Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture

by Noam Chomsky

This book is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the U.S. invsion of Vietnam and a probing reflection of the elite political culture that allowed and ecouraged the Cold War.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American, Historical, War, American History

172 pages, Paperback

First published April 12, 1993

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Adria Irene · Rating 4 out of 5]

At UMBC I had to write a book review in my 'Vietnam" class. My professor was less than thrilled when I chose Chomsky.

[Amanda Sola · Rating 3 out of 5]

The thesis in this is that well renowned and revered JFK did not actually want to end the war in Vietnam before his assassination. We all grew up with the understanding that JFK wanted to end the war to save American lives, but Chomsky offers an alternative view of the President's intentions in the East. This thesis is well researched and very well supported throughout the book. It's short and to the point, and at times repetitive, making it a fairly boring read.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of a series of Chomsky paperbacks republished in 2015 which collectively offer a truly radical and transformative review of America's role in world affairs. It is surely essential reading for anyone seeking a rational explanation for seemingly crazy situations. After the virtual insurrection of American youth in the Sixties and early Seventies, in opposition to the very crimes of aggression described with such clarity here, it would seem that a counter revolution has conspired to close the public's mind - perhaps its heart. The extent to which we have been deceived is made more graphic with the realisation that Chomsky's voice has been so lonely and so untypical for all these years. It is not that the evidence is not there in plain sight, so one must assume that we have chosen not to know. Chomsky has laid it out for us with such clarity that it is now difficult to justify ignoring it any longer. The truth as he tells it is painful and upsetting - it hurts - but it must be faced.

The first part of this book provides an overview of the Cold War, dating this from 1917, not 1945. I have placed a selection of quotes on this topic below. The second part focuses on America’s interference in Indochina from 1945 to the 1970s and beyond, and is especially concerned to expose the way historians of the Vietnam war have changed their tune periodically, in order to paint a retrospective picture at odds with contemporary records, including flatly contradicting their own earlier publications as though nobody would have the imagination to cross-check. Chomsky provides detailed rebuttals and ensures that JFK is accorded his proper place in the sequence of war criminals that have held the presidency. In the last section of the book, Chomsky notes that Kennedy secured escalating military spending which amounted to a Keynesian boost for the economy and a massive growth in nuclear and conventional weaponry on the basis of a supposed gap compared with the USSR, at a time when he knew very well that Kruschev was actually reducing the size of the USSR’s forces and reaching out for opportunities to reduce the risk of nuclear war. He also describes Kennedy’s personal role in moving Latin American policy beyond support for fascist regimes towards direct American leadership of a grotesquely oppressive security state system across the continent, as well as his aggressive and illegal efforts to subvert and destroy Castro’s regime in Cuba. This provides the basis for interesting comparisons between JFK’s “Camelot”and Ronald Reagan’s administration.

The quotes that follow help to outline Chomsky’s account of the Cold War, which is the essential context for any understanding of the USA’s criminal role in the Third World, its intolerance of democracy, destruction of human rights, rejection of international law and consistent promotion of fascism.

The inhabitants of Asia and the Western Hemisphere were “appalled by the all-destructive fury of European warfare,” military historian Geoffrey Parker observes. “It was thanks to their military superiority rather than any social, moral or natural advantage, that the white peoples of the world managed to create and control” their “global hegemony,” history’s first. “Europe’s incessant wars” were responsible for “stimulating military science and spirit to a point where Europe would be crushingly superior to the rest when they did meet,” historian V.G.Kiernan comments aptly. [p5,6]

These traditional features of European culture emerged with great clarity in the Indochina wars. There is a direct line of descent from the English colonists who carried out “the utter extirpation of all the Indians in the most populous parts of the union” by means “more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru” (Secretary of War Gen. Henry Knox, 1794) to the “ethnic cleansing” of the continent, to the murderous conquest of the Philippines and the rampages in the Caribbean region, to the onslaught against Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.” [p6]

Every age of human history, Adam Smith argued with some justice, reveals the working of “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind”: “All for ourselves and nothing for other People.” The “masters of mankind” in the half millennium of the European conquest included Europe’s merchant warriors, the industrialists and financiers who followed in their paths, the supranational corporations and financial institutions that are creating what the business press now calls a “new imperial age,” ... as new governing forms coalesce to serve the needs of the masters in a “de-facto world government”: the IMF, World Bank, G-7, GATT and other executive agreements. [p11]

