Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Moyers Message to Obama: Study History or Repeat its Mistakes
How LBJ Was Sucked Into Escalation In Vietnam And Why Its Happening Again
Elders are considered wisdom keepers in most of the world's cultures, perhaps just not our own. They are repositories of important lessons, keepers of the collective memory, and as such, usually revered. In our own midst, in our own time, one man deserves all praises due for the role he's chosen to play as the sage of the electronic stage, as our educator in chief, as the voice of the national conscience, as the best journalist on television.
His name is Bill Moyers and he proved again on Friday night why he is such a giant and national treasure.
On the very day that the world's media honored one of their richest and most powerful TV brands, Queen Oprah, who announced "the show was my life" but that she was stepping down two years hence, Bill Moyers delivered one of the most important programs of his career in an effort to call our young President to account, to prevent another similar tragedy in the making. As she reveled in the headlines as a a celebrity goddess, he went back to work.
Alas, like Oprah, Moyers will also be stepping down next year, not in 2011. Who got all the media attention? Ms. O, not Mr. M!
He aired this report on this weekend of the anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination to remind us what happened to the leader who replaced that generation's young prince. I am talking about Lyndon Baines Johnson, the master of the Senate, who succeeded John F Kennedy on that terrible day in Dallas.
LBJ came to office with many heavy burdens, including a war raging in South East Asia. His Presidency would be defined by how he handled it, or failed to handle it. As fate would have it, a 30 year old Bill Moyers was one of Johnson's aides and an eyewitness to the tragedy that followed that original sin.
On his Journal, Moyers went back to the historical record, to selected but revealing tapes of Johnson's own phone calls with his colleagues and appointees-yes he wiretapped himself the way Nixon did years later-and those calls showed how he agonized over whether to escalate the war, a course of action he knew could not succeed. The parallels with the present day, and the upcoming decision by President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan are unmistakable and undeniable.
There was the cunning LBJ boiling down the options to getting out or going in deeper, or perhaps "neutralizing" the situation with trainers and economic aid. He, of course opted for the third choice at first-just as Obama has-until it was clear it was not working and we and that our corrupt client state was losing. As his perceived options narrowed, so did his course of action.
As Republicans then demanded "victory," as the military (The Joint Chiefs) clamored for a higher draft and more troops, LBJ began to fear being accused of tucking tail and running, a big no-no in a culture in which Americans see themselves as perpetual winners, the toughest guys on the block. He could not, in his view, be the President who "lost" Vietnam the way his predecessors were accused of losing China-as if those countries were ours to lose!
And so slowly-as we saw, or rather hear, Johnson escalated, stage by stage, often on the basis of false "intelligence" as in the Tonkin Gulf incident that wasn't. Step by step, the third option was abandoned and the military option was embraced. One infusion of troops was followed by another as the war worsened with tens of thousands of US deaths and casualties and millions of Asian victims.
Trapped by his own limited logic, and cautiously pragmatic style. LBJ gave up his principles, compromised on his convictions, and his "Great Society" and Presidency became a disaster. He later quit politics, a broken man.
Will it happen again?
Moyers clear point in the poorly watched PBS Public Affairs Friday Night Ghetto was clear-it is about to happen again.
"We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson said no," he concluded. "We do know what happened because he said yes."
It was brilliant television, informative journalism of the kind we rarely see, all driven by the words and voice of the man who was once his own "boss." We saw how the logic of escalation supplanted all other logic and, then, logic itself.
This program is being repeated on SUNDAY NIGHT. I think at 7. Check local listings YOU ALSO CAN WATCH IT ON LINE RIGHT NOW AT PBS.ORG Please watch it as you have watched few other shows. Let us urge Barack Obama to watch it too. Remember history repeats itself as farce.
Moyers himself told me about the subject of the show when I stopped by his office at New York's Channel 13 on Friday afternoon. I was there to comment on Oprah's announcement for the BBC which has its bureau just down the hall. (I also learned, sadly, that BBC will soon be closing the NY bureau and moving staffers to Washington-a big loss!) As it is, I am on the air more in other countries than my own.
Moyers was putting the final touches on the show yesterday but, graceful as usual, took a minute out to say hello. I wrote to him after last night's show ended praising his work.
He responded almost immediately:
"Thanks, Danny. I was pleased to see you, too. You're a brave and gutsy journalist - your columns on the media clear and strong and courageous; they are also true. Why is it our press is immune to criticism? Nothing seems to faze them."
