In 1954, General Matthew Ridgway gave a presentation to President Eisenhower outlining the expected costs of going into Vietnam, replacing the French, and defeating the Vietcong. He said it would take anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,00 troops, and "Even then," Ridgway said, "that may not be enough." He saw the conflict as a colonial battle, and not in cold war terms. Prescient. Eisenhower listened and asked, "And then what"", meaning, if America goes in and is successful in defeating the enemy, are we (USA) to occupy the country for the next 20, 30+ years? The old saying of ''well, if we had only known then what we know now", is simply not true. What was known in 1975, was known as early as 1954.
America hubris was peak. And among policy makers they generally believed that geopolitical strategic interests trumps the costs which they view as acceptable.
The antidote to this man's self-aggrandizing bullshit is the book: "The Living and the Dead: Robert McNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War" by Paul Hendrickson.
The documentary "Fog of War" really tells the whole story (as much as can be). McNamara was a brilliant man but flawed as are all humans in the most trying of circumstances.
He was corrupt. He knew the war could not be won in 1965. Many human beings died needlessly. But of course the MIC made plenty of money now didn’t they?
Maybe if he had listened to Harold K Johnson, Army Chief of Staff, who said Westmoreland’s policy was wrong things might have gone differently? This is use another example fo an arrogant man trying to defend his grievous mistakes.
Remember that the these idealogies were being taught and prescribed in universities throughout the world...by so-called learned men. As I've grown older, I am less and less impressed by world leaders in positions of authority, both here and abroad...as everyone should be.
@@larrywheeler9917an ideology based on a slippery slope… an argumental fallacy with no evidence to support its claim. I’m guessing the US was still hungover from the victories & new wealth from WWII to actually think critically during that time. Smh.
On the flip side, a an American studying the Vietnam War from Vietnam’s side, the virtues you’ll discover of Vietnam’s people, leaders, and history are PROFOUND. It’s a shame a lot of Americans are still blinded by their Anti-Communist or even racist ideals.
I think the interviewer was great! McNamara was wrong. He knew the conflict was lost, and still sent men to their deaths. I am a vet by the way and would have gladly gone to fight in the beginning but it ended up being a lost cause.
It astonishes me that men like McNamara and Dean Rusk weren't tried for war crimes. I mean talk about double standards. These guys had as much blood on their hands as the very worst that the Third Reich had to offer. I've seen Vietnam described as a genocidal campaign against the Vietnamese, and when you look at the figures it's hard to argue. General Westmoreland said things like that killing civilians wasn't so bad because it thinned out the population and so on.
@@MultiWalrus1 Please link to a quote of Westmoreland saying that killing civilians wasn't so bad because it thinned out the population, or words to that effect. I can't find it. And if it was a genocidal campaign against the Vietnamese, why didn't the US attack the South Vietnamese, too?
@@zelmoziggy because it would have been strategically incoherent. The US military killed everyone within the politically-determined range of operations. “Free-fire zone” was a euphemism for “killing everything that moves”. When you consider that indiscriminate psychology in relation to the sheer numbers of civilians killed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they had totally devalued Vietnamese civilian life. You can argue (correctly) that falls short of genocide, but still, it is a massive chunk of the Vietnamese population completely wiped out by an invading foreign power.
@@zelmoziggy - The US military dropped 6 times as many bombs on South Vietnam than North Vietnam, according to Stanley Karnows book. But I'd like to find that Gen. Westmoreland quote as well.
The interviewer is somewhat obnoxious. He either isn't listening or doesn't understand the answers and keeps interrupting with bumper-sticker style simplistic questions.
I think they're both being as honest as possible. Really. Don't undersell either. They're talking with different objectives - one with morality first, the other with factual recollections first. In the end they're both making valid comments about history that they both lived through.
He certainly learned to be a politician… he went along with whatever Johnson said, regardless of what he’s saying now… he was so guilt ridden when he died, 58,000 dead…
He refuses to accept responsibility for sending thousands of men to their deaths, and killing so many innocent civilians. It’s just so frustrating watching him fail to answer questions and keep butting in.
If it was vital that South Vietnam be able to defend itself, why did you let Westmoreland implement a strategy for four years that almost ignored preparing the South Vietnamese Army? The British, during the same period, effectively implemented a counterinsurgency policy in Malaysia.
