Book SummaryDereliction of Duty, by H. R. McMaster

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of Dereliction of Duty

The growing tension and collapse of dialogue between civilian leaders and military commanders regarding the tactics and strategies for the conflict in Vietnam.

The section of the book examines the escalating rift that emerged between civilian leaders and military officials during America's involvement in the Vietnam conflict. McMaster argues that the absence of a cohesive strategy, born out of profound doubt and distrust, played a major role in the disastrous outcomes of the war.

The Bay of Pigs invasion planted doubts within the Kennedy Administration, resulting in strained relations and heightened skepticism about the dependability of advice from military advisors, especially with the escalating tensions in Laos.

McMaster highlights that the Bay of Pigs invasion, a botched attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba, was a major turning point in the relationship between President Kennedy and his military advisors. The operation, a legacy of the Eisenhower era and led by the CIA, concluded unsuccessfully, resulting in Kennedy experiencing profound embarrassment and a significant erosion of his trust in the military expertise of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was of the opinion that they should have been more transparent about their skepticism concerning the efficacy of the plan instead of allowing the CIA to guide them astray. This incident deepened Kennedy's existing skepticism towards the military leadership, whom he viewed as inflexible and overly focused on traditional, large-scale military engagements.

The situation in Laos during 1961 intensified this doubt. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, under Chairman Lemnitzer's direction, recommended sending a substantial force, which might encompass nuclear assets, to defend the American-backed government from the grave danger presented by communist-aligned forces in Laos. Kennedy saw this as an overly-aggressive approach and opted for a more limited, diplomatic response. President Kennedy viewed the Laos negotiations as a success, which only reinforced the belief among the Joint Chiefs of Staff that their advice was disregarded and solidified their view that the president did not possess the determination required for the forceful military actions they believed were critical to halt the advance of Communism.

President Kennedy, cautious of the influence from the Eisenhower era's Joint Chiefs of Staff, introduced Maxwell Taylor to diminish their control.

Kennedy harbored deep-seated doubts about the military commanders who had been in service during the time Eisenhower was in office. He viewed them as outdated figures, inflexible in their methods, and not adequately prepared to deal with the complexities that were emerging during the Cold War period. The choices they offered for responding to communist threats in regions such as Cuba or Laos seemed constrained to either inaction or initiating significant military actions. The approach adopted by Kennedy to tackle threats ranging from small-scale insurgencies to the prospect of nuclear warfare was influenced by the principle of "flexible response," a concept advocated by Maxwell Taylor.

Kennedy recognized in Maxwell Taylor a kindred military leader – articulate and reflective, who shared the president's cautious stance towards the traditional military hierarchy and endorsed a comprehensive reformation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's organizational framework. President Kennedy initially chose Taylor to be his military advisor and later named him to follow General Lemnitzer as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The selection of an unconventional candidate, breaking from the norm of rotating service representation, heightened the tension between civilian authorities and military officials, solidifying the perception within the Joint Chiefs that Kennedy aimed to mold a military leadership that would conform more closely to his political goals.

Practical Tips

• Develop a habit of continuous learning to stay prepared for complex situations. Dedicate at least 30 minutes a day to reading articles, listening to podcasts, or watching videos about emerging trends and technologies in your field. By doing this, you ensure that you're always expanding your knowledge base and are less likely to be caught off-guard by new developments.
• Create a decision-making journal where you document the pros and cons of significant decisions you face, emphasizing a cautious approach. Over time, review your journal entries to assess the outcomes of your decisions. This practice will help you refine your decision-making process and reinforce the value of a cautious stance.
• Improve your critical thinking by role-playing as an advisor in various scenarios. Imagine you're advising on different issues, from simple daily choices to complex problems. Write down the advice you would give and the reasons behind it. This exercise will help you understand the qualities of good advice and can improve your own decision-making process.
• You can analyze decision-making patterns in your workplace by tracking leadership roles and their rotation over a period of time to identify any deviations from the norm. Create a simple spreadsheet to log positions, tenure, and any notable outcomes or tensions that arise when typical patterns are disrupted. This will help you understand the dynamics and potential areas of conflict within your organization.
• Implement a 'shadowing' program within your organization where employees can observe leaders from different departments. This cross-departmental insight can foster a better understanding of various leadership styles and organizational challenges, providing a broader perspective on how to approach reform and improvement in your own area.

The debate over whether to adopt a "flexible response" strategy or to continue with the doctrine of "massive retaliation" had a significant impact on the military's organization and state of preparedness.

McMaster...

Dereliction of Duty Summary America's increasingly intensive involvement in Vietnam, along with the development, implementation, and limitations of its strategic approach.

The section of the text examines the way in which McNamara's approach of gradually intensifying military involvement led to a deeper involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. McMaster argues that the flawed strategy, shaped by false assumptions and propelled by domestic political agendas, resulted in the inappropriate application of the United States' military power and failed to achieve its objectives.

The Cuban Missile Crisis had a profound impact on McNamara, reinforcing his commitment to controlled escalation and increasing his sway in the development of military strategies.

McMaster argues that McNamara's approach to shaping Vietnam policy was significantly shaped by his previous experiences with the Cuban Missile Crisis. McMaster suggests that applying calculated military pressure can effectively induce a change in an adversary's behavior during a confrontation with the Soviet Union. The successful extraction of Soviet missiles from Cuban soil, accomplished without escalating to an all-out assault, appeared to confirm the tactic of progressively increasing military pressure to demonstrate determination and influence the adversary's assessment of risks and...

Dereliction of Duty Summary 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...

Dereliction of Duty Summary 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....

Dereliction of Duty Summary 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...

Dereliction of Duty Summary 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...