461. Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (Bundy)0
Dean Rusk believes that Sarit would oppose withdrawal of the battle group from Thailand at this time. Therefore, I agreed to leave the group or its replacement in Thailand, at least for the present.1 However, we should be planning on withdrawing the personnel at the earliest possible moment.
Assuming that the North Vietnamese forces are withdrawn from Laos by the end of the 75 day period, we should be prepared to discuss with Sarit a “package deal” involving withdrawal of the battle group and its replacement with approximately 1700 construction personnel, periodic training exercises involving the introduction of combat personnel, the assignment to Thailand of counterinsurgency training teams, and the storage in Thailand of a complement of heavy equipment for a battle group.
Would it not be wise to defer the movement of the construction personnel to Thailand until Sarit has agreed to a plan providing for the withdrawal of the battle group?
Please discuss this entire subject with the State Department.
- Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OASD/ISA Files: FRC 65 A 3501, Thailand 334–384. Confidential.↩
- At a meeting with McNamara on August 6, the JCS conceded that although there was no military requirement for the battle group in Thailand, they felt that political and psychological factors merited its remaining, especially given the situation in Laos. McNamara complained that Sarit and the Thais did “not have the slightest concept about the type of war going on in SEA and Thailand has no plan for this type of war which makes it difficult for our personnel to produce one.” McNamara decided to postpone temporarily a decision and discuss with Secretary of State Rusk the political and psychological factors involved. (Memorandum for the record by Heinz, August 6; ibid., Thailand 200–320.2)↩