Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
On Robert McNamara
Plenty of words have already been written about former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, and more will be written now that he is gone. I was only twelve years old when he "stepped down" as secretary of defense, and I didn't know much about his role in national security policy or even his disastrous mis-management of Vietnam at that time. I studied his career during college and graduate school, however, and subsequently paid a lot of attention to his various pronouncements about nuclear weapons, his recollections about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his belated mea culpa about his role in Vietnam.
Some commentators see McNamara as a tragic figure; a talented, driven, and dedicated public servant who mishandled a foolish war and spent the remainder of his life trying to atone for it. The obituary in today's New York Times takes this line, describing him as having "spent the rest of his life wrestling with the war's moral consequences," and as someone who "wore the expression of a haunted man."
I see his fate differently. Unlike the American soldiers who fought in Indochina, or the millions of Indochinese who died there, McNamara did not suffer significant hardship as a result of his decisions. He lived a long and comfortable life, and he remained a respected member of the foreign policy establishment. He had no trouble getting his ideas into print, or getting the media to pay attention to his pronouncements. Not much tragedy there.
McNamara may have been a gifted analyst and corporate executive, blessed with a lot of raw smarts, but he was also one of those people who could not imagine being wrong or resist the desire to tell the world what to do. Failure in Vietnam did not teach him humility; he ran the World Bank with same ego-driven sense of infallibility he had brought to the Pentagon (and with predictably mixed results). Yet this second experience with failure did not temper his love of the limelight or his desire to prescribe How Things Should Be Done. He spent the last decades of his life offering high-profile advice on various aspects of nuclear weapons policy -- with the same degree of self-assurance he had always displayed -- and he sought the spotlight once again with a belated memoir on his role in Vietnam. As always, however, it was filled with "lessons" for others; to the last, McNamara retained an unwarranted confidence in his own ideas as well as an inability to keep quiet.
Overall, McNamara's post-Vietnam behavior raises a broader question about the role of former officials who have led their country into major disasters. Ordinarily, we should respect the men and women who have devoted years of their lives to public service and listen carefully to the counsel of those who have the benefit of long experience. Moreover, someone who is no longer competing for a job in Washington may be more likely to give honest advice than someone who is still worrying about the questions she might face at a confirmation hearing.
But in some cases -- and a lot of former Bush administration officials come to mind here -- the failures are of sufficient gravity as to render all subsequent advice suspect. And when a government official's repeated errors have left thousands of their fellow citizens dead or grievously wounded, along with hundreds of thousands of other human beings, it would be more seemly for them to remain silent, in mute acknowledgement of their own mistakes. And if they persist in pontificating -- as Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, and Dick Cheney are now doing -- a nation that understood the importance of accountability might have the good sense to pay them the attention and respect they deserve. Which is to say: none.
AFP/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
Thank You for the Post
As much as he apologized for Vietnam, McNamara failed to acknowledge the damage he did as leader of the World Bank. His policies squandered billions of dollars and ensured squalor for millions. The parallels with the Bushies is excellent. How is it that Wolfowitz's op-eds get published?
Lessons
In terms of his policies I probably would have always been opposed to him, but the documentary and his life serve one essential purpose in my mind; they remind any policy maker intelligent and humble enough to listen that it is remarkably simple to make horrible mistakes.
Some commentators see
I certainly don't. I see him as a deeply arrogant man, the man who created the failure that was the Edsel when he was at the head of GM, and who ignored all the best advice of the military chiefs as SecDef and led us further into Vietnam (he was the one who called for "on-and-off" bombing in the hopes that it would lead to the North Vietnamese coming to the table, which really led to the North Vietnamese hardening their targets).
He disavowed many things, but even to the end he was full of advice and blame for others.
He was the man who would send reports that conflicted with his initial impressions back to be re-written; the man who, when Congress approved funding for bombers, impounded the funding using his powers as SecDef, killing the next-generation of strategic bombers; the man who ultimately created the American force that got us into Vietnam, by moving the US towards a "flexible response" strategy.
Let's not forget, either, that he followed Kennedy's idiotic "missile gap" claims to a T (moving the US towards ICBMs from bombers), gutted civil defense and ABM programs during the period (no, ABM did not begin with Reagan), and overall killed Continental Air Defense for CONUS.
He was a deeply contemptible man, arguably one of the worst Secretaries of Defense from the twentieth century.
If there's anyone who should be ignored on nuclear weapons policy, it's McNamara.
I'm sorry, but you don't know
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
McNamara wasn't responsible for the Edsel. He came in after and convinced Henry Ford to shut the line down.
He was however responsible for the highly successful Falcon. He was also largely responsible for the first safety changes to automobiles (collapsible steering wheels, etc.). In fact his tenure at Ford was highly successful from a management point of view. It was the first time that scientific management was used.
