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

88. Summary Record of Meeting¹

Washington, June 10, 1964, 5:30 p.m.

SUBJECT

• Southeast Asia

PRESENT

• Secretary Rusk (later), Secretary McNamara, Secretary Dillon, Attorney General, Under Secretary Harriman, Director McCone, Director Bell, Director Rowan, Mr. Rostow, Assistant Secretary Bundy, Assistant Secretary Manning, Assistant Secretary McNaughton, General Goodpaster, Deputy Under Secretary Johnson, Special Assistant Sullivan, Mr. Chester Cooper, Mr. William Colby, Mr. McGeorge Bundy, Mr. Douglass Cater, Mr. Bromley Smith

Three papers were considered. Copies of each are attached.²

The attached agenda was followed.³

The first question which arose was what statement should be made to the press about the reconnaissance missions over Laos.

Secretary McNamara said we should say that a U.S. reconnaissance mission was flown in Laos, that it was fired upon, and that the U.S. planes fired back.

Mr. McGeorge Bundy said this statement was not true and strongly cautioned that nothing be said now which later could be used to prove that the U.S. Government had told a lie. He said the U.S. must not risk being exposed as making false statements.

Mr. William Bundy referred to Ambassador Unger’s plea contained in his telegram 1586 (copy attached) that the U.S. not admit that the planes escorting the reconnaissance planes had used suppressive fire.⁴ The Ambassador’s cable was in response to a request for his views when it appeared here that it would almost be impossible to maintain our position of “no comment” in reply to questions concerning the firing of U.S. planes in Laos. Mr. William Bundy said that at an earlier meeting this morning⁵ all present had agreed with Ambassador Unger’s reasoning and he asked that the present group agree to stand on “no comment.” Mr. McGeorge Bundy agreed that refusing to comment on operations was a much better position than one which, in effect, was not true.

Secretary Rusk asked whether the press furor over the “no comment” position would blow over in a few days. Mr. McCone replied that he thought that press interest in the Laos operation would be very short-lived. Mr. McGeorge Bundy said that Senator Morse would undoubtedly yell but we could live with his criticism.

Secretary Rusk, who had just returned from the Hill, said that he felt that there was little Congressional interest in the Laos situation. He noted that several Congressmen had reacted almost with boredom to a discussion of the reconnaissance flights in Laos. He wondered whether we and Ambassador Unger had built up the air strike out of all proportion.

In response to Secretary Rusk’s question, Mr. Rowan said there had been some international interest in our air activity in Laos, but there had been no huge international outcry over press reports to date. Secretary Rusk said our long-range stake in keeping Souvanna in power in Laos was great. He thought that we should back our Ambassador in the field. Secretary McNamara agreed as to what we would say to the press. However, he thought that to Members of Congress and friendly governments we should say that U.S. reconnaissance missions over Laos had been fired on and we fired back. Mr. McGeorge Bundy repeated his statement that this would not be the truth. He strongly disagreed that we should make such a statement because he believed that it would not stick and the true facts would become public.

Mr. William Bundy said we would be making a general statement without reference to a specific mission.⁶ We would simply say that reconnaissance missions were being flown in Laos and our planes were authorized to fire back when they were fired upon. We would not admit that we had carried out a suppressive mission. The British do not know that we carried out a specific air strike. The only explanation we would make to foreigners would be that there has been firing in Laos by U.S. planes because they had been fired upon.

Secretary McNamara urged that everyone in the room agree on one position to be taken by all so that all discussions of this subject would be identical.

Assistant Secretary Manning was asked to draft guidance for the use of everyone to include statements to the press, statements to Congressmen, and statements to foreign nations. It was agreed that we would continue to stand on “no comment” to the press but that Congressmen and foreign government officials would be told that our planes had been fired on and that they had fired back.

Mr. William Bundy said that the International Control Commission (ICC) inspectors were on the ground in the general area where firing had taken place. It is possible that they may see bomb craters caused by U.S. planes. There is doubt that Ho Chi Minh would allow the ICC to inspect Khang Khay because he would thereby reveal to outsiders the existence of antiaircraft batteries manned by Viet Minh crews. In addition, he would be creating a precedent of allowing the ICC inspectors to enter Communist-held territory.

The group then considered the paper entitled “Defuzing Laos.”⁷ Mr. Forrestal summarized its content and said that its purpose was to reduce pressures in Laos.

Secretary Rusk said that if we accomplished the first objective stated in the paper, we would be in a hell of a shape. Our real objective in Laos is to get strict compliance with the 1962 Geneva Accords, which means getting the Pathet Lao out of Laos. We have taken this position recently with important foreign nations including the Soviet Union. We should push hard in any conference, such as that proposed by the Poles, for our prerequisites for a Geneva-type conference. It is in our interest to keep the Russians and the Poles in opposition to the Chinese Communists and Ho Chi Minh. We should not give up the effort to get the Pathet Lao out of the Plaine des Jarres by diplomatic means. Mr. McGeorge Bundy said he thought our objective was to keep Souvanna in power so that we could go ahead with our major objective which is to improve the situation in South Vietnam.

Secretary McNamara said we must not keep on restating unrealizeable objectives. He said we have no program which, in his view, will result in forcing the Pathet Lao out of the Plaine des Jarres.

Secretary Rusk suggested that a paper should be prepared which spells out the position which we have just taken with Khrushchev.⁸

Mr. McGeorge Bundy said that nothing now planned will get the Pathet Lao out of the Plaine des Jarres. Only General Taylor could do this by using U.S. military force and he would resign before agreeing to put U.S. troops into the Plaine des Jarres. The important problem is South Vietnam, not the presence of the Pathet Lao in the Plaine des Jarres.

Secretary Rusk said the defuzing paper surrenders our objective of seeking a pressure point against Hanoi and would result in giving Souvanna and the Thais a very leaden feeling. Mr. McGeorge Bundy said if it were true that the proposed policy would give Souvanna and the Thais a leaden feeling, this would be a valid reason to oppose it, but he did not think that its lack of effect on the Pathet Lao problem in the Plaine des Jarres was a valid objection.

Secretary McNamara said the President had been confused because there has always been a difference between our stated objectives and our courses of action. He expressed in several ways his view that the actions we have proposed to the President will not achieve our stated objectives.

Mr. McGeorge Bundy said we have never told the President that the Communists had now gone too far and that we propose to throw them out. Secretary Rusk replied that our objective is certainly not to support Souvanna solely for the purpose of halting further Pathet Lao advances. Our objective is to force the Pathet Lao to retreat. Mr. McGeorge Bundy said he thought that our policy was aimed at trying to avoid bringing things to a military head over Laos.

Secretary Rusk said he visualized our Laos policy in three stages. The first preventive stage was to take those actions necessary to be ready militarily to do more than we are now doing if it appeared that the Pathet Lao was undertaking a campaign to seize the Mekong River towns. The second stage was to do all we could during the Polish-proposed conference to achieve our preconditions for a Geneva conference. We may not achieve this objective but we might. We simply don’t know. The third stage would be a Geneva conference at which we would seek to obtain the removal of the Viet Minh from Laos and South Vietnam and close the North Vietnam corridor to the South Vietnamese.

Secretary McNamara asked whether we would go to a Geneva conference if we did not obtain the preconditions. Secretary Rusk replied that we would not. Secretary McNamara said that, therefore, there would be no conference. The defuzing paper is to look at the situation we would be in without a Geneva-type conference. The plan is based on not taking U.S. military action until we had obtained a Congressional resolution, which it did not appear would be obtainable very soon.

Secretary Rusk asked why we should not take as our objective the most probable contingency facing us.

Secretary McNamara suggested that, for the President, we prepare a paper which gave our stated objective being sought on the diplomatic track. The paper would acknowledge that we were unlikely to achieve our stated objective by diplomatic means and that, therefore, we propose to deviate from the diplomatic track and then state what we would do. He felt that we were leading the President down a track which would oblige him to resort to the use of military force in the next three months if the situation were to be saved. He expressed his fear that the conference route will run out in a few weeks and then there will be nothing left for us to do but use U.S. military force.

Director McCone expressed his concern that we would not be able to resist world public pressure for a conference by saying merely that we won’t go to a conference unless the Pathet Lao holds back a few miles in the Plaine des Jarres. Secretary Rusk replied that the Pathet Lao pullback, which is a prerequisite for the conference, would not be difficult for the Communists to agree to do.

Mr. Rowan said he wanted to make certain that all were aware of the danger of having public objectives which differed from objectives known only to government officials. Mr. Forrestal said the objectives listed in his paper should accurately be described as interim objectives.

Mr. McCone wanted to know how we proposed to discourage further Pathet Lao territorial grabs as stated in objective number two. Mr. Forrestal said the actions he had in mind involved those listed under point thirteen of the McNamara report, including the movement to the area of U.S. forces.

Secretary Rusk asked that he be permitted to study the paper for another day or so. He was concerned that if we gave up the objective of moving the Pathet Lao back, we might forfeit the effort which we have been making in Moscow and indirectly in Peking.

Secretary McNamara said we do have military actions which could be used to prevent the Pathet Lao from grabbing further territory in Laos, but we do not have actions which he felt were adequate to force the Pathet Lao to get out of the Plaine des Jarres.

Secretary Rusk said he did not feel that a mountainous diplomatic effort would be necessary to get the Pathet Lao back to their previous lines. The Soviets have a stake in not ratting out on the agreement they have with us on Laos.

Mr. McGeorge Bundy, who had been out of the meeting for a few minutes, returned to say that he had told the President it would not be necessary for him to join the group today because another working session would be required before the group was ready to discuss recommendations with him.

[Here follows a record of the remainder of the meeting, which dealt mostly with Vietnam; for text, see Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, volume I, pages 487–492.]

1. Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Files of McGeorge Bundy, Meetings on Southeast Asia, Vol. I. Top Secret; Sensitive. Apparently drafted by Bromley Smith. The meeting took place in the Cabinet Room at the White House. The President did not attend. Dean Rusk returned to the Department of State from this meeting at 7:25 p.m. (Ibid., Rusk Appointment Book)
2. See Document 87, footnote 7 to Document 83, and draft paper entitled “Alternative public positions for U.S. on Southeast Asia for the period July 1–November 15,” printed in Foreign Relations, 1964–1968, vol. I, pp. 493–496.
3. The agenda items relating to Laos were “Press Handling of Laos Flights,” and “Stringing Out Laos Negotiations.” (Memorandum from William Bundy to Rusk, June 10; Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, Laos, Vol. VI, Memos 6/1/64–6/14/64)
4. Dated June 10. (Department of State, Central Files, INT 6 PHOTO LAOS)
5. No record of this meeting has been found.
6. Dated June 11; for text, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1964, pp. 932–933.
7. Document 87.
8. Not further identified.