PDF Summary:Dereliction of Duty, by H. R. McMaster

In the midst of the Vietnam War, a rift emerged between America's civilian leadership and military officials over strategic objectives and tactics. H. R. McMaster, in Dereliction of Duty, dissects this divide, uncovering how misalignment over decision-making authority, flawed assumptions, and crippling political constraints strained communication and trust between the White House and military commanders.

McMaster's analysis reveals a widening gap between the incremental pressure tactics favored by Defense Secretary McNamara and the desire for decisive victory among the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As domestic agendas clashed with battlefield realities, military forces fixated on immediate combat metrics while policymakers weighed international credibility, foreshadowing the conflict's tragic and inconclusive outcome.

(continued)...

The limitations in gradually intensifying military pressure resulted from the restrictions imposed by the strategic decisions of the president and McNamara. The gradual escalation of the bombing campaign, designed to minimize collateral damage and avoid escalating tensions with China or the Soviet Union, did not significantly damage North Vietnam's infrastructure or effectively hinder its logistical channels. The air campaign's impact was diminished due to McNamara's direct involvement in selecting targets, which were often chosen based on questionable intelligence and swayed by political considerations. The group of high-ranking military officers, known as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt a sense of frustration as their recommendations for an intensified bombing campaign aimed at key military and industrial locations were disregarded for political reasons.

The escalation of hostilities inadvertently solidified North Vietnam's resolve, leading to the broadening of the conflict.

The escalating number of American forces in South Vietnam actually served to reinforce Hanoi's resolve rather than persuading it to engage in negotiations. The North Vietnamese demonstrated a greater ability to withstand suffering and devastation than American leaders had predicted. America's participation was viewed as reinforcing their narrative of ideology, seen as a continuation of their struggle against overseas imperial powers. As military operations escalated, the unintended consequence was a surge in nationalistic solidarity and support for their leadership among the North Vietnamese populace.

The unforeseen consequence was that it diminished confidence in the approach of gradually intensifying pressure, forcing the president to face difficult choices he had preferred to avoid. To protect the global reputation of the United States and to prevent the dishonor associated with a defeat in South Vietnam, Johnson and McNamara deemed it essential to approve additional troop deployments. As the conflict intensified, the United States discovered that its stance was progressively straying from its original objective to safeguard the self-governance and freedom of South Vietnam, resulting in rising costs and increased scrutiny from the public and legislators.

Context

• North Vietnam received significant support from communist allies, particularly the Soviet Union and China, which provided military and economic aid. This external support bolstered their capacity to sustain the war effort despite heavy losses.
• American leaders underestimated the determination and willingness of the North Vietnamese to endure significant losses and hardships to achieve their goals.
• The Vietnamese cultural emphasis on resistance against invaders played a significant role in bolstering national morale and unity, reinforcing the ideological narrative against American intervention.
• The presence of foreign troops often serves to unify a population against a common enemy, strengthening internal solidarity and resistance efforts.
• President Johnson faced significant pressure from both the public and political figures to demonstrate strength and resolve. The fear of appearing weak against communism was a major concern, as it could impact domestic support and political standing.
• Signed in 1973, these agreements intended to establish peace in Vietnam and end U.S. military involvement, though they ultimately failed to prevent the fall of Saigon in 1975.
• Congress began to question the executive branch's decisions regarding the war, leading to more rigorous oversight and demands for accountability. This scrutiny was partly due to the lack of clear progress and the rising human and financial costs.

The Johnson administration consolidated control over decisions related to Vietnam and consistently marginalized military personnel who presented dissenting perspectives.

The analysis delves into how President Johnson maintained dominance over Vietnam policy through adept manipulation of the advisory system and by suppressing dissenting opinions, thereby further silencing the already muted Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The reduced involvement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in providing counsel led to their limited engagement in crucial decision-making activities and restricted their ability to provide strategic guidance.

As 1965 commenced, the influence of the Joint Chiefs in formulating policy for Vietnam had significantly decreased. Various factors contributed to this marginalization. President Johnson, who placed a higher importance on his internal policy objectives and had a deep-seated distrust of the military, intentionally excluded the Joint Chiefs of Staff from important policy discussions. As McNamara became more familiar with his role as a strategist, he sought advice from his civilian advisors and deliberately bypassed the Chiefs when seeking guidance on military operations in Vietnam. The manner in which General Wheeler directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, prioritizing loyalty to the president over the vigorous articulation of dissenting opinions, played a role in this outcome.

