Book: Dereliction of Duty: LBJ, Vietnam, etc.

[Perd Hapley]

For a class, I'm reading an excerpt from Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam by H.R. McMaster.

Has anybody read this?  What did you think?  It sounds interesting, but then maybe that's my bias speaking.   

[Clem]

I haven't read it, but I was a teenager when it happened. I went into the Marine Corps to fly. Did my duty. Didn't go to VN.

The crap started with the Kennedys. It got worse with LBJ. One common thread was McNamara. Those morons thought that war was just another management exercise for Harvard Business School types. Can you believe Johnson and McNamara sat around and picked bombing targets? What a bunch of morons! We are still paying for the arrogance and mistakes of that crowd.

[Jamisjockey]

I haven't read it, but I was a teenager when it happened. I went into the Marine Corps to fly. Did my duty. Didn't go to VN.

Clem, what did you fly and when?  My dad was in aviation ops during Vietnam, and you two quite possibly may have worked together or crossed paths.

[Leatherneck]

I flew 410 missions out of Chu Lai in 68-69, mainly in I Corps and Laos, but other places too.

We were all frustrated by the DC-imposed Rules of Engagement that changed weekly. Trying to use our bombs to affect political decisions felt an awful lot like micro-management. We Marines, as well as the USAF and USN fighters could have wrought much greater destruction had we been turned loose.

But the outcome of that war turned on Paris, Washington, and every city in the USA, not the battlefields of Vietnam.

TC

[Perd Hapley]

McNamara. Those morons thought that war was just another management exercise for Harvard Business School types.

That's what the excerpt said.  Amazing. 

If anyone hasn't yet guessed, I don't read much about Vietnam, or .mil history generally. 

[roo_ster]

That's what the excerpt said.  Amazing. 

If anyone hasn't yet guessed, I don't read much about Vietnam, or .mil history generally. 

I suffered through Karnow's book on VN, Vietnam: A History.  ALL politics & Washington issues.  It should have been titled: Vietnam: A Book About a War That Really Doesn't Cover the War, But Only Washington Machinations and Politics and Really Hates On Our S Vietnamese Puppets.

There are several survey books on .mil that are of quality and good reads for the interested layman.  JFC Fuller wrote a few, as has John Keegan.  I'd save Clausewitz for much later.  Heck, I'd save ANY 18th/19th century central European author for much later.

Victor Davis Hanson is good on the Greeks & Romans.

Of course, there are the classics, written by contemporaries like Xenophon & such.  I'd save those for later.  You'll know of who I write, as the previously mentioned authors will call them out.

Great thing about the older .mil authors, is that you can get their works fro a song from Half PRice Books or abebooks.com.

[Perd Hapley]

Of course, there are the classics, written by contemporaries like Xenophon & such.  I'd save those for later.  You'll know of who I write, as the previously mentioned authors will call them out.

That's a good rule with history, generally.  Start with superficial survey material, then go deeper into the secondary material - only then will you be able to delve deeply into the primary materials.  Naturally, you'll want to read some of the more prominent primary sources right at first, though.   

[MechAg94]

I haven't read it, but I was a teenager when it happened. I went into the Marine Corps to fly. Did my duty. Didn't go to VN.

The crap started with the Kennedys. It got worse with LBJ. One common thread was McNamara. Those morons thought that war was just another management exercise for Harvard Business School types. Can you believe Johnson and McNamara sat around and picked bombing targets? What a bunch of morons! We are still paying for the arrogance and mistakes of that crowd.

I've heard they also dictated the routes the bombers took to reach the targets.  Some of the TV shows mention that N.V. had a huge amount of anti-aircraft along that route.  Not to mention I heard they weren't allowed to bomb N.V. airfields.  

[Leatherneck]

I've heard they also dictated the routes the bombers took to reach the targets.  Some of the TV shows mention that N.V. had a huge amount of anti-aircraft along that route.

The pols in DC never went that far, but the DoD probably did, and talked about it. This would normally be classified.

Not to mention I heard they weren't allowed to bomb N.V. airfields. 

We certainly did have restrictions on what/where we could bomb in North Vietnam: at various times, anything but active SAMS or AAA sites were off limits: airfields, Russian ships in Haiphong Harbor, even dikes and paddies that had military activity going on.

Then they would loosen the reins if talks were going badly and all Hell let loose, then the restrictions would cut in again. Impossible for the military to mount a military campaign that made sense.

TC

[MillCreek]

Ah, the ever-handy Wikipedia tells me that this is the same H.R. McMaster as was at the battle of 73 Easting.  I saw a Frontline about him, and he seems like one very bright cookie.  I will have to get this book from the library.