Here's a letter that I sent today to USA Today:
Scolding the late Robert
McNamara for the hubris of his foreign policy is now de rigueur. As
you correctly argue, on Vietnam Mr. McNamara "didn't assess the limits
of American power" ("McNamara's hubris holds lessons for today's
leaders," July 7). Like so many Really Smart People, he possessed a
mindless faith in the ability of analytical genius, backed by
government power, to right the world's wrongs.
McNamara for the hubris of his foreign policy is now de rigueur. As
you correctly argue, on Vietnam Mr. McNamara "didn't assess the limits
of American power" ("McNamara's hubris holds lessons for today's
leaders," July 7). Like so many Really Smart People, he possessed a
mindless faith in the ability of analytical genius, backed by
government power, to right the world's wrongs.
But the dangers
of hubris and the limits of top-down solutions designed by geniuses
don't exist only outside of our borders; they're just as real
domestically. If unpredictability, incalculable details, and
unintended consequences threaten to make a mess of interventions
abroad, surely the same stubborn aspects of reality threaten to make a
mess of centralized, genius-planned interventions on the home front
such as those that aim to supply universal health care and to create a
"green economy."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 50 comments }
But, it's different this time.
I think that the article misses the main point in the debacle of the "Vietnam war", and it isn't that American power was not properly assessed. What was not properly assessed was the American will to fight the war as wars need to be fought.
No war, not the Vietnam war, the Korean war, and especially not the war(s) in Iraq should ever be fought with restrictions on operations such that victory is not possible.
Finding young men, and yes even some young women, who are willing (sometimes eager) to kill people and break things is never difficult, so that will is easy to find in sufficient quantities at any given time.
What is difficult in our form of government is finding the will to kill people and break things sufficient to subdue an enemy completely with the least amount of danger to those we send to fight.
That same will to kill people and break things is also difficult to find in the general population because typically the need to kill and break is simply not seen as necessary by the majority and it is poorly explained by self serving bureaucrats.
We did not loose Vietnam because of a lack of power. We lost because of the lack of will in those bureaucrats.
I could go further into this, but those of you who have been there already know, and those who haven't will not understand anyway.
Addressing the issue of hubris, we link politicians and bureaucrats to the word hubris in a thought, and think they could be better linked to any other word?
No. Hubris and policitians/bureaucrats go hand in hand, always.
"mindless faith in the ability of analytical genius, backed by government power, to right the world's wrongs."
Pure poetry. I suspect I will be stealing those words for myself in the future.
"We did not loose Vietnam because of a lack of power. We lost because of the lack of will in those bureaucrats."
History has proven that, while certain types of wars can be won (e.g. conventional wars), others cannot.
That includes both wars and "wars".
It's like trying to destroy water with a hammer.
@Chris
Vietnam was not one of those wars you describe as unable to be won. Simply taking out the dams above Hanoi would likely have won the war, but devastated the civilian population. This is the type of think vidyos is talking about. McNamera and others simply didn't have the will to inflict damage on that scale.
Again… just have to point out the irony of a professor with not one but two advanced degrees wagging his finger about "Really Smart People" telling us what to do, when his proposal for health care isn't supported by the majority of "regular" people. The anti-intellectualism is an unhelpful red herring.
I know this will be taken as being "disrespectful to our hosts", but I'm only trying to apply the same standard to our hosts that they apply to men like McNamara. And to bring in another common bugaboo on this blog – take a look at the comment section on Krugman's blog. THAT'S real disrespect for a blog host. And certainly the counter-argument is "well Don isn't forcing anyone to do anything". True, but the value of that to you is a matter of political philosophy. He IS making declarations about what economic organization is best for "the rest of us", even if he doesn't force us to do anything, which is presumably butressed by his multiple advanced degrees.
Again… just have to point out the irony of a professor with not one but two advanced degrees wagging his finger about "Really Smart People" telling us what to do, when his proposal for health care isn't supported by the majority of "regular" people. The anti-intellectualism is an unhelpful red herring.
I know this will be taken as being "disrespectful to our hosts", but I'm only trying to apply the same standard to our hosts that they apply to men like McNamara. And to bring in another common bugaboo on this blog – take a look at the comment section on Krugman's blog. THAT'S real disrespect for a blog host. And certainly the counter-argument is "well Don isn't forcing anyone to do anything". True, but the value of that to you is a matter of political philosophy. He IS making declarations about what economic organization is best for "the rest of us", even if he doesn't force us to do anything, which is presumably butressed by his multiple advanced degrees.
Success depends on the goals.
Was the goal in Vietnam to win, or to pump money into the manufacturers of military hardware?
If the goal was the latter then it was a rousing success.
Is the goal of universal health care to provide access to medical services, or to shut down the insurance industry while guaranteeing that certain people get paid?
Is the goal of this "green economy" to end our dependence on fossil fuels, or to penalize one industry while mandating we purchase products from another?
Or perhaps I'm a raging cynic.
@Chris,
James is exactly correct.
Furthermore our lack of will is what allowed the war to become "unconventional".
There is nothing sacred about guerilla tactics and effectiveness, it is just another way of fighting. If our forces use the same tactics then the unconventional just became conventional; and, it was clear that our guys were just as good at it as theirs and were better equipped in every sense, which includes air support.
Mao and his forces "swam like fishes in the sea of people" unidentifiable because no one had the courage to drain the sea. In a revolutionary or civil war that is understandable; but in a war of defense or conquest to not "drain the sea" is to accept the eventuality of defeat, or at best a stalemate.
My point is that politicians/bureaucrats send others to die, knowing full well that some/many will die while restricting their ability to be most effective in prosecution of combat operations. Those people have my utmost contempt because they have accepted death of their own, yet do not let their own have the best chance possible to live, which lies in killing the enemy combatant and destroying his ability to refuel, refit, feed, house, and treat his wonded. Destroying his ability to refuel, refit, feed, house, and treat his wounded means killing more than enemy combatants.
If we are going to see death accepted, better theirs than ours.
No, Dr. Boudreaux. You don't understand, they'll get healthcare and green jobs right because this time the 'right' people will be in charge. [note dripping sarcasm]
The difference is that Don does not have the hubris (or at least is aware of the foolishness of such hubris) to suggest that he can control, plan, intervene and regulate in an incredibly complicated spontaneous phenomena like our economy. Don isn't complaining about someone claiming that he or she has a better idea about what an economy should be (and in that I only mean that, for example, if one were to say, "Hey, Socialism is pretty cool, let's try that again", Don would probably not feel uncomfortable asserting that capitalism is most likely a superior economic system); he's complaining about the arrogance and foolishness of central planning. Yes, Don has a fistful of degrees, but he's not telling us how to live our lives; he's telling us that in fact his degrees are pretty meaningless when it comes to telling people how to live their lives.
(Ah, I was responding to Daniel)
aigh…DK, patience. If it says it was posted, it likely was. Wait a bit and refresh to see.
We did not loose Vietnam because of a lack of power. We lost because of the lack of will in those bureaucrats.
But what would we have won?
Look at Vietnam now.
Seems to me that the communist movement in Vietnam was defeated by its success in the war.
Like so many Really Smart People, he possessed a mindless faith in the ability of analytical genius, backed by government power, to right the world's wrongs.
Notice he did not say "to win wars". Winning wars is rarely the same as "right the world's wrongs".
DK, unlike McNamara, Don is not responsible for raining death on rice farmers, nor is he calling for brutal means against people, but rather is using the means of persuasion in support of his position.
He leaves it to the judgment of others whether they accept his arguments, unlike the means employed by political agencies which override the personal judgment of those subject to government edict.
Prof Boudreaux,
While I too think the Vietnam war was winnable, given the will, that was still a great post.
That's givin' it to 'em!
It might be worth remembering that the Viet Cong were destroyed in the Tet Offensive, and that the war from that point on was pretty much a strictly conventional invasion from the north, fought by NVA regulars. Recall that the fall of Saigon involved Russian-made tanks rolling through the streets. Tanks are not commonly used in insurgencies.
What would have been the point of winning a war in Vietnam?
That is, how would we have known that we won, and what would we have won?
The impetus behind U.S. operations in Vietnam was to prevent the dominoes from falling.
Well, we pulled out and the dominoes did not fall.
Was our hope not fulfilled without bringing military defeat upon the enemy?
In the end, it was just another pointless exercise in military mayhem.
Do people read my caveats? I know perfectly well that what Don is doing is different and mentioned it explicitly. I'm addressing the "too smart for their own good" syndrome that's been popping up a lot lately.
Sam – I know how to post. My desktop has been acting up all morning. Thanks for the pointer, though.
"Simply taking out the dams above Hanoi would likely have won the war, but devastated the civilian population."
Would it have broken them or simply pissed them off even more?
I think the latter.
"McNamera and others simply didn't have the will to inflict damage on that scale."
The Russians inflicted huge levels of damage on the Afghans and still lost the war.
You could argue that Chechnya may prove that this is possible, but you also have to acknowledge that the Chechen leaders shot themselves in the foot with some of their tactics and turned the population against them.
"we pulled out and the dominoes did not fall."
Laos? Cambodia?
"My point is that politicians/bureaucrats send others to die, knowing full well that some/many will die while restricting their ability to be most effective in prosecution of combat operations."
If I ever meet Bill Clinton in person I will spit in his face for the way he hobbled our troops in Somalia out of a fear of sending the "wrong" message.
However, the fact is that brute force only works so well, and in certain circumstances, and in many cases the harder you squeeze the more the victim fights back.
"Yes, Don has a fistful of degrees, but he's not telling us how to live our lives; he's telling us that in fact his degrees are pretty meaningless when it comes to telling people how to live their lives."
Well said.
"In the end, it was just another pointless exercise in military mayhem."
I wouldn't say it was pointless.
The MIC made a fortune.
Replace the M with Medical and you get the reason we need universal health care.
Though I'm sure that universal health care will cost a lot more than sixty thousand American lives.
There was a sympathy element to the war. Life under communism was and is hell. In spite of its corruption and poverty, South Vietnam was a virtual utopia compared to what the North brought to it after the war. Remember, the masses of boat people came after the war.
This was a major sentiment in all anti-communist efforts. To resist such wars you have to be willing to decide that trying to save the lives and souls of millions of non-Americans from a brutal enslaving force is not worth the cost to America. You may be right. The US made that decision in Eastern Europe. But I hope for you it would never be a happy decision.
This was a major sentiment in all anti-communist efforts. To resist such wars you have to be willing to decide that trying to save the lives and souls of millions of non-Americans from a brutal enslaving force is not worth the cost to America. You may be right.
The question is whether we can bring liberty to others by surrendering our own.
"The question is whether we can bring liberty to others by surrendering our own."
The question actually faced is whether we can use our existing military system to defend a free people from a devastating and pitiful fate.
Don't conflate how things should be with how things are.
Chris, Sam, et. al.,
I wrote my opinion based upon the strict pragmatic terms of "if we must war", then anything less than all out war to crush the enemy is a condemning of our own troops to probable needless death and/or maiming for life in numbers far exceeding what an all out frontal complete operation would do.
My entire thrust is anti-war under most any circumstance and the Congress that hobbles our own combatants with their stupidity and lack of will, should all be condemned as criminals, tried, convicted, and hanged.
Soldiers/Sailors do not as a matter of course start wars, it is the idiots who have the hubris to think they know better what needs to be done and know that they are too personally valuable to actually go do the fighting themselves.
What would we have accomplished in Vietnam by following an all-out policy? Long term, you're right, Sam, probably not much. Short term, one hell of a lot less American deaths; and, one hell of a lot less American dollars thrown away on sustained years of piddly-ass combat, bribes, and wasted arsenals of arms.
The only real way to keep our economy strong is not by raising taxes, but by keeping taxes low, fair and simple. I've been looking for a way to take action and contact our legislators and sign petitions and found some good policy the U.S. Chamber of Commerce backs (here). I don't have a lot of money or time, but I figure this will help other people do good.
Short term, one hell of a lot less American deaths; and, one hell of a lot less American dollars thrown away on sustained years of piddly-ass combat, bribes, and wasted arsenals of arms.
Which could've been accomplished by not committing there in the first place.
The question actually faced is whether we can use our existing military system to defend a free people from a devastating and pitiful fate.
Which raises the questions of whether I (and many other individuals) can be considered free if we must be dragged along into such collective endeavors against our my own judgment.
Events have shown that a state with the power to wage discretionary war does so at the expense of the liberties of its subjects.
A state that has such disregard for the liberty of its own citizens will not bring liberty to others.
The politicians may pay lip service to our ideals and good intentions, but only for the purpose of manipulating us into giving them our support (resources).
"Which raises the questions of whether I (and many other individuals) can be considered free if we must be dragged along into such collective endeavors against our my own judgment."
The question isn't raised but was already answered–YOU ARE. You are taxed to pay for that military. And you have a population of people who VERY understandably (and admirably) sympathize with the tragic plight of the victims of communism. Those sympathetic people see the EXISTENCE NOW of the world's most powerful military and wonder if it couldn't be used to save millions of innocent people from an evil that is wholly the antithesis of what freedom loving people stand for. WHOLLY the antithesis–not merely a free society corrupted by taxation and scattered trappings of statism.
Now if you want to create a new pristine state founded on solid inviolable principles of liberty, then likely you will never find yourself with a military large enough to tempt your freedom-loving citizens to come to the military aid of foreign innocents.
But that was and is not the reality of the USA.
It may be the right decision for a country capable of defeating fascist Europe and Asia to simply leave 8 million people to the killing fields, but no decent person would make it a light decision.
I was surprised with the use of the word "assess" in the article. I don't understand it.
in agreeing with vidyohs, a better word would have been "access".
Basil Lidell Hart said that the object of war is not to destroy the enemy's tanks, but his will.
With all of the education and degrees, complexity still makes some people humble, and makes others arrogant. I have not met middle school drop outs wanting to centrally plan the next big government boondoggle. It almost always is the kind of people who go to the ivy leagues. Don wasn't poking fun @ their elite education, instead, he was just pointing out their hubris. That's how I understood it.
"I wrote my opinion based upon the strict pragmatic terms of "if we must war", then anything less than all out war to crush the enemy is a condemning of our own troops to probable needless death and/or maiming for life in numbers far exceeding what an all out frontal complete operation would do."
That was my point about Somalia.
We tried to not offend anyone and the result was far too many deaths among our own forces (and probably Somali deaths as well).
If we had gone in with overwhelming military force, in a tightly defined operation, far fewer of our troops would have died and fewer Somalis would have died because the Somalis would have been less likely to mess with us.
However, there's still the issue that this was more of an asymmetrical effort rather than a conventional battle.
And you have a population of people who VERY understandably (and admirably) sympathize with the tragic plight of the victims of communism. Those sympathetic people see the EXISTENCE NOW of the world's most powerful military and wonder if it couldn't be used to save millions of innocent people from an evil that is wholly the antithesis of what freedom loving people stand for.
As if there was a unanimity of well informed support for such action.
I am familiar with the history, but there is little evidence that U.S. interventions in Asia, supposedly in opposition to communism, actually benefited many people in Asia. Though it must be admitted that our military did kill a lot of them.
