Criticism and the executive temperament
All policies are flawed. All actions have downsides. As Bob Dylan once said: don’t create anything; it will be misinterpreted. It is in this light that we find much of the world of criticism to be flawed. We constantly find ourselves asking the critic: if you’re so smart, what would you do? At Harvard Business School, lessons are taught by the case method. Nearly always, the question is: what would you do? Enough of the flapdoodle about on-the-one-hand this and on-the-other-hand that: what would you do, smart guy?
The approach of August 6 always brings a spike in fatuous criticism. In response, we offer some comments by Austin Bay in RCP:
The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima (Aug. 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9) didn’t end World War II — at least not quite. The six days between Nagasaki and Japan’s surrender on Aug. 15 were six more hideous days of war for U.S. and allied forces. Combat — and Japanese atrocities — continued in China, the Philippines and Southeast Asia.
They were also six days of vicious political intrigue and turmoil in Tokyo, as the so-called “peace” and “war” factions in Japan’s high command struggled for control of the state.
In his classic essay “Thank God for the Atom Bomb,” Paul Fussell (World War II vet and National Book Award-winner) observes, “Allied (Pacific) casualties were running to over 7,000 per week.” After Nagasaki, “captured American fliers were executed (heads chopped off); the U.S. submarine Bonefish was sunk (all aboard drowned); the destroyer Callaghan went down … and the Destroyer Escort Underhill was lost.”…..
Truman, like fellow veterans Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, knew that for the front-line soldier, “better them than us” is life and death immediacy, not a matter of academic rumination — and Truman valued American lives over an enemy’s.
The shock effect of the atom super-weapon on all but the most hardened of Japan’s high command allowed Tokyo’s “peace” faction to finesse the militarist, suicidal zealots and surrender. To heck with conjecture. This Japanese decision, goaded by The Bomb, put an end to the mutual slaughter.
Okay, smart guy: what would you do?
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:04 am
“Terrorism” is what I have already heard 3-4 times on the cable news
channels. This dropping of the bombs proves that America is also a
state sponser of terror. No difference between us and them.
I will try to note the speakers for the next few days. It is getting a
bit ‘above and beyond’ to watch the entire “Hardball” “Inside Politics”,
Wolfie and Aaron, but a count would be interesting – well, how can
anything that we already know full well be “interesting”?
August 6th, 2005 at 4:16 am
Harry should have contacted FDR’s trusted friend Old Joe Stalin and agreed to split up (as they did Europe) Asia among themselves – just think, no Korean or Vietnamese wars!
August 11th, 2005 at 6:07 am
One bomb – not enough
Two bombs – too many
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 am
hit the top!
February 9th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Europe still had to be defeated with or without Stalin’s agreement. Conquering Asia would have taken many more lives than the course which was actually taken did. Korea and Vietnam were a drop in the bucket comparatively.
“Hit the top” is a seductive strategy, but in the case of Japan, we needed the leadership to get the country to stand down. The emperor needed to lead them to peace or we would have had to kill a million farmers and their families, at the expense of many GIs as well.
Often there really is one superior choice of action, it’s just that the risks and expected costs of serious actions make the decisions hard. Bad decisions are often the result of simple cowardice in the face of serious consequences. Truman was a principled man of reason with a backbone.