Recommended documentary: The Fog of War

Robert S. McNamara served as US Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1961 to 1968, administrations consumed by the Vietnam war. In The Fog of War he talks in hindsight of lessons that should be learned. Have we learned them?

There is no better time to revisit this American documentary than today, when our leaders seem to be under the impression that the US is so powerful that a little excursion here and a little killing there is all it takes to make America and the world safe again.

War has existed since time began, is likely to remain a part of human experience, and will always entail death and destruction. As such, war is possibly the most complex of human actions. There is no such thing in war as a “little excursion” to “get rid of some evil,” as President Donald Trump described the current US-Israel war on Iran.

Robert S. McNamara, Harvard-bred technocrat, original Whiz Kid from the Ford Motor Co., hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy as Secretary of Defense, talked about the complexity of war in the documentary The Fog of War – Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. He made a credible point: we are human, make mistakes, often fail to fully understand the situation we are in, but must nevertheless make decisions on “how much evil must we do to do good?” And he offered the hope that we acknowledge these shortcomings and learn how to do better after each mistake.

By way of background, The Fog of War is a 2003 interview with then 85-year-old Robert McNamara, accompanied by archival footage and recordings of conversations from the 1960s. The film won the 2004 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, and in 2019, it was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”. The film’s director was Errol Morris, and its original score was composed by American composer Philip Glass.

Director Morris divided the documentary into 11 sections representing his interpretation of what Robert McNamara was communicating in the interview. Morris labeled the sections “Lessons.”

The lessons of war from The Fog of War were the following:

Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy.

McNamara makes clear that empathy is not sympathy, but understanding what your enemy really needs and acting accordingly. He gave an example.

After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, President Kennedy chose diplomacy instead of escalation. He promised Nikita Khrushchev the US would not invade Cuba and would establish a special “hot line” to Moscow. Khrushchev withdrew the Soviet missiles from Cuba, a nuclear war was avoided, and Khrushchev happily took credit for keeping the US from invading Cuba.

Lesson #2: Rationality alone will not save us.

Although Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Fidel Castro were presumably rational individuals, they came very close to annihilating themselves and possibly the world during the Cuban missile crisis. The complexity of rationality and the possibility of nuclear conflagration did not end with the Cuban crisis.

Lesson #3: There’s something beyond one’s self.

We are individuals first, but we are also social beings with responsibilities to others and to society. McNamara gives the example of how he discussed with his wife and 3 children the turmoil that would come into their lives and his significant decrease in income if he accepted the job of Secretary of Defense. He says it was a mutual agreement all around to accept the job.

Lesson #4: Maximize efficiency.

McNamara applied his analytical skills to bombing operations, and replaced the B-17s with B-29s, which promised to destroy targets more efficiently.

Lesson #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in war.

This section is possibly the most riveting in the documentary. McNamara explains the magnitude of destruction caused by US aircraft dropping napalm incendiary bombs in Tokyo – a prelude to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Proportionality was not taken seriously, he says.

Lesson #6: Get the data.

Speaking like the Ford Whiz Kid he was, McNamara states that decisions must be made based on hard data.

Lesson #7: Belief and seeing are both often wrong.

“We see what we want to believe.” Thus, we “saw” North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack US ships, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the US entered a war that lasted nearly 20 years and caused 47,000 combat deaths.

Lesson #8: Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.

“if we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning.” The US is powerful but must not use that power unilaterally – simply because it can.

Lesson #9: In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.

McNamara saw killing for what it is – evil – but at times necessary. So, when avoidance is not viewed as possible, the next best option is minimizing.

Lesson #10: Never say never.

War is way too complex to feel smug about any judgment or prediction.

Lesson #11: You can’t change human nature.

In the fog of war things only become clear in hindsight.

Do these lessons still apply?

Yes, of course they do. But that is not to say anyone today is necessarily following those common sense guides, no more than these guides were followed in Robert McNamara’s time, or perhaps any time.

The complexity of war involves an infinite number of variables – those who benefit and those who suffer, those who decide how many is OK to let die and those who want to “make love not war,” those who want to believe causes are just and those who feed the narratives, those who refer to war as little excursions and those who return home in body bags.