The lack of unity among the Joint Chiefs of Staff members compounded the complexity of the circumstances. The various branches of the armed forces often had conflicting views regarding the essential nature of the conflict in Vietnam, which resulted in differing advice and consequently reduced their dependability as advisors. McNamara capitalized on these internal disagreements to reinforce his strategic choices. When faced with a range of suggestions, he skillfully cast doubt on the Chiefs' counsel by highlighting their lack of consensus and suggesting that their recommendations were more driven by specific service interests than by objective assessments of the situation.

General Taylor shifted his position from opposing Eisenhower's policies to staunchly supporting Johnson's, and he diligently worked to suppress any opposition among the members of the Joint Chiefs.

Maxwell Taylor, once an advocate for a flexible response strategy as opposed to Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation, ironically played a significant role in quelling dissent within the armed forces under Johnson's presidency. He faithfully implemented McNamara's suggested changes while serving as the leader of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1962 to 1964, suppressed opposition to the policy of gradual escalation, and played a key role in fostering an environment of suspicion and dishonesty in the relationship between the military and the government. During his tenure as the U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam from 1964 to 1965, he consistently supported the president's stance, despite the increasing calls from military leaders within the country for an escalation of military involvement. Initially in favor of commencing aerial assaults on North Vietnam, Taylor subsequently adjusted his stance to match the president's prudent strategy, cognizant of the risk that China might intervene.

Taylor's earlier dissent regarding strategies of the Eisenhower era, coupled with his distinguished standing, significantly bolstered the credibility of the Johnson administration, thereby strengthening the president's pronouncements about Vietnam. Johnson capitalized on Taylor's unequivocal endorsement of the administration's cautious approach, which played a role in convincing the American populace that the nation was not facing an escalation comparable to the Korean War. Despite previously held convictions and the advice from many former military colleagues, Taylor demonstrated a remarkable capacity for adjustment, illustrating the significant impact Johnson had on his military advisors in conforming to his political goals.

Context

• Taylor's actions in suppressing opposition among the Joint Chiefs contributed to a complex dynamic between military leaders and the government, where open dissent was minimized in favor of presenting a cohesive strategy to the public and international allies.
• McNamara's changes also included efforts to modernize the U.S. military's equipment and tactics, integrating new technologies and improving efficiency within the armed forces.
• As a key military advisor, Taylor's support for gradual escalation helped lend military credibility to Johnson's approach, which was crucial for maintaining public and political support.
• An environment of dishonesty can lead to mistrust, both within the military and between the military and civilian leadership. This can result in poor strategic decisions, as leaders may not have access to accurate or complete information.
• During Taylor's ambassadorship, the U.S. was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, with growing anti-war sentiment and debates over military strategy and objectives.
• The strategy of aerial assaults on North Vietnam, known as Operation Rolling Thunder, was a sustained bombing campaign aimed at weakening North Vietnamese resolve and military capacity. It was a central component of U.S. military strategy during the Vietnam War.
• The shift from Eisenhower's strategy to a more flexible approach under Kennedy and Johnson represented a significant change in U.S. military doctrine, emphasizing the ability to respond to various threats without immediately resorting to nuclear weapons.
• The Korean War (1950-1953) was a significant conflict involving large-scale U.S. military intervention, which resulted in high casualties and a prolonged stalemate. The American public was wary of repeating such an extensive military commitment.
• The fear of Chinese intervention in Vietnam was based on historical precedent from the Korean War, where China entered the conflict when UN forces approached its border. This concern influenced U.S. military strategy to avoid provoking China.

The president's habit of consulting with a close-knit group of civilian advisors during regular Tuesday afternoon gatherings contributed to widening the gap between the military and the decision-making process.

McMaster emphasizes the manner in which President Johnson's decision-making process, reliant on a select circle of civilian advisors, progressively diminished the influence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in shaping policy for Vietnam. The "Tuesday lunch" served as the main gathering for deliberation on crucial strategic and operational matters, regularly bringing together McNamara with his associates Bundy and Rusk. In this private setting, away from public scrutiny, the president was able to engage in open discussions and obtain advice from individuals who were predisposed to endorse his goals and viewpoints.

