Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's LBJ Moment
Lyndon Johnson was once on the verge of becoming one of America's greatest presidents.
But with a single wrong turn into Vietnam, LBJ plunged himself and the nation into a ghastly tragedy that still makes us all weep and bleed.
It is NOW! up to us to make sure Barack Obama does not do the same.
Even the corporate media shows signs of understanding the parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. So many of us are alive today who remember March, 1965, and all the horror that followed, that there is simply no excuse for allowing this lethal mistake to be repeated.
LBJ inherited the momentum of the New Frontier, the murder of John Kennedy and a huge 1964 electoral mandate. He turned them into a string of civil rights and social welfare victories that still vastly enhance all our lives.
But LBJ also inherited from JFK the beginnings of the war in Vietnam. LBJ's choice was to escalate or pull out. Recent biographies indicate he had a strong premonition that the war was futile, and that it would do him in. A century from now, historians will still agonize over why he took the plunge anyway.
Likewise, Obama's most critical decision today does not have to do with health care or energy. There will be bills on both. How much they help or hurt us will be a matter for debate, and for future legislative and legal battles.
But there will be no grey area in Afghanistan. If Obama chains himself to some kind of "victory," he and what's left of our nation are doomed.
As in Vietnam, the goal would seem to be to install a regime run by the United States and to "pacify" the country into accepting it. The last foreigner to win like that in Afghanistan was Alexander the Great, about 2300 years ago. Since then the British and Soviets have been among the many to crash and burn in this "graveyard of great powers."
When LBJ escalated, the draft cards started burning and the protests began in earnest. But it was already too late. By 1968 more than 550,000 American troops were stuck in Southeast Asia and the war raged for yet another 7 years. Millions of Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans died. Tens of thousands were terminally traumatized. The toxic human, economic and ecological impacts still ravage both nations.
At some point, LBJ realized what he had done. His extant image is not of a victorious, canonized Lincoln or FDR, but of the exhausted shell of an on-his-way-out president, slumped over a table, listening to a tape from his son-in-law in Vietnam (the photo is by Jack Kightlinger, July 31, 1968).
Obama could all too easily share LBJ's fate. His mandate to make change is unmistakable and his potential for success is tangible.
But another trap has been set. He has inherited from George W. Bush the beginnings of a horrific quagmire. How he handles it will determine, more than any other decision, his future and that of a deeply wounded nation that still hasn't recovered from the Southeast Asian catastrophe.
LBJ apparently thought he could not "lose" Vietnam because right wingers would blame him for an ensuing "success of world communism."
Despite the billions spent in blood and treasure, the last Americans fled from a Saigon rooftop on April 30, 1975. No triumphant wave of global communist aggression ensued. By 1991, due largely to its fiasco in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union and the "world communist conspiracy" definitively disintegrated.
Today's right-wingers like Condolezza Rice shout that "losing Afghanistan" will mean more terror attacks. It's utter nonsense. But the warning, carried by the screaming Foxist media, is that unless he drags us all into Southwest Asia, Obama will be held personally responsible for all future mayhem.
Some White House advisors could well be saying the same thing, just as JFK's "Best and Brightest" warned LBJ not to pull out of Vietnam.
Today General Stanley McChrystal plays the role of William Westmoreland, the prime architect of Vietnam's military catastrophe. As did Westmoreland, McChrystal is telling the public an Afghan war can be won if only we "stay the course."
In the 1980s I debated Westmoreland on two college campuses. He told me, with a poker face, that we actually "won the war" by "buying time" for a set of non-communist Southeast Asian dictators (including Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, Indonesia's Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, all of whom brutalized their people and stuffed billions of dollars into their personal Swiss bank accounts).
If he prevails, General McChrystal may someday have similar things to say.
But we cannot let this happen. Afghanistan cannot be controlled any more than Vietnam could. Effectively fighting terror demands an intelligent, coordinated international effort, not a blundering unilateral plunge into yet another hopeless overseas quagmire.
It also requires a revived prosperity, a winning agenda for social justice, and a Bill of Rights that is honored and in tact.
All of this is in Obama's reach. But ONLY if he stays out of Aghanistan, and any other military quagmire that might beckon. That would include Iran, where the crisis has internationalized, and is of a very different sort.
Afghanistan, should Obama choose to go there, will be ours and ours alone, with no victory possible and no way out that does not resemble the one from Saigon.
If we had known enough to do it, we should have begun marching against the Vietnam War in 1961, when John Kennedy first committed 11,000 troops there. With a full-blown anti-war movement, perhaps we could have stopped LBJ from committing personal and national suicide in 1965.
