EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Forty Years After Vietnam, a Reckoning
Anthropologists speak of "foundational" violence, acts that establish a broad milieu of destruction and discord. Forty years ago, America was in the grip of the foundational violence of its war against Vietnam, which, while killing thousands in Southeast Asia, was causing massive divisions in the United States, divisions that were increasingly violent. There was no separating that distant war from the broad social, political, and racial discord that made 1968 America's annus terribilis. On this date in that year, the man most responsible made a valiant attempt both to turn away from violence and to reckon with his own role as its instigator.
In a televised address, President Lyndon B. Johnson surprised the world by announcing a major de-escalation of American hostilities, a cessation of almost all bombing of North Vietnam, coupled with a plea to Hanoi for negotiations aimed at a political settlement. Johnson effectively renounced the goal of military victory.Indeed, his speech marked the end of an escalation that, inside the Pentagon, included proposals for the use of nuclear weapons. What gave this startling announcement its gravity, however, was what followed.
"There is divisiveness among us all tonight. And holding the trust that is mine, as president of all the people, I cannot disregard the peril to the progress of the American people and the hope and the prospect of peace for all peoples . . .
"With our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes . . . Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president."
Johnson did not explicitly define the meaning of this renunciation of office, and at the time many misunderstood it. Only weeks before, he had come close to losing the New Hampshire primary to Eugene McCarthy, and now some polls showed him trailing Robert Kennedy.
But Johnson could have rallied in that contest, and, with diehard support of unions and party bosses, almost certainly won re-nomination. By taking himself out of politics, he was adding weight to his appeal for peace negotiations, but not even that explains what he did.
In leaving the presidency, Johnson was accepting the ethical consequences of the mistake he had made. He could not pretend that the many thousands of deaths in Vietnam, and the torn fabric of American society, were of no significance to him. The words he spoke that night were not nearly as eloquent as the simple action he took, and nothing else could have given such truthful expression to the burden he felt.
At last, it was possible to believe that the president of the United States had been paying attention to the loss of life, erosion of community, skepticism of the young, disappointment of the old, despair of the poor - all that had followed on his foundational choices.
Lyndon Johnson stood before us as an American Oedipus - seeing the truth of what he had done, and doing what to him was the political equivalent of self-blinding. The last words of his speech concerned honor and sacrifice - "the sacrifice that duty may require."
But for once, an American president understood that responsibilities of honor and sacrifice belonged more to him than to anyone.
Johnson's action should have been the climax of that American tragedy, but it was not. The devils were loose, and the spirit of violence was unchecked. Four days after the speech, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, opening an abyss into which, with much else, the meaning of Johnson's momentous deed fell like a stone.
The peace talks began, but they would be inconclusive. Divisiveness thrived. Robert Kennedy was murdered. Democrats turned on each other. When Richard Nixon was elected as the peace candidate, he immediately restored the goal of victory in Vietnam. The bombers flew as never before.
But today, when the attitude of America's leadership toward the foundational tragedy it has caused is summed up with Dick Cheney's "So?", it is important to remember, by contrast, another president's act of authentic moral reckoning. What a difference! And why shouldn't this nation's soul be sorrowful?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
85 Comments so far
Show AllDevil 1,
Okay, let's rewrite some history.
You tell me what you would have done differently and how you think it would have turned out. No vague statements like, "I would have won". Tell us how, how many, how long, how dead, and what we would have gained/lost by doing so. I particularly would like to know how you would set up/find a government that would survive our departure.
Convince me, because right now, I am pretty sure we could have fought that war another ten years, inflicted two million more casualties and lost one hundred thousand of our own and the North would have marched into Saigon within two years of our leaving.
Anyone can talk about winning. You think Westmoreland didn't want to win? The problem is he didn't know how and I don't think you do either. It is an intractable problem. We couldn't have done it anymore than the Soviet Union could keep all of Eastern Europe under its heel forever.
You're pretty long on BS and pretty short on any detail.
Over 4000 of our brave and patriotic men and women killed in Iraq and all Cheney can say is: "SO"!Why oh why is he not incarcerated for the most egregious war crimes is beyond me. When you send soldiers off to fight to protect your country, that is called war,but when you use these great, fellow, Americans for nefarious reasons;THAT IS CALLED MURDER!
