What Is Worse? Being Wrong And Admitting It Or Being Wrong And Denying It?

"“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
-- Albert Einstein

TW: We have been led into two unnecessary wars within my lifetime. They have similarities but far more differences. One was pursued by the U.S. confusing local nationalism with global communism, the other in a forlorn effort to spread American "democratic" ideology. The results were tragic in both cases, far more tragic for the target nations than the U.S., but tragic and debilitating enough for the U.S.

Robert McNamara, SecDef for JFK and LBJ, a key architect of American policy during the Vietnam era ultimately came out and acknowledged his mistakes. Not surprisingly he received little reward for the admission. Those against the war considered it too little, too late; those for it still considered him a loser. Many Republicans to this day think we could have "won" Vietnam somehow (what victory would have meant and at what further cost remains highly nebulous).

But what about the neo-cons and Iraq. They concede nothing and claim the "surge" as a great victory (even though the strategic realities are hardly changed).

The common thread between Vietnam and Iraq are that they were both tragically wrong wars, which have left thousands of Americans dead and maimed whilst undercutting our prestige and treasury.

From Economist:
"...Mr McNamara's failure to tackle one key issue in particular: "how America's leaders could recognise the futility of the military struggle in Vietnam yet blind themselves to the necessary conclusion that the alternative was defeat."

Considering the lessons we've learned over the past seven years, I think we may have been a little too harsh in condemning Mr McNamara on this count. It is easy in hindsight to say that America should've ended its war in Vietnam at some or another point short of 1975, as the mission became hopeless. But many said the same about Iraq in 2005 and 2006, only to see things turn around a bit in 2008. Wars tend to be much more accurately assessed when they're over.

Having said that, let's also give Mr McNamara at least a scrap of credit for eventually recognising that his own policies were failing. As my colleague said yesterday, there will be parallels drawn between Mr McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, but the two differ considerably in this area. Mr Rumsfeld and his neoconservative colleagues were set in their ways, obstinate to the end. As David Rieff tells Greg Djerejia, "Like the Trotskyists of yore, these people are never wrong if only they had been listened to and allowed to follow their mad utopian schemes to their limit." Even today they continue to give counsel, as if our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us nothing, least of all that they are not to be trusted. Mr McNamara, on the other hand, made efforts to learn (and have us learn) from his mistakes. It's a favourable comparison for him. He need not be exalted for his admissions of failure, but let's at least recognise this character trait as a useful example for future government employees."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/07/robert_mcnamara_is_better_at.cfm