Our “excess of righteousness and disinterested benevolence” in Vietnam is commonly attributed to the Cold War, the felt need ‘to resist every hint of Soviet expansion wherever it occurred, even in areas that were not vital to our interests.” The doctrine is not wholly false, but must be translated from Newspeak into English. The term “Soviet expansion” served throughout the Cold War as a cover for policy initiatives that could not be justified, whatever their actual grounds. The Indochina Wars provide a revealing illustration of the general practice.” [p16]

The actual reasons for terror and subversion, and finally aggression, derive from the basic logic of North – South relations, developed with unusual explicitness in the early postwar period. Recognizing that they held unprecedented power, US planners undertook to organize the world in the interests of the masters, “assum[ing] out of self-interest, responsibility for the welfare of the world capitalist system, as the chief historian of the CIA, Gerald Haines, puts the matter in a highly regarded study of US policy in Latin America. Each region of the South was assigned its proper place. Latin America was to be taken over by the United States, its rivals Britain and France excluded. Policy there, as Haines explains, was designed “to develop larger and more efficient sources of supply for the American economy as well as create expanded markets for U.S. exports and expanded opportunities for investment of American capital,” a “neo-colonial neomercantilist policy that permitted local development only “as long as that did not interfere with American profits and dominance.” The Monroe Doctrine was also effectively extended to the Middle East, where the huge oil resources and crucially the enormous profits they generated were to be controlled by the US and its British client, operating behind an “Arab facade” of pliant family dictatorships. As explained by George Kennan and his State Department Policy Planning Staff, Africa was to be “exploited” for the reconstruction of Europe, while Southeast Asia would “fulfil its major function as a source of raw materials for Japan and Western Europe”, helping them to overcome the “dollar gap” so that they would be able to purchase US manufacturing exports and provide lucrative opportunities for US investors. [p16]

In short, the Third World was to be kept in its traditional service role, providing cheap labour and resources, markets investment opportunities and other amenities for the masters, with local elites permitted to share in the plunder as long as they cooperate. By the same logic, the major threat to US interests was always recognized to be “radical and nationalistic regimes” that are responsive to popular pressures for “immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses” and development for domestic needs. Such “ultranationalism” is unacceptable, regardless of its political coloration, because it conflicts with the demand for a “political and economic climate conducive to private investment”, with inadequate repatriation of profits and “protection of our raw materials.” [pp16,17]

Eastern Europe was the original “Third World,” diverging from the West along a fault line running through Germany even before the Columbian era, the West beginning to develop, the East becoming its service area. By the early 20th Century, much ofthe region was a quasi-colonial dependency of the West. The Bolshevik takeover n 1917 was immediately recognized to be “ultranationalist,” hence unacceptable. Furthermore it was a “virus,” with substantial appeal in the Third World. / The Western invasion of the Soviet Union was therefore justified in defense against “the Revolution’s challenge ... to the very survival of the capitalist order,” the leading diplomatic historian John Lewis Gaddis comments today, reiterating the basic position of US diplomacy of the 1920s. “The fundamental obstacle” to recognition of the USSR, the chief od the Eastern European Division of the State Department held, “is the world revolutionary aims and practices of the rulers of that country.” These “practices” of course, did not involve literal aggression; rather, interfering with Western designs, which is tantamount to aggression. The Kremlin conspiracy to take over the world was therefore established, a record replayed in later years as other ultranationalists and viruses were assigned to the category of “Soviet expansion.” [p22]

The Bolsheviks sought to make “the ignorant and incapable mass of humanity dominant in the earth, “ Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of State Robert Lansing warned... force must be used to prevent “the leaders of Bolshevism and anarchy” from proceeding to “organize or preach against government in the United States.” The repression launched by the Wilson administration successfully undermined democratic politics, freedom of the press, and independent thought, safeguarding business interests and their control over state power. The story was re-enacted after World War II, again under the pretext of the Kremlin conspiracy. [p23]