This exclusivity, however, effectively barred the Joint Chiefs of Staff from participation. General Wheeler, although he occasionally attended the Tuesday gatherings, rarely engaged in substantive dialogue. The other chiefs were entirely unaware of the strategic discussions taking place within the highest ranks. The Joint Chiefs of Staff often responded to strategies shaped by President Johnson's close advisors instead of incorporating their own expertise and perspectives into the planning process. The Joint Chiefs of Staff started to perceive themselves as mere supervisors for military activities, instead of advisors on matters of war and peace, because of President Johnson's doubt over military advice and his stringent control over the flow of information.

Other Perspectives

• The Joint Chiefs of Staff's perceived lack of influence could be due to their own inability to adapt to the president's decision-making style rather than the president's exclusive reliance on civilian advisors.
• The assumption that the presence of McNamara, Bundy, and Rusk inherently made the gatherings effective in deliberation could be contested, as the quality of decisions depends on the substance and critical analysis of the discussions, not just the participants.
• The term "effectively barred" may overstate the situation if the Joint Chiefs had other avenues or forums to provide input to the president outside of the Tuesday gatherings.
• The perception of General Wheeler's engagement level could be subjective, and he may have contributed in ways that were not overtly recognized as 'substantive' by other participants or observers.
• The Joint Chiefs of Staff may have been briefed on strategic discussions post-meetings, ensuring they were not entirely unaware of the decisions being made.
• Strategies may have been shaped by the president's close advisors, but this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that they considered military perspectives, even if indirectly.
• The structure of the decision-making process could have been designed to balance civilian oversight with military expertise, ensuring that military actions were subordinate to civilian control as per the principles of democratic governance.
• President Johnson may have had valid reasons for doubting military advice, such as previous experiences where military strategies did not yield the expected outcomes or led to unintended consequences.

The atmosphere of internal politics, especially due to the strains imposed by the presidential election of 1964, significantly influenced the development of policy regarding Vietnam.

The analysis in this section indicates that President Lyndon Johnson's political ambitions and his commitment to maintaining consensus for his domestic agenda heavily shaped the Vietnam war strategy, leading to decisions that prioritized political expediency over sound military tactics.

President Johnson opted to postpone major decisions about Vietnam until after the election, focusing instead on low-key, clandestine operations that would remain under the radar.

H. R. McMaster argues that the critical juncture during the Vietnam War arose from President Johnson's approach, which prioritized preserving the existing conditions to ensure his victory in the 1964 presidential election. The president, determined to avoid alarming those concerned about the spread of Communism and those reluctant to engage in military conflict, embraced a strategy that was intentionally ambiguous. He publicly emphasized his desire for peace and his commitment to defending South Vietnam while privately authorizing limited, covert actions against the North that could be easily concealed from public and congressional scrutiny.

This delaying tactic, however, had several unintended consequences. Collaborative operations involving US and South Vietnamese forces, encompassing sabotage and intelligence-gathering under OPLAN 34A, failed to deter North Vietnam or significantly reduce its ability to support the Viet Cong, but they did increase the conflict's severity. The confrontation in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, involving US naval destroyers and North Vietnamese patrol boats, stemmed directly from these clandestine activities. President Johnson launched air strikes against North Vietnam, seizing the opportunity to demonstrate his resolve to the American populace while countering Goldwater's criticisms of his foreign policy acumen.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution granted President Johnson the authority to escalate the conflict with minimal congressional supervision.

After a poorly defined occurrence in August 1964, often referred to as the second Gulf of Tonkin event, Congress passed a resolution that endowed President Lyndon B. Johnson with substantial authority to escalate the United States' involvement in the Vietnam conflict. To alleviate the concerns of U.S. citizens and their representatives regarding the deepening U.S. engagement in Vietnam, Johnson and his advisors deliberately concealed the facts surrounding the events leading up to the alleged attacks on American naval vessels, hiding the covert operations carried out by the U.S. against the North and the skepticism about the existence of the attacks. Wheeler played a pivotal role in securing the resolution's passage, leveraging his respected position in the military to bolster the misleading assertions McNamara presented to Congress.

The resolution was intentionally vague, granting Johnson broad authority to respond to any armed attacks against U.S. forces and to prevent further aggressive actions in Southeast Asia. The authorization granted President Johnson the legal foundation to escalate the United States' involvement in the conflict over the next four years, enabling him to circumvent the requirement of securing congressional approval and to sidestep an in-depth public debate about the objectives and potential consequences of the war.

