Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 16, 1995 TAG: 9504170070
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: B. DRUMMOND AYRES Jr. THE NEW YORK TIMES
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Robert S. McNamara's recently expressed regrets about U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War seem to be reopening old wounds and reviving a raw debate that was beginning to slip into history.
Reaction to the former defense secretary's revised views, published in his new book, ``In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam,'' has mostly been relentlessly negative, with little credence or charity accorded his comment that ``we were wrong, terribly wrong.''
The criticism has come from just about every quarter - combat veterans, former colleagues in government, hawks, doves, editorialists and, of course, the children of the 1960s who took to the streets and to the grassy grounds outside McNamara's Pentagon window to noisily, sometimes violently, protest ``McNamara's War.''
Here and there, a few kind words have been voiced for the former defense secretary. But not many words and not very often.
In particular, many veterans bitterly fault McNamara, publicly a hawks' hawk throughout his Pentagon days, for his most striking admission - that he knew as early as 1967 that involvement in the conflict was a catastrophic mistake but could not bring himself to say so until almost three decades later.
``It sure would have been helpful in May of 1967, when I volunteered for Vietnam, if he had said then that the war was unwinnable,'' said Max Cleland, who lost both legs in Vietnam and afterward served as head of Veterans Affairs.
``The title of his book should be `Sorry 'Bout That,''' Cleland, who is now Georgia's secretary of state, added, dredging up an old ``grunt'' phrase of cynical resignation and frustration.
``McNamara went to the World Bank,'' Cleland concluded, ``while a lot of other people went to their graves.''
Similar criticism of McNamara and his revisionist view came from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a former Navy pilot who was tortured by the North Vietnamese while spending seven years in a Hanoi cell.
``I think it's about 25 years too late to save those Americans who would be alive if he hadn't pursued a policy that was doomed to failure,'' McCain said.
McCain spoke in a telephone interview from Hanoi. He was there on a special mission to recover remains of dead Americans and to urge restoration of diplomatic relations.
``I can only assume,'' he said, ``that McNamara's doing it now because he's trying to assume some place in history. What that place would be, I don't know, unless it would be as one of the architects of a policy that doomed more than 40,000 American young people and caused a division in our country. That's McNamara's legacy.''
Martin Kaplan of Seattle, sent to Vietnam in 1969, is still angry about the war, and the McNamara book has only exacerbated that anger.
``I don't see McNamara's revelations doing any good for anyone,'' he said as he and several other veterans sat together, watching the former defense secretary discuss his book on the television show ``Prime Time Live'' Wednesday night in Seattle. ``There's a sense of betrayal. To him, it was just all an intellectual exercise. And he was called one of the best and brightest?''
Most of the other veterans sitting with Kaplan also expressed anger about McNamara's belated revelation about his true thoughts on the war. But then, with some wiping away tears as the former secretary spoke, himself in tears, the veterans offered an unusual perspective, one that while it was not forgiving, was nevertheless understanding.
``We're seeing another Vietnam veteran dealing with his grief and guilt,'' said Lee Raaen, a former Army draftee who was sent to Vietnam in 1970 and now is a Seattle lawyer. ``But I suppose I could say, from a historical standpoint, `It's about time.'''
One of the few government leaders from the Vietnam era to speak up in McNamara's defense was McGeorge Bundy, who was a national security adviser at the White House in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
``An excellent book, a very valuable one, a great contribution,'' he said.
But should it have been written sooner?
``That's a funny ex post facto judgment,'' Bundy replied. ``We are lucky to have the book now. It is understandable that it took this time to write the book. He was a very busy man 20 years ago.''
McNamara, now 78 and retired from a lengthy stint as president of the World Bank, contends as he makes the rounds of talk shows and book signings that his book is not a work of redemption. Already in its second printing after an initial run of 80,000 copies, it is meant, he says, to make people think and debate so that history does not repeat itself.
Stanley Karnow, who reported from Vietnam as a journalist and then went on to write one of the most definitive histories to date of the war, ``Vietnam: A History,'' finds McNamara's treatment of war protesters in print, as opposed to his treatment of protesters as Pentagon chief, ``a very, very interesting exercise.''
``He writes movingly of them, almost sympathetically at times,'' Karnow noted. ``He's obviously a very tormented guy. An old protester like Bill Clinton will probably take some solace from his kind words. All that said, and giving McNamara full credit for finally getting out his story and his mea culpa, the cold fact is that admission is not an excuse. That won't bring back somebody's lost son.''
by CNB