According to the official version, it was Soviet crimes that aroused Westerrn indignation. In his scholarly history of Soviet American relations, George Kennan writes that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918 created the breach... The idealistic Woodrow Wilson was particularly distraught, reflecting the “strong attachment to constitutionality” of the American public... A few months later, Wilson’s army dissolved the National Assembly in occupied Haiti “by genuinely Marine Corp methods,” ... The reason was that the Haitian legislature refused to ratify a constitution imposed by the invaders that gave them the right to buy up Haiti’s land. A Marine-run plebiscite remedied the problem... [p24] Following the same high principles, the US enthusiastically welcomed the “fine young revolution” carried out by Benito Mussolini in Italy in 1922, as the American ambassador described the imposition of Fascism... because they blocked the threat of a second Russia, the State Department explained. Hitler was supported as a “moderate” for the same reason. In 1937, the State Department saw fascism as compatible with American economic interests, and also the natural reaction of “the rich and middle classes, in self defence” when the “dissatisfied masses, with the example of Russia before them, swing to the Left.” ... Major US corporations were heavily involved in German war production, sometimes enriching themselves (notably the Ford motor company) by joining the plunder of Jewish assets under Hitler’s Aryanization program, “U.S. investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power”, Christopher Simpson writes, increasing “by some 48.5 percent between 1929 and 1940, while declining sharply everywhere else in continental Euopre and barely holding steady in Britain.”... [pp 23-25]

As Gaddis and other serious historians recognize, the Cold War began in 1917, not 1945. Whatever one believes about the post-World War II period, no one regarded the USSR as a military threat in earlier years... It should be added that Stalin’s awesome crimes were of no concern to Truman and other high officials. Truman liked and admired Stalin, and felt he could deal with him as long as the US got its way 85 percent of the time. Other leading figures agreed. As with a host of other murderers and torturers of lesser scale, the unacceptable crime is disobedience; the same is true of priests who preach “the preferential option for the poor”, secular nationalists in the Arab world, Islamic Fundamentalists, democratic socialists, or independent elements of any variety. [pp26, 27]

The question of what Kennedy might have done or what was hidden in the secret recesses of his heart, we may leave to seers and mystics. We can, however, inspect what he did do and say, an inquiry facilitated by a rich documentary record. [p83]

Note that JFK and his advisers consistently regarded lack of popular support for the war and GVN initiatives towards political settlement not as an opportunity for withdrawal but rather as a threat to victory. [p97]

For the totalitarian mind, adherence to state propaganda does not suffice: one must display proper enthusiasm while marching in the parade. [p142]

The high level shift of policy after Tet called for a revision of the earlier record. Since everyone was now an “early opponent of the war,” the same must have been true of the grand leader. The enterprise had soured; the picture of John F. Kennedy must therefore be modified. [p143]

[Gerard Costello · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was my introduction to Chomsky. He proves through simple yet extensive research (detailed continuously in the book) that the myth of JFK the peacemongering saint is nonsense. He also writes very interestingly about how Vietnam fit into the post WWII American view of how the world should be ordered. Chomsky's writing style is direct, eloquent and easy to understand.
Anyone who has watched a bullshit movie or TV show about Kennedy really needs to read this book. While the fairytale narrative of history is often tempting and even, at times, culturally embedded in communities (JFK's liberal deification is matched by the GOP's more recent decision that Ronald Reagan was to be promoted to God-hood) the reality is often more straight forward, dull, human and sad.

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 4 out of 5]

Your standard excellent Chomsky and a nice leaping off point for other internal sources and documents on the roots of the Vietnam escalation. The central argument is that all the conspiracy theorists and Camelot sycophants got it all wrong: the internal and declassified record, as well as pretty much everything said at the time prove that Kennedy had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam. The close focus on one particular facet of foreign policy at the time makes this a much more in-depth analysis and Chomsky excels at digging up detail. Instructive also is his look at media commentary and "insider" memoirs that contradict and malign each other even when written by the same person.
Yet another shameful chapter of obfuscation and misuse of the facts. Sigh...

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

Generally a big fan of Chomsky and this book has its merits, but it is repetitive and seems to proceed from conviction to evidence rather than the other way. Still, the thesis is well supported.

[Richard Balassaitis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Felt like I was reading a 1960s hippy manifesto whose author was still on acid.
My first book ever to head straight to its deserved place in my trash can.
One star is way too generous.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published in the early 1990s, not long after Oliver Stone's film JFK reignited various conspiracy theories around the assassination of President Kennedy. I fondly recall my friend Seth, upon reading the description of the book, derisively remarking: "Who will win in this clash of scholars?" or something to that effect. I think it is pretty widely acknowledged at this point that Stone's film, while it may be exciting filmmaking, is not a very realistic explanation behind the assassination. Chomsky certainly has the stronger argument in my view.

Chomsky is in good form, for once more or less staying on topic and not drifting all over the map. He marshals at length various historical national security documents and the writings of members of the Kennedy administration to demonstrate that there is little reason to believe that Kennedy was on the verge of any serious de-escalation in Vietnam and conspiracy theories that revolve around this idea of Kennedy the dove vs. Johnson the warmonger are not coherent.

