I get that. But imho it's a tiny bit distasteful contrasting them, isn't it?

The total number of Vietnamese who were killed was to the tune of 3 million. That's a "semi-Holocaust". No one would compare a software glitch to the Holocaust, right?

Ok, let me put the right hand brace on this one before it gets away. My point was simply that humans are going to make mistakes in the course of their jobs. People can be hurt by these mistakes. The difference is a matter of scale, and not intent.

People want to make McNamara out to be Evil with the big e. I think he probably wasn't. His actions later in life point to this. The idea is that if we accept that people make mistakes (sometimes HUGE ones) we can prevent a few of them in the future by learning from the past. If we'd really listened to McNamara its quite possible we might have avoided Iraq. If we just call him evil and forget about it, we miss the wisdom.

I entirely agree that one should try to learn from the past. I disagree on the "scale x intent" issue, though. The initiation of aggression is immoral, in my view. Attacking someone who did not attack you is wrong regardless of the death toll. In this case, I believe that intent does matter.

Sadly, McNamara would probably have been remembered as a great man had he left his office after JFK was killed. After all, McNamara played an important role in nuclear deterrence, during the Cuban missile crisis, etc. Too bad he was foolish enough to help start an unwinnable, useless war in Indochina.