Rating: 
Summary: An eye-opening study of gigantic egos
Review: Author H.R. McMaster masterfully examines historic events that led to the disastrous Vietnam war within the context of two gigantic egos. Early on President Lyndon Johnson is shown to have a long political career of stretching the truth...starting with his alleged heroic air combat role in World War II. Robert McNamara is a towering intellectual who is not afraid to manipulate statistics to support his Cold War position or that of the president. The pattern is contagious as the Joint Chiefs of Staff also maintain upbeat reports that do not properly reflect the reality in Vietnam. "Dereliction of Duty," is an eye-opening book that documents how powerful leaders in Washington D.C. who were bestowed with an enormous trust by the American people betrayed the young men and women who answered the nation's call in Vietnam. McMaster impressively reviews a painful period in American history and clearly shows how American foreign policy in Vietnam was manipulated for political and egotistical reasons. This book is clearly written and well researched. The conclusions are stunning...Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff [mislead] the American people. One of the few heroes in this book is Marine Corps Commandant David Shoup, who received a Medal of Honor for heroism on the Pacific island of Tarawa and who in November of 1963 strongly advised, "not, under any circumstances, should we get involved in land warfare in Southeast Asia." Bert Ruiz
Rating: 
Summary: Good for the un-informed.
Review: Fresh face adding a different perspective. A great book for those who were not privy to the politics of leadership during the War. But again, something we already knew. I grabbed the book as soon as it came off the press. While reading it, I felt a sense of deja-vu. I re-visited Ambrose, Karnow, McNamara, Westmoreland, Palmer, Halberstam, and a few others....was this a thesis? Impressive detailed research and handling of chronology, but again, to the informed this was old news. Wheeler's problems were well documented, Westmoreland was already known as the Dan Quayle of the era, and the gored chain of command both political and military was, again, well known to those who were interested...no secrets there. But I like this book -- the more that is written about the lunacy and bungling of Johnson and Westmoreland will eventually convince an apathetic population to look a little closer at the Yugoslavia's, Haiti's, and Granada's.
Rating: 
Summary: Washington Monthly Review by Peter Arnett (July/August )
Review: From the Washington Monthly, "McMaster brings a new generation's energy to the Vietnam debate...McMaster's scholarship and presentation is exemplary, spiced as it is by the righteous indignation of one who, through the discovery of the White House tapes, finds the smoking gun of perfidious behavior in the highest offices of the land. The author's arguments are coherent and convincing and important to the historical record."
Rating: 
Summary: The Duty To Tell The Truth
Review: Given all the current talk about how the current Iraq war is or is not turning into a new Vietnam I thought this book would be an interesting read. What I found was a book that described a presidency that was so concerned with their political standing that they were almost incapable of determining a course of action and following it. The author spent time reviewing all the documents and tapes he could get his hands on to try and figure out what really happened with the war and where did the US lose the war. What the reader is shown is that first off the main players in the war strategy, the Joint Chief's of staff verses the President and the Secretary of Defense all distrusted each other and were working toward different ends. LBJ continued to make personnel decisions regarding the leaders of the armed services to put men that he could control instead of the best men for the job. This created a major riff between the players that really need to be working as a close team during a war. The second item that really came to the forefront of the book was the down right lying that LBJ was doing too basically the whole country. He would tell Congress one story, Military staff another and the public a third story. None of which was too close to the truth. What makes this so interesting to me is that it was this continual shading of the truth that eventually caught up with LBJ and caused the war to become such a mess and his popularity to fall so low. IF he would have been above board and honest there is a good chance that the US would not have gotten so deep into the war and LBJ would have coasted into a second term. If ever there is a case study in how not to conduct a war, at least from the political side, this is it. I am sure that LBJ thought his activities would work based on his experience on all other political matters and his arm twisting way to move social legislation through Congress, but it failed with Vietnam. If I have one complaint about the book it is that the author left out of the text a certain zip that would make that book a great read. The book is full of details and the conclusions are very well laid out. It is just that the somehow the author chose some very bland ways of detailing items. It is not to say that the book is bad, not by a long shot. It is just that the book is not the type to keep you up all night reading it. Overall I enjoyed the book, even if it was a bit wooden. For any of you that are interested in trying to draw analogies with the current war and this war, this is a good book that will send you in the direction.