To Batrachious: I agree whole-heartedly with your Title. Down here in Pto.Rico we have a similar saying: Batracio de baño or sapo de letrina. The latter term means "toad from the outhouse". Why? Because toads eat shit and and talk shit whenever they open their mouths.Ha! It just like McNamara excusing himself for his bungling in the war.HE WAS LYING ALL THE TIME. The reason he was made Sec'y of Defense was because he belonged to the military-industrial complex , that Eisenhower warned about. Regards
By "Communism" they meant the economic threat to western imperialism posed by Asian people who weren't having it anymore. After WWII, when the whole world had seen France knuckle under to the Nazis, French plantation owners thought they could waltz back into Vietnam and regain control. NOT THIS TIME, said the locals, and set about kicking French ass. American leaders were horrified at their French allies being beaten and sent packing by those rebellious little Vietnamese; they saw it as an assault on the proper, white-controlled scheme of things. That is why our military was sent to prevent further "destabilization" in Southeast Asia.
when i was in fifth grade, in 1965, i read a story in Weekly Reader than McNamara was stating we were going to build an electrified fence across Vietnam at the border between North and South, and THAT would keep the Communists from coming down to the South.. So that would end the whole thing. I thought, oh good, they've got it worked out then. Seven years later when I graduated high school they tried to draft me to send me to the same war.
The guy is responsible (among others) in the west, for the death of 2 to 3 million people (mostly vietnamese) and he calls himself a christian! He says he would do it again, (avoiding the mistakes). Are the mistakes the millions of death? The guy had to teach a lesson to the communist leaders, and show his allies that the us policy was ruthless (millions of lives were just a detail). Morality was strongly lacking to the guy, i think. I am not sure if he could see this, or if he uses religion to further his criminal mind and political design of our current society, where people like him rule.
The US can do much worse. Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush again. Those are the assholes of the century. Corrupt as anything can be (Saudis???). Such a dumbass nation NOW. Electing Tump....
Well, the amazing thing to me is that after 50 years we have up to three wars going on right now with no end in sight and no way they say to end them! NcNamara states his belief that one can not win, by military force alone, civil wars yet we hear the same calls for more troops. If the USA had just entered the Iraq war with more men, and kept a few thousand more, ISIS would never have been able to get a foot-hold. The Afghan war was not like the Vietnam one because that was a jungle and the other a desert. But, they both had porous borders and lots of friends on all sides to support their tribal or religious group. Thus 15 years later, we are still there and the talk is l of what to do and how to get out of these third world quagmires as cheaply as possible! Americans, as we did in Vietnam, get tired after so many unending years of conflict, even if the body counts are low and price tag enormous. I still hear the charge of "cut and run" but after 15 years, can this still be true??
I read your comment seven years after you made these comments, Trump never started any wars and was in the process of properly, ending the Afghanistan war, now look at us deep in the Ukraine, in a war that will never end…. Military Industrial Complex at its best….. tragic
A very bright man but with so much blood on his hand ! He though war was a game of numbers , statistics and didn't accept any critisism, very american.
@@thecarpetman7687 Yes, you are absolutely right in that he is intelligent. However, from a strictly moral point of view, what is the point of being intelligent when holding a most prominent position in a government if you just follow, more often than not, your own particular agenda. Imho, what really sucks about Robert McNamara is precisely his lack of conviction in what he says when trying to justify the unjustifiable with regard to decisions he made as US secretary of defense in Vietnam.
@@zelmoziggy I don't wonder you do. However, the matter discussed here is not people's IQ, specially those like McNamara's, with a very high one, or mine, with a lower than average. What is to be discussed here is the moral of the individual, something nobody seems to give a shit about. I answered one post from Mr. Willen Verhaegen, and Mr. Roger Wynne, whom I addressed in a most respectful fashion by the way, when they referred to Robert McNamara as a bright person, before you joined the conversation. The definition of bright consists basically of two meanings, i.e.; intelligence (which nobody doubts Mr. McNamara had in abundance,) and success in one's career, which imho cannot be applied to Robert McNamara when it comes to Vietnam. Mr. Verhaegen, Mr.Wynne, and myself focused, I believe, solely on McNamara's involvement, decision-making, and legacy on the Vietnam War as US Secretary of Defense. I think Mr Verhaegen, and Mr. Wynne made their point clear when arguing rightly that McNamara was a very intelligent man. I don't know you, but, I'm much more interested in Robert McNamara's career and legacy on the Vietnam war than in his personal IQ. Because whatever the angle you look at it, his track record in that respect is awful, to say the least. Should you feel like discussing more in depth this particular, I would be more than happy to continue this conversation. Otherwise, thank you for reaching out, and stay well.
That McNamara guy seems to be on the verge of crying whenever he talks about personal anecdotes taking place on the past, same in the movie ‘The Fog of War’. I really think the guy is mentally sick. He does not hear the question of the interviewer either. He still is the big kahuna, the brightest of them all. Also he says it was the best managed crisis in the world when he and the others almost created a nuclear holocaust! Total contradiction!!!
The U.S. political and military leadership grossly underestimated the belief in their cause, resolve, and strength of will of the Vietnamese revolutionary-nationalist forces and their capacity to fight and resist. _Never, never underestimate your enemy._
Hardtalk was a nasty forum&the clear speaking clear thinking guest always comes across as honest. The Fog of War,like completely R. McNamara,is interesting & intense,w/ justa well spoken,clear thinking old(very)man.