That is a crime as serious as the one The Bill Moyers Journal documented.
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT: Go online to LISTEN to the actual calls.
February 3, 1964 President Johnson has been in office only three months, and is told the situation in Vietnam is deteriorating. Here, Johnson sounds out an old friend's opinion - newspaper publisher John Knight.
May 27, 1964 Beginning in 1959, the North Vietnamese Army moved supplies into South Vietnam using a route along the Cambodian border. In 1964, Johnson approved secret bombing of what was known as the Ho Chi Minh trail.
In Saigon, where there's been another military coup, Defense Secretary McNamara promises the new government that "We'll stay for as long as it takes. We shall provide whatever help is required to win the battle against the Communist insurgents." But he brings back news of an army nearing collapse, and tells the President he needs to increase military assistance quickly. With one eye on that deteriorating situation and another on the coming election, he turns for solace to his old friend and mentor in the Senate, Richard Russell of Georgia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee:
May 27, 1964 After speaking with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who inform the President that he has few good options in Vietnam. Johnson discusses the situation with McGeorge Bundy, his special assistant for national security:
June 9, 1964 Congress and the public are increasingly restless about Vietnam. Negative press reports undermine all the positive statements issued by the administration. Below, Johnson and McNamara discuss the bad press and the further deterioration of the situation in Vietnam - Vietcong guerrillas have extended their control of the countryside and South Vietnamese soldiers quit the fight faster than Americans can train them. The president reads McNamara a memo he received from Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.
June 11, 1964 The Vietcong continue to gain strength, and a corrupt and incompetent government in South Vietnam is tottering again. The U.S. ambassador to Saigon, Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican, is resigning, and the president thinks he may be coming home to campaign against him in the fall. Johnson turns again to his trusted friend Senator Russell. He tells him of advice he received from a his neighbor, a Texas rancher, Judge A.W. Moursund:
U.S. Escalates the War
August 2, 1964 The captain of a navy ship, the U.S.S. Maddox reports that his ship has been fired on and is about to be attacked. On August 4, the captain reports a second attack. Though it would later become clear no August 4 attack actually took place, President Johnson orders retaliatory air strikes against two North Vietnamese naval bases and an oil facility. Two American planes are shot down in the attacks.
In the conversations below, the President plans the American response with Secretary McNamara.
August 3, 1964, 10:30 am President Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara.
August 3, 1964, 1:21 pm President Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara.
August 4, 1964, 11:00 am In the midst of discussing the American response to the August 2 attack, McNamara informs President Johnson that an American ship is under torpedo attack.
August 7, 1964 Congress passes a joint resolution "to promote the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia." The Tonkin Gulf Resolution stated that "Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repeal any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent any further aggression." In other words, the resolution gave the President the right to pursue military action in Vietnam without a declaration of war. Both Johnson and Nixon would rely on the resolution as legal justification for the war.
Nov 3, 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson defeats Barry Goldwater, and is elected to the Presidency. There are just over 15,000 American troops in Vietnam.
February 13, 1965 President Johnson authorizes Operation Rolling Thunder, a campaign of bombing North Vietnam to force it to cease supporting guerrillas in the south. The raids would persist continually for nearly three years.
April 7, 1965 North Vietnam rejects an American offer of economic aid in exchange for peace.
April 20, 1965 The President's top officials conclude that bombing alone is insufficient. Defense Secretary McNamara explains to President Johnson that the military leaders are requesting additional combat brigades.
June 5, 1965 The American ambassador has called Washington with news that the Saigon government is again in crisis. The Vietcong have launched a new offensive during the monsoon season, making it harder to defend ground forces from the air. The cable is blunt: "It will probably be necessary to commit U.S. ground forces to action." An anxious President calls his secretary of defense:
June 8, 1965 President Johnson calls Senate Majority Leader Mansfield, who has written the president to urge him not to bomb Hanoi, the capital of North Vietnam. Wanting to keep Mansfield aboard, he asks him how he should approach Congress:
June 10, 1965 Another cable has arrived from Saigon, this one from General Westmoreland. He wants 41,000 combat troops in Vietnam and 52,000 more later. And he will need "even greater forces" later to "take the war to the enemy." McNamara says "We're in a hell of a mess."
