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

89. Memorandum for the Record¹

Washington, June 10, 1964.

SUBJECT

• National Security Council Meeting on Southeast Asia—10 June

PARTICIPANTS

• Secretary Rusk, Under Secretary Harriman, Under Secretary Johnson, Assistant Secretary Bundy, Mr. Rostow, Mr. Sullivan, Secretary Manning
• Secretary McNamara, Assistant Secretary McNaughton, General Goodpaster
• The Attorney General
• Secretary Dillon
• Mr. Bell, Mr. Rowen
• Mr. McGeorge Bundy, Mr. Forrestal, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cater
• Mr. McCone, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Colby

Summary

The U.S. position with respect to reconnaissance and escorts over Laos will be “no comment with respect to operations”. Mr. Rusk will review a paper on our objectives in Laos and efforts to “defuze” the situation there,² he believing that we must maintain our objectives as the withdrawal of the Viet Minh and returning to the 1962 Accords, Mr. McNamara and Mr. McGeorge Bundy suggesting that a more realistic approach is to consider our interim objective as merely to repel further Pathet Lao advances. With respect to South Vietnam it was agreed that the morale of the South Vietnamese must be actively considered in any step taken with regard to Laos or Southeast Asia as a whole. With respect to GVN ability to improve its counterinsurgency it was agreed that we should go ahead with a trial infusion of U.S. personnel. An operational checklist will be prepared for the senior officials to review the progress of South Vietnam. The DCI pointed out that the Watch Committee has been assigned the task of close attention to the possibility of a sudden VC thrust. It was indicated that a Congressional Resolution on Southeast Asia would probably not be desirable as the ground work could not be laid prior to July and the debate might raise more trouble than it would solve. If matters should indicate the real necessity for a resolution, Congress could be called into Special Session.

1. The meeting opened with a discussion of the position the U.S. will take with regard to overflights and escorts in Laos. After some discussion, between Secretary McNamara’s position that we should say that our missions were essentially reconnaissance but authorized to return fire (with no specific reference to the June 9th mission) and Mr. McGeorge Bundy’s concern that we be caught saying something that is not so, it was agreed that the line to the press internationally will be “no comment with respect to operations”, in support of Ambassador Unger’s strong plea. Mr. Manning was directed to present an agreed script to which all parties were instructed to adhere (attached).³

2. The attached paper by Mr. Forrestal on “DeFuzing Laos”⁴ was then reviewed. Mr. Rusk had trouble with this paper’s expression of our “objectives” in Laos, believing that our real objectives are the complete withdrawal of the Viet Minh and that they not use the corridor to South Vietnam, i.e. adherence to the 1962 Accords. He feared that if our “objectives” were only the discouragement of the further Pathet Lao advances, there would be a bad feeling in the pit of the stomach of the people we expect to withstand Communist pressure in Southeast Asia, as this would be an abandonment of our previous objectives. Mr. McGeorge Bundy and Mr. McNamara argued that the discouragement of further Pathet Lao grabs and the preservation of Souvanna Phouma were all we could practically hope for at this time and that our program of action certainly does not contain any steps to push the Pathet Lao back. Secretary McNamara thus made the point that our stated objectives and our courses of action would be inconsistent, if the former were the precondition of Pathet Lao withdrawal. Mr. Rusk emphasized that our real objectives must be to continue to press for the 1962 Accords and that our courses of action must envisage the necessity to act militarily if the Pathet Lao move to the Mekong, make a diplomatic effort to obtain the pre-conditions of Pathet Lao withdrawal prior to any Geneva meeting and endeavor at a conference to remove the Viet Minh from both Laos and the corridor. Mr. McNamara brought out that this rapidly brings up the problem of how much military pressure we are prepared to use to obtain these. Mr. McCone pointed out that there are extensive international pressures pushing us towards Geneva even though the pre-conditions may not be met. Secretary Dillon suggested that there might be two stages, interim objectives and ultimate objectives. Mr. Rusk then asked that he have an opportunity to revise the paper and resubmit it.

3. In the course of this discussion it was agreed that there is little evidence that the 9 June action had any impact on the Pathet Lao assessment of what it is faced with. Mr. William Bundy felt it would have little effect. Mr. McNamara questioned whether the Pathet Lao could be brought to move back from the Plaine des Jarres. Mr. Rusk believed that it might be possible to obtain movement of this nature, in part by pressure on and by the Soviet Union, which has an interest in defuzing the situation in Laos also.

[Here follows discussion of Vietnam.]

WE Colby

Chief, Far East Division

1. Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI (McCone) Files, Job 80–B01285A, Memos for the Record, 6 Apr-8 July, 1964. Secret. Drafted by Colby on June 11. Colby mistakenly describes this as an NSC meeting. For Bromley Smith’s version, see Document 88.
2. See Document 87.
3. Attached, but not printed.
4. See footnote 2 above.