1Robert S. McNamara published an extraordinary book in 1995 a quarter of a century following his departure from the Johnson administration as Secretary of Defense. In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, was clearly a painful exercise in retrospection. Most executives dislike reviewing the past and pointing to errors of judgment, individual and collective, that determine bad policy and faulty implementation. Fewer still are engaged in measuring failure in human lives lost and in suffering. But for McNamara, he had a noble purpose : to learn from experience and possibly to prevent the recurrence of tragedy in human affairs. In this sense, McNamara might have been excessively optimistic about what his treatise would accomplish. He was probably surprised, and undoubtedly saddened that his book would receive the scorn and criticism it encountered from reviewers and editorial writers.

2In The New York Times of April 17,1995, Anthony Lewis wrote : “On March 9,1969, James Reston wrote in his New York Times column : “The Art of resigning on principle from positions close to the top of the American Government has almost disappeared. Nobody quits now as Anthony Eden and Duff Cooper left Neville Chamberlain’s Cabinet with a clear and detailed explanation of why they couldn’t be identified with the policy any longer… Most, at the critical period of escalation [in Vietnam], gave to the President the loyalty they owed to the country.” In that prescient comment Reston identified the real issue raised now by McNamara’s book on his role in the Vietnam War. The book is a mea culpa for his policy, which says he was wrong, terribly wrong. But Mr. McNamara expresses no regret for his greater wrong : failing to speak the truth then, when it mattered most.”

3Frank Rich wrote in The New York Times of Sunday, April 16,1995, “Robert McNamara says that he published his book now to combat the ‘cynicism’threatening the relationship between Americans and their leaders… But far from ending such cynicism, his disingenuous memoir will compound it. Even as the man quotes Aeschylus and appears as a teary tragic figure in prime time, his words tell us that the contrition is a pose and that he has learned nothing.”

4In an editorial that appeared on Wednesday, April 12,1995, The New York Times stated, “Comes now Robert McNamara with the announcement that he has in the fullness of time grasped the realities that seemed apparent to millions of Americans throughout the Vietnam War. At the time, he appeared to be helping an obsessed President prosecute a war of no real consequence to the security of the United States. Millions of loyal citizens concluded that the war was a militarily unnecessary and politically futile effort to prop up a corrupt Government that could neither reform nor defend itself.

5“Throughout all the bloody years, those were the facts as they appeared on the surface. Therefore, only one argument to be advanced to clear President Johnson and Mr. McNamara, his Secretary of Defense, of the charge of wasting lives atrociously. That was the theory that they possessed superior knowledge, not available to the public, that the collapse of South Vietnam would lead to regional and perhaps world domination by the Communists; and moreover, that their superior knowledge was so compelling it rendered unreliable and untrue the apparent fact available to even the most expert opponents of the war. With a few throwaway lines in his new book, In Retrospect, Mr. McNamara admits such knowledge never existed. Indeed, as they made the fateful first steps toward heavier fighting in late 1963 and 1964, Mr. Johnson and his Cabinet ‘had not truly investigated what was essentially at stake and important to us.’ As for testing their public position that only a wider war would avail in the circumstances, ‘We never stopped to explore fully whether there were other routes to our destination.’ “Such sentences break the heart while making clear that Mr. McNamara must not escape the lasting moral condemnation of his countrymen… It is important to remember how fate dispensed rewards and punishment for Mr. McNamara’s thousands of days of error. Three million Vietnamese died. Fifty-eight thousand Americans got to come home in body bags. Mr. McNamara, while tormented by his role in the war, got a sinecure at the World Bank and summers at the Vineyard… His regret cannot be huge enough to balance the books for our dead soldiers. The ghost of those unlived lives circle close around Mr. McNamara. Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the infantry dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apologies and stale tears, three decades later.

6“Mr McNamara says he weeps easily and has strong feelings when he visits the Vietnam Memorial. But he says he will not speak of these feelings. Yet someone must, for that black wall is wide with the names of people who died in a war that he did not, at first, carefully research or, in the end, believe to be necessary.”

7Mr. McNamara justified his silence upon leaving the post of Secretary of Defense until the publication of his book over two decades later on the grounds of loyalty to the President and constitutional obligations as a member of the Cabinet. MacGeorge Bundy, who was National Security Advisor likened the position of a cabinet officer to a person having been given the trust of the President but also a pistol. For a cabinet officer to speak out, according to Bundy, is to violate the trust, but also to use the pistol to shoot the President. Evidently, Mr. McNamara subscribed to this view as a defense for his protracted silence following his departure from the cabinet. The columnists and editorial writers came down hard on this defense on the grounds that officials have a higher duty and obligation to the American people. For the cynic, the explanation for McNamara’s silence even while doubting the rationale behind American action in Vietnam, was the desire to hold power and status as a cabinet officer. Even when he left the cabinet, it was not to a post of obscurity. He left to head the World Bank.

8There is still another frame of reference for narrating and analyzing Robert McNamara’s involvement in the Vietnam War, a narration we intend to develop. In the view to be presented and argued in this chapter, Mr. McNamara by virtue of his background, experience, and intellect was unprepared for the demands of the Cabinet post he assumed. An unquestionably bright and talented man, he was forced into a position requiring on the job education in areas where he was unprepared intellectually, and perhaps more seriously, emotionally. But by disposition, prior training, and the desire for power, Mr. McNamara was ill-equipped for the learning this new job required.

9“President Kennedy knew that I would bring to the military techniques of management from the business world, much as my colleagues and I had done as statistical control officers in the war. I was thrilled to be called again to work for my country. [1] ”

10There are two observations to be made about how McNamara told his readers about himself in his book on Vietnam. First, he was exceedingly sparing in describing his early years and later development. He displayed great reticence in telling his readers anything about his parents, his relations with them and his early years growing up in San Francisco. He did not mention his parents, his sibling, and the influence his family had on his development other than to record that they were ambitious for their son’s education. Second, while McNamara probably intended to establish a sense of privacy, it also becomes clear that he was unaccustomed to or very uncomfortable with emotions or introspection. He wrote about his reactions to a horrible event. On November 2,1965, “a Quaker named Norman R. Morrison, father of three… burned himself to death within forty feet of my Pentagon window. He doused himself with fuel from a gallon jug. When he set himself on fire, he was holding his one-year old daughter in his arms. Bystanders screamed, ‘Save the child ! And he flung her out of his arms… Morrison’s death was a tragedy not only for his family, but also for me and our country… I reacted to the horror of his action by bottling up my emotions and avoided talking about them with anyone – even my family… There was much Marg and I and the children should have talked about, yet at moments like this I often turn inward instead – it is a grave weakness [2].”

11Deborah Shapley interviewed McNamara twenty times for her biography published two years before In Retrospect. Evidently McNamara revealed more about himself during these interviews for her book than he cared to reflect in his own memoir. Robert McNamara was born on June 30,1916, the first-born of Claranell and Robert James McNamara who were a little more than 20 years apart in age. He was Roman Catholic and she Presbyterian, and she insisted that their children be raised as Protestants. According to Shapley, Claranell believed raising her children as Protestants would elevate them in social status compared with Catholics. Robert James did not protest this decision suggesting that while the breadwinner of the family, he assumed a relatively passive position regarding the upbringing of Robert and his sister Peg, who was born in 1919. The parents, besides their age difference, were markedly different in personality and in their respective roles in the family. Claranell became the dominant figure in the family, particularly with respect to Robert McNamara’s upbringing. She was openly ambitious for her son, stressing education and grades. She kept a detailed record of his growth as an infant and child, recording in a pre-printed baby book various minutiae of his development such as teething and walking.