July 2, 1965 In a June 18 coup, South Vietnam formed its l0th government in 20 months. A few days later Vietcong mortars destroy three U.S. aircraft at Danang. During a conversation with Defense Secretary McNamara, Johnson begins to consider what has to happen to get the troops they will need to stay the course:
July 28, 1965 In a press conference, the president announces his decision to commit more troops to the conflict in Vietnam. I have asked the Commanding General, General [William C.] Westmoreland, what more he needs to meet this mounting aggression. He has told me. We will meet his needs.
I have today ordered to Vietnam the Air Mobile Division and certain other forces which will raise our fighting strength from 75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately. Additional forces will be needed later, and they will be sent as requested. This will make it necessary to increase our active fighting forces by raising the monthly draft call from 17,000 over a period of time to 35,000 per month, and for us to step up our campaign for voluntary enlistments.
I do not find it easy to send the flower of our youth, our finest young men, into battle. I have spoken to you today of the divisions and the forces and the battalions and the units. But I know them all, every one. I have seen them in thousand streets, of a hundred towns, in every State in this Union - working and laughing and building, and filled with hope and life. I think that I know, too, how their mothers weep and how their families sorrow. This is the most agonizing and the most painful duty of your President. 1965 to 1973
By year's end there would be 184,000 troops in Vietnam, even as 90,000 South Vietnamese soldiers deserted. In response to the deployment of U.S. ground troops in 1965, North Vietnamese army combat units officially entered the war in support of the Vietcong. By the war's end in 1975, 2.5 million Americans would serve in Vietnam.
Johnson would not seek reelection in 1968.
As American's casualties mounted, public opposition to the war grew at home, and President Nixon began decreasing troop levels in 1969. But the war would continue to grind on until a 1973 cease fire. In 1975, North Vietnamese troops took control of South Vietnam and united the country. Some 59,000 Americans died fighting in Vietnam, and more than 1 million Vietnamese.
41 Comments so far
Show AllWhen the actual anti-war candidates, Gravel and Kucinich, were excluded from the Democratic debates, Obama's approval of same told us (and Bill Moyers) all we needed to know about whether he would heed such obvious advice.
Obama MUST decide to withdraw US troops. But when Taliban takes over or civil war ensues, imagine the Republicans howling and hounding Obama without end. If one baying hound tires, there are fresh legions waiting to take up the contemptuous shrieking. Rebublicans are drooling at the rhetorical opportunities if Obama withdraws troops that idiot Bush sent in.
The war(s) must end. Now, who can propose an EFFECTIVE strategy to counteract Republican/Foxnews demagoguery? Remember, they have no shame.
Mad 11:23 ------ The best Strategy is readily available proposed by none other than General Petreous.
20% military and 80% economic reconstruction.
Obama's budget for Afghanistan was 90% military and 10% economic reconstuction.
Obama is not even attempting to do what his expert in counter insurgency reccomends.
This makes one believe Obama is totally in the clutches of the MIC.
I rather see 0% military but 20% military is probably a more realistic transition.
This 80% economic is also what the Afghan activists are calling for.
So it is readily known what must be done.
The large problem is that almost all USA contractors are thoroughly corrupt,as are some Afghan.
And the second problem is that the stormtroopers are so racist, ignorant and violent that even 20% may keep inflaming the violence.
So I propose the money goes through the UN and the security is UN USA funded troops.
But then again we run into that dark wall of why are we in Afganistan and if the reason is pipeline or World Dominance then the future is very very dark.
Fear of the Right's Mighty Wurlitzer. Moyer's show made clear LBJ was afraid of the very same. A few things have changed since then: Vietnam and Iraq as well as the financial meltdown and banker bailout. LBJ was right; the Right would have blasted him. But now much of the Right is as antiwar, or in some cases more antiwar, than the Left. The nation is tired of war. The nation is broken. Our own house is on fire. I think Obama could, if he wanted to, put some of his oratory skills to use to tell the nation the truth about what our priorities should be. Straight up, let the truth that we need to stop the endless war and take care of our own nation versus the FOX propaganda s**t-storm. I think the antiwar position could win in the public sphere if a president and his party committed to it. It would take courage and putting the good of the nation ahead of the risk to one's re-election, but it could be done.
It was heart-wrenching to hear LBJ talk of fear about his political career and have that win out over his recognition of the tragedy of war. So sad to hear the propaganda--the dominoes then, the WOT now--the same always. "Give us more money, more blood and more power or... " and the "or" is a phantom. The Defense Industry multiplies our enemies, controls our ability to rationally discuss a better course, and always consolidates its power. I believe the last president who stood up to that was shot, but that in no way excuses Obama from having the courage to do and say what LBJ did not. So many died for LBJ's fear of what the Right would say. In the end, that is not a testament to LBJ's leadership. He knew what was the right thing to do and he should have done it and dealt with the political consequences. Lives are at stake. The life of our nation is also at stake.