Most of it is presented in Chomsky's typical prose, ranging from blandly academic to high polemic. Much of Chomsky's early political writing concerned the Vietnam war and I enjoyed seeing him returning to the topic with his usual brand of rhetoric.

[Gonzalo Pazos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremely detailed account of the views of US administration during and after the Vietnam war. Brings down the myth of a pacifist and liberal JFK, but gets a bit too heavy on the details for a reader without a strong background in US history. The personal views and reflections by Chomsky are, as usual, completely on point.

[Zachary Rosengarten · Rating 4 out of 5]

APAB. All presidents are bastards.

[Herold Vesperi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shortly after the end of the Vietnam war, a stream of books, documentaries and movies began to flow vigorously until it established what is now considered the accepted history of the events. This book was written to challenge a recurring theme, the story that John Fitzgerald Kennedy wanted to stop the US involvement in Vietnam, but then came his assassination in Dallas and his successor took the opposite approach. With a thorough analysis of the official records and a detailed comparison with all the declarations and thoughts attributed to Kennedy by the new historians, all the contradictions come to light with clear evidence. The sharp contrast between the records and the media image is used to debunk the rising cult of personality.

The subject is challenging just a small aspect of a big story, but in a manner that undermines a much bigger picture. However the reading requires some dedication and effort. The main reason is that Noam Chomsky has to go against a mainstream view that was established by a huge number of repetitions, an endless stream that culminated in a famous film about JFK by Oliver Stone. It is an exercise that needs plenty of evidence. Throughout the whole book the text is interspersed by a countless number of quotes and citations. It provides to the reader a direct reference to arguments and counterarguments, but it breaks the flow of the exposition. Every single page is a mix of writing styles, with sentences by Chomsky that mix with sentences coming from official documents and reports, declarations by public officials, politicians, writers and journalists. Thus the reading does not flow smoothly.
 Further complicating the matter are the many subjects involved in each argument. How the situation on the ground was seen and reported in the official records, how it was seen by independent observers, how people in government roles reacted, how those actions and views were later painted by the media. The author has to keep switching from one subject to the other, from a point of view to another one. It makes it even more difficult for the reader to follow the exposition.
 Thus the reading is difficult, not for the complexity, but because it is difficult to keep the concentration, it is like to follow a moving target.
 Last evident problem is that the book is repetitive. It is a necessity. A single author, challenging a plethora of mainstream pundits, has to show his argument from every angle, from every single point of view. But for the reader it is difficult to appreciate.

All the issues are mitigated by a rare quality, a book that is able to bring forward challenging views and support them with strong evidence that is difficult to deny.
 An interesting take is the idea that the US did not actually lose the war in Vietnam. In truth, I guess that rather than the US it meant Corporate America or Imperial America, anyway it dedicated just a small space to an argument that deserved more attention. Also the argument in the final pages deserved a little bit more attention, together with the main subject of the book they make a powerful rebuttal of a myth in the making.

There is a limit to the challenging views. There are still few points that fall in the mainstream view established by media stories rather than facts. Sometimes they seem small faults of the author sometimes they seem caused by the necessity to stick to the official records. The reader should forget the fame and the reputation that surround Chomsky's character and read the book with a critical mindset.

[Rod · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this when it first came out, way back in the time of Oliver Stone's "JFK", and am happy to have now read Chomsky's research and interpretations of the many stories swirling around what Kennedy may have been planning to do re: the Vietnam war. In addition to putting Kennedy's presidency in the context of 500+ years of colonialism and empire-building, there are some interesting insights into why and how we wish to create heroes and explain the intricate causes of human suffering as conspiracies against said heroes. In addition, Chomsky shares a quote from Tacitus which continues to be disturbingly relevant to our place and time: Crime once exposed had no refuge but in audacity.

[Gloomy · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Es una responsabilidad de los asesinos de la historia representar el crimen como un "fracaso", una mera "aberración," sólo una aparente desviación se nuestra nobleza y de la perfección de nuestras instituciones."

[oreganue · Rating 5 out of 5]

perfect offering on the subject matter, a lot was gained from this brief illustration and analysis of the political culture that allows the United States to perform mass atrocities and avoid even vocal criticism (let alone punishment).

[Johann Lilly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chomsky’s analysis of NSAM 263 and 273 is useful; drawing federal policy and intention from the public comments of individual political and military figures is not.