12While Claranell doted on her son and instilled in him the expectation of education and achievement, Robert James worked hard to support his family in a job he had in the shoe business. He rose in this business to regional manager, and succeeded in supporting his family although both parents were very frugal and even conveyed a sense of living on the edge of poverty. Robert James had nothing to be ashamed about in his role in the family as a provider. He moved the family to a section of Oakland that bordered on a wealthy neighborhood and that enabled Robert to enroll in a prestigious high school of higher status children than his family represented. Robert James was a withdrawn, taciturn individual, somewhat severe in the persona he presented to his children and their friends. Never having gone beyond the eighth grade in formal education and not himself immersed in books, he along with his wife stressed the importance of formal education. In a rare moment of self-revelation, McNamara told Deborah Shapley, “the pressure on me was unbelievable. If I got an Aminus, the question was, ‘Why didn’t you get an A ?’It was like growing up in a Jewish home [3].” McNamara did well in high school. Besides his studies, he had joined the Boy Scouts and had risen to Eagle Scout. He was also a member of the high school Honor Society.

13In 1933, McNamara enrolled in the University of California at Berkeley. He lived at home to save money, commuting daily to the campus with a friend. McNamara plunged into student activities as soon as he enrolled at Berkeley. He became friendly with the university Chancellor and Provost and enjoyed a rich academic and social experience there. He got to know Chancellor Sproul through his election to the Order of the Golden Bear and corresponded with him after he enrolled in the Harvard Business School. McNamara graduated with honors having been elected to Phi Beta Kappa. The decision to enroll at Harvard followed his disappointment in not being elected a Rhodes Scholar. [4] But if ever a person and a school came together in a fateful encounter McNamara and the Harvard Business School were the perfect match.

14The Harvard Business School was founded in 1908 as a venture to bring a high degree of substance and vitality to “the oldest of the arts and the newest of the professions” as Presidents of Harvard University proclaim in granting the degree of Master of Business Administration to its graduates. In the earliest conception of the founding of the Business School, Professors Frank Taussig and A. Lawrence Lowell had a vision that set the stage for a new branch of professional education. “In the business side of the plan I take a great deal more interest. Although, as I think I told you, I do not believe much in the value of any special training for general business, I should like very much to see training for particular branches of business which could be developed into professions. In that direction I should like to see Harvard a pioneer; and by the way, I have very little sympathy with the argument we hear so often, that we ought to have a school of such and such at Harvard, because somebody else has it. On the contrary, I think that we had better do things that nobody else does; but we had better do them under the conditions that will be most likely to ensure success. Now, a school for any branch of business is likely to be a pretty large one if successful. Therefore, if it is worthwhile to try the experiment at all, it is worthwhile to try it under the best conditions for permanent success; and the more I think of it, the more I am convinced that to do that we must have, not a department of the Graduate School [of Arts and Sciences] or the College, but a separate professional school, with a separate faculty, whose object would be purely to train men for their career, as the Law and Medical Schools do. I think we could learn a great deal from the most successful of our professional schools; that is, the Law School. Its success is, I think, due very largely to the fact that it takes men without any previous requirements, save a liberal education in any field, and then teaches them law, not jurisprudence; and it has been coming across my mind that if we are to have a successful school of business we must do the same thing. We must take men without regard to what they have studied in college, and we must teach them business, not political economy. No doubt you will say that business is a part of political economy. So law is a part of jurisprudence, but the Law School teaches that part alone, without requiring any knowledge of the rest. For example, a man may graduate, and frequently does graduate, from the Law School without knowing the difference of actions in rem and in personam and without being able to give the slightest definition of sovereignty or of law. Most of the graduates could not pass the most elementary examination on jurisprudence. The German professors of law would reject them as being hopelessly ignorant of everything. In other words, they are strictly students in a professional school which trains them for the practice of the common law; and the school has jealously kept itself free from contact with academic students and professors. Could we create a school which could teach certain branches of business,– let us say railroading and banking – on such a basis ? If we could, I think we might make a great success, and mark an era for education in business. But I feel very doubtful whether any such idea would commend itself to the economists any more than a law school of our type would ever commend itself to professors of jurisprudence. [5] ”

15Following World War I, A. Lawrence Lowell, then President of Harvard University in 1919 appointed Wallace Brett Donham as the Dean of the School. Donham was a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, who after a successful career at the Old Colony Trust Company agreed to lead the Business School which at the time had limited resources, no buildings or classrooms of its own, and only the germs of the ideas that were to propel the School to leadership in business education. With the great help of Bishop William Lawrence, who met with George Fisher Baker, a New York Banker, Mr. Baker pledged $5 million to build the School. In 1927, the Business School dedicated the new campus on what was called, sometimes affectionately but other times derisively, “the other side of the river”. Besides the fund for the new buildings, Mr. Donham later sought to raise nearly $200,000 necessary to provide for a rare book library dedicated to the history of business. This library housed the rare book collection of Herbert Somerton Foxwell of Cambridge University. In a move of great daring, Donham committed to acquire the collection for the School without the funds in hand. Mr. Donham risked his reputation for this venture because he envisioned the need to build respectability for the Business School in an atmosphere of disdain for higher education in business among academics at Harvard and other universities. The Kress Foundation came to the rescue and Baker Library at the Harvard Business School now holds a collection of rare books on business and economics highly regarded among historians.

16In carrying out Lowell’s mandate for the business school not to rely on “the economists any more than a law school of our type would ever commend itself to professors of jurisprudence”, the Harvard Business School’s pioneering work with the case method set the stage for a new approach to business education. Scores of research assistants under the supervision of professors went into the field interviewing executives on current problems to be presented to students in the various courses in the curriculum. This approach was problem centered and placed the student in the position of an actor in the situation, faced with problems that required, at the outset, definition and analysis, along with recommendations for a course of action to solve the problem. Much to the frustration of first-year students, professors refrained from taking a didactic role, but instead promoted studentcentered learning. There were no right answers to the case and students gradually experienced what it was like to assume an active role in the business situation.

17While Dean Donham did not originate the idea of a problem-centered curriculum, he fashioned it into a new approach to business education. The Harvard Law School served as a model, but only up to a point. Where the Law School used appellate cases for its instruction, the case method at the Business School required original research for the development of instructional materials.

18Without necessarily recognizing during the early years just what the new method of instruction entailed in the psychology of the student and pedagogy, the Business School experience for the student (and the faculty as well) could be likened to a conversion experience – a major experiment in socialization. While for most of the students, whose main experience in education had placed them in a relatively passive position listening to lectures and acquiring knowledge often external to their own identities, the case method required a transformation from passivity to activity. To shore up this work of transformation, there was little reliance on authority. The student had to find authority in his own grasp of the situation and his active position regarding the problem at hand. Here is an illustration.

19Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of scientific management, taught at the Business School shortly after it was founded. By the early 1900’s, Taylor’s work in rationalizing factory production had been well established through his writing and the practice of his disciples. Best known for time and motion study, the heart of scientific management lay in the preparatory work that preceded setting time standards and the incentives in piece work. The factory had to undergo rigorous rationalization in the organization of work, in the design of fixtures, and in the efficiency of the man-machine relationship. Efficiency experts rationalized the factory, removing choice and autonomy both for workers and their supervisors.

