine the Swatow [a type of North Vietnamese patrol vessel] bases, we can-and I just issued ordered to Subic Bay and the Philippines to fly the mines out to the carrier, so we'll be prepared to do it if you want to do it. We can destroy the Swatow craft by bombing. There Is a petroleum system that is concentrated, uh, uh,
Very faint whisper: seventy-two
Secretary McNamara: Seventy percent of the petroleum supply of North Vietnam we believe is concentrated in three, uh, dumps, and we can bomb those, bomb or strafe those dumps and destroy the petroleum system, which would be the petroleum for the patrol craft. In addition, there are certain prestige targets that we've been working on the last several months, and we have target folders prepared on those. For example, there is one bridge that is the key bridge on the rail line south out of, uh, out of Hanoi, and we could destroy that. And there are other prestige targets of that kind.
President Johnson: All right. Uh, good. Can I, I told, I told Rivers [Representative L. Mendel Rivers] the other day and I told him what's going to be in Charleston. He can announce that, can't he?
Secretary McNamara: Oh, surely, surely.
President Johnson: OK.
Secretary McNamara: Surely.
President Johnson: Bye. Thank you.

Clip 5: Lyndon B. Johnson
Tuesday, August 4, 1964, 11:00 A.M. (1:05)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

President Lyndon B. Johnson: Hello?
Woman's Voice: Secretary McNamara. Line "0."
President Johnson: Thanks a lot.
Secretary Robert McNamara: Mr. President, we just had word by telephone from Admiral Sharp that the destroyer is under torpedo attack.
Secretary McNamara: I think I might get, uh, Dean Rusk and Mac Bundy and have 'em come over here and we'll go over these retaliatory actions. And then we ought to
President Johnson: I sure think you ought to agree with that, yeah.
Secretary McNamara: And I've got a category here. I'll call the two of them.
President Johnson: Now where are these torpedoes coming from?
Secretary McNamara: Well, we don't know. Presumably from these unidentified craft that I mentioned to you a moment ago. We thought that the unidentified craft might include one, uh, one PT boat, which has torpedo capability and two Swatow boats which we don't credit with torpedo capability, although they may have it.
President Johnson: What are these planes of ours doing around while they're being attacked?
Secretary McNamara: Well, presumably, the planes are attacking the, the ships. We don't have any, uh, word from, from Sharp on that. The planes would be in the area at the present time. All, all eight of them.
President Johnson: OK.
Secretary McNamara: Thank you.
President Johnson: You get them over there and then you come over here as soon as you can.
Secretary McNamara: I'll do that, yes.

Clip 6: Lyndon B. Johnson
Tuesday, August 4, 1964, 5:09 P.M. (1:21)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Secretary Robert McNamara: Bob, Mr. President. The story has broken on the AP and the UP [Associated Press and United Press, news wire services].
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Yeah, I see it.
Secretary McNamara: And, uh, uh, we tried to track it down. Jim Greenfield talked to the AP, I understand, and was told that it came from a source close to the Pentagon; it was alleged to be a chairman of a Congressional committee. I don't know what the source is. But, anyhow, it's broken. And uh, it seems to me, State and we and, and, George Reedy ought to agree now on a statement that could be made by one of the departments, I presume the Pentagon. But before doing that I wanted to ask your permission to do so. The statement that we would make, I would propose it simply say that during the night hours, the, the two destroyers were attacked by, uh, patrol boats; the attack was driven off no casualties or damage to the destroyers; we believe, uh, uh, several of the patrol boats were sunk; details won't be available until daylight.
President Johnson: That's OK.
Secretary McNamara: All right. I'll take
President Johnson: I'd just go on and put that out.
Secretary McNamara: All right. I'll take care of it
President Johnson: Uh, anything else?
Secretary McNamara: No, I talked to Dillon [C. Douglas Dillon, secretary of the treasury] and he fully agrees with the action. I couldn't get hold of Bobby [ F. Kennedy, attorney general]; he's nowhere that he can be found. But I'll keep a call in for him.

AUGUST 1964: THE GULF OF TONKIN INCIDENT CONTINUES -PRESIDENT JOHNSON DISCUSSES U.S. RETALIATION WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT S. McNAMARA

With decisions made regarding bombing of North Vietnam, the evening conversation between LBJ and Robert McNamara focuses on the timing of the president's announcement of the attacks and the wording of his announcement. Johnson also discusses whether he should call opposition presidential candidate Barry Goldwater to inform him of the action. LBJ indeed made that call (not included in the present collection), and Goldwater expressed complete support for the president's decision. As already recounted, LBJ made his announcement late that evening.

Many of President Johnson's later Vietnam decisions, including the initiation of a regular bombing campaign against North Vietnam in February 1965 and his commitment of ground troops to a major war in South Vietnam that summer, showed this same careful attention to the public relations aspects of the issues. The methods of making and articulating a decision Johnson displayed regarding the Gulf of Tonkin express his standard operating procedure. The short time LBJ had to make his decision in August 1964 led to extensive use of the telephone, and thus assists our effort to illustrate his methods.

Clip 7: Lyndon B. Johnson
Tuesday, August 4, 1964, 9:15 P.M. (5:34)
Telephone Conversation with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense,
Regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident(s)

Secretary Robert McNamara: Bob McNamara, Mr. President.
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Yeah.
Secretary McNamara: I just talked to, uh, Admiral Sharp again. He's been in contact with the carriers; they have not been able to launch yet. They won't launch for another, about forty-five minutes. They should launch at 10:00 P.M. I have this suggestion to make to you. That you make your statement at approximately 10:00 P.M. and that you leave out one sentence. It is the sentence that states 'Air action is now in execution against gun boats and supporting facilities in and near four ports of North Vietnam." Without that sentence, you don't disclose the targets but you do disclose that action is presently underway.
President Johnson: Now, let me see where it's; what, what
Secretary McNamara: It's in the, it's in the fourth paragraph on the first page.
President Johnson: Yeah, I see. "…but repeat acts of violence against the armed forces. . . . Air action is now. .
Secretary McNamara: No, you would s-, you would read it, "But repeated acts of war against the armed forces must be met not only with alert defense but with a positive reply. That reply is now being given as I speak to you." Period. Then take out the next sentence.
President John Well, does that, uh, make it too indefinite?
Secretary McNamara: No, sir, I don't believe so. I think it's perfectly appropriate that while the action's underway, you not describe, uh, the specific targets or, or the type of action.
President Johnson: What do you think about, I don't see why we bring Gold water in on this. Why don't we just say I felt it appropriate just to communicate my decision to the Republican candidate for president.
Secretary McNamara: Uh
President Johnson: And I'll say he's assured me of his
Secretary McNamara: Yeah
President Johnson: full support. I think it makes us sound like we're very much together and buddies and agreein' on bombing everybody.
Secretary McNamara: Well, in that case, I'd leave out the paragraph.
President Johnson: You wouldn't even say you'd communicated.
Secretary McNamara: I wouldn't say I communicated it.
President Johnson: Well, what do you think?
Secretary McNamara: I, I would, well, have you been able to talk to him?
President Johnson: No. Not yet
Secretary McNamara: I'd, I'd leave the paragraph out. You've talked up above about the leaders of both parties, and it seems to me that's the strong point.
President Johnson: Yeah. The trouble is, he's going to be calling in about 9:30
Secretary McNamara: Well, I'd keep talking to him, trying to talk to him all right, but, but I don't think I'd refer to it and say
President Johnson: What would you do, just wait until after, talk, talk to him until he's out on a [boat? slurred word] and they've gone to get him. Or would you talk to him as soon as he gets in and tell him I'm going to make a statement and I want him to know about it and then not refer to it.
Secretary McNamara: That's exactly what I'd do, Mr. President. I'd try to talk to him before I made it, but I wouldn't refer to having talked to him. And, and the purpose of talking to him would be to stop any opposition from him. And if you did that, I think you've accomplished your purpose. You don't have to tie him into your statement.
President Johnson: I think it's better not to, don't you?
Secretary McNamara: Yes.
President Johnson: And what's delayed them so?
Secretary McNamara: Just the, the limitations of lime, Mr. President. We ask an awful lot of them. They said initially they could do it. But, uh, it's proven now they couldn't; they had to brief the crews and load the aircraft with specific types of weapons for these particular targets and it took more time than they anticipated.
President Johnson: And when they leave the carrier at l0:00, how long does it take them to get over the target?
Secretary McNamara: The last time, over the target, will be two hours from then, we believe.
President Johnson: Twelve.
Secretary McNamara: Which would be about u o'clock, our time. The first planes over the
President John Well, do we want to give them two hours notice?
Secretary McNamara: I don't believe there's any reason not to, Mr. President. I don't think there's any serious problem in that.
President Johnson: Better check that, Bob.
Secretary McNamara: I did. I just talked to Admiral Sharp about it. He, he did not want this particular sentence read, the one I'm suggesting be taken out, uh, prior to the time they get over the targets.
President Johnson: Well, won't they get there simultaneously, almost?
Secretary McNamara: They'll get the, the, uh, statement simultaneously, but they won't know what targets are being attacked.
President Johnson: Well, it looks like they'd think that they're liable to hit where those boats are coming from. Looks like they might get out there with some anti-aircraft guns. I'd sure as hell hate to have some mother say, "you announced it and my boy got killed."
Secretary McNamara: I don't think there's much damage, uh, uh, much danger of that, Mr. President. How late would you be willing to hold the statement?
President Johnson: I just, uh, I guess we could hold it till [the] 11 o'clock news. I don't know. We don't have to make it, do we?
Secretary McNamara: Oh, I think, uh, I think you need to make some kind of a statement at this lime. Because tomorrow morning will be too late. Something will have to be on the news tomorrow morning. It ought to come from you.
President Johnson: Well let's see how it goes along, uh
Secretary McNamara: All right
President Johnson: He's told you that he's going to launch them at 10:00?
Secretary McNamara: That's right.
President Johnson: And [it] takes them two hours to get over the target?
Secretary McNamara: Well, the launch will take place over a period of time, and the last aircraft launched is estimated to be over the target at two hours after
President Johnson: Launch
Secretary McNamara: Launch.
President Johnson: Well, what do you think the first one will be?
Secretary McNamara: The first one ought to be over the target within an hour after launch, but the radar of the North Vietnamese should pick up the first aircraft, uh, a few minutes after launch. Say 10:30 our time, the North Vietnamese would be aware of, uh, attacking aircraft coming in.
President Johnson: So that would be all right then.
Secretary McNamara: I would think so then, and [if] you did it at 10:30, you could make the 11 o'clock news.
President Johnson: OK. And thank you.
Secretary McNamara: Right-oh.

Tapes: Incident that opened door to Vietnam war may not have happened

http://www.texnews.com/1998/2002/texas/lbj0804.html

Sunday, August 4, 2002
Tapes: Incident that opened door to Vietnam war may not have happened
by Bob Richter

SAN ANTONIO (AP) - North Vietnam's 1964 unprovoked attack on U.S. navy ships, which opened the door to the Vietnam War, probably never occurred, according to tapes released by President Lyndon B. Johnson's library at the University of Texas at Austin.

Thirty-eight years ago Sunday, Johnson interrupted network television to tell the nation that U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin had been attacked by North Vietnamese PT boats. Congress responded by giving Johnson the go-ahead to escalate war.

Johnson described the incident as "open aggression on the open seas," and ordered airstrikes on North Vietnam which opened the door to a war that would kill 1 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans and divide the nation along class and generational lines.

For decades, skeptics have debated whether the Aug. 4 attack really occurred, with some suggesting the Johnson administration staged or provoked it to get the congressional nod for aggression against the communist country.

Recently released tapes of White House phone conversations, which include 51 conversations from Aug. 4 and 5, 1964, when the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred, indicate that the attack probably never happened, according to a review of the tapes by the San Antonio Express-News for Saturday's editions.

From the start, many have doubted anything really happened to the Maddox and a sister ship, the USS C. Turner Joy, on Aug. 4. Even Johnson seemed skeptical, saying in 1965: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

The released tapes neither prove nor disprove what may have happened that night, but they do indicate jittery sailors in a tense area thought they were under attack.

"Under attack by three PT boats. Torpedoes in the water. Engaging the enemy with my main battery," the Maddox radioed.

Indeed, the destroyers fired 249 5-inch shells, 123 3-inch shells and four or five depth charges, according to Navy records.

Many of the taped conversations from that night are between Defense Secretary Robert McNamara - who was trying to verify something actually happened so he could brief Johnson for his TV bulletin - and Adm. U.S. Grant "Oley" Sharp, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet.

