What should we demand from Rumsfeld for foreign policy change in Iraq?

[FreepFryer]

Rumsfeld's 40-year-ago equivalent, Robert McNamara, recently gave a tremendously insightful look back at his life in the film Fog of War. Rumsfeld, our military, and the American and Iraqi people would benefit greatly from our learning every single one of these lessons and putting it into practice.

McNamara was known as a IBM-computer-for-a-brain type efficiency geek like Rumsfeld, and their careers and lives had many parallels, including both participating in highly controversial wars with highly controversial decisions.

In McNamara's case, looking back now in his 80's, he makes some stark observations that are directly applicable to Rumsfeld's current decisionmaking.

Eleven lessons

Importantly, these eleven lessons that lend structure to The Fog of War were created by Errol Morris; they are not explicitly McNamara's (at the aforementioned UC Berkeley event, McNamara contended that he did not agree with Morris's interpretations in all respects). McNamara eventually went public with his own list of lessons, which can be found below.

1. Empathize with your enemy.

2. Rationality will not save us.

3. There's something beyond one's self.

4. Maximize efficiency.

5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war.

6. Get the data.

7. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.

8. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.

9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.

10. Never say never.

11. You can't change human nature.

Robert McNamara's Lessons from Vietnam

• We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

• We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

• We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

• Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

• We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…

• We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

• We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

• After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

• We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

• We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

• We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

• Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Source: Globe and Mail, Jan. 24, 2004 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20040124%2FMCNAMARA%2FTPColumnists%2F&ord=1104459518361&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true