When Robert McNamara in 1995 finally gave liberal America what it had wanted for so long — a mea culpa on Vietnam, in his memoirs — he might have thought he would receive at least grudging acknowledgement that he had finally acceded to the views so forcefully put by opponents of the war 30 years before.
Instead, he received a mauling. The house organ of American liberalism, The New York Times, demanded that he not escape “lasting moral condemnation” despite his “prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late.” The wounds of the sixties had, evidently, not yet healed.
McNamara’s only solace should have been that ultimately he wasn’t the real target of wrath of his fellow progressives. The man at whom that vitriol was really directed had been dead for more than twenty years. Lyndon Johnson barely survived four years after leaving the White House. It was Johnson, the great liberal legislator and true heir to FDR, whom liberals despised most for the war — until, that is, Richard Nixon usurped his mantle as bogeyman.
The Vietnam debacle, not to mention the sixties more broadly, were shaped by the peculiar coincidence that America was led, in turn, by three of the most brilliant and psychologically flawed men ever to inhabit the White House. It was the first of those, John F. Kennedy, foreign policy autodidact and long-term s-x and painkiller addict, who recruited McNamara from Ford Motor to become his Defence Secretary.
McNamara was the ultimate Kennedy-era whizkid, the “best and the brightest” selected by the new, young President to bring a more technocratic approach to solving American’s problems. McNamara, in his early forties and scary-smart, a systems design genius who had worked on bombing campaigns during WW2 with Curtis Le May and brought Ford back from the brink of ruin, wrought significant changes to the US military. He and Kennedy were horrified at the inflexibility of the US military machine, which seemed to have limited capacity to adjust between brushfire wars and nuclear annihilation.
They were also every bit as hawkish as their Republican predecessors, especially when Kennedy was egged on by his chief spearcarrier, his deeply unpleasant brother Bobby, on issues like Cuba. The Kennedy brothers plotted to murder Castro and it still remains unclear whether that was one of the factors in JFK’s death.
Many of Kennedy’s advisers couldn’t accept LBJ, the President from the Id, an outlandish character so implausible only real life could have created him. The Kennedy circle retreated to Georgetown and plotted a restoration over cocktails and touch football at Bobby’s. But some, like Mac Bundy and Dean Rusk — who never liked Kennedy — found serving under LBJ more to their liking.
McNamara spent four years torn between the two. Johnson always suspected him of having one foot in Georgetown and being in league with the hated Bobby, but nonetheless relied heavily on him as the US presence in Vietnam evolved first into a bombing campaign, and then into actual combat.
Much has been made of McNamara’s own growing disillusionment with the winnability of the conflict, culminating in his 1967 advice to LBJ to find a way out. It’s not entirely as clear-cut as that.
For a start, Johnson always understood victory would be immensely difficult, even if his Secretary of Defense could always find data to show that things were turning around. As early as February 1965, Johnson was telling McNamara — who has just finished explaining his own ambivalence about a request for combat troops to guard USAF bases as Rolling Thunder gets underway — that he didn’t think the war could be won (an excerpt from Michael Beschloss’s Reaching for Glory is here). This early acknowledgement of the difficulties of the conflict is taken by liberals as evidence of the implacable determination of Johnson to continue to waste American and Vietnamese lives without purpose, but that fails to comprehend Johnson’s own despair at the political unviability of withdrawal while maintaining support for his massive domestic social agenda, including on civil rights.
While Johnson found life without politics impossible, sinking into depression and succumbing to the heart condition that almost killed him in the fifties, McNamara acted out his guilt over Vietnam for the rest of his life, throwing himself (he worked so hard that Johnson was genuinely concerned he’d “have another Forrestal”, Truman’s Defense Secretary who suicided) into an anti-poverty agenda as president of the World Bank. He also — much more rapidly than his change of heart on Vietnam — came to the view that nuclear weapons were futile, one of the reasons Paul Keating tapped him to be on his “Canberra Commission” on nuclear weapons in 1995.