20Students in production management courses at Harvard learned about efficiency and rationalization by application to real life problems without ever once attaching what they were learning to the theories of scientific management and the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor. The only authority the students internalized was self-generated because they learned the methods through personal experience. The knowledge belonged to them in the sense that the method enabled them to discover it for themselves. Or, to take another example, the economic theory of marginal utility offers the principle that the peak of efficiency will have been reached when the cost of the last unit of production equals exactly the price received for the sale of this last unit. This principle can be expounded, traced to its origins in economic theory and even illustrated by various examples. But suppose a student is presented with a case study in which a manager has to price a product. The student begins to puzzle out the relationship between sales volume, unit prices, cost of production at differing levels of output, unit and aggregate profits. In reality the student is engaged in the application of marginal utility theory, but without the reliance on the authority of the theory. He or she is engaged in discovery though problem solving. The psychological effects of this discovery, repeated countless times in a myriad of circumstances through the case method, is to create enormous self-esteem and confidence in one’s sense of mastery.

21Especially in its early and middle years, the Harvard Business School was the object of much criticism from academicians, who believed the method was inefficient in not teaching theory and even called the School a home for anti-intellectuals. But the critics, unlike the business community, much in keeping with President Lowell’s early prediction of the academic response to the Business School, took a long time before recognizing the aims of a professional school as compared with an academic program in business education. The Business School Faculty during McNamara’s two years there as a student was articulate in what it was against and enthusiastic in what it sought to represent in education for the professions, but it took a long time before the Faculty attempted to explain itself to the wider academic community in a theory of pedagogy. Following the Second World War, members of the Faculty began to publish essays and books on the case method and with the aid of specialized publishers produced case books, attracting the interest of other business schools in its methodology. Today, there probably is no business school in the world that does not use some of the case method in its instruction, with the Harvard Business School as the main source of supply for the studies.

22Returning once again to the problem of academic respectability given the detachment of the case method from teaching theory, Dean Donham faced this issue in an interesting way. He believed that a major concern of administration should be the human aspects of life in organizations. Toward that end, he brought Elton Mayo to the Faculty from the University of Pennsylvania. Mayo was an iconoclast who had studied medicine in Australia, his home country, but never completed his degree. Through work in settlement houses in England, he developed an intuitive understanding of the psychology of the worker, particularly the social causes of various psychiatric symptoms such as depression and obsessive thinking. He became expert at conducting interviews with workers that served both as his research instrument on, and cure for, the causes of psychiatric disturbances, which he attributed to the isolation of the worker from both his or her group and the solitary nature of mass production. For Mayo, the cure became the interview method applied in his work in the evening clinic of Boston and in development of similar programs in industrial organizations. He became active in the Western Electric studies of fatigue underway in the famous Relay Assembly Test Room. The Test Room consisted of a group of women who performed assembly jobs on relays. The variables in the study of fatigue and its effect on productivity consisted of hours of work, and rest periods designed to alleviate fatigue. Data collected on productivity showed that with each experimental change, productivity increased, suggesting that the changes in working conditions reduced fatigue and resulted in increased productivity. Mayo proposed restoring the working conditions in place at the start of the experiments. To the surprise of the Western Electric investigators, but not to Mayo, productivity also increased.

23The results became famous with the publication of a detailed report of the Western Electric researches [6]. The practical application of these researches was in the introduction of interviewing programs to break up the anomie resulting from the repetitiveness of mass production. The interviewing program never took hold in factories and incurred considerable hostility on the part of labor unions, accusing the human relations school founded by Mayo of inducing complacency among workers rather than empowering them through the union movement. But despite the failure of the interviewing program, Mayo’s legacy in the origins of the human relations school further expanded the conception of work, the factory, and organizations and led to required and elective courses on the human side of enterprise. In expanding the vision of what administration was all about, Dean Donham succeeded in bringing to the Business School Professor L.J. Henderson, the famous researcher of the Harvard Medical School who besides working with Mayo in the School’s Fatigue Laboratory, gave seminars for the Faculty on the work of Vilfredo Pareto and his theories of social organization. While still iconoclastic, the additions of these fields of study broadened the curriculum of the Harvard Business School and deepened its academic respectability but in ways consistent with the pioneering spirit of the School and its Faculty.

24It is not at all evident whether or how the interest in the human aspects of business affected McNamara in his studies. He clearly favored the quantitative fields of accounting and control and the seemingly rational aspects of business administration. The “softer” fields of human relations probably held little interest for him, although the presence of this field in the curriculum at the time he was a student was limited. It was not until post World War II that the human aspects of administration became integrated into the curriculum.

25But McNamara was fully prepared to engage the active role propounded in the Business School curriculum. The subject matter of Control drew his attention under the influence of the kindly but persuasive Professor Ross Walker, who was a subtle practitioner of transforming the mentality of students from the passive to the active frame of mind. The subject of Control emphasized organizing and using information to make rational decisions. In McNamara’s time students took accounting courses, but the subject of Control shifted the emphasis from the standards of the accounting profession to the needs of the manager for information necessary to foster rational behavior.

26The focus of Control found validity in the changes that occurred in business practice following the leadership of Pierre du Pont in the resurrection of the General Motors Corporation under Alfred Sloan. General Motors pioneered in decentralized management with centralized financial and operating controls. But the key to this organizational structure was the accuracy of information and its general availability to top management and to divisional management. In effect, the management hierarchy was reading off the same page, facilitating the setting of goals and the appraisal of results against the goals.

27The logic of Control introduced another subtlety in authority relations. In its earlier versions, authority relations often were dictatorial and even abusive, as well as personalized in the relations of superior and subordinate. The ideal of control is to rationalize the relations of members of the hierarchy. Relations become impersonal and, ideally, all levels of the hierarchy are constrained by the same discipline. Therefore, there is no room, at least in theory, for the authoritarian boss since all levels are constrained by the same logic of control, an impersonal and highly rationalized system for viewing the performance of all divisions and levels of the organization.

28While Control was an influential discipline in the array of courses students took at the Harvard Business School, courses in Marketing also affected students’ outlook on business. It fostered rational decisionmaking along with Control, but it also shaped students’ thinking in the direction of orienting one’s perspective toward the customer. What are the needs of the customer and how does one more efficiently meet these needs in a competitive environment ? McNamara became one of the prime students of Professor Edmund P. Learned, who was a leading figure in the field of Marketing and later Business Policy. Professor Learned was also a key figure in the wartime program at the Harvard Business School training Air Corps officers in the role of Statistical Control specialists aiding line officers in making rational decisions in managing the Air Force.

29The two years at the Harvard Business School were formative years in the thinking and socialization of Robert McNamara. There was only one setback for McNamara during this experience. In order to receive honors upon graduating, candidates had to appear for an oral examination. The honors were degrees with High Distinction and Distinction. McNamara appeared for this oral examination and evidently failed to impress at least one senior faculty member. Professor Learned, who was also a member of the examining committee appealed to this recalcitrint examiner to award honors to McNamara on humanitarian grounds. McNamara’s father died during the second academic year of the program, and Professor Learned felt that under the circumstances, McNamara could not perform at his best. The exminer refused to back down and McNamara received a grade of High Pass for the oral examination, which fell short of the levels required for honors.

30McNamara returned to San Francisco upon graduation and accepted a job with Price Waterhouse, a leading public accounting firm. Auditing held little attraction for McNamara and he gratefully accepted an offer from Dean Donham to join the Harvard Business School faculty to teach accounting. Before he accepted this offer, McNamara proposed to Margaret McKinstry Craig and the newly married couple moved to Cambridge and a new life together as junior members of the Harvard Business School faculty community, a tightly knit group propelled by its pioneering spirit in business education, and its sense of isolation from the larger academic spirit of Harvard University. The Charles River separated the Business School from the College and University by more than the width of the river and the short distance from Harvard Yard. Unlike the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the Faculty of the Business School disdained reflection and intellectual pursuits as self-contained aims. The Business School appealed to the instincts for action, for problem solving, and for a rational approach to business administration.