Given all that you've said Daniel, let me put it this way: your comment came off as gratuitous.
"As if there was a unanimity of well informed support for such action."
Yes. There was unanimity. That's exactly what I was saying. My post is clearly dependent upon 100% agreement.
You're one of the intelligent posters here, Sam. Don't dishonor yourself with such tripe.
"there is little evidence that U.S. interventions in Asia, supposedly in opposition to communism, actually benefited many people in Asia"
It was immensely beneficial to the South Koreans. Other than delaying the horror, it was of no value elsewhere–against communism.
But the decision to enter Vietnam wasn't made in 2009. It was made in the context of a military which had very recently defeated the entire militarized nations of Japan, Germany, and Italy. It was not unrealistic to think that protecting South Vietnam would be any more difficult than protecting South Korea or defeating the Japanese Empire.
And for the record, I think an easy case is made that the Japanese and Western Europeans were better off because of US military interventions there–whether or not it was right for the US to intervene.
You'll not gain credibility by crafting sophistry to support the false notion that bad policy cannot have good outcomes. Few people believe reality is that simple.
But the decision to enter Vietnam wasn't made in 2009. It was made in the context of a military which had very recently defeated the entire militarized nations of Japan, Germany, and Italy.
I am familiar with the history of our presence in Vietnam. We moved in after the French gave up.
You'll not gain credibility by crafting sophistry to support the false notion that bad policy cannot have good outcomes. Few people believe reality is that simple.
Of course not, but the difficulty is in not letting good outcomes blind us to the bad. Politicians have a propensity for pointing to the good and disregarding the bad. It is altogether too easy for us to forget the suffering of others in foreign lands.
It is also a matter of reality that nothing bolsters the rulers like having a scary enemy to squelch debate and criticism, and winners often write history to their own advantage.
Daniel,
You're pretty consistent at staking out territory on both sides of a debate, so that no matter which side criticizes you, you can claim to be misunderstood.
Bullshit. You're understood quite well, and that's why Vidyohs calls you "Disengenuous Kuehn".
Our hosts have various degrees, which give them the opportunity to teach Economics at a prestigious university. Their success at teaching economics has allowed them to create a venue where they can discuss their views on political economy. Views which are contrary to the Keynesianism preached by the Political Class and the dominsant liberal media.
Ninety-nine percent of what our hosts post here regarding politics is their opinion of what government shouldn't be allowed to do. Very little, if anything, is ever posted telling people what they should do, and except in giving classroom lessons, they, unlike government, can't tell any of us what we are going to do.
You and Muirgeo share many political philosophies, but there is a huge difference between you two. Muirgeo may be dumb as a box of rocks, but at least he has the courage to state his Leftist ideology and stick by it. You'd rather begin every post by writing, "That's not what I meant".
"I am familiar with the history of our presence in Vietnam. We moved in after the French gave up."
Not unlike WWII, where the US was victorious.
"It is altogether too easy for us to forget the suffering of others in foreign lands."
Indeed–the suffering of generations of Eastern Europeans, hundreds of millions of Chinese, Cubans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, North Koreans. Some of us do forget their suffering. Those who do not, are often tempted to exert US power to try and save others from that same fate.
"It is also a matter of reality that nothing bolsters the rulers like having a scary enemy to squelch debate and criticism, and winners often write history to their own advantage."
Scary enemies also exist in reality.
I fear it is you who wish to rewrite history to diminish evil to the advantage of your argument. Doing so is dangerous–not just for resolve of the world to oppose such evil, but also for your argument which you make dependent upon that evil being a myth.
If you have not done so, I hope you will pick up a copy of _The Black Book of Communism_. It is an academic account not written by anti-communist fanatics.
I hope Cafe Hayek switches to a two-post-per-commenter-per-blog-entry system. Separating the debates from the useful new comments is wearisome.
If you have not done so, I hope you will pick up a copy of _The Black Book of Communism_.
I'm familiar with it.
The issue I''m having with you here is that I am opposed to being communized, that is having my product being controlled by others in the name of the collective, under the guise of good intentions.
So whenever you use the term "we" in the context you have used it above, I interpret it as that you are willing to accept a certain degree of communism in order to oppose communism.
The result of this "we" kind of thinking is that the U.S., state, and local governments now have communized a very large portion of our product for the "common" good, and is in the process of assuming command of significant portions of our economic relations as well.
You oppose totalitarian communism while I oppose all forms of communism.
If you think we need a military to resist invasion by communist states, then just let me have a gun and ammo, and we'll have a militia able to repel all invaders.
Of course, they have to get here first.
I fear it is you who wish to rewrite history to diminish evil to the advantage of your argument.
That would be an erroneous assumption.
I do not wish to rewrite history, but the more I learn of it, the less able I am to view it in such black and white terms as us=good/them=bad.
Very few political actors are worthy of white hats.
"So whenever you use the term "we" in the context you have used it above, I interpret it as that you are willing to accept a certain degree of communism in order to oppose communism."
Then you are missing my point. It is natural and right to sympathize with a pitiful plight of another person. It is natural and right to want to come to their aid. And if you are a liberty-loving person, it is natural to want to fight and save people from the greatest liberty antagonist that the world has probably ever seen.
I merely pointed out that that was a major faction in the anticommunist sentiment. It was not all cynical profiteering and powergrabs that is being posted here.
Instead of diminishing the magnitude of that evil, you should be trying to persuade people why no evil is worth compromising your principles. You should persuade people that it is best to sit back and watch as the corpses pile up by the millions, and people are enslaved by the billions.
You should persuade people that it is best to sit back and watch as the corpses pile up by the millions, and people are enslaved by the billions.
No, I'd rather persuade people that we shouldn't create piles of corpses ourselves and that we should not allow ourselves to be enslaved in order to fight slavery.
Sentiments are how political actors manipulate other people in to committing those acts of great evil.
I believe the only way to end the great evils is to persuade people to resist the emotional manipulations of politicians.
We won't be able to help anyone if we ourselves are impoverished and enslaved.
Communism has lost, not because of anything we did, but because markets will not be successfully commanded.
The USSR has demonstrated that, and the U.S. is going to demonstrate it again.
At least, that's how it looks to me.
If being principled leads to heavy toll in terms of human casualties, it is not a principle worth adhering to. I think vikingvista is just taking the empty rhetoric a couple of notches higher.
It is also natural to want to save a human being suffering from painful deadly disease or someone just suffering from hunger, but it is not for the government to do such a thing. If you want to instigate rebellion in other countries, you should form a non-profit organization, raise money, and support groups in those countries, and if needed be willing to go die on their behalf.
If being principled leads to heavy toll in terms of human casualties, it is not a principle worth adhering to.
IF!
I have not been persuaded that adhering to moral principles leads to a heavy toll in human casualties.
I think it is the abnegation of moral principles that produces such results.
"If you want to instigate rebellion in other countries, you should form a non-profit organization, raise money, and support groups in those countries, and if needed be willing to go die on their behalf."
Now YOU are defending a principle. But surely you see the temptation to take within the existing system of an already formed large military and engage it in a task which looks rather minor compared to one's the military just accomplished. I mean, given that situation, forming a non-profit mercenary force is going to seem like a rather useless alternative.
But at least you are not defending your position by arguing that the evil doesn't really exist.
But I will grant you, that it would be preferable that such a military state did not already exist. You must accept, however, that it does.
But at least you are not defending your position by arguing that the evil doesn't really exist.
Nor did I make such an argument.
I think you extended my argument in the wrong direction.
But surely you see the temptation to take within the existing system of an already formed large military and engage it in a task which looks rather minor compared to one's the military just accomplished.
Certainly, politics is full of temptations.
And armed might seems so efficacious.