AN HOMERIC TRAGEDY--THE VIETNAM WAR

A BRIGHT SHINING LIE” BY NEIL SHEEHAN – AN HOMERIC TRAGEDY

It’s hardly surprising that this book, written 25 years ago, won the Pulitzer Price and the National Book Award.

If there is ever a story that illustrates the flawed judgment of even the wisest, well-intentioned men and women, this is it.

The Vietnam War is one we never should have entered.  It grew from a tragic misunderstanding of the situation in Vietnam, with Ho Chi Minh, a died-in-the-wool nationalist; Vietnam fearing China throughout its history; having already beaten the French.  Despite President Eisenhower's clearly seeing the trap of re-imposing colonization, we picked up the war, indeed encouraged the French to continue its war, at an eventual cost of almost 60,000 U.S. servicemen and over 1.5 million Vietnamese. 

When Lyndon Johnson succeeded John Kennedy after his assassination in late 1963, there were still only 17,000 U.S. servicemen in Vietnam and less than 120 had been killed.  The number of servicemen eventually in Vietnam exceed 500,000.  Yet, even in late 1963, it was already an “American” war.  We had already committed ourselves to the protection of South Vietnam under a corrupt leader.

There are so many things revealed by this story that find their place in history, not just of nations but of business. 

On-the-ground insights from John Vann and other leaders which Generals Harkin, Taylor, Rostow, McNamara and others in command refused to hear.

A delusional view of anecdotal victories became a template to believe in our overall ability to win. 

A refusal to measure what the long-term cost of victory would be in light of the commitment of the adversary and the resources that it had and the numbers of people at its command. 

The history of Vietnam itself, having overcome so many invasions, mainly from China, on the path to achieve its freedom.

There is also the heroism and the horror.  The heroism of Marines not leaving the battlefield until the last of their dead and wounded were retrieved, even at the cost of their own lives.  The horror as, in the name of war, we destroyed hamlets, killed innocent victims and sometimes said, as General Westmoreland did, that this was not a bad thing because we were at least destroying the population of our enemy. 

There was also the reality that the Vietnamese peasants were looked at by their own generals as not worthy of life, as being expendable.

The history is yet another illustration of believing that a “new battle” could be won in the same way that led to success in the “last battle.”  Generals Harkin and Westmoreland and others felt that the sheer force of bombing and tanks and infantry would wear down the enemy, as was the case, at great cost, in World War II, in fighting the Japanese and the Germans.  Yet, this was a different war, in a different geographic environment, against a different enemy.  No one thought deeply enough about that.  Oh, there were some but they weren’t listened to.

And there was the tragedy of Secretary of Defense McNamara.  No one smarter; no one more persuasive, carrying the cause to extend the war, only to be one of the first top leaders to recognize that it was a dead end.  And recognizing this, telling President Johnson that this was the reality.  Johnson, still not willing to accept it, found a way to have Mr. McNamara appointed to the World Bank getting him out of the way and, at least as I read it, McNamara accepted, knowing there was nothing more that he could do.  It wasn’t until years later that he acknowledged the deep pain, of knowing that he was wrong.

Vietnam was also a classic case of “doubling down on failure.”  With the unexpected but devastating Tet offensive in January 1968, which saw uprisings by the guerilla Viet Cong forces in all the major South Vietnam cities, it became clear, if not to all to most, that the war was unwinnable.  McNamara declared as much to Johnson.  A couple of months later, Johnson announced that he would stop the bombing of North Vietnam and not run for the Presidency in 1968.

From that point, when the war clearly was unwinnable until five years later, when the treaty was signed—a treaty basically ceding all of Vietnam to the north—another 20,000 American soldiers were killed and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians died.  We just couldn’t pull away.

When Nixon came in in 1968, he started what was called “Vietnamization,” a euphemism for the hopeless task of turning the war over to the Vietnamese.  It never had a chance.

Then, in a desperate effort to succeed, we encouraged the regime that had overthrown Sihanouk, the hereditary ruler of Cambodia, to attack Vietnam.  From this grew the Communist Pol Pot.  Hundreds of thousands more people were to die.

As Sheehan writes, “Cambodia was to suffer the cruelest consequences of the American war in Indochina.”

*****

Just as the case with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, there lies in this story many lessons, including that one can never ever give up on advancing a position they believe is of critical importance to the future, even knowing that one may not succeed.

I’ve seen this lesson borne out in business, and elsewhere, personally again and again.

