Has this book been discussed? I scanned several pages and didn't find any topics.

Any Vietnam War History buffs want to share their thoughts?

I am about 1/3 the way through the book at this point. Taylor has just been appointed the ambassador to Vietnam.

So far I find it an interesting read. I was always led to believe the major strategic failures were at the feet of Westmoreland, but McMaster offers a different view point, one that so far seems to point to Taylor being the true force behind the strategy, obviously with significant input from McNamara.

Kennedy and Johnson both suffered from poor relationships between them and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outside of Taylor. McNamara seemed to be completely smitten with his/Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and tried to take the same broad concept from that experience and fit it into the square peg that was Vietnam. The Joint Chiefs try to offer their dissenting opinion, but due to their poor relationships with the president/SECDEF are largely blocked from the conversation, and Taylor definitely didn't help the situation(may be a little too generous with this portrayal of Taylor's involvement).

Main issue with the book so far, there has been no mention of North Vietnam's strategy, efforts, or ability and how that played a role in the quagmire that was Vietnam. I think sometimes we overplay our importance or ability to influence or achieve outcomes, and downplay our adversaries role.

Good book. Lots of blame to go around certainly. McNamara thought he was smarter than everyone and was a numbers guy, which is, generally speaking, what led to the body count strategy. Westmoreland was mostly just doing what he thought they wanted him to do, in my opinion. It was pretty much all one big circle jerk.

Read McNamara's In Retrospect as a good foil to Dereliction of Duty, if you want to hear his side.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to take a look. Its infuriating to read, because the same mistakes are made over and over, and no one stops to think that maybe the overall strategy is flawed. However, the flaws are a bit easier to see in hindsight.

2ndAggie said:

---

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to take a look. Its infuriating to read, because the same mistakes are made over and over, and no one stops to think that maybe the overall strategy is flawed. However, the flaws are a bit easier to see in hindsight.

---

If you REALLY want to get mad about failing to learn lessons, read the book Street Without Joy by Bernard Fall and then check out the publishing date.

Hubris is a mother****er.

also OP, not sure if you know this, and I certainly don't want to insult your intelligence, but McMaster wrote that book as a young army major, and it's the same McMaster who is now the National Security Advisor.

I take it "Street without Joy" is a French account of their foray into Vietnam? I am still blown away by the fact that according to McMaster, the French told the Johnson administration their strategy would not work in Vietnam, and then our powers that be just ignored the advice.

I put McMaster's book on my to read list after reading "The Fourth Star", not directly about McMaster, but he is mentioned a couple times in the book. I was going to read "Best and the Brightest" by Halberstam, but when McMaster was tapped for National Security Advisor, I decided to give his book a try instead.

I may still read "Best and the Brightest", but it appears it will hit on several of McMaster's key observations. However, it may be interesting to get a second set of observations, and see if they come to largely the same conclusions.

Sorry, I figured you knew it was the same guy.

Anyways, yes, Street Without Joy is an account of the French fighting the Viet Minh in the fifties. It's not a history of the entire war, per se, but focuses on a few specific battles, and major lessons learned. It's pretty much what every "lessons learned" book that was written following the Vietnam war said, except that it was written in 1961. If you had to sum it up in a brief few words, it would be "Hey guys, look this isn't World War 2. This isn't even Korea. This is a political fight, not a military one, and you guys need to be ready for something completely unlike what you've dealt with in the past." Which of course was followed up by ten years of trying to win a political war using conventional methods.

Best and the Brightest is good as well, and does a great job of really giving you a good look into the backgrounds of most of the key players. Helps you understand what made certain individuals click, and why they decided to do certain things. Definitely on the must-read list for anyone with interest in the Vietnam War.

Bright Shining Lie is another must-read on the topic.

Not to derail too much, but "The Bear went over the Mountain" laid out the troubles the Soviets had in Afghanistan. Well, we continued to make those same mistakes decades later.

Thank you for the suggestions. So many good books, and so little time.

I have read "A Bear Went Over the Mountain" and then the perspective from the mujahideen side "The Other Side of the Mountain". "The Other Side of the Mountain" was almost unreadable from the stand point that the Soviets made the same mistake over and over and over again. Literally would walk/drive themselves into an ambush repeatedly. Make the same mistakes such as failure to adjust convoy times, routes, no recon prior, etc.

The thing that stuck with me on "A Bear Went Over the Mountain" was the vignette on a Battalion Commander insisting or feeling he personally needed to train a squad on how to conduct an ambush. A crazy example of the failures of the Soviets' conscription system, little to no quality NCO leadership, SMEs.