31World War II created a great opportunity for Harvard Business School not only to assist in the war effort, but to perfect the transition from passive accounting to active control. General H. H. Arnold with the backing of Assistant Secretary of the Army for the Air Force Robert Lovett, proposed to the Harvard Business School that it undertake the training of newly commissioned Air Corps officers in the techniques of management controls. Dean Donham accepted this challenge readily and assigned Professor Edmund P. Learned to lead a group of young faculty, including Robert McNamara, to travel to Washington, D. C. and meet with Captain Charles B. Thornton to hear his detailed proposal for the joint Harvard Business School and Air Corps new program on statistical control. Thornton was a charismatic figure who had a vision for this new program that appealed to the experience and aims of the Harvard group : statistical information for management decisions and the control of operations. The Air Corps was to expand rapidly. Information needed to manage this expansion had to be developed rapidly not only for planning the expansion, but also for providing for field operations. Data had to be developed for measuring the need for spare parts, for aircraft replacement, for pilot and crew training needs, for supplying fuel and armament, and for measuring losses in aircraft and crew in order to project replacement needs.

32Shortly after launching this program, the Air Corps asked McNamara and Myles Mace to work in England as consultants, to be followed by a field commission as captains. McNamara rose in rank to Lieutenant Colonel and served in various overseas assignments in Asia as well as in bases in the United States. As one might expect, the introduction of statistical control officers met with resistance, especially in cases where the results and recommendations of statistical analysis did not make intuitive sense to line officers. The program at Harvard emphasized to officers the importance of tact as well as sophisticated analyses and presentations. But this caution did not always work as expected. One report sent to General Curtis LeMay recommended eliminating fighter escorts on bombing missions on Tokyo and other Japanese cities. General LeMay scrawled on the report “BALLS”, rejecting the recommendation undoubtedly on the grounds that morale would suffer if bombers flew unescorted, especially in view of the fact that bomber crews had to fly 25 missions before they were rotated. Despite statistical analysis showing an 80% chance of survival, crews believed they were at high risk to complete 25 missions.

33Robert McNamara and his wife Margy were in an Army hospital in Dayton, Ohio, stricken with polio in August, 1945. His case was relatively mild and he soon made a complete recovery. Margy, however, faced the prospect of prolonged and expensive treatment. This unfortunate set of circumstances forced McNamara to revise his plans. Instead of returning to Harvard Business School to resume an academic career, he joined Tex Thornton and the “Whiz Kids” in the offer from Henry Ford II to bring modern management to the Ford Motor Company. This decision eased McNamara’s financial problems and shifted his career from teaching to managing, and finally the beginning of his tour of duty as Secretary of Defense.

34The story of the “Whiz Kids” and the Ford Motor Company appears in David Halberstam’s book on the rise of the Japanese automobile industry and the competitive pressures on the domestic industry [7]. Halberstam’s earlier book, The Best and the Brightest, tells the story of the U. S. involvement in the Vietnam war, a book that fueled the fire of protest against the war. Halberstam in the story of the “Whiz Kids” vividly presents the conflict between the traditional automobile people and the statistical control group, who knew little about automobiles and the place of this product in the American psyche. The “Whiz Kids” also seemed to show little interest in the manufacturing end of the business, but instead worked hard to overcome the absence of reliable information to control the management of the company. Finance and control became the favored and alternate route to advancement at Ford, displacing manufacturing in the power structure. Halberstam shows the methods the manufacturing people used to hide information from the statistical control group. Halberstam concludes, “Years later in Vietnam some American officers, knowing McNamara’s love of numbers, cleverly juggled the numbers and played games with body counts in order to make a stalemated war look more successful than it was. They did this not because they were dishonest, but because they thought if Washington really wanted the truth it would have sought the truth in an honest way. In doing so they were the spiritual descendants of the Ford factory managers of the fifties. [8] ” To offset the power of the “Whiz Kids” and their statistical control techniques, Ford had brought in as head of the company Ernest Breech, a more traditional automobile executive from General Motors. But over the years, the statistical control group ascended in power and, finally, with the appointment of McNamara as president of Ford, the new group dominated the power structure of the company.

35During McNamara’s tenure at Ford, he honed his talents as a manager fully expert in statistical analysis and control. He advanced from the position of corporate controller to become deputy to Lewis D.Crusoe, head of the Ford division. When Crusoe became a group vice president, McNamara moved up to head the Ford division.

36In the politics and rivalries of the Ford Motor Company, McNamara became an ally of Breech, who had an antagonistic relationship with Crusoe. As a Breech ally, McNamara challenged Crusoe first in the Thunderbird product line, and second in the Edsel. When the Edsel failed badly as a new product, McNamara finally rose to the position of President of the corporation, reporting to Henry Ford II.

37The lessons McNamara learned at Ford went well beyond the expertise in the application of managerial control techniques. According to the account in Deborah Shapley’s biography, McNamara became expert at playing the power game in the rivalries openly at play at Ford, stimulated by Henry Ford himself. According to Shapley, McNamara learned to tell his boss what he wanted to hear, employing his skills with quantitative analysis. His personality became abrupt, displaying irritation with subordinates with his tendency to tear down their presentations and creating an atmosphere in which subordinates feared coming to him with their reports and proposals. Apparently, McNamara had few inhibitions in displaying aggression in his relations with subordinates [9]. But in pleasing his bosses, both by his performance as a manager and telling them what they wanted to hear, it would be an error to view McNamara as a sycophant. He asserted his independence and nonconformity by living in Ann Arbor, Michigan, enduring the inconvenience of a long commute to his office rather than choosing Bloomfield Hills, the center of the automobile executive’s life style. The academic community of Ann Arbor suited McNamara but probably Margy determined this choice.

38There is a paradox in naming McNamara as president of the Ford Motor Company. He had little direct experience or intuitive gifts in product design and development. McNamara like most of the Whiz Kids seemed to have little patience with, or the desire to learn about the mystique of the automobile and the American love affair with the internal combustion engine. Americans wanted powerful engines and large cars. McNamara thought this preference irrational. Why take a huge car with a powerful engine on a short ride to go shopping ? He favored a small, efficient car that used fuel sparingly. McNamara did not win out in this contest of preferences with the true automobile people at Ford. He did oppose the Edsel and escaped being tagged with this gross failure in automobile design. In the end, McNamara became Henry Ford’s choice to run the company. But no sooner did he reach this pinnacle of executive responsibility then he faced a new challenge. The newly elected President of the United States wanted Robert McNamara as his Secretary of Defense.

39“President Kennedy’s charge to me was a dual one – to determine what forces were required and to procure and support them as economically as possible. [10] ”

40McNamara philosophically distinguished two concepts a Secretary of Defense could adopt in determining his style leading the defense establishment [11]. The first concept he called judicial, a relatively passive approach defined as receiving and approving recommendations other officials initiate. The second concept he defined as an active role for the Secretary of Defense. In this active role, the Secretary is aggressive in defining issues, raising questions, suggesting alternatives, and, finally, making decisions. Seeking consensus and acting as a mediator was a role foreign to McNamara’s dispositions, his training, and his experience going back to his student days at the Harvard Business School, his participation in the Air Force Statistical program, and his work as a “Whiz Kid” in the Ford Motor Company.

41Robert Lovett had recommended McNamara for the job of Secretary of Defense. When President Kennedy met with McNamara in Georgetown while awaiting inauguration, he offered the job of Secretary of the Treasury, which McNamara declined, claiming he was not qualified. This disclaimer was probably realistic given McNamara’s inexperience in fiscal issues and his lack of background in economics or Wall Street affairs. When President Kennedy offered the job of Secretary of Defense, McNamara also backed off claiming he was unqualified. This disclaimer was probably insincere since McNamara viewed himself as a professional manager eagerly attuned to managing complex organization. But Kennedy charmed McNamara telling him that there was also no school for training a president.

