Cuba missiles issue 1960s - Page 3 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

winter6126 · #21 (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

McNamara is getting close to meeting his maker and is simply trying to atone for his mistakes. Below is a link to a wickpedia site that goves some background on McNamara. Given Wickpedia is what it is I would also take this with a grain of salt, but here it is anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara

thanks for your link,but i can't visit it.China Telecom block it.if i setup proxy sever,then the speed is very slow,because that page would transfered by proxy server.you can paste it.TKS.
I just know Macnamara is a smart cookie,he was called "whiz kid" when he was young.he joined the WWII,and he use statistics to manage Army,that's a good way. after WWII came to the End,the worked in Ford Car comapny.and Henry Ford appointed he company president.two months later,he accepted Kennedy's invite,being Secretary of Defense.

Quote:

Anyway as you read McNamara's book keep in mind Vietnam is seen as one of our greatest failures by most Americans.

no,i don't think so.American didn't won Vietnam war,the reason is the South Vietnam was a corrupt government,South Vietnamese didn't supported their government and leaders.this is not US Army's fault.in politics,American really failed in S. Vietnam
in military,US Army just lose 58 thousands soldiers,but Vietnamese lose nearly 300 millions.as the North Vietnam said:without China and USSR's help,NVA couldn't won the war.in fact,American fought with 3 countries in Vietnam.this is difficult.and bushfighting is really difficult to won,Vietnamese good at hide themselves in hole,cuniculus.it is difficult to find them.Chinese Vietran also said Vietnamese were cunning.but Chinese tactics different American.Chinese was simle, gunners often Carpet shelled the Vietnamese position first,then sent many surrounded the mountain and used flame thrower burn the hole.American's tactics is "find and destroy enemy",if US Air force found some Vietcong&NVA appear in an area,then sent some special force soldiers went to that area by CH47 helicopter.that's dangerous,because Vietcong familiar with the area,but american didn't.to win the bushfighting,american soldiers and Vietcong scale should: 10:1. I mean 10 american soldier VS 1 Vietcong.and you should block the Vietcong's rear supply too.

but in regular battlefield,american done a good job.in Da Lang river vally battle,1965,and in Hue battle.american won.actually,i don't think Vietcong&NVA won any regular war in Vietnam war when they fought with US Army.of course,after american withdraw S. Vietnam,the S.Vietnam troops was too weak,NVA won the regular war.

Joao Dasilva · #22 (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 03:54 PM

Winter,

Military advisors were in Vietnam shortly after Dien Bien Phu (my friend got there in '57. They were 'advisors', a term used for our soldiers/sailors in battles we don't want the public to know about.

Tell me, you ever heard of an 'Ontos', a USMC anti-tank weapon?

As for Westmoreland, he's from my home state. I've got an interesting/funny story about his short foray into Palmetto stae politics.

Gort · #23 (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

[winter6126]
thanks for your link,but i can't visit it.China Telecom block it.if i setup proxy sever,then the speed is very slow,because that page would transfered by proxy server.you can paste it.TKS.

Winter in order to help I will repost that part of the Wikpedia article that deals with Vietnam. After all you should be able to read what is written on the subject whether your government approves or not don't you think?

Quote:

Vietnam
The Vietnam conflict came to claim most of McNamara's time and energy. The Truman and Eisenhower administrations had committed the United States to support the French and native anti-Communist forces in Vietnam in resisting efforts by the Communists in the North to control the country. The U.S. role, including financial support and military advice, expanded after 1954 when the French withdrew. During the Kennedy administration, the U.S. military advisory group in South Vietnam steadily increased, with McNamara's concurrence, from just a few hundred to about 17,000. U.S. involvement escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August 1964 when North Vietnamese naval vessels reportedly fired on two U.S. destroyers. President Johnson ordered retaliatory air strikes on North Vietnamese naval bases and Congress approved almost unanimously the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the U.S. and to prevent further aggression."

