2006-12-16 05:47:51 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Remember McNamara was fighting a million Vietnamese Commies with 600,000 US troops over I believe a 5 year period & Rumsfeld was 3 years and maybe 20,000 insurgents and 140,000 US troops.
2006-12-16 06:42:55 · update #1
I'm going to half to say Rumsfeld was worse because unlike Vietnam war the Iraq war is in a much more strategic area of the world (oil) and if the Iraq war spreads to the entire Middle East region it will be way worse than the Vietnam War which McNamara created.
2006-12-17 03:37:21 · update #2
u r right donald rumsfeld is the worse US sec of defence
2006-12-18 01:58:22 · answer #1 · answered by Eccentric 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An excellent question!
I vote for Rumsfeld for being the worst. Admittedly, I am too young to remember McNamara, but Rumsfled totally arrogant and disrespectful attitude makes him about the moral equilavent of a slime-mold. Also, McNamara could be forgiven in that the US had never experienced an Asian guerilla war before, so we had no idea what we were getting into back in the 60's.
Rumsfeld had the obvious example of Vietnam for a prime reason not to start an Asian land war. Finally, all the generals told him of the great dangers of an Iraqi war and he blew them off, ignoring all of their wise, cogent, and relevant advice (especially the advice that we had to have a plan for AFTER the war). For these reasons (and I didn't even get to his biggest sin: the introduction of torture as a military technique), Rummy deserves a cell in the War Criminals prison in Belgium.
2006-12-16 06:50:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess it depends on your criteria for judging them. McNamara's term of service oversaw the deaths of many, many more American service people than has Rumsfeld's (so far). However, by some accounts, on some level, McNamara was deeply troubled by them. Obviously not troubled enough, but...Rumsfeld seems to be completely undisturbed by either the deaths of the Iraqis or the American troops. He says he is, but he lacks sincerity, as well as believeability. He seems far more upset that he's been removed from his office than he has ever seemed about the deadly results of his errors.
The fallout and the body count from the Iraq war, and Rumsfeld's influence and actions as Bush's SecDef, may well go on for some years yet. Give it the same space as the time now elapsed since Vietnam started--40 years or so--and then pass judgement. My guess is, it'll be Rumsfeld, hands down.
2006-12-16 06:34:05 · answer #3 · answered by functionary01 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
WAR is like baseball...American style. The s.o.def. is like a team pitcher, whose aim, style and goal is to win, (you'd THINK!). So, R. Mcnamara was a LOSER, however, D. Rumsfeld HAS BEEN replaced,We will see, if it...is still possible to win in the very near Future.so far, it doesnot look good for the team! It would still be possible to say that Rumsfeld was a winner...!
2006-12-16 06:02:07 · answer #4 · answered by B_G_PECK 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld was by far the worst. They both micromanaged, but Rumsfeld ignored the lessons from Vietnam, the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force, and proven military counterinsurgency strategies.
2006-12-16 05:57:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
in case you grasped "Fog of conflict" McNamara not in any respect says "I" made a mistake. that is continuously "we" or "us." The makers of that movie enable Mac of the hook. If there have been any lies they were generated by technique of McNamara yet not in any respect assumes then mantle of responsibility. He stated that JFK develop into about to tug the US out of Vietnam are not any further supported by technique of the information. in truth Kennedy had already more beneficial the large style human beings advisers in Vietnam and supported the ousting of President Diem (merely per week earlier his personal assassination) both acts represented an escalation no longer a withdrawal. in an attempt to respond to your question Rumsfeld may likely income from the same movie. He may get a threat to state his view of the fact.
2016-11-26 22:50:00 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
McNamara wasn't that great. Rumsfeld is the best.
2006-12-16 05:50:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
NO doubt about it, McNamara was far the worse.
2006-12-16 05:51:34 · answer #8 · answered by Tony S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were both competent at their jobs. It is strictly the acts of the enemy, both on the field of war, and in our streets that gage's their effectiveness. Even Napoleon lost, and he was a military genius.
2006-12-16 08:23:09 · answer #9 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