Even if they had planned to remove The Jupiter Missiles from Turkey anyway would The Soviets have removed the missiles from Cuba without that assurance? The common understanding seems to be that it was a condition so it's would therefore have been a "deal". Was McNamara saying the Soviets would have backed down regardless?
Please remember the responsibility borne by the political establishments in US allies such as Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, New Zealand, not to mention South Vietnam,…for t h e i r collusion with people like him,…and the resulting deaths, injuries, and lifetimes of shattered psyches.
ssgtsouth I admire him...He is a major figure in world history. He may have made mistakes but he still was more brilliant than the vast majority of us, and he still performed better by far in his life than the vast majority of us ever could. Look at his life and his achievements....All through out his life were the marks for greatness. High achievements in school, military, Ford, political, World Bank, etc.. A very great man in my opinion. He shaped history, many of those who criticize him have never had to shoulder the weight he did, nor would they shoulder it as well as he did. His name will forever exist in the pages of history, up there with the likes of Seneca, Cicero, Cyrus, Averroes, Maimonides and all the other great names of our collective past. .
McNamara was a brilliant man. So many of the Kennedy whiz kids were brilliant. My distaste for him is not rooted in intelligence. He disdained the military, insulated them from President Johnson. Lied to both the JCS and the president. He knew early on that the Vietnam war was unwinnable with the non-strategy they were pursuing, he ignored what the JCS (an the JCS failed also) recommended. Let's not forget that Project 100,000 was his program. A program that targeted low IQ men that led to a disproportionate casualty rate and post military failure of minorities.(IQ being influenced by background and education). Yes he was a smart man, but did not have any of the most crucial qualities, wisdom and honesty.
Cuba crisis sounds like a nature disaster to him, those crisis just drop out of sky for no reason ? for those who can not see the change of leaves should not talk about the change of seasons.
McNamara and Kissinger were the best people that ever walked the earth! Kissingers "Useless eaters" and "Military Men are dumb animals who charge when you tell them!" Kissinger 1975
@@jasonmitchell7550 i think you are trying to be too cute and politically correct here… the courts for example are able to assess and declare a situation to be genocide or war crimes. Is it because the McNamaras are your personal favorites that you want to treat them with kid gloves? When it is a sadam hussein or Assad or Putin etc we are quick to label them an axis of evil etc but not when its our own no sir
Ken It's simple really. After WWII, the two remaining superpowers suffered a total breakdown in any existing relations due to conflicting ideologies, cultural misunderstanding, historical context and geopolitics. Russia and the West (namely France, Britain and Germany) had been enemies for centuries prior to WWI and WWII. The violent overthrow and execution of the Romanov Dynasty and the rise of Communism made the entire Western world shit its pants and relive collective nightmares of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. The aggressive posture of the Soviets, combined with their terrifying industrial power and contradictory ideology only solidified those fears. On the other side, the Soviets were, likewise terrified of the West, with their greatest fear being a Capitalist coalition forming to stamp out the revolution. Given its relatively isolated position, in order to defend itself from the Capitalists it began pursuing autarchy, further increasing the divide. So, unsurprisingly, after WWII and the defeat of their common enemy, the old enemies went back to being enemies. A line was drawn in the sand, and the word went out that if you weren't on our side, you were on their side. So, as birds of a feather flock together, the Capitalist nations, lead by the United States, went to "their" side and the Communist nations went to "their" side. Bada-bing bada-boom, Cold War.
That's a small part of the issue with conflicting ideologies, so, yes, obviously. Communist and Capitalist economic policies are inherently at odds. If you're implying that it was *the* source of the conflict, not by a long shot.
Ken Would you suggest that knowing now what we know about the events of 20 th century that communism is a desirable outcome? Or are the 100 million dead in it's name merely propaganda? Oh no I guess it's the damn banksters again :shakes fist at imaginary foe:
Ken I will answer it are you blind ? ask any free Russian at anytime why did you leave Russia .you want to live under one man law judge jury. have your property stolen and sent with out trial to prisons branded a traitor and execute
His downfall was having to work for LBJ and having Westmoreland serve under him. Had Kennedy lived he would have gone down in history as one of our better SecDef’s
Robert McNamara. Former US Secretary of Defense, helped kill approximately 2-3 million, mostly poor Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. Not to mention a sizeable portion of the 58,000 dead US servicemen pressed into that war. Not to mention that equal number of US veterans who committed suicide in the years to follow. McNamara is an Elder Statesman now, walking around freely today.
Ryan Driscoll I was talking about from time of that film being made he was walking freely. Were are your sources from regarding the death toll? You just pulled that number out of your ass.
