86. Memorandum From Senator Mike Mansfield to President Johnson1
What follows is in the context of my full support for whatever decisions you may have to take under the awesome responsibilities of your office. You alone have all the available facts and considerations. You alone can make the decisions. From the Senate, we can only give you, in the last analysis, our trust, our support and such independent thoughts as may occur to us from time to time in the hope that they may be constructive.
You know far better than I how delicate a manoeuvre was, first, the reconnaissance flights and, second, the bombing of the anti-aircraft sites in Laos. These two steps have opened up the immediate possibility of a far more direct U.S. military involvement in Laos than we now have in Viet Nam.
I presume that the reconnaissance flights were designed primarily as a show of U.S. determination and as an aid of some sort for the government of Laos. Nevertheless, they did lead to the shooting down of the U.S. planes and then to the U.S. bombing of anti-aircraft sites.
Clearly, this process of action and reaction can continue and grow deeper. It may be that circumstances require that the process continue [Page 166] and deepen. Only you are in a position to make that determination in the light of the whole of the interests of the nation.
But I gather from our telephone conversation2 that a deepening of the involvement is not what you believe desirable or necessary in terms of the nation’s interest. You indicated to me that the bombing of the sites was not to be repeated. But you cannot count on the absence of the need for repetitions of the bombings so long as the reconnaissance flights continue over Laos. What happens if other U.S. reconnaissance planes are shot down? Having once taken out anti-aircraft sites by bombing are we not to repeat the operation? And if we cannot stop the attrition by air must we not do it by land force or suffer the ignominious consequences? I think it is most dangerous to assume that if the reconnaissance flights continue, additional U.S. planes will not be shot at and, if they fly low enough, that some will not be brought down.
The basic reality remains: if it is not in the national interest to become deeply involved in a military sense on the Laotian front, we will avoid those actions which can impel us, even against our inclination or expectation, to become more deeply involved. We will avoid further unilateral commitments and actions and take every possible initiative to bring about a peaceful settlement. But if our interests justify, in the last analysis, becoming fully involved on the Southeast Asian mainland then there is no issue. What must be done will be done.
My own views are well-known. On the basis of my limited knowledge I do not conclude that our national interests are served by a deep military involvement in Southeast Asia. But in this situation, what I or any other Senator may conclude is secondary. The responsibility rests with you and we can only give you our support in whatever decisions you may make.
If the decisions must be for a continuance of the course which is leading to deeper involvement, however, I would most respectfully suggest that the basis for these decisions must be made much clearer and more persuasive to the people of the nation than has heretofore been the case. In my judgment, public attitudes are far from understanding, much less accepting, even the limited degree of our present involvement in Southeast Asia.