by Mark Silva
Robert S. McNamara, the former secretary of defense for two presidents who only late in life acknowledged that he and his colleagues were "wrong, terribly wrong'' in the prosecution of the war in Vietnam, passed away today at the age of 93.
He had served as secretary of defense for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson as the U.S. military escalated its forces in Southeast Asia in the 1960s. Before the U.S. pulled out of Saigon in 1975, American forces lost 58,000.
"The problem was that we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics,'' McNamara allowed 20 years later.
McNamara had served as president of Ford Motor Co., before joining the Kennedy administration in 1961. And for 13 years after leaving Johnson's Pentagon in 1968, he served as president of the World Bank.
Remembered as brilliant and compulsive, with a work ethic that carried him from modest circumstances in California to the pinnacles of power in Washington, he retired from the World Bank in 1981 but maintained a busy director's and consultant's life.
The domestic protests that the war in Vietnam stirred in the U.S. drove one president from office and consumed the campaign of his would-be successors. The ultimate failure of the U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam also left the morale and image of the American military weakened for years - the "lessons of Vietnam''shaping military and political strategies for decades to come.
In his 1995 memoir of the war, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, McNamara said that he and his colleagues were "wrong, terribly wrong" to pursue the war as they did. He acknowledged that he failed to force the military to justify its strategy and tactics, had misunderstood Asia in general and Vietnam in particular, and perpetuated the war long after he realized it was futile.
The AP contributed to this report. See an excerpt about the press's impact on the war below, and see McNamara's discussion of his book above, courtesy of C-SPAN.
C-SPAN: What did you think the impact of the press was?
McNAMARA: "Well, I think two things. Number one, this was the first war -- and people don't understand this to this day -- the first war in which the press acted without censorship, and I think that was good.
The second point is that many people today -- and I've heard it expressed within the last week or so -- believe that, well, it was the press that lost the war, that if they'd just kept their mouth shut, the people wouldn't have turned away from it and we'd have had the American people behind it and we could have won. That is totally wrong.
We were fighting -- and we didn't realize it -- a civil war. Now, true, obviously there were Soviet and Chinese influence and support and no question that the communists were trying to control South Vietnam, but it was basically a civil war.
And one of the things we should learn is you can't fight and win a civil war with outside troops, and particularly not when the political structure in a country is dissolved. So it wasn't the press that was the problem. The problem was that we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics.''
Comments
McNamara is the Vietnam era's Darth Cheney.
Move along people - nothing to see here!
.
Posted by: former Republican | July 6, 2009 4:18 PM
At least McNamara finally admitted he was wrong, in public, many times. Cheney, Rummy and Shrub Jr will never admit the truth. They'll go to their graves as uncaring war criminals/profiteers.
Posted by: Ming the Merciless | July 6, 2009 5:02 PM
It's sad that the run of the mill rabid right winger still can't admit that Vietnam war was a grave error, unlike Mr. McNamara.
Posted by: Nick | July 6, 2009 5:14 PM
McNamara may have caught on, however, it was not soon enough for the 58,000 American soldiers who died in the Vietnam "War". Catching on after the fact--of so many deaths--means nothing, and it makes no difference.
Iraq = Vietnam. Wasted life. Wasted years. Wasted US national wealth.
Posted by: Vivian | July 6, 2009 7:19 PM
It seems, as usual, that Mark Silva's reporting is wrong, terribly wrong. McNamara is referring to the prosecution of the war not so much the war itself. McNamara isn't saying it was wrong to fight against communism, which this war largely was about. Can the dolts on the left truly believe that the slaughter of millions of people after we left was a good thing? That what the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese was good?
And for those dolts trying to link Vietnam to Iraq, it seems that we have won in Iraq, despite the left saying it was lost (Illegal Land Deals Harry Reid, et al) and despite the critics saying it was a civil war, which Iraq really wasn't. There is political reconciliation taking place in Iraq and the country is better off today than it was 7 years ago. And, for those dolts on the left complaining about the "corruption" in Iraq, please worry about the corrupt sludge you dolts elect and elect and elect in Illinois like Blago, Boy Stroger, Quinn, Madigan, Cullerton, et al.