Would you rather have a few million dead or a couple billion. The Vietnam war was a very complicated thing. For the most part it was a proxy war against Russia. I personally take the Vietnam war of nuclear war with Russia any day of the week.
nonsense -events in Vietnam endangering the west? leave these countries once and for all to settle their own differences ie: Iraq Afganistan without the big bully of the U.S. coming in-where is the legal basis for this? maybe the U.N.? (which is run by the U.S)
He was young and thought that swift violence could create a reassurance to the general population , now hes old and cannot self incriminate. Hes old school, no incrimination but factual story telling. wyt
I have to respect a person who is so candid about his high profile life in times of controversy. He truly wants us all to see how we can do better as humans. The Fog of War is more proof of his mission to show us our follies as humans and that we should seek alternatives to the past in actions that were misguided. Thanks for posting. He has blood on his hands but he is brave enough to stand up and say how wrong it was to do so. Too bad we still don't get it.
They have to find some sort of way to justify their actions to themselves as to clear their conscience. Secondly they might hope that the others buy into their verbal vomit.
A lot of blood reasoned by the right wing. Everytime, everywhere. All those right falcons are wimps. They don't understand mankind. They are machos like those poor little guys from the mafia. No brain. Just guts.
While I'm in no way condoning the actions taken by McNamara, I find it amusing to think people in this thread feel they know better. The perceived moral high ground is an interesting thing.
If you want to know who McNamara was look into "McNamaras Morons"
And that’s just one chapter in the lengthy, dark, twisted book of McNamara.
Hubris and arrogance can be dangerous: McNamara first and then Rumsfeld.
Sad case of a man who believed his own mountain of bullshit. And so many families suffer today for it.
yes, but he later admitted it was a mistake. Rumsfeld would never admitted unto death.
I can assure you his admission provides absolutely no comfort to the family of John Haley.@@zyxmyk
In 1954, General Matthew Ridgway gave a presentation to President Eisenhower outlining the expected costs of going into Vietnam, replacing the French, and defeating the Vietcong. He said it would take anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,00 troops, and "Even then," Ridgway said, "that may not be enough." He saw the conflict as a colonial battle, and not in cold war terms. Prescient. Eisenhower listened and asked, "And then what"", meaning, if America goes in and is successful in defeating the enemy, are we (USA) to occupy the country for the next 20, 30+ years? The old saying of ''well, if we had only known then what we know now", is simply not true. What was known in 1975, was known as early as 1954.
France told the US to stay out of Southeat Asia but our arrogance won over sense.
@@hugglescake , well put.
The Pentagon Papers made the same point.
America hubris was peak. And among policy makers they generally believed that geopolitical strategic interests trumps the costs which they view as acceptable.
crappy questions from an interviewer not interested by the big picture.
The antidote to this man's self-aggrandizing bullshit is the book: "The Living and the Dead: Robert McNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War" by Paul Hendrickson.
sending poorly trained "low-IQ" people into combat (mac's idea) shows an extreme prejudiced & poor leadership qualities.
ruclips.net/video/_J2VwFDV4-g/видео.html
The documentary "Fog of War" really tells the whole story (as much as can be). McNamara was a brilliant man but flawed as are all humans in the most trying of circumstances.
Bull shit. He’s an arrogant asshole
This asshole should have gone to electric chair. He literally killed my father
He’s a war criminal. Project 100,000.
He was corrupt. He knew the war could not be won in 1965. Many human beings died needlessly. But of course the MIC made plenty of money now didn’t they?
Knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Maybe if he had listened to Harold K Johnson, Army Chief of Staff, who said Westmoreland’s policy was wrong things might have gone differently? This is use another example fo an arrogant man trying to defend his grievous mistakes.
After watching McNamara, this character is slick as snot, and, just an evil person.
Even at such an age he was bright as a button which a great recall for dates.
A classic mistake of logical positivists, is to think that is all there is to it Frederic-Nrunk Kamara.
@michael , uhhh, I disagree whole heartedly. Please provide evidence.
The lies this man is spewing are unreal! He has innocent blood all over his hands!
Remember that the these idealogies were being taught and prescribed in universities throughout the world...by so-called learned men. As I've grown older, I am less and less impressed by world leaders in positions of authority, both here and abroad...as everyone should be.
As a kid in school I remember being taught the red commie fall of the dominoes. That was the ideology of the era.
@@larrywheeler9917an ideology based on a slippery slope… an argumental fallacy with no evidence to support its claim. I’m guessing the US was still hungover from the victories & new wealth from WWII to actually think critically during that time. Smh.
On the flip side, a an American studying the Vietnam War from Vietnam’s side, the virtues you’ll discover of Vietnam’s people, leaders, and history are PROFOUND. It’s a shame a lot of Americans are still blinded by their Anti-Communist or even racist ideals.
