Who was the worst Secretary of Defense?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Close, but I'm saying McNamara.

[Purple State]

Ooh, I don't know. I have to go with Rumsfeld because I was alive for him and am more passionate about my hate for him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Rumsfeld, since he should have learned from the mistakes of McNamara.

[Psychic Octopus]

Rumsfeld, since he should have learned from the mistakes of McNamara.

Exactly.

[Nixon in '80]

Rumsfeld.

For all his flaws, McNamara was an able administrator at DoD, and his accomplishments in program consolidation and cost reduction deserve respect.

On the other hand, Rumsfeld's commitment to missile defense and an "agile military" were both abject failures.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Rumsfeld, since he should have learned from the mistakes of McNamara.

not only that, McNamara at least handled some of the non-Vietnam portions of his job fairly well. Rumsfeld, on the other hand, was a complete, abject failure.

[Lief 🗽]

Rumsfeld, of course. He was completely incompetent and dangerous.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama was sure a genius for appointing a Republican as Secretary of Defense like JFK did.

[dead0man]

Rummy

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Rumsfeld without a doubt. Like most of Bush's people, he was self-serving to a freakish degree.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Rumsfeld.

For all his flaws, McNamara was an able administrator at DoD, and his accomplishments in program consolidation and cost reduction deserve respect.

On the other hand, Rumsfeld's commitment to missile defense and an "agile military" were both abject failures.

Exactly.

[12th Doctor]

I am curious as to why no one has brought up any of the Carter/Clinton people who let the DoD atrophy.

That being said, though, Rumsfeld is clearly the worst.  Total incompetence.

McNamara doesn't deserve the slams he takes, and his whole "Mia Culpa (sp)" tour of recent years is just an attempt to "fix" his legacy.

First off, he played a big part in keeping us out of a nuclear exchange in 1962.  Secondly, we had every reason to be in Vietnam.  Thirdly, most of what went wrong there was not directly McNamara's fault, though he shares some of the blame, that much is true.

[12th Doctor]

The real tragedy of Iraq and Vietnam... and most history, in fact, is that people will learn the wrong lessons.  In both cases, it was how we conducted ourselves, not the action itself, that was at fault.  In both cases, huge mistakes were made after the initial phases, and a real strategy was not mapped out... and then each operation has a laundry list of specific mistakes.

[Wakie]

I am curious as to why no one has brought up any of the Carter/Clinton people who let the DoD atrophy.

You do know that Clinton was carrying out the plan put in place by the Sec of Defense of his predecessor (aka Dick Cheney).  Bush/Cheney began the plan of scaling back the military.

[12th Doctor]

I am curious as to why no one has brought up any of the Carter/Clinton people who let the DoD atrophy.

You do know that Clinton was carrying out the plan put in place by the Sec of Defense of his predecessor (aka Dick Cheney).  Bush/Cheney began the plan of scaling back the military.

Yes, I do know that.

[dead0man]

The real tragedy of Iraq and Vietnam... and most history, in fact, is that people will learn the wrong lessons.  In both cases, it was how we conducted ourselves, not the action itself, that was at fault.  In both cases, huge mistakes were made after the initial phases, and a real strategy was not mapped out... and then each operation has a laundry list of specific mistakes.

The basic mistake of both wars is that the military was not allowed to run them.  They were ran from the White House and the Senate floor.  They were ran by the protesters and the media.  The politician's job is to tell the military men who to fight, they should then go hands off and let the military decide how and when to do the fighting.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Rumsfeld by far. The man was borderline clinical in his delusions.
Not to mention the deadly mix of arrogance and stupidity (''stuff happens'').

After watching ''The Fog of War'' I must admit that my opinion for McNamara has improved a bit. It was pretty clear that Lyndon Johnson overruled many of his concerns about Vietnam.
 

[The Duke]

People forget Rumsfeld's first tour as SecDef in the 1970s, which was a great success.  People also forget the importance of Rumsfeld's base realignment, moving us away from a focus on Europe.

And Supersoulty is right about McNamara in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In my view, neither of these guys is the worst SecDef ever.  I'd say the worst SexDef ever was Les Aspin.

[Scam of God]

The real tragedy of Iraq and Vietnam... and most history, in fact, is that people will learn the wrong lessons.  In both cases, it was how we conducted ourselves, not the action itself, that was at fault.  In both cases, huge mistakes were made after the initial phases, and a real strategy was not mapped out... and then each operation has a laundry list of specific mistakes.

The basic mistake of both wars is that the military was not allowed to run them.  They were ran from the White House and the Senate floor.  They were ran by the protesters and the media.  The politician's job is to tell the military men who to fight, they should then go hands off and let the military decide how and when to do the fighting.

The basic mistake of Vietnam is that it was fought in the first place. America had no business in placing its military at the disposal of an insane clique of ex-Trotskyists with a vendetta against the Soviet Union.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Rothbard

Any 'libertarian' who would accept "Big Government for the duration..." is not a libertarian. But then again, you actually aren't.  And the New Left and the protesters during the era were entirely right in protesting the self-destructive and imperialistic policies of the American hegemon.

Keep sucking at the load of your neoconservative masters, though. Maybe one day they'll blow it and throw you a bone for your reward.

[dead0man]

The real tragedy of Iraq and Vietnam... and most history, in fact, is that people will learn the wrong lessons.  In both cases, it was how we conducted ourselves, not the action itself, that was at fault.  In both cases, huge mistakes were made after the initial phases, and a real strategy was not mapped out... and then each operation has a laundry list of specific mistakes.

The basic mistake of both wars is that the military was not allowed to run them.  They were ran from the White House and the Senate floor.  They were ran by the protesters and the media.  The politician's job is to tell the military men who to fight, they should then go hands off and let the military decide how and when to do the fighting.

The basic mistake of Vietnam is that it was fought in the first place. America had no business in placing its military at the disposal of an insane clique of ex-Trotskyists with a vendetta against the Soviet Union.

Where did I say going to Vietnam or Iraq was a good idea?  We made a mistake by going to Vietnam, we then compounded that mistake by letting hippies and Senators run the war.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

People forget Rumsfeld's first tour as SecDef in the 1970s, which was a great success.  People also forget the importance of Rumsfeld's base realignment, moving us away from a focus on Europe.

And Supersoulty is right about McNamara in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In my view, neither of these guys is the worst SecDef ever.  I'd say the worst SexDef ever was Les Aspin.

Exactly.  I don't think Aspin was the worst, but Rumsfeld and McNamara both had their moments during their tenures.

[jokerman]

Vietnam was much more the fault of the generals and military establishment than Iraq.  In the latter you at least had Genls. Keane and Zinni critical from the very beginning, but they were suppresed by Rumsfeld.

[pbrower2a]

In the 1970s, Rumsfeld was a fine Secretary of Defense, reforming the shabby US military that had been badly mauled in Vietnam. He was then young enough to have contemporaries who could see him as a peer.

Under Dubya he became the excessively-trusting elder figure whom others could use in their intrigues while feigning loyalty. When one considers what cutthroats the neo-cons are, and that he was typically twenty years or more older than the senior officers -- he was out of touch.

I don't know what it is about political figures born in the 1930s -- that they are too blindly trusting? They were well protected from the worst of the Great Depression and World War II, and they proved trustworthy subordinates in the late 1940s and later. When they did get considerable power, they were dealing with people similarly trusting -- and trustworthy. As their peers retired or died off, a few of them remained as potential leaders -- but they depended upon the trustworthiness of subordinates.