NEW YORK – Was John F. Kennedy assassinated as the first presidential victim of the emerging “New World Order” championed by former CIA directors Allen Dulles and George H. W. Bush?
Armed with recently declassified documents, New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi tackles that question in “Who Really Killed Kennedy” as the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaches.
Corsi points out Kennedy had refused to authorize the Navy to launch a military strike from an aircraft carrier to save the faltering U.S.-backed invasion of Cuba known as the Bay of Pigs attack.
Kennedy also refused to authorize the use of U.S. military force in Laos and, just before he was assassinated, he had decided to pull out of Vietnam.
Hot war in Vietnam
On Sept. 2, 1963, Labor Day, at Hyannis Port, Mass., JFK had a relaxed interview outdoors with CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, who that sunny day was inaugurating a new television news program.
About midway into the interview, Cronkite asked about Vietnam: “Mr. President, the only hot war we’ve got running at the moment is of course the one in Vietnam, and we have our difficulties there, quite obviously.”
Kennedy answered directly, careful to set the stage for explaining why a military withdrawal from Vietnam was beginning to make sense to him.
“I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the government [of South Vietnam] to win popular support that the war can be won out there,” Kennedy explained.
“In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can’t help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the communists.”
In the interview, notes Corsi, Kennedy distanced himself from saying the U.S. should withdraw from Vietnam, insisting it would “be a great mistake.”
Corsi says Kennedy properly worried that no direct U.S. military intervention in a region like Southeast Asia could succeed, regardless of how many troops were sent or what type of arms were provided, unless the indigenous population was ready to fight and die for their own freedom.
JFK also worried, Corsi writes, that the type of corrupt regimes common in countries such as Laos and Vietnam almost certainly promised defeat, since any victories won on the battlefield would be compromised as corrupt elites in power oppressed the very people they were claiming to save from communism.
By offering military assistance, the president believed he could test the resolve and the ability of a nation such as Vietnam to win in a war against indigenous communists supported by China and Russia with a wide range of financial assistance, military training and sophisticated military equipment.
That policy, to withdraw the bulk of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1965, became official government policy on Oct. 11, 1963, when Kennedy signed National Security Action Memorandum No. 263.
The goal was to have the Defense Department announce the withdrawal of 1,000 military advisers from Vietnam by the end of 1963.
The speech JFK never gave
On Nov. 22, 1963, the day he was assassinated, JFK was on his way to the Dallas Trade Center to give a luncheon address.
This, the “Unspoken Speech,” contained a strong and clear statement of Kennedy’s determination to support U.S. allies and to fight back communism worldwide through a military and economic assistance program, not through the direct intervention of military forces.
“But American military might should not and need not stand alone against the ambitions of international communism,” JFK’s prepared remarks read.
“Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the communist world to maintain their independence of choice.”
The day he died in Dallas, Kennedy had intended to deliver a clear policy preference for providing military aid to nations such as Vietnam, rather than the alternative of committing U.S. military forces directly to the conflict.
Beginning with the first days of his administration, when confronted with Laos, to the last hours of his administration, concerning Vietnam, JFK was under constant pressure from the military to ramp up U.S. military presence in Southeast Asia.
White House historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., on page 338 of his 1965 book “A Thousand Days,” observed that starting with Laos, “the military left a predominant impression that they did not want ground troops at all unless they could send at least 140,000 men equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.”
The Pentagon was unrelenting in its position, calling for the possibility even of nuclear bombing of Hanoi and Beijing.
Kennedy was moving in a different direction, Cori writes.
The New World Order
In the final analysis, Corsi asserts, JFK was killed because he saw U.S. military action in shades of gray, whereas New World Order warriors such as the Dulles brothers, George H. W. Bush, and Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon saw only black and white.
Since the time Dulles headed the CIA in the 1950s, the CIA shared a belief with LBJ, Nixon and the military-industrial complex that even if U.S. military action failed in Cuba or in Laos and Vietnam, as it had in Korea, the military intervention would be good for business and the U.S. economy, according to Corsi.
The New World Order view pursued as U.S. foreign policy by Allen Dulles as head of the CIA and his brother John Foster Dulles, as secretary of state under Eisenhower, envisioned employing U.S. military action to preserve U.S. business interests, whether or not the wars were truly in U.S. national security interests.
George H. W. Bush did not blink to engage in the Gulf War, fully realizing U.S. oil interests in Kuwait were being preserved.
This was in sharp contrast to JFK. Under the ideologies of nationalism and self-determination that Kennedy used to analyze Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, it was clear JFK believed U.S. military involvement was ill-advised in each conflict, Corsi writes.
Kennedy cared about U.S. business interests, but not necessarily to the point of going to war in a conflict that was basically a civil war, incidental to U.S. national security interests, he says.
Had JFK lived, according to Corsi, the communist insurgency in Vietnam and the takeover of South Vietnam by North Vietnam would have been relegated to a footnote, the answer to an obscure question on a high school history test.
As it happened, there are over 58,200 names carved into black granite walls of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.
Both Presidents Johnson and Nixon made the Vietnam War a centerpiece of their presidential administrations, says Corsi.
In retrospect, he contends, JFK was correct; the Vietnam War was not a war the U.S. could win, if fought the way the military-industrial complex wanted the conflict to be fought.
The classic declaration of a “New World Order” is properly attributed to President George H. W. Bush.
On Aug. 2, 1990, some 100,000 Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait, starting what became known as the Gulf War.
On Sept. 11, 1990 – the original 9/11 of the George H. W. Bush presidency – Bush addressed a joint session of Congress, proclaiming “a big idea” he characterized as the “New World Order.”
In the speech’s key passage, Bush said:
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era – freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor.
Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
What George H. W. Bush made clear with his “New World Order” speech to Congress on Sept. 11, 1990, was that the use of U.S. military power to protect U.S. business interests was especially justified when backed by an international coalition.
Today, WND reports that critics charge President Obama’s intention to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Syria has been motivated by New World Order instructions from Saudi Arabia, whose Sunni regime wants to eliminate the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria to weaken its Shiite arch-enemies in Iran.
That JFK would have gone to war to protect Kuwait’s petroleum interests in 1991 or Saudi Arabia’s petroleum interests today in Syria is a stretch to argue, especially when JFK backed off using U.S. military power to defeat communism in Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, despite the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that intervention in these conflicts was vital to U.S. national security.
Note: Media wishing to interview Jerome Corsi, please contact us here.