I think the truth could be effective. Remember, the Republicans are greatly outnumbered population-wise, despite their seemingly continued control of Washington. The illusion of their dominance is an artifact of the media problem--the problem of its ownership and agenda, a problem that I believe got started with its takeover by defense and intelligence agencies who thought the consent of the governed needed to be pre-determined. Armed with the facts, the American people could surprise those who think the public is nothing but members of the American Legion. After all, a majority of Americans also wanted the Vietnam War to end--and THAT became the problem as far as War Industries was concerned. The Business Roundtable was formed to "never lose another war on the six o-clock news." Our news now routinely hides the truth about everything from the very people who's consent is fundamental to our government. It's about time our politicians started telling the truth and believed that the public can handle it. Leaders should take a chance on treating us as citizens again instead of viewers and consumers of propaganda. It is our blood, treasure and nation. Our right to know the truth and give consent, not to be manipulated.
I agree with almost all of what you said. But it is almost a certainty that no PRESIDENT will ever talk truth to the American people. I think Pres. Obama has the skill, mentally and vocally, to educate the people to understand this situation but to trust the people to that extent no longer happens.
Although the US electorate didn't learn anything from the Viet Nam episode, the military industrial media complex learned that when an occupation or war ends, their revenue stream slows or dries up. They will make sure that the Ir-Af-Pak occupation is eternal.
Yes, because Mr. Harvard "professor" hasn't already studied history.
I will repeat, because it's becoming more evident, that it's racist to think Obama is not smart enough to know EXACTLY what he's doing - a George Bush redux.
Obama will do whatever it takes to advance his political career and the military industrial media complex has a bottomless pit of money that can fuel Obama's campaigns, foundations, etc.
Obama has plenty of smarts...its the ethics he lacks.
There were two US Navy Ships in Tonkin, and a Turret Gunner has testfied he was given the coordinates of the other ship,hidden in the fog, and ordered to fire at it.
When the he realized the coordinates were the position of the other US Navy ship he refused to fire.
I know the articles timeline is condensed but the secret bombing of Laos ( more tonnage dropped than in WWII) and Cambodia ( precousor to the genocidal civil war, Kymer Rouge) should be included.
Possibly also mention of CIA/Army enterprise of Heroin from Laos to Bangkok to USA.
- August 7, 1964; Congress passes...The Tonkin Gulf Resolution... In other words, the resolution gave the President the right to pursue military action in Vietnam without a declaration of war. -
Sept. 18, 2001; Congress passes the AUMF (DAFT) ...In other words, the resolution gives any President the right to pursue military action anywhere on Earth and without a declaration of war.
I suggest that this time around we don't ignore the law that keeps this madness going. This time around, the war is global and not confined to a small bit of SE Asia.
End all the DAFT wars by repealing the DAFT law, just as WE repealed Prohibition when it obviously failed.
We only repealed part of prohibition. The other part continues to fail.
If nothing else, Vietnam proved America had become another banana republic ruled by a military junta. 59,000 soldiers killed many,many more wounded both physically and mentally; a million Vietnamese killed many more wounded and for what? One big lie! I do not purport know if it is true or not, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that JFK was assassinated because he refused to be held prisoner by the fascist, war profiteers, who were cheerleaders for the Vietnam war. I would hope that Obama will heed Moyers message, but I doubt it.
Paul 11:44 ------ Theres a show Sunday on Discovery, Tom Hartmans book Legacy of Secrecy definitively naming the actors in the assasination, more Mafia/CIA than anything.
Thanks Glenn.
There are certainly plenty of indications that the hit on JFK was an inside job, but in terms of foreign policy, he was as convinced a cold warrior and as fervent a hawk as the next. He may have had some qualms over having had his ally/footstool Diem assassinated a couple of weeks prior, but they hardly seem worth a hit on a president --- the kind of thing that would have to send shivers through the entire organization and make many operatives extremely careful with their leadership.
The mafia cum intelligence community seems a likely ground for culprits, but JFK's progressive innocence is too purely a retrospective hallucination to supply motive.
