Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from Chris Hedges….

Hedges2

Chris Hedges calls CounterPunch “the most fearless, intellectually rigorous and important publication in the United States.” Who are we to argue? But the only way we can continue to “dissect the evils of empire” and the “psychosis of permanent war” is with your financial support. Please donate.

Day5

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

paypal-donate-21

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Morris and McNamara

Oscar Winning Director Thanks War Criminal Before Audience of Billions

by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

To no one’s surprise, Errol Morris won an Oscar for his documentary on Robert McNamara, The Fog of War. In front of a world audience in the billions Morris thanked the mass murderer for his cooperation. Earlier this year I wrote some fierce criticisms of Morris’s awful film, which will appear in CounterPunch’s Book of Monsters: America’s Willing Executioners, scheduled for publication at the end of this year. (You have a favorite monster? Write us!) Here’s what I wrote, which now includes some more recent reflections on JFK’s so-called secret plan to withdraw.

My dear friend Andrew Kopkind liked to tell how, skiing in Aspen at the height of the Vietnam War, he came round a bend and saw another skier, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, alone near the edge of a precipice. This was during the period of Rolling Thunder, which ultimately saw three times as many bombs dropped on Vietnam as the Allies dropped on Europe in the Second World War. "I could have reached out with my ski pole," Andy would say wistfully, "and pushed him over."

Alas, Andy shirked this chance to get into the history books and McNamara survived the 1960s, when he contributed more than most to the slaughter of 3.4 million Vietnamese (his own estimate). He went on to run the World Bank, where he presided over the impoverishment, eviction from their lands and death of many millions more round the world. And now here he is, the star of Errol Morris’s much- praised, in my view wildly over-praised, documentary The Fog of War, talking comfortably about the millions of people he’s helped to kill.

It reminds me of films of Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and then head of war production. Speer loved to admit to an overall guilt. But when he was pressed on specific nastiness, like working Jews or Russians to death in arms factories, he would insist, eyes ablaze with forthrightness, that he knew nothing of such infamies.

It’s good to have a new generation reminded of history’s broad outlines, like the firebombing of Japanese cities and Vietnam, but even here McNamara’s recollection–surprising to many–of his role in advising Curtis LeMay to order his bombers to fly at lower altitude, the more effectively to incinerate Japanese cities, goes unexamined.

Did the young McNamara, admittedly a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, really play such a role? Michael Sherry, Professor of History at Northwestern University, author of The Rise of American Air Power, has this to say:

"I did extensive research in the late 1970s and 1980s on the American bombing of Japan, and especially on LeMay’s decision to fly in at lower altitudes. I do not recall that McNamara’s name ever popped up in those records, and since McNamara’s was a famous name by then, I wouldn’t have ignored it. Nor was McNamara mentioned in the several hours of interviewing I did with LeMay. While not denigrating his [i.e. McNamara's]wartime record, I suspect there is some latter- day expansion of the importance of his wartime role–that not uncommon tendency of old soldiers to inflate the past. In this case, there may also be a familiar theme at work that surfaced, sometimes in ugly conflict, in McNamara’s tenure as defense secretary–the superiority of civilian expertise over military wisdom; perhaps McNamara is figuratively writing that theme back into his story of World War II… In any event,doubt LeMay saw McNamara as a major figure in his decision- making, and LeMay’s resort to firebombing was the product of several factors(including pressure from Washington, and simply the apparent failure of other efforts to do much)), not simply of the technical advice he received."

The documentary’s gimmickry–cuts to black, Morris shouting his questions away from the mike, McNamara off- center in the frame, montage of typewriter- ribbon wheels, skulls dropping in slow motion down a stairwell, captions offering very banal "lessons"–gives us a clue.

Morris didn’t have much to throw at McNamara. He didn’t do enough homework, and it’s no substitute to say he’s evolved a technique whereby we can look into McNamara’s eyes. We can look into the eyes of anyone on remote camera on the Koppel Show. So what?

Time and again, McNamara gets away with it, cowering in the shadow of baroque monsters like Curtis LeMay or LBJ, choking up about his choice of Kennedy’s gravesite in Arlington, sniffling at the memory of Johnson giving him the Medal of Freedom, spouting nonsense about how Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam, muffling himself in the ever- useful camouflage of the "fog of war."

