Thursday, July 9, 2009

Trashing McNamara

After digesting the comments on the earlier post, I've decided to take the quick and dirty way to address some of the comments.

First, I want to explain the intent of my post on McNamara.

Mike: Although I do agree that this has mostly turned into a trash-the-man-but-learn-nothing-from-his-mistakes post.

Well, Mike, it wasn't meant to turn into a "trash-the-man" post, it was always intended to be a "trash-the-man" post. I did not take the time to note this evil man's passing to prompt a lessons-learned discussion. I did it to express my everlasting contempt for the man and I'm glad I did it. I like to think a lot of other guys, now long gone from this planet, might agree with me.

My friend the Ranger wants to put the past behind, thinking it matters not other than as something to learn from. He doesn't want to judge McNamara. He wants to focus on the present. All well and good, Ranger, but in that case, what do we do about Hitler? About Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Do we just say "move on" and let's hope we've learned something? Santayana noted that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, which is why knowing history and making the appropriate judgments is all-important. If those of us who lived in the times of these "great men" who've failed the public trust don't go out of our way to express our opprobrium for them, we ensure that current and future "great men" will feel free to betray us again.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Ranger also seems to think that in my focus on McNamara, I'm somehow giving his bosses (Kennedy, Johnson) and succeeding presidents and sundry other politicians a free ride. Not so, Ranger. The day I made the post on McNamara was his turn in the barrel. The others have gotten theirs and will continue to get theirs from me. I'll note that I could not agree more with you in your jaundiced opinion of the American people and our collective failure to learn from the past. I am frankly often disgusted by many of my fellow citizens, but I, for one, will keep on truckin'.

Ael is another "judge not, lest ye be judged" or "walk a mile in another man's shoes" person. Ael also claims to have never had to truly test personal honor and dignity. Ael, not knowing who you are or what you do, I'll limit myself to observing that I doubt that. We are all tested throughout our lives. But government service, particularly at the level occupied by McNamara, requires a well developed moral compass, along with knowledge of and wariness of the pitfalls waiting to happen when dealing with powerful men. Contrast McNamara, Powell and countless others with Elliot Richardson, who, understanding where his loyalties properly lay, helped rid of us the scabrous Nixon and the rest of that motley crew. Officers under the Constitution take oaths to that Constitution. Nowhere in that oath is there any mention of personal fealty to any other person. The intent of the oath is to bind oneself to the American people, not to a politician.

Ael, you and Ranger don't want to judge. Me, it's my belief that part of my standard equipment as a human being is the gift of rational thinking and judgment. I do judge people and I will continue to do so. In my judgment, McNamara came up short.

Al explains the culture whence Colin Powell came, noting properly that the military protocol is to voice objections to the chain of command and then to keep one's mouth shut. Yes, Al, but Powell was no longer in the military. He had transcended the military and had moved into that sphere where action or inaction can grievously wound the nation. Those of who perhaps once greatly admired Powell can only be disappointed in his placing president and party over nation. I'm especially disgusted with Powell for his use of his bat man Wilkinson as a surrogate to tell the truth. Ever seen what Wilkinson has said? We should have heard that from Powell himself and we should have heard it when it made a difference. If I'm still around when Powell goes—doubtful because all of these perfumed princes live long lives—I'll pen a post about him. And I'll include his time in the Americal Division.

FDChief and Pluto get it. He provides the historic context and explains the opportunity that was lost. The Chief is a vengeful dude; he and I are of like mind. Pluto mentions Nuernberg. Yep, following orders just won't cut it. At least it didn't once upon a time in our fair nation.

Having writ, the moving finger moves on.

14 comments:

  1. Publius,
    The only reason you are so hung up on history is because you were there when it was invented.
    You know by my writings that I'm a lover of history but this time we need to focus on today. Let's get real rather than academic.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  2. Publius-

    "Nowhere in that oath is there any mention of personal fealty to any other person. The intent of the oath is to bind oneself to the American people, not to a politician.

    Ael, you and Ranger don't want to judge. Me, it's my belief that part of my standard equipment as a human being is the gift of rational thinking and judgment. I do judge people and I will continue to do so. In my judgment, McNamara came up short."

    Well, if you put it that way, I agree. You've nailed him.

    . . . But if we compare McNamara to the "patriots" of the Bush administration, the contexts were quite different. McNamara's mistakes took place with the backdrop of the Cold War. That allows him an argument as to "extenuating circumstances" . . .

    McNamara ends up not looking so bad in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ranger, I actually am older than you, so I guess that puts me in the older than dirt club in your eyes. I hear you and I think you know I am plumbful of thoughts about today's messes. But, to me, some sins are just plain unforgivable. And, as I noted, the intention was to highlight the sins of one man. So, sorry if you don't like the wayback machine, but it was something I needed to do.

    Seydlitz: I don't disagree with you about weighing McNamara's conduct while in office against the conduct of the members of the criminal Bush Administration. McNamara wins hands-down, specifically because of the times. I lived those times and although McNamara was a prime asshole while he was SecDef, you should note that I don't discuss his time in office. He had a lot of company in his beliefs.

    No, Seydlitz, where McNamara loses me is when he has the epiphany, when he realizes his beliefs were wrong and the war can't be won, but he conveniently (for Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, et al) forgets to tell the American people the truth for another 28 years.

    He owed us the truth as he saw it at the time and he didn't give it to us. That's why I condemn him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Publius -

    I despise the man, but not for your reason. I believe he was as or more incompetent than Rumsfeld.

    As far as what truth he saw and when he saw it, screw that. His bone-headed policies and his sophomoric strategic advice to Johnson led to 50,000+ KIA, not his silence and not his beliefs. I am not clairvoyant and doubt you are.

    mike

    ReplyDelete
  5. Publius:

    I never said Powell's failure was excused by his military years. Explained, yes, excused or diminished, no. Powell was a shill for his masters. And yes, how sad that he had to have his aide speak for him after all was said and done. Sort of remorse without courage.

    McNamara and Rumsfeld went far beyond being a shill - they thrived on the power their masters put at their disposal to promote their personal theories of war. And did so in a total disregard for human life, all to prove their numerical theories.

    I share your contempt for these dogs.

    Al

    ReplyDelete
  6. This provides a lesson for today: If one has erred, committed crimes, then he must be held responsible. Especially at that level of leadership.

    This was true in McNamara's day, and it still holds true today.

    Had we gone after McNamara forty years ago, had he come clean, might it have given Rumsfeld and company that much more of a pause before they committed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    ReplyDelete
  7. wourm:

    This provides a lesson for today: If one has erred, committed crimes, then he must be held responsible. Especially at that level of leadership.

    From your lips to Eric Holder's ear.

    ..

    ReplyDelete
  8. S89,
    It's not that I don't want to judge- it's that I refuse to do so.
    Mike,
    I don't have the energy or desire to detest RN-there are so many others more deserving and in the direct line of fire. RN is OBE, let's deal with today and try to prevent useless deaths in the pwot,that's our duty as old soldiers.
    jim.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that...hmm, not really ignoring, but setting to the side historical figures and their actions can lead to a...hmm...what is it that I'm reaching for here..."reinventing the wheel"...m'yah...good enough description, I guess...in dealing with our problems today.
    I guess for me is that history is all I have...sure, I have a lot of life experience to draw on, but in context history has helped me understand my present.
    Which, as we discuss/condemn/express our memories of individuals I think it is good to remember the excesses/offences of those who soured our perspective of our present. That memory refreshes the anger/frustration and focuses our consciousness on why we're feeling...well, angry about our current situation.
    This is not to say that the PWOT is not important, but by remembering and venting anger about McNamara we are also reinforcing the idea of why we are all quite unhappy with our government today. And, why the PWOT, like the Vietnam war, is a sham of epic proportions.

    Will someone with the moral courage stand up and tell the President, "Mr. President...sir, as a citizen, and as a Friend, I speak to you, Mr. Obama, that this PWOT, is a unwinnable. Untenable, and frankly, sir, it is going to cost us a whole lot more to continue this insanity than just a lost of face if we stop this charade now."

    I know I have that courage, and I know all of you have that courage...but does Biden, Gates, Clinton...do they have that courage?

    We know McNamara didn't...and so we rightfully worry...will we be seeing a mea culpa later from Gates, or Biden, or Clinton, or anyother denizen of the WH?

    History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sheer,
    We don't need understanding- we need action. Understanding is for weak kneed liberals. Understanding is useless without action.
    I feel that the folks you listed are exactly like RN, they think they are right.
    What the f..k does Biden/ HRC/ Obama know about UW/GW?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "We don't need understanding- we need action. Understanding is for weak kneed liberals. Understanding is useless without action."

    I understand where you are coming from, so bear with me as I think out loud.

    We need to understand who we are, where we are coming from, and where we want to go.
    Action without understanding/contemplation can lead to greater problems further on.
    Law of Unintended Consequences.
    Which oddly enough is what got us in this mess in the first place...2002 anyone? 2003?
    Action ungoverned by understanding will undo any effort from the get go, and all that we will be holding in our hands is a tattered product that no one will want to touch.

    However, Action flowing out of governed understanding of all the nuances brings a buyin of all parties so that when the final product is wriggling in our hands we can all say, "okay, it ain't pretty, but we can work with it and grow it up to something a lot better than what we started off with."

    First understanding, then action...that is my counsel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sheer,
    after 8 years it's time to realise that understanding ain't gonna cook no potatoes.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  13. jim-

    You say you don't wish to make any judgments concerning McNamara, but then make a whole series of judgments concerning the current situation, judgments btw which I agree with based on what I have read here.

    So, is not Publius's nailing of McNamara a start, a beginning point, a connection with a lost war which still resonates with so many Americans? So as a tactician, not a strategist now, is this not a promising scheme of maneuver? Connecting the current §%$!&€s with the inept ones of the past? Tarring them with the same brush?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have worked with many "tools" in my life (both animate and inanimate).

    It has been my experience that being a good hammer is not a requirement for a wrench.

    It is also my experience that a well developed moral compass is not, in fact, a requirement for high public office. (no matter how much you would wish otherwise).

    Feel free to complain public officials while I complain about my wrench.

    ReplyDelete