CHARACTER IS DESTINY--A MESSAGE TO DONALD TRUMP AND ALL OF US

A message to Donald Trump and myself and all of us:

"Watch your thoughts; they become your words.
Watch your words; they become your actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."

Frank Outlaw

THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS-WHAT IT HAS TO TEACH

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS

In reading the recent biography of Robert Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy:  The Making of a Liberal Icon by Larry Tye, I have acquired a very different understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis and its relevance to the challenging geo-political situation we face today.  

I had always looked at this crisis rather simply.  The Soviet Union had been continuing to extend its military reach, planting missiles in Cuba, threatening the United States.  In terms of fact, that was a reality.

But the background to it needs to be understood.  In the first days of John Kennedy’s presidency, we had launched an aborted attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro.  A fiasco.  But the effort to overthrow, and indeed assassinate, Castro didn’t stop there.  Under the leadership of Bobby Kennedy, we pursued what was known as “Operation Mongoose.”  It involved the CIA and other operatives, again with the intent of overthrowing the Castro government, including plans to assassinate him.  Russia was well aware of this.  To stave off this continued effort to overthrow the Castro government and put in place one of our own liking, Russia decided to put missiles in Cuba as an overhanging threat to dissuade us from regime change.

The resolution of this crisis also needs to be understood.  As most famously told, we threatened to attack Cuba to wipe out the missile facilities unless Russia agreed to remove them.  And, in a tension-filled encounter, their ships, carrying more missiles, turned back and they agreed to withdraw what they had placed there.  

But this only happened because of a balanced, negotiated agreement.  The United States agreed to never invade Cuba.  And while this was not to be announced, we agreed that we would, within six months, remove missiles that we had in Turkey, which Russia looked at as a threat to their country.  It was a “quid pro quo” agreement.  

Flash forward to today.  Russia is extremely concerned about missiles that we are stationing in Eastern Europe.  They are concerned about what was a genuine effort at one point to have Ukraine become linked unilaterally with the West and very likely proceed toward participation in NATO.  This was more than Russia could stomach, just as having missiles in Cuba was more than we could stomach.

The overhanging risk of nuclear war played a major role in bringing both sides to the table back then in 1962.  It should be no less of an incentive to do so today.

MR. TRUMP: "HAVE YOU NO SENSE OF DECENCY"; NO REGARD FOR THE TRUTH?

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never fully gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency?"

Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy, June 9, 1954

These were the words which went through my mind yesterday as I heard Donald Trump acknowledge that President Obama was born in the United States after years of fueling the Birther movement with no apology or explanation. Not only that he went on to blame Hillary Clinton for starting the rumor and claimed that he had ended it. Such outrageous disregard for the truth is mind-boggling. 

But that wasn't all. On the same day he recklessly incites a crowd saying that Hillary Clinton wants to get rid of all guns (of course a lie) and goes on to ask bombastically -- why doesn't she take away all the guns from her security guards and we'll see what happens to her. 

Mr. Trump: have you no sense of decency? No regard for the truth?

CLEARLY THE ANSER IS "NO". 

SOMETHING BLINDNESS HAS TO TEACH

My wife, Francie,  and I have offered stipends to students at Xavier for many years so they can spend their summer working for non-profit organizations. At the end of the summer, the students write us letters summarizing their experience, many of which have been life and career changing for them. 

One letter we received this past week was particularly mind opening and inspiring.

It came from a student who had worked for an agency supporting people who are blind. The student shared what one of the clients of the organization had shared with her. 

"You know being blind",  the women said, " I don't judge people by the color of their skin, or by how they look in any way. My view of them comes from what they say and how they say it and how they make me feel".

I had never thought about that before. We have heard of "blind" admissions and "blind" performance appraisals, 

 

Obviously  not making up in any way for the tragic loss of sight but offering a thought of how to approach other people--avoiding the instinctive unconscious bias that can sometimes arise from appearances. 

LIFE: A MIXTURE OF THINGS WELL DONE AND NOT WELL DONE-A BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGE W. BUSH

Jean Edwards Smith’s, Bush, the newly published biography of George W. Bush, demonstrates the reality I’ve come to appreciate more and more: each of our lives is made up of things well-done and not well-done; “ups” and “downs.”  We recognize some of these contradictory experiences; some we don’t.  Some are invisible to us, but they are realities nonetheless. 

Happily, over time this realization has provided me with a deeper sense of humility and peace. 