Now, the "fog of war" is a tag usually attributed to von Clausewitz, though the great German philosopher and theorist of war never actually used the phrase. Eugenia Kiesling argued a couple of years ago in Military Review that the idea of fog–unreliable information–wasn’t a central preoccupation of Clausewitz. "Eliminating fog", Kiesling wrote, "gives us a clearer and more useful understanding of Clausewitz’s friction. It restores uncertainty and the intangible stresses of military command to their rightful centrality in ‘On War’. It allows us to replace the simplistic message that war intelligence is important with the reminder that Clausewitz constantly emphasizes moral forces in war."

As presented by McNamara, through Morris, "the fog of war" usefully deflects attention from clear and unpleasant facts entirely unobscured by fog. McNamara can talk–I’ll come to the Gulf of Tonkin incident shortly–about confusions, fog, about what actually happened on August 2 or 4, 1964, thus detouring unfogged daylight, of which there was plenty, about the moral failures of US commanders including McNamara, waging war on the Vietnamese.

Roberta Wohlstetter was a pioneer in this fogging technique back in the 1950s with her heavily subsidized Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, which deployed the idea of distracting "noise" as the phenomenon that prevented US commanders, ultimately Roosevelt, from comprehending the information that the Japanese were about to launch a surprise attack. Wohlstetterian "noise" thus obscured the fact that FDR wanted a Japanese provocation, knew the attack was coming, though not probable not its scale and destructiveness.

When McNamara looks back down memory lane there are no real shadows, just the sunlight of moral self-satisfaction: "I don’t fault Truman for dropping the bomb"; "I never saw Kennedy more shocked" (after the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem); "never would I have authorized an illegal action" (after the Tonkin Gulf fakery); "I’m very proud of my accomplishments and I’m very sorry I made errors" (his life). Slabs of instructive history are missing from Morris’s film. McNamara rode into the Pentagon on one of the biggest of big lies, the bogus "missile gap" touted by Kennedy in his 1960 campaign against Nixon. It was all nonsense. As Defense Secretary McNamara ordered the production of 1,000 Minuteman strategic nukes, this at a time when he was looking at US intelligence reports showing that the Soviets had one silo with one untested missile.

To Morris now he offers homilies about the menace of nuclear Armageddon. It’s cost-free to say to say such things, grazing peacefully on the tranquil mountain pastures of his 87 years. Why did Morris not try to extort from McNamara, in those twenty- three hours of interviews, some reflections on how people in their forties, on active service in the belly of the beast, should behave. Would McNamara encourage today’s weapons designers in Los Alamos to mutiny, to resign? Were the atom spies in Los Alamos in the 1940s right to try to level nuclear terror to some sort of balance? How does McNamara regard the Berrigans and their comrades who served or are serving decades in prison for physically attacking nuclear missiles, beating the decks of the Sea Wolf nuclear submarine with their hammers.

Even when McNamara’s record shows to his credit, no useful point is made. Ralph Nader tells me (and wrote it in Unsafe at Any Speed) that it’s true that when he was head of the Ford Division of the Ford Motor Company in the mid- 1950s, McNamara did push for safety options–seat belts and padded instrument panels. Ford dealer brochures for the ’56 models featured photos of how Ford and GM models fared in actual crashes, to GM’s disadvantage. But Morris could have put to McNamara what happened next. As Nader describes it, in December, 1955, a top GM executive called Ford’s vice president for sales and said Ford’s safety campaign had to stop. These Ford executives, many of them formerly from GM, had a saying, Chevy could drop its price $25 to bankrupt Chrysler, $50 to bankrupt Ford. Ford ran up the white flag. The safety sales campaign stopped. McNamara took a long vacation in Florida, his career in Detroit in the balance, and came back a team player. Safety went through the windscreen and lay in a coma for years. None of this bloody corporate handiwork shows up in the documentary, which opts for that showy footage of skulls being dropped down stairwells as part of safety- impact studies. McNamara invokes the Ford Falcon–you can still see some of them bumbling around in the South–as his effort to push small cheap cars, and of course this claim goes unexamined too. The US car companies put out small cars in the late fifties mostly to instruct US consumers that small cars weren’t worth buying (except for the immortal Slant 6 Plymouth Valiant, rolled out in 1960 by Chrysler, run by engineers, and maybe the Nash Rambler), as opposed to the larger vehicles which was what the companies were interested in making money off. The Japanese and Germans came in with well- made small cars and, helped by Nader’s attack on the Corvair (which was actually a pretty good car) captured that market, just as they wiped out the UK’s poorly managed MG and Triumph in the Forties.

