The Fog of War

Last night in our Historical Methods class we watched Errol Morris's brilliant The Fog of War. We didn't get a chance to discuss the film, and since students are writing short essays about it I don't want to lay my interpretation on too thick right now. But a couple of things worth pointing out to those who don't know the larger story. McNamara might just be the most reviled man to emerge from the U.S. 1960s (correct me if you disagree folks). Anti-war people see him as the architect of a failed and immoral war; military people blame him for not letting them win the war. In the film he strikes me as candidly disingenuous (disingenuously candid?) and, at times, still in denial. But quite seductive. He reminds me of Rumsfeld, similarly brilliant mind under shellacked hairdo.

Eric Alterman in the Nation slammed the film and Morris for letting McNamara spout his "legalistic rationalizations and whitewashing of history."

Morris replied here.
A very instructive exchange for both the historical questions at stake and the emotional response they still raise. (A great source for more info on the film is at the website for the excellent Choices program out of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University).

Which is what makes the whole Iraq War so strange. I actually do think that what our two candidates did 35 years ago matters, or at least what they learned from what they did back then matters. To my mind, Bush learned that the rules do not apply to him and without any sacrifice he will always come out on top. And he has lived his whole life that way. That is what struck me most about Fahrenheit 9/11 -- the callow nature of our President. He has never had to learn anything, and apparently hasn't.

David Halberstam has an excellent article in the September issue of Vanity Fair (not online and not yet available through Lexis-Nexis) about the chickenhawks and how they learned exactly the wrong lessons from the Vietnam War.