Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Still Don’t Hear Him
The great man was moving with what seemed like great reluctance. He knew as he climbed from the car in Upper Manhattan that he was stepping into the maelstrom, that there were powerful people who would not react kindly to what he had to say.
“I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight,” said the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “because my conscience leaves me no other choice.”
This was on the evening of April 4, 1967, almost exactly 43 years ago. Dr. King told the more than 3,000 people who had crowded into Riverside Church that silence in the face of the horror that was taking place in Vietnam amounted to a “betrayal.”
He spoke of both the carnage in the war zone and the toll the war was taking here in the United States. The speech comes to mind now for two reasons: A Tavis Smiley documentary currently airing on PBS revisits the controversy set off by Dr. King’s indictment of “the madness of Vietnam.” And recent news reports show ever-increasing evidence that we have ensnared ourselves in a mad and tragic venture in Afghanistan.
Dr. King spoke of how, in Vietnam, the United States increased its commitment of troops “in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support.”
It’s strange, indeed, to read those words more than four decades later as we are increasing our commitment of troops in Afghanistan to fight in support of Hamid Karzai, who remains in power after an election that the world knows was riddled with fraud and whose government is one of the most corrupt and inept on the planet.
If Mr. Karzai is at all grateful for this support, he has a very peculiar way of showing it. He has ignored pleas from President Obama and others to take meaningful steps to rein in the rampant corruption. His brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the kingpin in southern Afghanistan, is believed by top American officials to be engaged in all manner of nefarious activities, including money-laundering and involvement in the flourishing opium trade.
Hamid Karzai himself pulled off a calculated insult to the U.S. by inviting Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidential palace in Kabul, where Ahmadinejad promptly delivered a fiery anti-American speech. As Dexter Filkins and Mark Landler reported in The Times this week: “Even as Mr. Obama pours tens of thousands of additional American troops into the country to help defend Mr. Karzai’s government, Mr. Karzai now often voices the view that his interests and the United States’ no longer coincide.”
Is this what American service members are dying for in Afghanistan? Can you imagine giving up your life, or your child’s life, for that crowd?
In his speech, Dr. King spoke about the damage the Vietnam War was doing to America’s war on poverty, and the way it was undermining other important domestic initiatives. What he wanted from the U.S. was not warfare overseas but a renewed commitment to economic and social justice at home. As he put it: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
The speech set loose a hurricane of criticism. Even the N.A.A.C.P. complained that Dr. King should stick to what it perceived as his area of expertise, civil rights. The New York Times headlined its editorial on the speech, “Dr. King’s Error.”
Mr. Smiley, in his documentary, noted that “the already strained relationship between President Johnson and Dr. King became fractured beyond repair.” And donations to Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference “began to dry up.”
So it took great courage for Dr. King to speak out as he did.
His bold stand seems all the more striking in today’s atmosphere, in which moral courage among the very prominent — the kind of courage that carries real risk — seems mostly to have disappeared.
More than 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq and more than 1,000 in Afghanistan, where the Obama administration has chosen to escalate rather than to begin a careful withdrawal. Those two wars, as the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and his colleague Linda Bilmes have told us, will ultimately cost us more than $3 trillion.
And yet the voices in search of peace, in search of an end to the “madness,” in search of the nation-building so desperately needed here in the United States, are feeble indeed.
Dr. King would be assassinated exactly one year (almost to the hour) after his great speech at Riverside Church. It’s the same terrible fate that awaits some of the American forces, most of them very young, that we continue to send into the quagmire in Afghanistan.
- Posted in



113 Comments so far
Show AllWhile it is true that Herbert picks the wrong term for the death of our soldiers in war, I struggle to see how you can disagree with the theme of this article, which, as far as I can tell, is that this war must end right the fuck now.
It is not nearly forceful enough, and corruption in Afghani governance has nought to do with why the war is wrong, but who cares?
He's saying it must end.
The NYT was complicit in numerous ways in drumming up support for the current conflicts. If there is a Hell, certain writers clearly ride That Hell Bound Train.
The MSM is beyond redemption, but this piece qualifies as a minor sin.
We have to join with the antiwar folks, wherever they may be found, and however currently or previously misguided they are/were.
Peace.
Indeed.
We agree.
But he's still technically on this side of the End The War line.
If the war ends b/c Obama thinks (to quote an old Steve Martin bit) "robots are stealing his luggage"-- who cares?
It ends.
Exactly!
It does not matter what rationale they use to end these wars as long as they end them
Who care's?