As the war expanded in Southeast Asia in 1964, the Johnson Administration was increasingly focused on the November presidential election, seeking to minimize America's growing and often covert involvement in Vietnam. Consequently, McNamara frequently failed to pass along the Joint Chiefs' comments or objections to administration policy, or misrepresented those views to the president. Following the retirement of Admiral George W. Anderson, Army General George Decker, and Air Force chief Curtis LeMay, the JCS became increasingly compliant to Johnson and McNamara's wishes. (H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty, Harper Perennial, 1997.)

In 1965, in response to stepped up military activity by the nationalist (anti-American) Viet Cong in South Vietnam and their North Vietnamese allies, the United States began bombing North Vietnam, deployed large military forces, and entered into combat in South Vietnam. McNamara's plan, supported by requests from top U.S. military commanders in Vietnam led to the commitment of 485,000 troops by the end of 1967 and almost 535,000 by 30 June 1968. The casualty lists mounted as the number of troops and the intensity of fighting escalated. Against the views of many of the top leaders in the military, McNamara put in place a statistical strategy for victory in Vietnam. He concluded that there were a limited number of Viet Cong fighters in Vietnam and that a war of attrition would destroy them. He applied metrics (body counts) to determine how close to success his plan was.

Although he was a prime architect of the Vietnam War and repeatedly overruled the JCS on strategic matters, McNamara years later claimed that he had gradually become skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam. None of his contemporaries remember him being anything other than an enthusiastic supporter of the war. He also has often claimed that his support of the Vietnam war was done out of loyalty to administration policy. He traveled to Vietnam many times to study the situation firsthand. He became increasingly reluctant to approve the large force increments requested by the military commanders but offered little in the way of alternatives.

This portrays a slightly different picture of the man on Vietnam that the one you read. That shows always be wary of someones personal rememberance of a subject when that subject was as unpopular as the Vietnam War.

Quote:

[winter6126]
I just know Macnamara is a smart cookie,he was called "whiz kid" when he was young.he joined the WWII,and he use statistics to manage Army,that's a good way. after WWII came to the End,the worked in Ford Car comapny.and Henry Ford appointed he company president.two months later,he accepted Kennedy's invite,being Secretary of Defense.

I never said he wasn't smart. A lot of smart people do stupid things though.

Quote:

[winter6126]
no,i don't think so.American didn't won Vietnam war,the reason is the South Vietnam was a corrupt government,South Vietnamese didn't supported their government and leaders.this is not US Army's fault.in politics,American really failed in S. Vietnam
in military,US Army just lose 58 thousands soldiers,but Vietnamese lose nearly 300 millions.as the North Vietnam said:without China and USSR's help,NVA couldn't won the war.in fact,American fought with 3 countries in Vietnam.this is difficult.and bushfighting is really difficult to won,Vietnamese good at hide themselves in hole,cuniculus.it is difficult to find them.Chinese Vietran also said Vietnamese were cunning.but Chinese tactics different American.Chinese was simle, gunners often Carpet shelled the Vietnamese position first,then sent many surrounded the mountain and used flame thrower burn the hole.American's tactics is "find and destroy enemy",if US Air force found some Vietcong&NVA appear in an area,then sent some special force soldiers went to that area by CH47 helicopter.that's dangerous,because Vietcong familiar with the area,but american didn't.to win the bushfighting,american soldiers and Vietcong scale should: 10:1. I mean 10 american soldier VS 1 Vietcong.and you should block the Vietcong's rear supply too.

but in regular battlefield,american done a good job.in Da Lang river vally battle,1965,and in Hue battle.american won.actually,i don't think Vietcong&NVA won any regular war in Vietnam war when they fought with US Army.of course,after american withdraw S. Vietnam,the S.Vietnam troops was too weak,NVA won the regular war.