Rating:
Summary: The Duty To Tell The Truth
Review: Given all the current talk about how the current Iraq war is or is not turning into a new Vietnam I thought this book would be an interesting read. What I found was a book that described a presidency that was so concerned with their political standing that they were almost incapable of determining a course of action and following it. The author spent time reviewing all the documents and tapes he could get his hands on to try and figure out what really happened with the war and where did the US lose the war. What the reader is shown is that first off the main players in the war strategy, the Joint Chief's of staff verses the President and the Secretary of Defense all distrusted each other and were working toward different ends. LBJ continued to make personnel decisions regarding the leaders of the armed services to put men that he could control instead of the best men for the job. This created a major riff between the players that really need to be working as a close team during a war. The second item that really came to the forefront of the book was the down right lying that LBJ was doing too basically the whole country. He would tell Congress one story, Military staff another and the public a third story. None of which was too close to the truth. What makes this so interesting to me is that it was this continual shading of the truth that eventually caught up with LBJ and caused the war to become such a mess and his popularity to fall so low. IF he would have been above board and honest there is a good chance that the US would not have gotten so deep into the war and LBJ would have coasted into a second term. If ever there is a case study in how not to conduct a war, at least from the political side, this is it. I am sure that LBJ thought his activities would work based on his experience on all other political matters and his arm twisting way to move social legislation through Congress, but it failed with Vietnam. If I have one complaint about the book it is that the author left out of the text a certain zip that would make that book a great read. The book is full of details and the conclusions are very well laid out. It is just that the somehow the author chose some very bland ways of detailing items. It is not to say that the book is bad, not by a long shot. It is just that the book is not the type to keep you up all night reading it. Overall I enjoyed the book, even if it was a bit wooden. For any of you that are interested in trying to draw analogies with the current war and this war, this is a good book that will send you in the direction.
Rating:
Summary: A frightening view into the halls of power
Review: H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty is one of the most thought provoking - and somewhat frightening - pieces of literature to be published in America in some time. Although this book is about the issues involved with how the United States entered the Vietnam war, on a larger level it gives a sobering view into how the trust and confidence of the American people was shamelessly destroyed by elements of two US Administrations. Some of the policies begun by JFK were seamlessly continued in the LBJ presidency. The book shows how personal self-interest at multiple levels of government resulted in out right, well thought out deciet. McMaster gives the reader a rare opportunity to actually "be there" in the most secret of corridors where decisions were made that ultimately cost thousands of Americans their lives, and on a broader level, caused millions of Americans to lose faith in not only the military, but also in the US Government
Rating:
Summary: "And Now You Know. . .the Rest of the Story," or do we?
Review: H.R. McMasters' book, Dereliction of Duty is a critical look at the decision-makers during the war in Vietnam. His central thesis is that Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all worked to keep the truth of Americas' ever-deepening commitment in Vietnam from reaching the American people in order to protect Johnson's "Great Society" program. Using previously classified materials, he compares what was said in public with what was said behind closed doors, effectively condemning all concerned. The research here is excellent; however, after careful reading, several questions remain: Had LBJ done away with the "Great Society" altogether, and fully committed American forces to Vietnam, would we have won? Was Robert McNamara a criminal for implementing the President's wishes? Were the Joint Chiefs derelict in their duties for not going public with their criticisms of the war effort when they saw clearly we were headed for disaster? Dereliction of Duty provides insight into the behind-the-scenes deliberations during Vietnam. It should be purchased and read for that reason. However, McMaster ignores the fact America had a commitment to a free, independent South Vietnam dating back to the Truman Administration. To ignore that commitment, it was believed, would encourage Communist inspired, "wars of national liberation," worldwide. Failure to meet this threat could start the dominos falling, ending who knows where? There assumptions were construed as facts in every element of American society. All decisions were made with that in mind. Vietnam was no exception. McMaster has done a good job of showing that what the men in the arena did was wrong. He has made no attempt to show what should have been done differently that would have enabled America to extricate herself from Vietnam with her credibility as an ally intact. John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon all waited for that answer as well. We are all still waiting! Radio commentator Paul Harvey ends his program with his trademark comment, "And now you know the rest of the story." Only when that question is answered conclusively will we be able to say we truly know, "the rest of the story."ÿ
Rating:
Summary: Well documented, well researched, well written
Review: Having lived through the Viet Nam conflict (I missed
the draft by 4 months), many of the things
I found puzzling at the time are explained in
precise, well documented detail. This book should be required reading for any serious
student of American history, any military career
officer, and anyone who thinks it can't happen again.
Rating:
Summary: The Civilians' War
Review: History is more than the dry repetition of dates and statistics; it must show how the players understood their world. H.R. McMaster demonstrates in " Dereliction of Duty" the instincts of a detective coupled with a writing style that is clear and concise. He spares neither the military or their civilian masters in his analysis of the blundering and scheming that eventually culminated in the deaths of over a million people and the horrible scarring of millions more. This is not a story anyone who loves this country and its military will find easy to read but it is a book which demands careful study. Vietnam in many ways was a civilian's war. Led and directed in the US by amateurs, it inflicted pain and suffering on a civilian population who cared nothing for the high-minded concepts of the elites running the war. One can only grow increasingly angry with the intelligent fools who conducted experiments with people's lives, who thought to send messages with bombs, who so little understood warfare that they thought dedicated revolutionaries reacted like college professors or corporate executives. H. R. McMaster scores hit after hit on the bewildered American leaders; one wonders why he doesn't explore their unwillingness to learn from the successful British response to the Malayasian insurgency. The book will not be well received by those who like their Kennedys saintly and their Johnsons unsoiled. Both presidents wanted to control the military, to reduce its independence, and make it completely subservient to politics. Both presidents succeeded. They encouraged lying; they rewarded lap dogs. They ruined the Army for a generation and instilled in the American people a distrust of their Government. As my grandfather used to say when I had fouled up some task on the farm in a particularly bad manner, it took a real smart fellow to do that. In the case of Vietnam, it took America's "Best and Brightest."
Rating:
Summary: The Civilians' War
Review: History is more than the dry repetition of dates and statistics; it must show how the players understood their world. H.R. McMaster demonstrates in " Dereliction of Duty" the instincts of a detective coupled with a writing style that is clear and concise. He spares neither the military or their civilian masters in his analysis of the blundering and scheming that eventually culminated in the deaths of over a million people and the horrible scarring of millions more. This is not a story anyone who loves this country and its military will find easy to read but it is a book which demands careful study. Vietnam in many ways was a civilian's war. Led and directed in the US by amateurs, it inflicted pain and suffering on a civilian population who cared nothing for the high-minded concepts of the elites running the war. One can only grow increasingly angry with the intelligent fools who conducted experiments with people's lives, who thought to send messages with bombs, who so little understood warfare that they thought dedicated revolutionaries reacted like college professors or corporate executives. H. R. McMaster scores hit after hit on the bewildered American leaders; one wonders why he doesn't explore their unwillingness to learn from the successful British response to the Malayasian insurgency. The book will not be well received by those who like their Kennedys saintly and their Johnsons unsoiled. Both presidents wanted to control the military, to reduce its independence, and make it completely subservient to politics. Both presidents succeeded. They encouraged lying; they rewarded lap dogs. They ruined the Army for a generation and instilled in the American people a distrust of their Government. As my grandfather used to say when I had fouled up some task on the farm in a particularly bad manner, it took a real smart fellow to do that. In the case of Vietnam, it took America's "Best and Brightest."
| 
