Robert S. McNamara: War Criminal

[Karim]

I picked up the DVD, Fog of War, an Academy Award winning documentary from 2003. In it, McNamara (now 85 and still very sharp) recounts his time as Secretary of Defense and tries to pass on 11 lessons he's learned through the years.

One thing that struck me was him mentioning that the fire bombing of Japan and subsequent dropping of two atomic bombs was definitely overkill. General Curtis Lemay ordered the firebombing; B29s designed for high-altitude bombing were instead used to fire bomb Japan at 5,000 feet. It was devastating not only to property but civilians. There was no need for the atomic bombs. McNamara said it's great that it worked out and that both were on the winning side but if that were not the case, they'd both be tried as war criminals.

McNamara goes on to discuss Vietnam and how the US completely misread the situation. One of his lessons is to "Empathize with your enemy," an ability that saved them during the Cuban Missile Crisis but unfortunately, they didn't know enough about the Vietnamese to be empathetic. He adds that the US didn't have any international support for the war in Vietnam and if a country cannot get support from its closest allies, nations of comparable values, it has to reconsider its actions.

One of the scariest things to me was when, years later, McNamara had a meeting with Castro. He asked Castro 1) Did they have nuclear missiles pointed at the US?; 2) If so, would he had advised Kruschev to use them? and; 3) Considering the US response, what would have happened to Cuba?

Castro said they had 138 missiles, 90 of them were tactical nuclear missiles. He would not have advised Kruschev to use them, he DID advise Kruschev to use them. He admitted Cuba would have been destroyed. One of McNamara's lessons is that you can't always rely on rationality. McNamara's summary was that it was simply dumb luck that there wasn't a nuclear war.

I'd recommend the DVD to those interested in political history. It's definitely a worthwhile rental if not a purchase.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Karim

He would not have advised Kruschev to use them, he DID advise Kruschev to use them.

This reads a little strange to me. Is there a mistake, or is this how you intended it to look?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This reads a little strange to me. Is there a mistake, or is this how you intended it to look?

I read this as would he have advised Kruschev to use them? Not only would he have, but he did.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tekneek, I think that's means "Not only would I have advised him to use them, I DID advise him to use them".

At least that's how I'm reading it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Karim

One thing that struck me was him mentioning that the fire bombing of Japan and subsequent dropping of two atomic bombs was definitely overkill. General Curtis Lemay ordered the firebombing; B29s designed for high-altitude bombing were instead used to fire bomb Japan at 5,000 feet. It was devastating not only to property but civilians. There was no need for the atomic bombs.

Japan didn't surrender after the fire bombing, nor after the first atomic bomb. C'mon now.

McNamara said it's great that it worked out and that both were on the winning side but if that were not the case, they'd both be tried as war criminals.

That's the case with pretty much every way, though.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Japan didn't surrender after the fire bombing, nor after the first atomic bomb. C'mon now.

you do know that there is some evidence and trains of thought that suggests a Japanese surrender was probably attainable before the bombs were dropped, but that the Truman administration wanted the bomb demonstrated to gain a foothold in the growing Cold War with the USSR, right?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

you do know that there is some evidence and trains of thought that suggests a Japanese surrender was probably attainable before the bombs were dropped, but that the Truman administration wanted the bomb demonstrated to gain a foothold in the growing Cold War with the USSR, right?

I don't doubt that there was some military flexing going on...but hearing that a surrender was "probably attainable" is a lot different than someone waving a white flag.

Again, they didn't even surrender after the first bomb...

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Karim

I picked up the DVD, Fog of War, an Academy Award winning documentary from 2003. In it, McNamara (now 85 and still very sharp) recounts his time as Secretary of Defense and tries to pass on 11 lessons he's learned through the years.

One thing that struck me was him mentioning that the fire bombing of Japan and subsequent dropping of two atomic bombs was definitely overkill. General Curtis Lemay ordered the firebombing; B29s designed for high-altitude bombing were instead used to fire bomb Japan at 5,000 feet. It was devastating not only to property but civilians. There was no need for the atomic bombs. McNamara said it's great that it worked out and that both were on the winning side but if that were not the case, they'd both be tried as war criminals.

McNamara goes on to discuss Vietnam and how the US completely misread the situation. One of his lessons is to "Empathize with your enemy," an ability that saved them during the Cuban Missile Crisis but unfortunately, they didn't know enough about the Vietnamese to be empathetic. He adds that the US didn't have any international support for the war in Vietnam and if a country cannot get support from its closest allies, nations of comparable values, it has to reconsider its actions.

One of the scariest things to me was when, years later, McNamara had a meeting with Castro. He asked Castro 1) Did they have nuclear missiles pointed at the US?; 2) If so, would he had advised Kruschev to use them? and; 3) Considering the US response, what would have happened to Cuba?

Castro said they had 138 missiles, 90 of them were tactical nuclear missiles. He would not have advised Kruschev to use them, he DID advise Kruschev to use them. He admitted Cuba would have been destroyed. One of McNamara's lessons is that you can't always rely on rationality. McNamara's summary was that it was simply dumb luck that there wasn't a nuclear war.

I'd recommend the DVD to those interested in political history. It's definitely a worthwhile rental if not a purchase.

You're Canadian, right? Why drop the location you've had up for so long? Does it have to do with politics? Just curious.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I don't doubt that there was some military flexing going on...but hearing that a surrender was "probably attainable" is a lot different than someone waving a white flag.

Again, they didn't even surrender after the first bomb...

I shouldn't have used the word "probably". Is "plausibly" better? maybe "possibly"?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

I shouldn't have used the word "probably". Is "plausibly" better? maybe "possibly"?

They may have been thinking about...I wouldn't deny that. But this definitely forced their hand. Why chance it? What if it was a trick?

[Senator]

One of McNamara's lessons is that you can't always rely on rationality.

A very, very, very, IMPORTANT thing to rememeber in any conflict that you have.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Senator

A very, very, very, IMPORTANT thing to rememeber in any conflict that you have.

True enough. And North Korea was the first example that sprang to my mind.

[Peregrine]

you do know that there is some evidence and trains of thought that suggests a Japanese surrender was probably attainable before the bombs were dropped, but that the Truman administration wanted the bomb demonstrated to gain a foothold in the growing Cold War with the USSR, right?

I don't mean to sound cold-blooded, but historically speaking, it probably was a very good thing that someone had dropped a bomb for real. If we entered the cold war without the shadow of Hiroshima, I think there would have been factions on both sides who would have been emboldened to use it, but since it had been dropped and both sides saw what it could do, it had a deterrent effect. Not that a nuclear war might not have started anyway, but it was definitely an underlying factor IMO.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Tekneek, I think that's means "Not only would I have advised him to use them, I DID advise him to use them".

At least that's how I'm reading it.

That's what I meant. Sorry that it didn't come across.

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

You're Canadian, right? Why drop the location you've had up for so long? Does it have to do with politics? Just curious.

I had the location on before I became a more frequent visitor to FOFC. I honestly can't remember the motivation for dropping the location.

But yeah, I'm from Alberta - the "Texas of Canada".

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I don't mean to sound cold-blooded, but historically speaking, it probably was a very good thing that someone had dropped a bomb for real. If we entered the cold war without the shadow of Hiroshima, I think there would have been factions on both sides who would have been emboldened to use it, but since it had been dropped and both sides saw what it could do, it had a deterrent effect. Not that a nuclear war might not have started anyway, but it was definitely an underlying factor IMO.

I have heard this reason from others and no doubt it did send a message to the Soviets, even though they also had a comparable arsenal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

you do know that there is some evidence and trains of thought that suggests a Japanese surrender was probably attainable before the bombs were dropped,...

I've seen/heard various suggestions along those lines, but IIRC most of those question whether that was all the way to the point of an unconditional surrender, which was pretty much the only sort we were looking for.

[Leonidas]

So he says using empathy was important in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis, then turns around and uses that crisis as an example of why you can't always rely on rationality. Does this mean the empathetic view of Castro was to assume the irrational? I know great commanders typically have the ability to use the empathy card in decision making, but all I have read and studied on this was based on a typically rational thought basis. This reads to me like McNamara is somewhat talking out of his ass.

[Dutch]

Empathy? Sometimes you know your opponent very well, you discuss with them, you use diplomacy, you negotiate, and still, the damned liberals won't budge.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Karim

I have heard this reason from others and no doubt it did send a message to the Soviets, even though they also had a comparable arsenal.

The Soviet Union detonated its first atomic device on August 29, 1949, 4 years later.


Look at it this way how could you justify not dropping it.

1. We just spent 4.5 billion (in 1945 dollars) to build it, plus another 5 billion to build the B-29 to drop it.
2. We were already killing 100,000+ per raid with carpet bombing/fire storms.
3. It was estimated we would take a million casualties if we invaded Japan proper.

[JPhillips]

Leonidas: Watch the movie and it will make sense. What Mac was saying was that in Vietnam we thought we understood the goals and motivations of the Vietnamese, but in fact we were often wrong. In the Cuban Missle Crisis we tried to understand what Kruschev was after and came to the conclusion that he would back down if he could look like he had stood up to us in the USSR. To me it came off as almost a fundamental difference between Western and Eastern thought, but I may be reading too much into it. In any event Mac wasn't really talking about empathy with Castro but with Kruschev.

Having seen the movie I also strongly recommend it. It is a fascinating view of an incredibly influential American. How many of you knew he was the first non-Ford to run Ford and also led the way on installing seatbelts in cars?

[Karim]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

So he says using empathy was important in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis, then turns around and uses that crisis as an example of why you can't always rely on rationality. Does this mean the empathetic view of Castro was to assume the irrational? I know great commanders typically have the ability to use the empathy card in decision making, but all I have read and studied on this was based on a typically rational thought basis. This reads to me like McNamara is somewhat talking out of his ass.

His reference to empathy was more in relation to the Soviets, especially when they received two messages from Kruschev - one that seemed from someone under great stress and willing to compromise, the other from hard liners.

A good feature film about this whole time in history is 13 Days starring Kevin Costner.

[WussGawd]

Buy this movie. It's a great, great documentary.

[Passacaglia]

I'd also recommend reading "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam.

[Fritz]

no feature film is a good documentary

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'd also recommend reading "The Best and the Brightest" by David Halberstam.

If you can find it, read "One Very Hot Day" by David Halberstam.

It is a novel written in 1965 about our advisers.
He, not only, predicts we are going to loose but shows why.
I couldn't believe he saw it coming so clearly.