MovieChat Forums > The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2004) Discussion > McNamara was a troubled man

McNamara was a troubled man

posted 15 years ago by filmfanaticNorCal
17 replies | jump to latest

I am watching this guy try to somehow explain the rationale behind fire bombing 67 japanese cities, but underneath he knows it was wrong, he knows he would be a war criminal if they had lost the war and says it.

When he mentioned the part about become Secretary of Defense under Kennedy, and the strain it put on his family and he says "it probably killed my wife and gave my son ulcers...", and he kind of laughs it off, then I knew he had gone a bit nuts.

McNamara liked being in the limelight and he did what he had to do to stay there. He was a yes man to LeMay, to Kennedy, to Johnson, whatever they wanted he did it, and he seemed to rationalize it, internalize the moral contraditions...

I think in some ways he was no better than any Nazi general who claims he was only following orders. It doesn't matter that Japan and Germany atacked first. Fire bombing civilians is not moral. And Vietnam was more clear cut. This was a foreign country in which we had no business interferring. To his credit he did break with Johnson on Vietnam and left in 1968. He didn't speak out however, believing this would "give aid and comfort to the enemy". Weak argument.

Lesson for politicians: Don't get hung up in dogma. Communism is not evil, and Vietnam is a good example of that. Ho Chi Minh was leading a movement for national liberation and he happened to be a communist. That didn't make him evil or a totalitarian butcher. Same with Fidel in Cuba.

In the end his conscience was catching up to him. At that age it has too. That I respect and to make this film took some guts on his part. Hopefully, it will have an effect on military leaders and decision makers.

A troubled man trying to make peace with his life ......

The lessons of war should be, don't start one, if you get into one end it as quick as possible, and don't trust a lot of crazy generals. Nuclear disarmament is a necessity to preserve the human race, because as McNamara pointed out, the only thing that prevented a nuclear war over Cuba in October 1962 was LUCK!

watch this video of McN on Charlie Rose:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5348483561222197140#20m19s

[–] filmfanaticNorCal 15 years ago

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20090718/ai_n32167989/

Readers' Forum: Not shedding tears for Robert McNamara
Oakland Tribune, Jul 18, 2009 by Mark C Cook

A RECENT EVENING'S news reported the death of Robert S. McNamara, secretary of defense under both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and chief architect of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. I'm not shedding any tears.

In fact, I continue to believe that he was one of the most unlikeable characters among a host of unlikeable military and political figures of the era. Westmoreland, Kissinger, Johnson, Diem, the Nhu's (Sir and Madame), Nixon, Rusk, Nolting and Harkins all deserve a special place in the afterlife as far as I am concerned. But, McNamara deserves it perhaps more than any.

Most readers of Vietnam War history would conclude that by the time of the assassination of Diem, and two weeks later of John F. Kennedy, it should have been apparent to those in charge that a war with the North would never be won. (Personally, I believe the war should have ended in 1954 with the fall of Dien Bien Phu; we should have learned from the French mistakes). Politically, the South was bankrupt, hated by the majority of their own people, and at war with the Buddhists that comprised a mere 80 percent of their population as well as the Viet Cong. The North had yet to use North Vietnamese regular army in the south, but it was never going to give up.

The ARVN was, at its best, a security force designed to protect the Ngo family in Saigon; and, at its worst, cowardly and ineffectual. The American military command lied to itself about its success and railed against the press that revealed the lies.

Think how differently things would have turned out had these facts been recognized then. In November 1963, we had just 16,300 advisers in the theater and had suffered a total of just 78 killed in action. When I graduated high school in 1965, the numbers were just 81,000 in the country and 509 killed in action.

Instead, we had to endure McNamara and his policies until a month after the Tet Offensive of 1968. By then, we had more than 500,000 men in action there and had lost more than 16,000 (that would swell to more than 58,000 in the subsequent six years). Writing in his book of memoirs, "In Retrospect", McNamara speaking of a time around late 1967 wrote, "Readers must wonder by now -- if they have not been mystified long before -- how presumably intelligent, hardworking, and experienced officials -- both civilian and military -- failed to address systemically and thoroughly questions whose answers so deeply affected the lives of our citizens and the welfare of our nation. Simply put, such an orderly, rational approach was precluded by the 'crowding out,' which resulted from the fact that Vietnam was but one of a multitude of problems we confronted."

Can you imagine that? Seven years as secretary of defense and that long overseeing the debacle that was to become the Vietnam War, and he suggests that they failed to thoroughly ask questions because his plate was too full. What could have possibly been more important to a defense secretary than the war the country was fighting, and losing?

His subsequent mea culpa would ring hollow to me. He spent some 25 years acting as though he and the administrations in which he was involved did nothing wrong; then, the last 15 acting as if he were somehow a victim of the times. I don't buy any of it.

So long, Robert Strange McNamara, on whichever side you reside, heaven or hell, I'm sure there will be some grunts waiting to hear your explanations. I hope you have practiced them well.

Cook is a resident of Discovery Bay.

[–] D-Roo 14 years ago

Excellent opinion piece and article.

I saw pieces of this documentary a few years ago. I've started a college paper on Ho Chi Minh... naturally my interest in Vietnam War history was reignited. Definitely going to check this film out again.

[–] crj2626 14 years ago

Based on your first sentence alone, I have to wonder if you even watched the film. He does NOT try to rationalize fire bombing cities in Japan, he explains why it was wrong and then gives Curtis Lemay's rationalization for fire bombing the cities. McNamara says "proportionality should be a rule for war". Explaining someone else's rationalization is not rationalizing it himself. He is relaying what Lemay told him.

In your second sentence you put quotation marks around a bunch of words that were maybe 20% correct from what McNamara actually said. If you are going to quote someone you might want to get it right. What he actually said was, "It was a traumatic period(while he was in office). My wife probably got ulcers from it. She may have ultimately died from stress(she died almost 14 years after he left office). My son had ulcers. It was very traumatic, BUT they were some of the best years of our lives and all members of our family benefited from it."

You then say "and he kind of laughs it off, then I knew he had gone a bit nuts". At no time does he laugh, smile, or even come close to a grin. He has a somber look on his face. You have totally fabricated that entire portion of the movie.

Finally, that letter you posted is ridiculous to say the least. I have listened to hundreds of recorded phone calls between McNamara and Lyndon Johnson, as well as read several memos where McNamara argues against expanding the war. He tells Johnson on many occassions that it is unwinnable and that they should search for a diplomatic answer. McNamara was an advisor. There was ONE human being in Washington who could have ended that war, and that is the same person who started it, Lyndon Johnson. McNamara was far from perfect, but to call him the "architect of Vietnam" is pure stupidity. He didn't request troops. He didn't send troops. Those two jobs belonged to General Westmorland and President Johnson. Feel free to do some actual reading of documents and listening to actual words said by the people you speak about before you state and uninformed opinion based off of one documentary and the movie 13 days with Kevin Costner...you do realize that was Kevin and not actually Ken O'Donnell right?

If Robert McNamara wasn't the Secretary of Defense during the Cuban Missile Crises, it is highly likely that the outcome would have been devestating. He was one of three voices of reason in the giant circle of hard-liners advising JFK to destroy Cuba. McNamara came up with the idea of blockade and eventually trading the Missiles in Turkey in order to get the Missiles removed from Cuba. The movie 13 days, which I am sure you get most of your ideas from, actually understates McNamara's importance. Instead they use Ken O'Donnell who really had nothing to do with it, and they pretend Adlai Stevensen suggests trading our missiles in Turkey for theirs. This was McNamara's idea.

As far as your statement about Communism "not being evil". You are welcome to leave your cozy home in Northern California and live in a Communist country. Feel free to actually live under a communist regime before you claim to know whether or not it is evil. My guess is that you will stick to living in California.

