Robert McNamara is dead at 93. If you’ve never seen The Fog Of War, I commend it to you highly. McNamara possessed a characterological pathology I had never before encountered outside of a toddler: a bent for demonstrative public apology combined with a strident defense of both his course of action and the reasoning chain that led to it. Mickey Kaus wrote a good essay about McNamara in 1995, when McNamara published an apology/apologia titled In Retrospect, which Kaus archly called more of a "modified limited hangout than a mea culpa."
But it seems that doesn’t quite capture the depths of McNamara’s performative self-torment. I forget whether I read this in The Best And The Brightest or somewhere else, but I recall some (possibly-apocryphal) story about McNamara considering it his responsibility to attend Georgetown dinner parties and receive verbal abuse about Vietnam, particularly from the antiwar children of the establishment. The airing of this dissent, McNamara thought, was a solemn responsibility of power. Which sounds lovely and civic-minded until you consider that McNamara had by mid-1967 come to the conclusion, entirely in secret, that the war was unwinnable and he possessed considerable power as defense secretary to end it. Instead, he subjected himself to harsh language determined to reinforce his apoplexy while Americans and Vietnamese died for no reason. Viewed in that light, the 30 years between McNamara’s Pentagon tenure and his memoir were basically a period of dress rehersal.
I don’t know if it really serves any purpose to compare McNamara to Donald Rumsfeld, irresistable as the comparison is. But it’s always been striking to me how much Rumsfeld appeared to want to avoid what he considered to be McNamara’s chief mistakes. Concede that troop levels in Iraq were too low? Why, that merely sets the stage for an endless and politically untenable series of escalations. Concede that strategy had gone off-course? Why, that merely sets the stage for the press picking the strategy to death. Concede that you made mistakes? Why, that merely positions you as a vain and irresponsible know-nothing. None of this is to say that Rumsfeld’s errors look better than McNamara’s — judging which of two train wrecks is the worse one is academic — only to warn that an attempt to avoid the disasters of the past can steer us into disasters of our own, because the world is an evil and inscrutible place.
Login Here




16 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
No use in comparing McNamara and Rumsfeld. Different personalities, different pathologies.
The only useful way to size up McNamara is to look what he did as Secretary of Defense.
If he had done the same things as a nazi, he would have hung at Nuremburg.
A war criminal. An execrable human being.
Good riddance.
The morons-in-charge are always fighting the last war. Remember the Maginot Line?
Aahh, Spencer, you fear to go where you should, and thusly, a minimalist approach to a contrast.
From my perspective as a Vietnam War Vet, McNamara knew in 1966 that the War was unwinnable, and yet, Rumsfeld “nullified” the Geneva Conventions, and when questioned, said it was inadvertent. There is no inadvertent decision-making at the level of the Secretary’s Office. It’s all intentional.
And this intentional was all done with an ink pen and not with with legislation, is the difference between the two. Thusly, Rumsfeld, the war criminal from my perspective.
Jaango
No corner of hell could possibly be hot enough for McNamara or Rummy.
I have a bag of nails for each of their coffins. I hope the undertaker has been ordered to dig extra deep.
Your firedoglake@gmail.com isn’t working and I have an answwer!!
As a financial guy all my life I can’t believe I missed it!!
She has run out of cash!!!
That’s the Naughty Monkey we have have been waiting for!!!
Sarah ran out of cash!!!
Remember Miinesota Fats??!! “You gotta have the cash!!”
I’m going to be odd man out here. Rumsfeld was a successful con man. McNamara was a decent man, more than decent in my view, who administered a policy handed to him by Walt Rostow and Lyndon Johnson (who followed Rostow’s advice). McNamara served as a faithful civil servant. In the end he accepted defeat, as Johnson did, and resigned. He faced up to what he did in later life. Rumsfeld never did and never will. He is a war criminal.
McNamara is a complex case, of which I suspect we will see some repeats in the present administration, which was handed two wars it did not seek, and worries about what will happen to its right flank if it pulls out. McCarthyism isn’t dead, as we all know from recent wingnut utterances. It is only in abeyance. The Johnson administration lacked the courage to confront that right wing. The jury on Obama is out, but it doesn’t look good so far for the final verdict. Which is to say, American foreign policy is more constrained by our fascist streak than we want to believe.
American foreign policy is more constrained by our fascist streak than we want to believe…
Don’t know if it is fascist streak or a combination of arrogance, group think and rampant careerism in the Pentagon.
Let’s say one was senior in the White House or Pentagon and did not agree with our policy. How long would one have one’s position? Is there any room for internal dissent in any large institution? The bad news tends to get driven in by outside events, against a large quota of denial.
McNamara was totally evil. There is just no other word for him. He was evil planning the bombing of civilians in WW II, evil when he ran Ford motor, evil in the planning of the Vietnam War, and even MORE evil running the World Bank. Not even Hitler can match his record.
Pretty amazing our elites learned zero from Vietnam. Except how to lie better, and to buy the media.
Then again I think it did shackle Reagan somewhat, i.e. keep him from invading all of Central and South America.
I agree with Knut.
Also second Ackerman’s recommendation on “The Fog of War”. If you rent the DVD, watch all the extras too.
Most memorable segment for me was the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the story about Tommy Thompson, former ambassador to the USSR, whose open disagreement with JFK in a meeting saved us all.
For those who want to judge the conduct in WWII, unless they participated, suggest reading all of Studs Terkel’s “The Good War”.
Yes. I don’t think the Bushies wanted to “avoid the disasters of the past” in the sense in which we define the disaster. They clearly just wanted to do the same things but “do it right”, meaning make their activities look quasi-legal, make it all more palatable to the public, do war without a draft, control the media better, etc. They WANTED the same disaster of unnecessary war, just wanted to get away with it more effectively.
The thing that McNamara and Rumsfeld have in common is that it was always about them. They could inflict such horrors and persist in them because they were both so removed from them.
Sorry to say it but McNamara was more stupid than evil. Goes to show you that a math degree from Berkeley and some ability to make statistics work for you has absolutely nothing to do with good judgement, at least in McNamara’s case. It never ceases to amaze how academic celebrities like McNamara claim universal competence. What an evil selfish individual was McNamara.
McNamara had his own reasons for many of his actions which seem pretty grim in retrospect, for example, keeping his views quiet which he elucidated in the famous Lehrer interview. Not defending it, but he had his reasons.
Dunno about that, but how about the non-apocryphal story of when he went to dinner at Jackie’s apartment (1966 or 67) and Jackie, fervently antiwar, suddenly at a certain moment in the conversation began pounding her fists on his chest while crying out “Why haven’t you done something to stop the slaughter!” True story, told by McNamara in his book.
Not an evil man, but someone who at times, with LBJ, took loyalty a bit too far and for too long.
I do wish he’d come clean about Nam much sooner. Still, he largely did. That would be in contrast to another key pro-war advisor, nat’l security advisor (to JFK and LBJ) McGeorge Bundy, who kept awfully quiet for 30 yrs and died before his book could be completed. I’m only aware of once, on McNeil-Lehrer, when he softly suggested he’d made mistakes on VN, but the moment quickly came and went. Dean Rusk, a very pro-war hawk whose advice Lyndon greatly admired, never backed down from his stance all the way to the end.
As for alleged stupidity and good judgment, how about McN’s key role in the missile crisis, when he was (iirc) the first to suggest the safer middle-ground approach of a naval blockade? Prior to that, the overwhelming sentiment at the ExComm table was to first attack then invade/blockade.
He also was wise enough to strongly counsel, early and often, against a strike against Cuba unless it could be clearly determined we had located all the missile sites and that they weren’t operational. This helped put a damper on some of the more eager beaver hawks at the table, and helped buy time for Kennedy, who eventually got an admission from some of the hawks that no such clear determination could be had.
I cheered McNamara’s death and look forward to the imminent departure to hell of Dr Kissiger. Subhuman animals.