Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McNamara's Wall
Washington Inquirer ^ | May 8, 1995 | Michael Benge

Posted on 07/07/2009 1:17:55 PM PDT by Interesting Times

Rather than absolving him of his sins, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s pseudo-mea culpa, “In Retrospect: Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam,” is a self-indictment. His lesser crime is self-indulgence. His arrogance and duplicity during the Vietnam conflict is echoed throughout his book as he recounts his mismanagement of the war.

If as he admits, ignorance was his guiding light, then, it has grown to be a beacon today, proving that he has learned little about Vietnamese communism in the almost three decades that it took him to write his book. Besides the war, another tragedy is that McNamara seems to have lost his memory, and has difficulty distinguishing between facts and fantasy.

Nowhere in his book does McNamara mention his asinine idea of building a “technological” wall to keep the North Vietnamese out of the South in order to reduce the need to bomb North Vietnam. (Perhaps he was going to build the wall out of surplus Edsels, a car designed and built while he was CEO of Ford Motor Company that was a total failure.) McNamara didn’t succeed in keeping the North Vietnamese out of the South, but the wall was built; not on the 17th parallel as he planned; rather, it can be found just off Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC. It’s called the Vietnam Memorial; built with the names of 58,000 dead Americans.

McNamara is flat wrong in his claim that “Our government lacked experts for us to consult to compensate for our ignorance about Southeast Asia.” Rather than accepting advice, McNamara and the other “Whiz Kids” arrogantly and deliberately chose to ignore the experts. In fact, McNamara claims there were no experts.

The fact was there were several experts, including the well known French journalist and author Bernard Fall. It wasn’t that Fall had been “painted as a suspect communist sympathizer” as claimed in the book, it was because McNamara and his coterie were running the war and were to arrogant to consult with a damn “Frog.” They felt that the French couldn’t be trusted because the Vichy French had collaborated with the Axis during World War II, and their colonial administrators in Indochina had been treated as allies by the Japanese. And the US had never lost a war, and the French had already lost in Indochina; therefore, McNamara and his cohort wouldn’t be caught dead consulting with a bunch of colonials and losers.

And what memory lapse would cause McNamara to forget another expert for whom President John F. Kennedy had great respect for, General Edward Geary Lansdale? Lansdale had been a personal advisor and confident to Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay, and had been instrumental in the defeat of the communist movement there. Lansdale’s expertise wasn’t limited to the Philippines, for he was extremely knowledgeable about the entire situation across Southeast Asia.

Lansdale had been in North Vietnam during the two year grace period accorded by the Geneva agreements of 1954. He assisted the anti-communist Vietnamese to go south while Ho Chi Min solidified power in the North. He was also a personal advisor and close friend to South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem.

On January 28, 1961, President Kennedy read a report by General Lansdale about his recent trip to Vietnam. The following Saturday morning, Kennedy had his chief political advisor call Lansdale at his home and asked him to come immediately to the White House. When he arrived, President Kennedy interrupted a briefing on foreign policy and introduced Lansdale to the group as his next ambassador to Vietnam.

On March 1, 1961, a cable was sent to the American Embassy in Saigon from JFK’s staff ordering the desk-bound Embassy and its top field officers to read Lansdale’s January report, absorb its concepts, and apply them as a new priority in reaching the people in the provinces and villages of Vietnam. However, Lansdale’s counterinsurgency and pacification efforts were undermined by ambitious people in the State Department and the over-achievers in the Pentagon, who knew that the only way to gain promotion, get their “stars” and win medals was to expand the Vietnam conflict militarily in the conventional way.

In his book, McNamara belittles General Lansdale by stating, “I knew of only one Pentagon officer with counterinsurgency experience in the region, ...but Lansdale was a relative junior officer who lacked broad geopolitical expertise.” Geo-political thinking from 18th Century Europe wasn't needed in Vietnam, rather Lansdale’s ideo-and ethno-political expertise is what would have carried the day. McNamara didn’t even know that General Lansdale was on his staff until President Kennedy pointed him out. And when did a General become a junior officer?