Posted by: John D | July 6, 2009 9:29 PM
which this war largely was about...
I have no idea what this war was about, as I lived mostly happy life without horror of wars, and whish everyone to be as blessed. But I have hard time understanding what you find so worthy of fighting to death if you joined arms with communists in the fight against Hitler in 1941, and are proud of it, and we are now implementing what communists stood for from get go which is
a. accessible health care
b. affordable living quarters
and
c. vibrant community engaged in building homeland
??? who in the world may I ask you so important as to waste even 1 life of a pesky criminal for the "ism", let alone a thousands of lives that could have contributed to betterment of own country and possibly Vietnam in ways that make America a lot more important and beautiful in the eye of the beholder ???
Posted by: Miron | July 6, 2009 10:03 PM
Actually, Vivian, McNamara resigned before 2/3 of those deaths, but LBJ wouldn't listen.
So, John D., what have we won in Iraq?
Posted by: rupert | July 6, 2009 10:22 PM
And, for those dolts on the left complaining about the "corruption" in Iraq, please worry about the corrupt sludge you dolts elect and elect and elect in Illinois like Blago, Boy Stroger, Quinn, Madigan, Cullerton, et al.
Posted by: John D | July 6, 2009 9:29 PM
---------------------------------------
.
Sounds like you've been to one to many Teabagger parties, Little Johnny Joystick.
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/06/sex_scandal_flow_chart.php
Posted by: janet | July 7, 2009 1:25 AM
John D,
Paraphrasing you, "it seems John D's post is wrong, terribly wrong."
Iraq/Viet Nam parallels?
Both were wars of choice, based on bad intelligence and false premises, executed poorly and autocratically, wasting lives and wrecking the American economy in the process.
You're the "dolt."
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | July 7, 2009 7:30 AM
John D.,
Your postings are incorrect, as usual.
The Americans killed over 2,000,000 Vietnamese, including many civilians. You should move to Iraq. You may be happier there. You link Iraq to 9/11. Enlight us about Denny Hastert and his illegal real estate deals...
Posted by: Doug R. | July 7, 2009 10:12 AM
Go rent 'Path to War', a 2002 TV episode with Alec Baldwin as McNamara. It's very good.
Posted by: dt☢ | July 7, 2009 11:12 AM
Can the dolts on the left truly believe that the slaughter of millions of people after we left was a good thing? That what the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese was good?
.
Posted by: John D | July 6, 2009 9:29 PM
.
Kindly cite ONE post from someone on the left who's stated they believe that the slaughter of millions of people after we left Vietnam was a good thing, and that what the North Vietnamese did to their brethren in the South was good. All's I'm askin'. ONE. Then you can start writing about what we truly believe. Until then, "it seems, as usual" that your rants are ignorant and baseless.
Posted by: Op109 | July 7, 2009 1:49 PM
Can John D read? I could have sworn that Mark Silva's-- very wrong reporting-- used the phrase "prosecution of the war" and even excerpted, "the problem was that we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics." It's not the reporting. It's the subjective interpretation of the reader. I'm suspecting this all has something to do with the people behind the war expecting to use traditional warfare tactics when you're faced with guerrilla-like warfare. You're enemies look like friends, and vice versa. It was as true for Vietnam as it is for Iraq; 6 months in an out; just keep surging; forget the political climate or the humanitarian havoc you create to the very people you are trying to "win over"--feeding your enemy lines.
Posted by: Conservatives creat controvery where this is none. | July 7, 2009 7:06 PM
rupert--McNamara moved us into the worst part of the Vietnam "War"--we originally were not supposed to fight there--only to train Republic of VN army troops. I'd say, again, that he was responsible for setting the table to kill 58,000 American soldiers.
