I'd have to agree with Megan about being skeptical at first with McMahon's book. Given the geographic and temporal scope of the book, I went with some low standards. I really appreciated the context in which McMahon placed US intervention. A few issues came to mind. First off, I'm not sure about anyone else, but I found McMahon's characterization of FDR somewhat idealistic, while his interpretation of Truman was a little jaded. He calls FDR's postwar anti-colonial policy w/W Europe quite optimistic, but when Truman unexpectedly becomes president, the "nuance, complexity and conditionality" of FDR's approach was lost. Truman was "unaware" (p.19) and "insecure" (27). While Truman was by no means, a bastion of omniscience, I think McMahon's unduly optimistic of how FDR would have handled things.
Another interesting comment McMahon made was about the US foreign advisors' sophistication (45). He gives US officials enough credit in understanding that the US couldn't blame Moscow or Beijing for the situations arisings in SE Asia. I remember seeing the documentary "Fog of War" with Robert McNamara and he said something that I think contradicts the "savvy" of US intelligence officials. Years after the Vietnam War, he visited the country and met with many of his former enemies. One thing they repeatedly exhorted him on was that, "You [McNamara] don't remember our history." Vietnam was violently opposed to direct Chinese Communist supremacy in their country. Therefore, despite Ho Chi Minh's Communist leanings, they would never have been "puppets" to China. By no means would this info have necessarily had any decisive change of action, but it does help to question the sophistication of US intelligence in SE Asia.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to agree with Dave, I even think that idealistic may be an understatement. McMahon here seems to be channeling ideas of American Exceptionalism. He characterizes FDR's position on the colonial world as guided by humanitarian principles and as unselfish. The problem is the administration's quick reversal following opposition from European colonial powers. McMahon attributes this to pragmatism, but ideals and ideology informed by humanitarian beliefs are not altered by pragmatism. What can be changed by the circumstances at the time are mere ideas about the situation. the government's interests changed and that is what changed the goals. So it seems to me that there never was an ideology about the colonial world and McMahon tried a little to hard to describe it as such.
ReplyDelete