Beyond Vietnam

[H2O Man]

{1} “Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance.” – Winston S. Churchill

There was a time when – for a variety of reasons that are so vast that they may never be fully understood – the Bush-Cheney administration concluded that the military invasion of Afghanistan was so easy, and going so well, that they could put it on a back burner, and focus on overthrowing Saddam Hussein and colonizing oil-rich Iraq.

A large factor was the administration's lack of appreciation for the history of Afghanistan. Surely, they were aware of previous empires' experiences in that strange land, fighting against a warrior culture that, by all appearances, mixed ancient tribal practices with modern day weapons of war. Warnings from serious critics that an invasion of Afghanistan could mirror the American experience in Vietnam were scoffed at. Donald Rumsfeld in particular believed that he could enforce adjustments in the Pentagon that would result in a relatively quick successful mission in Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld, who unlike President George W. Bush was both intelligent and experienced in foreign affairs, made one of the most often repeated errors of those in his position: he actually believed that he could, from his position of power, change the Pentagon. James Carroll's 2006 classic, “House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power” documents the cycles of officials attempting this feat, only to be sucked in and utterly destroyed. That Rumsfeld was a cantankerous, seemingly willing participant in this process – which resulted in many thousands of deaths and serious injuries, as well as instituting a policy of torture – has made him one of recent history's most despised villains.

There are many similarities between the United State's experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Obviously, there are also many significant differences. However, the parallels are so great that when Senator Barack Obama became President Obama, he was faced with a war in which, despite the Generals' claims, it would be impossible to “win.” For winning in the sense of a military victory can only come by either killing all “enemies,” or their unconditional surrender.

As both Jonathan Alter and Bob Woodward's recent books show, the President and a significant number of his advisers know that it is neither possible to kill all of the Taliban, or force their surrender. Indeed, the Taliban is convinced that they are on the road to victory, precisely what Churchill noted in the opening quote. While the US military is able to control sections of the country, the “enemy” is able to control other parts, much like in Vietnam.

More, the US is focusing attention on another country, which serves to some extent as a safe haven for some enemy combatants. And even our closest allies, including those running the country with our backing, hold the US in contempt. These leaders are corrupt; they view the situation through a cultural lense that does not put the US's interests first; and they recognize that they have much closer ethnic and cultural ties to those the United States views as enemies, than they do to us.

In order to cut our loses, the US will eventually, like in Vietnam, negotiate some type of political settlement than includes at very least some of the opposition. In order to try to strengthen our hand in an effort to reach “peace with honor,” the US always takes “another step.” More troops here, more violence there. The generals promise the next step will bring positive results; however, that step always leads to requiring just one more.

Each increase in US power results in the opposition either increasing their effort; sitting it out; or simply shifting the war to another region. The increases serve to define the war as a US effort, as opposed to an internal Afghanistan conflict. It gets us further entrenched, making any and all efforts to end the war effort more expensive financially, and in the sense of admitting defeat. Those in Washington who support the increased effort always distort the original mission, suggesting a range of other goals that have nothing to do with the original action.

Today, at a time when President Obama is hoping to reach the point where he can sharply reduce the US effort within a year, we witness the Pentagon speaking of the need to stay in Afghanistan at least another decade. Again, both Alter and Woodward's books describe how the generals have been disloyal to the President, and how at least Secretary Clinton has sided with the military. Also, the republicans in Congress, fully aware that there can be no victory in Afghanistan, are hoping that the admitted failure can be blamed on President Obama and the Democratic Party. The fact that more human beings – including innocent citizens of Afghanistan, as well as US soldiers – will suffer and die is of no concern to these republicans. Absolutely none.

In a very real sense, then, this war is not only doing immense damage to Afghanistan. It is doing another type of damage, which is less visible, to the United States of America.


{2} “The loud little handful – as usual – will shout for the war. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, then free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their hearts are still at one with the stoned speakers – as earlier – but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation – pulpit and all – will take up the war-cry and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth, and presently such mouths will cease to open.” – Mark Twain

Other than the Civil War, the citizens of this country have been fortunate – with the exceptions of Pearl Harbor and 9/11 – that the devastation of the wars we have been involved in has taken place in foreign lands. Yet there are other destructive, internal dynamics, which are so certain to happen that Mark Twain could accurately describe what would happen to Cindy Sheehan a century before she was born.

