4 ms·

I think there were two huge systemic/structural problems with Vietnam (aside from whether or not we should have even been there). First, McNamara had the wrong

I think there were two huge systemic/structural problems with Vietnam (aside from whether or not we should have even been there). First, McNamara had the wrong mental model of what war is. He thought like a GM chairman, where you want to outproduce and out-deliver a competitor, ie, that it's a numbers game. That was never ever going to work. Second, and this is even more serious, top brass at DoD never called the civilians on the fact that they had their heads stuck up their asses. Instead, oddly enough, they acted like little division chiefs in a large organization: don't make waves, get face time with the boss, make sure the TPS cover sheets are attached, and so forth. This meant that not only were we wrong, we had no system in place to learn from it. There were several new ideas that look quite effective created in the lower ranks. They were all shot down before word got out too far, though. It didn't make the rest of the system look good.

dhimes 6y ago
Same thing happened under Rumsfeld. It was, "get on board or get a different job." Many, but not all, just went along hoping to make the best of it from the inside rather than resign and complain (and have their careers cut short).
nostrademons 6y ago
Interesting that both of those problems could be summed up as "fighting the last war". WW2 was about outproducing and out-delivering competitors - the U.S. won largely because its collective industrial might built weapons that the Axis powers couldn't match. And it was directed largely through top-down control: FDR and the War Department had broad control over large swaths of the American economy, high-ranking generals and admirals directed huge military operations, and the public trusted their authorities enough to play their part. I wonder how much of the structure of modern-day nation-states stems from WW2, and how much is misaligned to current technology and problems. Military technology has a way of dictating political organization, and military technology is pretty different now than in 1945.
mercer 6y ago
Good points, but I do think the aside that is invading a country on the other side of the world and murdering a ton of people, all in service of a globe-spanning game of ideological chess, is worth emphasizing a little extra!

dhimes 6y ago

Same thing happened under Rumsfeld. It was, "get on board or get a different job." Many, but not all, just went along hoping to make the best of it from the inside rather than resign and complain (and have their careers cut short).

nostrademons 6y ago

Interesting that both of those problems could be summed up as "fighting the last war". WW2 was about outproducing and out-delivering competitors - the U.S. won largely because its collective industrial might built weapons that the Axis powers couldn't match. And it was directed largely through top-down control: FDR and the War Department had broad control over large swaths of the American economy, high-ranking generals and admirals directed huge military operations, and the public trusted their authorities enough to play their part. I wonder how much of the structure of modern-day nation-states stems from WW2, and how much is misaligned to current technology and problems. Military technology has a way of dictating political organization, and military technology is pretty different now than in 1945.

mercer 6y ago

Good points, but I do think the aside that is invading a country on the other side of the world and murdering a ton of people, all in service of a globe-spanning game of ideological chess, is worth emphasizing a little extra!