But like the President with whom he formed such a peculiar relationship, his significant achievements in other areas were, and will always be, dwarfed by the monumental error of Vietnam, a war neither of them knew how to win or to escape.
It’s an injustice — but a small one compared to those perpetrated in the fields and towns of South East Asia.
Mr Keane has an idiosyncratic view of history. Rather than detail the many glaring errors and false asumptions in his article can I suggest that persons with a genuine interest in knowing about 1960s history, including but not limited to the Kennedy assassination, Johnson’s reversal of Kennedy’s policy with regard to Vietnam, and the hoary chestnut of Cuba and its alleged role in the assassination, should read James Douglass’ book: JFK and the Unspeakable: why he died and why it matters (2008).
hmmm, an overemphasis on the personalities of JFK, LBJ, and RMcN, BK, OK? It seems more likely that these people were shaped by the ideas around them, not vv. Kennedy, the diletannte scion, LBJ the senate elder, domestically focused by inclination, and McNamara, the embodiement of the organisation man, trained to reduce questions of outcomes to questions of process, ie to reduce ends to means.
In an era framed by Kennan’s notion of ‘containment’ in relation to communism, theylacked the intellectual reflexiveness to think beyond it , or the residual racism of the white imperial vision- and see Vietnam as a civil war, rather than a front in a global conflict. A different team in the white house would have made less difference than you suggest. Even in 1968, a northern liberal like Hubert Humphrey could still back the war, and it took a poet-priest-politician like eugene mccarthy to actually bring an anti-war position into the mainstream.
In fact the tragedy of McNamara’s life is that his world bank tenure exhibited a lot of the features of Vietnam in its imposition of a one size fits all development model on the third world – even while that process was destroying societies, livelihoods etc. Cars, bombs, dams, debt – they were all something to be delievered for McN. It’s amazing how much damage a single life can do.
The mob killed JFK. No doubt.
“the residual racism of the white imperial vision- and see Vietnam as a civil war, rather than a front in a global conflict.” A snippet on last night’s 7.30 Report ended with McNamara’s loud fulmination, “those who say this is a civil war are WRONG,..”.
This would seem to be a perfect example of allowing ‘experts’ to control anything, GFC or KFC. Advice possibly, servants certainly, principals NEVER as they have less than zero understanding of owt beyond their narrow field.
Mr Rundle: If the mob killed JFK as you so quaintly believe, why then the enormous effort to blame it on the “lone nut assassin”? How did the mob alter the body between Dallas and Washington? How did the mob orchestrate one of the greatest cover-ups in recent history? How did the mob suborn the Warren Commission? And a thousand other questions that utterly destroy your confident assertion.
As I suggested to Mr Keane, read James Douglass’ book. Or read James de Eugenio’s review of Bugliosi’s book on the CTKA website. “The mob did it” is really a pathetic argument.
Those who promote such views (and any of the other nonsensical theories) fall into one of three categories in my view:
(1) they are simply unfamiliar with the evidence;
(2) they have read the evidence but are in denial;
(3) they are disinformation agents.
I found The Fog of War an amazing film document. Before that I didn’t really know or understand who he was.
I also heard possibly on Background Briefing how his son disowned him but that he stood against a nuclear obliteration of the country within the US administration. Talk about lesser very great evils.
Interestingly I heard on Conversation Hour last week a bloke here in Oz from business leadership consultancy of some kind who got a Rotarian tour of a military site in Oklahoma or somewhere Grapes of Wrath like that in the late 1960ies. Waxed lyrical at being shown their advance clunky computer systems with card printouts etc. Said the friendly officer also a Rotarian did a search of their rotarian party of 6 or so names – and in ten minutes or so they had their personal lives printed out in front of them – presumably all the way from databases in Australia. Late 60ies.
Perhaps it was to avoid any confusion who was boss in Modern Rome I guess. The reverse of walking on the moon. Pride.