Sharp was feeding McNamara information from the field and trying to get a strike force in the air to retaliate for the alleged attack before the president went on television.

"If it's open season on these boys, which I think it is, we'll take if from there," Sharp said about noon on Aug. 4.

Later, in a 1:59 p.m. EDT conversation with Air Force Lt. Gen. David Burchinal of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Sharp was elusive, saying, "many of the reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful."

He blamed the reports on "overeager sonarmen" and "freak weather effects on radar."

But, asked Burchinal: "You're pretty sure there was a torpedo attack?"

"No doubt about that, I think," Sharp replied.

At 8:39 p.m., McNamara asked Sharp why the retaliatory strike was delayed.

Bad weather, Sharp said, and an agitated McNamara replied: "The president has to make a statement to the people and I am holding him back from making it."

Thirty minutes later, at 9:09, Sharp said the launch still was 50 minutes off.

"Oh my God," McNamara said.

Shortly after 11 p.m., the counterstrike was under way and Johnson went on air to tell the American people the "attack" on U.S. ships was an "outrage."

James Stockdale, a Navy pilot who responded to the "attacks" on the Maddox and Turner Joy, says it all was hogwash.

"I had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets -- there were no PT boats there. There was nothing but black water and American firepower," Stockdale wrote in his 1984 book, "In Love and War."

Regardless of whether the U.S. response was a mistake or a charade, there is ample evidence the United States was a provocateur in 1964, not an innocent bystander.

The Johnson administration had approved covert land and sea operations involving U.S. forces earlier in 1964, the so-called Op Plan 34-A.

Two days before the disputed attack, North Vietnamese forces in Russian-made "swatow" gunboats had attacked the USS Maddox, a destroyer conducting reconnaissance in the gulf.

On Aug. 3, 1964, Johnson, according to White House tape recordings, said: "There have been some covert operations in that (Tonkin Gulf) area that we have been carrying on -- blowing up some bridges and things of that kind, roads and so forth. So I imagine (the North Vietnamese) wanted to put a stop to it."

History has seemed to coalesce around the belief that the Aug. 4 incident was a mistake, but not a charade.

As the LBJ Library tapes indicate, the Navy was not ready to launch a retaliatory strike Aug. 4 against North Vietnam, but it would have been if the event had been staged, says Professor Edwin Moise, a Vietnam War expert at Clemson University.

Professor David Crockett, a presidential scholar at Trinity University, calls the incident an accident, but says the greater problem was that Congress "rolled over" and gave Johnson what he wanted: "a virtual blank check to make war."

Gulf of Tonkin's Phantom Attack -NPR

Faulty Intelligence Played Role in Decision to Engage Viet Cong

Listen Now: [12 min 30 sec]

Real Media|Windows MediaExplain these links
Listen: Hear Cronkite's Full Analysis
Listen: Hear a Morning Edition Report
View Gallery
President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1964.
Corbis

President Lyndon Johnson, left, and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1964.

All Things Considered, August 2, 2004 · Forty years ago today, a murky military encounter at sea plunged the United States deeper into the war in Vietnam. On Aug. 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the U.S. Navy reported to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that another American destroyer was under attack by the North Vietnamese.

Those critical events would ultimately lead the United States to send more than a half a million American troops into Southeast Asia.

The attacks spurred Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Johnson power to use force in Southeast Asia. With the measure's passage, U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War became legitimized and grew.

In 1964, CBS commentator and TV anchor Walter Cronkite knew only what official reports acknowledged. Four decades later, he offers a perspective on the incident he didn't have at the time.

Related NPR Stories

Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War


By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Fair.org
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting


Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf — a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets — there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there."

But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."

An exhaustive new book, The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. In an interview, author Tom Wells told us that American media "described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely `tit for tat' — when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North."

Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" — as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on 'national security issues.'"

Daniel Hallin's classic book The "Uncensored War" observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account [of Tonkin Gulf events]; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."

What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."

In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam — sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

The rest is tragic history.

Nearly three decades later, during the Gulf War, columnist Sydney Schanberg warned journalists not to forget "our unquestioning chorus of agreeability when Lyndon Johnson bamboozled us with his fabrication of the Gulf of Tonkin incident."

Schanberg blamed not only the press but also "the apparent amnesia of the wider American public."

And he added: "We Americans are the ultimate innocents. We are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."