McNamara also wrongly compares Ho Chi Minh, as a Vietnamese nationalist, to Yugoslavia’s Marshall Tito. Ho was as much of a nationalist as McNamara is a historian.

Ho Chi Minh was an international communist, who co-founded the French communist party in 1920. He was trained at the Lenin Institute in Moscow in 1925; he was a nationalized Soviet citizen; and he took a Russian name, Linov. He was assigned as a Russian citizen in the Soviet Consulate in Canton, China, under the renowned Machiavellian Russian Consul, Bordin, when fighting broke out between Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse Tung. Joseph Stalin supported Chiang and Mao never forgave, nor trusted, Moscow after that.

Ho was then sent to Thailand in 1928 under Moscow’s orders, where he shaved his head and become a Buddhist monk and awaited further orders. They came in 1930, when he was sent by Moscow to Hong Kong to found a new communist party, which Ho named “The Indochina Communist party.” Only a French communist would use that term, for a true Vietnamese nationalist would never have used the colonialist term Indochina. Ho was more of a Stalin than a Tito, and arranged the betrayal and annihilation of all opposition including: nationalists, such as Phan Boi Chau (1926); the murder of South Vietnamese Trotskyite communists (1945), who had been an enemy of Stalin’s policies since the 1920s; and the selective elimination of the non-communist Viet Minh leaders (1954-56), who had greatly contributed to the defeat of the French.

McNamara is even rebuked today by Hanoi’s communist party theoretical journal, which stated that Ho was not a nationalist but was an “internationalist,” loyal to Moscow’s Comintern policies to the end of his days. Robert McNamara, please call your publisher.

The Vietnam conflict was neither a “peoples' war” nor a civil war, as McNamara claims. Rather, it was a proxy war between superpowers – the Soviet Union and the United States, and the wannabee superpower, China. Vietnam was never one country, but had always been divided into there distinct political entities, North, Central, and South Vietnam, and each region had its own distinct political faction and dialect. Both the Central and Southern Vietnamese disliked the arrogant and aggressive North Vietnamese, and the communists fighting in the South were primarily directed by the North.

In turn, the North Vietnamese communists distrusted the Central and Southern communists, and in 1954 and again in 1968, the North Vietnamese communists used their comrades as cannon fodder in order to purge the party ranks of untrustworthy Central and Southern communist brethren, as well as to gain total control of the communist movement in Vietnam. The North’s invasion of the South is comparable to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

McNamara is also dead wrong in saying that our goal of stopping the communist take over of Indochina was unworthy. This is an insult to the 58,000 Americans and the hundreds of thousands of people of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia whom he sent to be killed in an attempt to stop the dominos from falling and to help win freedom for the people of the region. Because of McNamara, and in spite of those deaths, some of the dominos fell when the US pulled out.

And McNamara has the gall to say that it was unworthy to try to prevent the slaughter of the almost two million Cambodians who were murdered by the Vietnamese-inspired, trained, and armed Khmer Rouge (who were supported by Vietnamese artillery and troops). And unworthy to try to prevent the pain and hardship suffered by the tens of thousands of people thrown into the concentration camps (“re-education camps”) in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

McNamara’s statement that President Eisenhower’s domino theory was wrong reflects his total ignorance of Ho Chi Minh’s Southeast Asian “time bombs” of the 1930s when Ho, as a Moscow agent, organized the communist parties of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (Indochinese Communist Party), as well as those in Thailand, Burma, Malaya, and Indonesia. It is highly unlikely that the Generals in Indonesia would have stood up to and defeated the communist movement there without the demonstration of American resolve in Vietnam in 1965. Furthermore, without the hundreds of millions of dollars and large amounts of military hardware pumped into the Thai economy, Thailand would have become the fourth domino to fall, after Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Without America’s resolve and commitment, the Vietnamese communists would have continued to fuel the insurrection in Thailand until it too fell, invading it as they did Cambodia.