The eyes don’t tell the story. McNamara is self-serving and disingenuous. Reminiscing about his acceptance of Kennedy’s invitation to come from Ford in Detroit to Camelot, McNamara claims to Morris that he insisted he would not be part of Georgetown’s pesky social round. Nonsense. He took to it like a parvenu to ermine, as more than one Washington hostess could glowingly recall. "It’s beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend all the variables," the systems analyst proclaims to Morris, which would have afforded a better- informed filmmaker a chance to ask this cold engine of statistical calculation for his take on the prime business of the Pentagon, the allocation of pork.

Why did Defense Secretary McNamara overrule all expert review and procurement recommendations and insist that General Dynamics rather than Boeing make the disastrous F-111, at that time one of the largest procurement contracts in the Pentagon’s history? Could it be that Henry Crown of Chicago was calling in some chits for his role in fixing the 1960 JFK vote in Cook County, Illinois? Crown, of Chicago Sand and Gravel, had $300 million of the mob’s money in GD debentures, and after the disaster of the Convair, GD needed the F-111 to avoid going belly- up, taking the mob’s $300 million with it. McNamara misled Congressional investigators about this for years afterward.

As noted above, McNamara lays great stress on JFK’s "shock", just a few weeks before he himself was killed, at the assassination of South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother. He also promotes the view that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam.

Now, McNamara has been a career "front man" for the Kennedys, called even to Chappaquiddick to help Ted Kennedy figure out what to say about it. But as Professor Fred Thayer, (formerly of the University of Pittsburg and before that was a Air Force colonel working in under McNamara in the Pentagon in the early 1960s) reminds me,

"Far too many people, including pundits, have ignored the key sequence of events, and it is still important: The Kennedy administration approved the Vietnam coup (pushed by Lodge) that killed Diem early in November 1963. This "regime change" deeply committed the US to a ‘nation-building exercise’ and the maintenance of security there until it could be done. LBJ, a personal emissary from JFK to Diem, probably would have argued against this casual approval (done over a weekend with high level consideration). Tapes have since shown (LBJ and Senator Russell) that LBJ knew very early that he was ‘stuck’ and did not Know what to do about it. McNamara (never very familiar with lots of things going on) may or may not be playing the old Kennedy game of shifting blame to LBJ. I suggest that this "regime change" set the stage for expansion, just as the not-thought-through "regime change" in Iraq is not working very well today.

"It takes a very simple analysis of international politics to understand that when the US supported a coup in South Vietnam (Kennedy may not have known of the final decision, but Lodge was his personal agent), and when that coup not only deposed Diem but killed him, that all bets were off. The reason JFK was "shocked" (as McNamara says) may be because JFK knew that the killing of Diem erased all previous decisions, or merely that JFK was not up-to-date (common in the absence of decision processes in those years).

"Once Diem was killed during a coup we supported, all previous decisions became meaningless. My personal analysis is that the ‘plan to withdraw’ [not a 'secret decision' but announced by press secretary Pierre Salinger and printed in the New York Times on October 3, 1963] was merely a public relations ploy because forces in Vietnam increased 1700% in the Kennedy years. Whatever JFK may have dreamed about in September/October, however, meant nothing after Diem was killed just a week or two before JFK was killed.

"[McNamara remains ] blissfully ignorant of the new realities when Diem was killed. Effectively, we became an ‘occupying authority’ with the responsibility to stay there as a new nation was built. We went through the whole exercise–constitutional assembly, writing, ratification, new elections, etc. This took a long time, and we are now discovering that we cannot ‘shortcut’ that process in Iraq. We never solved [that] in Vietnam because we were trying to establish SVN as a separate entity, after shutting off elections in the 1950s because they would have elected Communists. "It is almost as though McNamara refuses to acknowledge that Diem was killed during a US-supported coup, and I do not write this with any praise of Diem. I do not doubt that JFK ‘hoped’ to withdraw some troops by the end of the 1963, a sort of minor version of MacArthur’s promises in Korea in 1950. Christmas is always a popular season for such promises. It’s all simple; when we became involved in killing Diem, all bets were off. I don’t think McNamara understood the significance of these things."

