The Death Of Robert McNamara
JOHN CHUCKMAN | 06.07.2009 18:33
McNamara may be the greatest modern example of the banality of evil.
He was, in his heyday, a dry, boring man with the appearance of a corporate executive who taught Baptist Sunday School classes.
He was very bright and energetic, but dry and boring, driven by an insane need for success and with no evident ethical standards beyond those associated with the ferociously ambitious.
The United States, under his advice and that of others like McGeorge Bundy, created the greatest holocaust since that of World War II.
An estimated three million Vietnamese were killed, many of them suffering horrible deaths from napalm and early versions of cluster bombs.
Carpet bombing by B-52s made parts of that poor country resemble the surface of the moon.
Left behind were millions of pounds of the hideous Agent Orange oozing through the ground to cause birth defects for perhaps centuries.
Left behind too were hundreds of thousands of land mines to cripple and kill farmers for decades after.
The reason for this horror? The Vietnamese were fighting a civil war and the side with the wrong economic beliefs was winning.
Of course, it also relates to America's penchant for obsessions, its Captain Ahab drive to chase and kill the great whale.
In the 1960s, it was communism.
Today it's Islamic fundamentalism.
In his later years, McNamara was a sad figure. He very much did come to regret his role. He was almost driven by the ghosts of all those dead souls.
He was, in his heyday, a dry, boring man with the appearance of a corporate executive who taught Baptist Sunday School classes.
He was very bright and energetic, but dry and boring, driven by an insane need for success and with no evident ethical standards beyond those associated with the ferociously ambitious.
The United States, under his advice and that of others like McGeorge Bundy, created the greatest holocaust since that of World War II.
An estimated three million Vietnamese were killed, many of them suffering horrible deaths from napalm and early versions of cluster bombs.
Carpet bombing by B-52s made parts of that poor country resemble the surface of the moon.
Left behind were millions of pounds of the hideous Agent Orange oozing through the ground to cause birth defects for perhaps centuries.
Left behind too were hundreds of thousands of land mines to cripple and kill farmers for decades after.
The reason for this horror? The Vietnamese were fighting a civil war and the side with the wrong economic beliefs was winning.
Of course, it also relates to America's penchant for obsessions, its Captain Ahab drive to chase and kill the great whale.
In the 1960s, it was communism.
Today it's Islamic fundamentalism.
In his later years, McNamara was a sad figure. He very much did come to regret his role. He was almost driven by the ghosts of all those dead souls.
JOHN CHUCKMAN
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Quite...
06.07.2009 20:11
Squatticus
McNamaras attack on South Vietnam
06.07.2009 23:25
In January 1965 they made the decision to escalate radically the bombing of South Vietnam. They also started bombing North Vietnam at the time, February 1965. But the bombing of South Vietnam was tripled in scale, and much more devastating. That was known. In fact, one person who describes that right at the time -- and this is a very interesting aspect of McNamara's book and of the commentary on it -- was Bernard Fall, a French military historian and Indochina specialist. A big hawk, incidentally. It's "we" and "them." He was on "our side" and that sort of thing. But he happened to have a missing gene or something. He cared about the people of Vietnam, although he was a hawk and a military historian who supported the French and then the Americans. He didn't want to see the place destroyed. In 1965, he wrote that the biggest decision of the war was not the bombing of North Vietnam, not the sending of American troops a couple of months later, but the decision to bomb South Vietnam at a far greater scale than anything else and to smash the place to bits. He had also pointed out in the preceding couple of years that the U.S. had been destroying the so-called Viet Cong with napalm and vomiting gases and massive bombardment and it was a massacre. He said in 1965 they escalated it to a much higher attack, and that was a big change. He was an American advisor. He describes how he flew with the American planes when they napalmed villages, destroyed hospitals. He described it very graphically. He was infuriated about it, but he describes it.
McNamara refers to those articles. He says Fall's reports were "encouraging" and justified the U.S. escalation. McNamara didn't mention the decision to vastly increase the bombing of South Vietnam. That's just passed over. Nor is there discussion of the bombing of South Vietnam in general. He just passes over it without comment. He cites Fall's articles and says, Part of the reason that we were encouraged to proceed was that Fall was a fine analyst and knowledgeable person and was very impressed with what we were doing and thought it was going to work. There's a certain truth to that. Fall was saying, Yes, these guys are such murderous maniacs that they may succeed in destroying the country. In that sense, he thought it was going to work.
Then McNamara has a footnote in his book. He says, two years later, Fall had changed his mind about the efficacy of American actions and took a more pessimistic view about the prospects for an American victory. That was 1967. Look at what [Fall] wrote in 1967. He said this just before he died. He said Vietnam is literally dying under the worst attack that any country has ever suffered and it was very likely that Vietnam as a cultural and historical entity was going to become extinct under the American attack. And McNamara reads this and says [Fall] changed his mind about the efficacy of what we were doing. Not only did he write that, but every reviewer read it. Nobody comments on it. Nobody sees anything funny about it. Because if we want to destroy a country and extinguish it as a cultural and historical entity, who could object? Fall was talking about South Vietnam, notice, not North Vietnam. The killing was mostly in South Vietnam. The attack was mostly against South Vietnam.
In fact, there's an interesting aspect of the Pentagon Papers, too. The Pentagon Papers were not very revealing, contrary to what people say. I had advance access to them, since I was helping Dan Ellsberg in releasing them, so I wrote about them in a lot of detail and very fast because I had already read them. But one of the very few interesting things about the Pentagon Papers which I wrote about at that time was the disparity between the planning for the bombing of the North and the planning for the bombing of the South. On the bombing of the North, there was meticulous detailed planning. How far should we go? At what rate? What targets? The bombing of the South, at three times the rate and with far more vicious consequences, was unplanned. There's no discussion about it. Why? Very simple. The bombing of the North might cause us problems. When we started bombing the North, we were bombing, for example, Chinese railroads, which happened to go right through North Vietnam. We were going to hit Russian ships, as they did. And there could be a reaction somewhere in the world that might harm us. So therefore that you have to plan for. But massacring people in South Vietnam, nothing. B-52 bombing of the Mekong Delta, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, destroying hospitals and dams, nobody's going to bother us about that. So that doesn't require any planning or evaluation.
Danny
Homepage:
http://www.chomsky.info/books/warfare01.htm