Talk:Robert McNamara

Chief Architect of Vietnam War?

He is considered the chief architect of the Vietnam War.

Oh? Who considers him this? This statement, cut from the introduction, is not substantiated anywhere further down in the article. Perhaps it's just the contributor's own POV.

Surely he helped escalate the US campaign at one point, perhaps that was what was meant. But "architect" implies more than this. AFAIK, the war predated both McNamara and the man who appointed him. --Uncle Ed 22:42, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• I think that it is a fair assessment that he was the "architect" of the Vietnam War. The policy implemented by LBJ was the one forcefully advocated by McNamara. The disasterous troop rotation policy was McNamara's plan. He personally had to approve bombing targets. He was responsible for the formulation & micromanagement of the "stalemate" war policy. McNamara was more responsible for the way the US was involved in that war than any single individual. If he had a conscience, he would have eaten a bullet 30yrs ago.-- Achilles 22:16 30 May 2005

That would just emerge unscathed from the other end after 24-36 hours. Preisler 16:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo

I have removed the statement about 100,000 civilians being killed in one night, with the loss of only one US airman. While factually correct according to McNamara himself in the Fog of War documentary, it is not directly relevant here, and should be noted in the Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II article, which is linked to here. The reason I say this is that the statement is made without context or elaboration, and therefore constitues POV - the implication is that McNamara may have been personally responsible for this. The rightness or otherwise of that argument makes for a valid discussion, which can be mentioned in this article (preferably under a seperate heading), but it is only fair to to so if the discussion is complete and adheres to our NPOV principle. I'll be happy to help anyone wanting to elaborate on this part of McNamara's career. Amelia Hunt 01:06, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Berlin and troops

The article said "The Berlin Blockade in 1961 demonstrated to McNamara the need for more troops." This is nonsense. The Berlin Blockade occurred in 1948-9; in 1961 the Berlin Wall was constructed. It's not clear how either of these demonstrated a need for more troops; some justification should be given if the statement is reinstated in an historically correct form. -- BenHutchings 22:18, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

South Vietnam

I reverted edits by 207.200.116.201, who had changed this--

In practical terms, this meant training and equipping U.S. military personnel, as well as such allies as South Vietnam, for counterinsurgency operations. Later in the decade, U.S. forces applied these counterinsurgency techniques with mixed success in Vietnam.

--to this:

In practical terms, this meant training and equipping U.S. military personnel, as well as such allies as our South Vietnam puppet dictatorship', for counterinsurgency operations. In South Vietnam, for instance, where America's puppet dictator enjoyed no support whats'oever, this meant fighting and terrorizing the vast majority of the population.

Personally I don't think this is an unfair characterization of what happened in South Vietnam, but really, it doesn't need to be in this article. The nature of the South Vietnamese government is already discussed in South Vietnam, and the brutality of "counterinsurgency operations" was already highlighted earlier in the same paragraph ("terror, extortion, and assassination"). And the language is clumsy (you don't mean "no support whatsoever", you mean "no popular support" - the regime was supported by factions of the South Vietnamese elite as well as by the U.S.) and sloppy in a way that is more soapbox than encyclopedic. ←Hob 16:06, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Comments On Iraq War

I reverted edits by 70.48.206.243 who had added this section-

-Comments on the Iraq War

"McNamara has been critical of the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq.1"

This is pure political propaganda which does not conform to the NPOV.

Achilles 19:23 31 May 2005

I disagree completely. McNamara is a well-known figure in the sphere of international politics and his opinion about the Iraq war ought to be fair game in an article about him. The only POV is McNamara's, and that's a good thing. I'm adding that change back. I admit that it was added in a clumsy manner before, so I'll try to integrate it into the main body of the text. If anyone can edit it in better, please do so. Deleuze 12:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If his opinion on the Iraq War is relevent, then why not his opinion on the Reagan Adm defense/Cold War policies? He was wrong on that, as he has been on all such issues for the past 40yrs. After his disgraceful performance on Vietnam, the Kennedy clique reingratiated McNamara back into their circle by pretending that LBJ forced him to do all those things, & by McNamara's parroting the Ted Kennedy line (on defense/international affairs) ever since.

Asking for McNamara's opinion of the Iraq War is like asking Jack the Ripper for his opinion on proper etiquette when consorting with prostitutes.The man was the most dangerous fool ever to hold high office in the US. -- Achilles 02:00 2 June 2005

Achilles (and Jerzy, who just reverted Deleuze's edit), you're missing the point. McNamara's opinion of the Iraq war is notable because it was noted: especially after the release of the Morris movie, most mentions of McNamara in the press included some variation on the theme of "Isn't it ironic that the guy who was certain we could win in Vietnam is currently against U.S. intervention; does he know something we don't?" McNamara's technocratic approach to the war was also frequently compared to Rumsfeld's. Even if one has no respect for his judgment, his opinion on current events is certainly something a reader of this article might be expected to wonder about. It would certainly be notable if Richard Nixon had become an ethics professor in his later years, even if he were bad at it.

But I think Achilles makes good points in the first paragraph above ("If his opinion..."), even if they were meant sarcastically. Changes in McNamara's public views and reputation over time are worth noting, particularly the shift toward the "LBJ made him do it" story which is represented in The Fog of War. ←Hob 05:26, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

• The evidence from (at the time) Undersecretary of State George Ball was that McNamara was THE voice, in the meetings, FORCEFULLY urging a continuous, gradual, escalation of the war. HE was the man LBJ listened to. McNamara also cleverly kept his lines open to the Kennedy brothers-probably, a continuation of his lifelong naked ambition. McNamara's arrogance, & godlike certainty in his own infallibility led to his belief that he could micromanage a war of the size & complexity of Vietnam-- everything from the disasterous troop rotation policy, to personally selecting the bombing targets. Victory was NEVER a goal of his, stalemate was. Why ANYONE would pay ANY attention to ANYTHING that man has to say is a mystery to me. -- Achilles 06:23 2 June 2005

• Achilles, I understand and even agree with you to a certain extent in regards to McNamara's performance, but what you're presenting is about as POV as it comes. McNamara has had a fairly clear position on certain subjects since the 80's and his position on the Iraq war is just another facet of that. It's bizarre to claim that a high profile figure's opinion on topics he has had involvement with is irrelevent in an article about him and the only reason I can see you giving is personal animus. The central purpose of this article shouldn't be a critical discussion of his statements, but rather presenting them as they are. First put the facts out there, then sort them out. I'm reverting Jerzy's edit. Deleuze 07:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleuze- Fine. I've added to your edit by pointing out the last time he was critical of an Administration (Rep, of course) was during the Reagan years. You're damn right about the personal animus though. That bastard was, IMO, MORE responsible for what happened in Vietnam than anyone, including LBJ. In many countries, the man would have been irredeemably disgraced, or, quite possibly, imprisoned/executed.-- Achilles 22:19 2 June 2005

• Works for me. Expanding his career post-68 is a good thing. Deleuze 06:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)