If you’ve ever wondered why the United States spent a decade bleeding in the jungles of Southeast Asia without a clear plan for victory, you aren't alone. It’s a haunting question. For years, the popular narrative blamed the anti-war movement or "handcuffed" generals. Then came H.R. McMaster. Before he was a National Security Advisor or a three-star general, he was a major with a PhD and a massive bone to pick with his predecessors. His Dereliction of Duty book basically blew the roof off the Pentagon by suggesting that the Vietnam War wasn't just a political failure—it was a betrayal by the military’s highest-ranking officers.
It’s a brutal read. Honestly, if you’re looking for a patriotic celebration of American strategy, look elsewhere. This is a forensic autopsy of a disaster. McMaster argues that the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) knew the war was unwinnable under Lyndon B. Johnson’s constraints but chose to keep their mouths shut to keep their jobs. They didn't just fail; they were complicit.
The book's full title is Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. It focuses almost entirely on the years 1963 to 1965. Why? Because that’s when the concrete set. That’s when the lies were told. That’s when the trap was built.
The Arrogance of Robert McNamara and the "Whiz Kids"
To understand why the Dereliction of Duty book became a mandatory reading list staple for every military officer, you have to understand the villains of McMaster's narrative. Specifically, Robert McNamara. He was a corporate superstar from Ford who thought you could run a war like a car factory.
McNamara and his "Whiz Kids" believed in "graduated pressure." The idea was simple: if we just bomb them a little bit more, or send a few more guys, the North Vietnamese will eventually reach a breaking point and negotiate. It was all about data. Statistics. Body counts.
McMaster pulls no punches here. He shows how McNamara systematically marginalized the military's top brass. He didn't want their advice; he wanted their rubber stamp. And he got it.
Why the Joint Chiefs didn't push back
You’d think the guys with the stars on their shoulders would have stood up and said, "Sir, this is insane." They didn't. At least, not effectively. McMaster’s research—based on thousands of declassified documents and meeting notes—reveals a culture of "go along to get along."
💡 You might also like: JD Vance River Raised Controversy: What Really Happened in Ohio
- General Maxwell Taylor was more of a politician than a soldier.
- The Chiefs were more interested in protecting their specific branches (Army vs. Navy vs. Air Force) than in a unified national strategy.
- They feared that if they spoke the truth—that the war would require millions of men and decades of commitment—LBJ would just fire them and find someone more compliant.
It’s kinda depressing. You realize that the highest levels of government were essentially a middle-management nightmare where everyone was terrified of the CEO.
How the Dereliction of Duty Book Changed the Way We Think About War
When this book dropped in 1997, it sent shockwaves through the military. It wasn't just a history book. It was a warning. It basically told every young officer: "If your superiors are lying to the public and you stay silent, you are failing your country."
That’s a heavy burden.
McMaster isn't saying the military should disobey orders. He’s saying they have a "duty" to provide honest, unvarnished advice, even if the President doesn't want to hear it. This is the core of the Dereliction of Duty book. It’s about the integrity of the chain of command.
The LBJ Factor: Politics Over Strategy
Lyndon B. Johnson didn't want to be a "war president." He wanted to be the "Great Society" president. He wanted to fix civil rights and poverty. He saw Vietnam as a nuisance that could derail his domestic agenda.
McMaster illustrates how LBJ used deception to keep the war on the back burner. He didn't want to call up the reserves because that would require a national conversation and a vote on taxes. So, he just... slipped into war. One small escalation at a time.
📖 Related: Who's the Next Pope: Why Most Predictions Are Basically Guesswork
The JCS knew this was a recipe for a stalemate. They knew "graduated pressure" was a joke against a determined enemy like Ho Chi Minh. But they let it happen. They allowed LBJ to lie to Congress during the Gulf of Tonkin incident because they thought they could eventually win him over to their way of thinking.
They were wrong.
Myths and Misconceptions About McMaster's Work
A lot of people think this book is a defense of the military. It’s actually the opposite. It’s a scathing critique of the military.
Some readers come away thinking, "If only the generals had been allowed to fight the war their way, we would have won." McMaster doesn't actually say that. He says we never should have been there under those pretenses in the first place. The failure wasn't just how we fought; it was the fact that the leaders couldn't even agree on what they were trying to achieve.
The "Silent" Coup that never happened
There’s this idea in some circles that the military was "stabbed in the back" by the media. McMaster’s research puts a dent in that. He shows that the wounds were self-inflicted long before the cameras ever showed the horrors of the Tet Offensive.
The lies started in the Oval Office and the "Tank" at the Pentagon. By the time the public turned against the war, the foundation of the effort had already rotted away.
👉 See also: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
Why You Should Care in 2026
You might be thinking, "This is ancient history." It isn't. The themes in the Dereliction of Duty book are evergreen. Think about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think about how intelligence is handled today.
When a leader surrounds themselves with "yes men," disaster follows. When the military becomes a political tool rather than an independent source of strategic advice, people die for no reason.
McMaster’s work is a masterclass in bureaucratic dysfunction. It shows how smart people can make catastrophically stupid decisions when they prioritize their careers over their responsibilities.
Key Takeaways from the Research
- Truth is a prerequisite for strategy. If you start with a lie, your plan is doomed.
- Consensus is overrated. Sometimes the "team player" is the most dangerous person in the room.
- Communication is a weapon. LBJ and McNamara used it to isolate the Chiefs and manipulate the public.
Practical Insights for Modern Leaders
Whether you are in the military, a corporate boardroom, or a non-profit, the lessons here apply. If you see a plan that is fundamentally flawed, you have a "duty" to speak up. Silence is consent.
If you are a leader, don't punish dissent. The person telling you "this won't work" is often your most valuable asset. McNamara’s biggest mistake wasn't his math; it was his ego. He thought he could out-think the complexities of human nature and guerrilla warfare with a slide rule.
Next Steps for Your Reading List
If this topic fascinates you, don't stop here. The Dereliction of Duty book is just one side of the coin.
- Read The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam for a more journalistic look at the era.
- Check out The Tragedy of American Diplomacy by William Appleman Williams for a look at the broader Cold War context.
- Look into McMaster’s later work, Battlegrounds, to see how his views evolved after he actually served in the highest levels of government.
The best way to honor the history is to actually learn it. Don't just take a summary's word for it. Dive into the primary sources McMaster cites. See the memos for yourself. The tragedy of Vietnam wasn't inevitable; it was a series of choices made by men who knew better but did nothing.
Actionable Insights to Apply Today
- Audit your "Yes Men": In your own organization, identify who is willing to tell you "no." If that person doesn't exist, you are in a danger zone.
- Define Victory Early: Never commit resources to a project without a clear, written definition of what "winning" looks like. In Vietnam, "not losing" became the goal, which is a recipe for an endless drain on resources.
- Review the "Tank" Mentality: Be wary of branch or department parochialism. When people fight for their own budget instead of the mission, everyone loses.
- Demand Intellectual Honesty: If the data doesn't match the narrative, change the narrative, not the data. McNamara’s obsession with body counts led to a culture of reporting "successes" that didn't exist on the ground.
By studying the failures detailed in the Dereliction of Duty book, you aren't just learning about 1965. You are learning how to prevent the same patterns of silence and deception from ruining your own projects and leadership in the present day.