The Best and the Brightest
The Best and the Brightest is an account by journalist David Halberstam of the origins of the Vietnam War published by Random House. The focus of the book is on the foreign policy crafted by academics and intellectuals who were in John F. Kennedy's administration, and the consequences of those policies in Vietnam. The title referred to Kennedy's "whiz kids"—leaders of industry and academia brought into the Kennedy administration—whom Halberstam characterized as insisting on "brilliant policies that defied common sense" in Vietnam, often against the advice of career U.S. Department of State employees.
Summary
Halberstam's book offers details on how the decisions were made in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that led to the war, focusing on a period from 1960 to 1965 but also covering earlier and later years up to the publication year of the book.Many factors are examined in the book:
- The Democratic Party was still haunted by claims that it had "lost" China to the Communists, and it did not want to be said to have also lost Vietnam. Thus, the decision to intervene in Vietnam militarily was based on political expediency, the need to win a second term, and not on rationality.
- The McCarthy era had rid the government of experts in Vietnam and surrounding countries.
- Early studies called for close to one million U.S. troops to completely defeat the Viet Cong, but it would have been impossible to convince Congress or the U.S. public to deploy that many soldiers.
- Declarations of war and excessive shows of force, including bombing too close to China or too many U.S. troops, might have triggered the entry of Chinese ground forces into the war, as well as greater Soviet involvement, which might repair the growing Sino-Soviet rift.
- The American military and generals were not prepared for protracted guerrilla warfare.
- Some war games showed that a gradual escalation by the United States could be evenly matched by North Vietnam: Every year, 200,000 North Vietnamese came of draft age and could be sent down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to replace any losses against the U.S.: the U.S. would be "fighting the birthrate".
- Any show of force by the U.S. in the form of bombing or ground forces would signal the U.S. interest in defending South Vietnam and therefore cause the U.S. greater shame if they were to withdraw.
- President Johnson's belief that too much attention given to the war effort would jeopardize his Great Society domestic programs
- The effects of strategic bombing: Most people believed that North Vietnam prized its industrial base so much it would not risk its destruction by U.S. air power and would negotiate peace after experiencing limited bombing. Others saw that, even in World War II, strategic bombing united the victim population against the aggressor and did little to hinder industrial output.
- After placing a few thousand Americans in harm's way, it became politically easier to send hundreds of thousands over with the promise that, with enough numbers, they could protect themselves and that to abandon Vietnam now would mean the earlier investment in money and blood would be thrown away.
Origins of the title
The title may have come from a line by Percy Bysshe Shelley in his work "To Jane: The Invitation" :Shelley's line may have originated from English bishop and hymn writer Reginald Heber in his 1811 work, "Hymns. Epiphany":
A still earlier, and more pertinent, use of the phrase is in the letter of Junius published February 7, 1769, in the Public Advertiser. There Junius uses it mockingly and ironically in reference to King George III's ministers, whose capacities he had disparaged in his first letter the previous month. In response to Sir William Draper's letter defending one of Junius' targets and attacking their anonymous critics, Junius wrote:
To have supported your assertion, you should have proved that the present ministry are unquestionably the best and brightest characters of the kingdom; and that, if the affections of the colonies have been alienated, if Corsica has been shamefully abandoned, if commerce languishes, if public credit is threatened with a new debt, and your own Manilla ransom most dishonourably given up, it has all been owing to the malice of political writers, who will not suffer the best and brightest characters to take a single right step, for the honour or interest of the nation.
In the introduction to the 1992 edition, Halberstam states that he had used the title in an article for Harper's Magazine, and that Mary McCarthy criticized him in a book review for incorrectly referencing the line in the Shelley poem. Halberstam claims he had no knowledge of that earlier use of the term found in the Heber hymn. Halberstam also observed regarding the "best and the brightest" phrase, that "...hymn or no, it went into the language, although it is often misused, failing to carry the tone or irony that the original intended." In the book's introduction and a 2001 interview, Halberstam claims that the title came from a line in an article he had written about the Kennedy Administration.
Reception
The book was highly acclaimed when it was released. Victor Saul Navasky, writing in The New York Times, said it was Halberstam's "most important and impressive book" and praised the "compelling and persuasively presented thesis." Liaquat Ahamed called it a "great novel," praising Halberstam's "storyteller's talent for capturing people" and ability to write a "compelling narrative." Steve Mariotti called it his "favorite book."In 2011, Time named it as one of the 100 best English non-fiction books written since 1923.
Legacy
The New York Times's Marc Tracy reported that Donald Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon was reading the book in February 2017. Tracy drew a parallel between McNamara and Bannon's lack of experience in national security.Online availability
- of the condensed Newsweek 1973 edition..
- of the Fawcett Publications 1973 edition at Internet Archive..
- of the Penguin Books 1983 edition at Internet Archive..