All great empires sow the seed of their demise with magnificent hubris. No exceptions.
I think the interviewer was great! McNamara was wrong. He knew the conflict was lost, and still sent men to their deaths. I am a vet by the way and would have gladly gone to fight in the beginning but it ended up being a lost cause.
It astonishes me that men like McNamara and Dean Rusk weren't tried for war crimes. I mean talk about double standards. These guys had as much blood on their hands as the very worst that the Third Reich had to offer. I've seen Vietnam described as a genocidal campaign against the Vietnamese, and when you look at the figures it's hard to argue. General Westmoreland said things like that killing civilians wasn't so bad because it thinned out the population and so on.
@@MultiWalrus1 Please link to a quote of Westmoreland saying that killing civilians wasn't so bad because it thinned out the population, or words to that effect. I can't find it. And if it was a genocidal campaign against the Vietnamese, why didn't the US attack the South Vietnamese, too?
@@zelmoziggy because it would have been strategically incoherent. The US military killed everyone within the politically-determined range of operations. “Free-fire zone” was a euphemism for “killing everything that moves”. When you consider that indiscriminate psychology in relation to the sheer numbers of civilians killed, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they had totally devalued Vietnamese civilian life. You can argue (correctly) that falls short of genocide, but still, it is a massive chunk of the Vietnamese population completely wiped out by an invading foreign power.
He didn't send men to their deaths. The President did. As GW Bush so eloquently said "I'm the decider". I'm a post-Vietnam war Navy veteran.
@@zelmoziggy - The US military dropped 6 times as many bombs on South Vietnam than North Vietnam, according to Stanley Karnows book. But I'd like to find that Gen. Westmoreland quote as well.
And he still doesn’t get it.
this guy should run a shell game at a carnaval
😆😆😆😆
The interviewer is somewhat obnoxious. He either isn't listening or doesn't understand the answers and keeps interrupting with bumper-sticker style simplistic questions.
+unknownkingdom Aye, the twat is full of himself, MacNamara made mistakes but he was a decent man.
I think they're both being as honest as possible. Really. Don't undersell either. They're talking with different objectives - one with morality first, the other with factual recollections first. In the end they're both making valid comments about history that they both lived through.
Fully Agree
This man has the blood of over 58,000 young American men on his hands yet he got to live out a long peaceful life. Where's the justice?
And millions if Vietnamese!
So true. ruclips.net/video/_J2VwFDV4-g/видео.html
He certainly learned to be a politician… he went along with whatever Johnson said, regardless of what he’s saying now… he was so guilt ridden when he died, 58,000 dead…
Funadematly it was a war of independence which is why the dominoe effect never happened.
How about "McNamara's Morons"?
He refuses to accept responsibility for sending thousands of men to their deaths, and killing so many innocent civilians. It’s just so frustrating watching him fail to answer questions and keep butting in.
The domino effect Eisenhower said is like Minority report, arrest someone before commiting a violation.
This is a really valuable piece of footage - a big thank you for making it available 👍🍻
The National Archives, the Library of Congress and The Internet Archive are rich sources of period U.S. history. :)
I knew his son in Chile 40 years ago. Nice guy but his Dad?
Yeuch...
as an 84 year old man no world leader impresses me with his intellect. Simply put, they are not as smart as I am.
If it was vital that South Vietnam be able to defend itself, why did you let Westmoreland implement a strategy for four years that almost ignored preparing the South Vietnamese Army? The British, during the same period, effectively implemented a counterinsurgency policy in Malaysia.
read Mac's book, everything he did was correct......but then why did it all lead to failure?
Bad Policies result in Bad Results
Because the basic premise of that war was ridiculous.
To Batrachious: I agree whole-heartedly with your Title.
Down here in Pto.Rico we have a similar saying: Batracio de baño or sapo de letrina. The latter term means "toad from the outhouse".
Why? Because toads eat shit and and talk shit whenever they open their mouths.Ha!
It just like McNamara excusing himself for his bungling in the war.HE WAS LYING ALL THE TIME. The reason he was made Sec'y of Defense was because he belonged to the military-industrial complex , that Eisenhower warned about.
Regards
By "Communism" they meant the economic threat to western imperialism posed by Asian people who weren't having it anymore. After WWII, when the whole world had seen France knuckle under to the Nazis, French plantation owners thought they could waltz back into Vietnam and regain control. NOT THIS TIME, said the locals, and set about kicking French ass. American leaders were horrified at their French allies being beaten and sent packing by those rebellious little Vietnamese; they saw it as an assault on the proper, white-controlled scheme of things. That is why our military was sent to prevent further "destabilization" in Southeast Asia.
when i was in fifth grade, in 1965, i read a story in Weekly Reader than McNamara was stating we were going to build an electrified fence across Vietnam at the border between North and South, and THAT would keep the Communists from coming down to the South.. So that would end the whole thing. I thought, oh good, they've got it worked out then. Seven years later when I graduated high school they tried to draft me to send me to the same war.