We should all care--and never forget just how evil and deep this cartel of warmongers and propagandists goes.
I haven't forgotten.
It's just that vis a vis ending the war, I don't care what the stated rationale is.
Because, see, it's going to be a LIE, just like the reasons for starting it.
Read what I wrote, not what's clattering around in your head like a BB in a tuna-fish can--
Sheesh. It was only a couple of lines and you managed to misinterpret it.
Thank you, Professor, for providing such an eloquent proof of Mr. Herbert's assertion. You do not get it, the US Government does not get it, and most American people do not get it. If we are granted enough time, perhaps some day the level of consciousness in this country may approach the level of Dr. King's. Personally, I rather doubt it. Pity.
I'm with you Puffin. The Professor gets to nitpicking sometimes with his dissection of the English language. Bob Herbert is on the right side of the fight--the fact that he points out the sleaziness of Karzai's regime as a reason to doubt the justness of the war does in no way overshadow the imperialism and militarism that served as the main reasons for fighting this shameful war in the first place. It is easy to throw stones at potential allies for slips of the tongue and not hewing to politically correct lines of thinking, but it is a foolish thing to do. Herbert should receive our applause.
Right. I was confused by Herbert's suggestion that we should not support Karzai because he refuses to be (or pretends not to be) a US puppet, as though an equally corrupt stooge would be more to his liking. Of course Karzai is a puppet. All the flap about getting him to mend his ways is just a way of blowing some of the stink off an obviously stinking situation. Our storytellers are at work night and day giving us ways to reinterpret the obvious.
RichM; You got it!
Correct, Rich M. Karzai is what he is because that's what he must be to play his role.
Joe
Again, I agree with the sentiment that the article presents untenable ideas, by ignoring non-American casualties, and that the "occupation would be better if Karzai were less sleazy" and so on--
It's just that I really don't care what they say, so long as it ends.
Virtually EVERYTHING said in the MSM w/r/t the wars is a lie.
It's how they, and most wars I can think of, started.
The killing, torturing, environmental destruction and the rest of it must stop. Why it stops is, to me, secondary at best. The two-party corporate duopoly must go, and We the People must step up and govern ourselves more humanely.
Can we agree on that, at least?
"Herbert should receive our applause."
Yeah, right.
Good old Bob. Such a nice guy. And works for such good people, too.
Salt of the earth, they are.
Moonpie: Those are my sentiments too. You did put it very succinctly.
I completely agree, Professor.
Is Herbert saying that if the regime in Afghanistan were not so corrupt, then "our boys" would be dying for a worthy cause?
And yes, puffin, the war must end, which is what Herbert wants, but he's got his head so far up his derrière, in classic American-journalist fashion, that he's got the reasons as twisted up as his own innards.
If indeed we are to draw any lesson from Dr. King, we would do well to get those reasons straight.
Bingo, Rich. Well said.
Sioux Rose
Thank you RICH M. & VISITING PROFESSORT: Your incisive analyses add much to the quality of this forum of ideas. Enjoy the holiday.
My I second that with you SiouxRose - for both RICHM and VISITING PROFESSOR.
My sentiments exactly.
If revolution ever comes, don't forget about the good people in the MSM. Like our government, they need to be replaced with fresh faces and fresh ideas.
"And gee, as far as that goes, why DON'T we hear the anti-war messages of Martin Luther King and many other Americans like him?"
Because the last American with both power and a social conscience was assassinated June 6, 1968.
I still remember clearly those times of Martin Luther King, JR's and Bobby Kennedy's assassinations -- following each other quite so closely ....
i was just a teen those years - in my home country, philippines, but even THERE - with my parents - and neighbors listening on the radio together or watching the first-ever Television sets in town in a neighor's house....we were all crying...
we KNEW something so Golden was lost - to ALL humanity - when Martin Luther King, Jr Died...and for whatever else his own life might have been, also Bobby Kennedy.
i still remember those days of tears shared with americans.
it behooves americans to LEARN that the very best of them - the world HAD also shed tears for -- but americans themselves do not treasure their examples and teachings...and that is to their eternal shame.
"First of all, American troops are not being assassinated. They are soldiers that have invaded and occupied another country, and many of them are becoming casualties of the hostility that this kind of action always engenders."
That's a technical point from where I sit.
Young soldiers have always been cannon fodder for the MIC - cannon fodder using their bodies. Which means...they are being killed. Call it cannon fodder or murder or assassination, it all comes down to death.