It isn’t that the Vietnam conflict was unwinnable as he claims, rather McNamara ensured its loss by dictating “rules of engagement” and limited bombing. McNamara arrogantly micro-managed the war by remote, as if playing a board game and possessed by Dr. Strangelove, sending daily encoded messages to the Generals and Admirals in Vietnam on the specific targets he chose to bomb that day. He ordered planes to make multiple bombing runs on the same target on the same day because it was more cost-effective, but it provided a “duck shoot” for the North Vietnamese.

From the onset of the American involvement, the North Vietnamese communists had openly professed they would fight a protracted war and defeat the Americans, not on the battlefield, but politically at home as they had the French. When he voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Oregon Senator Wayne Morse, an “expert” on international law, warned the White House and the Pentagon that the US must either declare and fight an all-out war against North Vietnam, or the war would be lost politically.

It wasn’t a lack of experts to consult with, as he professes; the problem was that McNamara chose to ignore expert advice. McNamara’s failed policies of the 1960s turned the American people totally against even a minor involvement in Vietnam, thus ensuring the fulfillment of Hanoi’s prophesy and guaranteeing the communist victory.

If “we were wrong; terribly wrong,” as McNamara claims, and he realized it in the mid-sixties and never resigned, then he’s ultimately responsible for sending thousands of America’s “best and brightest” to their deaths. McNamara’s cop-out is, “You shouldn’t use your power that you’ve accumulated in a sense as the President’s appointee… to attack and subvert the policies of the elected representative of the people.” However, the standards set at Nuremberg defeat McNamara’s logic.

Some draft evaders say that McNamara’s book vindicates them for their actions, but when do two wrongs make a right? Rather than donating his book earnings to help heal the Vietnam veterans he helped wound, McNamara plans to use them to increase communications with the draconian dictatorship in Hanoi; the second time he has handed the Hanoi communists a victory.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: jfk; mcnamara; militaryhistory; robertmcnamara; secdef; vietnam; vietnamwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
Here's an excellent review of McNamara's dishonest and self-serving 1995 memoir by former POW Mike Benge. It will do for his epitaph.
1 posted on 07/07/2009 1:17:56 PM PDT by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; eddie willers; cajungirl; wirestripper; Southflanknorthpawsis; Peach; prairiebreeze; ...

Vietnam War ping.


2 posted on 07/07/2009 1:18:43 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Frankly, nothing this arrogant, egotistical incompetent can say or do can ever erase my contempt for him. Too bad he lived so much longer than the thousands who were condemned under his stewardship of the War.

Good riddance.


3 posted on 07/07/2009 1:20:57 PM PDT by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Wow! Everyone can’t stand this guy. I never heard a negative word about him until he died. Of course I wasn’t alive when he was SECDEF or I was an infant. Fox News is giving some props to the guy though saying that he stopped a nuclear war and was a Republican. The problem is that Fox News has gone so liberal lately that you just don’t know what to believe. I do trust Free Republic as my truthful resource so the guy must have been pretty bad.


4 posted on 07/07/2009 1:28:20 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TCats
McNamara's Wall should become a memorial urinal!

"I like that, kinda has a nice ring to it!"

...psssssssssssssss

5 posted on 07/07/2009 1:28:55 PM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

McNamara for his all-knowing arrogance, and LBJ for his micro-management costed over 58,000 dead including my best friend!

May they roast in Hell forever!


6 posted on 07/07/2009 1:30:43 PM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
One of my favorite wrong-headed quotes from McNamara is the following:

“Nuclear weapons serve no military purpose whatsoever. They are totally useless - except to deter one's opponent from using them.”

Our nuclear superiority, coupled with the Soviets’ belief that we could build an effective missile shield, ended the Cold War and hastened the demise of the Soviet Union. This is worth keeping in mind, while we witness Obama capitulating to the Russians on nuclear stockpiles and missile defense.

7 posted on 07/07/2009 1:31:13 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TCats

Ditto!!x3

What a waste, then and now.

Goodby.


8 posted on 07/07/2009 1:33:40 PM PDT by ASOC (Who is that fat lady? And why is she singing???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

If it wouldn’t dishonor the men on the wall so much, I think it would be fitting for this SOB to have to wake up on judgment day, looking right into that wall, with the name of every casualty he was responsible for.