Today we have no excuse. This administration is teetering on the edge of catastrophe. A military plunge into Afghanistan would doom Barack Obama and the rest of us to tragedy and impoverishment beyond even LBJ's worst nightmares.
The moment is now. Health care, yes! Energy and the climate, yes!
But first and foremost: STOP THIS WAR!!!


34 Comments so far
Show AllBang on! Healthcare is too hot right now - it needs to relegated to its rightful place in the triaging of tragedies. We're still slaughtering people, and setting ourselves up for a quagmire. End the war now!
And while we're at it, a good apology would be in order too. It's what people with real integrity are able to do with grace and dignity, and without diminishing themselves in the least. We would never expect it from Bush and Co. but Obama is capable, if only he has the will.
LBJ . . . had a strong premonition that (Vietnam) was futile, and that it would do him in. It is NOW! up to us to make sure Barack Obama does not do the same.
Call me a pessimist but I truly believe Obama has no such qualms about Afghanistan. He blows gas and hot air trying to make us all believe he's being cautious and realistic but this masks the yuppie warrior, the "closet throatsticker" (as Michael Herr called people like Obama years before in his great Vietnam War book, "Dispatches"). Obama The Liar is gung ho. You can expect this wheezing, rotting empire to puff out its chest and quickmarch all the way into the lethal swamp, no matter how much the American people might want to go in the other direction.
Oil and gas routes--that's why we're there. Wall Street and the Pentagon needs them and our President is simply following suit.
It puzzles me to keep reading these articles urging us to "keep Obama from .....(fill in the blank) escalating the war, promoting coal and nuclear power, tolerating torture, continuing civil liberties violations, selling out to the insurance companies over healthcare, etc. etc. etc. when he's already done all these things and said quite clearly that he continues to do them. Seems to me it is a little late to be shutting the barn door when the cows have all been missing since January.
nosurrender:
Exactly!
Ditto!
For those of us who were paying attention, the cows were missing since before January.
I am 61 years old. I lived through LBJ. I liked a lot of what LBJ did, including getting Medicare done. Of one thing I am certain. Barack Obama is no LBJ, nor will he ever be! Not only will he make the same hubris-driven mistakes of past Presidents regarding warfare, but he will deliver a stillborn version of healthcare before the year is out. For all his tragic mistakes, LBJ looks great compared to Obama!
Harvey Wasserman -- Don't you see it's all one and the same? The MIC, the health insurance complex, the banking and securities complex? It's time to realize that saying (in regard to the Obama administration) "The moment is now", "change America can believe in", "restore the Bill of Rights", etc. is counterproductive. It gives false and sickly hope. You're a good man whom I've admired for years, but we all need to get past that last barrier into a far more realistic and serious mode.
Obama is not an FDR and he's not an LBJ (whatever their virtues and faults). It should be clear by now that he is neoliberal, market kind of guy who is rapidly taking us where the logic of neoliberalism leads...and it's not a pretty place. Imperialism and use of the military is part of its world view as is raising the military to an untouchable status.
That said, of course it would be a good thing to stop the war, to make the price higher than any establishment pragmatists would be willing to pay. But if we are to do that, we should do it from an honest perspective in full realization of our position and taking into consideration what is the same and what has changed since the late '60's.
On health care, Obama and LBJ are completely apart. LBJ provided for Medicare while Obama has no problems further sabotaging it with mandatory-care and allowing Medicare to undergo partial defunding to pay for mandatory-care for Big Insurance and Pharma to keep sludging us if our tax dollars aren't enough because lots of us might not be able to afford to pay when unemployed or underemployed.
On the wars and occupations, it's just ongoing and he simply chose to pick up from Dubya. Unless "war on terror" favors Obama in 2012, I don't see Obama winning by pulling an LBJ in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whether he wins in 2012 or the Republican wins, it will remain a lose-lose for us.
Sorry, but it's already President Bloopity Doo and there's no sign of that stopping!
Wasserman forgets to tell us what happened to General Westmoreland when he asked LBJ for hundreds of thousands more troops. At that point, there were over 500,000 troops in Viet Nam. LBJ would later say that he would have given him the additional troops, but when that request was leaked, Westmoreland was given the boot back to the US. That may happen to McCrystal. Besides, as the ultimate cynic, I believe we will need those troops to do the bidding of the Israelis as they crank up their propaganda machine for an attack against Iran.
African saying: " A stream losses it's name after it flows to the sea."
Streams and consciousness with Ginsberg roaring over the pebbles of time...flowing to the sea...nameless.
(the ending of a Ginsberg stream as follows)
" I'm with you in Rockland
where you accuse your doctors of insanity and
plot the Hebrew socialist revolution against the
fascist national Golgotha
I'm with you in Rockland
where you will split the heavens of Long Island
and resurrect your living human Jesus from the
superhuman tomb
I'm with you in Rockland
where there are twenty-five-thousand mad com-
rades all together singing the final stanzas of the Internationale
I'm with you in Rockland
where we hug and kiss the United States under
our bedsheets the United States that coughs all
night and won't let us sleep
I'm with you in Rockland
where we wake up electrified out of the coma
by our own souls' airplanes roaring over the
roof they've come to drop angelic bombs the
hospital illuminates itself imaginary walls col-
lapse O skinny legions run outside O starry
spangled shock of mercy the eternal war is
here O victory forget your underwear we're
free
I'm with you in Rockland
in my dreams you walk dripping from a sea-
journey on the highway across America in tears
to the door of my cottage in the Western night "
The People vs Mammon
"Neck deep in the Big Muddy..."
-30-
harvey wasserman:
thanks for the excellent comments. very interesting and challenging.
let's just say that obama has a moment to define himself here. lbj was no great shakes when he took office. would we have guessed in 1960 that he'd do medicare & civil rights?
whatever obama's core politics, there's no doubting he has the intellectual capability to do great things. he has also shown the inclination to be totally corporate and counter-productive.
now is the time to see which way things will go---and we MUST push. i don't see this nation surviving another horrific war.....
More troops will just lead to more dead and wounded on both sides with the resultant cries for vengeance. (And any good Jew, Christian, or Muslim should be able to tell you whose vengeance is.)
When I was a kid and got into a fight with one of my siblings my old man would never accept the whine of "he/she started it." I was told "Be the wisest - finish it."
I can't see any current world "leader" being the wisest.
It's down to us to stop the hate.
When will they ever learn.
When will they ever learn?
Would that 0bama were to rise to an "LBJ moment."
LBJ instituted great domestic progress but mired the US further in a fraudulent imperialist occupation.
0 is overseeing 2 imperialist occupations and significant aggression outside of that.
But I don't see the up side.
Obama is no LBJ, and the two should not be used in the same sentance. Obama is an elitist trained capatalist and idealogue, and not one whit more.
I have to disagree on this one with this writer I like on other matters. Lyndon B Johnson didn't inherit the Vietnam War from John F Kennedy. On that the record is clear Johnson reversed Jack Kennedy's decision not only to get the hell out of Vietnam, but to make concessions to Fidel Castro, and to get better relations with Moscow, and that;s all backed up with chapter and verse in James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable.": Thus far none of the hard core establishment progressives have taken it on, as they can't, as they would be going against facts pure and damn simple. I have written on this subject without even considering if JFK was assassinated as part of a conspiracy or not, and demolished the whole idea that his foreign policy was at all like LBJ's. Who the hell OK'd the overthrow of the independent Indonesian government in 1965 over the dead bodies of a million Indonesians? Better yet, who in 1967 backed the overthrow of the democratic government in Greece, the birthplace of democracy to make sure some left wing government didn't get in there and put the right wing military thugs and their tyranny in power over those poor people? Who in 1964 pushed like crazy to get a confrontation in Panama over Panamanian students protests against US imperialism, calling these students and their backers Communists and leading to rioting provoked by those in the Canal Zone. Who got legislation passed in confrontation with Castro that anybody coming to the USA from Cuba would automatically become a US citizen upon setting foot on US soil? Who expanded the US embargo against Cuba to include medical and other humanitarian supplies? LBJ damn did. He was never even much of a liberal, let alone a progressive, and that's the reason a stalwart progressive such Ralph Yarborough from Texas who knew him best backed JFK at the 1960 Democratic Convention. Who fired the hell out of Allen damn Dulles and Richard Bissell, his deputy for Cuba and the Caribbean? Right you are, JFK, and he did after that damn Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Who referred dismissively on tapes that have since come out to the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) as those with "all that fruit salad on their chest.' Jack Kennedy did. That "terrible sneaky Irishman" obviously was "just trying to fool all progressives" into thinking he was a progressive. Yeah, it's amazing he fooled such greats who have no reputation for being taken in by anybody's ability to hypnotize the mass of people-- of yeah, such "naive types" as Wayne Morse, Mike Mansfield, John Kenneth Galbraith, Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk and peacenik, and that real naive one, Norman Cousins, who even said after JFK's 1963 American University speech that Kennedy was calling off the Cold War. Even Bill Fulbright was taken in. See if you can find any times when he attacked Kennedy for being a war monger. Pleased do. You won't. Because he didn't.
Yes, while we're at it, let's see what even Fidel Castro's reaction was to the news of JFK's assassination was. He was very upset. Why wasn't LBJ going to just continue JFK's "terrible
war mongering" policy? How about Nikita Khrushchev's reaction? It was also very negative. But obviously he was wrong or so say some of our establishment progressives, who on then are beginning to sound like a bunch of Alexander Cockburn's pwogs. They tend to be upscale and academic types who have to have everything they will deal with fit into some neat academic model whether computer or otherwise. They can't think outside their middle class boxes. This excludes such academics as Michael Parenti, with his working class background and coming from the streets of New York. This 'good old boy" and progressive with his working class roots, like Parenti doesn't give a damn about some damn academic model which has too damn US exceptionalist garbage in it, even for the folks who consciously and verbally acknowledge this problem, but inadvertently perpetuate it, as they subconsciously don't want to believe what they know is true or afraid of same as that might lead to false charges of them now being "terrorist sympathizers" or being "anti American."
AD
Lyndon B Johnson is way overrated just like Truman. Both followed Ivy League greats whose shoes they coulldn't come close to filling. That's the real deal. It didn't matter a damn that Franklin D Roosevelt died of natural causes rather than an assassination, his foreign and even some domestic polices were more progressive than Truman's. The same was true of John F Kennedy being more liberal or progressive at the time, and some in high school of the few who happened to be liberal or progressive where I went same school said at the time LBJ wouldn't be as liberal as JFK. They were right But I wanted to believe at the time that Johnson would be just as liberal.
Johnson got some liberal or progressive legislation through rather easily as he walked into the White House over Kennedy's dead body, and got a ton of sympathy. The USA at the time wanted the legislation which JFK had pushed for whether civil rights or Medicare passed and passed pronto, and just that happened.
LBJ got his landslide victory in 1964 due to this same sympathy of being JFK's vice president. Had he not been on the ticket with Kennedy in 1960, he would never have made it to the White House at all.
Oh, and it was JFK, not LBJ who side with Adlai Stevenson on the U2 incident in 1960. Conversely LBJ sided with the GOP administration. Both Stevenson and Kennedy attacked the GOP administration at the time for not going ahead with talks with Moscow to work out differences through negotiations. Now Guess which side Tricky Dick took. No, he was right in there talking about how Kennedy and Stevenson running America down, and I remember that very well. LBJ was backing the "America is always right" crowd and doing everything but coming out waving the Stars and Stripes.
I guess that "just proves" not only Kenndy, but Stevenson were both "war mongers." Yeah, "That must really be it." We folks of working class background "just don't see the big picture" like those from upscale and entirely too academic backgrounds who sub consciously do believe that damn BS about "The USA always fights for freedom." Yeah, we're probably just "no good damn Communists."
AD
Thanks for your posts. i still haven't read Douglas' book, i'll do that.
Americans Do NOT LEARN.
passivity, tolerance for militarism so long as "the price is right and we can be VICTORIOUS"...
disinterest because of "more important concerns" such as shopping, "my job", being "patriotic"...
disinterest in the fate of countries and people which the USA invades and wages wars against...explained by americans to themselves, collectively, as "for OUR defense"....even if it's thousands of miles "over there" where the defenseLESS , poorer, weaker nations, painted , through the IGNORANCE of americans , as "threats" even if they were NOT , NEVER WERE, and CAN NOT BE because they are so much weaker anyway and have NO interest in "invading america and destroying our way of life" (another American Phantom Paranoia)....
these and many more are causes for why america NEVER LEARNS.
it is a nation which likes to gaze at its navel - and takes interest in other nations only IF they are the fashionable "threat" of the moment, or to deride or make fun of "them" ("old europe". those "geeks", those "chinks", those "japs", those "ruskies", "those south americans who take away our jobs"...etc)
and then when another WAR "of defense" is announced ...display their patriotism with such vigor and busYness as if to NOT do so like every neighbor does will embarrass them to whatever bacterial life is living in the moons of Saturn...
and then they CRY when the blowbacks arrive or they see their "unseen" but gloriously reported DEATHS of "our boys and girls over there defending our freedom"
but ALSO can't STAND the Actual PHOTOS of their OWN dead -
much less CARE about the photos or realities of the dead and maimed and destroyed of the people the USA habitually makes wars against....
so -- what's REALLY NEW?.
all debate , for practical purposes , in america is about
either:
"how" to WIN wars - never ASKING the MORALITY of even CONTEMPLATING wars, preparing for them with its MILITARISTIC culture , from cradle to grave...