[Mike Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important examination of the need to deify Kennedy and the intellectual consequences of that folly.

[Indah Threez Lestari · Rating 4 out of 5]

99 - 2021

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

well argued and kind of interesting, but probably not the most useful chomsky out there.

[OompaLoompa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding! A great look at JFK's policy on Vietnam and the apologists who later tried to defend him.

[Othón A. León · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very different story to that one of JFK's being assassinated because he was about to end the American military presence in Vietnam. An interesting (and sometimes shockingly different) interpretation of the events of Kennedy's (and Eisenhower's, Johnson's and Nixon's) Cold War. Far from that image of the young president who saved the world at the last minute during the Cuban Missiles Crisis, according to Chomsky, it was Kennedy who brought the world to the brink of extinction. But the real message is the understanding that it is through the knowledge of the acts of American institutions that we can make a good interpretation (if not an understanding) of all these and other events, naturally all in the interest of maintaining an American hegemony, either on the American continent or in any other corner of the world, like South Asia.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

A extensive look by Noam Chomsky of the myths regard President Kennedy and the Vietnam War. Recently I've been diving deep into Vietnam war and the 1960's in general and thought this would be good one to look at.

He dispels the myth that Kennedy had been intending to pull out troops from Vietnam without achieving some sort of victory. Using extensive documentation from that time period he says there is nothing that supports this claim he would have done this before his life was taken by an assassins bullet in Dallas.

As far as the book itself it is very detail orientated and a bit dry reading/listening. I listen to my audio books while commuting and a few times I had to shut off because I was nodding off. The narrator wasn't bad but the book material seemed to extensively detailed and is perhaps better read in a physical book.

[Carlos Blancas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic Chomsky. Lays waste to the notion (popular among leftist conspiracy theorists) that Kennedy was a secret dove hemmed in by hawks, thus necessitating his removal from power. In reality, as Chomsky thoroughly documents, the "liberal" Kennedy was as pro-war as any psycho right winger. By the time he got his head blown off in Dallas by a lone-wolf Marxist assassin named Oswald (which is what happened, sorry folks), Kennedy had willingly escalated the war beyond any intent to withdraw. Essential reading.

[Spicy T AKA Mr. Tea · Rating 3 out of 5]

A look at the mythology of JFK and his stances on escalation and withdrawal during the vietnam war; chomsky demolishes revisionist histories by JFK liberal elites and talks about the film by Oliver Stone--JFK. A little out of loop as a lot of the names are people i am not familiar with due to my age--but then some i do recognize. A solid critique and quick read.

[Geo Forman]

Reviews and dispels the notion that JFK was assassinated because he was about to deescalate and pull out of Viet Nam.
This is basically a counter historical study using various governmental documents along with other documents supporting the author's thesis.

Rather too detailed and redundant for a casual reader. I chose not to finish.

[Bimbo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just a note to explain giving only two stars. This book was a misfit for me. I did not expect forensic analysis of documents in order to bust some of the JFK myth, thus it was a tiresome read. This book may well be an important contribution to the specific segment of the (American) political history and mythology, but that's just about it, I guess.

[Charles Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky conclusively demonstrates that, contra Oliver Stone and liberal revisionists, JFK was a Cold War hawk who had no secret plan to get out of Vietnam or take on the military-industrial complex. A+. Would read again.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky obliterates the liberal view of Kennedy as a humanitarian seeker of peace. If there is one book that I would choose for liberal to read, it would be this.

[KEITH · Rating 4 out of 5]

As always, Chomsky's scholarship is first-rate.

[Nam Pham · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the light of our own privileges, we can tell and retell any stories.

[Max Gwynne · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting critical analysis of JFK and his role in the origins of the Vietnam War. I was bracing myself, rolling my eyes and ready for a good ol' Kennedy bashing rant from Chomsky; however he does set out a compelling and fair case. He clearly lays out all of the interpretations and concludes that Kennedy, whilst determined to limit US involvement and push South Vietnamese troops to fight their own battles, had no plan to withdraw without victory in Vietnam. Chomsky's literature review is impressive. Focussing on texts and writings from pre and post 'Tet Offensive (the major turning point in the war for America) Chomsky reveals that many authors changed their own views and opinions; whether that be to make themselves seem more accurate in their views or to further idealise JFK's imagery and the Camelot legacy. Analysis on those advisers taking to Kennedy is very interesting also. Overall, Chomsky's short but enlightening work here highlights how history really can be and certainly does get rewritten.