Robert McNamara at the age of 85 discuses his experiences and lessons learned during his tenure as Secretary of Defence under kennedy and Johnson.He talks about his work as a bombing statistition during WWII, his brief tenure as president of Ford and the Kennedy admin triumph during the Cuban missle Crisis.However, the film focuses primarily on the faliures in Vietnam.The theme of the film are his "eleven lessons" learned during this time.

Watched the movie a couple of days ago. I know little about the Vietnam war, except what i learnt from a book called "Chicken Hawk", which I read when I was at school and of course the many movies that have been made.

I really didn't have a clue who McNarara was. I have to say that for a guy that is 85, he certainly hasn't lost any mental ability.

I'm sure that this "doco" was helpfull to get a few monkeys off his own back, it also

could be used by current military and other Leaders to stop making the same mistakes.It all seemed quite genuine from his point of view.It was also quite apparent that there were certain areas where "he would not go"

I found it an interesting Movie.

Has anybody else seen it?

I have always wanted to read his book on the same subject but never came across a copy.

Thanks for the heads up, I will look out for the movie.

Where did you get a copy ?

"Chicken Hawk" was a good read. When I got half way through it I felt as thou I could nearly fly a helicoptor.

I have always wanted to read his book on the same subject but never came across a copy.

Thanks for the heads up, I will look out for the movie.

Where did you get a copy ?

"Chicken Hawk" was a good read.  When I got half way through it I felt as thou I could nearly fly a helicoptor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night bizaar Chaing Mai THB80.

Many of the failures in Vietnam were politicians making military decisions. Nothing different in Iraq.

Fogs of War was recently (Nov) on HBO. Check this month's UBC mag.

Many of the failures in Vietnam were politicians making military decisions. Nothing different in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night and day. Apples and oranges. Black and white.

But by all means please clarify your position, which I happen to agree with for Vietnam but completely disagree with for Iraq.

Other than the President, who happens to be the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, specifically which politicians are making military decisions in Iraq?

Do you know something that the rest of the world does not?

Many of the failures in Vietnam were politicians making military decisions. Nothing different in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night and day. Apples and oranges. Black and white.

But by all means please clarify your position, which I happen to agree with for Vietnam but completely disagree with for Iraq.

Other than the President, who happens to be the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, specifically which politicians are making military decisions in Iraq?

Do you know something that the rest of the world does not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An Interesting comment that McNamara made about Vietnam, was that if Kennedy had still been alive,the chances of War could have been greatly reduced.

Many of the failures in Vietnam were politicians making military decisions. Nothing different in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night and day. Apples and oranges. Black and white.

But by all means please clarify your position, which I happen to agree with for Vietnam but completely disagree with for Iraq.

Other than the President, who happens to be the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, specifically which politicians are making military decisions in Iraq?

Do you know something that the rest of the world does not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even though the president is commander in chief that does not make him any more saavy in making military decisions than any other politician. He got where he is by being a politician and a member of a well connected family...nothing more. IF he is making military decisions (I have no idea if he does or not) then he is just another example of a politician making military decisions....of course it is POSSIBLE that a politician could make good military decisions but its PROBABLY better if they have brilliant military people to make the military decisions.

Even though the president is commander in chief that does not make him any more saavy in making military decisions than any other politician.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point was in response to my interpretation of bebop's premise, which appeared to be that heads of state who are in charge of their military do not have the right to make military decisions.

It is widely known that this president operates like a ceo, in which the military is one branch of a larger organization. He delegates most of the decision making authority, but sets guidelines for when decisions should be made to his level.

Weak politicians that spout wish wash - wars are won by the military and lost by the politicians.

Weak politicians that spout wish wash - wars are won by the military and lost by the politicians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wars are started by Politicians...........