 

In Bush’s tenure as President, there was, above all, the imprudent and, in hindsight, all too clearly irresponsible decision to invade Iraq.  The decision to do this in the name of bringing “freedom and democracy” to countries that didn’t have it and to rid the world of Hussein was in President Bush’s mind even before 9/11.  Contrary to evidence that was being provided by the CIA and the UN Inspection team he insisted we needed to invade Iraq and depose Hussein to avoid the risk of his proceeding with the use of weapons of mass destruction.  

 

The decision ignored the lessons of history and the on- the- ground realities as to what the consequences would likely be (e.g., the historical animosity between the Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds ).  Bush’s decision supported strongly by Cheney went against the advice of almost all of his counselors.  

 

There was not only the decision to begin the war, but then the execution of what to do after Hussein was driven out of power.  The total dissolution of the Baathist government and the Iraqi military preordained massive Sunni unrest and, in important measure, laid the foundation for what became ISIL and then ISIS.

 

There was also Bush’s decision to cut income taxes massively, which led to major deficits, especially with the significant cost of war.  

 

Smith’s book does do a good job of illuminating the many courageous acts and programs which President Bush led.  Many I had not adequately appreciated.  

 

His personal leadership in the attack on HIV/AIDS was singularly important in the sharply reduced incidence of that disease.   His courageous reaction in 2008 to the economic crisis following the advice of Secretary of Treasury Paulson and bailing out financial institutions stopped what could have become a truly great depression from happening.  

 

His “No Child Left Behind” program, while flawed in some areas (too much testing) advanced the recognition of the huge racial disparities in our children’s educational outcomes. That has been and will continue to be a driving force in attacking those disparities.  

His expansion of prescription drugs for seniors, while a costly improvement, was a greatly needed initiative even as it was controversial among many Republicans.

 

President Bush's strong advocacy of sensible immigration reform, while not ultimately successful, was a brave and correct undertaking which displayed President Bush’s courage and genuine compassion. 

 

There is no question of Bush’s single-minded and brave pursuit of what he thought was right.  I believe his ideology and faith-based fervor led him to see himself and the nation's being able to do more than it practically could or should try to do in terms of improving what he perceived to be the desired outcome in people’s lives.  This I say with particular reference to the invasion of Iraq and his overall “Freedom” agenda.  

I find the conclusion of Smith’s book to be “too cute by half,” as he writes:  ”Whether George W. Bush was the worst President in American history will be long debated, but his decision to invade Iraq is easily the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American President.”

 

First of all, I can’t imagine history regarding Bush as the “worst” President in history. No way!  He has lots of winning competition on that front . I would place Buchanan and Pierce at the head of the list. 

When it comes to foreign policy decisions, while I can’t think of one worse than invading Iraq,  I regard our entry into and expansion of the war in Viet Nam as being at least at the same level.  As Iraq represents for Bush, Vietnam represents the chapter in Lyndon Johnson’s tenure as president which will likely forever overshadow his many accomplishments.  Chief among them was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, something that never would have happened if it were not for him.

These Presidents’ lives illustrate what’s true in all of our lives, and certainly in my life.  Some things I’ve done well and some I haven’t.  Some I take pride in; others I look back on with regret. We do the best we can; we try to do what we think is right--what, at least in some measure, can make the world and other people’s lives a bit better.

 Smith’s biography of George W. Bush (like most biographies) doesn't attempt to probe other differences George Bush’s life made in ways that perhaps count the most. These are the differences which will be manifested in the lives of his and Laura Bush’s children, and their children.  Nor the positive influence he brought to others with whom he was associated closely during his life.  

For many, if not most of our lives, these will be the biggest differences we make,  for the better or for the worse.  We should never forget that.

 

THE U.S.AND RUSSIA AND THE OVERHANGING THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR

THE U.S. AND RUSSIA AND THE OVERHANGING RISK OF NUCLEAR WAR

 It is difficult for an individual or indeed a Nation to view a particular situation through the eyes of another person or nation.

I have never seen this more true or more dangerous than what is transpiring now in the relationships between the United States and Russia.

As a former CEO of Procter & Gamble and a student  of history, I have followed the relationship between the U.S and Russia (and before that the former Soviet Union) for half a century. From a peak of hope in the early 1990's in the possibility of our joining together in the vision of a Greater Europe, 

I have become increasingly and alarmingly concerned by the deeply polarized perceptions  of the intentions of  our two nations. 

Fueled by Russia's annexation of Crimea and its (as well as our own) involvement in Syria, this fever has boiled and become intensely personal  as  the President of  Russia, Vladimir Putin has become demonized. 

