 |
| Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara |
In a New York Times blogpost authored by the producer of the documentary "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara," Errol Morris discusses the Secretary of Defense's thought process throughout the war in Vietnam. He writes that he failed because "he tried to bring his ideas of rationality to problems that were bigger and more deeply irrational than he or anyone else could rationally understand." Robert McNamara's political career was characterized by "rational solutions," and in Morris' documentary, the so-called "architect" of the war in Southeast Asia admits that "perhaps rationality isn't enough." McNamara recognizes that he was not being moral in his decision making-- he was purely conducting a war without considering moral consequences. He believed this process of thought would lead to more success in Vietnam and would prevent the necessity of utilizing nuclear warfare. Despite America's failure to eradicate communism in Vietnam and keep the nation from "falling," McNamara made his decisions solely with military victory in mind.
 |
| Vietnamese citizens running to escape Napalm |
Did it matter if innocent men, women and children served as collateral damage if it meant members of the Viet Cong might die, too? Was it significant that Agent Orange and Napalm was burning the skin off of countless blameless citizens in hopes that Viet Cong trade lines would be cut off or exposed? As sad as it is, it appears these are merely details that can be disregarded if victory is a possibility.
While it appears the Robert McNamara did not see a reason to consider morality while at war, it also seems like the Secretary of Defense did not see the value in voicing his true concerns and opinions. In defense of his questionable decisions in wartime, McNamara reasons that "he was not an elected official" and "served at the pleasure of the president." In other words, as a member of the president's cabinet, he was more concerned with carrying out the executive's agenda than doing what was best for the American people. This sounds really bad. The government's role is to make decisions on behalf of the people, always advocating for their best interest.
The issue raised here brings us back to the famous match-up: Hobbes versus Locke. Are men inherently evil, or are they well-intentioned? Is government put in place to keep us out of a state of nature for our safety or for convenience? In this context, was McNamara doing what he thought was right by serving the president and his agenda? Or was he directly disobeying what was best for the American people so that he could keep his job?
Countless instances of corrupt politics followed McNamara and LBJ's Vietnam disaster. Nixon and the Watergate Scandal was soon to come, as well as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. This is related to another one of Walzer's theories we've discussed: "The Dirty Hands Problem."I think these politicians were too eager to get their hands dirty: they did not see their controversial actions as a necessary evil, but as a means to attain a goal that was beneficial to them. Dirty Hands served as the ultimate scapegoat for their selfish needs.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up an interesting point considering the government’s role in representing the people in the midst of a war because sometimes they make decisions some in the public may not agree with but that politicians deem necessary in order to spare lives of those originating from that country. I feel that because some politicians find themselves so removed from foreign situations that they simply become ignorant of reality.
Further, like the dropping of the atomic bomb, many have argued that this wasn’t even necessary to end the war. Thus, it may have no place even being justified by war theory. It simply seems to me like a science experiment gone wrong, not a justifiable means to an end. As Dustin pointed out, there must be discrimination during war –meaning that you must avoid killing civilians to keep integrity within war. Dropping the atomic bomb knowingly killed citizens and would later destroy populations through exposure. No discrimination was practiced and although it did lead to a victory, it was not even necessary to execute this to win. This means that the drop of the atomic bomb should not even be included in a justified war practice based on reasoning provided in the outline of War Theory.
Julie, this is really interesting! I agree with a lot of the points that you made, especially your point about government. Regardless of whether a person is appointed or elected, if they work for government the best interest of the people should always be their first priority. No government official should put getting their hands dirty before the greater good.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, morality should always be on the minds of everybody involved in a war. It is incredibly sad that citizens get caught up in so much danger that they usually have little to do with and did not ask for. Furthermore, it is really upsetting to think about all of the terrible things that the United States has done in war that has affected citizens. The war in Vietnam is one example of this, and another example of this is Japanese internment camps in World War II. Many American citizens that had nothing to do with the war were captured and had their rights taken away solely for the sake of victory. If people do not sign up for or cause a war, they should not be involved in it, and they should definitely not have to risk their lives. Yes, one could argue that the idea of war itself is completely immoral so there is not point in preserving morality, but if something is immoral it should be kept as small as possible.