Dueling books: Part I

People put their word up against others in every way, shape and form. This includes print. Sometimes it is in the form of dueling articles that appear months (or even years) apart in magazines and periodicals. Duels in print can also take place in the texts of whole books. In this two-part series, we will take a look at a couple examples of this.

This part concerns itself with two books about the Vietnam War. The first appeared in print in 1995. Entitled In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, its author was none other than the late Robert S. McNamara, former defense secretary under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

The first book in question ...

Image courtesy of Amazon

McNamara’s book was billed as honest and truth-telling. But lo and behold, barely a year later a biography of McNamara appeared in print entitled The Living and the Dead: Robert MacNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War.   Written by now-former Washington Post reporter Paul Hendrickson, his biography painted McNamara as a devious, insensitive liar in both his Vietnam memoir and other statements on the conflict. If Marty McFly had been Hendrickson’s target, no doubt he would have put his face in his hands and groaned his trademark phrase “This is heavy.” 

The second biography...

 Image courtesy of Amazon

Unfortunately, Hendrickson’s charges suffer in credibility when his book is put up against McNamara’s. His treatment of the former defense secretary’s “lies” is, at best, superficial. He offers no concrete examples to support this allegation, nor offers careful deconstruction of claims by McNamara versus the truth.  All he does is point the proverbial accusing finger at his biography’s subject and exclaim “liar!” That is hardly a convincing (or honorable) approach to Hendrickson's claim of telling the supposed "truth" about McNamara and Vietnam.      

Hendrickson also muddles the waters by weaving into his biography the stories of five people whose lives were affected by the Vietnam War. Meant to serve as examples of those who suffered thanks to Robert McNamara's actions involving the war, the stories themselves are interesting in their own right. But they also dilute the focus of The Living and the Dead. In fact, they make the book twist and turn so much that focus ceases to exist. Perhaps this is because Hendrickson’s book had its genesis as a series of Washington Post articles?     

Hendrickson himself had some contact with McNamara, including a few interviews. But things apparently turned sour between the two. This can be gleaned from Hendrickson's griping about McNamara not returning phone calls.   Such peevish personal interjections into the text only makes Hendrickson look bad in the long run. They also add immeasurably to his book's cold, aloof, even arrogant dismissal of McNamara as both human being and bureaucrat.  

Hendrickson himself had some contact with McNamara, including a few interviews. But things apparently turned sour between the two. This can be gleaned from Hendrickson's griping about McNamara not returning phone calls. Such peevish personal interjections into the text only makes Hendrickson look bad in the long run. They also add immeasurably to his book's cold, aloof, even arrogant dismissal of McNamara as both human being and bureaucrat.

It thus comes as no surprise that Hendrickson does not value McNamara’s word at all. He dismisses In Retrospect as not a brutally honest book, but one written by someone out to point fingers of blame at anyone but himself. He shoots himself in the foot by claiming so. McNamara’s Vietnam memoir is actually full of confessions.  One example is an admission that there was no second Vietnamese patrol boat attack on the U.S. Navy destroyers Maddox and its patrol mate Turner Joy in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 4, 1964.  

Another example is the part of his book in which he admits U.S. support for South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem was a mistake and names himself as one of three people responsible along with Kennedy and his Secretary of State Dean Rusk. What did Hendrickson expect McNamara to do, take the entire blame for Vietnam in his own book?    McNamara has responsibility for Vietnam, yes, but he was not alone.   

The verdict of this writer is that Hendrickson’s book falls flat on its face in its attempts to discredit McNamara in his own book on Vietnam and elsewhere. This is not to imply McNamara was a saint as opposed to the villain Hendrickson paints him as. Robert S. McNamara was a human being just like the rest of his with his own strengths and weaknesses. But he did accept his share of responsibility for Vietnam in the end no matter what lies he may (or may not) have told before.

Has anyone else here read these two books? If so, which author do you think told the truth?

Main article image created by Richard H. 

Book images courtesy Amazon