Rio Jean A.

Quindara BA Political Science An Analysis to McNamaras Fog of War A documentary film about the views of McNamara, a former Secretary of Defense in the United States, towards war and conflict, the first thing that struck me most was the title of the movie, Fog of war, as it induced the uncertainties brought about by the conflict and how actors are always in this state of uncertainty if faced in wars and conflict. According to the movie, the eleven lessons of war is: Empathize with your enemy, Rationality will not save us, There's something beyond one's self, Maximize efficiency, Proportionality should be a guideline in war, Get the data, Belief and seeing are often both wrong, Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning, In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil, Never say never, and You can't change human nature. I think, overall, the perception of McNamara on wars, provides a fresh look on the American politics as the worlds hegemonic power and the system of international politics as a web of utility maximizing states and actors, specifically on the protection of international security. However, there were times in the documentary where McNamara would refuse to elaborate the topic or simply refuse to answer the question that showed how he tries not to show his true personality over the interview. He has been quite generalist on his answers and egoistic in his analysis of the failure the US has made during the wars in Vietnam and Japan. The lesson which struck me the most was his inability to dismiss himself as the author of the failure in Vietnam war, although he has cited that the US did not achieve anything in pursuing the war, he is still reluctant to say straightforwardly that the whole Vietnam war was a failure attempt of the US to impose their power in South Asia. Instead, he opted to point fingers of the thenpresident, Lyndon Johnson. He even stated that if it were Kennedy, he would not have done the same. In the film, it has perfectly shown his knowledge in statistical analysis of warfare, although it did not make him famous for that. Rather, he has been seen as someone cold and mechanical, without a hint of emotion. But I think, in some parts of the film, he did become sensitive, although not entirely regretful on his own decisions, in discussing the wars especially about the bombings in Japan. Even in his lesson of empathy, the process of understanding the enemy, it showed how they must have empathy not sympathy to be able to carry out successful decisions in the warfare. This was effective in his decision during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I personally think that his lessons were in a form of excuses to justify the execution of wars and the failure during the decision process. For example, in the lesson six, which is to get the data, there can be a bias in garnering the information since the leaders of war, as utility maximizers who pursue decisions for the profit of their own interests, they can be intentionally blind to the real data just to justify a war, like what is happening in the War on Terror in Iraq by the US. And following after that, the lesson Belief and Seeing are often both wrong, the US may have exaggerated the information just to justify the moral correctness of the war, like in certain situations where they impose their feeling of responsibility over the developing nations to save them from insecurity. I think this film is very relevant today as wars in Middle East continue to break out and the analysis of the American defense can be reexamined through what they did before and to what are they doing in these wars today. The US continues to play god as they intervene with the culture that they are never familiar with, imposing complex decisions on the most desperate attempts. This, I think is what McNamara has forgotten to take into account in his reflection of warfare involving the US.