Death of the whiz kid: Robert Strange McNamara, 1916-2009.(slate.com)
slate.com
Death of the whiz kid: Robert Strange McNamara, 1916-2009.
http://www.slate.com/id/2222288/?from=rss
32 comments
If experience is the name we give to our mistakes, McNamara had lots of experience.
I wonder if the relatives of the 2,000,000+ or so Vietnamese civilians who died during the war can also respect McNamara. Some mistakes are simply not excusable. LBJ was the commander-in-chief, but McNamara was his right-arm.
You should watch Fog of War if you haven't. It is an unflinching look at the man and what he did (with a big impact because of the camera that Errol Morris to get direct on shots of interviews).
McNamara tried to systematize warfare like a factory. He played a high stakes game that ended up killing millions of people. He thought he could control the monster. He was wrong and it spiraled out of control.
The movie takes an honest look at his life and it's something we have to understand if we want to avoid repeating his mistakes. Which we apparently haven't since we're stuck in two wars right now.
McNamara tried to systematize warfare like a factory. He played a high stakes game that ended up killing millions of people. He thought he could control the monster. He was wrong and it spiraled out of control.
The movie takes an honest look at his life and it's something we have to understand if we want to avoid repeating his mistakes. Which we apparently haven't since we're stuck in two wars right now.
Fog of War is one of my favorite documentaries, but McNamara is not honest about two key incidents - the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.
In the movie McNamara claims he was "I was trying to help him (JFK) keep us out of war." actually he was pushing for bombing the Soviet missile site in Cuba since the third day. This is documented by recordings of meetings with JFK.
About the Gulf of Tonkin incident McNamara claims that he and Johnson didn't believe the U.S. destroyer Maddox had been attacked, even though the crew sent messages that the attack they had reported was a not an attack after all.
I learned this today [1] and it puts McNamara in a different light, although the lessons in the movie are still very valid.
[1] The lies of The Fog of War (http://www.slate.com/id/2092916/), linked to by TFA
In the movie McNamara claims he was "I was trying to help him (JFK) keep us out of war." actually he was pushing for bombing the Soviet missile site in Cuba since the third day. This is documented by recordings of meetings with JFK.
About the Gulf of Tonkin incident McNamara claims that he and Johnson didn't believe the U.S. destroyer Maddox had been attacked, even though the crew sent messages that the attack they had reported was a not an attack after all.
I learned this today [1] and it puts McNamara in a different light, although the lessons in the movie are still very valid.
[1] The lies of The Fog of War (http://www.slate.com/id/2092916/), linked to by TFA
When I make a serious career level mistake in judgment, software projects might fail. Someone might even lose their job. When people of certain levels make the same order of errors, many people may die. We're both human. I haven't the fortitude to make those decisions (even if I was in the position to), but someone has to and sometimes they are wrong.
Some of them hang banners on aircraft carriers and pretend they are right anyway. Some of them humbly admit they were wrong. The people still die. Bummer.
Some of them hang banners on aircraft carriers and pretend they are right anyway. Some of them humbly admit they were wrong. The people still die. Bummer.
You both own your mistakes, you own yours, mcNamara owns his.
I give the man props for genuinely being sorry but that does not absolve him from the damage that he's done. I'd hate to have been in his shoes though, I can't imagine what that kind of guilt would do to your nights rest.
I give the man props for genuinely being sorry but that does not absolve him from the damage that he's done. I'd hate to have been in his shoes though, I can't imagine what that kind of guilt would do to your nights rest.
So, you're comparing a software error to the act of initiating aggression and killing millions of people, including 58K of your countrymen????
If so, you need to put things in perspective, imho.
If so, you need to put things in perspective, imho.
I think he was aiming at contrasting the two.
I get that. But imho it's a tiny bit distasteful contrasting them, isn't it?
The total number of Vietnamese who were killed was to the tune of 3 million. That's a "semi-Holocaust". No one would compare a software glitch to the Holocaust, right?
The total number of Vietnamese who were killed was to the tune of 3 million. That's a "semi-Holocaust". No one would compare a software glitch to the Holocaust, right?