Reviewing history, I find with some dismay that the whole Camelot mystique seems to spring from the theatrical conveniences of youth and death, motivated by the longing to find some reason to believe that humans had at some point some support in some sense voluntary from some elected officials.
But no, the algebra of command seems to hold for all variables.
Furthermore, I also reiterate that a common theme on this site is the danger posed by absolute power.
Yet almost every Progressive article seems to end with a call or a letter to Santa Obama to solve the stated problem with a stroke of his pen, as if nothing can be done except by him.
Take away the power to make war by doing away with the crappy law, and the fear of dictatorship will recede.
Take the yoke of interminable war off of Mr. Obama's shoulders and he might have a second term to deal with domestic issues (or would you prefer Palin?)
Any successful solution to America's problem must involve multi-partisan and general public support.
Vietnam ended when public support finally swayed against the madness. It took 58,000 dead Americans to sway the public.
I suggest that we try to change things before another sad Wall is necessary on the Washington Mall. I suggest that public support can be gained by focusing on blaming the system and fixing the system by way of the LAW.
Locust 11:56 ----- You are correct that Congress, the public and Obama are all responsible for ending the wars.
But you are grossly incorrect when you equate Obama ending the wars with a misuse of power,danger or unlawful.
Obama would be clearly protected and in conjunction with the Constitution and all laws if he ended the wars today.
Congress could do the same though not as readily.
As for the public Congress nor the President heed their wishes only very rarely.
The public was very much against Vietnam years before it ended.
It took years of demonstrations, domestic bombings and draftees killing their officiers before Vietnam ended.
Do you really believe in a time of NorthCom and demonstrations being considered low level terrorism that the domestic agitation necessary to influence Congress or the president would not take years and result in many domestic deaths and imprisonments?
ARROGANCE TRUMPS HISTORY. Obama and his staff are more than capable of reading and understanding history as it applies to our present situation. The problem lies in the arrogant belief that the circumstances are different , so the principles involved must be different. Arrogance is always behind the age old thought ," Those principles don't apply to us"
His Excellency, The Great Obama, has read history and does understand - at least up to a point. And that point is his reelection. Like any narcissist and political sociopath, His Excellency will do anything to be reelected and maintain his illusory hold on power. Afghanistan is a pit of bloody quicksand. But His Excellency is not the one doing the dying. He will choose The Chinatown Option, named after a line of dialogue in the great Roman Polanski/Jack Nicholson movie: do as little as possible. Escalating in Afghanistan is the political equivalent of doing as little as possible.
AGREED! excellently put by Mordechai Shiblikov!
where george bush was the all-too-easy to deride CRUDITY -- OBAMA's part is to be the "soft-gloved" "gentle" version
tasked with TURNING THE SCREWS of Tyranny EVEN TIGHTER.
where bush was the rough , bungling "idiot" that most could easily detest , who would knock of the teeth by using a stone and loudly cackling ..obama is the "dentist" who uses his scalpel and clinical instruments to apply the pain right into the roots and do it CALMLY..and with utter coldness.
Jeevee
Please REMEMBER, OBAMA IS A "CHICKENHAWK".
Thanks, Danny, for your tribute to Moyers' program last evening. It was brilliant--not great television in any conventional sense because of its reliance on scratchy audio and black and white still photos, but quietly, devastatingly effective nonetheless. As the old story unfolded once more--how, over the months from 1964 and 1965, Johnson was pushed step by step to escalate, against his own strong reluctance--it was clear that Moyers has constructed the clearest possible warning.
And please note, all ye who are quick to defame Obama: Johnson did not want war. He believed from the start that it was unwinnable. But he was pushed hard by the military, and feared the backlash from Goldwater/Nixon Republicans. Half-measures weren't working. He invokes the poisonous "Who lost China?" debates of just a decade earlier, and fears that abandoning Vietnam will precipitate a domino effect in southeast Asia: one country after another falling to communism. Substitute "terrorism" for communism, and you have Obama's present-day dilemma.
Let's give Obama credit for understanding this scenario perfectly well. Not the smallest part of his problem is domestic. Those folks howling for his hide over health-care reform? We haven't seen anything if the right-wing fear-mongers begin painting Obama as caving to terrorists. If Obama does escalate (and here's hoping fervently he finds a way to dodge that trap), the vast, well-funded, right-wing noise machine will be a big part of the reason why.
So please lighten up on Obama, folks, and keep your eye on where the ball is really in play.
Stanwix 1:25 -------- Of course the Balls in Obombers Court, he is making the decision now and no matter how difficult or dangerous he should make the correct decision as all humans are required to.
Just as economic need is no excuse to become a trigger pulling stormtrooper.
Neither death threats or reelection chances should impede Obomber from making the intelligent and moral choice, if he did not want the job why did he run for election?
His life is worth no more than one Afghan childs life.
And one of the points of the article is that Johnson was ruined by his decisions to escalate.
Stop excuses for Obomber, he is the President and should act like the image he projected during the election.
but the problem is:
"where is the ball that's really in play?"
OBAMA IS part of the ball-game. it has always BEEN in play. and that ball-game is
WAR - ENDLESS WAR...whether it was jsutified by the "domino theory" to invade and occupy and 'redefine' vietnam - or the current re-enactmen, different chapter but the song remains the same , in central asia, middle east, south asia...and of course ELSEWHERE - such as starting UP AGAIN the provocations in south america ...and AGAIN in indochina (trying to meddle again in burma) .
it is the SAME SONG since more than a century ago - US GLOBAL DOMINANCE and EMPIRE.
obama is merely the latest incarnation of the "figure head" of american politics, economics and militarism and cultural
"ASSAULT and ECONOMIC ASSAULT" of the world BY the USA -
as was described long ago by General Smedley Butler, US Marines. 1933.
"OUR FOREIGN POLICY HAS ALWAYS BEEN GEARED TOWARDS GATHERING AS MUCH OF THE WORLD'S RESOURCES UNTO OURSELVES AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS -- THE TRUE PURPOSE OF OUR ARMED FORCES IS TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR OUR BIG BOSS: OUR SUPERNATIONALISTIC CAPITALISM...AND OUR CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ASSAULT".
OBAMA IS THE CURRENT "CHANGE THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE IN" OCCUPANT OF THE WHITE HOUSE -- SERVING AS THE CHIEF PREACHER OF THE SAME SONG:
AMERICAN GLOBAL FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE AND EMPIRE.
HE is not as "innocent" or "reluctant" as one would think.
he is in IT line, hook, bait and sinker with all his heart and soul.
his utterances, his postures, his actions and decisions...ALL point to it. he doesn't NEED to be cajoled nor be threatened.
HE IS SOLD on the idea of AMERICAN OMNIPOTENCE and his role is to make it appear PALATABLE in comparison to george bush.
his role is to come in LOOKING like the "white knight" on a horse compared to George Bush's crudeness....
he role is to APPEAR "reasonable", to appear "thoughtful", to APPEAR well-considered, to APPEAR as SINCERE in being the president of ALL....
but he is selling the SAME song as george bush.
This is how it looks to me, too. I don't believe the Obama-the-innocent line that his worshipers use. Will Obama be a "broken man," as this article states Johnson was, at the end of his Presidency -- be it four or eight years, or will he ride off into the sunset a la Bill Clinton and rake in millions, which would make Michelle a very happy woman? Time will tell, I suppose, but at this very moment I believe Obama is a willing and knowing participant -- or collaborator, if you will.
" His role is to appear reasonable; to appear thoughtful; to appear well-considered; to appear sincere".Teddy, you just defined the consummate con man!
"I was there to comment on Oprah's announcement for the BBC which has its bureau just down the hall."
Uh, no comment.
Mr. Moyers, you're a great man but this ain't the 1960s or 70s. You see, we the people are an AMORAL NATION OF LOSERS and we proved it by electing crooks for the White House election after election.
The Sunday night after the ambush of JFK, Johnson met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Oval Office and is reported to have said, "Get me elected and you can have your goddamned war". He then ran on a peace ticket and was elected in a landslide, a betrayal that should never be forgotten. Johnson was the champion of a war party that came to power by means of the death of JFK, something the justly esteemed Mr. Moyers can never seem to accept. Good man, anyway.
Tony Vodvarka
Obama will have a much better chance of getting re-elected if he winds down the war in Afghanistan, simultaneously transfering leadership to the UN. Does he not know this? Has he not read the history of the Vietnam War? Maybe he is too young to appreciate what happened in Vietnam. Obama seems more in awe of Ronald Reagan than JFK. JFK and RFK are more mythology to him, the mythology that big business and covert military operations are what runs the country. He has gotten this far by believing in America, and if you believe in America, you don't buy into the conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, he will learn the hard way. And many people will die. Obama will realize he has made a mistake by 2012, and it will be too late by then. Giuliani or some other Republican hotshot will then take over the White House.
Dick Cheney said that Reagan proved that 'deficits don't matter'. And they really didn't, to Reagan or Dick Cheney (they might matter some to their grandchildren, but the real message of the debt is that the grandchildren themselves don't matter).
In a similiar vein, Bush has proved that war doesn't cost anything. And it doesn't, to Bush or the GOP who wanted the Iraq War. As long as they can keep away the 5000 American families who paid for the war in blood (and, as a footnote, the 500,0000 Iraqi families who similarly paid in blood), and of course, as long as they can 'special fund request' the war's cost onto future generations who will pay for it, rather than the present generation who actually WAGED it, war doesn't cost anything.
If I were Obama, given the reality of this recent past, I would definitely escalate in Afghanistan. Give the generals everything they want. Hide the evidence in blood, as Bush did. Defer the dollar cost, as Bush did. And then, politically, its all gravy.
It's PEACE that costs ya. If Obama opts for peace in Afghanistan he'll face exactly what Johnson faced over de-escalation in Vietnam: political destruction. And against Obama's political career, what's a few thousand dead Americans, or a few hundred-thousand dead Afghans?
ubrew 5:00 --------- I think the article posits that Johnsons career and life was ruined because he did escalate.
as I took in the news of JFK's death, one thought passed through my mind: "Shit! That warmonger Johnson is president."
I do not want to hear any more Afghanistan is Vietnam bs, not from Moyers, or anyone else.
There are plenty of extremely compelling reasons to stop attacking Afghanistan. First of all, it was a war crime from the start, with no possible justification. Second, Afghanistan had known no peace for 30 years, and inflicting more on them was inexcusably cruel. Third, having been brutally murdering Afghan civilians for over 8 years, it is unconscionable to continue doing so. I could go on for a very long time.
no "historical" arguments have any relevance. every event in history is unique unto itself, and we need to focus on what is going on NOW, and what's wrong NOW. the past is over.
If Moyers wanted to tell obomber something, he should have got his head out of his history books and told him all he needs to know: GET OUT NOW!
We owe many thanks to Bill Moyers for showing how LBJ and others got sucked into the no win Vietnam war: afraid to be seen as weak, afraid to cross generals who are trained to kill and WIN wars, afraid of the political consequences of losing a war that he knew we could not win.
Moyers was on target in helping us understand deja vu re: Afghanistan.
"Surge" or no "surge".... we're there for an extended stay according to TomDispatch's Nick Turse:
Tomgram: Nick Turse, In Afghanistan, the Pentagon Digs in
Posted by Nick Turse at 11:12AM, November 05, 2009.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175157/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_in_afghanistan%2C_the_pentagon_digs_in/
Don't know if anyone is still following this conversation, growing stale in Internet time, but just in case, let me try this. I think the left has a (as I see it, naive) tendency to assume that the President has the power to wave his wand and make good things happen. And when he doesn't, they give up and start throwing around "Obomber" language. But as I see it, the situation calls for more careful, and more strategic thinking on our part. Less black and white, and more gray.
Yes, I hear the screams now: How can you talk about gray when innocent Afghan children are being killed and maimed by American drones? Indeed. Good point. And nothing I'm saying is intended to defend, condone, prolong, or otherwise apologize for the US presence in Afghanistan.
But I don't think we can ignore the limits to what Obama can do. First of all, with our politics, none of us is going to get elected President. By virtue of its being an elected position, the Presidency is a consensus office. And in this country, an awful lot of people who don't see the world as we do go into making up that consensus.
And some of those folks are very powerful. They have their hands on the levers of power--military, financial, business, media, etc. So Obama--who is the closest we are ever going to get to a president who can help us, some--has to keep those powerful factions from revolting against him.
During the W years, it occurred to me that it wouldn't take much for us to have a military coup in this country. All that domestic intelligence gathering--that wasn't about nothing. And the country hasn't pulled very far back from that brink. This, to me anyway, makes the most sense in explaining Obama's caution.
The voters rebelled against Bush, true, but they (we) don't form a solid enough, coherent enough force to give Obama full freedom to act. And we may never do, given our general disorganization and the fact that the other side has the resources to remain very well organized and to make sure its interests are protected.
