Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Thursday, July 9, 2009

 

 

Today, just a few nice words about Robert McNamara.

The standard way to mark McNamara's Tuesday passing is to note his disastrous stint as a prime architect of the Vietnam war during the Lyndon Johnson era, and to lament the fact that he failed to cop to his mistakes until around 1995, long after 58,000 Americans had paid for his mistakes with their lives. It's also worth noting, of course, that copping to such mistakes long after the fact is essentially a worthless exercise anyway, because people will inevitably wonder why the person didn't speak up when he was still on the job and had the chance, at least in theory, to correct the policy errors. Contemporary case in point: Colin Powell.

I'll stipulate to McNamara's tragic elegy, which is best captured in the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, particularly when the former whiz-kid Defense secretary admits, "We saw Vietnam as an element of the Cold War, not what they saw it as: a civil war. We were wrong." And yet, if only to provide a counterintuitive view, I'll argue that McNamara also deserves a bit of praise for the time of crisis when he was right.

That would be the Cuban missile crisis.

In October 1962, McNamara played a pivotal role in steering the world away from nuclear war. In newly declassified materials and in White House recordings - as amply documented by Michael Dobbs in his groundbreaking 2008 book One Minute To Midnight - it is clear that McNamara repeatedly thwarted the military hawks who were thirsting to bomb the Soviet missile sites in Cuba, follow up with a ground invasion, and risk a nuclear exchange that they were convinced America would "win."

When the hawks, led by Air Force chief of staff Curtis LeMay, first argued for a swift military response to the Soviets, the Kennedy administration had nothing to counter that option. It was McNamara who came up with the idea of initiating a naval blockade of Cuba (they decided to call it a "quarantine," which didn't sound as militant), at the very least to slow the crisis, provide JFK with some breathing space, and offer the Soviets a chance to halt their missile-laden ships and send them back home.

Then, when the blockade went into effect, McNamara sought to ensure that any standoff on the high seas would not result in the sinking of a Soviet ship - in itself, the kind of incident that could have triggered a chain reaction and led to a nuclear exchange, given the extreme tensions of the moment. His argument was that the blockade should be viewed as a political chess move, an invitation for Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev to back off. When George Anderson, the U.S. chief of naval operations told McNamara that the American ships would probably "fire into the rudder" of any unresponsive Soviet ship, McNamara shot back, "You're not going to fire a single shot at anything without my express permission, is that clear?"

McNamara's moves seriously ticked off the military generals, who already felt that he harbored "pacifist views." LeMay would wonder, to his colleagues, whether America would be any worse off "if Khrushchev were secretary of Defense." LeMay - who later served as a model for George C. Scott's General Buck Turgidson in the film Dr. Strangelove - was particularly peeved by McNamara's refusal to accept the benefits of a nuclear exchange with the Soviets.

As recounted in Dobbs' book, McNamara challenged LeMay by asking, "Who will win such a war?" And LeMay replied, "We will, of course. The country that ends up with the greatest nuclear weapons wins."

To which McNamara, serving as LeMay's civilian overseer, replied: "But if we lose ten million people, what's the point of winning?"

