I was coming into the military as McNamara was leaving. It was easy to see the incredible damage he had done to the US military (which took almost 25 years to overcome.) What had been a calling was turned into just another job - yes he upped the pay but he tried as hard as he could to destroy all the little things that made the military standout from civilian life. Before, the service tried to produce leaders, he wanted managers instead, and sadly that's what we got. He never to the end understood that there was a fundamental difference between Ford and the US military. No comprehension at all. But we all kept hearing what a genius he was.
How many of his ilk have we seen since in government? - incredible geniuses doing incredible harm?
-- businessanalyst
(To reply, click here)
McNamara brought to the pentagon his style of "managing by metrics", that helped make Ford into the success it is today. He imagined he could measure military success by the then-modern MBA style -- relentlessly measuring process minutiae and applying simple algorithmic "solutions" onto those metrics. This is why he placed near-religious faith in the infamous "body count" and "kill ratio" numbers. He seriously thought this represented a rational -- and better! -- way to manage warfare. The thousands of killed Americans and Vietnamese seemed to be only abstractions to him -- regrettable debits on the ledger sheet that he could explain away at the next stockholders' meeting.
My understanding is that both McNamara and LBJ himself largely micro-managed the war, even to the point of making daily determinations of exact bomb targets, and berating military leaders when the metrics did not come up to scheduled quotas.
Every administration seems to have its "whiz kids" who dazzle the press and the public with their highly-publicized "intellect". Certainly, GW Bush had them in his neocons. To this day, they all insist their theories were flawless -- and never mind the actual results. Most of those neocons still hold lucrative positions and pontificate to the rest of us about their brilliance.
-- EbenCooke
(To reply, click here)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Scariest Thing Gen. McChrystal Told Congress About Afghanistan
Is It Irresponsible To Give Your Kids Cell Phones in the Age of Sexting?
So Are We Done Cleaning Up the Exxon Valdez Spill Yet?
The World's Greatest Boxer Is Running for Office. Don't Vote for Him.
What, Exactly, Do You Do at a Climate-Change Conference?
The Senate's New Health Care Compromise: What's in It? Does It Matter?
I was coming into the military as McNamara was leaving. It was easy to see the incredible damage he had done to the US military (which took almost 25 years to overcome.) What had been a calling was turned into just another job - yes he upped the pay but he tried as hard as he could to destroy all the little things that made the military standout from civilian life. Before, the service tried to produce leaders, he wanted managers instead, and sadly that's what we got. He never to the end understood that there was a fundamental difference between Ford and the US military. No comprehension at all. But we all kept hearing what a genius he was.
How many of his ilk have we seen since in government? - incredible geniuses doing incredible harm?
-- businessanalyst
(To reply, click here)
McNamara brought to the pentagon his style of "managing by metrics", that helped make Ford into the success it is today. He imagined he could measure military success by the then-modern MBA style -- relentlessly measuring process minutiae and applying simple algorithmic "solutions" onto those metrics. This is why he placed near-religious faith in the infamous "body count" and "kill ratio" numbers. He seriously thought this represented a rational -- and better! -- way to manage warfare. The thousands of killed Americans and Vietnamese seemed to be only abstractions to him -- regrettable debits on the ledger sheet that he could explain away at the next stockholders' meeting.
My understanding is that both McNamara and LBJ himself largely micro-managed the war, even to the point of making daily determinations of exact bomb targets, and berating military leaders when the metrics did not come up to scheduled quotas.
Every administration seems to have its "whiz kids" who dazzle the press and the public with their highly-publicized "intellect". Certainly, GW Bush had them in his neocons. To this day, they all insist their theories were flawless -- and never mind the actual results. Most of those neocons still hold lucrative positions and pontificate to the rest of us about their brilliance.
-- EbenCooke
(To reply, click here)