I can no longer "support the troops".
CD is malfunctioning at the moment and will not allow me to edit the previous message. The intended version of this message follows:
I can no longer "support the troops". Sorry. In the early days of the war "the troops" were already in the military and had little choice but to follow orders. It is now in the late days of the war and most of "the troops" entered the military after the ILLEGAL war had begun. Those individuals had plenty of time to research the country's actions regarding Iraq. They chbose to enlist nevertheless. They chose freely to participate in an ILLEGAL WAR. Congress did not declare war. Bad precedents were set with Korea and Vietnam, especially, but also with many smaller "wars" like the invasion of Panama, but the constitution has never been amended to allow such acts as the "Authorization to use military force" whenever the president might feel like invading another country. The US invaded and destroyed Iraq, a country which had never attacked the United States. I reiterate. This is an ILLEGAL war. Therefore EVERY order associated with this war is an ILLEGAL order. "The troops" are failing to refuse to follow these illegal orders and are therefore WAR CRIMINALS. Every single one of them. Every one. I do NOT support "the troops". All of them are committing crimes, many of them as serial murderers. Hard language but every word is truth. I imagine you don't like hearing this. Indeed, it saddens me to write it. Wake up America. Wake up. Time is short. Incidentally, many of "the troops", especially those who were serial murderers in Iraq are committing suicide when they return home, having realized their complicity in the deaths of a million innocents. Too bad they didn't think ahead before the signed the dotted line at the recruiting office. Poor stupid bastards. We have failed them. We must educate them before they enlist.
This illegal war continues because we, the citizen-sovereigns of the US, have not done enough, have not done all that we can to stop it. We are to be the highest authority in this political system. The government exists to serve our ends; we do not exist to serve its ends. The state has been turned upside-down and WE have not yet set it right...
Many of those signing up for the military are so young that they are brainwashed in basic training. Without a draft too many Americans are not involved and really don't care.
The old cliche, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it," has come back to haunt us with a wicked and twisted vengeance. The Iraq fiasco was brought to us by chicken hawks who's mindset would not be out-of-place amongst the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age. Already, they have their media minions preparing spin strategies to place the blame for "who lost Iraq" a la the German military at the end of World War One with the "stab in the back" myth. Progressives should not despair though, as we have a very powerful weapon that we should not be afraid to use in the upcoming, no holds barred brawl about to erupt: THE TRUTH.
hobnob, you are absolutely correct.
DownriverDem, you are also correct. It is up to us to educate those 17 year olds before they even consider entering a recruiting office.
NateW, and we need to be courageous and spread that TRUTH, no matter how unpopular or politically incorrect.
-- kent shaw
Speaking of War and 1968, how much of the Corporate Media will make the point that MLK was assassinated by the US gov. for the same reason as Malcolm X: He was making connections between domestic inequality and foreign war and foreign poverty.
A new edition of An Act Of State is being published on 4/7/08 to go with the fortieth anniversary of the King Execution this friday.
http://www.amazon.com/Act-State-Execution-Martin-Updated/dp/1844672859
THIS IS A NEW AND UPDATED EDITION. Pepper's book began with some research and articles in the Memphis Appeal, the daily newspaper of Memphis.
Only the most well trained parrots will be able to dismiss it as conspiracy theory, (provided they never pick it up, which is the purpose of this baby n' bathwatter psy-op word!)
I have thought about Lyndon Johnson a million times, and somehow the ethical aspect of his refusal to run for a second full term escaped me.
This is an excellent article, and James Carroll deserves congratulations for his moral insight.
Most of the young men and women who enlisted in the military believed that they were going off to fight the perpetrators of 9/11 and those who sought to harm the US. The sidetrack to Iraq and subsequent disaster there has caught many off guard. This is not what they thought they were going to do. It sickens me to hear people say that "Freedom isn't free" or that "they are fighting for your right to free speech". The troops in Iraq are not fighting for our freedom! Those in Iraq are fighting for the oil companies, and countless cronie subcontractors, and for the building of bases in the Middle East which will only cause more anti-US resentment in the world. If our freedom were really at stake, then our leaders would send their own children to fight and would have us help pay for their efforts.