There are casualties in all wars. If plans are sound and execution is good, then the SecDef is not responsible for the deaths that will occur. He will have saved lives by implementing a sound plan.

If the policies are not sound, the plans are not sound, and more people die as a result, the SecDef deserves to be skewered for it.

McNamera, I personally believe you are more responsible than any other human being for the millions of people who died in the region.

Jane Fonda and the leftist ilk of the 60s & 70s come in second.

The liberals in our Congress, come in a very strong third.


9 posted on 07/07/2009 1:34:16 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (_Resident of the United States and Kenya's favorite son, Baraaaack Hussein Obamaaaa...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
He was very bad. And he fit right into the mindset of his boss, Johnson. Between them they cost thousands of lives and negated the sacrifices of all.

This A$$hole was a bean counting, amoral robot who came from a laboratory that turned these people out with regularity - Harvard with assistance form the Ford Motor Co. of the 60’s.

10 posted on 07/07/2009 1:35:18 PM PDT by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

BTTT


11 posted on 07/07/2009 1:35:36 PM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TCats
My dad was an old China hand, having worked as a commercial pilot for CNAC and then as a civilian Hump pilot for the AAF in the CBI. He retired from government service in 1961 and until his death in 1966, counted almost daily our mistakes in this part of the world.
There was no shortage of sound, knowledgeable advice in SE Asia and, unlike the French and Brits, we were not in country to take away treasure. We sure left plenty, though.
12 posted on 07/07/2009 1:36:02 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TCats
My dad was an old China hand, having worked as a commercial pilot for CNAC and then as a civilian Hump pilot for the AAF in the CBI. He retired from government service in 1961 and until his death in 1966, counted almost daily our mistakes in this part of the world.
There was no shortage of sound, knowledgeable advice in SE Asia and, unlike the French and Brits, we were not in country to take away treasure. We sure left plenty, though.
13 posted on 07/07/2009 1:36:18 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Great article. Thanks for posting.


14 posted on 07/07/2009 1:37:34 PM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TCats

Coming from a FREEPER, I believe every word.


15 posted on 07/07/2009 1:38:23 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
May they roast in Hell forever!

That's not your call.

16 posted on 07/07/2009 1:38:29 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

I never had much respect for him - even when I was over there. As time went on I learned not to have much respect for any bean counters I met.


17 posted on 07/07/2009 1:39:13 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Fox had leaned left for at least a few years now. I do not trust them any more than the rest of the propaganda media machines.


18 posted on 07/07/2009 1:39:44 PM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

A devastating and unfortunately very accurate account. Though the author touched on it, it is frightening how McNamara and the rest of LBJ’s inner circle were every day ignoring the advice of those on the ground and ordering worthless hits on civilian targets of no strategic importance, while ceasing operations showing signs of success - all on whims, all in a detached “let’s play Risk!” mindset. The war in Vietnam, like in Iraq, should have been over very quickly. Too bad we are universally led by people educated far beyond their intelligence and promoted far above their competence.

It is a miracle WWII was not a bigger bloodbath for the allies, given the inept political intervention by American politicians in the work of the generals then too. I guess the Germans had their own incompetent leaders to foist policies of failure upon their warriors.


19 posted on 07/07/2009 1:40:52 PM PDT by M203M4 (A rainbow-excreting government-cheese-pie-eating unicorn in every pot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
Great article. Thanks for posting.

You're welcome. Mike sent it around to some of his friends shortly after McNamara died, and I thought it deserved a wider audience.

20 posted on 07/07/2009 1:41:23 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

That miserable SOB along with Johnson and their insane war planning is the reason that I have some dear friends names on the wall. In honor of them I will find out where he is buried and give him a beer bath after I run it through my system first!


21 posted on 07/07/2009 1:45:59 PM PDT by RVN Airplane Driver ("To be born into freedom is an accident; to die in freedom is an obligation..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

I know of no one who lived though his time in office that admire the job he did. Make excuses for him, but never admire.


