It's really quite stressful. Watergate was easier because there wasn't the anticipation; we had no idea what to expect.
So what are my reflections at this point?
For some reason, the revelation that President Kennedy had ordered the nuclear missiles not to be deployed in Turkey and they were anyway and the inevitable conclusion from this fact that the Cuban missile crisis need not have happened has generated a bunch of new perceptions.
Because, if in fact, Kennedy gave in to the Soviet demands that the missiles be removed and provided a guarantee that Cuba would not be invaded again by the U.S., then his assassination by a supposed supporter of Castro and the Soviet Union makes no sense at all. So, perhaps both he and his brother were eliminated by those who had different plans for the Eastern hemisphere.
When you then consider that it is likely that the withdrawal from Vietnam was associated with a pledge from China that it would not attempt to annex the vacated area, then perhaps Nixon's abandonment of U.S. military assets in Indochina contributed to his betrayal by his own subordinates. Which may be why he resigned rather than admit how his administration had been undermined.
There are a couple of things that are puzzling. One is why Jimmy Carter dismissed Bush from his position as head of the CIA. It's not usual for agency heads to be considered political appointments and it would seem to have been out of character for an obvious organization man like Carter.
The other thing that doesn't make any sense is why Saddam Hussein drained the marshes at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphratis and why, even more puzzling, recreating the marshes was one of the first things the U.S. did after the invasion. Ecologically sound practices are not the hallmark of the Bushes. There must be another reason.
Was the draining of the marshes intended to facilitate the building of docking facilities? Does the U.S. simply not need them since it has adequate naval facilities in Kuwait? Is the U.S. Navy still being undervalued in preference to land-based military facilities?
I'm reminded that in the mid-seventies much of out Navy had been moth-balled. And, of course, Kennedy as a navy man thought that submarine-based missiles would be a better bet than missiles sitting on launch pads in Turkey.
So, are the land, air and sea services still in competition with each other? If so, what's the significance of a marine being designated as the head of the joint chiefs?
Posted by Hannah at October 22, 2005 02:28 PM