I've been meaning to stop reading David Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest for about the past two hundred pages, but like that damn pink rabbit I just keep going and going and going. My reason for reading it at all was an attempt to understand the occupation of Iraq in light of what was apparently not learned during the Vietnam War. In many ways the comparison is apples to oranges, but just as apples and oranges are both fruit, the occupation of Iraq and the war in Vietnam are both occasions of Americans fighting to bring democracy to "unenlightened" countries—whether they want it or not.
Similarities occurred in philosophies leading to each conflict. When Robert Kennedy decided to run for president, his announcement speech contained the following: "At stake is not simply the leadership of our party, and even our own country, it is our right to the moral leadership of this planet." (page 41) The words drew ire from many, sounding much like the view that initially led to our involvement in Vietnam. Now fifty years later, as we rush to topple the evil Saddam and bring democracy to the Middle East, are we not reaching for the same pipe dream? I know. Issues such as oil and 9-11 play significant roles now, but I can't help but see a similarity.
Another striking similarity, at least IMHO, is the discrepancy between official (military, governmental) reports about what is happening in Iraq/Vietnam and what the media report. In the 1960s and 1970s it turned out the media were right. Guess we'll have to wait for a final tally regarding Iraq.
The sections on Dean Rusk interested me, but only in a way that had very little to do with US involvement in Vietnam. I was in high school at the time and remembered that at one point Rusk had offered Kennedy his resignation. I asked my father, a DC lawyer, why Rusk had done so. Because, my father explained, Rusk's daughter had married a (then) Negro. Again I wanted more information. My father explained that when a member of a cabinet member's family does something "shameful," offering to resign is the right thing to do. Shameful? It bothered me then; it bothers me now. And it sure didn't take much to bring the memory to the surface. I have to admit, though, that a few pages later I formed a slightly different impression of Rusk. Seems that his ancestors had fought for the Confederacy. Then, even in the 1950s when asked to fill out clearance forms, he listed them as relatives who had attempted to overthrow the government. I guess his offer to resign came from the same "place."
Now I'll consider my adventures with The Best and the Brightest at an end. (page 435 out of 670) It's a well-researched and well-written book, but it has answered the question I had—Yes, in my opinion a close look at Vietnam should have kept us out of Iraq—but that's what I wanted to find. I will, however, keep the book and consider finishing it someday. But I probably never will.
Last edited by humphreysmar; 11/06/07 06:37 PM.
