was deteriorating, and a coup could occur at any time. The Prime Minister of the country, General Nguyen Khanh, stayed in power by placating various groups, while exhibiting little leadership of the country or the military. Defeatism was spreading from Saigon to the countryside, and was aggravated by a Montagnard revolt on September 20. No clear leadership was emerging. Much of this turmoil can be traced back to the Diem government and its inability to capture the hearts of the people like Ho Chi Minh had. The South Vietnamese government was completely detached from its people as much of its government was focused in Saigon (though most of the people lived in small villages and Hamlets in the countryside). The Vietcong, however, were not seen to be planning an immediate takeover, but are concentrating on psychological operations to increase unrest in the south and among American forces. Vietnam 1965 Intelligence analysis Special National Intelligence Estimate 10-9-65, was done to assess the reactions, in various parts of the world, to an escalation of U.S. attacks on North Vietnam. This estimate is especially significant in the conflict between the White House and the military and intelligence community. By summer of 1965 there were more than 125,000 U.S. ground troops in Vietnam and there did not seem to be an end in sight for their continuous arrival. In August 1965, after Prime Minister Quat left the position and was replaced, the CIA worried that Buddhist protests would resume as they had under Diem. Under Diem religious tensions increased between the Buddhists and minority Roman Catholics. He gave Roman Catholics preference in governmental appointments and in military positions in addition to other actions that benefited Christians disproportionately over Buddhists. In a special report on The Buddhists in South Vietnam from 1963, the CIA noted that they were tracking the discontent within the Buddhist community and trying to discern if these grievances could lead to political change within the country. In a section concerning political influences they write, "There seems to be little doubt that the intensity of the Buddhist protests reflected general discontent over the entrenched, autocratic rule of the Diems as well as specific grievances against their religious biases. there have been persistent reports that some extremist Buddhist leaders have been determined to keep up the momentum of demonstrations, not just to secure satisfaction of demands, but in hopes of bringing about the