Context

• The resolution effectively bypassed the constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war, setting a precedent for future military engagements without formal declarations of war.
• The broad authority allowed for significant military escalation, including the deployment of ground troops and increased aerial bombardment, which marked a shift from advisory and support roles to active combat operations.
• The misleading presentation of the Gulf of Tonkin events set a precedent for future government communication strategies during the Vietnam War, contributing to growing public distrust as more information eventually came to light.
• There was significant skepticism within the U.S. government and military about the validity of the second attack. Some officials doubted whether the second incident had occurred at all, but this skepticism was not communicated to Congress or the public.
• By leveraging his position, Wheeler contributed to a situation where military and executive branch perspectives dominated the discourse, reducing the scope for congressional oversight and debate on the Vietnam War strategy.
• The support from high-ranking officials like Wheeler and McNamara was instrumental in persuading Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as their endorsements were seen as authoritative and trustworthy.
• The escalation authorized by the resolution led to a prolonged conflict with significant casualties and costs, both financially and in terms of human lives, affecting U.S. domestic and foreign policy for years to come.

The Great Society as a Constraint: Johnson's fear that an expanded war would undermine his domestic agenda, leading him to obscure the costs and consequences of U.S. involvement

President Johnson's commitment to the extensive Great Society programs significantly limited his capacity to influence Vietnam policy. The president harbored apprehensions that intensifying the dispute might reallocate essential resources away from his significant social and economic programs, potentially eroding the backing of crucial progressive allies. He thus opted for a cautious approach in handling the dispute, aiming to maintain the focus on his domestic accomplishments in the public eye.

Johnson's ambition to cement his legacy with domestic successes shaped his choice to endorse the incremental escalation of military engagement as suggested by McNamara. The commencement of Rolling Thunder seemed to coincide with the president's desire to avoid a major conflict in Vietnam that might hinder his policy objectives, as well as the start of secret activities and the limited introduction of ground troops. This approach, however, ultimately proved counterproductive. He played a role in creating a dangerous divide between the view of the conflict as a manageable, low-cost engagement and the reality of the escalating hostilities by failing to acknowledge their true scale and cost. As the number of American losses grew and the worsening conditions became evident, public support waned, forcing Johnson to face the difficult choice between intensifying the conflict or entering into talks, which could be seen as an admission of defeat.

Context

• Johnson was wary of the influence of the military-industrial complex, a term popularized by President Eisenhower, referring to the powerful relationship between the military and defense contractors, which could push for increased military spending.
• The 1960s were marked by significant social upheaval, including the civil rights movement and widespread anti-war protests. Many progressives were part of these movements and were increasingly vocal against the Vietnam War, viewing it as contrary to the values of peace and equality.
• The strategy of gradual escalation, known as "graduated pressure," was intended to apply just enough military force to achieve objectives without provoking a larger conflict. This approach was meant to balance military needs with domestic priorities.
• The administration believed that a gradual approach would allow for adjustments based on the situation on the ground, providing flexibility in military and diplomatic efforts.
• Johnson's administration sought to manage public perception by downplaying the scale of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, aiming to prevent the war from overshadowing his domestic policy agenda.
• The draft, which compelled young American men to serve in the military, was highly controversial and led to widespread protests. Many Americans opposed the draft on moral and ethical grounds, contributing to declining support for the war.
• These were a series of domestic initiatives launched by President Johnson aimed at eliminating poverty and racial injustice. They included programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the Civil Rights Act, which required significant funding and political capital.

The dynamics between civilian leaders and military commanders were notably altered by the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the ousting of Diem, which in turn affected the decision-making process concerning military involvement.

The portion of the text under examination explores how the strategy for Vietnam and the relationship between the United States' military commanders and civilian authorities were significantly influenced by the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the overthrow of Diem.

The aftermath of the overthrow heightened skepticism regarding the military's function and sparked a search for officers more aligned with civilian guidance.

The already fragile relationship between military leaders and political officials was further strained by the Kennedy administration's ambivalent support for the November 1963 coup that removed Diem from power. Kennedy and his advisors started to see South Vietnam's leader as an obstacle, due to their disappointment with his narrow political insight and his government's severe treatment of Buddhist protestors, even though the Joint Chiefs of Staff considered Ngo Dinh Diem to be the only individual with the ability to oppose the Viet Cong effectively. The killing of Diem and his brother Nhu, which signified the peak of the coup, resulted in heightened political instability and strengthened the stance of the Viet Cong.