The complexity of war extends not only to things readily seen, but also to things often unforeseen. Was the widespread destruction of Middle East assets following the February 28, 2026, US/Israel attack on Iran anticipated? Did American families foresee price increases at the grocery store due to Iranian disruption of petroleum supplies affecting production of fertilizers?

Here is a quote from 19th century French economist Frédéric Bastiat that should place doubt on statements like “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” (Post on X White House 03/12/26).

“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. ” (That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, July 1850)

Robert S. McNamara would agree with Frédéric Bastiat. In life, in war, in economics, it is better to acknowledge complexity and try to foresee consequences of actions, whether those actions are viewed as necessary or not.

A miracle needs to happen in the Holy Land

The miracle that needs to happen in the Middle East includes an epiphany by all peoples on all sides that living a forever war is not a wise choice. The miracle would include Arab acceptance of Israel, and Israeli acceptance of a self-governing State of Palestine.

For the last 75 years, the world has invested a great deal of time and effort attempting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether that was time well spent depends on whether one believes that a peaceful apportionment of land between Israelis and Palestinians was ever in anyone’s mind.

The savage Hamas attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 and Israel’s large-scale retaliation need to be viewed as the latest events of the continuous bloodshed between Arabs and Israelis since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 1900s. In spite of calls for ceasefire, lengthy peace negotiations, and thoughts and prayers, evidence keeps pointing to an Arab desire to see Israel disappear and an Israeli desire to empty Gaza and the West Bank of Palestinians.

As the Holy Land continues to be soaked in the blood of the guilty and the innocent – as anyone could have envisioned since the signing of the Balfour Declaration back in 1917 – Israelis and Arabs remain intractable. Annihilation of either side would in theory end the conflict.

However, this is not really a war between Israel and Hamas. It is a much larger fight between Western powers that want a “Western presence” in the Middle East represented by Israel, and Middle Eastern powers that side with Palestinian Arabs. So, chances are Hamas cannot really eliminate Israel without being neutralized by the West. And Israel cannot really eliminate Hamas without creating a new Arab tormentor, whether Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon, etc.

Further, today’s hyperactive communication channels like social media and massive news sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera) stir up emotions that can easily be translated into election votes, campaign donations, and even foreign assistance – or lack thereof. Thus, leaders walk on eggshells, say what is expedient, do what is necessary to remain in power, and solve nothing.

Examples of either duplicity or confusion abound:

* President Joe Biden urges a two-state solution, but the U.S. abides by its policy of vetoing any United Nations resolution in favor of granting statehood to Palestine.

* U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken demands that Israel avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, but he knows that just over 2 million people, including Hamas terrorists, are crammed in an area the size of Philadelphia.

* Benjamin Netanyahu curses Hamas, while the New York Times is busy exposing Netanyahu’s past agreements with Qatar to funnel money into Gaza, supposedly for humanitarian purposes, but seemingly to keep Hamas a healthy enemy of Fatah in the West Bank. The New York Times article of December 10 Buying Quiet suggests that Netanyahu’s divide and conquer policy tragically failed to understand Hamas.

* Hamas is willing to turn its militants and civilians into cannon fodder after each of its terrorist attacks on Israel. How long can Hamas continue its bloody suicidal war of attrition is anyone’s guess.

A miracle needs to happen.

It would be a blessing to the entire world if through an unexpected miracle Israelis and Arabs including Hamas would stop living in the past. Israel is not going anywhere. Israel is the “Western presence” in the Middle East demanded by the powers that be. Palestinians are not likely to go away either as Israelis so fervently hope; their Arab neighbors have enough problems even without an influx of displaced populations.

The miracle if it were to happen needs to be pretty huge, since belligerent minds are difficult to change. Such miracle would include,

* An epiphany by all peoples on all sides that living a forever war is not a wise choice. Arabs, as well as the international community, would accept Israel as the new Middle East neighbor that is not planning to move. Israel, as well as the international community, would accept a self-governing Palestinian state within the 1967 borders of the West Bank and Gaza.