22 posted on 07/07/2009 1:47:01 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RVN Airplane Driver

You may have to stand in line.


23 posted on 07/07/2009 1:47:19 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Where's his gravesite ?
I might need to relieve myself.
24 posted on 07/07/2009 1:47:37 PM PDT by ComputerGuy (Williams/Sowell 2012 -or- Sowell/Williams 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Thanks for the ping IT. May he rest in hell....I lost a dear neighbor because of his ignorance.


25 posted on 07/07/2009 1:51:15 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TCats

IMHO, the war drove him crazy. He was in at least some respects like Stanton, Lincoln’s war minister. Stanton was also unstable. But Johnson was no Lincoln, so there was no one to balance McNamama. Indeed, many of the charges the reviewer makes against McNamara should be laid against Johnson and his other close advisers.


26 posted on 07/07/2009 1:53:34 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Let’s not leave out another of the cynical, arrogant and ambitious on the backs of others - Henry Kissinger.

I’m awaiting his obituary as well.


27 posted on 07/07/2009 1:56:41 PM PDT by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Indeed, many of the charges the reviewer makes against McNamara should be laid against Johnson and his other close advisers.

Agreed. But the "brilliant" McNamara was arguably the most arrogant and wrongheaded of the bunch.

28 posted on 07/07/2009 1:57:23 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I never heard a negative word about him until he died

Exposing him would expose the lie that somehow Richard Nixon was responsible for a war started by the guy who beat him, Kennedy, that the war that really got going in 1965 was somehow started by the guy who took office in 1969. So, the media cone of silence was dropped.

Johnson and especially McNamara thought they were way smarter than their military people, shutting out the Joint Chiefs from decision-making on Vietnam. You wonder where the idea came from that the politicians never let the military fight Vietnam to win? McNamara and his micromanaging of the war.

He's also hailed as some kind of charitable genius at the World Bank. But the only countries that emerged from poverty on his watch were the ones NOT developing on World Bank loans, but by freeing their economies and supporting business and export expansion. On the other hand, a lot of dictators in countries getting World Bank loans got really rich.

He is Exhibit A why an off the charts IQ and fine education are not enough to make a wise leader.

29 posted on 07/07/2009 2:03:24 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M203M4

Yes, but I do not recall that military leaders offered an alternative strategic vision. Westmoreland doesn’t seem to have much of one at all. On the other hand, no telling what he would have done if he had had as much authority as Eisenhower did.


30 posted on 07/07/2009 2:03:31 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Oh, and the Edsel fiasco was on his watch at Ford, but that probably doesn’t mean anything to someone of your age!


31 posted on 07/07/2009 2:04:32 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
It is a miracle WWII was not a bigger bloodbath for the allies, given the inept political intervention by American politicians in the work of the generals then too.

indeed.

32 posted on 07/07/2009 2:04:32 PM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

You don’t know arrogant if you never not met Lyndon. That guy could really dominate a room.


33 posted on 07/07/2009 2:06:35 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
McNamera, I personally believe you are more responsible than any other human being for the millions of people who died in the region.

Don't forget LBJ.

34 posted on 07/07/2009 2:10:50 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

The Media is really attracted by the figure of Robert McNamarra. Could it a sort of collective guilt at work? I mean JFK is ‘sainted’, and LBJ would have been ‘great’ if it hadn’t been for Vietnam. Somebody has to be the fall-guy, right?

Not saying that McNamarra wasn’t an arrogant, puffed-up piece of work. He was. But there have been reasonably successful SecDefs who had similar problems.


35 posted on 07/07/2009 2:13:13 PM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
You don’t know arrogant if you never not met Lyndon. That guy could really dominate a room.

Especially when he granted interviews to female reporters while sitting on the commode, as was his charming habit.

36 posted on 07/07/2009 2:13:37 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

There’s no denying that LBJ tried to micromanage the war from the Oval Office, a terrible thing to do. I still think it was McNamera that skewed his vision of how the war should be waged.

So what you kind of had was Johnson making the formal decisions after McNamera had counseled him improperly.

That’s my take on it. I may be wrong. People who disagree should set me straight.


37 posted on 07/07/2009 2:15:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (_Resident of the United States and Kenya's favorite son, Baraaaack Hussein Obamaaaa...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

I am reminded of Herman Wouk’s book,” The Winds of War.” and the way that FDR reach down into the ranks and found experiences officers to give him advise. Pug Henry was a composite of several such men. I wonder of Lyndon was capable of employing such men. He seemed to favor sycophants, guys like Bill Moyers.


38 posted on 07/07/2009 2:16:18 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

He loved to intimidate.


39 posted on 07/07/2009 2:18:25 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
So what you kind of had was Johnson making the formal decisions after McNamera had counseled him improperly.

IMHO, they were pretty much in sync. McNamara from a tactical/strategic standpoint told the the boss exactly what the boss wanted the hear. LBJ was a micro-manager on thing other than the war as well. Their policies, especially to on again-off again bombing campaigns and avoiding any target if they knew there were Russian 'advisers' there were beyond insane.

They were a bad team.

40 posted on 07/07/2009 2:31:32 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I never understood the fear of hitting Russian or Chinese “advisors”. It’s war. What were they going to do about it? Certainly isn’t worth a nuclear exchange over if it should happen. It telegraph’s strategic weakness.

Frankly we should have closed Haiphong harbor much earlier than they did. If a Russian freighter hits a mine, that would have been too bad. You were warned.

You can still loose a war even if you are tactically superior — just ask the Germans.


41 posted on 07/07/2009 2:37:12 PM PDT by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Mcnamara was the ultimate Incompetent mocked on the every soldiers Zippo.
The unwilling, led by the incompetent to do the impossible for the ungrateful.


42 posted on 07/07/2009 2:37:19 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I agree. I will say most of Nixon’s cease fires were as a direct result of Congress giving him so much heat, he basically had no choice. LBJ, not the same thing at all.

Those stupid cease-fires. Good grief.

We should have given North Vietnam five days to stop all hostilities or we would level Hanoi within 48 hours, then move on to the next biggest city.

We pussy footed around.


43 posted on 07/07/2009 2:43:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (_Resident of the United States and Kenya's favorite son, Baraaaack Hussein Obamaaaa...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Wow! Everyone can’t stand this guy. I never heard a negative word about him until he died. Of course I wasn’t alive when he was SECDEF or I was an infant. Fox News is giving some props to the guy though saying that he stopped a nuclear war and was a Republican.

McNamara was registered Republican when Kennedy appointed him, but I doubt he's voted Republican since then.

Everybody hated McNamara forty years ago.

PBS gave him chances to plug his books, and he took that as some sort of redemption, but it wasn't.

People just forgot about him and didn't want to be reminded he was still around.

Some people say McNamara changed his name to Rumsfeld and picked up where he left off, but that's not right either.

44 posted on 07/07/2009 2:45:07 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times; Grampa Dave; MeekOneGOP; devolve; BOBTHENAILER; ALOHA RONNIE
Fascinating look at Ho.

Truman lost China and allowed it to invade Korea.

McCarthy saw the infiltration and Venona confirmed it.

Johnson November 65 threw the Joint Chiefs out in "The Day It Became the Longest War".

McNamara the supreme narcissist sacrificing tens of thousands of far, far better men.

Johnson was enormously corrupt. NSAM 273 had circulated in draft fashion before JFK's killing. Johnson signed it the Tuesday thereafter.

Imagine bombing Hanoi, mining Haiphong, allowing no sanctuary anywhere.

No more the ivory tower.

Our current Secretary of Defense comes from the effete CIA.

He coauthored with Zbigniew Brzezinski the 2004 Council on Foreign Relations paper "Iran: Time for a New Approach" calling for negotiating with people who believe a woman's uncovered hair can drive a man mad, and that the Twelfth Imam can be coaxed from a well near Qum after centuries by a nuclear Holocaust and subsequent chaos.

Our new Johnson and McNamara are vastly more evil: ali Hussein and his swordsman slashing the F-22 are the clear and present danger.

Kerry and Kennedy et al have still to answer for their role in the mountain of skulls in Cambodia.

Karma, some call it. Judgment Day, others.

Actions have consequences.

Our Republic will always owe her survival to her brave warriors putting duty, honor, country before the narcissism and lust for power of history's vermin.

45 posted on 07/07/2009 2:51:17 PM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
They need to reach back further it was Truman who let the French back in Indochina.
46 posted on 07/07/2009 3:06:35 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times
Arrogant bastard.

Nam Vet

47 posted on 07/07/2009 3:23:03 PM PDT by Nam Vet ("Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." .... Henry David Thoreau)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat
The French expected to have their possessions back, as did the Brits, Dutch, Belgians, etc. This issue was the basis for suspicion amongst the Allies over what they would "claim" after WW II. Read "Retribution" by Max Hastings, which covers the last year of the war in Asia.
I don't think Truman "lost" China (not supporting Chiang Kai Shek) since the generalissimo and his people were more corrupt than the French were in Indochina. The Nationalists were looters of their own country. Unfortunately, Mao was the uniter.
48 posted on 07/07/2009 3:25:18 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

“The French expected to have their possessions back, as did the Brits, Dutch, Belgians, etc. This issue was the basis for suspicion amongst the Allies over what they would “claim” after WW II. Read “Retribution” by Max Hastings, which covers the last year of the war in Asia.
I don’t think Truman “lost” China (not supporting Chiang Kai Shek) since the generalissimo and his people were more corrupt than the French were in Indochina. The Nationalists were looters of their own country. Unfortunately, Mao was the uniter.”

Good points I have heard that before My point was this:

Letter to President Harry Truman, February 16, 1945. The letter was never answered and was not declassified until 1972
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

Our VIETNAM people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies’ side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists.

From 1941 to 1945 we fought bitterly, sustained by the patriotism, of our fellow-countrymen and by the promises made by the Allies at YALTA, SAN FRANCISCO and POTSDAM.

When the Japanese were defeated in August 1945, the whole Vietnam territory was united under a Provisional Republican Government, which immediately set out to work. In five months, peace and order were restored, a democratic republic was established on legal bases, and adequate help was given to the Allies in the carrying out of their disarmament mission.

But the French Colonialists, who betrayed in wartime both the Allies and the Vietnamese, have come back, and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war in order reestablish their domination. Their invasion has extended to South Vietnam and is menacing us in North Vietnam. It would take volumes to give even an abbreviated report of the crisis and assassinations they are committing everyday in this fighting area.

This aggression is contrary to all principles of international law and the pledge made by the Allies during World War II. It is a challenge to the noble attitude shown before, during, and after the war by the United States Government and People. It violently contrasts with the firm stand you have taken in your twelve point declaration, and with the idealistic loftiness and generosity expressed by your delegates to the United Nations Assembly, MM. BYRNES, STETTINIUS, AND J.F. DULLES.

The French aggression on a peace-loving people is a direct menace to world security. It implies the complicity, or at least the connivance of the Great Democracies. The United Nations ought to keep their words. They ought to interfere to stop this unjust war, and to show that they mean to carry out in peacetime the principles for which they fought in wartime.

Our Vietnamese people, after so many years of spoliation and devastation, is just beginning its building-up work. It needs security and freedom, first to achieve internal prosperity and welfare, and later to bring its small contribution to world-reconstruction.

These security and freedom can only be guaranteed by our independence from any colonial power, and our free cooperation with all other powers. It is with this firm conviction that we request of the United Sates as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.

What we ask has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.

I am Dear Mr. PRESIDENT,

Respectfully Yours,

(Signed) Ho Chi Minh


49 posted on 07/07/2009 3:38:40 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cheetahcat

So important to be reminded of such realities now and again.
Our Great War alliances with the the imperialist nations of france, G.B. Russia and Japan had utterly poisoned the well for us in Asia as in Europe.
American ideals and values were sold then so cheaply, the costs to future American generations became always more dear.


50 posted on 07/07/2009 4:31:38 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson