Now They Have What They Always Wanted:
The Chance to WIN in Vietnam

"The type of political rhetoric we're hearing today does send the wrong signal to our troops; it does send the wrong signal to our enemies. You have only to look at the enemy's thinking, the Zwahiri, the Number two man in Al-Qaida and his communication with Zarqawri, the top lieutenant for Al-Qaida in Iraq--- they talk about Vietnam...they talk about the withdrawal based on a lack of American will as part of the key elements of their strategy...so I think that's the problem here, in that we're not having an honest debate. I think it would be perfectly acceptable for us to have a debate today about whether we should prematurely pull our troops out. That's what Ted Kennedy is asking for. His criteria of success in Iraq is to bring the troops home, not victory."

Dan Bartlett
White House Communications Director
November 12, 2005

Ho's Silence

Is this Administration only becoming insane, or were they always so?

Is there anyone out there in TV-land who, having lived through the Vietnam War, as I did, who would now deny that there is a certain unmistakable resemblance in the words of the Bush Administration is resseurecting--- right down to the exact word and phrase, with those used during the period of Vietnam War? I can personally recall each of the above-bolded words or phrases being used over and over by the Johnson and the Nixon administrations during Vietnam. Is the return of these words merely accidental, or does it really represent the final realization and apogee of the entire subconscious project of the "Conservative" movement in America? Surely there is nothing purely accidental about the resemblance.

The hurt that so-called 'conservatives" sustained in the Sixties over Vietnam is exactly the same hurt which all of them admit was the birth of their movement and their mission. This hurt, which was more than merely political, was was also profoundly psychological as well. For them, the notion that America could make a historical blunder as massive as Vietnam became the "thought that dared not be thought." What we are witnessing now---- is that although the political and historical forces that brought us Vietnam are gone, we nonetheless appear to be in for a complete 'revisitation' of the same subconscious structure or pattern that played out in the Vietnam tragedy. This psychological pattern had certain clear elements:

Among which were:

1. "National Honor" as the justification for any war otherwise inexplicable, a war being conducted for secret "reasons of state". When these declared reasons turn out to be mistakes or 'intentional mistakes' then one is simply unable to explain to the general populace of one's own country any true purpose for such a war---- especially since the real purposes involve the arcane strategizing of the national security elite. Call this, for short: War by Policy.

2. The use of language designed to cast an aspersions of disloyalty on those who raise questions about the illogic of the declared PURPOSES of the chosen war. (When the declared purposes are recognized as false, yet another rationale is quickly substituted.)

3. The fanatical assertion, made to the point of complete impermanence to truth, that one has to defend a "small friendly state" against the forces of unreason and worldwide anarchy.

4. The obsessive and continual use of inflammatory language toward the "enemy" whose real motives, grievances and purposes are NEVER openly acknowledged or discussed.

5. And finally, the all important DECLARATION of VICTORY when the costs of the pursuit of the said war has become too great. In this final step one never admits that the enemy has actually persisted until he has WON, but rather that one's own demands and conditions have finally been met.

I believe it is now entirely clear that this pattern, down which America marched for fifteen years in Vietnam is very likely to be repeated, or partially repeated in Iraq. I say 'partially repeated' simply because there is always hope, in spite of this Administrations' propagandistic language--- that many who can recall the old pattern, and are thus in state of disquiet over Iraq, may yet be able to prevent the United States from repeating the old pattern in its entirety.

The argument I would like to make here is less based in political facts than in language facts, for while the former are always open to interpretation, what is SAID or what is NOT SAID is, over time, a far more reliable barometer of the truth. To refresh our memories let us look a few excerpts from the speeches of Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Here is what President Johnson said about Vietnam on April the Seventh 1965:

"The rulers in Hanoi are urged on by Peking. This is a regime which has destroyed freedom in Tibet, which has attacked India and has been condemned for aggression in Korea. It is a nation which is helping the forces of violence on almost every continent...We are in Vietnam to strengthen world order...to leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all people in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability and even wider war. ..To disavow that pledge, to abandon this small and BRAVE nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong."