42In proclaiming an active approach to his role as Secretary of Defense, McNamara did not choose among various potential elements in defining the job. For example, would he separate policy from implementation, leaving policy to political actors and reserving for the Department of Defense implementation ? What was his preferred relation to the service secretaries ? Were they to be advocates for their respective services or go beyond an advocacy role for their services and position themselves above seemingly parochial issues while acting for “the good of the nation”? Would he accept the separation of military premises and problems from a purely management position, maintaining the integrity of professionalism as the primary position of the military ? Would he allow the Joint Chiefs of Staff independence in presenting their views to congressional committees on defense readiness and expenditures ? How would he deal with the dual role of the Secretary as an advisor to the President on defense issues and as manager of the Department of Defense ? How would he deal with the variety of ambiguities implicit in each of these questions and many others in defining himself as Secretary of Defense ?

43McNamara did not accept any of the dichotomies listed above in defining his job. He came to the job with little preparation for a high level position in the President’s cabinet. He characteristically assumed the position and the power it entailed as an activist Secretary for whom policy and implementation were both within his scope of responsibility. His central focus was to create a rational basis for making decisions most of which were centralized in his office despite his espousal of favoring making decisions at the lowest level of the organizational pyramid based upon the availability of the information necessary to make rational decisions. And as he defined rational decisions, they were the results of costefficiency analysis, to achieve the best decisions at the least cost.

44Secretary McNamara was not alone in his perspective on the role of the Secretary and the Department of Defense. He staffed the various Deputy and Assistant Secretaries with people who were in complete sympathy with his philosophies. He named as Comptroller, Charles J. Hitch who was a product of the Rand Corporation and an expert in budget management and costbenefit analysis. Alain Enthoven, an expert in systems analysis served as Hitch’s deputy and later Assistant Secretary. Robert N. Anthony, a Professor at the Harvard Business School and an expert in managerial control, served as comptroller after Hitch left. All of these men were likeminded in stressing objective and quantitative analysis in making decisions. While acknowledging the place of experience, intuition, and judgment, McNamara and his team believed that the softer side of decisionmaking had to be based on objective and quantitative analysis.

45The practical effects of systems analysis in the Department of Defense led to a fiveyear planning cycle, an innovation in the department’s management instead of one or two-year cycles. The core of the five-year cycle was a methodology called, Planning-Programming-Budgeting System. PPBS established the assumptions about military strategy that determined force levels and deployments for the military as a whole, apart from the single services. The nuclear posture assumed we would never employ a first strike. Instead, we would have the forces capable of responding to destroy enemy nuclear capability and supporting military forces. This strategy of mutual assured destruction would act as deterrence against first-strike nuclear attack. Beyond a nuclear strategy, military readiness would enable U. S. forces to fight limited wars using advanced, yet conventional, weaponry. The Planning-Programming-Budge-ting System would provide the content of manpower, weapon systems, air, sea, and land forces to carry out the deterrence and responses envisioned as an outgrowth of the two assumptions of strategic planning.

46In a private communication, Professor Anthony provided a speech he had given outlining Secretary McNamara’s approach to management and the Department of Defense. This communication is worth detailed summary since it ably identifies McNamara’s active management theory and its application to the Department of Defense.

47McNamara introduced early on a cost reduction program with three guiding principles. First, buy only what is needed to achieve balanced readiness. Second, buy at the lowest sound price. Third, reduce operating costs through integration and standardization. The cost reduction program applied to all three services accustomed to autonomy in procurement.

48Within less than two months after his swearing in, Secretary McNamara assigned to various offices or special task forces in the department a list of 92 questions he wanted answered within thirty to ninety days. One result of a study led to the establishment of a Defense Supply Agency for procurement and storage of supplies used in common by the three services. He created the Defense Intelligence Agency to centralize intelligence in the Department of Defense. The Five-Year Defense Plan mentioned earlier depended upon quantification, which McNamara established as a main principle in decisionmaking despite resistance to the idea. Cost-effectiveness analysis became the basis for evaluating military projects, which had to be beneficial to the entire military establishment and not just for one branch. Secretary McNamara assigned Professor Anthony the job of studying the balance of payments problem and how to reduce the outflow of foreign currency in military procurement. Secretary McNamara also introduced a study to reduce dependence on cost plus a fixed fee in contracting for military equipment and supplies. Fixed price contracts forced suppliers to control their costs.

49In his programs for active management in the Department of Defense, McNamara displayed an unusual set of personal characteristics that left those associated with him in awe. First, he had enormous energy and powers of concentration. He could testify before a Congressional Committee for seven hours with only a one-hour break for lunch. He was remarkably able to present facts without reference to documents or assistance from staff members present. Professor Anthony concluded his speech with an observation about McNamara’s code of loyalty. Professor Anthony stated, “I think it is reasonable to conclude that the Secretary of Defense and the President, who are both strong willed individuals, did not always see eye to eye on every issue. But not once did I hear the Secretary criticize, or imply a criticism, of any decision the President made. And in this statement, I mean not only in staff meetings at which a number of persons were present, but in quite private conversations as well. [12] ” McNamara evidently earned the loyalty of his subordinates. Of a total of 12 subordinates six remained with him in the department during his seven-year tenure as Secretary.

50McNamara’s active style of management and the emphasis on quantitative analysis and rational decision-making did not sit well with a number of his constituencies. The Joint Chiefs of Staff did not admire his approach. Even before the Vietnam War and the differences of opinion about troop levels and bombing of North Vietnam, major conflicts erupted over weapons decisions the Secretary fostered in opposition to service Chiefs. He opposed building a nuclear aircraft carrier, a decision he upheld for a time, but finally gave way in the face of opposition from the Navy and Admiral Rickover. The plan for a fighter-bomber to be designed and built for the Air Force and the Navy as a cost-effective solution to procuring new aircraft for the Navy and the Air Force by establishing new design common to both services. This single design aircraft became the focus of conflict surrounding the Secretary of Defense. McNamara revealed a side of himself that ran counter to his professed rationality. He became known as a stubborn man to the service chiefs and members of Congress. While sure of himself he was vulnerable to emotional outbursts, fits of anger, and even on one occasion while testifying before a Congressional Committee reduced to tears [13].

51Neither the Air Force nor the Navy believed in the concept of a single fighter-bomber for both services. The Navy wanted a plane especially suitable for carrier operations, which required a short run for takeoffs. The Air Force wanted a plane especially designed for ground based tactical operations. The plane had a new design that featured retractable wings so that it could fly at sub-sonic speed and supersonic speed. Two companies competed for the contract : General Dynamics and Boeing. The two services favored the Boeing contract. But McNamara granted the contract to General Dynamics, causing a furor and hearings before Senator McClellan’s Permanent Subcommittee on Government Operations, which he chaired. The suspicion lurked that General Dynamics, which had a plant in Fort Worth, Texas, won the award because of political preferences for the Texas site. These suspicions could not be proven, but they cast doubt on McNamara’s objectivity as well as his judgment in forcing a common aircraft on unwilling services. The doubts centered on the perceived subordination of military professionalism to civilian fixation on the precedent of single weapons for diverse services and missions. McNamara’s reputation suffered given the heightened perception of him as a person claiming rationality and objectivity while presenting himself increasingly as an official who was stubborn, disrespectful of the congress and the military, who could verge on losing self-control in the face of strongly held differences of opinion. But the pressure McNamara faced arising from his fixation on cost-effective analysis diminished in significance compared with his role in the Vietnam War.

