Robert McNamara was the Secretary of Defense for the US from 1961–1968. He was in charge of managing the defense forces during the Vietnam War.
McNamara was also a genius and was the president of the Ford Motor Company before joining the government. He was very analytical and efficiency-driven which helped him in Ford. He way of thinking was if you had enough data, you could solve any problem. Although this mentality helped him in Ford, it proved detrimental during the war.
In the 1960s, the US was training an anti-communist military force compromised of Vietnamese. The Northern part of the country went pure communist and the Americans saw this as a threat so they started sending their own forces to fight.
McNamara used quantitative analysis in his strategies but the war between the US and North Vietnam continued. Using logic and reason, he deduced that if the US had more soldiers, weapons, bomb strikes and a larger military budget they would win. Also, if the soldiers produced higher kill counts, they would, in theory, weaken the Vietnam defense and likely win the war.
He went so far as to lower the requirements to be in the army so as to increase the number of troop counts. He’s reasoning was that if the soldiers had better gear, they would stand higher chances of winning, no matter their dexterity in combat. This was called Project 100,000.
There is a 1987 war drama film called ‘Full Metal jacket’ that shows how all his happened. Recommended watch.
He looked at the war as a mathematical model whereby ‘if this increases then this would decrease or increase’ and vice versa.
As we all know, the US lost this war.
But how did they lose when all the numbers were on their side?
Well first, the US soldiers were not trained well enough to handle war properly which resulted in many losses for the Americans.
Second, since the battles occurred in the cities, the citizens of Vietnam suffered casualties and hated the US. This made them ally with the Communist party, strengthening the communist cause.
And lastly, and most importantly, the US did not consider the qualitative aspects of the war like the will of the soldiers for them and for the Vietnamese, what the Vietnamese were feeling and how willing they were to make sacrifices.
The thing is, the Vietnamese thought of the US as colonists that would take their freedom away. If they did not win this war, they would be slaves. For them, winning this war meant freedom. They had to win it no matter what.
To me, I think that is what truly made the difference.
He is where the McNamara fallacy comes in.
The McNamara fallacy is involves making a decision based solely on quantitative analysis (statistics) and ignoring everything else.
Robert McNamara did not put in account the qualitative things in a war like morale and will of combatants. To him, if it could not be measured, then it was not important.
There is a metaphor of a cat and a mouse. In it, the cat chases the mouse and traps in it a corner. The rat, desperate for a way out, attacked the mouse in the eye and ran away.
The metaphor shows that the mouse is at its most dangerous when it is pinned to the wall with its life on the line.
The Vietnamese were like the mouse. They wanted, no, needed to win more than the Americans so they would take any course of action, no matter how risky or inefficient it was so as to win the war.
They wanted it more.
Reasoning, logic and calculation can blind you and make you lose the emotional drive and will needed to achieve your goals.
The truth is when the numbers are on your side, the joy and confidence you feel can turn into arrogance and make you not pay attention to the things that are important.
That is the McNamara fallacy.
So now this brings the question, when do you rely on quantitative analysis and when do you rely on quantitative analysis?
The way I see it, it is better to use quantitative analysis at the beginning of the problem, to be better informed. But once you are a path, you have to rely on qualitative analysis.
In other words, do you want it bad enough?
The thing with McNamara is that he’s whole way of thinking preventing him from seeing the very thing that made the US lose the war and that’s the problem.
He did not look at the soldiers, their feelings, what they were thinking and what motivated them. He only looked at what could be counted and ignored the rest.
Just because you have captured more pieces in a chess game does not mean you will win. Solely focusing on capturing pieces might get you checkmated.
The statistics should INFORM decision making and not determine it. The qualitative aspect, in my opinion, is required in any success.
Now, they are situations whereby you cannot achieve success because it is impossible but for the goals that are achievable, only following the numbers can prove futile.
The statistics can be misleading and might not give you a full picture of what is happening. There is a book called ‘How To Lie With Statistics’ that explains in detail how statistics can give you the wrong idea about an issue.
When the numbers are on your side, you should be most careful because if the will to succeed is not there, then you will likely lose.
Remember that statistics is to inform, and not to decide.