57. Letter From the Ambassador in Vietnam (Durbrow) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Parsons)1
Dear Jeff: Thank you for your letter of February 26th2 informing me of your conversation with General Taylor about a replacement for General Williams.
[Page 171]Admiral Felt brought this question up with me last month and asked my most frank opinion whether I thought General Williams should stay. We had a very frank exchange in which I told him the pros and cons on Williams, i.e., he has the confidence of Diem, is doing an excellent job in whipping the ARVN into excellent shape, and is deeply dedicated to this job. On the other hand, he has no interest in melding military needs with economic needs, and he’s not at all easy to get along with. I have to give him orders, literally, to be sure he cooperates at all times. He is very touchy about any criticism of MAAG and is very rough on his staff, but perhaps that is why his MAAG has the best record of any in the world. From a military point of view, that is fine. I, therefore, told Felt that on balance, despite his shortcomings, I’d be pleased to have him extend, particularly since I did not know who would be his successor. If we did not choose the right man who could win the confidence of Diem, United States interests would be prejudiced. Furthermore, I told Felt and also General Taylor when he talked about it last November, Williams should be made to take about six weeks leave if he is to extend. He has taken only a few days off in over three years and is jittery. In other words, despite our battles, I respect him and the good job he’s done here. Therefore, if he is to stay I would have no complaints. Felt was inclined, incidentally, to terminate his tour.
If, as Taylor indicated, he is planning to replace Williams by Van Houten,3 I would be particularly pleased because Van Houten was a student at the War College when I was Deputy there. I don’t know how he has developed in the last ten years, but I liked him very much then. He’s intelligent and has a fine personality. From a personal point of view, I’d naturally like to have an old friend on the staff.
Maybe on balance it’s best to have a change, but I know Diem will not like it. Dillon Anderson told me Diem had asked him privately to ask President Eisenhower to extend Williams for another year. Anderson asked me about it, and I outlined Williams’ good and bad points in a softened version from the one I gave Felt, who, as I said, asked my very frank and full opinion. I don’t know if Anderson mentioned this to President Eisenhower, since he had not made up his mind when he talked to me about it.
To make a long story short, if Williams is to be replaced by Van Houten, I would obviously have no objection. If Williams is to stay, [Page 172] it would also be all right with me, because on the military training side he has done an outstanding job.4
Kindest personal regards.
Sincerely yours,
- Source: Department of State, Vietnam Working Group Files: Lot 66 D 193, 21–VN 1960—Embassy Saigon Personnel Matters. Limited Official Use; Official–Informal. This letter is an attachment to a memorandum from Kocher to Parsons, March 19, not printed.↩
- Not found.↩
- Major General John G. Van Houten, USA, Commanding General of the Military District of Washington, D.C.↩
- According to the memorandum cited in footnote 1 above, Diem had apparently asked Anderson to extend Williams’ term for 2 years, and to intercede with Eisenhower in the matter. Goodpaster, however, had informed Irwin at the Department of Defense that the White House would extend the tour for only 1 year, until August 1960. The Department of State sent a cable to Saigon to this effect. (Telegram 1513 to Saigon, March 20; Department of State, Central Files, 751G.5–MSP/3–2059)↩
- Printed from a copy which bears this typed, signature.↩