Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXVIII, Laos

62. Memorandum for the Record¹

Washington, May 24, 1964.

SUBJECT

• Discussion at Dinner at the White House on Sunday night, May 24th

IN ATTENDANCE

• The President, Rusk, McNamara, Taylor, Bundy, George Mahon (there as a guest of the President) and McCone

1. The purpose of the meeting was to review the situation in Southeast Asia and for the President to receive the views developed at the Sunday morning meeting (memorandum of which is being prepared by Cooper and Colby²), and to decide on actions to be taken.

2. Secretary Rusk pursued his position at this morning’s meeting; namely, that action taken against North Vietnam should be in response to violations of the 1962 Laotian Agreement. McNamara and McCone disagreed, stating that there would be little public support for a reaction because of any issue in Laos, as Laos is not in particular the popular or important issue with the people of the United States.

3. Rusk felt that it would be difficult to justify any actions in North Vietnam on the evidence of violations of the 1954 Agreement of South Vietnam. He was not clear as to why he differentiated between the two. I made the point that the South Vietnamese issue appeared of much greater importance in the minds of the American public and the Congress than the Laotian issue. McNamara seemed to support this position.

4. The President, throughout the evening, expressed impatience that we had not reached a conclusion as to the course of action to be followed. He said that he felt that there was little developed throughout the dinner discussion that had not been evident several days or several weeks earlier.

5. I stated that I felt we must be extremely careful about action in North Vietnam. I observed that the Chiefs (at least General LeMay) advocated a strike deep into North Vietnam. I pointed out that if this were done it might unleash forces which could readily overcome the friendly forces in both Laos and South Vietnam, with the result that we would “lose our base” in Southeast Asia. This view was supported by Bundy and recognized by the President.

6. Bundy pointed out that the most important paper before the President was the estimate prepared by the Board of National Estimates³ which in effect said a limited strike against North Vietnam might cause a hesitation on the part of the North Vietnamese in their direction to the Pathet Lao and the Viet Cong, causing them to stand down their operations temporarily while events developed. On the other hand, the estimate pointed out that a large-scale attack might have just the opposite effect, i.e., intensification of action by the PL and VC and also intervention by the North Vietnamese and very possibly the Chinese Communists.

7. McNamara insisted, throughout the evening, that any action against North Vietnam must anticipate the commitment of at least seven Divisions in Southeast Asia. That while he did not intend to commit them, he felt that they should be pre-positioned and alerted. In fact, he said, they were already alerted. I took issue with this point, stating that in my opinion, (which was strictly non-professional and not supported by any studies) air attacks would be more decisive than this indicated and possibly conclusive. I furthermore said that if any action involved the commitment of troops to combat in South Vietnam, we had better forget it because the American people and the Congress would not support such action under any condition. I said that, in my opinion, the American public are fed up with adventures such as the Korean War and would not stand for another one.

8. Throughout the evening the President inquired as to whether all possible was being done in South Vietnam. The answer was affirmative and I did not take issue with this. There was some question concerning the JCS plan of additional training and also some questions about closer integration of the SVN government and MACV. However, the meeting did not deal with these issues to any particular extent.

9. The President then summarized the course of action he desired to follow about as follows:

a. We should do all possible in South Vietnam. We should review all that is being done in South Vietnam and see that any possible action on our part which might improve the situation is undertaken. A conference should be arranged in Honolulu or elsewhere with Lodge to be sure that he is “on board” on everything we wish to do and that no stone is left unturned in supporting Khanh, training men, developing plans, etc., which will assist with the effort in South Vietnam. In this connection we should point out that we are handicapped by a cut in foreign aid and foreign military assistance funds by the Congress.

b. We should go to Khrushchev and appeal to him to use his offices to relieve the situation threatening the peace. The United States should be in the position of promoting peace. On the other hand, we would not stand to see a country over-run and imposed upon by its neighbors.

c. We should go to the United Nations and make all possible noise advocating peace, telling the world through the United Nations forum of the aggression from North Vietnam. This should be done through the Security Council (not the General Assembly). If a veto is encountered, then we should;

d. Go to SEATO, solicit their aid, their assistance and their support.

e. If all of the above failed, then we should prepare for action against North Vietnam on carefully selected targets (this term was not defined and the discussion did not turn to exactly what was meant by the term, carefully selected targets). If this involved a positioning of troops and other actions, then we should be prepared to take such actions.

10. These were the guidelines laid down for me for my discussion with Eisenhower, with special emphasis on the cut in foreign aid.

11. It was agreed that low-level flights over Laos would be authorized to the extent required and requested by MACV and to the extent of 9 flights per day with a 36-hour lead time on actual authorization from Washington.

1. Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI (McCone) Files, Job 80–B01285A, Vietnam 1964. Secret; Eyes Only. Dictated by McCone and transcribed by his secretary on May 25.
2. Document 61.
3. SNIE 50–2–64, May 25, “Probable Consequences of Certain US Actions with Respect to Vietnam and Laos,” is printed in part in Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. I, pp. 378–380.