Nicholas Katzenbach Compares Vietnam and Iraq
Nicholas Katzenbach taught Law at Yale University and the Universityof Chicago, and served in the Kennedy and Johnson administrationsbefore becoming senior vice president and general counsel for IBM. He was witness and participant to some of the most challenging events inUnited States history, including the Freedom Riders, the desegregationof the Universities of Mississippi and Alabama, the fear of communistinfiltration during the Cold War, the Bay of Pigs fiasco, theassassination of JFK, and the Vietnam War. His memoir is entitled"Some of it Was Fun: Working with RFK and LBJ."
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
Katzenbach talks about what he wishes he had done differently; why Iraq is like Vietnam; and why we still go to war.
Learn how to redesign your job for maximum reward.
- Broaching the question "What is my purpose?" is daunting – it's a grandiose idea, but research can make it a little more approachable if work is where you find your meaning. It turns out you can redesign your job to have maximum purpose.
- There are 3 ways people find meaning at work, what Aaron Hurst calls the three elevations of impact. About a third of the population finds meaning at an individual level, from seeing the direct impact of their work on other people. Another third of people find their purpose at an organizational level. And the last third of people find meaning at a social level.
- "What's interesting about these three elevations of impact is they enable us to find meaning in any job if we approach it the right way. And it shows how accessible purpose can be when we take responsibility for it in our work," says Hurst.
Erik Verlinde has been compared to Einstein for completely rethinking the nature of gravity.
- The Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde's hypothesis describes gravity as an "emergent" force not fundamental.
- The scientist thinks his ideas describe the universe better than existing models, without resorting to "dark matter".
- While some question his previous papers, Verlinde is reworking his ideas as a full-fledged theory.
TuSimple, an autonomous trucking company, has also engaged in test programs with the United States Postal Service and Amazon.
PAUL RATJE / Contributor
- This week, UPS announced that it's working with autonomous trucking startup TuSimple on a pilot project to deliver cargo in Arizona using self-driving trucks.
- UPS has also acquired a minority stake in TuSimple.
- TuSimple hopes its trucks will be fully autonomous — without a human driver — by late 2020, though regulatory questions remain.