Posted by: Vivian | July 7, 2009 8:15 PM
The impression of the headline is that McNamara said the Vietnam War was wrong, terribly wrong. As pointed out by the 7:06 pm poster, McNamara was referring to the prosecution of the war, which Silva reports later on. It's the headline and the tone of the piece. But thanks Mr. 7:06 for proving me correct.
Doogie R., please point out where I tie 9/11 in with Iraq. And also show the proof that Americans killed 2 million Vietnamese. Here again, a Deranged Loony Lefter is portraying the U.S. as the bad guy. What new?
Dopie Opie, please look at Doogie R.'s post as an an example. Also refer to all the posts from your ilk apparently OK with the slaughtering of Iraqis and Kuwaitees by Hussein as an example of the Left OK with mass murder.
Posted by: John D | July 8, 2009 12:38 AM
Dopie Opie, please look at Doogie R.'s post as an an example. Also refer to all the posts from your ilk apparently OK with the slaughtering of Iraqis and Kuwaitees by Hussein as an example of the Left OK with mass murder.
Posted by: John D | July 8, 2009 12:38 AM
NO no no no no no no, little Deezie-Weezel. You don't get away with that. YOU said "Can the dolts on the left truly believe that the slaughter of millions of people after we left was a good thing? That what the North Vietnamese did to the South Vietnamese was good?" "So far, you fail to cite one person who said what you allege: that they believe that slaughter was a good thing. I'm not ABOUT to go looking for "all the posts" where we're supposedly "OK with slaughtering Iraqis" and mass murder. You want to make it an example, YOU move your fat keester and find the citations, buster. And unless they're actual posts from a "leftie" SAYING that he or she is okay with slaughter of millions of people and mass murder, it's STILL just your interpretation of what we say, which -- at the VERY MOST FORGIVING -- is "somewhat slanted." "Doogie's" post makes NO claim that he's in favor of slaughter -- NONE. Therefore, it is most certainly NOT an example of what you state. And UNTIL you come up with an example, the clear answer to your question must be: "No, of COURSE people on the left do not believe slaughter is good, and only a dolt would claim otherwise."
.
Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Op109 | July 8, 2009 1:30 PM
Only in your bubble John D. Uuuuu terribly terribly wrong. (Are you nuts?) This is about Mark Silva's reporting. It's not about the few misfits who can't read-- or who would like to read in meaning. Maybe you can get away with reading "my pet goat" that way but let's be real-- headlines are meant to grab your attention-- then it's your job to objectively read the article-- which in many places I don't even have to point to-- point out to any person with an ounce of brain power that the headline does NOT mean what you think it means by using your subjective interpretation. Vietnam wrong. Wow. I thought conservatives were all about using your own brain power, and there you have John D who'd go as far as place the entire article as the headline-- just in case that one someone get's the wrong idea. PLUS, being the literal reader that he is who insists that a headline represent an article an no more-- can't even meet his own standards-- and pulls out "terribly terribly" wrong out of thin air. The fact that you can supplement impressions of a headline for actual reading a piece says it all.....bubble boy.
Posted by: Conservatives highly impressionistic..hide shinny objects. | July 8, 2009 2:14 PM
So by Vivian's logic, Barbara Bush is responsible for all the Iraqi deaths by virtue of giving birth to W. Fair enough.
Posted by: rupert | July 8, 2009 7:09 PM
rupert--your logic is flawed. Not really a direct line there, however, a contributing factor to W's responsibility for all the Iraqi civilian and American troop deaths. IMO, America would have been better off if Barb had never given birth to W. or to her other Silverado S & L failure banker son, Neil. And, if Jeb pushes to give illegals citizenship--then by extension tax paid American medical insurance-- when we can hardly afford to insure ourselves--that would be the third bad seed.
Posted by: Vivian | July 9, 2009 2:20 PM