The situation has become further politicized as Donald Trump, whose views I disagree with on almost all counts, advocates , rightly,  cooperation with Russia in fighting ISIS, even as he outlandishly (facetiously or not ) calls on Russia to hack the DNC's and Secretary Clinton's e-mail accounts. For me, Trump is the apposite of someone you want to be advocating your point of view because he encourages his opponents to reflexively adopt or double down on contrary views. 

Why am I so concerned about this situation?  Because  I believe the failure of Russia and the U.S. and West to work together threatens the  security and indeed

 the very existence of the world because of the overhanging and very related risks of nuclear annihilation and terrorism. 

There is a great and common danger in the affairs of humans and of nations in self-fulfilling expectations.  These self-fulfilling expectations can be for the better or they can be for the worse.  The expectations held by Russia toward the United States and those the United States holds toward Russia today are all “for the worse.”

Contrary to what was promised as Germany was reunited and became part of  NATO as we entered the 1990's, NATO  continued to expand to Russia's doorsteps. The belief that Ukraine might be next, was a precipitating cause of the  Ukrainian crisis. As a colleague of mine has said, whether NATO is a benign or a malign force is irrelevant from a geopolitical perspective if one of Europe's great powers (Russia, a country which has been subject to multiple invasions over the course of history) considers it a threat. The dismissal of these concerns  has deeply exacerbated Russia's mistrust. 

And that mistrust has been matched on our end by the impact of Russia's annexation of Crimea and presence in Eastern Ukraine,  entry into Syria supporting Assad and the alleged (though unproven) involvement in our electoral process.  

We hear veiled and sometimes bald assertions that Russia intends to enter countries previously part of the Soviet empire--the Baltics, Poland and all of Ukraine.  Putin describes such a notion as “insane.”   He is right.  

Can you imagine the suicidal idiocy of Russia's undertaking to move into those countries?  Why would they do this?  They don't need land. They would find very few friends there.  They would become the pariah of the world. There is no driving ideology as there was in the days  of Soviet Communism.  

Of course, there are legitimate concerns about President Putin,  just as there about many leaders with whom it is in our interest to work. Some of them are serious. In terms of encouraging a positive relationship with the United States, he is in some ways his own worst enemy. His distrust of our motives now borders on paranoia. 

 However, we should not forget that he was the very first President to call President Bush to offer his nation's unbounded support following "9-11". 

Whatever, my concerns are existential. 

I worry deeply that most people are so far removed from the reality of war today that we have forgotten its horror. We should all go back and look at the film showing the instantaneous annihilating devastation resulting from the atomic bomb  at Hiroshima. It won't be pleasant but we should watch movies  like “Platoon” or “Saving Private Ryan”. We should read Michael Herr's devastating front line reports on the war in Vietnam. We dare not forget the horrific cost of war on human life and civilization.  

We cannot address this overhanging threat unless we are working with Russia. That is the plain and simple truth. 

We are at a historical precipice.  I am extremely worried by the unfettered “propaganda,” and that’s what it is, on both sides of the issue.  This has had the insidious effect of bringing the people of Russia and of the United States to view the “other” as “evil.”  And in fact they are not.  They are committed to their own national interests.  The concerns of the Russian and American people are fundamentally the same. . They yearn for a peaceful, economically stable life for their children and themselves

Every nation, every person, wants to be treated with respect.  There is no way that will happen if we are not able to view the current situation through each other’s eyes.  That doesn’t mean we will compromise and tolerate people taking away the freedom of another nation or people.  We need to draw a bright line on the support we will provide to countries to which we pledge support--and mean it. 

 However  we should not make the mistake of attributing motivations and nefarious intent to other nations which, in fact, they disclaim and which, as we examine the reality of the situation,  we see no persuasive  reason to assume.  

We need to stop carrying out diplomacy and negotiations through the media and "anonymous" third parties, seeking sharp headlines that show we “mean business” and are "tough".  We need to establish what the bright lines and  bases for cooperation  are.  We need to rebuild trust-based relationships. This will be very hard; many will say there is no point in trying.  It will require courage and stamina, but it is what we must do. We should do so privately through credible leaders, starting with our Presidents and foreign service secretaries, just  as we did in the later years of the Reagan Administration and that of George H.W. Bush.  

I pray for the wisdom and courage of these leaders. 

I  believe the future of our Nation and the world depends on it. 

------------------------------