Ok, let me put the right hand brace on this one before it gets away. My point was simply that humans are going to make mistakes in the course of their jobs. People can be hurt by these mistakes. The difference is a matter of scale, and not intent.
People want to make McNamara out to be Evil with the big e. I think he probably wasn't. His actions later in life point to this. The idea is that if we accept that people make mistakes (sometimes HUGE ones) we can prevent a few of them in the future by learning from the past. If we'd really listened to McNamara its quite possible we might have avoided Iraq. If we just call him evil and forget about it, we miss the wisdom.
People want to make McNamara out to be Evil with the big e. I think he probably wasn't. His actions later in life point to this. The idea is that if we accept that people make mistakes (sometimes HUGE ones) we can prevent a few of them in the future by learning from the past. If we'd really listened to McNamara its quite possible we might have avoided Iraq. If we just call him evil and forget about it, we miss the wisdom.
I entirely agree that one should try to learn from the past. I disagree on the "scale x intent" issue, though. The initiation of aggression is immoral, in my view. Attacking someone who did not attack you is wrong regardless of the death toll. In this case, I believe that intent does matter.
Sadly, McNamara would probably have been remembered as a great man had he left his office after JFK was killed. After all, McNamara played an important role in nuclear deterrence, during the Cuban missile crisis, etc. Too bad he was foolish enough to help start an unwinnable, useless war in Indochina.
Sadly, McNamara would probably have been remembered as a great man had he left his office after JFK was killed. After all, McNamara played an important role in nuclear deterrence, during the Cuban missile crisis, etc. Too bad he was foolish enough to help start an unwinnable, useless war in Indochina.
So, there is a line somewhere between excusable and inexcusable mistakes. Who gets to decide where that line is drawn?
I guess when you're co-responsible for willingly killing a couple of hundred thousand civilians the bar has been met.
Seriously, the option to 'be sorry' is there for everybody but there certainly isn't an obligation on the part of the victims to let it go.
And they - the victims - should be the ones to decide where that line gets drawn, clearly.
Being sorry just makes you a little bit less of a jerk.
Seriously, the option to 'be sorry' is there for everybody but there certainly isn't an obligation on the part of the victims to let it go.
And they - the victims - should be the ones to decide where that line gets drawn, clearly.
Being sorry just makes you a little bit less of a jerk.
North Vietnam did not initiate aggression, the U.S. did. In fact, the Vietnam war was an undeclared one. How ironic. The longest war was never declared officially.
About mistakes, let us see:
- having the CIA planting a brutal, oppressive puppet government in Saigon.
- when puppet government fails, invent a fictitious act of aggression, lie to the Congress, bomb South Vietnam to hell, and send in thousands of American boys to die for nothing.
- years later, after 58K Americans and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians have been killed, write a book saying "sorry, it was a mistake".
Yeah. It's really hard to draw the line here...
If there had been a threat against the U.S., then yes, decisions would have to be made, and unavoidably mistakes would have been made, unfortunately. However, in Vietnam there never was a threat to the U.S., except in the "brilliant" minds of the "domino-theorists" who never bothered to try to understand the enemy and its motivations.
About mistakes, let us see:
- having the CIA planting a brutal, oppressive puppet government in Saigon.
- when puppet government fails, invent a fictitious act of aggression, lie to the Congress, bomb South Vietnam to hell, and send in thousands of American boys to die for nothing.
- years later, after 58K Americans and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians have been killed, write a book saying "sorry, it was a mistake".
Yeah. It's really hard to draw the line here...
If there had been a threat against the U.S., then yes, decisions would have to be made, and unavoidably mistakes would have been made, unfortunately. However, in Vietnam there never was a threat to the U.S., except in the "brilliant" minds of the "domino-theorists" who never bothered to try to understand the enemy and its motivations.
It was a different era. Smart, diligent, well-meaning people, chosen through the best mechanisms of election and promotion available, did things we now understand were awful.
It's easy to judge from here and now, but in a similar position of responsibility, are you sure you would not make equivalent mistakes either way -- too much aggression, or too much passivity? WW2, Hitler, Stalin were still the kinds of threats on people's minds -- where less than 20 years earlier failure to engage and deter early had resulted in the death of tens of millions.