I am sure that it makes you feel better about yourself to throw stones at people. I would imagine that McNamara would tell you to knock yourself out. I imagine that he is past caring at this point.
McNamara wasn't responsible
He played a major role in its failure, by turning it into another Ford, and by killing the advertising budget before finally killing the program.
That was the problem with McNamara. He was the consummate bean-counter, which he combined with his arrogance and inability to take criticism throughout his public service.
More's the pity.
A portrait using the brush of reality...
Thank you.
too late
hold a person accountable AFTER s/he has left the office? would not it be more timely when we do that when they are still in office like most sane democratic countries do?
when public servants commit mag-scale gravely severe mistakes or mistaken decisions or votes we the nation not only do not hold these folk accountable we often promote them. count the three most crucial position holders down from President Obama (not including him) examples.
#2 is already showing us the result by his senseless babble (see lynch 0705 post).
sharp
sharp
illuminating
There are two great failures among the pundits of our time--
1) extreme partisanship and 2) silence before the daily slaughter or imprisonment of the innocent.
In truth, those who are illuminating, who bring light to these questions, who help us all see more and deeper in this internet Town-Meeting, are a tiny group, not more than in two figures--and among those with a platform perhaps only under 20--in a nation of 300,000,000.
Walt-- who is a generation younger--is a kind of older Wunderkind, a guy who is no genius but he has no intellectual impediments and especially no character blindnesses--the most common of which today is an atrocious willingness to advance some oligarchy's interest with immeasurable losses to the commonwealth of America and the commonweal of mankind.
His greatest gift is obvious and in our time the rarest--he knows what he sees, says what he means and writes what he knows. In other words, he is a portrait of (the commentator's) courage--the most paramount virtue in a free land.
McNamara's
cataloguing his errors as he saw them is of clear value to history, and also contributed to a solidification of the view of Vietnam as an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. Without such an authority (from the perspective of participation, not scholarship) clearly placing the war in the category of colossal blunder, we would still be subject to a far less resolved debate about the correct way in which to view Vietnam. For that reason and its contribution to history we should acknowledge that speaking out was the right thing for McNamara to do, though he did it far too late, which compounded his grievous error. But it was still better late than never. One thing we certainly do not have to do is take his advice with any more than a grain of salt, though if it proves to be good advice, we ought to heed it for our own sake. And we can certainly note his undying egotism. None of this is to say he is redeemed by his words late in life. But he should not have stayed, and therefore it should be acknowledged that he did not stay, silent to the grave.
Professor Walt's citing Bush officials to bolster his view that "in some cases" -- apparently to be determined by Professor Walt -- officials should stay silent when in almost all others they should speak out when free to do so suggests that his notion of when the exception should be applied is colored by political passions relative to particular cases that are not supported by any detached analytical framework. Ex-officials should speak out for the sake of history and posterity, without particular exception.
'The Best and the Brightest' are not 'the Vulcans/Necons'
Of course McNamara was an arrogant man. That didn't make his insights any less worth listening to - with a grain of salt as with all advice. I think it is deeply misleading to simply compare him to the strange mix of stillborn 'realists' and neocons that were the foreign policy crew of the Bush administration.
Both lied, scaremongered and cajoled the nation into unnecessary wars. 'The Best and the Brightest' brought calamity, but they were morally broken, many of them reneged and resigned, and wanted others to learn from their mistakes. I think we have learned a lot from their post-career writings and opinions.
A good McNamara interview from UC Berkley: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/McNamara/
What have the Bushites done? They do not recognize anything but the most trivial past mistakes, they are wholly unrepentant, they still lobby, opine and speechify for torture, illegal imprisonment, the prolongation of war in Iraq and the escalation of war with Iran. The only one that comes remotely close is Colin Powell, and I still await the next volume of his memoirs.
Obviously, the Kennedy and Johnson people were not without their faults, but how can you seemingly suggest lumping them with the Bushites?
On the scale of
damage done to the country, I think McNamara can certainly be put in the same category as the Iraq war architects. But in terms of thoughtfulness about the reasons for what they were doing, and forthrightness about what was being done and why, McNamara is on a different level from the dead-heads of today, you're right. Particularly with respect to the reflections of his later years, however arrogant in framing them in terms of having conscious lessons to teach us, McNamara clearly wanted to do whatever he could to make up for what he had done wrong in the past. I don't think any amount of public reflection or desire to be of service could do anything to make up for the damage done, but we should nevertheless acknowledge the admission of error and desire to atone.
McNamara
Dr. Walt is perhaps not the ideal messenger here, having substantial confidence himself in his opinions without ever having wielded substantial public responsibility. Having said that, his view of McNamara accords with those of many people who knew the man, so Walt is hardly an outlier.
One difference today compared to McNamara's time in public life is that the potential for former government officials to cash in on their public service is much greater. The number of memoirs and tell-alls coming from people who worked in the Bush admininstration says more about an economic opportunity available to such people now than it does about their public policy convictions.