"Most of the young men and women who enlisted in the military believed that they were going off to fight the perpetrators of 9/11 and those who sought to harm the US."
Yes, the Administration made great play of the non-existent link between Al Qaida and Iraq. And the consequence is - thousands of young, ill-educated soldiers thought that the Iraqis were responsible for 9/11 and took their revenge on them at Abu Graib, Haditha, and many other places.
I will support the troops...not the policy.
When troops are midst of battles...they are not thinking about policy...they are thinking about the guy next to him....getting themselves and their buddy out alive..and back home.
Fact is, if the quota isn't met...they will draft people (except for the neocon and politicians kids)...
And for those who say it the people's fault for letting it happen and not doing enough...how many of you are flooding Washington with letters....attending rallies....making your voice known? I think is vastly easy to complain in a comment section....rather than hitting the streets with the people are open and willing to stand up in public and protest about the attrocities in Iraq, both American and Iraqi.
As to Johnson....he catered to the industrial military complex...he was corrupt before becoming President. All sorts of scandals in Texas involving Billy Saul Estes...guess you have to be a Texan to know the true nature of the man.
Vietnam was about money and resources, just like Iraq is...Johnson was one of the facilitators.
lwhunt330: "If our freedom were really at stake, then our leaders would send their own children to fight and would have us help pay for their efforts."
Well put. It has been said, in a recent academic study, that this war will cost $3 trillion before its all over, if it ever IS over. But this does not take into account that this is all BORROWED money which will be repaid by TAXPAYERS with INTEREST. It will be $6 trillion dollars minimum.
Unchained: "I will support the troops…not the policy."
Sounds good. Glad to hear you have stopped paying your income taxes.
-- Kent Shaw
The extravagant lifestyle of the middle and upper classes Americans lead to aggressive imperial strategies which then lead to wars which then necessitate tighter, undemocratic domestic terrorism and control of its own populace.
What we can hope for is an awakening of the American people which can take precedence over and prevent the occurences such as an economic or societal collapse at home or a series of suicidal foreign wars. The choice is within us and the solution is only ours to make.
very moving piece, james. i lived thru the sixties and there was always something about lbj that i liked. mcnamara, kissinger and and trick nixon seemed to me to be the most dishonorable of the vietnam power players.
Hey, devil1. Why are you in favor of attacking Iran, a country which has not attacked anyone for a thousand years or so? So what if Iran builds a bomb? Pakistan has 'em. Israel has 'em. Russia has 'em. India has 'em. So who cares if Iran builds a bomb? Do you think that Iran would actually attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons? Wouldn't that be a bit foolhardy? But, oh, what about our good buddies, the Israelis? What if Iran attacks them with nuclear weapons? Yeah, exactly. So what? Who cares?
About the 4000 dead. The ratio of wounded to dead is now 8 to 1. In Vietnam it was 2 to 1. That means you have to add 2 more dead per dead soldier to compare witht Vienam. Of the 6 extra wounded, 2 would be dead and 4 wounded. So the figure would have been 12,000 dead. Would that have made a difference?
"Would that have made a difference?"
Probably not. Except they might have to spin the propaganda at a faster rate.
devil 1....do us a favor and re-up and hopefully good riddance
The many comparisons between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War are quite valid, despite some differences.
Military, social, political, economic, international, media-related and other aspects often look like history repeating itself in very significant ways.
The 'Nam War ended in a way that probably will be similar to the way the 'Raq War ends.
What other similarities will emerge? Food for thought in the article ...
"Going in Circles: Vietnam, Iraq, Calls for Impeachment"
Truthout.org
16 January 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607D.shtml
Devil 1: Devil's advocate? Rogue nation? who? Cockroach of a President? Who?
Devil 1: I agree with you, we should not support the troops, they are derelict in their constitutional duty, and many are war criminals. I presume that is what you mean.
"The Troops" are ALL war criminals, obeying ILLEGAL ORDERS in an ILLEGAL WAR. Harsh, but factual.
Unchained: the surest way to get this country out of Iraq would be to institute a draft, and the neocons know this. As they see it we'd be back in the bad old 60's with students and ordinary citizens rallying in the streets. Besides, draftees thrown into battle don't really follow orders blindly. Dr. Death (Rumsfeld) was fully aware of this. No, easier to shove the country into a harsh depression, then you can have all the cannon fodder you want. Worked out well for Hitler.
Charlie Rangel tried to get this on the table and all his cohorts avoided him like the plague. There will be no draft. There will be large aerial and missile attacks (cruise) and possibly a few nukes thrown in there just to prove to the rest of the world that we are dangerously crazy.
well ,looks like the only re-upping devil1 will be doing is at his local VFW bar. If he is even eligable to be in the VFW.
Thanks, devil1, for demonstrating an inclination that I am sure is quite prevalent among the troops, a sorry lack of capacity for critical thinking. I know it must be hard for you to keep more than one thing in your head at a time but it is possible to support the troops and not the mission. Maybe you can figure it out if you try hard enough. Try not to give up too soon and start breaking things.
You seem like a good cowboy though, maybe you can understand this. If someone came to your ranch and tried to tell you how to run things, how would you react, even if they said they were well intentioned and wanted to help?
Please try to understand (I know that's a tall order, being so macho and stuff) that the ME (Middle East) is a large area with a complicated history involving many colonial interventions by the West (including US, see Operation Ajax for a little edu on our former "support" of democracy over there). So to put it mildly, they're a bit suspicious when we say we're going to give them some of our "freedoms."
So go ahead and re-up devil1 (an apt name choice, by the way), you'll make a great bullet sponge. Maybe you'll get to kill a bunch of innocent civilians. I'm sure you won't hesitate, it's war, you have all your justifications in place, right?
During Vietnam, when people saw on TV what was going on, they correctly found it repulsive. The press now, refuses to show any controversial war footage. As such, most Americans can live in denial about the horrors of our occupation.
Take a look at my short video (banned by YouTube). In it I show my triumphant war supporter, Senator Chambliss (R-GA) and his prized war.
http://nukular-waste.tripod.com/nukular-waste.htm
or watch the YouTube promo for the banned video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz7iliaJDiI
Please watch and pass it on.
yeah, jehosepha most ME leaders and movements now consider "American Support" the kiss of death. Got to keep it quiet, under the table, just give us the money and weapons and keep your stupid mouths shut.
Why all this ugly nay-saying and bad grammar and spelling? I was grateful for James Carroll's reminder that politicians can rise above their circumstances. LBJ was as dirty a politician as ever existed, but he had ideals and principles that, in the end, he adhered to. I see few of our current, small-time politicians recognizing higher principles. Please, don't let our discussion be less than that honestly dirty man achieved.
LBJ did the establishment a favor, and may have been advised as such. By taking the fall on his sword, because it was more a failure to achieve victory than any real sorrow on behalf of the US to ruin the future of yet another nations people. This cleared the way for another establishment imperial aggressor leader free of conscience to escalate the conflict, giving the air force bombing aficionados their head. The responsible thing for LBJ would have been to seek office with a overt (or covert if necessary) policy to end US involvement in the war. The establishment signaled they would not let him. His failure to do just that took the issue of peace off the table, and prolonged the war by another Presidential term, just like the Democrats took impeachment off the table. All wars from the US are related to political cycles and Presidential terms. The following assassinations of liberal figures enabled a shift to the right again.
America learned nothing from Vietnam. If it had, the catastrophe of Iraq would never have taken place. The United States is destroying itself, almost gleefully. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George Wanker Bush. No one learns anything. One vainglorious fool and criminal follows upon another. This is what it's like to live through the self-destruction of our own country. The Republicans and the Democrats need to be electorally burned to the ground. But the great mass of heedless and half-assed Americans will make another one, most likely the Republican, our next Fuhrer and this castastrophe will march on until it buries us all.
devil1,
Vietnam was lost because the US wanted to impose a system on the Vietnamese that they didn't want. Look at the declassified documents. The Geneva Accords of 1954 said there was to be an election in Vietnam by 1956 and everyone in US intelligence knew that the US' preferred candidates had no mass support and would lose in a landslide. The earliest attacks against Vietnam were in the SOUTH, because the largest and best organized resistance was there. In Iraq, the US and its corporations have stolen everything in sight and have forced and economic system on the Iraqis, which has largely caused this mess. Both times this country, because of imperial ambitions, tried to force its system on a country that didn't want it and both times it was met with a resistance that was willing to get slaughtered as long as it took to drive the US out. There is no moral defense of either war, your empty platitudes don't cut it. They're devoid of any honest historical facts and don't work logically.
Regarding staying in the Mid East to STOP rogue countries, which country is less of a rogue state than before the invasion? Iraq, is much more of rogue state, Afghanistan is bombed out and destroyed (the only thing working there, the National Solidarity Program, is seeing its funding cut by this administration because corporate theft isn't involved) and every other country is in a better place strategically than before.
Explain something for me: the US economy is caput. We have no industrial base, wages are declining, investment in the public has decreased, we have a trade and fiscal deficit, amongst other horrors. We also spend now, directly and indirectly, over a TRILLION on the socialist institution known as the military (a collection of paid killers on the public dole, every benefit you have is thanks to US taxpayers). Where is this money going to come from for your imperialist empire? How is the US going to maintain its military empire and pay NEEDED social services? Please enlighten us as to what new branch of economic you're going to develop to make this possible.
"We're supposed to kill people and break things."
You disgusting pig, we're supposed to have a functioning society, that invests in healthcare, education (which you clearly lack), our environment, etc. We aren't supposed to invade other countries, force our economic system on them, steal their resources and call it "democracy" or "freedom". Frankly, if the entire military think like you rip your damn flag off because you don't represent me or any country could call itself moral. Your mindset belongs in countries like Nazi Germany, and I don't care if that comes across as cliché.
Regarding Iran: in 2003 the Iranian government (then lead by a more moderate leader) offered an amazing deal (recognition of Israel being one of them), what did the Bush administration do? They attacked the person who delivered the information to them. There was and is a deal for countries who want to use uranium for civilian purposes. It says that an international organization should possess the uranium and countries like Iran would have to apply to use it, under strict rules that stipulate civilian only use, supervised by the same organization, possibly the IAEA. There's one stipulation though, Iran wants it so that the uranium can ONLY be use for civilian purposes, meaning countries like the US (including Iran themselves) wouldn't be able to use it for the reasons you'd like. Well, Iran is one of the only countries in the world willing to go along with the plan, the US isn't. It's funny too, India, Israel and Pakistan all are US allies and are all in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (the US itself violates the treaty more than anyone else). As a matter of fact, the US has stated that it's GOAL in regards to India is to essentially undercut the NPT, helping them build nuclear weapons and use uranium for military purposes. No one, especially someone as ignorant as you, says a damn thing about this. You have a list of platitudes and you'll be dammed if you learn a damn thing about what you're talking about.
Three to four years ago nearly one out of every four or five vehicles (my personal estimate)in my city had one of those yellow "support our troops" ribbons. They have completely disappeared, as far as I can tell, and I've been actively looking when I drive.
It made me wonder what has gone on in the minds of all those people who eventually removed the ribbons. What thoughts did they go through as they peeled them away, then threw them in the trash?"
As they washed off the outline the ribbon must have left on the vehicle did they ask themselves why? "Why did I put this here?", "Why am I washing it off?", "Does it mean I no longer support the troops?", "I wonder if anyone will notice?"
Were these acts of ribbon removal done quietly, at night, or in the garage, in the hopes that no one would notice?
kent shaw,
"The Troops" are ALL war criminals, obeying ILLEGAL ORDERS in an ILLEGAL WAR. Harsh, but factual."
You, I, and everyone else that hasn't stopped this war are the war criminals. The troops can land in the penintentiary for doing what we can. Last time I checked, the military answers to civilian control, which suits me just fine, not wanting to end up like some of the former South American republics with their coup-o-the-week governments. Quite obviously, you are ingnorant of the stop-loss orders as well.
One other thing you got completely wrong - a major cost factored in Stieglitz's study was the interest on the borrowed money, so that was factored into the 3 trillion.
Since you obviously never served and couldn't be bothered to acutually read the study, why don't you just shut the hell up?
James Carroll doesn't have to be instructed on the number of Vietnamese, and American, and "thousands" of other deaths in South East Asia. Nor is he one to "downplay" sin when he sees it. And I'd be very surprised if he were "afraid of being attacked", by "stupid rightwingers" or by anyone else. Read "An American Requiem", Houghton Mifflin (Mariner Books, 1996).