Vietnam aside, let's thank him for that.
 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 12:58 PM  Permalink | 79 comments
Comments   
Posted 01:31 PM, 07/09/2009
SteveMG
I was too young to know everything about Vietnam. But I remember that one of the complaints was that the war was being run by the White House. I wonder if that exchange with the CNO had anything to do with it.
Posted 02:21 PM, 07/09/2009
Frank the Tank
"Vietnam aside"? McNamara gets the bird from me on his way out. Ya can't go changing what these people have done just because they're now a corpse.
Posted 02:22 PM, 07/09/2009
Logathis
How many other titans of American history have owned up to their mistakes? The list is regrettably short. McNamara is the perfect example of the effects of being in the presidential bubble. A smart and energetic person, he nonetheless made many mistakes of judgement. He couldn't see the world for what it truly was, only what he wanted it to be. And all who saw differently were wrong. But, at least he realized his many errors, and apologized for them. Some people criticize the sincerity or depth of his apologies. But really, how do you apologize for the deaths of millions?
Posted 02:44 PM, 07/09/2009
bobby-d
Logathis - I agree with most of your statement. That is - Vietnam was a mistake, and McNamara held a good chunk of responsibility for that mistake (certainly not all of it; he was not the president, afterall), but he was not responsible for the deaths of millions. The best estimates place the total number of deaths in Vietnam at about 58,000. I think the point Dick makes about the Cuban missile crisis is a good one - McNamara's actions during those 13 days may very well have saved tens of millions.
Posted 02:55 PM, 07/09/2009
Yersinia Pestis
Bobby, 58,000 is the number of Americans who died in Vietnam. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of North and South Vietnamese deaths were over a million. But if he saved 10 million American lives (plus who knows how many Russian ones, as well as the inevitable collateral damage from fallout, etc.) - then he gets some credit for that. He was an early casualty of "Smartest Guys in the Room Syndrome", but few people are all bad (or good).
Posted 03:05 PM, 07/09/2009
p-diddy
The analogy between McNamara and Powell isn't really fair. At least Powell spoke out during the war (unlike McNamara), if not while he was part of the Bush administration. Also, Vietnam involved many more deaths than Iraq. Still, Powell should have been more vocal when he was in a position to change policy from within.
Posted 03:11 PM, 07/09/2009
p-diddy
Yersinia - How did the invasion of Vietnam save American lives? That would have to involve some far-fetched scenarios. Also, when the Kennedy administration called Kruschev's bluff during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he didn't really save American lives, unless you believe the USSR would have nuked the U.S. I don't think they would have; such an action would have assured mutual destruction. Ironically, the U.S. is now pushing hard to build missile bases in Ukraine.
Posted 03:31 PM, 07/09/2009
jmc
I can't wait for Dick Cheney: the upside. You never know.
Posted 03:39 PM, 07/09/2009
tom - wilmington, de
Gee...McNamara engineers a war of choice resulting in the death of 58,000 American soldiers costing Billions at a time when $1 Billion was a lot of money, and he has a "tragic elegy". Compare that to Polman's writings and liberal posting about Iraq and 54,000 fewer deaths. Maybe McNamara should just have blockaded Hanoi which would have prevented the North from receiving Russian arms shipments and saved a lot of those 58,000 dead US soldiers. Funny how Polman never mentions the fabricated casualty counts reported by McNamara's minions in their battle reports, making it seem as if fewer dead and wounded than actually occurred. It is not just the engineering of the war, but the misrepresentation of battle casualties that is McNamara's legacy...Cuban missile crisis aside.
Posted 03:48 PM, 07/09/2009
tom - wilmington, de
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, from USA Today..."Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election." Later in the article they mention that none of this is politically motivated, but is done by formulas set in place with little room for manipulation. Purely coincidence.
Posted 04:00 PM, 07/09/2009
USA#1
Wonder if that is the same formula they used to give the most Tax payer money back to during the GWB years. Approx 85% of the states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes are Red States. I’m sure politics has nothing to do with any of this.
Posted 04:02 PM, 07/09/2009
SteveMG
I can understand the thinking at the beginning of the Vietnam War, that the Russians were trying to establish an Iron Curtain in SOutheast Asia. I think that's what McNamara was getting at when he refers to misunderstanding the Civil War in Vietnam. I don't when McNamara (or others) realized it was a civil war. That is the mistake at the basis of the Vietnam War, where serious men had a serious decision to make. To this day, I don't think it can be known what course history would have taken if South Vietnam had fallen easily in 1964, instead of ten years later. Contrast that with Iraq, when not-so-serious men started a war that was not vital to our national security, and showed complete indifference to the strategic position of the US. When the same men who counselled against extending Desert Storm to Baghdad ignored their own warnings and refused to plan for the easily forseen consequences of decapitating Iraq while relegating the fight against our primary enemies to the back burner, I think comparisons with Vietnam are pointless.
Posted 04:08 PM, 07/09/2009
TeaParty2009
Meanwhile, back on THIS Ranch: Big Surprise here! Panetta finally admits that the CIA lied to Congress! Those of us who do not get our 'information' from Fox or Rush Limbaugh or even the AP, KNEW this long ago – Panetta’s far too late admission changes nothing that wasn’t already available to those to find back then. So Pelosi was Right - eat THAT! And as for those of you here who were calling Pelosi a treasonous traitor and screeching for her resignation and stomping their feet for an apology, please take this as a compliment: Loser, no-nothing, morons! Your credibility here is shot! YOU need to apologize to this forum for your idiotic, ill-informed existence. Go play over at LittleGreenFootballs – it’s more your depth.
Posted 04:16 PM, 07/09/2009
HandNik
Tom, comparing death tolls in wars is an idiotic venture considering the advances in military equipment. Idiocy from an extremist? How odd.
Posted 04:22 PM, 07/09/2009
Observer1
The Cuban Missile Crisis was my personal crisis, as well. I can remember the announcement from our high school principal in October 1962 that all students were to assemble in the gym. We knew the subject. Normally boisterous, we students were quiet and sober as the principal attempted to prepare us for what might occur that October, a nuclear war. I thank McNamara for the role he played averting a nuclear war. However, I cannot absolve him and other persons in power for engaging in another Cold War exercise, the Vietnam War, that ugly, unnecessary exercise of American power and hubris. Some of those students who gathered in the gym that October lost their lives in Vietnam. Too many times, U.S. leaders (and followers) have proven they are willing to engage in profound, deadly and unnecessary violence. Vietnam is an example. So is Iraq. Apparently, we refuse to learn.
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.