President Kennedy was also involved in getting the U.S. into the Vietnam war.
Proclaiming a fight against the spread of Communism, Kennedy enacted policies providing political, economic, and military support for the unstable French-installed South Vietnamese government, which included sending 16,000 military advisors and U.S. Special Forces to the area. Kennedy also agreed to the use of free-fire zones, napalm, defoliants and jet planes.What would Senator Obama have done?
And, finally, the Kennedy administration in 1963 supported a coup in Iraq.
The CIA helped the new Baath Party government led by Abdul Salam Arif in ridding the country of suspected leftists and Communists. In a Baathist bloodbath, the government used lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the CIA, to systematically murder untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. The victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures. According to an op-ed in the New York Times, the U.S. sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the U.S. supported against Kassem and then abandoned. American and UK oil and other interests, including Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were conducting business in Iraq.What would Senator Obama have done?
How high on a list of U.S. presidents adept at foreign policy should President Kennedy be placed? How high on a list of commanders in chief should he rank? Drastically modifying a well planned and otherwise probably successful invasion of Cuba in 1961, thereby bringing upon the U.S. all of the opprobrium of being an unsuccessful and patently untruthful imperialist weakling, probably should not place him at the head of the list. Neither should his administration's equally unsuccessful covert efforts to get rid of Castro, which ultimately led the country to the brink of nuclear war with the U.S.S.R. Neither, perhaps, should President Kennedy's enthusiastic acceptance of terms offered by Khrushchev to end the crisis, his involvement in the Vietnam War, or his involvements with Iraq more than forty years ago. It would appear that President Bush is not the only U.S. president in recent times to have relied, to the detriment of the U.S., upon faulty intelligence gathering. To look to Senator Obama, through the mist of time and the myth of President Kennedy, seems unwise. It might be more productive to think about what he would have done had he been in President Kennedy's shoes during the crises with which President Kennedy was forced to deal. Would he have done a better job then? Would he do a better job now, with new crises?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - John D
JFK was made by the media and his legend is just that.
From the Bay of Pigs to the Vienna Summit to the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam he was a disaster.
His choice for AG, Robert Kennedy, ran wild with wiretaps on anybody that posed a threat to the Kennedy's. Including Martin Luther King Jr.
As for Civil Rights, his desegregation of 'Ol Miss was an absolute shambles, with his unarmed 'monitors' having to be rescued by the National Guard.
Far from being one of the best Presidents, in fact, he should rank near the bottom and probably would have absent his assassination. He is easily the most overrated President of all time.
If Obama is another JFK that is not a point in his favor.
2 - Sam weaver
Dan, one never really knows how any candidate will respond until they take office. Obama or McCain, I have no idea. This will be as close as the 2000 election. Can you imagine what today's media would have done with the Kennedy/Nixon match.
3 - Dave Nalle
At the age of forty-three, he became the youngest president of the United States.
Just have to be a pedant here. Teddy Roosevelt was only 42yrs 11mo old when he became president, so he beat JFK out by about 5 months as the youngest man ever to serve as president. You can be technically correct and say that JFK was the youngest man ever ELECTED president, as Roosevelt was not actually elected until almost 4 years later when he was 46.