The debacle at the Bay of Pigs further solidified the belief for Kennedy and Johnson that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not dependable sources of unbiased counsel, particularly with respect to the political context. The military's perceived lack of comprehension regarding the complexities of unconventional warfare was due to the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the notion of a coup. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson preferred military officers adept at administration and analysis rather than those inclined toward combat leadership because they were more amenable to the government's closely controlled approach to the Vietnam conflict.

Practical Tips

• Start a book club focused on political and military history to foster informed discussions about the role of the military in governance. Choose books that cover a range of historical events and political decisions, encouraging members to draw parallels between past and present. This collective learning experience can deepen your understanding of the military's impact on political stability and governance.
• Start a discussion group with friends or colleagues to explore the effects of leadership decisions on group dynamics. Each member could present a case study from their experience where leadership was misaligned with operational teams, and then collectively brainstorm potential solutions or preventive measures.
• Volunteer for a role that requires mediation, such as a community liaison or a customer service representative. This experience will expose you to diverse perspectives and teach you how to navigate conflicts and protests effectively, enhancing your interpersonal and problem-solving skills.
• Develop a personal decision-making framework by reflecting on past decisions where you had to choose someone to lead a project or initiative. Consider the criteria you used to make your choice and how the outcome reflected those criteria. This self-reflection can help you refine your judgment and decision-making skills, akin to the Joint Chiefs' process of selecting a leader based on their perceived ability to meet a specific challenge.
• Develop a game plan for maintaining stability during transitions by creating a 'stability checklist'. This checklist should include key factors such as communication strategies, contingency plans, and ways to support colleagues. Use it whenever there's a significant change in your environment to mitigate the risk of instability.
• Create a personal advisory board for unbiased feedback. Handpick a small group of individuals from different walks of life who you trust to give you honest input. This could include a colleague, a family member, someone from a different cultural background, and someone younger or older than you. Meet with them quarterly to discuss your goals, challenges, and decisions. Their varied insights can help you avoid the echo chamber effect and provide a more rounded view, similar to how a political leader might benefit from a range of expert opinions.
• Engage in a thought experiment where you imagine how you would defend your neighborhood if it were suddenly thrust into an unconventional warfare scenario. Consider factors like geography, local resources, and community dynamics. This mental exercise can help you appreciate the complexities military strategists face. You might, for example, think about how local landmarks could be used for strategic advantage or how community networks could be leveraged for intelligence gathering.
• Create a personal development plan focusing on administrative leadership. Reflect on your current role, whether in a professional or volunteer capacity, and identify opportunities where administrative leadership is valued. Set specific goals to improve in areas such as strategic planning, resource allocation, and performance analysis. Track your progress monthly, adjusting your plan as needed to ensure continuous growth in administrative leadership.
• Develop a personal mission statement that emphasizes collaboration and constructive engagement. Take some time to reflect on your values and write a statement that guides your actions, especially in leadership or team settings. This can help you internalize a mindset that prioritizes alignment with others, similar to the military officers who are favored for their ability to follow civilian guidance.

The unsuitable application of strategies from the Cuban missile crisis to the Vietnam conflict failed to acknowledge the critical differences in context and strategic objectives.

McMaster argues that Johnson and McNamara's approach to the Vietnam conflict was mistakenly shaped by their belief that the restrained use of military power, similar to what they observed during the standoff in Cuba, would yield success. The dominant view held that the Cuban episode exemplified the ability of America's strategic military positioning to compel an adversary to alter their behavior, thereby avoiding an expansion into a wider confrontation. This perspective, nonetheless, did not recognize several crucial differences that set the two situations apart.

The confrontation known as the Cuban missile crisis was a direct conflict between the United States and a country equipped with nuclear weapons. The discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba solidified the American public's perception of danger, leading to a bipartisan consensus backing the actions taken by Kennedy. The Vietnam War was a multifaceted and intricate struggle, where the significance of securing political and ideological influence in a distant country was not immediately clear to the American populace, and the strategic implications for the United States seemed more ambiguous. Moreover, the "rational actor" model used to interpret the actions of the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis did not account for the fervent revolutionary spirit and the steadfast determination of Hanoi to unify Vietnam under a single communist regime. The North Vietnamese, driven by their ideological convictions and supported by a population deeply dedicated to national pride, capable of enduring considerable hardship, demonstrated a resilience that surpassed the expectations of McNamara and his advisors regarding the United States' coercive strategies.

Context

• The Vietnam War was a protracted conflict from 1955 to 1975 involving North Vietnam and its communist allies against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. It was characterized by guerrilla warfare, political instability, and significant involvement of civilian populations.
• The objectives in Cuba were clear and limited—removal of nuclear missiles—whereas in Vietnam, the goals were broader and more ambiguous, involving nation-building and counterinsurgency, which required different military and political strategies.
• The successful resolution without direct military conflict was perceived as a triumph of strategic military positioning and diplomacy, reinforcing the belief that a show of military strength could lead to favorable outcomes without escalation.
• The Soviet Union, led by Nikita Khrushchev, had placed the missiles in Cuba as a strategic counterbalance to U.S. missiles in Turkey and Italy, which were within striking distance of the Soviet Union.
• During the early 1960s, the Cold War fostered a strong anti-communist sentiment in the United States. The presence of Soviet missiles in the Western Hemisphere was seen as an unacceptable expansion of communist influence, prompting a strong political response.
• The Vietnam War was one of the first conflicts to be extensively covered by television, influencing public perception and political pressure on U.S. leaders.
• The crisis involved clear, high-stakes negotiations between two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, both of whom had a vested interest in avoiding nuclear conflict, leading to a predictable pattern of behavior based on mutual deterrence.
• The challenging terrain of Vietnam, including dense jungles and mountainous regions, favored guerrilla tactics and made conventional military operations difficult for U.S. forces. This geographical advantage was effectively utilized by North Vietnamese forces.

As America's military engagement in Vietnam grew, so did the divergence in objectives and perspectives between the nation's civilian leadership and military commanders.

As the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam conflict deepened, the divergence in objectives and perspectives between civilian authorities and military commanders became increasingly marked. McMaster argues that the central struggle led to the United States misapplying its power, hindering the development of an effective military strategy, and ending in an inconclusive outcome that failed to achieve the objectives established by American policymakers.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff's focus on immediate military actions without a unifying strategy, coupled with their oversight of the complexities of the conflict, made the objective of "Killing More Viet Cong" seem rather shallow.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, feeling marginalized in the strategic decision-making and constrained by limitations on military force, redirected their focus towards tactical objectives, yielding to President Johnson's clear-cut demand for neutralizing an increasing Viet Cong presence. McMaster stresses that using casualty figures to gauge success revealed a significant strategic deficiency and a deep misunderstanding of the true nature of the conflict. The uprising in South Vietnam was a result of a complex interplay of political, social, and economic factors that led to widespread dissatisfaction with the Saigon regime. Simply reducing the Viet Cong's ranks failed to address the root problems or ensure the long-term independence and self-sufficiency of the South.

The chasm arose due to the Joint Chiefs of Staff's hesitance to question the underlying principles of Johnson's strategy in Vietnam, which led to a misalignment of on-the-ground tactical objectives with the overarching strategic plan. Due to their disunity and reluctance to challenge an established policy, the military advisors did not forcefully push for a strategy that included an extensive aerial assault on North Vietnam and a surge in U.S. forces. As a result, they focused on aspects they could influence rather than robustly questioning whether the chosen strategy was in sync with attainable objectives that would benefit the United States.

Practical Tips

• Develop a "strategy map" for a complex project you're working on, which visually connects your immediate tasks to your ultimate objectives. Draw a flowchart that starts with your end goal and works backward, identifying the necessary steps to get there. This will help you see how each task interconnects and contributes to the final aim, preventing you from getting lost in day-to-day activities without a cohesive strategy.
• Volunteer for cross-departmental projects to gain exposure to strategic conversations and bring tactical insights to the table. By actively participating in projects that require collaboration between different parts of the organization, you can better understand the strategic context and how your tactical objectives fit into the bigger picture. For example, if there's a company-wide initiative to adopt a new technology, volunteer to be part of the implementation team to learn about the strategic goals behind the adoption and contribute your tactical knowledge to ensure a smooth rollout.
• Develop a feedback system that involves peers or mentors to gain insights into your performance beyond metrics. If you're working on public speaking, instead of just counting the number of speeches given, ask for detailed feedback on your delivery, engagement, and audience impact to understand your effectiveness.
• Develop a habit of writing reflective essays on historical events to explore the underlying causes from multiple perspectives. Choose a historical event, research it briefly, and then write an essay where you analyze the event through political, social, and economic lenses. This practice will enhance your critical thinking skills and allow you to apply a multidimensional approach to understanding complex situations.
• Develop a habit of reflective journaling to understand your reactions to daily events. At the end of each day, jot down one or two situations that evoked a strong emotional response from you. Beside each situation, write down potential deeper issues that might have influenced your reaction. This could reveal patterns, such as a tendency to feel undervalued when your ideas are not immediately accepted, pointing to a deeper need for recognition.
• Improve your ability to challenge authority by role-playing scenarios where you must present an opposing viewpoint to a figure of authority. You could do this with a friend or colleague, taking turns to play the role of the authority figure and the challenger. This exercise will prepare you for real-life situations where you may need to question the decisions of those in charge, similar to how the Joint Chiefs of Staff might have approached questioning Johnson's strategy.
• Implement a weekly reflection session where you review your past week's activities and assess their alignment with your strategic plan. During this session, ask yourself which actions were in line with your goals and which were not. Make a list of aligned activities to continue and misaligned ones to reconsider. This habit fosters ongoing self-awareness and helps you stay on track with your strategic objectives.
• Implement a "Can I influence this?" prompt in your digital calendar or to-do list app. Before adding a new task or commitment, ask yourself, "Can I influence this?" If the answer is no, reconsider whether it should be a priority. This simple prompt ensures that your daily tasks are aligned with areas where you can make a tangible difference.

Stalemate Versus Victory: The military firmly believed that the only acceptable outcome was the complete defeat of the adversary, a belief that was at odds with McNamara's support for limited objectives designed to preserve the United States' standing.

McMaster highlights the emerging rift due to differing strategic objectives among civilian authorities and military commanders. Under McNamara's influence, the administration determined that achieving an unequivocal military victory in Vietnam was not feasible. The goals shifted to maintaining the United States' international standing and demonstrating resolve in the face of communism's proliferation, instead of focusing on the autonomy and independence of South Vietnam. McNamara, influenced by his "good doctor" analogy, concluded that it was better to commit troops and endure casualties in a hopeless effort than to withdraw and concede failure. McMaster describes the strategy as one intended to foster the belief that the United States had thoroughly fulfilled its commitments, irrespective of the ultimate result of the conflict.

The group of high-ranking military officers remained committed to securing a decisive triumph against the opposing forces in battle. For these individuals, the objective of using military force was to utterly destroy the enemy's capability and determination to wage war. The strategy employed by McNamara, which sought to achieve a stalemate, was viewed by military commanders as capitulation to outside influences and a departure from their fundamental understanding of military conflict, exacerbating their discontent and reinforcing their conviction that decision-makers in Washington were disconnected from the realities of war, thus wasting American lives in a futile effort to preserve the nation's honor.

Other Perspectives

• Complete defeat of an adversary may not always be a realistic or achievable goal, especially in conflicts where the opposing force is deeply entrenched or enjoys significant local support.
• The focus on preserving U.S. standing rather than achieving a clear victory could be seen as prioritizing image over substantive outcomes, which may not align with the principles of effective military strategy.
• The idea of a rift may not take into account the possibility that military commanders could also understand and sometimes support the need for limited objectives, recognizing the broader political and strategic context.
• This shift in goals might have been perceived as a lack of commitment to the well-being and independence of South Vietnam, potentially undermining the legitimacy of the U.S. intervention in the eyes of the Vietnamese people and the international community.
• The moral and ethical implications of sending soldiers into a situation deemed hopeless could be questioned, as it may conflict with the duty of care a government has towards its military personnel.
• Such a strategy might not be sustainable in the long term, both economically and in terms of public support, especially in democratic societies where the public's tolerance for protracted wars is limited.
• The idea that McNamara's strategy was a departure from the fundamental understanding of military conflict could be contested by the argument that the nature of conflict evolves, and strategies must adapt to new forms of warfare, including counterinsurgency and asymmetric warfare.
• The belief that lives are being wasted could be countered by the perspective that the sacrifices made by service members contribute to upholding international commitments and alliances, which is a vital aspect of national security strategy.