Similarly, here here is what President Nixon said, justifying his invasion of Cambodia, in April of 1970:

"We will not react to this threat to America by plaintive, diplomatic protests. If we did, the credibility of the United States would be destroyed in every area of the world where only the power of the United States deters aggression...But we will not be humiliated. We will not be defeated. My fellow Americans, we live in an age of anarchy, both abroad and at home. We see mindless attacks on all the great institutions which have been created by free civilizations over the last 500 years. Even here in the United States, great Universities are being systematically destroyed. Small nations all over the world find themselves under attack from within and without. If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful nation acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world. It is not our power but our WILL and character that is being tested tonight."

Earlier, when Nixon had written to Ho in 1969, he used words which clearly portrayed the War in Vietnam as a mistake: "I believe deeply that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to a complete end can benefit no one---least of all the PEOPLE OF VIETNAM...the time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution to this tragic war...You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the BRAVE PEOPLE OF VIETNAM...

In requires no in-depth analysis here to see the outlines of the pattern with its recurring themes of fear and cosmic catastrophe. Notice that while President Johnson refers to the "the small and BRAVE" people of South Vietnam, President Nixon uses the same word "Brave" to describe the one and entire nation of VIETNAM, fundamentally acknowledging that the war as conceived by the Americans was a mistake, since there was no "South Vietnam" to start with. Though by January 1973, at the war's formal conclusion, Nixon adds:

"Throughout years of negotiations we have insisted on peace with Honor. The people of South Vietnam have been guaranteed the right to determine their future, without outside interference..."

Unfortunately President Nixon did not tell us what "Peace with Honor" had gained the United States, besides another 20,000 dead soldiers. He also did not explain how South Vietnam was going to determine its own future, "free of outside interference". Decades of war had ruined Vietnam but still Ho Chi Minh had remained silent over Nixon's several "peace overtures". Was this possibly because the SELF-DEFENSE of his people did not look to him like a proper object for negotiation? I believe that is the case. (For those who can apply this simple lesson, bearing in mind its relation to Colonialism, to the societies of the Middle East, please do so!)

But what has all this to do with Iraq? Well, I do recall that the "Conservatives" have never accepted that the United States "lost" the Vietnam War because we did not understand Vietnam's independent historical view of itself. For them it was the case that the United States did not "commit to Victory" or "refused to support the troops" or did not come up with a successful military plan. In spite of the fact that Nixon considering dropping a nuclear weapon on Vietnam, in spite of 58,000 combat dead, in spite of 8 million tons of bombs dropped on Asia, an amount greater than that dropped by all sides in World War II, the "Conservatives" believe we "lost" only our "national nerve" in Vietnam. For them, apparently, we never did commit a historical folly.

Iraq, of course, is not Vietnam, but the same structural parallel that led us into Vietnam, namely--- the supposed existence of a "world wide conspiracy of Communism" prevented us from seeing Vietnam's history objectively. We are engaged, on the level of culture and history, with a similar delusion today in Iraq. If Iraq were a perfect "Democracy" tomorrow, with an Air Force, an Army, and a contented populace, would that spell the death-knell to Al-Qaida? If every country in the Middle-East were a "Democracy" would that mean that Zarqawi could find no more suicide bombers? Which is easier, to fight a half-century war with Al-Qaida, a time during which their fanaticism will become routine and legitimate and eventually carve out a permanent place for itself, or to find out what they want NOW, while they remain relatively weak? How many innocents, for example, will need to die to keep the House of Saud on its throne?

John Pike, a well-respected military analyst, states today in the New York Times--- that between radical Islam and the Cold War there is only a very "inexact" analogy. The so-called "The War on Terror", the attack on Afghanistan, the quagmire of Iraq, the entire western project of overturning and "democratizing" the societies of the Middle East is equally "inexact." Historical "inexactitude" is a measure of our ignorance of the forces we face, for while we are doing what we think we must, "they" are doing exactly the same thing, and no two sets of delusions are ever equivalent as they work to produce an outcome foreseen by neither side, and surely deleterious to both. This is the cost of fanaticism, theirs and ours. For it would require INTELLIGENCE to break out of the mold and to seek to really know the raison d'etre of one's "enemy". That done, one might find a way of giving him some of what he wants, a fair hearing, if only for his pride...and thus provide a chance for peace...

It isn't the sound of exploding bombs that I hear coming from the Middle East---- it's Ho's deafening silence.

Will Morgan
November 14, 2005