Sympathy is the ability to understand the suffering or hardship that another person is experiencing. It can also be measured in the ability to act for the benefit of the suffering individual. Although reasoning and actions in wartime are difficult to define as sympathetic in the strictest sense, there are elements of sympathy in the actions of national and military leaders. War is complex and paradoxical; sympathy, even more so.
When the Cuba was found holding hands with the Soviet Union, the United States was suddenly faced with the direct and local threat of nuclear war. Missiles were being stockpiled and armed ninety miles south of Florida. The United State was faced with the challenge of removing the threat of war, while looking simultaneously down the gun barrel.
It can be argued that sympathy was the strongest force that the United States could employ during that time. Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara defended this conjecture against the saber-rattlers on Capitol Hill. The reasoning behind this is simple. When a small, poor, country is in contention with a global super-power, what is a typical reaction of the small country? It was the assumption at the time that Cuba with the aid of the Soviet Union would stand and fight. To subvert this aggressive deadlock, Robert McNamara placed the members of the Oval Office in The Communist Leaders' collective shoes.
At the time, Russia needed a success. The leadership wanted to show the people just how strong the Mother Land was. If the Premier could save the world from nuclear war, the Russian people would shout praises and have a sense of national pride. The attitude in Cuba was more dire. The Cuban leadership was inspired to revolt against the United States economic embargo at any cost. Castro was willing to to risk his country's destruction in the hopes of damaging the United States. The Russians just want to feel good about themselves, and the Cubans wouldn't attack on their own. If Capitol Hill could sympathize with the Kremlin, the Missile Crisis would end and nuclear war diverted.
What happened was just that. The United States and The Soviet Union came to an agreement. The United States pulled some missiles from Turkey and southern Italy in exchange for the missiles to be removed from Cuba. Sympathy was the strongest force available to the United States and Robert McNamara knew that. His sympathetic actions and the actions of others involved during that tense period, saved not only the United States, but the Soviet Union as well.
But war is complex and the Vietnam War was very different kind of war. Sympathy failed in Washington during this time. As a result, the Vietnam War was long and costly. Robert McNamara and others at the time were pursuing the idea that the smaller developing countries would align with the Communist Forces of the Soviet Union and China. The fighting in Vietnam prior to the American presence was perceived as Communist guerilla fighters trying to forward the communist agenda of China and Russia.
The United States did not understand what was actually happening in Vietnam during the 1960s. In the end, the Vietnamese people were engaged in a national war with no real communist force manipulating the dynamics of the internal conflict. The United States, following the Domino Theory of Communist expansion, acted on their own fear and intervened in the Vietnamese civil war.
Why not save the Vietnamese from the huge Communist powers in the north? Isn't that the right thing to do? These questions were proof that the Domino Theory was correct and the military leaders saw it being played out in the jungles of Vietnam. Following this thought process to its logical conclusion under this theory justifies United States military action.
Prior to this Civil war, Vietnam had been subjected countless times by imperialist forces. The pre-Communist Chinese, the French colonialists and then the American Military, all were external threats. The Vietnamese did not want the aid of the United States, they simply wanted to resolve the internal conflict through civil war. Additionally, the Vietnamese had been at war with the Chinese for thousands of years. Both were threats and both were not welcome. If the United States had accurately perceived the needs of the Vietnamese people, history would have been different.
Sympathetic actions are based on the ability to understand suffering and how to act based on that understanding. Robert McNamara is a sympathetic figure in war. In war however, sympathy is paradoxical and complex.
The lessons offered by Robert McNamara are worthwhile. They are pieces of advice that are given by someone who has experienced the difficult areas of war. His experience strengthens there validity. The rules serve as tools to achieve goals but also function as solemn warnings.
The lesson of proportionality is a practical and applicable rule. Not only in war but in conflict in general. The dynamics of many conflicts revolve around differences. Proportionality is the relationship between these differences. During the standoff with Cuba and the Soviet Union, proportionality was applied and achieved an strategically sound end. Cuba was the small, weak country and the United States was the global superpower. The principle of proportionality allowed for the United States to understand the attitude that Castro had during this time. Understanding the problem led to the solution. This is positive reinforcement to suggest that the principle of proportionality is a valuable lesson.
In a negative light, during World War II, this principle was forgotten, resulting in actions that border on genocide. The incendiary bombs that where a popular tool of the B-29 bombers over Japan and the application of the Atomic Bomb violated the principle of proportionality. Many cities in Japan were either completely or largely destroyed during World War II. Pearl Harbor one, if not the only, site of domestic destruction during this time. The principle of proportionality failed and as a result the actions of the commanders border on genocide. In a negative light, this rule acts as a warning. If this rule is violated, the people responsible may be held accountable for war time crimes and abuses.In addition to the lessons that are offered by McNamara, his story is one of an individual who is is art of something much larger; a single device inside the bigger machine. The film tries to relate the role of the individual to the situations in the environment. Robert McNamara was a human being before being a soldier and the Secretary of Defense. One key lesson is that despite the titles and situations that a leader is still a human being, with the human tendency to reach great heights of idealism but also have the risk of immense failure.
War is a polarizing and complex topic. Many times if a mistake or error of judgement is made, the results can be immense. These mistakes can lead to the accidental loss of life. Many times controversial tactics may be interpreted as those of a war criminal. Robert McNamara was a controversial figure and did not escape these convictions.
If Robert McNamara is a war criminal then many others should face this judgement as well. The escalation of the Gulf of Tonkin and the carpet bombing campaigns in Vietnam caused outrageous amounts of casualties. This is not the sole responsibility of one person or group of people. Each individual acted within their own knowledge of the situation and supported their own beliefs.
John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson, Richard Nixon, General Curtis LeMay and many others should be be accused as war criminals. John F. Kennedy began intervention in Vietnam. Johnson and Nixon escalated the war. General LeMay promoted firebombing and the use of nuclear weapons during World War II. If McNamara is indited as a war criminal, it should not be done just to him. Many others made mistakes while applying military power.
Who or what determines if an individual is a war criminal? There is no international body of oversight that can thoroughly and infallibly accuse someone of being a war criminal. After World War II the defeated members of the S.S. And high ranking Third Reich officials were charged with war crimes. In Kosovo, the overthrow leadership was guilty of war crimes. The common theme is that the militant side performed some kind of genocide against a target group of people. A genocide is a violent campaign against a specific group of people with the intent to eradicate or completely destroy.
It is fair then to properly define the actions of the United States leadership during World War II and the Vietnam War. Although the loss of life was excessive during both wars, the intent on the part of the United States was not to destroy a whole group of people. The military was not intending to remove an entire race from the face of the Earth. This is opposite of the intentions of the Serbians and Third Reich, both of whom are convicted war criminals. The loss of life was great and some uses of military strength were dubious but Robert McNamara, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and others involved are not war criminals.
The Fog of War is a political film of the highest caliber. This film conveys the complexity of war and the constant disparity between the information that is known and the information that governs the reality of the situation.
Ultimately, the judgements are left to the viewer. Whether to decide if McNamara “did the right thing” or not is not for the film to convey. This responsibility is for the viewer. The presentational style sets Fog of War apart from many of the other political documentaries. While others take advantage of the polarizing nature of the topic of war, this film simply presents. Presentation in place of judgement makes the film increasingly valid and removes the uncertainty of the content. Watching the Fog of War is not participating in propaganda, but understanding the facts and information that it presents.
Robert McNamara is constantly placed in juxtaposition to the larger conflict. This placement allows for the film to explore a central human dimension. While acting on behalf of the United States of America, McNamara was the Secretary of Defense but, first and foremost a human being. The film neither deified nor vilified McNamara. Instead of pandering to the highly controversial nature of war and relying on the function of a hero or scapegoat, the film emphasized Robert McNamara's role as a human being acting in a larger mechanism. This articulation allows for the viewer to relate to McNamara simultaneously as a human and as a part of larger machine.
The Fog of War is an effective political film that conveys the relationships that Robert McNamara had to the political and military situations during his career. By placing McNamara against the backdrop of war and government it also explores how the human element functions in a harsh environment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment