Robert McNamara on the Press and Vietnam

"You cannot win a civil war with outside troops." - The American Revolution, which was clearly a civil war within the British Empire for control of the North American colonies, clearly contravenes this dictate, as does the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and numerous other examples which can be easily researched. This is a post-facto excuse for failure of commitment and resolve, not an established truth of military or political strategy.

But McNamara wasn't a neocon.

What I find disturbing about the current crop of neocons is the depth of their ideological impairment. I think is bears remembering that in many cases the first loyalty isn't towards the US, and that is repeatedly demonstrated. So it's not that they haven't read Mc Namara or Le May or others, they simply feel themselves exceptional and the point here is that they are utterly unconcerned about the consequences of their actions upon the US.

Simply that they achieved a military/political goal.

Well, I suppose that's a point of contention between neocons and neolibs, and ultimately, the ones who will always lose are us moderates.

Nor do I wish to implicate that my intent here is to promote some "happy" version of the neoconservative intellectual cancer that is so profligate in our current political agenda, merely I suggest that our interests as a superpower, can generally be accomplished with ALOT less bloodshed & in a complementary fashion rather than the "white devil" fashion seen in US economic hegemony in many other countries - particularly in the Americas, Middle East to a lesser extent Africa and SE Asia.

Though I am no neoconservative, I oftentimes find myself agreeing with them as an alternative to the leftist world view, which is based on appeasement and worrying about what the world thinks of us. Our economic policy would be flawless if it weren't for our political involvement in our areas in economic interest (e.g. the Middle East, Central America and Western Europe). However, in SE Asia, we are well-liked, despite the war, and in Africa, no man is more popular than George W. Bush.

Nor do I mean to suggest that the US had "no business" or that our presense was in some way endemically unacceptable to the Viet Namese or any other people. What we absolutely suck at - as a nation - is effective using soft-power - how do we instill the soft-values that are proven valuable while still pursuing any national interest needs we might otherwise have, in this - the US has sometimes the best of intentions but abysmal execution when we fail to consider local values, culture & history.

However, I think our problem is that we use "soft-power" and "hard-power" at inopportune times. We were too soft on the North Vietnamese, but too hard on the South Vietnamese insurgents. In the words of President John F. Kennedy on Vietnam: "The best weapon we could use in this conflict would be a knife, the worst a bomb."

I don't mean to characterize the Communist system as being in some way acceptable, as for all the various faults of capitalism, communism has been the single largest oppressor of freedom in human history - bar none.

When I suggest it was ignorance it is for the very same reason Mc Namara himself later in life states, firstly the deception at the Gulf of Tonkin and secondly for completely misunderstanding the motivations and underlying intentions of the Viet Namese people themselves.

Well-worded. A preferable and more intelligent response than any I've heard so far.