He was tragically wrong. Flat out wrong.
McNamara is such a LIAR he makes me want to vomit!
Welp, this is what happens if you allow people with a huge ego into the politics
Who in politics does not have a huge ego?
Or be involved as a Higher Up of the Military
This man makes no sense
The guy is responsible (among others) in the west, for the death of 2 to 3 million people (mostly vietnamese) and he calls himself a christian!
He says he would do it again, (avoiding the mistakes). Are the mistakes the millions of death?
The guy had to teach a lesson to the communist leaders, and show his allies that the us policy was ruthless (millions of lives were just a detail).
Morality was strongly lacking to the guy, i think.
I am not sure if he could see this, or if he uses religion to further his criminal mind and political design of our current society, where people like him rule.
The US can do much worse. Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush again. Those are the assholes of the century. Corrupt as anything can be (Saudis???). Such a dumbass nation NOW. Electing Tump....
Well, the amazing thing to me is that after 50 years we have up to three wars going on right now with no end in sight and no way they say to end them! NcNamara states his belief that one can not win, by military force alone, civil wars yet we hear the same calls for more troops. If the USA had just entered the Iraq war with more men, and kept a few thousand more, ISIS would never have been able to get a foot-hold. The Afghan war was not like the Vietnam one because that was a jungle and the other a desert. But, they both had porous borders and lots of friends on all sides to support their tribal or religious group. Thus 15 years later, we are still there and the talk is l of what to do and how to get out of these third world quagmires as cheaply as possible! Americans, as we did in Vietnam, get tired after so many unending years of conflict, even if the body counts are low and price tag enormous. I still hear the charge of "cut and run" but after 15 years, can this still be true??
ROTHVIN BOSLEY hay its a job isn't that s what all you good time hillbilly say .so stop bitching .
I read your comment seven years after you made these comments, Trump never started any wars and was in the process of properly, ending the Afghanistan war, now look at us deep in the Ukraine, in a war that will never end…. Military Industrial Complex at its best….. tragic
Should have been in prison as war criminal
Simple stupid questions, answers in depth, truthful, well thoughtful with the fire of experience Mr. R. McNamara .
Simple stupid response
A very bright man but with so much blood on his hand ! He though war was a game of numbers , statistics and didn't accept any critisism, very american.
Honestly Sir, and with due respect, I don't find McNamara bright, I found him, if anything, opportunistic and profoundly immoral.
He’s bright in the way he finds justification for everything that he did without looking like his lying
@@thecarpetman7687 Yes, you are absolutely right in that he is intelligent. However, from a strictly moral point of view, what is the point of being intelligent when holding a most prominent position in a government if you just follow, more often than not, your own particular agenda. Imho, what really sucks about Robert McNamara is precisely his lack of conviction in what he says when trying to justify the unjustifiable with regard to decisions he made as US secretary of defense in Vietnam.
@@mirazusta2002 I find McNamara much brighter than I find you.
@@zelmoziggy I don't wonder you do. However, the matter discussed here is not people's IQ, specially those like McNamara's, with a very high one, or mine, with a lower than average. What is to be discussed here is the moral of the individual, something nobody seems to give a shit about. I answered one post from Mr. Willen Verhaegen, and Mr. Roger Wynne, whom I addressed in a most respectful fashion by the way, when they referred to Robert McNamara as a bright person, before you joined the conversation. The definition of bright consists basically of two meanings, i.e.; intelligence (which nobody doubts Mr. McNamara had in abundance,) and success in one's career, which imho cannot be applied to Robert McNamara when it comes to Vietnam. Mr. Verhaegen, Mr.Wynne, and myself focused, I believe, solely on McNamara's involvement, decision-making, and legacy on the Vietnam War as US Secretary of Defense. I think Mr Verhaegen, and Mr. Wynne made their point clear when arguing rightly that McNamara was a very intelligent man. I don't know you, but, I'm much more interested in Robert McNamara's career and legacy on the Vietnam war than in his personal IQ. Because whatever the angle you look at it, his track record in that respect is awful, to say the least. Should you feel like discussing more in depth this particular, I would be more than happy to continue this conversation. Otherwise, thank you for reaching out, and stay well.
That McNamara guy seems to be on the verge of crying whenever he talks about personal anecdotes taking place on the past, same in the movie ‘The Fog of War’. I really think the guy is mentally sick. He does not hear the question of the interviewer either. He still is the big kahuna, the brightest of them all.
Also he says it was the best managed crisis in the world when he and the others almost created a nuclear holocaust! Total contradiction!!!
The U.S. political and military leadership grossly underestimated the belief in their cause, resolve, and strength of will of the Vietnamese revolutionary-nationalist forces and their capacity to fight and resist. _Never, never underestimate your enemy._
Hardtalk was a nasty forum&the clear speaking
clear thinking guest always comes across as
honest. The Fog of War,like completely R.
McNamara,is interesting & intense,w/ justa
well spoken,clear thinking old(very)man.
Even if they had planned to remove The Jupiter Missiles from Turkey anyway would The Soviets have removed the missiles from Cuba without that assurance? The common understanding seems to be that it was a condition so it's would therefore have been a "deal". Was McNamara saying the Soviets would have backed down regardless?
Please remember the responsibility borne by the political establishments in US allies such as Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, New Zealand, not to mention South Vietnam,…for t h e i r collusion with people like him,…and the resulting deaths, injuries, and lifetimes of shattered psyches.
WHOA...Soviets had 160 nuclear missiles in Cuba during the Crisis.
Khrushchev never would have gone to war over Cuba. Cuba was not within their sphere of influence.
The world got lucky in October/62. Google the name Vasili Arkhipov. HE'S the reason we're alive today.
Still trying to CYA. A despicable man.
ssgtsouth I admire him...He is a major figure in world history. He may have made mistakes but he still was more brilliant than the vast majority of us, and he still performed better by far in his life than the vast majority of us ever could. Look at his life and his achievements....All through out his life were the marks for greatness. High achievements in school, military, Ford, political, World Bank, etc..
A very great man in my opinion. He shaped history, many of those who criticize him have never had to shoulder the weight he did, nor would they shoulder it as well as he did. His name will forever exist in the pages of history, up there with the likes of Seneca, Cicero, Cyrus, Averroes, Maimonides and all the other great names of our collective past.
.
McNamara was a brilliant man. So many of the Kennedy whiz kids were brilliant. My distaste for him is not rooted in intelligence. He disdained the military, insulated them from President Johnson. Lied to both the JCS and the president. He knew early on that the Vietnam war was unwinnable with the non-strategy they were pursuing, he ignored what the JCS (an the JCS failed also) recommended. Let's not forget that Project 100,000 was his program. A program that targeted low IQ men that led to a disproportionate casualty rate and post military failure of minorities.(IQ being influenced by background and education). Yes he was a smart man, but did not have any of the most crucial qualities, wisdom and honesty.
@@Salvus967 or the book by James Agee and Walker Evans; 'Let Us Now Praise Famous Men"
say what you want, the chinese are building islands throughout the south china sea today. They are chocking commerce all the way to Indian.
Cuba crisis sounds like a nature disaster to him, those crisis just drop out of sky for no reason ? for those who can not see the change of leaves should not talk about the change of seasons.
McNamara should have resigned early on.
Johnson should have Fired him when he took over but was too chicken shit to do so
You can't run the military like a Fortune 500 company.
This man is brilliant, his knowledge exceeds most, which is why his career lasted so long.
McNamara and Kissinger were the best people that ever walked the earth! Kissingers "Useless eaters" and "Military Men are dumb animals who charge when you tell them!" Kissinger 1975
Hitler had a lot of knowledge too. One other thing they had in common was their lack of ethics.
Are you still in the Project 100,000 ?
@@franksu9735 Obviously you only can respond in apparent insults, crawl back underneath your rock.
Evil war criminal. Deserved nuremburg treatment
Using terms like war criminal, sexist, racist, nazi, homophobe so loosely just cheapens their meaning - unwise.
@@jasonmitchell7550 what should we call him?
@@zevlove612 Analyzing/describing someone’s decisions/actions is always more helpful than using labels.
@@jasonmitchell7550 i think you are trying to be too cute and politically correct here… the courts for example are able to assess and declare a situation to be genocide or war crimes. Is it because the McNamaras are your personal favorites that you want to treat them with kid gloves? When it is a sadam hussein or Assad or Putin etc we are quick to label them an axis of evil etc but not when its our own no sir
Mr. Namara was only one Civil Servant...
One question no one ever asked "Why are we fighting communist?" No one could give a factual answer instead of propaganda.
Ken It's simple really. After WWII, the two remaining superpowers suffered a total breakdown in any existing relations due to conflicting ideologies, cultural misunderstanding, historical context and geopolitics.
Russia and the West (namely France, Britain and Germany) had been enemies for centuries prior to WWI and WWII. The violent overthrow and execution of the Romanov Dynasty and the rise of Communism made the entire Western world shit its pants and relive collective nightmares of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. The aggressive posture of the Soviets, combined with their terrifying industrial power and contradictory ideology only solidified those fears.
On the other side, the Soviets were, likewise terrified of the West, with their greatest fear being a Capitalist coalition forming to stamp out the revolution. Given its relatively isolated position, in order to defend itself from the Capitalists it began pursuing autarchy, further increasing the divide.