So our job is to be strategic, and to organize. To think more clearly, and most of all not to succumb to disillusionment, anger, and cynicism. Enough with the "Obomber" language. That just seems self-indulgent to me. Let's be more responsible, and let's find a way to be more effective. Let's look clearly at the political landscape, recognize what the obstacles to change are, but don't stop there. Instead, find something meaningful and effective to do about them. Something that truly leads toward the changes we need. Slow, hard work. But the alternative is to throw up your hands, tell yourself it's impossible, post cynical comments, and excuse yourself when nothing changes.
Aside from the fact that Bill Moyers was LBJ's press secretary, and knows the truth about the Murder of JFK, and has not and will not speak of it....below is the truth.
Obama has broken all of his promises. Transparency? Visitors logs to OUR house, the White House, are still secret, as under Bush. The AfPak wars are increasing, and we are fortifying Colombia to go after Venezuela, Bolivia, El Salvador, and any other country which wants economic independence from us, or who has leaders elected which are not CIA-approved. Remember, we got Bush twice in fraudulent elections....and Obama, a two-year Junior Senator appoints Cheney's Dark-Side General McChrystal to run the war in AFghanistan...all the while, trying to convince Progressives that he is running a "kinder and gentler war", so that the Progressives will feel good about the re-branding of our National Security State under Obama, and their consciences will be eased by their silence, or muted protest, or their "demands" that we leave Afghanistan on a "timetable". We see how well the timetable withdrawal the Democrats championed worked in Iraq. Sure, Guantanamo will not be closed as promised. Instead, we still have hundreds held there, while a few are tried in show trials. This is classic Modified Limited Hangout...give them a bone, and they will forget the big story. The big story is the secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe, and the thousands tortured, and murdered there, and in Iraq prisons, and other facilities. Does ANYONE not think that Obama is not simply the slicker face of the same National Security State which has been in place since 1947? Americans should look at the reality of their country with unvarnished, non-rose colored glasses. Only then is change possible. War continues, and increases in the Middle East, and there are still 128K troops there. Obama said he would remove all COMBAT troops...but Progressives heard in their heads that he would remove ALL troops. These words are Psyops, and are designed to fool you. In reality, the Vatican-sized "Embassy" in Iraq will be protected by 58K troops...we have not left South Korea, and we will not leave Iraq...as Alan Greenspan said in his autobiography "Why don't they just admit that they invaded Iraq for the oil?"
Stanwix wrote: "I think the left has a (as I see it, naive) tendency to assume that the President has the power to wave his wand and make good things happen."
The reference to a "wand" is patronizing. The fact is that Barack Obama is the most powerful individual human being in the world. It is true that there are limits to his power, but it is CERTAINLY within his power to order the US military to withdraw from Afghanistan. No magic is required for that. He does not do that because he does not want to.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Mr. Marshall:
And he doesn't "want to" because...? You may recall back in 1993, I think it was, when Bill Clinton first came to office, he tried to force the American military to accept gay soldiers. He immediately had a major dogfight on his hands and ended up backing off (actually, accepting a sort of face-saving, half-measure compromise). Politically, it was too costly to force a change that the military emphatically would not accept. How much more difficult then for Obama to impose a far more momentous change of course in Afghanistan that myriad powerful interests do not want.
But I don't see a lot of value in you and me trying to convince one another that we're right. The real task at hand, which I see addressed far too little in these forums, is: What are progressives going to do about it? If the leaks are to be believed, Obama is about to announce an increase of 30,000-some in troop levels in Afghanistan. I imagine they will also try some of what appears to have worked in the Iraqi surge--i.e., simply paying people not to fight, but with continuing damage to US budget deficits.
Another tragic choice to fund guns and not butter, while homelessness is on the rise, health care reform is being hijacked by for-profit insurers, unemployment is up, the climate is in crisis, and so on.
So it seems a waste of energy to argue about whether Obama is or isn't pure of heart. The real question is: What can the left do about it all that will be effective, that can make a real difference?
A superb effort by Moyers to relate the Vietnam error to this Afghanistan era, and thus influence and bring some sanity to Obama's up-coming decision on Afghanistan --- although it is really not Obama's decision anyway.
Another poignant comparison would be to relate Martin Luther King's Riverside Church speech "Breaking the Silence" ---- regarding the deep-connection between the increasing deaths of black and white working-class kids in Vietnam and the economic oppression/tyranny imposed on the same black and white working-class domestically --- compared to the sorrows of EMPIRE now, almost fifty years later, so visible abroad and at home in the 21st century.
As Hannah Arendt presciently warned from her experience with the Nazi and Soviet EMPIRES:
"Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home".
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine