Robert McNamara, RIP

[August1991]

I think he was the last of the "Whiz Kids" that gave us systems analysis, cost benefit, and FB-111 fighter bombers!

That he lived to the ripe old age of 93 probably irks many of his detractors.

I have mixed feelings about McNamara, as I do about most bureaucrats. After reading Stolypin's autobiography though, I came away with with a much better feeling.

It has always been a source of amusement to me that the American Left hates McNamara. The Left wants a larger role for the State and if Obama gets his way, there will be more people such as McNamara in US governments. The Left (as usual) critically forgets that once bureaucrats have power, they may not exercise it in the way the Leftists desire.

The standard criticsm of McNamara was that he ignored the human factor. He believed that he could solve any problem (and this hubris eventually caught up with him). I don't think the criticsm is fair. I think that he was an intelligent man given power.

I never met McNamara but I have met people like him. IMHO, they are important in the life of a civilized country. People like Stolypin, McNamara or C. D. Howe deserve more attention than they get.

-----

The movie Fog of War irritated me. The movie makers wanted to make McNamara admit that the Vietnam War was wrong and he wouldn't say what they wanted to record. IOW, the moviemakers had a simplistic agenda and the viewer had to glean the story from inadvertent evidence. (The movie The Corporation, for the same reason, was equally if not more irritating.)

[bush_cheney2004]

...I never met McNamara but I have met people like him. IMHO, they are important in the life of a civilized country. People like Stolypin, McNamara or C. D. Howe deserve more attention than they get.

I am of the opinion that McNamara was unfairly held to a higher standard in defeat, while his predecessors "wasted" far more human life in victory. (In contrast, Sec'y Laird is not so villified.) As SecDef, his principle responsibility was to present realistic military opportunities and limitations to his president and Congress, who must ultimately bear responsibility for what was the Vietnam War.

[August1991]

I am of the opinion that McNamara was unfairly held to a higher standard in defeat, while his predecessors "wasted" far more human life in victory. (In contrast, Sec'y Laird is not so villified.) As SecDef, his principle responsibility was to present realistic military opportunities and limitations to his president and Congress, who must ultimately bear responsibility for what was the Vietnam War.

Unfairly held to a higher standard.

That phrase is the essence of democratic politics. Why do people like Obama and Reagan get a pass when others don't? Or even more, why does history judge people like Bush Jnr and Truman for extraordinary situations?

As one of the obituaries noted, McNamara lasted longer than any other Secretary of Defence. Rusk? Weinberger and Rumsfeld resigned. If the higher standard is longevity, McNamara managed better than many presidents. (McNamara deserves credit too for surviving two presidents - a precedent for Gates.)

----

McNamara's career before and after Vietnam is intriguing. I have never quite figured out his role in the Edsel and in hindsight, I think that he took the World Bank in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, wheneevr I put myself in his position at the time with the facts available, it is hard to question his decisions.

Maybe McNamara is simply one of those smart guys without prescience.

[bush_cheney2004]

That phrase is the essence of democratic politics. Why do people like Obama and Reagan get a pass when others don't? Or even more, why does history judge people like Bush Jnr and Truman for extraordinary situations?

In McNamara's case, it is partly because he was so burdened as/because his president (LBJ) shrank from domestic challenge and adversity from Vietnam towards the end of his term. Nixon seized upon the opportunity for "peace with honor", and Melvin Laird authored "Vietnamization".....McNamara never had the option for "failure". Paris peace talks and compromise became the political prize, if only to repatriate POW's from a now lost cause.

As one of the obituaries noted, McNamara lasted longer than any other Secretary of Defence. Rusk? Weinberger and Rumsfeld resigned. If the higher standard is longevity, McNamara managed better than many presidents. (McNamara deserves credit too for surviving two presidents - a precedent for Gates.)

In the end, it is a thankless job with little upside. Just ask former SecDef Dick Cheney (Gulf War I)

McNamara's career before and after Vietnam is intriguing. I have never quite figured out his role in the Edsel and in hindsight, I think that he took the World Bank in the wrong direction. Nevertheless, wheneevr I put myself in his position at the time with the facts available, it is hard to question his decisions.

Maybe McNamara is simply one of those smart guys without prescience.

He did make an enormous contribution to the consolidation of large weapons systems and platforms procurement, much to the anger of generals and admirals. He knew the calculus for guns and butter.

[DogOnPorch]

The comment section @ CBC re: Robert McNamara is full of a good cross section of how uniformed most folks are about his role in history. It's truely shocking to read some of the comments about who started the Viet-Nam War, etc. CBC is a great example why mobocracy must never be allowed.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/06/m...#socialcomments

[bush_cheney2004]

The comment section @ CBC re: Robert McNamara is full of a good cross section of how uniformed most folks are about his role in history. It's truely shocking to read some of the comments about who started the Viet-Nam War, etc. CBC is a great example why mobocracy must never be allowed.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/06/m...#socialcomments

Not really surprising.....as time goes on, the facts of the matter fade behind popular myth and political alignment. Even Walter Cronkite is the enemy now.

Edited July 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

The comment section @ CBC re: Robert McNamara is full of a good cross section of how uniformed most folks are about his role in history. It's truely shocking to read some of the comments about who started the Viet-Nam War, etc. CBC is a great example why mobocracy must never be allowed.

I disagree DoP.

I took a quick glance at your linked threads, and their comments. It seemed to me that comments were a general mix of popular opinion, informed or misinformed. So what? All things considered, I prefer a system where ordinary people decide who has the power to choose who decides for the State - rather than any other system to decide power.

McNamara decided for the State. McNamara was forced to give up power and retire. The people now can openly hate him.

That sounds civilized to me.

Compare McNamara's fate to Stalin or what happens in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or other Islamic theocracies.

Edited July 6, 2009 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

I read his book a few years ago, and he had his regrets about the war later in his life. I suppose anyone with a conscience would.

[DogOnPorch]

I disagree DoP.

I took a quick glance at your linked threads, and their comments. It seemed to me that comments were a general mix of popular opinion, informed or misinformed. So what? All things considered, I prefer a system where ordinary people decide who has the power to choose who decides for the State - rather than any other system to decide power.

McNamara decided for the State. McNamara was forced to give up power and retire. The people now can openly hate him.

That sounds civilized to me.

Compare McNamara's fate to Stalin or what happens in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or other Islamic theocracies.

I'm certainly not knocking free speech (you know that). I'm just shocked by how wrong some folks history can be. Many opinions seems to think the US invaded South Viet-Nam.

As Mark Steyn said: We live in an age where facts become opinions and opinions become facts.

[August1991]

I read his book a few years ago, and he had his regrets about the war later in his life. I suppose anyone with a conscience would.

"... anyone with a conscience would." WTF?

Stalin died in his sleep. If Hitler regretted anything, it wasn't provoking a war - and Hitler died by suicide. What leaders die admitting that they were possibly wrong?

Bandelot, please admit that the US, the Western democracies, have leaders with a conscience.

Edited July 6, 2009 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

"... anyone with a conscience would." WTF?

Stalin died in his sleep. If Hitler regretted anything, it wasn't provoking a war - and Hitler died by suicide. What leaders die admitting that they were possibly wrong?

Bandelot, please admit that the US, the Western democracies, have leaders with a conscience.

I did just say that, didn't I? Some have a conscience, anyway.

Think about it... come down off that flagpole for a moment. Relax your sphincter

It's a bit of a double entendre- admitting that, what they did was horrific and wrong, although arguably it had to be done.

And here was a man who did have regrets. No,not like Stalin or Hitler... or etc.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's a bit of a double entendre- admitting that, what they did was horrific and wrong, although arguably it had to be done.

Why was it "wrong".....compared to what horrific conflict that was "right"?

[Sir Bandelot]

Why was it "wrong".....compared to what horrific conflict that was "right"?

I couldn't say which one was right. I will let McNamara answer those questions himself.

In the 2003 film, "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert McNamara", McNamara raised questions about the nature of war and human behavior by providing a behind-the-scenes perspective of the Vietnam war, the Cuban missile crisis, and World War II. He "expressed his regrets about the stubborn ‘stay the course’ mentality that dismissed even the most thoughtful and constructive criticism as merely anti-war propaganda."

http://www.examiner.com/x-2071-DC-Special-...Donald-Rumsfeld

[bush_cheney2004]

I couldn't say which one was right. I will let McNamara answer those questions himself.....

That hardly translates as "wrong". Holding up his retrospective regret doesn't begin to match actions and choices made at the time. He did his job....writing books always comes later.

[Sir Bandelot]

That hardly translates as "wrong". Holding up his retrospective regret doesn't begin to match actions and choices made at the time. He did his job....writing books always comes later.

How does this translate then:

McNamara later described the Vietnam war as "terribly wrong"...

He described the war as "terribly wrong" owing to a combination of the anti-communist climate of the times, mistaken assumptions of foreign policy and military misjudgements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3740700.stm

There. I think thats the phrase you were looking for?

[bush_cheney2004]

....There. I think thats the phrase you were looking for?

That's much better, but still after the fact...when it was "right".

Edited July 6, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Sir Bandelot]

That's much better, but still after the fact...when it was "right".

Yes, its true... hindsight has 20/20 vision.

[August1991]

God, what a thread drift ahead...

I did just say that, didn't I? Some have a conscience, anyway.

Think about it... come down off that flagpole for a moment. Relax your sphincter

So Rumsfeld was no McNamara, and Bush was no Hitler.

And America is no Soviet Socialist Republic, National Socialist regime, People's Socialist Republic.

-----

And maybe, just maybe, America defends individual freedom against the latest State scheme: whether it's Soviet Socialism, National Socialism or People's Republics.

IMV, the Soviet Union and National Socialism amount to the same thing; they were both utopian socialists. Obama is offering the same salad. He promises that a bigger State can offer a better life.

Same fraudulent nonsense.

Edited July 6, 2009 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

maybe, just maybe, America defends individual freedom against the latest State scheme: whether it's Soviet Socialism, National Socialism or People's Republics.

Come on, get over it. No society is pure and untarnished... America does offer freedom. Relative to many others in the world they represent the free society. But freedom does not come for free... someone else has to pay for it. America has done well by taking their advantage in the poorest parts of the world. The evolution of laissez fair capitalism means, using the cheapest labour and resources to get the highest profit. Hence the chinese. the indians, the pakistanis are making most of our goods. The irony of this is, its the very thing that may finally take America down.

Obama is offering the same salad. He promises that a bigger State can offer a better life.

Same fraudulent nonsense.

Because the free market, unregulated approach to the economy has brought things up to this critical point. The greedy have eaten out their own guts. Its not possible to continue down that dead end road no more. Something has to change.

That doesn't mean, I believe these changes are the right ones that need to be made... what did they really do? Took the money from the public purse, the peoples money, which they told us for years theres nothing in the coffers for building better infrastructure, then they pull 1 trillion dollars out of a hat, and use it to protect the investments of the bankers and insurance companies. Meanwhile the little guy takes it up the ass. Again

Edited July 7, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

Because the free market, unregulated approach to the economy has brought things up to this critical point. The greedy have eaten out their own guts. Its not possible to continue down that dead end road no more. Something has to change.

I never got a job from a poor man.

That doesn't mean, I believe these changes are the right ones that need to be made... what did they really do? Took the money from the public purse, the peoples money, which they told us for years theres nothing in the coffers for building better infrastructure, then they pull 1 trillion dollars out of a hat, and use it to protect the investments of the bankers and insurance companies. Meanwhile the little guy takes it up the ass. Again

Speak for yourself.....it's not the "peoples" money.

[DogOnPorch]

You all make good points.

McNamara was just a human. As he said, he'd never heard of Plato until university. If he hadn't left Ford for the Sec. of Defence job, who knows who Kennedy would have had to 'settle on'? McGeorge Bundy? Shades of the 303 Committee, eh? The irony there would be where ol' McGeorge ended up after having his 'McNamara Breakdown' over Viet-Nam.

[Sir Bandelot]

I never got a job from a poor man.

What I said isn't about the job that they gave you, its about the jobs they took away and gave to very poor men, in other countries.

Consequence... now several hundred thousand, or millions inthe US are out of a job.

Will those poor men in China be giving the jobs back? No.

I suppose you're right then.

[Moonlight Graham]

Smart man, interesting & tough job. Always enjoyed "The Fog of War", great doc.

He also had really greasy hair.

[DogOnPorch]

Smart man, interesting & tough job. Always enjoyed "The Fog of War", great doc.

He also had really greasy hair.

Brylcreem.

[Michael Hardner]

McNamara was the consummate 20th century man - a technical, cold and efficient specialist through and through. He came from humble beginnings at a time when the US was a real meritocracy.

I can't wait to read the Robert Caro biography on LBJ and McNamara - I can't begin to imagine how they worked together. He turned the Army into GM, so much so that they forgot that they needed to win the war. And Johnson wanted to run things via press releases.

Except for believing that he order the killing of people to make the world better, he doesn't seem like such a bad guy.