Robert Kennedy Ends the US-Vietnam War,
Avoids Genocide in Cambodia
* John Kennedy certainly has an undeserved reputation as a man of peace. He was an unabashed Cold Warrior, strongly anti Communist. John Kennedy was re imagined into a man of peace after his death by a party anxious to create a martyr and people wanting to create meaning for his murder. This image was never accurate. Oliver Stone's conspiracy film JFK, for example, claims John Kennedy wanted to withdraw US troops from Vietnam and issued an order recalling several thousand US troops. In fact, this was a routine rotation of troops, soon to be replaced by others.
* Robert Kennedy was a more complicated case. For much of his life and political career, he was equally as rigid an anti Communist as his brother. But the final few years of his life saw a dramatic change in the man. Increasingly he opposed the continuing US-Vietnam War.
* He was reluctant to oppose Lyndon Johnson for the nomination of the Democratic Party until Eugene McCarthy did extremely well in the New Hampshire primary. Then Johnson announced he would no longer seek a second term as president. Robert Kennedy then joined the race. He did extremely well, winning most of the important primaries until his assassination.
* Had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, he might well have won against Nixon in the general election. Hubert Humphrey, the actual candidate, came within a few tenths of one percent from winning. In eight states, five of them carried by Nixon, the margin of victory was under three percentage points. Humphrey pledged to continue the war in Vietnam, and many antiwar Democrats stayed home.
* It is certain Robert Kennedy would withdraw US troops from Vietnam. He would have little choice, as it was primarily this position that caused people to vote him president in the first place, elevating him in the primaries. *
* It would not be an immediate withdrawal, as McCarthy proposed and Kennedy criticized him for saying so. Robert Kennedy publicly proposed a US withdrawal combined with UN troops coming in to supervise an election where South Vietnamese could decide to vote to join the North or not. Kennedy had proposed this plan to Johnson and his Secretary of Defense McNamara. McNamara convinced Johnson to reject it, believing the North would never agree to withdraw and let an election decide.
* Yet whether the North agreed to withdraw or not, an election would only confirm what most observers already knew. The South Vietnamese government had little support or legitimacy with its population. Its government was made up of mixed French-Vietnamese people and Catholic converts, along with a largely ethnic Chinese business class, all seen as alien by most Vietnamese. The National Liberation Front was a broad coalition of peasants, students, Buddhists, and Communists, perhaps four fifths of the people. Northern control was just a matter of when and how.
* Kennedy, pressed by his own base, would have little choice to withdraw US troops. The almost certain deadline would be the upcoming 1970 congressional elections, with the first troops returning home before then. Kennedy would need to show voters his party could bring peace, or they would face a strong defeat in midterm elections. The last US troops likely are out by the end of 1971 for Kennedy to have a chance of re election in 1972.
* Ideally, Kennedy would soften the harshness of Communist control of all of Vietnam by evacuating all US allies. But this is not certain. Kennedy was not a very experienced or especially able administrator or planner. His prosecutions of organized crime figures had a mixed record. His main contribution to his brother's administration was to be a sounding board and assistant within the cabinet, a buffer between his brother and other officials.
* It is possible as many Vietnamese may be killed or imprisoned by the Vietnamese Communist government as happened in our own times. But Vietnam as a nation is still far better off with four to five less years of war, far fewer deaths and destruction of the environment and national infrastructure.
* Certainly Cambodia would be far better off. There is no reason Kennedy would order a carpet bombing of a neutral nation to appear tough to the US right wing, as Nixon did, playing a role in genocide in the process. (See Section One.) Kennedy did not subscribe to such ludicrous failed tactics as “madmanship” as Nixon did.
* From 500,000-1,000,000 Vietnamese and 20,000-25,000 American troops could be saved, depending on when the war ends. 500,000-600,000 Cambodians would not be killed by US bombs or troops. The Khmer Rouge never comes to power, saving 1,000,000 to 1,700,000 more Cambodian lives.
* A reunited Vietnam may still later invade Cambodia. Such an invasion has less of a chance of succeeding, so the body count may be lessened.
* Nixon, of course, established relations with China and negotiated arms control with the Soviet Union. It is uncertain Robert Kennedy could do the same. It is not that Nixon or Kissinger were any better at negotiations. They were not, they were quite overrated. What won them praise is their doing exactly what moderates or liberals would have done, negotiate for peace and arms control. Nixon's support for negotiations came from Democrats and moderate Republicans, while conservatives generally opposed him.
* Thus while most of Robert Kennedy's own party would support both China relations and arms control (most had called for both for decades), the opposition from the right wing would be fierce. The good news is, any recognition of China would not be through the US turning a blind eye to genocide in Bangladesh. Genocide deaths may be reduced by one tenth. Perhaps 30,000 to 300,000 Bangladeshis, are not killed.
* It is also unlikely Robert Kennedy would agree to support and then betray the Kurds of Iraq as Nixon did. (See Section Two.) However, the Israeli government and the Shah of Iran may still do so, and so the Kurds may still be used cynically as pawns and then die in their uprising. The difference is, no betrayal of the Kurds in the early 70s by a US president may not lead to great distrust of the US later on.
* Finally, there is little reason to believe Robert Kennedy, or any other possible president at the time such as Humphrey, Reagan, or Rockefeller, would get involved in anything like Watergate. That scandal was caused by a series of personal weaknesses peculiar to Nixon, his deep paranoia and inferiority complex.
* Robert Kennedy would certainly continue the anti poverty and civil rights programs of Lyndon Johnson. Whether he would be president again in 1972 is difficult to say. Ending the war would boost his popularity. But some of his likely opponents such as Reagan were quite skilled politicians and public speakers.
* A Nixon who never became president likely spends his life writing books and working with law firms. This would be better for him, the nation, and all of humanity. A world without Kissinger in power is better off as well, had he never done more than write amoral books.