Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume III, Vietnam, January–August 1963

5. Memorandum for the Record by the Director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (Hilsman)¹

Saigon, January 2, 1963.

SUBJECT

• Country Team Meeting on Wednesday, January 2, 1963

Present were the heads of all the agencies there. The first item on the agenda was the planned operation beginning today which was a very large scale sweep operation directed against a headquarters in Tayninh Province. This is a very large scale affair and, of course, comes very close to the Cambodian Border which aroused Forrestal because of the implications of the Cambodian problems. The result was to impress those peasants with Washington’s concern about the relationships with Cambodia.

General Harkins raised the question of this desire to overfly Laos in order to get photographs of Tchepone and the buildup which he suspects is taking place there. He also wants permission to probe in Laos.

Another agenda item was the operation in the Ca Mau Peninsula in which two Marine battalions will be landed. This is a VC stronghold which the government has been unable to enter since 1945. Additional motives for the operation are the problem of charcoal for Saigon and also an attempt to cut off the export of fish from the Viet Cong territory to Singapore. The Embassy has doubts about this since they feel that it will tie down the two Marine battalions for many, many months. General Harkins’ response was to imply that the Marine battalions might not otherwise be used and that it was a clear and hold operation. Other of the Embassy doubts are that in the whole area of clear and hold only four strategic hamlets are planned and the Embassy feels that these four will be inhabited by women and children only and that they will require the resettlement of people and will be in effect concentration camps. It is recognized by everyone concerned that this operation is an exception to the general rule.

General Harkins described several clear and hold operations in VC strongholds, Phu Bon also in a VC stronghold, An Lac area also a VC stronghold. Others he mentioned as examples are Phu Yen Province, Vinh Binh Province, Quang Ngai Province, and the Ben Cat area.

The question of napalm came up for discussion with the Ambassador making the point that the South Vietnamese already had napalm and we could not control completely their use of it. And General

Harkins making the point that napalm really put the fear of God into the VC and was very effective. This led to a discussion of Farmgate and the requested augmentation. Apparently, air strikes have gone from one hundred a month to over a thousand a month partly as a result of the ARVN learning more about our air power and how to use it.

General Harkins also mentioned that following Tet he hoped for a nationwide intensification of ARVN offensives. This is his word now for the so-called explosion.

The Ambassador raised the point about the Cambodian bid for neutrality and his fear that this would be associated within South Vietnameses’ minds the desire [sic] for U.S. cutback in U.S. presence which might come early in ‘63. The Ambassador was very fearful that these two would make the South Vietnamese afraid that we were getting out and seeking a neutral solution for all of Southeast Asia. The Ambassador felt that this was to be handled very carefully and if it caused us a break with the French, he was willing to accept that cost.

I raised the question of Diem’s inability to delegate and asked whether this was leading to frustration on the part of technical and professional and bureaucratic elites. The Ambassador said that he thought that there was considerably less frustration both at the provincial and the national levels for three reasons. First, because of our aid and the momentum that has been generated these officials now have more to do than they ever did before. The second, they have a plan which they understand and are following and third, the mere fact of momentum lifts morale and dissipates doubts. I suggested that this morale might be shortlived and due mainly to our aid and participation only to emerge [submerge?] again if Diem’s habits about failing to delegate continued.

There was some discussion of this in which the Country Team generally sided with Diem and said that usually when he interfered he was right and the other people were wrong. My net reaction was that the case was not entirely persuasive.

1. Source: Kennedy Library, Hilsman Papers, Country Series-Vietnam. Confidential.