52“I always pressed our commanders very hard for estimates on progress – or lack of it. The monitoring of progress – which I still consider a bedrock principle of good management – was very poorly handled in Vietnam. [14] ”

53The role of manager seemed extraordinarily applicable to the side of the job that entailed control of expenditures. Secretary McNamara felt completely confident in his capacity to manage the department. He believed that the principles of management he had learned at the Harvard Business School and later applied in the Air Force Statistical Program and the Ford Motor Company were universal and applicable both to running a large scale business and the Department of Defense. The rules he followed in active management stressed decisiveness, assertiveness, and control. Much to his sorrow as expressed in his book, In Retrospect, the job of advising the President on issues where military and foreign policy intersected, the logic of management did not apply.

54Strategic planning faced an early test with the Cuban Missile Crisis that followed on the heels of the ill-fated Bay of Pigs military adventure inherited from the Eisenhower Administration. Secretary McNamara served as a member of the Executive Committee advising President Kennedy throughout the thirteen days of the crisis that began with the discovery that the Soviet Union had delivered and was installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. The decisions to impose quarantine on Soviet shipments to Cuba along with diplomatic pressure to remove all the nuclear weapons on the island proved successful in averting war. Some advisors wanted immediately to bomb the island, but cooler heads prevailed and the Soviets backed off. McNamara played a significant role in the deliberations of the EX Comm, advocating the naval blockade. McNamara used a direct line of communications to the naval commanders in charge of the blockade, bypassing Admiral Anderson, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. McNamara made sure the U. S. ships had Russian speaking people on board the vessels. President Kennedy remained at the center of the Executive Committee and his brother Robert took an active part in making decisions, and in communicating directly with the Russian Ambassador. Khruschev backed down and ordered the Soviet missiles removed, thereby averting a nuclear war, which some advocates on both sides seemed intent on starting.

55Vietnam was another story. McNamara attended a briefing with President Eisenhower and President Elect Kennedy on Southeast Asia. Eisenhower declared firmly that the US had to defend Laos and Vietnam to avoid the domino effect and the loss to communism of all of Southeast Asia. No one, least of all Secretary McNamara, questioned Eisenhower’s firm positing of the domino theory and thus began the slippery slope toward increased military involvement of US Forces, air bombardment of North Vietnam and the loss of over 50,000 thousand Americans and three-million Vietnamese.

56Amid reports of increased infiltration of South Vietnam from the North, President Kennedy decided to send General Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow of the National Security Council to assess the situation. Their report recommended increasing the support to the South Vietnamese government and forces. The recommendations included adding combat forces to the American advisory group. McNamara endorsed these recommendations in a memorandum to the President. He soon regretted his endorsement and along with Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State, sent the President another memorandum urging caution in sending combat troops. McNamara wrote in his book, “The dilemma Dean and I defined was going to haunt us for years. Looking back at the record of those meetings [in 1961], it is clear our analysis was nowhere near adequate. We failed to ask the five most basic questions : Was it true that the fall of South Vietnam would trigger the fall of all of Southeast Asia ? Would that constitute a grave threat to the West’s security ? What kind of war – conventional or guerrilla – might develop ? Could we wing it with U. S. troops fighting alongside the South Vietnamese ? Should we not know the answers to these questions before deciding whether to commit troops ? It seems beyond understanding, incredible, that we did not force ourselves to confront such issues head-on. But then, it is very hard, today, to recapture the innocence and confidence with which we approached Vietnam in the early days of the Kennedy administration. We knew very little about the region. We lacked experience dealing with crises… finally and perhaps most important, we were confronting problems for which there were no ready or good answers. I fear that, in such circumstances, government – and indeed most people – tend to stick their heads in the sand. It may help to explain, but it certainly does not excuse our behavior. [15] ”

57The answer to these questions required going outside the normal administration resources to enlist experts on Vietnam and Southeast Asia as well as the Soviet Union and China to engage in a discussion of the assumptions in back of U. S. involvement in the Vietnamese conflict. What we should have done viewed from the perspective of 1995 could not answer the questions McNamara raised in his book.

58During 1962, McNamara traveled to Hawaii and Vietnam to confer with the senior officers on progress and the status of field operations of the Vietnam forces as well as the U. S. advisors. In receiving briefings from the military McNamara shared the optimism of the military. During briefings from General Harkins and other civilian and military officials the reports of progress in defeating the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces were uniformly optimistic. In a memorandum dated February 5, 1962, McNamara stated that while it was “too early to predict the eventual outcome”, he stated that the actions of the South Vietnamese Government “are beginning to be effective.” In a July 23,1962 memorandum, McNamara stated, “Our military assistance to Vietnam is paying off… The Vietnamese armed forces are carrying the war to the Viet Cong with greater initiative and frequency…” On October 9,1962, McNamara wrote, “We are delighted at the progress that was reported to us. Whether it is measured in terms of the relative ratio of casualties suffered by the South Vietnamese forces versus the Communist aggressors or any other measure we looked at, progress is quite apparent. [16] ”

59McNamara believed that military action alone would not bring peace to Vietnam. Along with President Kennedy, he believed that progress along political and civil lines had to be made to assure the support of the population for the government. But civil progress and political reform depended upon the wisdom and effectiveness of President Diem, who was under the influence of his brother Nhu and his sister-in-law, Madame Nhu. The Nhu’s were rabid anti-Buddhists and exerted considerable influence on Diem. President Diem, a devout roman Catholic, to the consternation of President Kennedy and his advisors instituted a violent campaign against Buddhist monks deeply disturbing the Kennedy Administration. Diem’s sister-in-law, Madame Nhu called the self-immolations “barbecues”, horrifying American public perception of Diem and his family. With the support of Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and State Department officials, a plot to assassinate Diem and his brother gained momentum despite reluctance on the part of McNamara and Kennedy. Vietnamese generals carried out the plot and the brothers were killed. Plot supporters justified the assassination on the grounds that the South Vietnamese could not be unified and fight effectively with the Nhu’s at the helm. But this begged the question of who would now govern and who would be effective in leading the South Vietnamese. Asuccession of generals took the helm but failed to govern effectively. The generals who assumed the presidency after Diem’s assassination lured the Americans into increased military forces that would take an active role in combat.

60With the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22,1963, Lyndon Baines Johnson became President. He inherited the escalating involvement of U. S. forces in Vietnam, but as a strong political figure, he looked forward to the presidential election of 1964, and Vietnam for him became a secondary problem in his desire for election in his own right. He feared being held responsible as the first President to lose a war if America withdrew its forces, or entered into negotiations for the neutralization of Vietnam, risking a communist takeover, which eventually occurred under President Nixon and Henry Kissinger in 1975. Four days after the assassination of President Kennedy, President Johnson issued a directive dated November 26,1963 stating his objective for the Vietnam War : to conclude the war by the end of 1965 by assisting “the people and the Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported communist conspiracy. [17] ”

61Despite McNamara’s earlier optimistic assessment of the war, he issued a grave forecast following a trip to Vietnam in December, 1963. He supported increased U. S. forces and a combat role, but not at the levels that General Westmoreland and the Joint Chiefs recommended. The rule seemed to be compromise, giving the military part of what it wanted, but short of the escalation the generals and the Joint Chiefs recommended. Meanwhile, dissent in the U. S, increased both in the press and on college campuses. The U. S. was in an unpopular war. Neither McNamara nor the President anticipated the popular uprising against the war.

62To the Tune of Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star :

63

“We are winning, this we know.
General Harkins tells us so.
In the delta, things are rough.
In the mountains, mighty tough.
But we’re winning, this we know.
General Harkins tells us so.
If you doubt this is true,
McNamara says so too. [18] ”

64Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7,1964 following an alleged attack on U. S. ships. As interpreted by the Johnson Administration, this resolution became the equivalent of a declaration of war and a legitimization of the entry of American troops into a direct combat role. Previously, the role had been advisory and also clandestine. The stage was now set for open warfare, bombardment of the North, and direct involvement of the U. S. military in a full combat role. Later, the Johnson Administration and Secretary McNamara were accused of falsifying information to create the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Congress and the Press, and the American people felt they had been misled, undermining the legitimacy of U. S. troops and aircraft engaged in direct warfare in Vietnam. With the passage of time, the basis for optimism diminished despite the addition of U. S. combat forces. The military of South Vietnam could not prevent insurgency from the North. Body counts that predicted the failure of the Viet Cong and the North to replenish their forces proved false. The deterioration of the government of South Vietnam in its ability to pacify the countryside, gain popular support, and engage in effective military operations became the stark reality. Opposition to the war increased in the United States, led by the press and the college campuses. Press correspondents such as Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam provided the only accurate assessments of the war, which infuriated the U. S. commanders.

65The increase in U. S military forces and the assumption of an active combat role instead of the advisory role failed to stem the military incursions of the Viet Cong and the North. On January 31,1968, the Viet Cong and the North began a major offensive coinciding with the Tet holidays. The Tet offensive included taking over the American Embassy in Saigon, capturing the ancient city of Hue, and gaining control of vast areas of the South Vietnam countryside. The offense took the American generals by surprise. While technically claiming a victory in repelling this offensive, the North’s escalation was a decisive move, causing President Johnson to send a Marine division to South Vietnam and bringing to a head the decision whether to call up reserves and place the American economy on a wartime mobilization. Reports from the Central Intelligence Agency warned that the increased bombing of the North had little effect on its ability to carry out the campaigns in the South [19]. Secretary McNamara accepted the post of head of the World Bank. In his memoir, he stated that he was unsure whether he had resigned or been fired. He had become disillusioned by the war, having finally concluded that he could not rely on the generals in Vietnam and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for plans to win the war. In mid-1967, he commissioned the preparation of the Pentagon Papers, a research project detailing the U. S. role in Vietnam, probably as a prelude to his effort to provide the foundation for reevaluating the failed American initiative in the war.

66McNamara’s disillusionment came late, perhaps without his understanding of the breakdown of morale on the part of the Americans serving in Vietnam. The ditty quoted above suggested the servicemen knew well ahead of McNamara the true state of the war. The reporters covering the war were well aware of the ineptitude of the South Vietnamese army and leadership. Neil Sheehan, one of the war correspondents, wrote a book on the heroism of John Paul Vann, an American advisor who had an accurate picture of the debacle called the Battle of Ap Bac. Guerillas took on a South Vietnamese battalion supported by American helicopters. For General Harkins Ap Bac was a victory, astonishing Sheehan and Vann, and two senior American officers who transmitted Vann’s report to General Harkins. Harkins believed that Ap Bac vindicated the South’s battle worthiness while the American officers present knew it was a resounding defeat. Sheehan wrote, “…he now really believed that the battle had not been a defeat for the Saigon troops. He was convinced of the truth of these assertions that angered us because we interpreted them as an insult to our intelligence. All of us… had been profoundly underestimating Harkins capacity for self-delusion. He was not the only one of his rank and station whom we had been underestimating. [20] ”

67General Westmoreland and the Joint Chiefs of Staff persisted in requesting additional troops, and their sympathizers to this day probably claim that a military victory could have been won if the civilian authorities, including President Johnson and Secretary McNamara had complied with their requests. The generals did not seem to understand that the civilian authorities and the general public had little stomach for the killing that resulted from the escalated warfare, including an aggressive air war in the North using B-52 bombers. The generals also seemed unaware of the loss of morale and the deterioration of the fighting will of the American forces. Richard A. Gabriel and Paul L. Savage, two retired army officers turned educators, wrote a book claiming that deterioration of the confidence in command, starting well before the war in Vietnam, was in large part responsible for the debacle. Soldiers stuck in the jungle used drugs to escape the misery of their fruitless condition. Fragging, the use of explosives to kill superior officers, was not uncommon. The authors claim that Vietnam became a ticket for the officer corps to receive medals and promotions. It was as though officers had to have their ticket punched in Vietnam to assure advancement in the services. The foundation of command in the tie of leader and led in the primary groups of the platoons and battalions had eroded badly  [21].

68Colin Powell had two tours of duty in Vietnam. As a twenty-five year old lieutenant, he served as advisor to a South Vietnamese battalion. He learned that fighting the Viet Cong was a cat and mouse game of responding to guerilla attacks and then discovering the enemy had disappeared. While equipped in the most rudimentary clothing (sandals made of old tire material), the Cong were wily in avoiding large-scale combat. Powell became disillusioned with the contrast between a determined enemy and a South Vietnam army unwilling to fight along with an American command engaged in making up statistics to satisfy McNamara’s penchant for numbers. “While I was in the Be Luong base camp, Secretary McNamara had made a visit to South Vietnam. ‘…every quantitative measurement’, he concluded after fortyeight hours there, ‘shows that we are winning the war.’Measure it and it has meaning. Measure it and it is real. Yet nothing I had witnessed in the AShau Valley indicated we were beating the Viet Cong. Beating them ? Most of the time we could not even find them. McNamara’s slide-rule commandos had devised precise indices to measure the unmeasurable. [22] ” A member of the intelligence staff at Hue asked Powell what he thought it would take to win the war and Powell replied, “It’ll take half-a-million men to succeed. [23] ” Even though the force level exceeded this number, the tide of the war remained with the North and the Viet Cong. If the generals knew of the low morale, they were in a state of denial. The field officer corps at the highest level, starting with Generals Harkins and Westmoreland, suppressed realistic but negative reports and were openly antagonistic to the press, making enemies of the messengers instead of heeding their observations. Even in the Pentagon denial seemed the order of the day. John Paul Vann returned from Vietnam and had prepared a briefing for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This briefing pulled no punches and was replete with hard data supporting Vann’s thesis that the South Vietnamese generals and field officers would not fight and persistently falsified reports on alleged battles with the Viet Cong. Vann appeared for the briefing and while awaiting his appointment overheard a telephone conversation in which General Maxwell Taylor, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had cancelled the briefing. Vann had sent a copy of the briefing to Major General Viktor Krulak, a Marine Corps hero and a friend and supporter of General Harkins. Krulak read the report and immediately arranged through General Wheeler to have the briefing cancelled under orders from General Taylor [24].

69

“I recalled the story of a small boy at the zoo whose father had pointed out a large caged animal and announced : ‘See, that’s a giraffe’ – to which the small boy had very sensibly answered : ‘Why ?’ [25] ”

70Within the senior administration officials, the only open and consistent dissent to U. S. policies in Vietnam came from George W. Ball, Undersecretary of State in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Ball presents an interesting contrast to the personality, sensibility, and education of Robert McNamara, who came late to the realization that the United States government and its most senior officials, starting with President Johnson had badly misunderstood the fundamentals of the war in Vietnam. In the book he published in 1995, McNamara repeatedly makes the point that no one, including himself, stopped to question the basic assumptions underlying the U. S. involvement in Vietnam. Beginning with the domino theory and extending to the problem a world power faces when its prestige is threatened, led to the quagmire. To quote McNamara, “Amajor cause of the debacle there lay in our failure to establish an organization of top civilian and military officials capable of directing the task. Over and over again, as my story of the decisionmaking process makes shockingly clear, we failed to address fundamental issues; our failure to identify them was not recognized; and deep-seated disagreements among the president’s advisors about how to proceed were neither surfaced nor resolved. [26] ” With this conclusion, McNamara is sadly mistaken. George Ball consistently and early on questioned the basic assumptions and patiently kept to his position only to find no support from McNamara, Dean Rusk, and McGeorge Bundy, the National Security Advisor.

71Deputy Undersecretary of State Ball differentiated the two roles McNamara played : secretary of defense and secretary of war. As secretary of defense, McNamara earned high ratings as a manager attempting to control expenditure and assuring the maximum value received for the funds expended on national defense. In this role, McNamara displayed his facility for quantitative analysis and projection. But as secretary of war, a term Ball used to differentiate internal defense management from advising on policies for conducting warfare and foreign policy, McNamara was outside his experience and competence. “Though he tried at the outset in 1961 to be realistic about the inherent difficulty of the struggle and the risks of its enlargement, he could not help thinking that because the resources commanded by the United States were greater than those of North Vietnam by a factor of X, we could inevitably prevail if only we applied those resources effectively – which is what our government frantically sought to do for the next ten years. [27] ”

72In his memoir, Clark Clifford presents an appraisal of McNamara similar to that of George Ball. “In reforming the Pentagon, his talents had served him well, but in the prosecution of the war, they sometimes failed him. Vietnam was not a management problem, it was a war, and war is about life and death, filled with intangibles that defy analysis. He had never been in a war, and perhaps he did not fully appreciate at first its stupid waste and its irrational emotions, and the elusiveness of facts and truth when men are dying. Nor did he fully understand the political roots of the conflict until it was too late. He had tried to master the war as he had everything else in his remarkable career, using pure intellect and his towering analytical skills – but Vietnam defied such analysis. In the end, this man, who was probably our greatest minister of defense, was not well suited to manage a war – yet this was precisely what was required by the circumstances. [28] ”

73Before serious escalation had occurred, including bombing of the North, Ball completed on October 5,1964 a single spaced sixty-seven page memorandum that concluded with a recommendation of pursuing a negotiated settlement of the conflict and opposing escalation and bombing. Ball had the memorandum delivered to McNamara, Rusk, and McGeorge Bundy. “Bob McNamara in particular seemed shocked that anyone would challenge the verities in such an abrupt and unvarnished manner and implied that I had been imprudent in putting such doubts on paper. [29] ” The recipients of Ball’s memorandum met on Saturday, November 7,1964. Ball met only with negative reactions and disinterest in his analysis. He decided it was hopeless to pursue discussions further. In his book, McNamara pays Ball compliments on his sagacity, cultivated mind, and iconoclasm but effectively minimized Ball’s contribution because Ball had not developed a plan to implement his recommendation for a negotiated settlement. McNamara admitted in his 1995 book that he and his colleagues had seriously erred in the failure to explore further Ball’s views outlined in his memorandum. Engrossed in treating Vietnam as a tactical problem, the Johnson administration, with Robert McNamara as a leading advocate of compromise between the demands of the Joint Chiefs and the field generals for escalation, and President Johnson’s inexperience in foreign and military policy, slid the slippery slope. The war was not to end until 1973 when Nixon and Kissinger negotiated the withdrawal and the victory of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong in unifying their country under the regime of Ho Chi Min.

74

“Each individual is a component part of numerous groups, he is bound by ties of identification in many directions, and he has built up his ego ideal upon the various models. Each individual therefore has a share in numerous group minds – those of his race, of his class, his creed, of his nationality, etc. – and he can also raise himself above them to the extent of having a scrap of independence and originality. [30] ”

75The theme running throughout McNamara’s retrospective on Vietnam is the failure to question the basic assumptions propelling U. S. involvement in the internal struggle between the North and the South. It is as though individually bright officials lacked the intelligence and courage to stop and question, as the little boy in Ball’s giraffe story, the “why” in back of all the assumptions starting with the domino theory. McNamara does not propose an answer to this question except to point out that the officials were all too busy with other affairs, which is no answer at all. It takes an independent intellect and perhaps innocent state of mind to break out of the pressures of group conformity to ask fundamental questions concerning policy. Ball’s perception of McNamara’s dismissive and insulting response to his memorandum during the meeting of November 7,1964 is indicative of how group pressure works to conform to the acceptable and conventional wisdom.

76It is also demeaning to the President of the United States continually to promote compromise among alternative proposals to bomb the North, increase ground forces, and to enter directly into the armed conflict. Johnson steered clear of a definitive position, seeking a middle course for U. S. policy in Vietnam. McNamara and other officials, with or without awareness, wanted to spare the President from taking responsibility for confronting the basic issues directly. McNamara typically presented his views on Vietnam by offering alternatives, which often subtly led the President to accept a middle position, a compromise among more definitive alternatives. This stylistic approach applied to Kennedy as well as to Johnson. In a meeting to decide whether to support a coup against President Diem, McNamara writes, …”I recommend we firmly decide whether we wished to support the generals’effort to topple Diem and Nhu. [31] ” This “firm” recommendation is typical of what occurs in “group think”, which influenced McNamara at the time without his awareness.

77McNamara became disillusioned by the war. The principles he espoused, of rationality, quantitative analysis, and the comparison of cost and benefits had let him down. Rather than question the applicability of these principles to the conditions of the war, McNamara seemed to imply that the problem was not in his way of thinking, but in the failure to apply the principles rigorously in evaluating the assumptions underlying the group psychology of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations as applied to Southeast Asia and Vietnam. Nowhere in his conceptual scheme, did McNamara allow for the many ways people deceive themselves and disguise their deceptions in making decisions. Probably, McNamara’s major failing was in his innocence. He could have been helped with a modest amount of paranoia that leads to questioning what people are telling him.

78As the war dragged on and solutions eluded the main actors in this dreadful war, McNamara became stressed out. He signaled his disillusion with U. S. policy in Vietnam in a number of speeches, which were reported in the press. President Johnson and others became concerned that McNamara was at risk of suicide, reacting to stress and calling to mind the example of James Forrestal’s suicide. McNamara denied that he was reacting to stress and disillusionment, stating that he only occasionally took sleeping pills and never contemplated suicide.

79On McNamara’s last full day in office, he attended a meeting in Dean Rusk’s dining room to consider General Westmoreland’s request for 205,000 more troops. Dean Rusk supported Westmoreland’s request and in addition wanted to increase the bombing of the North, believing erroneously that the Tet offensive represented a victory for the South and the U. S. McNamara lost control of himself. “The goddamned Air Force, they’re dropping more on North Vietnam than we dropped on Germany in the last year of World War II, and it’s not doing anything ! We simply have to end this thing… It’s out of control. [32] ” McNamara had difficulty speaking and suppressed sobs. He was overwrought and bereft of the convictions that had sustained him in his long career. He had come to the recognition that his belief in quantitative analysis and cost-benefit efficiency had been inadequate in dealing with the beliefs and assumptions that propelled the U. S. into the Vietnam War. McNamara had to struggle to control his emotions when President Johnson presented him with the Medal of Freedom to honor his service as Secretary of Defense.

80The war continued for another four years under Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. During this period, the U. S. invaded Cambodia to destroy without success the supply chain from that country. The Christmas bombing of the North in 1972 further provoked protests in the U. S. but did little to force the North to end the war. The North wanted nothing less than capitulation and succeeded with the truce of January, 1973 for which Kissinger shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Le Duc Tho of the North. Between 1969 and January, 1973, the U. S. lost 20,000 servicemen and the Vietnamese many more casualties resulting from bombing and land battles. It was a tragic end to a fruitless conflict in which the assumptions of the Cold War proved to be false. After the Vietnam War, there was no communist takeover in Southeast Asia.