And if anyone is tempted to callously label those in the military as killers, let's remember how military recruiters are now allowed to go into public high schools to recruit kids. When they indoctrinate kids and sign them up with visions of adventure, travel, money, and education dancing in their heads, then send them off to war, that is equally a form of assassination as any other.
Of course, the assassinations really start the day they enter public school, but that's another discussion.
We still don't hear him and we never will.
Speak for yourself. Maybe you should try reading his books.
I think he means that cynically, in that nothing has changed.
We're all in this together...Tea-partiers, anarchists, white educated liberal Obama apologists, blue collar, white collar, no collar---
As long as we snipe at one another, the status quo will not change. The MIC dildo will be continually rammed home into the public orifice, and our "leaders" and their owners make off with the booty, leaving the citizenry lying along the road, broken, bleeding--
Until and unless we can unite a critical mass--in both senses of that term--we are doomed.
Yes, puffin, right on. Common cause is the only way to defeat the parasitic political class, the MIC, and their enablers in the MSM.
"Common cause is the only way..."
The "Tea-partiers, anarchists, white educated liberal Obama apologists, blue collar, white collar, no collar---" liberals, progressives etc. already have a common cause.
It's called neoliberalism.
I don't understand this comment.
Neoliberalism is one of the dividing labels, not a shared political philosophy among these disparate groups.
"Neoliberalism is one of the dividing labels, not a shared political philosophy among these disparate groups."
Do these "disparate" groups all accept the pregrogatives of corporate power? Do they emphasize individual liberty and freedom to the exclusion of justice? Do they think and act like consumers instead of citizens? Do they all live in a market society instead of a democratic one? Do they all measure human worth based on a "pragmatic" or market definition? Do they worship individual market choice?--Hell, do they worship the market?
Of course they do. They all do.
All those "disparate" groups you mention are one big neoliberal family.
All under one roof.
That's why the idea of common cause is so familiar and appealing.
The house did not fall, it's become all one thing.
Here we go again with a blanket statement and the redefining of terms. George the Lesser was a neo-liberal, which by definition means promoting radical change. The characteristics mentioned don't apply.
"Here we go again with a blanket statement and the redefining of terms."
"Here we go again"--sounds just like Ronnie.
Notice how Buck doesn't refute my assertions?
Heh, I know how disturbing a "redefining" of terms can be once you've been taught the conventional definitions and all and conditioned to accept them.
Notice how few people here on the "Left" at CD use the term neoliberal? Like it's some kind of forbidden word you might want to think twice about using. Why is that?
I like this: "The characteristics mentioned don't apply"--it sounds like one of those terse Microsoft messages you get in Windows. As in, we're not even going to discuss this word.
Silly me for going with the "conventional" definition.
I think I understand your intent; many u.s. citizens have acquiesced to fascism, war, and revere material goods. No doubt. Media has influenced them in all these respects. The antinomy is overwhelming and worshiping folderol is a product of capitalism. But, it doesn't make them neo-liberals.
"But, it doesn't make them neo-liberals."
Why not?
Can you tell me what makes a neoliberal and what doesn't?
But this time, without all the silly conventional wisdom, I mean.
I wasn't sniping, just didn't want to be included in the "we."
Bad word choice.
But I do want to include you--and as many others as can be mustered--in the "we" that oppose the war.
I started speaking out against these wars before they started, while surrounded by those convinced revenge was the answer. I wrote articles for newspapers, letters to op-eds, endless communications to all I know and what do I get back? Chastised, shunned, and called an endless stream of uncomplimentary names. I wasted precious gasoline driving to the capital to protest into the wind, including the most evil building in the world, the five sided temple of misery. I've refused to pay taxes since the inception as a moral choice, ala Thoreau. I've read King and hold him in the highest esteem with Thoreau and Gandhi. I heard them loud and clear and certainly do not wish to be included in a blanket statement of "we can't hear him."
I know what Kent was saying and also know from reading him here that he has good intentions. If it sounded snipey, my apologies.
People that oppose war are a we I can accept.
"Chastised, shunned, and called an endless stream of uncomplimentary names".
Buck: Do not be discouraged. This is the price of civic activism and prophesy.
We are all cathedral builders, never to see our final product.
Don't give up, Buck. You are a shining star.
Joe
Me, too.
I was in Hyde Park, in London, where a million-plus pissed off Brits had clogged the streets for miles around. The double-decker (now gone, alas) bus I took to get there couldn't get close, so I walked in. Upon hearing my American accent, I had to quickly point out I didn't vote for W., didn't support the attack, etc.