So, unsurprisingly, after WWII and the defeat of their common enemy, the old enemies went back to being enemies. A line was drawn in the sand, and the word went out that if you weren't on our side, you were on their side. So, as birds of a feather flock together, the Capitalist nations, lead by the United States, went to "their" side and the Communist nations went to "their" side. Bada-bing bada-boom, Cold War.
Nastrael Rowe, don't you think it has something to do with central banks in those communist countries?
That's a small part of the issue with conflicting ideologies, so, yes, obviously. Communist and Capitalist economic policies are inherently at odds. If you're implying that it was *the* source of the conflict, not by a long shot.
Ken
Would you suggest that knowing now what we know about the events of 20 th century that communism is a desirable outcome? Or are the 100 million dead in it's name merely propaganda?
Oh no I guess it's the damn banksters again :shakes fist at imaginary foe:
Ken I will answer it are you blind ? ask any free Russian at anytime why did you leave Russia .you want to live under one man law judge jury. have your property stolen and sent with out trial to prisons branded a traitor and execute
Brilliant mind, late realizations.
Stop interrupting bro
Robertus McPilatus
Difficult to be at the top
His downfall was having to work for LBJ and having Westmoreland serve under him. Had Kennedy lived he would have gone down in history as one of our better SecDef’s
We lucked out just after he said that it was the best managed international security crisis in history. He takes us for 😊fools.
Robert McNamara. Former US Secretary of Defense, helped kill approximately 2-3 million, mostly poor Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. Not to mention a sizeable portion of the 58,000 dead US servicemen pressed into that war. Not to mention that equal number of US veterans who committed suicide in the years to follow. McNamara is an Elder Statesman now, walking around freely today.
+no hassle
He also helped save the world from nuclear war. And he is dead.
+no hassle
Only 1,313,000 total casualties in the Vietnam war and that is an approximation. So where did you get 2-3 million from.
Ryan Driscoll I was talking about from time of that film being made he was walking freely. Were are your sources from regarding the death toll? You just pulled that number out of your ass.
No you said today and you wrote that three months ago. And yes ii was wrong on the numbers.
Would you rather have a few million dead or a couple billion. The Vietnam war was a very complicated thing. For the most part it was a proxy war against Russia. I personally take the Vietnam war of nuclear war with Russia any day of the week.
nonsense -events in Vietnam endangering the west? leave these countries once and for all to settle their own differences ie: Iraq Afganistan without the big bully of the U.S. coming in-where is the legal basis for this? maybe the U.N.? (which is run by the U.S)
He LBJ , the whole administration committed murder by sending men to war and not letting them fight with all their might and ability
Intelect without moral, such a bad combination. What a waste
Today we can not always undstand whether the US americans are already a nation or not! Why? They have not enough history and culture and own language!
Mac never proposed a strategy to destroy the north's ability to make war
He was young and thought that swift violence could create a reassurance to the general population , now hes old and cannot self incriminate. Hes old school, no incrimination but factual story telling. wyt
Let McNamara speak without interrupting. He has so much more interesting things to say than the interviewer.
I have to respect a person who is so candid about his high profile life in times of controversy. He truly wants us all to see how we can do better as humans. The Fog of War is more proof of his mission to show us our follies as humans and that we should seek alternatives to the past in actions that were misguided. Thanks for posting. He has blood on his hands but he is brave enough to stand up and say how wrong it was to do so. Too bad we still don't get it.
Figures don't life, but liars figure.
tactical nukes?
He died in 2009....lots of blood on his hands.
They have to find some sort of way to justify their actions to themselves as to clear their conscience. Secondly they might hope that the others buy into their verbal vomit.
A lot of blood reasoned by the right wing. Everytime, everywhere. All those right falcons are wimps. They don't understand mankind. They are machos like those poor little guys from the mafia. No brain. Just guts.
While I'm in no way condoning the actions taken by McNamara, I find it amusing to think people in this thread feel they know better. The perceived moral high ground is an interesting thing.
You were a very smart man Robert. Rest in Peace!!!
18:49 Preach
Is this Rumsfeld, Dulles, McNamara or some other murderer?
Rumsfeld is the worst, he is a true USA. Pure Capitalist.
McNamara seems like a good person put in a very difficult position.
Did they not offer him dental insurance? His teeth are awful🙄
Mac was a good Guy!
A very intelligent man. He took a huge cut in income to serve POTUS's Kennedy & LBJ. He did what was asked of him and much more.
A good guy doesn’t knowingly and willfully send young people to their death 10,000 miles from home.
Excellent work from the journalist.
a very intelligent man!
He reminds me of Steve Bannon.
lol how the hell does he do that
He was asking the hard questions-They needed to be asked!!
Tristin Gunn they were asked this 40 years ago
Yes but in that time the answers given have probably changed
He was a good man