The Gulf of Tonkin "attack" prompted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, whereby Congress gave LBJ legal authority to prosecute and escalate the war in Vietnam. McNamara does some fancy footwork here, stating that there wasn’t any attack by North Vietnamese PT boats on the US destroyer Maddox on August 4, but that there had been such an attack on August 2.

In fact I.F. Stone offered a remarkably accurate account of what really happened in the edition of his Weekly dated August 24, 1964. It shouldn’t have been beyond Morris’s powers to pull up that, or a piece by Robert Scheer, published in the Los Angeles Times in April, 1985, establishing not only that the Maddox was attacked neither on August 2 nor 4 but that, beginning on the night of July 30, South Vietnamese navy personnel, US- trained and–equipped, "had begun conducting secret raids on targets in North Vietnam."

As Stone wrote at the time, the North Vietnamese PT boats that approached the Maddox on August 2 were probably responding to that assault. The Six- Day War? Just before this ’67 war the Israelis were ready to attack and knew they were going to win but couldn’t get a clear go- ahead from the Johnson Administration. As the BBC documentary The 50 Years War narrates, Meir Amit, head of Israel’s Mossad, flew to Washington. The crucial OK came from McNamara, thus launching Israel’s long- planned, aggressive war on Egypt, Jordan and Syria, which led to present disasters. And no, Morris didn’t quiz McNamara on Israel’s deliberate attack on the US ship Liberty during that war (with thirty-four US sailors dead and 174 wounded), or on the cover- up that McNamara supervised.

Apparently to Robert McNamara’s mortification, Errol Morris passes over his subject’s 13- year stint running the World Bank, whither he was dispatched by LBJ, Medal of Freedom in hand. McNamara brandishes his Bank years as his moral redemption and all too often his claim is accepted by those who have no knowledge of the actual, ghastly record. In fact the McNamara of the World Bank evolved naturally, organically, from the McNamara of Vietnam. The one was prolegomenon to the other, the McNamara-sponsored horrors in Vietnam perhaps on a narrower and more vivid scale, but ultimately lesser in dimension and consequence. No worthwhile portrayal of McNamara could possibly avoid McNamara’s performance at the World Bank because there, within the overall con straints of the capitalist system he served, he was his own man. There was no LeMay, no LBJ issuing orders. And as his own man, McNamara amplified the ghastly blunders, corruptions and lethal cruelties of American power as inflicted upon Vietnam to a planetary scale. The best terse account of the McNamara years is in Bruce Rich’s excellent history of the Bank, Mortgaging the Earth, published in 1994.

When McNamara took over the Bank, "development" loans (which were already outstripped by repayments) stood at $953 million and when he left, at $12.4 billion, which, discounting inflation, amounted to slightly more than a 6- fold increase.. Just as he multiplied the troops in Vietnam, he ballooned the Bank’s staff from 1,574 to 5,201. The Bank’s shadow lengthened steadily over the Third World. Forests, in the Amazon, in Cameroon, in Malaysia, in Thailand, fell under the axe of "modernization". Peasants were forced from their lands. Dictators like Pinochet and Ceausescu were nourished with loans.

From Vietnam to the planet: The language of American idealism and high purpose was just the same. McNamara blared his mission of high purpose in 1973 in Nairobi, initiating the World Bank’s crusade on poverty. "The powerful have a moral obligation to assist the poor and the weak." The result was disaster, draped, as in Vietnam with obsessive secrecy, empty claims of success and mostly successful efforts to extinguish internal dissent. And as with Vietnam, McNamara’s obsession with statistics, produced a situation, (according to S. Shaheed Husain, then the Bank’s vice president in charge of Operations) where, "without knowing it, McNamara manufactured data. If there was a gap in the numbers, he would ask staff to fill it, and others made it up for him."

At McNamara’s direction the Bank would prepare five year "master country lending plans", set forth in "country programming papers. "In some cases, Rich writes, "even ministers of a nation’s cabinet could not obtain access to these documents, which in smaller, poor countries, were viewed as international decrees on their economic fate."

These same "decrees" were drawn up by technocrats (in Vietnam they were the "advisers") often on the basis of a few short weeks in the target country. Corruption seethed. Most aid vanished into the hands of local elites who very often used the money to steal the resources–pasture, forest, water, of the very poor whom the Bank was professedly seeking to help. In Vietnam, Agent Orange and napalm.