I have functioned as a National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer in protests here in the states, and was filmed by some alphabet-soup cameramen from about a yard away. We do non-violent protest training, how to engage with the opposition, how to spot the provacateurs,etc.
Fat lot of good it did.
We've started three more wars since. Yemen, Iran, Pakistan. We just haven't declared them.
Me thinks we doth protest too much. We have to come up with something else.
BUCK -- it is so unfortunate that people with conscience like yourself are paying the price, not only in your personal ways, but for being "swallowed UP" into the FACE of what the rest of the majority of americans present - who, either passively or actively, support the warlike mentality .
"We're all in this together...Tea-partiers, anarchists, white educated liberal Obama apologists, blue collar, white collar, no collar---"
Unfortunately, we're all neoliberals together too.
Our children are not dying for freedom or any other noble cause, they have been put in harms way for the same reason that they always are.
That is to defend the business intrests of the ruling elite. Those in charge do not care for freedom as it just gets in the way. Nor do they mind the corruption nor the drug trade as they are both useful in their pursuit of profits and power.
"Dr. King would be assassinated exactly one year (almost to the hour) after his great speech at Riverside Church. It’s the same terrible fate that awaits some of the American forces, most of them very young, that we continue to send into the quagmire in Afghanistan."
I took this statement to mean death by the hand of another, rather than assassinated per se. Whether that makes any difference to your objection, I don't know. But as far as I can see, that is the only example of Bob Herbert's "fundamentally unprincipled and dishonest message home" message you give to support your position that targets, it appears, journalists in general. I agree with your position regarding the complicity of the US media.
But the final quote you put, "And yet the voices in search of peace, in search of an end to the “madness,” in search of the nation-building so desperately needed here in the United States, are feeble indeed," would seem to show that Bob Herbert is indeed seeking some resolution other than war.
Bring America Back !!!!
***Well 4thefuture, we really cannot be too literal when we are trying
to hear a message from 43 years ago.
***Nor did our collective ears hear Pres Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell
Speech, even before Rev King, Warning us heavily about the imminent
and high danger of an out-of-control US Military Industrial Complex,
hell bent on perpetuating itself to the detriment of life in the USA !
***It is , however, real astute of you to mention the author's intent to
seek "some resolution other than war" ! Gee, do you think it could be PEACE ?
"I must admit, I cringe every time a U.S. journalist pontificates about the terrible corruption in other countries."
I do as well. I also cringe when US "journalists" repeat verbatim US government condemnations of the Chinese or others for human rights violations (as if "but we have good reasons for our violations" holds, when every government claims it has "good reasons" and many if not most have better arguments than the US government). I just wonder how many of them believe even one-tenth of what they write.
They believe whatever they are paid to believe
Whether they believe their BS that they write or not has nothing to do with it. Most of the columnists are nothing but presstitutes and whores for their Madames called the MSM. They are not interested in the truth because that could cost them their livelihood. Their #1 priority is to stay employed, just like any employee, and they know the unspoken parameters required by their Editors and Publishers, who are conservative in their opinions and support their advertisers and the corportocracy. It is not news that informs like it is suppose to be, but news that is designed to misinform!
The military industrial media complex has integrated the economy to the point that the media branches of these corporations is charged with creating "press releases" to keep us deceived.
If MLK was alive today, the relationship between him and Obama would be more strained than his relationship with LBJ.
Although LBJ was a guns and butter president like Obama, at least LBJ gave some of the butter to us grunts. Obama gives all the butter to the elites.
And didn't LBJ choose not to run for another four years. I've read in some articles that LBJ was pretty much broken by Vietnam and his role in it. I don't see Obama has having this problem, do you? But I wonder who people would be listening to today, were MLK still alive -- Obama's manufactured "eloquence" or the honesty and passion of Dr. King? A shallow suit like Obama never would have been able to get to where he is today were MLK still alive and his message been allowed to take hold in America among all races and creeds of people.
Not only is Obama giving butter to all the elites but it's possible Obama could be in office long enough to set back civil rights for all Americans. The sad thing is it looks like he won't have a lot of resistance. After all, it's all in the name of security, right?
Easter Sunday (April 4th) falls on the date of the assassination of Dr. King (April 4th). His Dream rises again above the din and confusion of a Nation lost in the moment, searching for its soul. His understanding of the promise and potential of America and the challenges inherent in realizing that promise is celebrated. Painfully and inexorably America moves toward its fulfillment as a country where "content of character" is the defining element of personhood.
In answer to the first question, no. In answer to the second question, yes. The post is presented as faith "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".