World War 2 was, in most people's opinion, a just war. Hence, the internal damage was generally limited to the Japanese internment camps – and, of course, to those who were severely injured or killed in the war. In the Korean War, the domestic hysteria was mirrored by a dynamic known as McCarthyism. The Vietnam War resulted in great conflict in America; the most significant malignancy upon our Constitutional democracy was the Huston Plan. Though largely forgotten in contemporary times, the Huston Pans was literally the beginning of what we know today as the Patriot Act.

It is not possible for the most powerful people in America to engage our military in an act of aggression elsewhere, without there being a corresponding assault upon freedom in this country. Washington DC may wave flags, politicians give rousing speeches about democracy on the move, and the corporate media can try to convince the public that a cowardly dog like George W. Bush is a great hero, but the reality is very different.

When our country is invested in wars such as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it is a drain on our resources. The most obvious example of this, of course, is the brave men and women in uniform. I may disagree strongly with the wars that Bush and Cheney started, and wish that young adults had the life-experience needed to understand things such as that Saddam posed absolutely no threat to our country (Bush and Cheney certainly did, though), but I still anguish over the fact that these young people are killing and dying for no good reason.

Such a war effort also is a drain on economic resources. It would obviously be much better, had those dead and wounded young people been equipped with the education and ability to improve the neighborhoods that they grew up in. It would be beneficial to invest in our schools, and thus prepare all of the students for a productive adulthood. It would be much better if we had industries that produced those things that enhanced human life, rather than those which ruthlessly destroy life. It makes much more sense to invest in our own infrastructure, than to pay huge fees for Haliburton-type industries to pretend they will rebuild what we have destroyed in foreign lands.

When our nation is in deep trouble, we should be grasping the Bill of Rights tightly. Instead, those very politicians who have sworn to protect the Constitution take part in vicious attacks on it. It is easy to convince one's self that we are not a police state, because of our image of police states from times long since passed. But with the current Patriot Act – the most obscene of names – it is impossible to deny that the structure exists today in America. Likewise, it is beyond totally impossible to claim that there isn't a “justice system” that allows crimes by Wall Street and politicians such as Dick Cheney, but incarcerates an unacceptably high number of Americans. Institutions of incarceration remain one of the most solid growth industries in America. Inmates in many facilities earn 30 cents a day for doing the same job that a factory worker did a decade ago.

President Johnson's dream was a series of programs called the “Great Society,” which were intended to improve the quality of life in this country, in part by helping the lower economic class. Those programs went down the drain, because of the cost of the war in Vietnam. It would be an error in thinking to believe that President Obama can turn our country around, so long as we are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and with a growing number of soldiers in various African nations. A machine that kills human beings, while incarcerating a growing number of others, and making still more poor, cannot possibly produce “freedom.” It cannot happen. It will not happen.

The greatest threat to the citizens of our country today – one that is connected to economics, but is actually greater – is the destruction of the earth's environment. If we were a healthy, sane society, this issue would not only be of great concern to everyone, but it would unite us in searching for answers. But because we are an unhealthy, psychologically disturbed country, environmental awareness creates divisions. By no coincidence, those divisions are much the same as those involved in issues of war and national security. And again by no coincidence, the same structures involved in the Patriot Act's spying upon, disrupting, and labeling anti-war groups as “the enemy,” are being used against environmental activists' groups.

Within the Democratic Party are the majority of politicians with access to power, who are in a position to take steps to bring about the end of the war in Afghanistan, and to reinvest in efforts at improving our schools, rebuilding our infrastructure, and protecting the environment. This should be something that interests everyone on the Democratic Underground. We may have differing opinions on what tactics that both politicians and grass roots activists/community organizers should use to further this agenda. Yet it is the type of thing that has the potential to bring the best out in this forum.

I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

Thanks,
H2O Man

[Jackpine Radical]

1. You've heard the ancient tales of the elephant graveyard.

Well, Afghanistan is where empires go to die.


I absolutely agree with your view of the situation.

We Can't afford these wars. Not in financial terms, not in human terms, not in terms of moral principle. If we would convert 1/10 of our war expenditures into peaceful foreign aid, and keep the remaining 9/10 to spend on things like green infrastructure, education, national health care, and generally rebuilding the social safety net, we would truly win the hearts and minds of large parts of the world while healing our own wounds at home.

[H2O Man]

5. When the "Founding Fathers"

spoke of the ability of the United States to be a world leader, it was in the sense of leading by example. Somewhere along the line, that concept was lost.

As a people, we have lost the knowledge of the "why" events happened, instead focusing on a shallow "how." A curious example involves the Boston Tea Party, which a group of right-wing citizens believe they are honoring today. In William Shirer's memoir on Gandhi, he explains how the Mahatma often quoted the BTP participants, who spoke about their support for the oppressed peoples of India. That is a concept that is obviously foreign to the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palins of the Tea Party world.