Dave
4 - Nello Bartolomei
I am going to vote for Barack Obama, however I know about United States history. John F. Kennedy was much more experienced in government when he ran for President in 1960 than Obama-much! The two men who got their parties nomination that year of 1960 were Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Both of these men won a seat to Congress in 1946, and were friends- believe it or not. How good they were friends is debatable. But they did bunk together on trains in the 1940's on the way to the same events. My point here is that they were the same age, and yet at that time the experience issue was brought up. The experience issue was not really valid and Nixon was only 4 years older than Kennedy. Obama has been in the Senate 3 1/2 years.. John Kennedy in 1960 had been in the Senate for 7 1/2 years, and add to that JFK was a congressman from 1947-1953. So John Kennedy had 14 years Washington experience (Congress/Senate)to 3 1/2 to Obama. Not comparable. JFK had much more experience than Obama, and it showed in the way he knew the issues and his confidence. Obama knows the issues, but he looks sometimes lost on the big stage. Kennedy did not. He looked vibrant and sure. That is how Kennedy beat a popular Vice President Richard Nixon in 1960. Obama does not have the saavy style of JFK in 1960. I am not putting down Obama to insult him since I will vote for him in November. He is a fine man and I think he will be a good President. But you brought up the issue, and anyone who knows history knows that JFK had much more seasoning/experience in Washington than Barack. That is just a fact. Just the way he handled himself in the debates and how sure he was on the campaign trail showed his seasoning. The only thing they had in common is age, but experience? Not close. JFK had twice as much Washington experience as Hillary Clinton, who has been in the Senate 7 years to JFK's 14. What people confuse experience with is age. John Kennedy won his seat in congress in 1946 at 29 years old. So at 43 he was a veteran of Washington. Take care. Nello.
5 - Nello Bartolomei
I was not thinking when I wrote Nixon and Kennedy were the same age. That is wrong. Nixon was 4 years older; what I meant was that they were elected to Congress the same year (1946). So my point was how important was experience if they came into office the same year, especially since Kennedy was very informed on internation affairs dating back to the 1930's when he wrote his best selling book. That experience issue was related to age. People thought how can a man of only 43 years old be President. But 14 years in Congress which followed a heroic naval career is not really inexperienced. That was my point. Obama is a good choice for President. I think he will be fine and he is an intelligent man. But to have this article which is well written is also trying to insult President Kennedy. Ike sure pushed the Bay of Pigs on Kennedy. If Obama would have near the Washington experience of Kennedy, he would have had to be elected to Congress in 1994, and be elected to the Senate in 2000. Then he would equal Kennedy's experience. But he was elected in 2004. Way off. But Barack has intelligence and level headed qualities I like. So I will vote for him. But let's be honest. Nello.
6 - Condor
The one factor that Obama does not possess that JFK did... which was underhanded and significant.
Joe Kennedy.
Is that overrating it effect Joe Kennedy had?
Perhaps, but early in JFK's political career Joe Kennedy manipulated his early runs for office.
1. Placed another person on the ballot with the same name as JFK's opponant, effectively splitting the vote through deception and handing JFK the victory.
2. As JFK was then known as a best selling author, the truth be told, Joseph purchased a large percentage of the books thus creating the image that JFK was indeed (technically at least) a best selling author.
Hmmm... there are probably more such shenannighans involved but those are the 2 that I can recall. And it's too early in the day for me to dig into other instances. My father told me many years ago that some people are born SOB's but Joe Kennedy was a self made man (he may have borrowed that description from a Lee Marvin line out of the movie "The Professionals"). Witness the whiskey imports during the prohibition which stuffed the Kennedy coffers during those heady years. With that in mind perhaps Obama rises above the Kennedy clan as meeting more challenges with his own moxey than JFK, rather than having the advantageous manipulations handed to him on a silver platter.
But to JFK's credit. He had front line military experience, although the PT-109 story is said to have been bolstered by the spin doctors.
Plus JFK was a completely different political animal than Obama. There is a recent book of essays out detailing some of other "insights" into the JFK elections and Joseph's behind the curtain string pulling. The author's name is George Will and the book is titled "One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation." More importantly does George Will's work hold weight or as the name might imply to some... is this another attack from the right.
Voters need to ascertain and make sound decisions. My only problem is the option to Obama, which as we all know is McCain.
Gee, that's a comforting thought.
7 - Dan Miller
Dave,
Opps. I knew that. My goof.
Dan
8 - Dan Miller
Sam,
I agree that one can't have much of an idea what someone else will do as president until it happens. The same is true of Supreme Court justices, and most likely of corporate CEOs. Hell, I seriously doubt that the candidates themselves have much of an idea. Those of us on the outside can only guess, and most of us probably go more on gut feeling than on anything else.
I do think that one of the factors to consider is a candidate's stated or implied choice of role models, and that's why I wrote the two articles.
As to the Kennedy-Nixon campaign, my guess is that the media would have had as much fun and engaged in as much distortion as today if the media had been the same. Kennedy probably got his biggest boost during the first televised debate between presidential candidates. Nixon came off as dowdy, Kennedy as having a good media presence. One of the reasons suggested for this is that Nixon had just been released from hospital (he had had a bad case of the flu) and did not wear makeup. His "five o:clock shadow" image still lives long after his death. Nixon's need to counter Kennedy's threat to invade Cuba -- knowing full well that the invasion was already far along in the planning stage and being the point man with the CIA for it -- by pointing out a bunch of reasons why it would be a dumb thing to do, probably put him off his game as well.
Dan
9 - Andy Marsh
Dan - You need a blog! I enjoy reading your stuff. Is this the only place you post?
10 - Dan Miller
Nello,
I wasn't trying to insult former President Kennedy. If that was a result of pointing to history, I could not have changed history to have a different effect. I was trying to point out that the Kennedy myth has overtaken reality, and that before we think of Senator Obama as a latter day Kennedy, we should separate myth from reality.
As you correctly point out, Kennedy had lots more experience when he became President than Senator Obama will have should he be elected this year, and lots more of Kennedy's experience was relevant.
As to President Eisenhower having pushed the Bay of Pigs on candidate Kennedy, we have a different perception of history. As noted in the article, Kennedy complained that Eisenhower had not done enough to oust Castro. I would be interested to know your basis for thinking otherwise
Dan
11 - Dan Miller
Andy,
Many thanks. I enjoy writing it. This is the only place I post, I only started on April Fools day of this year, and really appreciate the interaction on BC. Still, if you have any suggestions I will be happy to think about them.
Dan
12 - Andy Marsh
Good day to start anyway!
13 - Dr Dreadful
Dan,
To your knowledge, has Obama publicly compared himself to Kennedy or cited him as a role model?
Condor,
Yes, Joe Kennedy certainly was a peach. Didn't he actively lobby for the US to come into World War 2 on Hitler's side?
14 - Gregg Fraley
JFK is both a myth and a reality. You focus on the Bay of Pigs disaster, and indeed it was, but JFK stood for, and did, a lot more than that in his short time as President.
His actions, such as the tax cut, put the country back on the track towards prosperity. I find it ironic that Reagan gets credit for inventing the tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy. His vision initiated our successful space program -- and we were way behind at that juncture. He faced down the Russians in the Cuban crisis. These are all facts that argue for his greatness, greatness that goes beyond the spin-doctored myth. While he made some mistakes, even some big ones, he also did some brilliant things.
There are a lot of differences between Obama and JFK. What they have in common is charisma and vision. Would Obama be above an expedient lie? Only time will tell.
15 - Dan Miller
Doc,
Others, including Ted Sorensen and Senator Kennedy have done much the same. My point was that before we get all befuddled by a favorable JFK-Obama metaphor, we should take a good look at both JFK and Senator Obama and see just what similarities beyond youth there might be.No I don't think so, nor did I intend to say in the article that he had. However, he certainly seems to feel that way, and his abortive attempt to emulate JFK by speaking at the site of the Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech suggests this. JFK's daughter made such a comparison, noting that
Dan
16 - Condor
And... JFK put effectivly put the U.S. into Vietnam. And of those young American's to whom he poised the now famous call to rise up and be counted... "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"
America's youth did rise up, and thousands joined him on the hillsides of Arlington National Cemetary.*
*(Yes I stole that analogy from Jim Webb's "Fields of Fire").
Is that charisma?
Be it known also that the election was a squeeker, not the imagined landslide of lore. Sound familiar?
17 - Condor
And... I have to ask the question.
Who was JFK's speech writer?
We often quote Presidents; but haven't all the 20th century Presidents had speech writers?
If JFK did write most of his material, he had true talent in that department.
And he could deliver well. I read Caroline's talk concerning Obama. He is inspirational. Great, a motivational speaker for President. I will contend after hearing 30 something years of hearing motivational speakers from all walks of life in many settings that it doesn't make a complete package for me.
We should talk about motivational speakers. Lombardi, MacArther, Churchill, FDR, Rockne, Patton, plenty more out there... Demming? Reagan? Come on... there is more to being President than "inspirational" although that is important too, but not the ONLY reason.
Can inspirational speakers lead? Or just inspire.
Make sound, rational decisions? Or just inspire.
Sometimes inspiring leaders are needed. This may be the moment. It just may carry the day.
18 - Dan Miller
Condor,
Ted Sorensen, who is now helping Senator Obama, was JFK's principal speech writer and recently wrote a book about how he did so well.
I agree that inspirational leaders are necessary; indeed, it is difficult to be much of a leader without also being inspirational. The reverse is not true, however. Something more than a capacity to inspire is needed, and I am concerned that neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain appears to have whatever that something is. That said, I don't find a hell of a lot inspirational about Senator McCain, and Senator Obama's inspirational rhetoric may well carry the day.
Dan
19 - Leslie Bohn
Condor:
Of course the author of the inaugural address and its famous "Ask not..." business was his main speechwriter, the previously mentioned Ted Sorenson, who's now supporting (and working for) Obama.
20 - Condor
Thank you Dan and Leslie for the Sorenson pointer, I will have to review, as is of great interest to me.
Oh and Dan, good writing. It's always a pleasure to read your articles.
As to the George Will point I referred to earlier, if memory serves, is JFK's health. With his varied medical issues, Joe Kennedy (he manipulated well into the JFK administration) had instituted a stash of needed medications at various points along JFK's travels so he would not have been without vital medications, should the need arise.
Mr. Will pointed out, in the interview I heard, that when we talk about health issues concerning Presidents and candidates, it is necessary to know that had the general public been aware of JFK's or FDR's true medical difficulties, they too might have come into question whether their health was a detriment to national security. Remember that FDR was up to his neck in WWII and Kennedy presided during critical moments in the Cold War.
True, the Cold War appeared to be staging at its ugliest, but I well remember sitting in the hallways during my elementary years with my head between my legs kissing my butt goodbye. Apocryphal book and screenplays of the day abounded and were meant to shock the audience with such nuggets as "On the Beach" by Neville, Failsafe and Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove all provided thought provoking fear in the hearts and minds of millions. Cold War was scary. In hindsight it might not be remembered as such, or even glossed over. But the fear was very real. An unhealthy President was not a highly desirable thought to boot. Are we again seeing trying times at this point in history?
Of course in the present era, we too have instability. Russia is looming, China, plus a variety of nuclear capable countries with less than stable governments seem on the rise. Put into a simpler context… Rome too was witness to rises in the forces around their hunk of empire. Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” abounds in perspective, none of it fresh, but seemingly similar.
All I can say really ponder is who will lead and who will advise. And who will be selected to posts with far reaching effect? All of which carry weight.
As with most leadership we all get the same result. I could throw some scripture out there, not as a reference but as a nod to the wisdom of the ages. These war cycles and peace cycles give off a never ending impression never ending and does not allow us as human beings the opportunities to reach true potential, as repeated interruptions maintain a bizarre cause and effect of interruption of the human experience. I dare say that the courses we as individuals have cast upon us globally are both dire and frustrating.
21 - Steel
The question with Obama is who will he be listening to if he is elected? This is highly important because if he listens to the wrong people we could be in for a monstrous disaster. Obama has to have those he will listen to because he does not have the savvy nor the experience to make determinations of what to do or how to handle a crisis situation. By contrast, if he chooses to listen to those with good experience and common sense, he could do quite well. What it comes down to is who will have Obama's ear?
22 - Conrad Dalton
"The question with Obama is who will he be listening to if he is elected? This is highly important because if he listens to the wrong people we could be in for a monstrous disaster."
In addition, if he listens to the right people and ignores them we also could be in for a monstrous disaster.
Consider Harry Trumam, who ignored the advice of men like General George C. Marshall on matters of foreign policy.
23 - James F. Grant
There are a number of mistakes in your blog, I will just point out two.
One, JFK never promised to invade Cuba during his debate with Nixon. Where did you get such an idea? Certainly not from the transcripts of the debates as no such statement is made.
Two, the CIA conducted its own internal review after the disaster at the Bay of Pigs and blamed themselves. I refer you to the CIA IG's report on the matter declassified in 2005.
Vital intelligence was withheld from Kennedy as CIA knew the invasion was doomed. JFK from the beginning made it clear to everyone that there would be no massive military intervention no matter what happened. CIA should have taken him seriously rather than trying to force his hand after the invasion failed.
Kennedy did in fact authorize additional air cover on April 19, but CIA and Pentagon planners bungled the mission. CIA served the president poorly as did the military.
You and your readers can find more accurate information at a site like the National Security Archive.
24 - bliffle
James,
Thanks for the factual corrections and the excellent citation.
25 - Dan Miller
This is in response to Comment #23 by Mr. Grant. I apologize for the length of the response, but feel that it is necessary.
A review of the text of the October 21, 1960 debate and the reaction to it confirms that JFK was urging U.S. intervention in Cuba on behalf of the anti-Castro Cubans. As pointed out in the article, Nixon had little choice but to contend that JFK's position was very dangerous because he knew that exactly what JFK was proposing was in the works, and perceived a strong national interest in trying to keep it a secret: On the day after the debate, James Reston commented,I shall not deal here at any length with President Kennedy's decision to abandon the original landing site at Trinidad, on Cuba's southern coast, with a population of 26,000 and a hotbed of anti-Castro sentiment. Trinidad also had an airfield and a deep water port six miles to the southeast. The ultimate landing site at Cochinos Bay, the "Bay of Pigs," had none of these advantages and had instead multiple disadvantages. These matters are quite well dealt with in Lynch's Decision for Disaster cited in the article, and it would be pointless to deal further with them here. Lynch was one of the main CIA operatives personally involved in the debacle, and his sources of information to which he was not personally privy are well documented.
The National Security Archive maintained by George Washington University is cited in Comment #23 as authoritative. The multiple blockquotes below, unless otherwise noted, are from that source. In some of the quotations, "?" appears instead of a hyphen. I have not deemed it appropriate to muck with the text, and so have not changed that. According to that source, Senator Kennedy sometime between 7 and 12 October 1960
Concerning the extent to which President Kennedy watered down the invasion by withholding essential air support and otherwise, one good source is Lynch's Decision for Disaster cited in the article. The CIA plans formulated during the Eisenhower administration were drastically diminished during the Kennedy administration in the ultimately unrealized and unrealistic hope of keeping U.S. involvement secret. The National Security Archive also provides extensive information. Eventually, a "compromise" was reached. However, even that compromise was diminished. On 16 April,
In short, JFK who had publicly favored supporting the anti-Castro forces in exile and in Cuba, and who had publicly proclaimed his disgust during the campaign that "thus far these fighters for freedom have had virtually no support from our government," was unwilling to have any public knowledge even after the fact of U.S. involvement in doing exactly what he had demanded. To that end, he waffled when he took over what became the Bay of Pigs invasion and, yielding to his political advisers, reduced the planned U.S. air and naval support to the point that it could do no good. The result was a disaster. That disaster was a precursor to the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis.
Dan