An Interesting comment that McNamara made about Vietnam, was that if Kennedy had still been alive,the chances of War could have been greatly reduced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMHO, this is McNamara trying to ease his conscience and justify his bad decisions. Here is a link to actual troop levels, indicating that Kennedy had already begun a huge esclation during his term, and LBJ choose to continue along that path. Note the 350% increase between 1961 and 1962 and an additional 50% increase between 1962 and 1963.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

There is a lot of documentation about Kennedy rhetoric and stumping about stemming the flow of communism around the globe. Here is but one (albeit lengthy) example:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/goldzwig.htm

But with the exception of the cuban missile crisis, there is little historical evidence that Kennedy actually did much of anything along the lines of effectively fighting the spread of communism and preventing its spread to other points in the globe. Even the cuban missile crisis was more along the lines of reaction rather than proaction. Effectively, Kennedy played one hand of poker very well, but misplayed many many more.

(IMHO Kennedy was very much an over-rated celebrity president whose legacy will always be painted in a much rosier picture than what actually took place.)

Many of the failures in Vietnam were politicians making military decisions. Nothing different in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night and day. Apples and oranges. Black and white.

But by all means please clarify your position, which I happen to agree with for Vietnam but completely disagree with for Iraq.

Other than the President, who happens to be the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, specifically which politicians are making military decisions in Iraq?

Do you know something that the rest of the world does not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An Interesting comment that McNamara made about Vietnam, was that if Kennedy had still been alive,the chances of War could have been greatly reduced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is a democrat.

Even though the president is commander in chief that does not make him any more saavy in making military decisions than any other politician.  He got where he is by being a politician and a member of a well connected family...nothing more.  IF he is making military decisions (I have no idea if he does or not) then he is just another example of a politician making military decisions....of course it is POSSIBLE that a politician could make good military decisions but its PROBABLY better if they have brilliant military people to make the military decisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually in this case, I think it's safe to say that the Pentagon (Perle, Rummy and friends) are making the calls, not the CIC.

An Interesting comment that McNamara made about Vietnam, was that if Kennedy had still been alive,the chances of War could have been greatly reduced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMHO, this is McNamara trying to ease his conscience and justify his bad decisions. Here is a link to actual troop levels, indicating that Kennedy had already begun a huge esclation during his term, and LBJ choose to continue along that path. Note the 350% increase between 1961 and 1962 and an additional 50% increase between 1962 and 1963.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

There is a lot of documentation about Kennedy rhetoric and stumping about stemming the flow of communism around the globe. Here is but one (albeit lengthy) example:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/goldzwig.htm

But with the exception of the cuban missile crisis, there is little historical evidence that Kennedy actually did much of anything along the lines of effectively fighting the spread of communism and preventing its spread to other points in the globe. Even the cuban missile crisis was more along the lines of reaction rather than proaction. Effectively, Kennedy played one hand of poker very well, but misplayed many many more.

(IMHO Kennedy was very much an over-rated celebrity president whose legacy will always be painted in a much rosier picture than what actually took place.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you are right about McNamarra easing his conscience, but he also admits mistakes (Some that he only came to realise years after)

Kennedy's public servants had much more to do with the Cuban thing than the public were led to believe.Nobody wanted war,but all parties would have been prepaired to destroy each other.All it took was a bit of empathy with the enemy..

McNamarra also pointed out how wrong they were with military intelligence as well...another fact that they found out about years later.

The major part of the movie was how to learn from your mistakes.A little of that could go a long way today, but peoples egos and memories seem too short these days.

IMHO, this is McNamara trying to ease his conscience and justify his bad decisions. Here is a link to actual troop levels, indicating that Kennedy had already begun a huge esclation during his term, and LBJ choose to continue along that path. Note the 350% increase between 1961 and 1962 and an additional 50% increase between 1962 and 1963.

http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

Did you see the movie? I've got to believe that you have not seen it, for if you had you'd know that McNamara was not trying to ease his conscience, nor was he trying to justify his decisions. If anything he was open and honest about his decisions, some of which he recognizes were wrong, and he clearly agonizes over the things he felt he should have done differently. He tried many, many times to talk LBJ out of further escalation, as is documented with actual voice recordings used in the documentary.

McNamara yielded to JFK's (& RFK's) entreaties just five weeks after having been named President of the Ford Motor Company, and he was he first company head selected outside the Ford family.