Based on what do you not think the war was unpopular. Winter first of all I urge you to ask almost any American on this board who was alive then, and old enough to remember, whether the war was a failure or not. Moreover who is telling you it wasn't a failure. I lived through it winter, I ought to know. It was a failure on so many different levels and if you are interested I will be happy to go over them. If however you, a foreigner, are going to insist you know better then there is really no point in my doing so. Keep one thing in mind failure or success is not something that is purely a battlefield condition. Moreover had it not been a failure there would still be a South Vietnamese government and country like there is a South Korea. That war wasn't a success either, but it wasn''t an outright failure. We still won most of the battles, except when the Chinese suprised us at the Yalu. Other than that though we won most major battles so would that be anAmerican success in you view? Somehow I doubt it, which just goes to show battlefield victories does not neccessarily mean a war is a success.

winter6126 · #24 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joao Dasilva

Tell me, you ever heard of an 'Ontos', a USMC anti-tank weapon?

As for Westmoreland, he's from my home state. I've got an interesting/funny story about his short foray into Palmetto stae politics.

Joao,I don't know "Ontos" ...
Westmoreland joined the election to run the state governer.but he failed.i don't know the deatil

winter6126 · #25 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

In 1965, in response to stepped up military activity by the nationalist (anti-American) Viet Cong in South Vietnam and their North Vietnamese allies, the United States began bombing North Vietnam, deployed large military forces, and entered into combat in South Vietnam. McNamara's plan, supported by requests from top U.S. military commanders in Vietnam led to the commitment of 485,000 troops by the end of 1967 and almost 535,000 by 30 June 1968. The casualty lists mounted as the number of troops and the intensity of fighting escalated. Against the views of many of the top leaders in the military, McNamara put in place a statistical strategy for victory in Vietnam. He concluded that there were a limited number of Viet Cong fighters in Vietnam and that a war of attrition would destroy them. He applied metrics (body counts) to determine how close to success his plan was.

.

his number(dead Vietcong&NVA soldiers) from South Vietnamese,he believed them first,but S. Vietnamese cheated him and Johnson,Macnamara retail the lies to American too.this is S. Vietnamese's fault. Macnamara always against sent more soldiers to S. Vietnam and bomb N. Vietnam since he figure out that american can't win the war.

Quote:

Although he was a prime architect of the Vietnam War and repeatedly overruled the JCS on strategic matters, McNamara years later claimed that he had gradually become skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam. None of his contemporaries remember him being anything other than an enthusiastic supporter of the war

he confess he doubt whether American could won the war or not.does american call this war"Macnamara war"?

winter6126 · #26 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Based on what do you not think the war was unpopular. Winter first of all I urge you to ask almost any American on this board who was alive then, and old enough to remember, whether the war was a failure or not. Moreover who is telling you it wasn't a failure. I lived through it winter, I ought to know. It was a failure on so many different levels and if you are interested I will be happy to go over them. If however you, a foreigner, are going to insist you know better then there is really no point in my doing so. Keep one thing in mind failure or success is not something that is purely a battlefield condition. Moreover had it not been a failure there would still be a South Vietnamese government and country like there is a South Korea. That war wasn't a success either, but it wasn''t an outright failure. We still won most of the battles, except when the Chinese suprised us at the Yalu. Other than that though we won most major battles

I think most american don't like mention Vietnam war.
it was not a success,and it was not a failure,then the war....?I can't figure out
what's the condition/standard of victory in your mind?

Quote:

so would that be anAmerican success in you view? Somehow I doubt it, which just goes to show battlefield victories does not neccessarily mean a war is a success

clear,my views is american won regular war in battlefield,but failed in politics.some times,war serve for politics,I think Vietnam war is an example.you failed in politics,so you lose

Gort · #27 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 01:42 PM

[winter6126]
his number(dead Vietcong&NVA soldiers) from South Vietnamese,he believed them first,but S. Vietnamese cheated him and Johnson,Macnamara retail the lies to American too.this is S. Vietnamese's fault. Macnamara always against sent more soldiers to S. Vietnam and bomb N. Vietnam since he figure out that american can't win the war.McNamara didn't get the body count numbers from the South Vietnamese. I would really love to know where you are getting you information. He got the body count numbers from the US military. In fact it was the political leadership that wanted a body count number so they could show "progress" to the American people. The south Vietnamese had nothing to do with those body counts. Further where did you get he was always against sending more troops into Vietnam. In fact he was a prime motivator for the expansion of the war. Winter you really must stop believing everything you are allowed to read and strat wondering why you aren't allowed to read the things you are not given access to. There is a reason for that censorship you know.