* The new State of Palestine would be demilitarized and self-governing. Like in any other state, leaders and citizens of the new Palestine would need to determine what kind of governance they want. Responsibility for one’s destiny is the price of freedom.

* Israeli settlers in the West Bank, both within the pre-1967 borders and post-1967 occupied territories, would choose to either leave or remain as foreign residents in the new State of Palestine. No further settlement of Israelis would be allowed in the new Palestine.

* A result of such a miracle would be effort and money spent on economic development, education, and health instead of war materiel.

Miracles do happen. It’s time one happened again in the Holy Land.

Picture: Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City toward the end of the Ottoman Empire. From 972 Magazine article Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians, April 4, 2016. A census taken by the British in 1919 reports 647,261 people living in Palestine: 514,480 Muslims, 65,277 Jews, 62,451 Christians, 153 Samaritans, and 4,900 “Miscell.”

Afghanistan and the sunk-cost dilemma

The correct response to the sunk-cost dilemma is to realistically evaluate the situation. If most variables are not conducive to success, get out – mitigate as best you can, but get out.

Afghanistan is back in Taliban hands after 20 years of U.S. occupation. On August 16, 2021, President Joe Biden explained his decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan.

So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans — Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives — American lives — is it worth? How many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery?

I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past — the mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces. Joe Biden, August 16, 2021

U. S. costs since 2001 have been: 2,500 U.S. military deaths, 4,000 U.S. civilian contractors killed, an estimated 167,000 Afghan deaths, and $2 trillion spent.

The probability was low that Afghanistan’s central government installed after the U.S. 2001 invasion would survive without a strong U.S. presence.

When I hosted President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah at the White House in June and again when I spoke by phone to Ghani in July, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Afghanistan should prepare to fight their civil wars after the U.S. military departed, to clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the Afghan people. We talked extensively about the need for Afghan leaders to unite politically. They failed to do any of that. Joe Biden, August 16, 2021

A good interpreter interacting with the locals might let you in that the locals were confused about our presence there. A great interpreter would take the time to explain to you that outside of a few select people tied directly to the government, many locals were confused by even the mention of Afghanistan. They identified themselves as “Pashtuns” and if asked where they lived, believed they were in “Pashtunistan,” encompassing a region that is parts of Southern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Task & Purpose, August 17, 2021

Joe Biden’s predecessor, President Donald Trump, recognized the realities in Afghanistan, and on February 29, 2020, signed an agreement with Taliban leaders that set the date for U.S. troop withdrawal by May 1, 2021, and lay down a strategy for evacuating U.S. personnel and allies.

Although Biden shared Trump’s vision of troop withdrawal sooner rather than later, he delayed the withdrawal and the evacuation, allowing the Taliban to take control before allies were orderly evacuated. The ensuing chaos, reminiscent of the fall of Saigon in 1975, prompted criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.

There has also been criticism of perceived disregard for the fate under Taliban rule of women and girls. The Taliban’s interpretation of Islamic principles calls for the subservience of women. The Taliban is now in charge, and expecting the U.S. government to dictate how the Taliban should treat women appears arrogant. If women and girls of Afghanistan value their education, right to work outside the home, owning property, and having other individual freedoms enjoyed by men, they have a challenging road ahead.

Shibboleths like “You broke it, you own it,” feel more like someone’s admonition at Faberge than a reference to the devastation of wars. The U.S. went into Afghanistan to rid itself of Al-Qaeda. It appears it did that, for now. In the context of war, no further action is required.

In the context of diplomacy and intelligence, there is much that can be done, especially now that the Taliban wants to be seen as a gentler, kinder version of its former self.

Since capturing Kabul, the Taliban have sought to rebrand themselves as more moderate, promising former rivals amnesty, urging women to join their government, pledging stability at home and trying to persuade the international community to see beyond a bloody past defined by violence and repression. New York Times, August 21, 2021

The correct response to the sunk-cost dilemma is to realistically evaluate the situation, and if most variables are not conducive to success, get out – mitigate as best you can, but get out. President Joe Biden failed to conduct an orderly conclusion to U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, but at least he gave the orders to get out.