McNamara's experiences in WWII, as detailed in the film, were interesting, I thought. He did a lot of analyses on allied bombing efforts, and his descriptions of Curtis LeMay were a bit chilling.

I also found the similarities between the "Gulf of Tonkin" "incident" (incidents, as there were two reported, one was fake, one might have been real, and recently there has been a report that some mid-level NSA types fudged the translation of the fake incident that ultimately led to the resolution by Congress authorizing escalation) and the recent WMD in Iraq justification.

McNamara was also the head of the World Bank form 1968 - 1981.

This film did win the Oscar for best documentary in 2004, and the filmmaker, Errol Morris, is a very interesting person. Check out some of his other documentaries: "Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr." and "A Brief History of Time".

"The Fog of War" is definiteley worth a viewing. I did a quick search and it is not on locally this month, although it was on (HBO I think) here last month.

The troop figures you link to are interesting, to be sure. However one can point out that there is a big difference between 16,300 U.S. troops in 1963 (JFK's last year in office) and the 184,300 in 1965. Maybe JFK oversaw and approved a large percentage increase in troop levels, but the actual numbers pale in comparison to LBJ's.

McNamara: Now I remember exactly the sentence I left off on. I remember how it started, and I was cut off in the middle. But you can fix it up some way. I don't want to go back, introduce the sentence, because I know exactly what I wanted to say.

Morris: Go ahead!

McNamara: Okay. Any military commander who is honest with himself, or with those he's speaking to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He's killed people unnecessarily — his own troops or other troops — through mistakes, through errors of judgment. A hundred, or thousands, or tens of thousands, maybe even a hundred thousand. But, he hasn't destroyed nations. And the conventional wisdom is don't make the same mistake twice, learn from your mistakes. And we all do. Maybe we make the same mistake three times, but hopefully not four or five. They'll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. You make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations."

"At my age, 85, I'm at age where I can look back and derive some conclusions about my actions. My rule has been try to learn, try to understand what happened. Develop the lessons and pass them on."

"Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep up out of war. And General Curtis LeMay, whom I served under as a matter of fact in World War II, was saying "'Let's go in, let's totally destroy Cuba.'"

"In Thompson's mind was this thought: Khrushchev's gotten himself in a hel_l of a fix. He would then think to himself, 'My God, if I can get out of this with a deal that I can say to the Russian people: 'Kennedy was going to destroy Castro and I prevented it.' Thompson, knowing Khrushchev as he did, thought Khrushchev will accept that. And Thompson was right. That's what I call empathy. We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes, just to understand the thoughts that lie behind their decisions and their actions."

"In the first message, Khrushchev said this: 'We and you ought not to pull on the ends of a rope which you have tied the knots of war. Because the more the two of us pull, the tighter the knot will be tied. And then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction. For such is the logic of war. If people do not display wisdom, they will clash like blind moles and then mutual annihilation will commence.'"

"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."

Some extracts from the movie...

Did you see the movie? I've got to believe that you have not seen it, for if you had you'd know that McNamara was not trying to ease his conscience, nor was he trying to justify his decisions. If anything he was open and honest about his decisions, some of which he recognizes were wrong, and he clearly agonizes over the things he felt he should have done differently. He tried many, many times to talk LBJ out of further escalation, as is documented with actual voice recordings used in the documentary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I have not seen the movie and did not claim to have. I was unaware of it until this thread. For sure I will want to give it a look at some point. I also appreciate open and honest behavior, although history indicates that he was not entirely open and honest during the 60's, and there was virtually no one else alive to refute what he had to say.

"Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep up out of war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet during Kennedy's shortened administration, he managed to increase non-covert military presence there from a few hundred to almost 12,000.

"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is hard to imagine such BS coming from a man of his years and experience.

Luck did not prevent nuclear war. Fear of annihilation is what prevented nuclear war. The only luck was that some idiot with his finger on a firing button somewhere didn't misinterpret an order.

Kennedy may have been rational, but he was foolish and stupid. Khrushchev may have been rational but he was foolish and stupid.

The whole Soviet/American interface during the cold was was based upon the concept of "sphere of influence." This concept essentially said you watch what's going on in your part of the world and I'll stay out, and I'll watch what is going on in mine and you stay out.

Both Kennedy and Khrushchev chose to test these principles and both paid the price. Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam and Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba. Those decisions ended up being closer to stupid than to rational.

These are examples of how educated, intelligent, rational people can still make stupid decisions.

The final statement is more BS, implying that we remain as close to nuclear Armageddon today as we did in the Kennedy era. The whole world is at risk from individual attacks from terrorist nutcases, but not country on country full scale wipeout. I would sooner trust scientists than politicians and bureaucrats:

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

"Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep up out of war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet during Kennedy's shortened administration, he managed to increase non-covert military presence there from a few hundred to almost 12,000.

"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is hard to imagine such BS coming from a man of his years and experience.

Luck did not prevent nuclear war. Fear of annihilation is what prevented nuclear war. The only luck was that some idiot with his finger on a firing button somewhere didn't misinterpret an order.

Kennedy may have been rational, but he was foolish and stupid. Khrushchev may have been rational but he was foolish and stupid.

The whole Soviet/American interface during the cold was was based upon the concept of "sphere of influence." This concept essentially said you watch what's going on in your part of the world and I'll stay out, and I'll watch what is going on in mine and you stay out.

Both Kennedy and Khrushchev chose to test these principles and both paid the price. Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam and Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba. Those decisions ended up being closer to stupid than to rational.

These are examples of how educated, intelligent, rational people can still make stupid decisions.

The final statement is more BS, implying that we remain as close to nuclear Armageddon today as we did in the Kennedy era. The whole world is at risk from individual attacks from terrorist nutcases, but not country on country full scale wipeout. I would sooner trust scientists than politicians and bureaucrats:

http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to watch the doco to appreciate the comments.He was quite emotional during a few parts.Remember the man was 85 when this was filmed.

I know you might want to turn this into a Democrat vs Republician thing, or would look more favourably if McNamara was batting for your team, but I hope you look at it from an impartial viewpoint. I can see a distinct similarities between him and the Rumsfeld.Both of them are very intelligent people.This does not mean that they always make the right decision though.

A point also to remember is that the Secretary of Defense is a Political position and as such will answer questions to try and make himself AND his government look good.Donald Rumsfeld does exactly the same.

Rummy's a funny lad - great sense of humour.

I know you might want to turn this into a Democrat vs Republician thing, or would look more favourably if McNamara was batting for your team

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry you are off your rocker here. I'm not trying to turn it into anything, just adding some facts and opinion to the thread.

I don't know what you mean by "my team." Bush isn't perfect. Rumsfeld isn't perfect. Cheney surely isn't perfect. As I've said many times in this forum, my personal views range from left to right and in between. So I don't know where you get off saying these things.

Contrary to other opinions, Rumsfeld and McNamara are nothing alike. There are very few things similar in their backgrounds, other than both having connections to the DC insider power elite of their generations. Further, there is nothing at all similar with respect to the military environment that each had to work with in heading up the DoD.

I'll watch the film someday soon and maybe form some new opinions after then. It's an interesting topic and I'm glad you opened the thread or I would have never found out about it.

Many of the failures in Vietnam were politicians making military decisions. Nothing different in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Night and day. Apples and oranges. Black and white.

But by all means please clarify your position, which I happen to agree with for Vietnam but completely disagree with for Iraq.

Other than the President, who happens to be the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces, specifically which politicians are making military decisions in Iraq?

Do you know something that the rest of the world does not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our military forces are spread too thin because we have taken on too many objectives.

We have invaded a hostile territory and send small groups to patrol large areas.

We laid no ground work for the invasion, expect air stirkes against communications and military targets. No plains were made to deal with guerilla warfare until it started. We kicked the doors open guns blazin'. Yeah, great planning.

The reasons given for the war are weak. WMD, where? If a cop has the sense to drop a dime bag the back seat of a car of a suspect why can't the US, military. Or better yet make sure!