Communism loudly claimed it was the irresistible wave of the future and was showing the military power to make the claim credible. Soviet H-Bombs. A brutal and bloody stalemate in Korea. Tanks rolling into eastern Europe; Soviet satellites crashing into Wisconsin; nuclear missiles in Cuba!
And if it hadn't been Kennedy at the helm -- it would have been Nixon! And if not LBJ -- it would have been Barry "lob a [nuke] into the bathroom of the Kremlin" Goldwater!
We can chuckle at the "sorry" "mistakes" of the "domino-theorists" with as many "scare-quotes" as we like from our "comfortable" "decades-later" "safe" perspective, but the fact that there was a large consensus of smart, non-evil, "right-thinking" people behind most U.S. cold-war military actions should prompt a little humility in passing judgment.
Finally, peace requires some measure of forgiveness. To imply there's still some score to settle 40 years later -- some punishment McNamara (if he were alive) and peers still deserve -- is the attitude behind never-ending war and strife.
It's easy to judge from here and now, but in a similar position of responsibility, are you sure you would not make equivalent mistakes either way -- too much aggression, or too much passivity? WW2, Hitler, Stalin were still the kinds of threats on people's minds -- where less than 20 years earlier failure to engage and deter early had resulted in the death of tens of millions.
Communism loudly claimed it was the irresistible wave of the future and was showing the military power to make the claim credible. Soviet H-Bombs. A brutal and bloody stalemate in Korea. Tanks rolling into eastern Europe; Soviet satellites crashing into Wisconsin; nuclear missiles in Cuba!
And if it hadn't been Kennedy at the helm -- it would have been Nixon! And if not LBJ -- it would have been Barry "lob a [nuke] into the bathroom of the Kremlin" Goldwater!
We can chuckle at the "sorry" "mistakes" of the "domino-theorists" with as many "scare-quotes" as we like from our "comfortable" "decades-later" "safe" perspective, but the fact that there was a large consensus of smart, non-evil, "right-thinking" people behind most U.S. cold-war military actions should prompt a little humility in passing judgment.
Finally, peace requires some measure of forgiveness. To imply there's still some score to settle 40 years later -- some punishment McNamara (if he were alive) and peers still deserve -- is the attitude behind never-ending war and strife.
> We can chuckle at the "sorry" "mistakes" of the "domino-theorists"
Umm, what "mistakes"? There was a domino plan.
Yes, the "not-communists" were brutal thugs. However, the communists were, in fact, worse. (That's not to say that we opposed them in the best way, but it's also not obvious how we could have actually done significantly better.)
Perfection is rarely an option, either in choosing what to do or how to do it.
One can argue that this was not of our biz, but it's unclear why the same standard shouldn't apply to WWII, South Africa, the Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur, or even inner cities.
There is no bright line here.
Umm, what "mistakes"? There was a domino plan.
Yes, the "not-communists" were brutal thugs. However, the communists were, in fact, worse. (That's not to say that we opposed them in the best way, but it's also not obvious how we could have actually done significantly better.)
Perfection is rarely an option, either in choosing what to do or how to do it.
One can argue that this was not of our biz, but it's unclear why the same standard shouldn't apply to WWII, South Africa, the Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur, or even inner cities.
There is no bright line here.
Please. Even McNamara himself admitted that the "domino theory" was retarded. The U.S. should stop intervening in other people's business, period. Yes, the communists were brutal thugs, but it was their country and they should deal with it. They should have the freedom to make their own mistakes and pay for it with their own lives. I don't see why American boys have to pay the ultimate price to solve a crisis which does not concern them.
Oh, and if the communists were brutal thugs, so were the Americans. For example, CIA's Operation Phoenix (which killed over 60,000 Vietnamese) was the bloodiest operation against political targets ever, second only to the Nazis' terror campaigns in occupied Europe.
You should travel to other countries. The U.S. is perceived as the biggest thug in the world, right now. There's no moral high ground after Uncle Sam's thugs butchered so many innocent people overseas.
Oh, and if the communists were brutal thugs, so were the Americans. For example, CIA's Operation Phoenix (which killed over 60,000 Vietnamese) was the bloodiest operation against political targets ever, second only to the Nazis' terror campaigns in occupied Europe.