[–] jimmyko92 14 years ago

I tend to agree with parts of both your (crj2626) and the OP's arguments. But to believe that Robert McNamara was not one of the principle architects of the initial troop build up in Vietnam goes against what is already known. It was his plan that was implemented that led to the escalation of American troops to Vietnam. More than likely the memos and recorded phone calls you speak of took place long after the escalation of the war, as there was no doubt as the war began to unfold McNamara knew that it was not going to end the way he originally thought. LBJ leaned on his close advisers as his knowledge of foreign affairs was limited when he took office, so to place the blame squarely on his shoulders is not entirely fair. McNamara's successor as secretary of Defense Clark Clifford believed that no president would have been able to avoid war. LBJ's biggest mistake was that he wanted to believe so badly that the war was winnable that he let it drag on longer than it ever should have. He let men like McNamara and McGeorge Bundy convince him early on that the war would end positively that when views around him began to change he didn't change with them.

When I watch Fog of War I see a man tormented by what he had done, but unwilling to let people see that torment. This film was his way of trying to reconcile the past. When he left his post as secretary of defense McNamara was barely sleeping , and it was LBJ who said McNamara could not get over the feeling he was a murderer. I believe he probably felt this until the end of his life.

[–] junmengo 14 years ago

do you really think a secretary of defense dictates when a country go or not to war really?

he was trying to implement Lindon Jonhson orders the best way possible, i'm not excusing him, but puting the full resposability of the vietnam war in his account and make him some kind of evil genius is neivy

The vietnam war would happen with or without Mcnamara, this is BS the vietnam war started the day kennedy was shot in dallas

This is a presidencialist regime, mcnamara wasnt the prime minister, stop this non-sense

[–] jimmyko92 14 years ago

No the secretary of defense does not make the final decision when a country goes to war. For that the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of LBJ, but when the man has every close adviser, with the exception of Undersecretary of State George Ball telling him to go to war it is hard not to go along.

Robert McNamara is guilty of devising the strategy of a war of attrition that was implemented, and misleading what its effectiveness would be. He and other advisers like National Security adviser McGeorge Bundy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk completely misunderstood North Vietnam's intentions, and foolishly believed in the domino effect. No-one knows what would have happened if JFK was not shot, but it would have been very hard for him to stay away from the war's escalation. I believe the major difference would have been that JFK would have listened to men like McNamara when they began to speak out against the war, and maybe things would not have dragged on as long as they did.

[–] nuogher 14 years ago

If all these thoughts about how military planning is conducted, I become both scared and relieved.

The fact that no military person is involved in planning of wars, relaxes me because that would mean that countries will stay independent. But at the same time that would mean that invaders, guerillas and terrorist can't be fought.

[–] faramir_remus 14 years ago

This documentary isn't some sort of ego trip, it's about a smart guy explaining how he reasoned and rationalized the things that he did, but also illuminating just how hard those decisions were. You can't paint him as "nuts" any more than you can you can label a Communist "evil." People are complicated, incredibly complicated, and to hold this kind of position, you have to be a type-A go-getter. Just because you don't like his personality... sheesh

[–] anfeargal 13 years ago

Certainly he was troubled -- and he took a job that under any circumstances would have been very difficult. Though people say that the Vietnam Communists were really not so bad -- how is it that somebody would "know" that in the mid 1960s. People also "know" that the Korean war was a "mistake" -- yet it without doubt stopped a unified communist degree under an incredibly horrible system. South Korea was not "perfect" circa 1965 -- but just think how much better for the common good the system of that country is from North Korea? South Korea today is one of the most developed and successful countries in the world where people live very well -- and the North is among the worst. These are stark contrasts that cannot be denied. In the mid 1960s many people believed that Stalin had killed several million people (it turns out he did -- but leftists denied this for decades until it was openly admitted in the 1990s). We saw what happened in East Germany, Hungary -- and eventually in Prague.

McNamara without question helped avert disaster in Cuba. Had Nixon not had Watergate North Vietnam would not have invaded the South. The 1974 post Watergate Congress made it 99% Certain that South Vietnam no longer would be supported by the USA. Today, we would not be viewing the Vietnam War as so much of a disaster (and the North and South may have joined just like East and West Germany in the 1990s). Today, it does appear that the communists in Vietnam are more flexible than the ones in North Korea or Cuba. How would anybody have known that in the 1960s? Is it "good" that Eastern Europe went through communism by force from 1946 to 1989? Was communism a "good" system for the Russian Empire? Was communism "good" for China under Mao?

In light of the tens of millions of human beings killed by Communists between 1930 and 1960 does it make any sense that people might think it would be worth the price of lives to avert future murder? Is war with violent methods of the past 70 years ever really "fair"?

[–] pdlussier1 11 years ago

Sorry, but that's an incredibly lame justification that can only come out of someone who's absorbed years of anti-communist brainwashing. The problem, as always--and as much so with a government that can spawn and prop up someone like Dick Cheney--is really about people, not systems. With the fall of the USSR, today's enemy is "terrorism". And the same ass-backwards reasoning is continually applied to justify gross military action and unnecessary deaths, but only in places beneficial to Capitalism, and only because it's beneficial to Capitalism, which boils down to that 1%; the real reasons have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being humane and preventing deaths, otherwise the US would have also cared about Cambodia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Congo, East Timor, and so on (the list is long); they wouldn't have, highly illegally, backed the Contras or the...; they wouldn't endorse the World Bank, and the IMF, and...
Vietnam wasn't about preventing further murders--the Americans killed indiscriminately and attempted to defoliate an entire country and destroy its vegetation so the population would starve... Do people really buy that the US government was entirely ignorant of Vietnam's history and simply didn't realize that all that the Vietnamese people wanted was the 1956 reunification and independence they'd long-fought for and had been promised by the 54 Geneva Accord??? People back home were aware of this before any of the members of the four administrations, who, BTW, seemed aware enough to continually lie??? Bullcrap!
Capitalism/Colonialism can probably claim more deaths, and it's raped more countries for their resources, exploited more people, and forced more into extreme poverty and starvation. But, somehow, they manage to do it in a way that's accepted or overlooked, and even manage to garner support from its own citizens, the people they continually lie to and exploit... Blows my mind.

[–] subase 11 years ago

Reducing it to 'capitalism is evil' is so shallow. Any power elite will seek to preserve it's power whatever it takes, the communists were no different. Your just saying the sky is blue while pretending the other side was better, the other side was the same or worse.

[–] pdlussier1 11 years ago

Read carefully. Mine is a direct response to a previous comment, and does not reduce any issues to "Capitalism is evil", but, rather, provides a comparison point, and clear parallels, to the "communism is evil" comment to which I'm replying. Your very "shallow" interpretation didn't pick up on the following statement, perhaps, which sums up my point, making your comment entirely redundant: "The problem, as always--and as much so with a government that can spawn and prop up someone like Dick Cheney--is really about people, not systems."

Ignorance is bliss... 'til it posts on the Internet; then, it's annoying.

[–] GlobalWater 13 years ago

Right u r

[–] subase 11 years ago

Mcnamara main problems were his naivety and loyalty, but he was chosen for that.

It was really Kennedy's fault, since he chose him. He wanted someone malleable in the position instead of someone who would actually know war, know their enemies and challenge hims as a man and president.

But this is typical of politicians, Kennedy was just another politician putting his own interests ahead of the country.

Mcnamara is and remains the CEO of a car maker, nothing more. If he was more he would have had vastly more influence than the yes man he turned out to be.

[–] bhoover247 11 years ago

Any Secretary of Defense is going to be a yes man to the President. Presumably, anybody smart and powerful enough to be elected President is going to have their own opinions about something as important as war. The problem with McNamara is his vanity and pride. He doesn't like to admit that he was a yes man, something he probably disdained when he was the CEO of Ford. He won't admit it publicly, but it is probably the reason he never really felt guilt.

[–] NewCliches 8 years ago

he knows he would be a war criminal if they had lost the war

The Germans and Japanese bombed a lot of cities during the war, and no one calls that a war crime. So I don't see why bombing German or Japanese cities should be called a war crime either.

[–] ebhaynz (3525) 5 years ago

LBJ told the Generals that once he got elected in his own right "you can have your war", and not only did he mean it he kept his word. 3 years later when he found out he had NO CHANCE to even win his party he went on TV to somehow save his destroyed legacy by saying "I want to talk you tonight about PEACE in Vietnam". MCNamara was just a puppet of LBJ like all the other yes men but trust me it was all LBJ's fault, he could have prevented the whole fiasco..he was just a self destructive bully.