Quote:

[winter6126]
he confess he doubt whether American could won the war or not.does american call this war"Macnamara war"?

Did you read what I posted? Here it is again just in case you did not.

Quote:

Although he was a prime architect of the Vietnam War and repeatedly overruled the JCS on strategic matters, [McNamara years later claimed that he had gradually become skeptical about whether the war could be won by deploying more troops to South Vietnam and intensifying the bombing of North Vietnam. None of his contemporaries remember him being anything other than an enthusiastic supporter of the war

I know english isn't your first language but I usrge you to take this and ask some of your friends who speak english if you are reading it right. I can tell you you haven't, but I don't want you to take my word for it. Go ask someone who is very fluent in english that you trust. You will see I am right when I say he was a big supporter of the war, and only after it was lost did he change his mind so he would not be villified by history.

Gort · #28 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winter6126

I think most american don't like mention Vietnam war.
it was not a success,and it was not a failure,then the war....?I can't figure out
what's the condition/standard of victory in your mind?

clear,my views is american won regular war in battlefield,but failed in politics.some times,war serve for politics,I think Vietnam war is an example.you failed in politics,so you lose

Winter we discuss Vietnam all the time. We aren't afraid of discussing our failures as well as our successes.

Joao Dasilva · #29 (**permalink**) 07-20-2006, 05:14 PM

Winter,

I mention 'Ontos' (Greek for 'The Thing') because the Marines tested it in Vietnam in the late 50's before finally emcorporating it into their units in the early 60's, which was a big mistake on their part. That was how my then co-worker got wounded, and his friend was killed- trying to unjam an Ontos barrel.

Here's a Gen Westmoreland in SC politics story, the first and last of its kind.

After 'Westy' retired, he came back home, and since SC has always had a strong military tradition, and is forever enamored with a 'man in uniform', it should have been a snap for him except...........

In the early 70's as he was being introduced around the elites, the General attended a party in Charleston for Democratic (at that time, the switch to the GOP was in its initial stage) Party hopefulls. As he was being introduced to those who held the reins of power, he shook hands with a state Rep from the Lowcountry (Coastal SC) with whom he hoped to curry favor.

The Represenititive, known to be a wild card, looked at Westy and said,

'General, do you remember XXXXX (unsure of the locale) in Vietnam where some serious fighting took place in 1968?'

'Yes. I do' was the reply.

'And do you remember a young Marine Lt whose platoon had been chewed-up pretty bad, and who you told to 'Get a shave, and change of uniform, because you look like a slob?'

The General was speechless.

'Well', the Rrepresentitive who often said that growing up he was 'the only kike (derogatory term for "Jew') on the block.', and therefore had to be mean from early on just to survive, continued 'That Marine Lt. was me, and I'll be goddamned if you ever hold the office of dog catcher in this state, you son of a bitch!'

The Represenititive then drained his drink and left.

Westmoreland never made a sucessful bid in statewide office in South Carolina.

Story was related to me and my best friend by his father, who was a witness to the sudden end of a seemingly promising political career.

winter6126 · #30 (**permalink**) 07-21-2006, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gort

[winter6126]

Did you read what I posted? Here it is again just in case you did not.

I know english isn't your first language but I usrge you to take this and ask some of your friends who speak english if you are reading it right. I can tell you you haven't, but I don't want you to take my word for it. Go ask someone who is very fluent in english that you trust. You will see I am right when I say he was a big supporter of the war, and only after it was lost did he change his mind so he would not be villified by history.

No,I read it carefully,I spent more than 30 minutes to read it,with dictionary's help

..so,maybe i misunderstand some words.

i realize Macnamara from his book,in that book,i know something about Kennedy,Johnson too.

i realize modern US politics from Clinton's book "my life" and Hilliary's book(I don't know its english name).

so,i afraid you will say my brain was washed by Macnamara,Bill Clinton,and Hillary

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode