I wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with this, and I hope it doesn’t fall into the definition of “politics” because it’s not meant to be. I’m reading “Invasion of Laos 1971 – Lam Son 719” by Robert D. Sander. Very early in the book he makes a startling statement I happen to agree with. “…President Kennedy decided to use this diplomatic route to neutralize Laos and separate the issue of Laos from the larger issue of Vietnam. Fourteen nations, including the United States and North Vietnam, signed the 1962 Geneva Accords, which declared that Laos was to be politically neutral and was not to enter into any military alliance; Laos would not allow foreign military forces to use or occupy its territory, and would not recognize any military alliance or coalition. All foreign troops, paramilitary forces, and foreign military personnel were to be removed from Laos in the “shortest possible time;” and the accords provided for an International Control Commission (ICC) to monitor compliance. Kennedy’s decision to use diplomacy instead of overt military force was monumental and ultimately decided the outcome of the Vietnam War.” Think about that. The war was decided in 1962. Why? The author continues: “The ICC was impotent; the North Vietnamese ignored the agreement and had unrestricted access to the infiltration routes while the hands of the American military commanders were tied by a policy that prohibited overt military action in Laos.” Almost regardless of when you served, or where, almost every mission we had in Vietnam for 10 years was directly or indirectly related to dealing with NVA infiltration of men and supplies into South Vietnam from the Ho Chi Minh Trail. You have to wonder just what might have happened if Kennedy had decided to take on the NVA militarily in Laos in 1962.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:11:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015