You should travel to other countries. The U.S. is perceived as the biggest thug in the world, right now. There's no moral high ground after Uncle Sam's thugs butchered so many innocent people overseas.
> I don't see why American boys have to pay the ultimate price to solve a crisis which does not concern them.
Fair enough, but where is this line? I asked about WWII, but there are plenty of other instances where US got involved or folks argued that we should have. Which side is Rwanda on? How about Darfur? The Balkans? US inner cities? The pre-civil war US South?
> You should travel to other countries.
Do you really want to compare passports?
I spend a lot of time outside the US. (I've got three more weeks planned this year alone.)
> The U.S. is perceived as the biggest thug in the world, right now.
That's because the rest of the world feels safe.
Fair enough, but where is this line? I asked about WWII, but there are plenty of other instances where US got involved or folks argued that we should have. Which side is Rwanda on? How about Darfur? The Balkans? US inner cities? The pre-civil war US South?
> You should travel to other countries.
Do you really want to compare passports?
I spend a lot of time outside the US. (I've got three more weeks planned this year alone.)
> The U.S. is perceived as the biggest thug in the world, right now.
That's because the rest of the world feels safe.
"Fair enough, but where is this line?"
That's the difficult part, indeed. In WW2, the U.S. was attacked. The U.S. did not initiate aggression. Of course, it may be argued that the American foreign policy in the Pacific in the 1930s forced Japan to war.
In WW2 it was quite obvious there was a threat to the U.S., and to the entire world. I don't want to claim that it was "the good war", but the U.S. won it without losing moral authority.
Being the world police is an ungrateful job. If you act, people will accuse you of interventionism. If you don't act, people will accuse you of siding with genocidal thugs. It's tough.
But look at what happened in Somalia in 1993. The trauma of that incident led the Clinton administration to avoid intervening in Rwanda. In the 1990s the Europeans were unable to solve the mess in the Balkans until the U.S. intervened. There are many ways of intervening, some smarter than others.
The intervention in Vietnam was poorly-led. Both sides adopted an insane "war of attrition" doctrine. The U.S. needed to kill the entire population to win that war. It's kind of stupid to kill the people one's supposed to be defending. Some claim that it would have been wiser to invade North Vietnam and engage in a more conventional warfare in which the U.S. military power could be leveraged. I suppose the U.S. government was too afraid that China would intervene if that were the case, as it happened in Korea. Sometimes one needs to choose the lesser of two evils...
Europe owes its stability to 50+ years of American protection. The European anti-Americanism is blasé, ungrateful, and naive. Right after 9/11 the western world was with the U.S. and approved the war in Afghanistan. It all changed when the U.S. decide to invade Iraq unilaterally. The perception of the U.S. as a thug is not entirely unjustified.
That's the difficult part, indeed. In WW2, the U.S. was attacked. The U.S. did not initiate aggression. Of course, it may be argued that the American foreign policy in the Pacific in the 1930s forced Japan to war.
In WW2 it was quite obvious there was a threat to the U.S., and to the entire world. I don't want to claim that it was "the good war", but the U.S. won it without losing moral authority.
Being the world police is an ungrateful job. If you act, people will accuse you of interventionism. If you don't act, people will accuse you of siding with genocidal thugs. It's tough.
But look at what happened in Somalia in 1993. The trauma of that incident led the Clinton administration to avoid intervening in Rwanda. In the 1990s the Europeans were unable to solve the mess in the Balkans until the U.S. intervened. There are many ways of intervening, some smarter than others.
The intervention in Vietnam was poorly-led. Both sides adopted an insane "war of attrition" doctrine. The U.S. needed to kill the entire population to win that war. It's kind of stupid to kill the people one's supposed to be defending. Some claim that it would have been wiser to invade North Vietnam and engage in a more conventional warfare in which the U.S. military power could be leveraged. I suppose the U.S. government was too afraid that China would intervene if that were the case, as it happened in Korea. Sometimes one needs to choose the lesser of two evils...
Europe owes its stability to 50+ years of American protection. The European anti-Americanism is blasé, ungrateful, and naive. Right after 9/11 the western world was with the U.S. and approved the war in Afghanistan. It all changed when the U.S. decide to invade Iraq unilaterally. The perception of the U.S. as a thug is not entirely unjustified.
> In WW2, the U.S. was attacked.
Not by Germany or Italy. (Yes, they were attacking ships that were supplying the UK, but that's not really an attack on the US.)
> In WW2 it was quite obvious there was a threat to the U.S., and to the entire world.
Revisionist twaddle. I think that WWII was a "good war", but by the standards you asserted above, you don't. If you don't like the results of your standards, you have to change them, not ignore them.
> It's tough.
It was easy just a message ago.
Decisions can't be made in hindsight.
> The U.S. needed to kill the entire population to win [the Vietnam] war.
Nope. The US merely needed to consolidate the Tet gains, which wiped out the VC. The NVA wasn't ready at the time. (What? You think that Tet was a US military defeat? It wasn't. It was a US political defeat in the US, but that's a different argument.)
I'm not going to call you on the back-pedaling but I do suggest a bit of research.
Not by Germany or Italy. (Yes, they were attacking ships that were supplying the UK, but that's not really an attack on the US.)
> In WW2 it was quite obvious there was a threat to the U.S., and to the entire world.
Revisionist twaddle. I think that WWII was a "good war", but by the standards you asserted above, you don't. If you don't like the results of your standards, you have to change them, not ignore them.
> It's tough.
It was easy just a message ago.
Decisions can't be made in hindsight.
> The U.S. needed to kill the entire population to win [the Vietnam] war.
Nope. The US merely needed to consolidate the Tet gains, which wiped out the VC. The NVA wasn't ready at the time. (What? You think that Tet was a US military defeat? It wasn't. It was a US political defeat in the US, but that's a different argument.)
I'm not going to call you on the back-pedaling but I do suggest a bit of research.
"Nope. The US merely needed to consolidate the Tet gains, which wiped out the VC. The NVA wasn't ready at the time."
That seems over-optimistic to me. Yes, the VC took a beating during the Tet Offensive, but Khe Sahn was close to ending up like Dien Bien Phu. There was combat inside the U.S. embassy in Saigon. The U.S. soldiers were demoralized and did not want to fight in Vietnam because they saw no point in doing so. The flow of NVA soldiers and supplies along the Ho Chi Mihn trail was never stopped though it was bombed to hell.
Sure, the U.S. military could have consolidated the Tet gains, but at what political cost?! Instead of fighting at a tactical level and failing, the U.S. military could have fought at a strategic level. One great idea would be to destroy the enemy's logistics. Though they bombed the railroad in the North, the U.S. only mined the Haiphong harbour in 1972, when the war was already lost. They should have focused on mining harbors in 1965 so that the Soviet SAM missiles, AK-47s, RPGs and land mines could never get to the VC and NVA forces.
Instead, the U.S. decided to fight at a tactical level. Burning villages and villagers. Spreading agent orange all over to kill vegetation, and condemning generations to come to cancer and other illnesses.
Last but not least, there's no comparison between WW2 and Vietnam. The U.S. fought the Nazis and the Japs to liberate occupied countries. In Vietnam there was no occupation by an external country. The U.S. messed up with a sovereign country's internal problems, and it lost the war it could have won. Sure, the Soviets were playing a role behind the curtains, but the U.S. did the same during 1954-1965.
That seems over-optimistic to me. Yes, the VC took a beating during the Tet Offensive, but Khe Sahn was close to ending up like Dien Bien Phu. There was combat inside the U.S. embassy in Saigon. The U.S. soldiers were demoralized and did not want to fight in Vietnam because they saw no point in doing so. The flow of NVA soldiers and supplies along the Ho Chi Mihn trail was never stopped though it was bombed to hell.
Sure, the U.S. military could have consolidated the Tet gains, but at what political cost?! Instead of fighting at a tactical level and failing, the U.S. military could have fought at a strategic level. One great idea would be to destroy the enemy's logistics. Though they bombed the railroad in the North, the U.S. only mined the Haiphong harbour in 1972, when the war was already lost. They should have focused on mining harbors in 1965 so that the Soviet SAM missiles, AK-47s, RPGs and land mines could never get to the VC and NVA forces.
Instead, the U.S. decided to fight at a tactical level. Burning villages and villagers. Spreading agent orange all over to kill vegetation, and condemning generations to come to cancer and other illnesses.
Last but not least, there's no comparison between WW2 and Vietnam. The U.S. fought the Nazis and the Japs to liberate occupied countries. In Vietnam there was no occupation by an external country. The U.S. messed up with a sovereign country's internal problems, and it lost the war it could have won. Sure, the Soviets were playing a role behind the curtains, but the U.S. did the same during 1954-1965.
> Yes, the VC took a beating during the Tet Offensive, but Khe Sahn was close to ending up like Dien Bien Phu. There was combat inside the U.S. embassy in Saigon.
So? There are always some close calls. The overall result is what counts. Tet destroyed the VC and the NVA wasn't ready.
> The U.S. soldiers were demoralized and did not want to fight in Vietnam because they saw no point in doing so.
That didn't happen/start because of conditions "on the ground". That happened in the US. You remember the US - it's where the troops came from.
> Sure, the U.S. military could have consolidated the Tet gains, but at what political cost?
You're assuming that the politics flowed from Vietnam back to the US. It didn't. Tet was judged a loss in the US while it was happening. Cronkite called it a loss.
Now, if you want to argue that the US would have won except for US politics and that would have been better, fine, but that's a very different argument.
> Last but not least, there's no comparison between WW2 and Vietnam.
Sure there is. Neither one was any of our biz.
> In Vietnam there was no occupation by an external country.
Where do you think that the NVA came from?
It was an invasion just like the North taking back the South during the US Civil War.
So? There are always some close calls. The overall result is what counts. Tet destroyed the VC and the NVA wasn't ready.
> The U.S. soldiers were demoralized and did not want to fight in Vietnam because they saw no point in doing so.
That didn't happen/start because of conditions "on the ground". That happened in the US. You remember the US - it's where the troops came from.
> Sure, the U.S. military could have consolidated the Tet gains, but at what political cost?
You're assuming that the politics flowed from Vietnam back to the US. It didn't. Tet was judged a loss in the US while it was happening. Cronkite called it a loss.
Now, if you want to argue that the US would have won except for US politics and that would have been better, fine, but that's a very different argument.
> Last but not least, there's no comparison between WW2 and Vietnam.
Sure there is. Neither one was any of our biz.
> In Vietnam there was no occupation by an external country.
Where do you think that the NVA came from?
It was an invasion just like the North taking back the South during the US Civil War.
The U.S. should stop intervening in other people's business, period.
Sounds like a great blurb for a breakfast cereal but not much of a policy. How would you handle global trade? Competition between nations for resources? Ideological world-wide battles that run hot or cold, like we had with communism or Nazism? Struggles to control pollution?
It was true 80 years ago but it's even more true today: everything is all mixed up. Americans are everywhere, making deals on everything. People in Indiana sell things to people in China via E-bay (and vice-versa). The world is simply too complex. Everybody's business is ours (and vice-versa). When we quit in Vietnam we left a lot more people to die at the hands of the communists than died during our intervention.
History does not lend itself to slogans.
Sounds like a great blurb for a breakfast cereal but not much of a policy. How would you handle global trade? Competition between nations for resources? Ideological world-wide battles that run hot or cold, like we had with communism or Nazism? Struggles to control pollution?
It was true 80 years ago but it's even more true today: everything is all mixed up. Americans are everywhere, making deals on everything. People in Indiana sell things to people in China via E-bay (and vice-versa). The world is simply too complex. Everybody's business is ours (and vice-versa). When we quit in Vietnam we left a lot more people to die at the hands of the communists than died during our intervention.
History does not lend itself to slogans.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. We haven't agreed on what we mean by "intervention".
When I say that the U.S. should stop intervening in other people's business, I mean that the U.S. should stop planting brutal dictatorships around the world. These may satisfy Washington's interests in the short term, but they're a disaster in the long term. In the 1950s a left-wing government was elected in Iran, and the CIA and the MI6 orchestrated a coupe to depose the democratically elected government and plant a dictatorship. Same happened in Chile in the 1970s. Sure, back then there was a threat of the having the Cold War turning very, very hot indeed, and sometimes pawns have to be sacrificed. But people don't easily forget. This sort of Uncle Sam's "baby-sitting" prevents the people from doing mistakes on their own, and gives them a common enemy, the U.S.. Let them fail on their own. Especially so if their government was democratically elected.
There are smarter ways of fighting for resources. I think the 1991 Gulf War was a prime example. Vietnam was an act of insanity that should never be repeated. If you're going to waste an entire generation of American boys and tear the fabric of the American society, the least you should do is make sure the war is worth fighting.
When I say that the U.S. should stop intervening in other people's business, I mean that the U.S. should stop planting brutal dictatorships around the world. These may satisfy Washington's interests in the short term, but they're a disaster in the long term. In the 1950s a left-wing government was elected in Iran, and the CIA and the MI6 orchestrated a coupe to depose the democratically elected government and plant a dictatorship. Same happened in Chile in the 1970s. Sure, back then there was a threat of the having the Cold War turning very, very hot indeed, and sometimes pawns have to be sacrificed. But people don't easily forget. This sort of Uncle Sam's "baby-sitting" prevents the people from doing mistakes on their own, and gives them a common enemy, the U.S.. Let them fail on their own. Especially so if their government was democratically elected.
There are smarter ways of fighting for resources. I think the 1991 Gulf War was a prime example. Vietnam was an act of insanity that should never be repeated. If you're going to waste an entire generation of American boys and tear the fabric of the American society, the least you should do is make sure the war is worth fighting.
There's a long thread of conversation here that we can have another day.
I'd simply like to point out that you are using quite a bit of hyperbole. The Vietnam War did not "waste an entire generation" -- casualty figures were nowhere near that high. And "tearing the fabric of American society" sounds like something you'd hear in a political rally. American society's fabric -- whatever that means -- is doing just fine. Enough with the naval gazing.
When I run into phrases like that, either in other people or my own writing, it's a red flag that there's quite a bit of emotion lurking there somewhere. Just something for you to think about.
I'd simply like to point out that you are using quite a bit of hyperbole. The Vietnam War did not "waste an entire generation" -- casualty figures were nowhere near that high. And "tearing the fabric of American society" sounds like something you'd hear in a political rally. American society's fabric -- whatever that means -- is doing just fine. Enough with the naval gazing.
When I run into phrases like that, either in other people or my own writing, it's a red flag that there's quite a bit of emotion lurking there somewhere. Just something for you to think about.
May he rot and burn in hell, and may all the world forget he ever lived.
We went to Iraq, didn't we? I'd say we forgot him straightaway.
Good point. Only fools fall into the same trap twice.
Millions of Americans served in Vietnam. I think the veterans will never forget nor forgive McNamara. He shall be remembered as the architect of one of the greatest crimes in History.
Millions of Americans served in Vietnam. I think the veterans will never forget nor forgive McNamara. He shall be remembered as the architect of one of the greatest crimes in History.
> Good point. Only fools fall into the same trap twice
Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again
Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again
Chomsky on McNamara (1995):
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare01.htm
Chomsky is rather ferociously critical of McNamara, as expected.
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare01.htm
Chomsky is rather ferociously critical of McNamara, as expected.
Ho Chi Minh is responsible for the Vietnam catastrophe. He would have seen the Vietnamese people go extinct before losing that war.
And, like in North Korea, they run a big song and dance on how they have to reunify their country, but thats not it at all. It's Communism first. Have to reunify under Communism
Until then, the hell with the country.
The Vietnam war was a triumph of evil. The bad guys won, and lots of people here helped them.
And, like in North Korea, they run a big song and dance on how they have to reunify their country, but thats not it at all. It's Communism first. Have to reunify under Communism
Until then, the hell with the country.
The Vietnam war was a triumph of evil. The bad guys won, and lots of people here helped them.
Many despise him for the things he had done during vietnam, but I have great respect for the wisdom he decided to share later in life. We need more people sharing the wisdom of their errors.