Reply With QuoteI saw this a few years back. Very insightful.
McNamara documentary "The Fog of War"
I had watched the film documentary "The Fog of War" which is an interview of Robert S. McNamera which was released in 2003 I think...had watched it before and am watching it again. It is very good, and full of archivall video footage of WWII and the Vietnam war, as well as the talking and thoughts of his life of Robert McNamera...one of the most influential-decision men of the Vietnam War.
I saw this a few years back. Very insightful.
I saw it the first night of its limited release here in New York. I thought enough of the documentary that I bought it on Amazon about a year ago just to have a copy. (I'm not a movie guy and it's a rare event when I buy one.) Always been a fan of Errol Morris' work.
Excellent doco. So many wise lessons that no doubt were never learned.
I bought it and found it to be a very good documentary.
A total justification of his catastrophic decision making, his imperial control and lack of understanding of the issues of war or military. MILLIONS of people died, were executed, put into slave labor camps, driven into the sea in small boats, because of that man and his policies. That documentary is merely an attempt to white wash the results of his actions. he has nothing to offer as a model for the future or an excuse for the past.
I recommend reading On Strategy; a Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War by Summers to get a glimpse of the damage that man was responsible for.
I agree with you to a certain degree, particularly in how the documentary broached (or didn't) the topic of the so-called "Whiz Kids" and where that approach to decision making really got us, then--and still gets us, now.Originally Posted by Jacknola
Thanks Jack,
I took your advice and ordered the book by Summers, and also I read up on Summers credentials. I think there is plenty of "blame" (for lack of a better word) to go around for not only Vietnam policy but all wars. McNamera was chosen by JFK from what I understand? Personally, I hold LBJ more accountable for most failures of US policy in Vietnam, but that is just me, and my opinion counts for squat. To me the part on Mcnamera where he was serving in WWII under Curtis LeMay was interesting.
I am going to have to look for that one. I am NOT of a Fan of McNamera and agree with you sir.
Seen it, you Jack, I took it as an apology, to me he seemed full of regret of what he'd done. Pretty crazy the kind of people we had running that war: three micromanagers that didn't understand the fight in Westmoreland, McNamera, and LBJ.
Going to have to agree with this....
you may also wish to read about "whiz kids" and then think about receiving directed decisions in the jungle in the middle of a war where the decisions were the results of some research analyst sitting half a world away, imploring the people at the tip of the spear for more numbers so they could feed their data manipulators and have them spit out even more directed "best ways" to go about the war. Some say this was the initial impetus for body count numbers.
He made war fighting a business with PPBS - and while the principles of PPBS may still work, you cannot run a war by committee or at the behest of a bunch of research analysts.
Look up Project 100,000 and wonder about what it was like to serve in the military, as VN wound down and ended, by losing many people who could have contributed to the military who were pushed/got out, while those who had met a lowered standard, IN SOME CASES, stayed in the army and made it difficult to get anything accomplished in a VOLAR army with no money to do training; maintain equipment; practice warfighting skills; etc.
Look up Project Dye Marker or McNamara's Line - wonder what it took in terms of lives and resources to initiate it - never to be finished - and what exactly it accomplished.
The guy never believed in VN, yet supported the political decisions associated with it - his heart wasn't in making it work and he did not have the guts to stand up and tell it like it was.
I have a question or two for you guys, which I am sure we can discuss as adults, though none of us may have solid answers for.
I understand the dissatisfaction with McNamera and LBJ micromanaging the VN war, and also "tying the hands" of the military in not allowing the military to run the war without the restrictions which the politicians put on the military.
However, reading only the few pages (online) of the book that Jacknola suggested, I noted that Summers said something to the effect that LBJ saw no reason to, and did not attempt to get the civilian world of the USA to support the VN war (as had happend in WWII). He/they thought a military war could be fought without the civilian backing as had happened in WWII.
question one: Isn't the USA making basically the same "error" (for lack of a better word) currently in Afghanistan (and also did in Iraq) that LBJ and McNamera did, but not "mobilizing" the homefront, for an all out "war" as happened in Vietnam? Summers I believe noted that LBJ and his whiz kids were afraid if they mobilized the civilian world back home, it might lead to total war with China, Russia and using Nukes, paraphrasing Summers. (I understand there is much more civilian support for the troops now than there was in VN, but we are a long way from the WWII mobilization and civilian measures of rationing, alien detention camps, bond drives, bomber, ship and tank factories etc working 24/7 )
question two: who to blame? I understand that McNamera didn't have the spine to stand up to LBJ, and let himself be railroaded by him....but McNamera was appointed by JFK, and after the military coup in Vietnam and JFK assassination, you have LBJ, McNamera, the top commanders in the field in Nam, the purely political advisors like Kissinger, etc. Is the blame shared equally by LBJ, Kissinger, Westmoreland, Abrams, etc? Could not any of these men stood up to LBJ and/or Nixon and got the military free rein in military matters in VN? Or does the fault lie more on McNamera? if so why?
As we learn from Fog of War McNamera was always about statistics from the very beginning and he tells you that, that was doubled under his mentorship by Lemay. LBJ liked to be involved, he was a Texan and liked his hands on things. And then they chose Westy, who if put in charge of a conventional war would have been perfect...but the man spent more time playing tennis at the french sport club than he did trying to understand the North. And to top it off he just wasn't a thinker, the Army failed Westmoreland by continuing to promote him without forcing him to do the PMEs at Leavenworth, Carlisle and McNair.
I agree, but it didn't start with him and his cohorts. Bad decisions were begun right after the Japanese were defeated in Vietnam and we allowed the French back in.
McNamara claimed that no "national wide" efforts would be necessary to win the war. They tried to make Korean War v2.0 "Contanment of communism" not "military victory" was the target.
1question: Rumsfeld is a typical wizz kid and he came from the same pool McNamara had. So plenty of same mistakes were made ("statistic numbers" as "measures of success" etc.). "Mobilizing home front" was not one of them. I really don't understand why somebody would talk about it. There was no critical danger for american nation in either case, and mobilization have to be reserved for critical emergencies. Of course if you mind inevitable political overuses of executive powers.
2questionolitical system is designed in such manner that people who could oppose populist or partizan decisions end up outside, in opposition, since neither of parties wants "technocrats" inside. If to allow such technocrats, who think from "usability for nation" POV, to speak and use arguments, than probably 90% of Senate and government decisions would have to be reversed
.
Posting Permissions