McNamara
I do not think this is a fair assessment. First to the question of attention: Sure we have to give him attention; we are political scientists! It makes no difference if wright or wrong: Anyone taking such important decisions like McNamara needs attention! Second, to the question of respect: Yes he did wrong, really wrong. After you recommended it, I just read "The Best and the Brightest", and it is astonishing how easy you can get so horribly wrong. But how much of his wrong-doing can we really attribute to McNamara himself? I do not want to imagine me taking his decisions. Honestly, I do not know how I would have acted. How easy it is to look back and just say someone did wrong! So yes, I respect him. He was an honourable man, doing wrong. He was human.
Humane points.
And well-taken. Especially about the falseness of his singular villainy in the period. You afford him uncommon consideration among the many words generated by his death. (And how Halberstam would groan at your finding sympathy for the man in his account!)
For a sense of the passions this man stirred for a generation of Americans, see Joe Galloway's (We Were Soldiers Once, and Young) "obituary" in McClatchy, and the comments amended: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/71328.html?commentSort=TimeStampAscending&pageNum=1
There is just no way hatred of that magnitude reflects a balanced view of the events in question.
I guess I'm more empathetic
When I was younger I thought that McNamara was evil.
When I got older, came into a position of power and made mistakes (with the best of intentions) I became more sympathetic.
I probably made, in retrospect, bad decisions about 20% of the time and they haunt me. All the decisions appeared logical, and necessary at the time but were stupid in retrospect.
I am sure that it makes people feel better about themself to throw stones at people. I would imagine that McNamara would tell you to knock yourself out, he is past caring at this point.
I do think that he would want people to learn from his mistakes however. From what I've read on the internet however, I doubt that they haven't taken the right lessons.
End and means
I don't think McNamara was evil.
I think he was a geek -- and thus cold and rational.
Being a cold rational person can be good in some jobs, but if your job involves bombing people and sending other people's sons to war, it is not always a good quality.
He should have stayed at Ford and he would still have had a great Obituary written.
Wrong person for the wrong job.
I'm glad he repented and advocated for zero nukes later on.
Who picked him?
Who kept him in office?
who?
So it is the fault of the guy who picked him? OK. Fair enough.
Regardless, a cold rational intelligent geek is the wrong choice for defense secretary -- whomever picked him and kept him there.
Guess who is another example? Rumsfeld.
Who is good choice? Gates.
Never a strategy - only management
The man never understood Vietnam was about 16 million or so Vietnamese people - not the enemy body count.
They say LBJ agonized over the death of those in uniform. I doubt it ever - ever entered McNamara's mind then or later.
What a barbaric and unjustified accusation.
McNamara never thought of the lost lives? You have no possible reason to think this true, and you do fair but uncompromising critics of McNamara, such as Professor Walt, a serious disservice by coming to their websites and associating your baseless emotional attacks on the man with them.
Best post, by far
This kind of post makes you the most profound blogger in FP.
Robert S MacNamara.....thoughts
Although it has always been a cultural taboo to speak ill of the dead, let us not kid ourselves that RS McNamara did far more damage than he could possibly make up for by aiding the Third World. That's what that was all about, trying to make up for some of the worst sins a person can make, and especially a person in his position at the time. And I DON'T mean the Edsel. (Which he vigorously opposed, actually, so I'll give him credit for that one.)
When I think of the passing of this man, I can only think to paraphrase a eulogy of another vicious scoundrel who had a hand in bringing shame and degradation to this country, by which I mean the Eulogy of Richard Nixon by perhaps the only person who should have been allowed to: Hunter S. Thompson, and I think a rewrite is appropriate.
"A Monster, straight out of Grendel. He could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time. If he would have been a Navy Man, he would have been buried at sea, and there are two ways to do that. One would be the traditionalist style, dumped at sea at least 100 miles off the coast. But if the right people were in charge of McNamara's funeral, his body would be launched into one of those open water sewage canals that empty into the ocean. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a Defense Secretary. McNamara was so crooked, he had to have a team of servants screw his pants on every morning. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should be burned in a trash bin. He was a cheap crook and a war criminal responsible for the deaths, ultimately, of 58,000 Americans and over a million Vietnamese. You don't even have to know who Robert McNamara was to be a victim of his ugly, Nazi spirit."
A cheap butchery of the work of legend, but McNamara deserves it. The legacy of his tenure is one of shame, death, failure, and severe embarassment, and the consequences are of such permeating magnitude that we've been dealing with them ever since that scum was pusillanimously fired by Johnson, an even bigger failure, and a vulgar cowboy criminal that should have been taken out back and beaten with a hose long before he even got within sight of the White House. McNamara left like the diseased cur he was, and with Johnson, and then Nixon, broke the heart of the American Dream.