Stating that Saddam had the abilty to attack the US or it's neighbor as a reason to attack him is the same as saying after busting someones face that they were looking at you funny. Mexico could attack the US, and they are much closer, perhaps when should attack and put Fox on trial for the invasion of America by his people.

What I am getting at here is that the military decisions were not thought through because they didn't have the time. They were rushed by the suits. The reasons the suits give as why the invasion went forward prove that they didn't take the time to think it throught.

Saddam is a bad man, yes. We put him in power, yes. He isn't the best person to have runnning any country, but there are so many different ways to handle his removal power then what happened. Oh yes, let's make everything public, and that way the whole world gets to see how we screwed up. Let's give weak ass reasons like the people's freedom, you know that's what Ho Chi Min was fighting for right? And now the great evil Saddam, killer of his people, terror to the Kurds, gets to be a Muslim martyr because little Bush couldn't operate with the intelligence that our cold war government use when it made plans. Now the whole world fears and mistrusts us because we shoot first ask questions later, because we get tied up in war that isn't ours and in a country that doesn't want us there. The only that has changed is enviroment.

Wars are initiated for one main reason: M.O.N.E.Y

I know you might want to turn this into a Democrat vs Republician thing, or would look more favourably if McNamara was batting for your team

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry you are off your rocker here. I'm not trying to turn it into anything, just adding some facts and opinion to the thread.

I don't know what you mean by "my team." Bush isn't perfect. Rumsfeld isn't perfect. Cheney surely isn't perfect. As I've said many times in this forum, my personal views range from left to right and in between. So I don't know where you get off saying these things.

Contrary to other opinions, Rumsfeld and McNamara are nothing alike. There are very few things similar in their backgrounds, other than both having connections to the DC insider power elite of their generations. Further, there is nothing at all similar with respect to the military environment that each had to work with in heading up the DoD.

I'll watch the film someday soon and maybe form some new opinions after then. It's an interesting topic and I'm glad you opened the thread or I would have never found out about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not quite off me rocker yet,but it's only 9.20AM...so who knows what might happen by this afternoon.

Don't let Boonie hear you say that the current crew are not perfect...

the Rumsfield and McNamara comparison has nothing to do with their background,it's more to do with the way they could/can think on their feet and the intellect the two men have.

We put him in power, yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NO !!!!

I think you better check your facts. Saddam rose to the top by intimidation, kidnapping and assassination.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/research/bio.html

the Rumsfield and McNamara comparison has nothing to do with their background,it's more to do with the way they could/can think on their feet and the intellect the two men have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you say that?

One was a career businessman dragged into politics. The other is a career bureaucrat who went into business only during political downturns, using infliuence gained through politics. Huge difference.

the Rumsfield and McNamara comparison has nothing to do with their background,it's more to do with the way they could/can think on their feet and the intellect the two men have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can you say that?

One was a career businessman dragged into politics. The other is a career bureaucrat who went into business only during political downturns, using infliuence gained through politics. Huge difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can say it easy..do you want me to say it again?

Please reread.

We put him in power, yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NO !!!!

I think you better check your facts. Saddam rose to the top by intimidation, kidnapping and assassination.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/research/bio.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, with funding from the CIA and Bush senior. We have had our hands in the middle east since the fall of the Ottomans, man. Nothing changed with junior taking over.

BTW, why is this the only thing you choose to comment on?

Yes, with funding from the CIA and Bush senior. We have had our hands in the middle east since the fall of the Ottomans, man. Nothing changed with junior taking over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh please ... gimme a &lt;deleted&gt;' break!

Bush senior was head of the CIA for less than 12 months (30Jan76-20Jan77), basically as a fill-in between the end of the Ford and start of the Carter administrations, yet all you lefties want to blame all the troubles of the middle east as being root caused within that tenure.

What a bunch of crap!

BTW, why is this the only thing you choose to comment on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because your arguments are so full of holes, I couldn't spend a week responding to all of them. So I chose one.