[struggle4progress]

2. The theory is wrong. The US hawks of the Bush era looked at

the prospects for oil and concluded that a US display of military power could teach a useful lesson to the petroleum nations in the Mddle East. They contemplated this lesson in grandiose terms: they wanted ongoing action in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. The gigantic US Embassy in Iraq was to serve as a control center for such action. Various interests got on board because of the profit-interest: military suppliers, construction groups, oil companies ... Other iideologues agreed to the scheme because, for example, they liked the thought of the authoritarian state that could be engineered in support of an ongoing war, with national security concerns used to squash dissent and drive media behind the White House, or because they liked the idea of bankrupting the government into order to undermine regulation or social programs

The groups that supported the scheme still exist, of course, and their agendas remain unchanged

[H2O Man]

4. Bush & Cheney

definitely were aiming to make Iraq a base for US power and influence in the Middle East. That included attempts to bully Syria and Iran, and to destabilize both countries.

However, they did not expected or intended to have a long war in Iraq. The approach that Rumsfeld advocated, and that was taken, was evidence of their gross overconfidence. The entire neoconservative approach then (and now, as you note) was not remotely reality-based. Their utter failure does insure that conflict resolution in the Middle East will be far more difficult in years to come.

[struggle4progress]

9. The pro-war consensus depended on buy-ins from various interest groups, and

one can look at their interests when attempting to discern what the intent was

The interests of the weapons manufacturers are clearly better served by long wars than by short wars
The interests of the oil companies are served by control of the oil facilities, without regard for the situation in the rest of the country or region
The interests of the "reconstruction" companies were served by directly destroying facilities, allowing widespread looting of other facilities, and then (considering the shoddy work done in "reconstruction") by allowing repeated destruction of partially "reconstructed" facilities

I agree with your point that pro-war propaganda often underestimates the time and cost (in blood and treasure) of war, but I am inclined in the case of the Iraq war to regard those underestimates simply as part of a media campaign to craft a pro-war consensus, rather than as evidence of actual thinking

The construction of the huge battle-hardened command-center style embassy in Iraq speaks eloquently of what was contemplated, as do the particular groups that the Bush regime reached out to when attempting to bolster support for the war -- most notably, the fringe-religious groups thrilled by the thought of a great Armageddon battle: the attempt to enlarge the war to Syria and Iran was ongoing and constant, for much of the Bush era, even while it was clear that the situation in Iraq was unsettled. This, I think, indicates a view of "endless war," rather than the more comfortable tale of some shortsighted officials who "made some mistakes" by not thinking things through clearly

[H2O Man]

11. One of the areas

where I often disagreed with Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., was about the way that the USA got involved in the post-Korean conflicts. He believed that it was generally the result of good intentions, but poor planning, errors in perception, and "fumbling." I think that accurately describes some of the aspects. But certainly, groups ranging from the military, the industries that make the weapons of war, and interests such as those of the neoconservatives -- which place another nation's interests well above those of America -- do so purposely, intent upon long, destructive wars and post-wat occupations.

I have long studied human nature. I think it is accurate to say that a large segment of war-mongers are without the qualities of "good" -- there is absolutely none of the compassion and respect for life (human and otherwise) within them. In psychological terms, they are sociopaths. In religious terms, they have traded their souls for the comforts of serving the Pentagon, which is defined in bibical terms as "the beast." They worship death.

[immoderate]

3. Vietnam is an illustrative event as well as a catastrophe.

Facing our (and my) participation in Vietnam was an illuminating event.

I can't say our problems started with Vietnam, because they led up to it, but it exposed the disfunctionality of our government to more of the population. Not that the war wasn't a disaster in itself, we're still paying for it.

I was a conservative college student. And I have to admit that the politics of my teen years was mostly a style judgment combined with a contrariness. It changed when I got past the superficialities, got deeper into the politics, and frankly, considered the jeopardy to my own ass. I was motivated.

Thanks much for your views on this H2O Man.

--imm

[H2O Man]

6. I thought the

2004 and 2008 elections involved the still unresolved issues from the Vietnam era. Those who supported Gore and Kerry had learned from the realities of that war. Those who voted for Bush and Cheney were invested in a fiction that made Rambo movies look like documentaries.