As to the Americans in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, probably Iran, who knows where else - some may be evil, as I believe many out of uniform, in this country, are. But I doubt that many are. In the Indo-China war protests, the right position, in my view, was "Stop the Bombing, Stop the War, Bring the Troops Home Now." I think it's the right position now. Don't imitate Cheney, bush and the others' evil: sitting safely at home, judging and damning others. Pray for them all to come home, to heal, and to stop killing others.
I was in the Army at the time of LBJ's speech and remember it well. I doubt he experienced any "moral reckoning." At the time of his resignation he was absolutely loathed by Democrats and Republicans alike, although for different reasons. The Democrats were doomed to defeat if he ran again.
If LBJ expressed any remorse over the war, I've never heard about it. His omnipotence was challenged by some uppity Commie gooks and he decided to teach them a lesson. Ergo the bogus attack on a US destroyer and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The American public finally realized that Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist, not a conqueror, and turned on LBJ. He never forgave us.
Are the current torturing fascists in the White House even capable of a moral reckoning? To ask the question is to answer it.
devill 1 -
Loving the USA doesn't make you a bad guy, but there's no virtue in blindly loving our country's mistakes or in pretending we never make dumb and sometimes disastrous mistakes.
Americans, afer all, aren't a perfected class of humans who never err. And to keep believing we are, is exactly the kind of unsmart hubris our country's founders were sick of dealing with, with colonial Britain, and never wanted us to become ourselves.
We 'lost' militarily in Vietnam because, short of destroying its people with nukes, there was no way that any amount of conventional firepower could defeat its determined insurgency of native people who - both North and South - damn well didn't want us there.
And we 'lost' politically in Vietnam, even before being driven-out militarily, because our government was so myopically obsessed with the Dominoe Theory (of 'Global Communism'), that we ignored the reasons for the French colonialist defeat at Dien Bien Phu, in 1954: colonial exploitation); and had no patience, ourselves, to understand Ho Chi Minh's nationalistic (and only nominally socialist)agenda. Ho loved the USA in many ways, and said so again and again in his early autobiography [he had lived in NYC for several years, and came to see that a form of democratic socialism/capitalism mix, unaligned with the USSR or the traditionally-hated Chinese, was his right to fight for, in a re-unified Vietnam which had been artificially divided by the presumptuous French.] And in the end, who the hell were we Americans to tell the Vietnamese otherwise?
Instead, the USA mindlessly used the South Vietnamese people and its colonial-puppet government as a proxy in an hystericalized global-thwarting strategy against the USSR and PRC; a strategy which took no account of what the Vietnamese themselves wanted. This is arguably what finally what drove Ho Chi Minh and his insurgents into the unqualified helping hands of the big bad Commie powers.
Since that war's chief architect, erstwhile DOD Secretary Robert S. McNamara, acknolwedged, much later in his own autobiography, the blindly stupid mistakes of US government policy toward Vietnam, who are YOU, devil 1, to implicitly counter-claim that our beloved USA never makes mistakes?
To thoughtful readers of history, there's now overwhelming evidence that our country has again made, and persists in making, the same kinds of mistakes in Iraq and the Middle east: shooting ourseves in the foot by creating a popular insurgency in a country we had and no business invading to begin with.
Unless, of course you think you own the world, and that your government's NEVER, EVER wrong, or is ever motivated by less than sterling agendas.
I think that very few Common Dreams commentators believe in 'peace at any price.' But it sounds like you believe in mindless obediance to government policy at any price.
Thank God, devil 1, that your kind of thinking didn't dominate the Constitution's framing at the founding of our Republic. For an older person, you still have a lot to learn.
jehosepha: "I know it must be hard for you to keep more than one thing in your head at a time but it is possible to support the troops and not the mission."
Not possible as long as you are a U.S. citizen still paying taxes. If that applies to you then you support the mission. You may not LIKE the fact that you support the mission, but its a fact that you do.
Recently I read an article where a soldier in Iraq was complaining that no one here is paying any attention to the war. He and his comrades feel forgotten. Unfortunately, that's exactly the way Bush and Co. intend for it to be. The very nature of imperial war is that it is never-ending. There's always a rebellion to be put down here, or a hostile regime to be overthrown there, and occupation forces everywhere. There's never really a "victory," per se, so there's never a victory parade. The public in the home country eventually tunes out news of the various minor clashes on the peripharies of the empire, unless there's a particularly devastating military setback.
Devil 1 reminds me a bit of my father, who served in Vietnam, and was extremely bitter about the outcome of that conflict. He blamed the hippies for undermining the war effort, and eventually blamed Robert McNamara for starting the war in the first place after Mac admitted in the 1990s that the U.S. believed it had only a one-in-three chance of victory even before they sent in the first troops. Biggest murderer in U.S. history, my father called him, for sending American soldiers to a pointless death. Vietnam, like Iraq, was not our war to win, no matter how the individual battles turned out. We have neither the military power, the moral authority or the public will to dictate the direction of other nations' and peoples' cultural or economic development. It's a shame that men like Devil 1 and my father, who have much to offer this nation, get screwed by politicians who can't resist the lure of the "foreign entanglements" that the Founding Fathers justifiably warned us about.
Mordechai Shiblikov has it correct. Go back up and re-read what he has written. Right to the core.
kendpotter: "You, I, and everyone else that hasn't stopped this war are the war criminals.
I agree wholeheartedly.
"Last time I checked, the military answers to civilian control, ..."
And the civilians have issued illegal orders which "the troops" have followed, thereby committing war crimes. Again, its harsh, and I wish it wasn't so, but it is FACT.
"Quite obviously, you are ingnorant of the stop-loss orders as well."
Untrue. I am well aware of the "back door draft" and we are failing our youth by not educating them prior to their entrance to a recruiting station. You really should read my first comment above before you "go off" on me.
One other thing you got completely wrong - a major cost factored in Stieglitz's study was the interest on the borrowed money, so that was factored into the 3 trillion.
Joseph Stiglitz, not Stieglitz. As far as the dollar cost, I stand corrected. As far as spelling, so do you! ;)
-- kent shaw
devil 1...your blithe attitude toward violence induced me to tell u to re-up and suffer the consequences. if you're gonna talk the talk, then go walk the walk.
your comment "we never lost 1 battle in vietnam but history portrays us as the loser, because we left there without taking it to its logical conclusion" is disturbing. what could u possibly mean by logical conclusion...nukes? 2 million vietnamese dead and 58000 american dead...not enuf for u? you've swallowed the kool-aid of your masters and they're gonna play u to your dying day as long as u let them.
I have long respected James Carroll and his insight; however, I'm inclined to agree with hedology (March 31st, 2008 4:56 p.m.) and Ostrogoth (March 31st, 2008 5:29 p.m.).
Mr. Carroll, I shall, however, give your thesis some serious thought.
Thank you, Grant (March 31st, 2008 5:03 p.m.) for responding to devil 1, and I, for one, pray that he doesn't re-up. We have, as a nation, apparently trained and sent enough of his kind out as "ambassadors" of democracy during these past sixty years.
Please see Mr. Fish's latest on our role in the world:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002744
Pax.
Devil 1: due to the completeness of your dehumanizing imprint, you are required to report within 10 days to the nearest grunge bar and listen to Patti Smith's Radio Baghdad non-stop until you cry "uncle".
GRANT: excellent post!
Vietnam 58,000 US dead many more wounded and disabled to this day.
I saw a show on PBS about Vets returning to Vietnam.. I have respect for whatever their personal journies compel them to do. However, I saw a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store and some US owned cell phone stores etc on the street behind the park where they gave the interviews. Oh and you can also take a Mekong Delta dinner cruise and buy your New Balance sneakers there real cheap.
Is war only used to open new markets???????
lwhunt330: "they are fighting for your right to free speech"
Americans who say US soliders are fighting in Iraq for that are using "free speech" as a pretext for an unnamed agenda, usually their own economic enrichment by the military industrial complex. In a culture of secrecy the destruction piles up from secrecy in all the various sectors, from trade secrets to the Penguin's secret energy meetings, to support of wealth redistribution hidden behind patriotism and other "virtues". When it comes to the civic and economic sectors, the citizens' true agendas should be public knowledge.