What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: What would you have done differently in Vietnam?

Nicholas Katzenbach: I would have done things differently and I urge the President to do things differently, but it’s interesting. In Vietnam, it was divided and then the Vietcong locally in South Vietnam and with the aid of the North Vietnamese wanted to unify Vietnam. We wanted to keep it divided. Now, there’s not a lot of room for negotiations between people who want to unify and people who want to divide. One won’t accept the solution of the other. Johnson did not think we were winning the war, in my view. In my view, he didn’t think that we are winning the war, but he was unwilling to cut and run. And if you look back on that time, almost no politician including Bobby said let’s cut and run. They all said let’s negotiate. Seem to me that the answer and the answer LBJ should have taken was to stop the bombing, sat down as we have eventually did in Paris, and negotiated. And what could you negotiate? I think what you could have negotiated was probably two or three years where there will be no attacks on South Vietnam. I think you had to persuade the North Vietnamese that it could be unified through local political pressure with the help of the North in two or three years, but it was very important to you that you withdraw and that you get out and that that unification occurred after you are now out. I think that’s the best you could have gotten.

Question: How are the two wars similar?

Nicholas Katzenbach: Well, we have the same problem in the sense. We were trying to [shore up] a government in South Vietnam that couldn’t be shored up, so it ended up doing a lot of the government’s job for them even why you were trying to train them to do the job, but it wasn’t a popular government. I think some of that same thing is true in Iraq and I don’t think the American people feel they are going to tolerate this expense to be in this country that can’t seem to be able to figure out how to govern itself. I think it’s possible that American withdrawal would or will cause chaos. I think if you do it on a timetable and a reasonably quick timetable, you may not be able to avert chaos but you may, because it’s telling them they are going to have chaos when you get out if they can’t consolidate that country into something viable. And I think that’s a very potent, in a sense, threat.

Question: How can we prevent war?

Nicholas Katzenbach: What is driving us to war is the leadership that drives us to war. It’s… one of the, to me, most hateful things you can do that is to think that people who are opposed to war are somehow [who really are] unpatriotic, somehow who really don’t love their country just as much as somebody who’s on the other side. I think also that, yes, we have a big problem with terrorism. It’s a real problem. No question about it. I think it can be dealt with. We may have other incidence. Other countries have had them and survived them. We may have other incidence, but one thing that I dread is an executive who plays upon fear and who uses patriotism to try to unite people when what he’s doing is really uniting some people and restraining others from, I think, with the democratic rights that they should have, and I think that’s tragic. In this country, leadership and the President is not the ability to decide things. It’s the ability to persuade people to the right decision.

 

Recorded on: 10/22/2008

 

Nicholas Katzenbach Compare...

Newsletter: Share: