Office of the Historian

264. Diary Entry by the Ambassador to Vietnam (Taylor)1

Honolulu, April 20, 1965.

I left Saigon on Sunday, April 18, for Honolulu and returned to Saigon on Thursday, April 22. Purpose of the trip was to discuss with McNamara and party DOD 152339Z, copy attached.2 The main business was [Page 573] done in two executive sessions on Tuesday, April 20. The following attended:

  • McNamara
  • Wheeler
  • William Bundy
  • Westmoreland
  • McNaughton
  • Sharp
  • Taylor

We first considered the question of the introduction of additional U.S. and third country combat forces. There was no disagreement in estimating the situation. We all considered that since we could not hope to break the will of Hanoi by bombing alone, we must do better in the campaign against the Viet Cong in SVN.

While conceding that bombing would not do the trick alone, we also did not believe that any combination of pressures could end the situation quickly, certainly not within six months. All favored mounting pressure against the North but no one advocated attacking Hanoi. All believed that the present target system, extended to include northern targets out of MIG range, dikes and dams, electric power plants and restrikes on old targets would keep our aviation busy for an almost indefinite period. I stressed that repetition of the same level of attack was in itself a form of escalation.

With regard to the need for additional U.S. combat troops, in view of the inadequacy of ARVN units presently operational or to become operational in 1965, we agreed on a Phase I which would call for the introduction into SVN of nine U.S. battalions and four third country battalions between now and the end of summer.

With the present in-country strength of about 33,000, this reinforcement would bring the U.S. personnel to about 82,000, with something over 7,000 third country troops in addition. We recognized that it might be necessary to follow with a Phase II and III which would include a U.S. division, a ROK division minus and the remainder of the Marine Expeditionary Force. Final totals in that case would be 123,000 U.S. and about 22,000 third country combat forces.

We agreed to a new text of instructions for me as Ambassador conforming pretty generally to my previous recommendation.

We were generally opposed to the encadrement of U.S. soldiers in ARVN units and to the extensive use of USA civil affairs personnel in the provinces. We supported the concept of an international force, the extended use of mobile dispensaries and a three province test of a new U.S pacification organization.

Principal attitudes of interest were (a) desire by certain Chiefs of Staff for a dramatically heightened escalation of bombing (Wheeler disagreeing); (b) JCS emphasis on need to introduce troops for possible contingencies rather than for primary use in curbing the Viet Cong.

[Page 574]

It was understood that McNamara would carry back our agreed recommendation and endeavor to secure authority without delay.

  1. Source: National Defense University, Taylor Papers, Diaries, T-272–69. Secret.↩
  2. Document 256.↩