Across the third world, the Bank underwrote "Green Revolution" technologies that the poorest peasants couldn’t afford and that drenched land in pesticides and fertilizer. Vast infrastructural projects such as dams and kindred irrigation projects once again drove the poor from their lands, from in Brazil to India. It was the malign parable of "modernization" written across the face of the third world, with one catatrophe after another catastrophes prompted by the destruction of traditional subsistence rural economies.

The appropriation of smaller farms and common areas, Rich aptly comments, "resembled in some respects the enclosure of open lands in Britain prior to the Industrial Revolution–only this time on a global scale, intensified by Green Revolution agricultural technology." As an agent of methodical planetary destruction, McNamara should be ranked in the top tier of earth-wreckers of all time.

Back in 1994 I had a conversation with Noam Chomsky, (you can find it in my memoir The Golden Age Is In Us ) where McNamara’s name cropped up. "If you look at the modern intelligentsia over the past century or so", Chomsky said, "they’re pretty much a managerial class, a secular priesthood. They’ve gone in basically two directions. One is essentially Leninist. Leninism is the ideology of a radical intelligentsia that says, We have the right to rule. Alternatively, they have joined the decision-making sector of state capitalist society, as managers in the in the political, economic and ideological institutions. The ideologies are very similar. I’ve sometimes compared Robert McNamara to Lenin, and you only have to change a few words for them to say virtually the same thing." True enough.

"Management", McNamara declared in 1967 "is the gate through which social and economic and political change, indeed change in every direction, is diffused through society." Substitute "party organization" for "management" and you have Lenin. From "democratic centralism" to bureaucratic centralism. The managerial ideal for McNamara was managerial dictatorship. World Bank loans surged to Pinochet’s Chile after Allende’s overthrow, to Uruguay, to Argentina, to Brazil after the military coup, to the Philippines, to Suharto after the ’65 coup in Indonesia.

And to the Romania of Ceausescu. McNamara poured money–$2.36 billion between 1974 and 1982–into the tyrant’s hands. In 1980 Romania was the Bank’s eighth biggest borrower. As McNamara crowed delightedly about his "faith in the financial morality of socialist countries" Ceausescu razed whole villages, turned hundreds of square miles of prime farm land into open- pit mines, polluted the air with coal and lignite, turned Rumania into one vast prison, applauded by the

Bank in an amazing 1979 economic study as being a fine advertisement for the "Importance of Centralized Economic Control". Another section of that same 1979 report, titled "Development of Human Resources", featured these chilling words: "To improve the standards of living of the population as a beneficiary of the development process, the government has pursued policies to make better use of the population as a factor of production… An essential feature of the overall manpower policy has been … to stimulate an increase in birth rates." Ceausescu forbade abortions, and cut off disrtribution of contraceptives. Result: ten of thousand of abandoned children, dumped in orphanages, another sacrificial hecatomb in McNamara’s lethal hubris.

A displayed by Morris, McNamara never offers any reflection on the social system that produced and promoted him, a perfectly nice, well- spoken war criminal. As his inflation of his role in the foe- bombing of Japan shows, he can go so far as to falsely though complacently indict himself, while still shirking bigger, more terrifying and certainly more useful reflections on the system that blessed him and mercilessly killed millions upon millions under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon.

I don’t think Morris laid a glove on McNamara, who should be feeling well pleased. Like Speer, he got away with it yet again. We have so many sponsors of mass murder hanging around, it would be nice to see one of them, once in a while, take a real pasting. But no, they live on into happy old age, vivid in their worries about the human condition, writing in The New York Review of Books, passing on no honest records about the evil it really takes to run an empire.

So suddenly people are shocked about a relative piker like George W. Bush and start talking about Hitler. If only they knew. It’s not that hard to find out. In the weeks after Errol Morris’s film was launched McNamara scurried to Washington to participate in forums on the menace of nuclear destruction with the same self assurance that he went to Vietnam and Cuba to review the record. He and Morris later participated in a dog and pony show at the Zellerbach auditorium at UC Berkeley. Now’s there’s the Oscar hoopla. "Condemned out of his own mouth" indeed! If Morris had done a decent job, McNamara would not dare to appear in any public place. It’s as though Eichmann started going on the lecture circuits with a couple of Holocaust survivors.