Chapter 2

Endnotes

1 Sec of Def McNamara, as quoted in Briefing for General Westmoreland, 28 Nov 65, in MACV, Command History 1965, p. 229.

2 Interv with Komer, 6 Nov 69.

3 Transcript of Vietnam Coordinating Committee Meeting, 20 Nov 65, atched to Memo, Unger for Members of Vietnam Coordinating Committee, sub: Action Summary for 20 Nov 65; Memo, Col T. J. Hanifen for Brig Gen Bennett, 20 Nov 65, sub: Debrief of Dr. Kissinger (19 Nov 65).

4 Ltr, Unger to Dep Amb William Porter, 29 Nov 65 with atched Memo, sub Concept for Application of Resources to Vietnam Conflict. See also Msgs, Saigon 1849 to State, 23 Nov 65, and State 1512 to Saigon, 1 Dec 65.

5 See Tentative Schedule of Meetings for Vietnam Conference, 7-13 Jan, second draft, 6 Jan 66, which lists the participants and the subjects of the preliminary and supplemental meetings. The main conference is covered in: Report to the Principals and Ambassador Lodge from Ambassadors William Porter and Leonard Unger, 13 Jan 66, sub: Warrenton Meeting on Vietnam, 8-11 Jan 66, with extensive annexes; Minutes of All Warrenton Agenda Discussions, 8-11 Jan 66; and Draft, Agenda for Meeting at Warrenton Training Center, 8-11 Jan. A detailed analysis is contained in USVNR, IV.C.8, pp. 20-27.

6 Minutes of All Warrenton Agenda Discussions, pp. 3-4. Although not attributed to Porter in the minutes, the remarks are clearly Porter's as indicated by context and confirmed by a participant in the conference, Brig Gen James L. Collins, Jr.

7 Msg, MACV 0117, Westmoreland to Collins, 7 Jan 66.

8 MACV Command History 1966, p. 504.

9 Memo, Unger for Members of Vietnam Coordinating Committee, 19 Jan 66, with attachment, draft "Record of Decisions Concerning Warrenton Meeting Recommendations," 19 Jan 66.

10 Memo, William Bundy for Rusk, 26 Jan 66, with attached : (1) Draft Cable to Rangoon and (2) Draft NSAM [National Security Action Memorandum]. Although the author was unable to locate a copy of the Draft NSAM, a description of its con­tents is in Bundy's memorandum.

11 Memo, Bell to Pres, 19 Jan 66, sub : Non-Military Aspects of the Effort in Vietnam-Jan 1966.

12 Memo, S. L. Karrick for Members of Mission Liaison Group, sub: Report of Meeting, 27 Jan 66; Msg, Saigon 2775 to State, 2 Feb 66, sub: Warrenton Recommendations.

13 For an account of the Honolulu conference, see Lyndon B. Johnson, The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency 1963-1969 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 242-45.

14 USVNR, IV.C.8, pp. 36, 38, 41-42.

15 Ibid., pp. 53-54.

16 Ibid., p. 56.

17 Ibid., 57-58. These quotations are from the Mission Council's minutes of 28 Feb 66.

18 Interv with Charles M. Cooke, Jr. (former officer in MACV RDSD), 5 Jan 75.

19 Memo, Leonhart for Komer, 31 May 66, sub: Visit to Vietnam: 17-29 May 1966. USVNR, IV.C.8, p. 61.

20 Memo, Bundy for Under Secretary of State, et al., 14 Mar 66. USVNR,, IV.C.8, p. 58.

21 R. W. Komer, The Organization and Management of the New Model Pacification Program-1966-1969 (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1970), p. 26.

22 Interv with Komer. 6 Nov 69.

23 NSAM 343, 28 Mar 66.

24 Interv with Komer, 6 Nov 69.

25 USVNR, IV.C.8, p. 65, quoting from Memo, Komer for Pres, 19 Apr 66, sub: Komer Report on Saigon Trip.

26 Ibid., Ibid., pp. 74-79.

27 Col Donald S. Marshall, a key author of the study, attributes this to an inadequate briefing given the secretary. Interv with Marshall, 23 Jan 75.

28 Msg, MACV 18244 to CINCPAC, 27 May 66. Drafted by junior staff officers who were more sympathetic to PROVN than were Westmoreland and senior members of his staff, the message was phrased to be as favorable as possible while not inviting Westmoreland's outright rejection. Intervs with Charles M. Cooke, Jr., 13 Aug 75, and Gerald Britten (former officer in MACV RDSD), 18 Aug 75.

29 Despite extensive inquiries and search, no copy of this study has been found. A file of papers relating to it, including a "Priority Directive," has been assembled in the Center of Military History. USVNR, IV.C.8, pp. 79-83, provides a summary. See also a detailed letter to the author, 4 May 70, from the director of the study, Robert Klein, who feels that the study probably never was adopted because its recommendations were inconsistent with what Komer and the military wanted at the time.

30 An assistant to Komer, Col Robert M. Montague, Jr., stated that Porter never sent the study to Lodge on the theory that Lodge would not accept it. Author's interv with Montague, 6 Nov 69.



Return to Table of Contents


Search CMH Online
Last updated 3 January 2006