[EFerrari]

7. I saw this early today. David Orr talking about The Possiblities For Change.

His use of cartoons to make his point about the importance of man was especially good. :)

http://godblessthewholeworld.typepad.com/god-bless-the-whole-world/david-orr-possibilities-for-change.html

Professor and Chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Oberlin College, David Orr is the nation's premiere eco-educator, renowned for his pioneering work promoting environmental literacy in higher education by designing and leading very practical and effective programs. He is also a leading light in ecological design; an award-winning scholar; an inspiring teacher; one of the leading figures in the larger sustainability movement; and the author of the classics, The Nature of Design; Earth in Mind; and Ecological Literacy.

[bigtree]

8. I think the state of our military deployments and activity abroad reflect Americans' inability

. . . to trust themselves enough with making decisions about our military affairs. We have allowed our civilian oversight of the military to function as a mere PR branch and lobby for the generals, instead of the check on that power that I think the Constitution intended.

Part of that blame, of course lies with the President and our politicians. They have subjugated their constitutional role of oversight to the Pentagon and function as little more than bankers of our resources for whatever ambition the generals decide is important. Part of that is a consequence of the attacks on our nation. I can imagine that a line can be drawn between attitudes of the public toward the wisdom of the military leaders after Pearl Harbor, and the plane crashes on 9-11. Few in the public are willing to challenge the wisdom of the military in any significant way because of the risk of appearing 'weak' or the risk of some pull-back from the military being followed by another devastating attack.

In some ways, the hesitation to question the military's actions has lessened a great deal since the defining failure of the Iraq invasion and occupation has pointed up the limits of military action in advancing our diplomatic, or even our 'security' needs. I can see a similar trend toward more oversight and control and a shifting of resources back to domestic needs and concerns in the period after WW2 and the Korean War; drawing down after the end of the Cold War.

The political progression away from the heights of militarization following 9-11 has been almost non-existent, though. This election and this presidency was supposed to represent a pull-back from all of that, but, so far, it has been tepid and, in many ways, merely replaced by yet another set of jingoistic goals and ambitions which are typical of a paranoid nation rather than a confident and secure one. That may well be a legacy of the extremes of Bush and his deepening of the potential of violent resistance to his opportunistic military advance abroad.

There's still an uneasiness among the public which has cause most Americans to turn away from assuming their own responsibility from demanding accountability from the military and proportionality to the resources and activity used to carry out their contrived and prescribed missions. That uneasiness is certainly reflected in this President's decision to retain the Bush generals and civilian accomplices to provide some continuity to the wars the generals are waging; supposedly in our defense.

Moreover, the military has become such a behemoth that it will take someone who has independent knowledge of the military and its functions and operations to serve as their CiC. This President carried none of that experience into office and that inexperience is reflected in his reliance on the military to make most of the decisions without any significant challenge. The 'split-the-difference' approach President Obama employs is a weak substitute for actual civilian control. Yet, it is a reflection of the voters who elected him and their own disconnect from the inner workings of the military and their own inability to separate their fears from their instinct to reign it all in.

It will take a radical assertion by this civilian president to bring needed rationality to these deployments and to begin the task of decreasing the dominance of the military and our intelligence agencies in favor of more of a focus on our domestic priorities. It's not as if that boldness is out of the question for President Obama, it just doesn't appear to be in the cards. I've seen some shifting away from all of that, but it will take more than shuffling a general or two to make it happen.

I've predicted that there will be a renaissance in the Obama presidency where he'll recognize that his time in office is fleeting and the legacy that he dreams of associating with his heroes, Gandhi and King, is but a presidential order away. I still hold out hope for that.

[phasma ex machina]

10. +1 The powers-that-be conditioned many (most?) Americans to trust their supposed public

servants in DC to do the right thing when it comes to military adventures.

The notion of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is yet another example of the powers-that-be using conditioning to manipulate the masses. In the case of FDIC the subtext is "you can deposit your money in any bank without due diligence because someone else (ie the powers-that-be) will do your critical thinking for you."

[H2O Man]

12. Americans have been

numbed by social novocaine to an extent where they are largely incapable of feeling those aspects of their consciences that make people fully human.

[lunatica]

13. Good post and thoughtful comments. I always learn something in your OPs H2O

And I consider myself well versed in history and a rational thinking person. I hope I'm wrong but I fear this election pretty much threw the key to our solutions away. Just on the environmental aspect I think the next two years will turn our to be the worst government gridlock in our history and it will also be a nonstop two year Presidential campaign with all the deafening noise that generates. There isn't any breathing space between elections anymore where there can be some actual real work done.

Thank you for your highly lucid and enlightening writings.

[H2O Man]

14. Thank you

for an interesting response!

[KoKo]

15. Kick!