"whether it's WORTH the PRICE" - a reflection of its MONEY -oriented, calculating "pros and cons" , but essentialy UNETHICAL culture of "accounting" and COUNTING and "measuring" "advantages and disadvantages"....
and again -- NEVER questioning its IMPERIAL NATURE
NEVER questioning what the price of "our way of life" IS to OTHER nations
...so - what's new?
NOTHING. americans NEVER LEARN ... as Lee Hamilton - 9/11 Commissioner and Watergate Commissioner said - despite himself being part of the Cover-ups or whitewashing for the REASONS and CAUSES of 9/11 and YET MORE WARS for "revenge and defense"
when it is all ROOTED in AMERICA's OWN imperial , militaristic culture.
americans LOVE to talk about "costs" and "price" ....
but ONLY "to ourselves"....never asking themselves what is the COST and PRICE TO the people and countries america invades, wages war, military and economic, against.
and asking these questions "on the cost" to "ourselves" .."IF" it's worth the price - makes americans pat themselves on the back for yet another round of SUPPOSED , "soul searching"
EXCEPT for the ONE thing they never DARE confront:
what the USA does TO other people - to "defend our way of life" - and by THAT "defense"
DESTROYS other people and THEIR way of life.
I SHOULD ADD - in fairness to americans of conscience, for there are PLENTY who are as humane and sincere in their kindness as any the world has produced elsewhere -
that Americans do not learn...
except for those that DO or KNOW but have been continually shunted aside and marginalized.
and that is really sad.
if for nothing else - but to "save" the americans that have the moral, ethical, genuine humanity in them - I ALWAYS HOPE and WISH and SEND my best thoughts - whatever they are worth -
for "america" to be "saved"... so that, whatever ELSE EVILS america has done..whatever EVILS have been done in her name....
if america or the world survives all these --
what might yet emerge is the BEST that america could be...
CITIZENS of the World - GOOD , GENTLE, PEACEFUL, GENEROUS people. and there are PLENTY of americans like that!!!
MAY THEY LIVE LONG and PROSPER! so OTHERS too - might do the same!
" Fellow americans ;.. beware of the Undue Influence of the Military/Industrial/Corporate/congressional complex .....we shall surely bankrupt ourselves in the quest for absolute security". President Dwight Eisenhower
AMERICA makes wars for "security" - to "defend our way of life"....it tries to "secure" itself from the Dangers and consequences of its War Adventures ....
it's like a National insanity.
and its WAY of life is WAR .
it wages wars to defend and secure its WARMAKING way of life.
this is America's self-created Trap.
Perfectly said, Teddy. Nice tidy sound bite.
teddy---
I'm still on my meds (nonprescription).
Are you on yours? If so, they present a very interesting scenario by which the brain explodes as a consequence of finally seeing the truth of it all.
We simply can't have that. Insufficiently Gordon Brown, don't you know...
Happy Afghanistan! The Defense Department now controls global opium production. I'd sure like to get my smoker on a bit O that.
The older one grows, more's the pain.
-30-
The following's a Sept. 11th interview (with audio) with Ray McGovern, "Exclusive: 27-Year CIA Vet says Obama May be Afraid of the CIA ... For Good Reason...", and he includes a historical, Pres. JFK, analogy; the animosity between President JFK and the CIA, and then with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7408
I wouldn't be surprised about Obama fearing the CIA (the covert ops branch); I have expected for long enough now that he has such fear. The CIA covert ops branch does not really work for the government, but for the rich ruling "elites", who strategically use the government for their ... not national, but personal interests, and have long been doing this; very long now.
There was a "single wrong turn into Vietnam" under Pres. LBJ, but there was another "single wrong turn", this one being his protection of Israel in its criminal attack on the USS Liberty in 1967; and not only did he criminally protect Israel, he criminally threatened surviving USS Liberty crew members to stay silent, or they'd pay very, very darely for speaking out about what happened.
Don't look now, but the Bamanator is not exactly verging on greatness.
Unless you're talking about The Great Trainwreck.
I'd say giving trillions to the people who screwed things up is Obama's most devastating blunder. The churls who told us he was wildly unqualified to be President were right.
To Perry logan---
So if Obama is unqualified (I am not necessarily denying the allegation...) who in that panoply of potential candidates would you have preferred? Joe Biden?!
Just wait... The Banality of Evil Ain't Over Til It's Over, and the Fat Lady Sings!
Believe me; she will.
-30-
"who in that panoply of potential candidates would you have preferred?"
Mike Gravel!