|
CounterPunch
April 1,
2003
The Vietnam
Connection
A Familiar Odor in the Air
By BERNARD WEINER
Is it just me or is there a smell of Vietnam in
the desert air? Once again, in its haste to get its war on, the
U.S. has gone into a foreign land, ignorant of its culture, believing
that its technological might would lead to a swift victory, forgetting
the force of nationalism when a people believe themselves to
be invaded,
And the U.S. generals and politicians
in charge pretend that all is going swimmingly and that the war
will be over just as soon as the "coalition" forces
get into downtown Baghdad and punish the enemy Big Time.
Does any of this sound familiar? How
do you spell Q-U-A-G-M-I-R-E?
As we now know, the generals and policy
advisors warned successive U.S. presidents not to get involved
in Vietnam (see Daniel Ellsberg's book, "Secrets"),
but each President dismissed those inside experts and went ahead
anyway, the result of which was the expension of our blood and
treasure -- an d our sense of ourselves as a moral nation --
in an unwinnable war.
We know that the top echelons of our
current military early on warned the Bush politicos and Mr. Bush
himself not to launch this war on Iraq, absent an overt provocation
and without a huge international coalition on board; the brass
were warned by Rumsfeld to get in line with Bush policy or get
another job. They got in line.
The policy behind the Iraq war comes
mainly from chickenhawks -- i.e., armchair soldiers who made
sure they didn't have to serve in Vietnam or any other wars.
These Project for the New American Century ideologues were certain
that the Iraqis would welcome the U.S. soldiers as liberators,
they knew how weak Saddam's regime was, they were sure they could
roll the members of the U.N. Security Council into backing their
fait accompli war, they knew Turkey would accept the bribe and
come around, they knew everything. Infallible.
Bush, not having any ideas of his own,
was a prime candidate for swallowing such malarkey and turning
it into doctrine. And so, against the advice of everyone who
should count in such things -- former President Bush and his
top security advisors; his own military brass; the Pope and other
world religious leaders; his European allies; the Arab World,
virtually unanimously; ten million citizens of various countries
who took to the streets to denounce the planned invasion, and
so on -- Bush launched a "pre-emptive" war on Iraq,
absent any provocation.
He wouldn't need as big an invading force
as many military leaders told him might come in handy. When the
Iraqis see our might, and feel our bombs, are properly shocked
and awed by our greatness, it'll all be over before you can say
"Halliburton contract." So went the Bush mantra, and
in the early days, Rumsfeld laid on the "inevitability"
line big time. It's all but over, they'll see it momentarily
and then we will have won, we will have "liberated"
the Iraqi people.
Hasn't worked out that way. The Iraqis
will take U.S. food packages and water, and then denounce America
as an infidel invader, the "Satan" that's bombing their
villages and cities, killing their citizens, trying to humiliate
them in the world's eyes.
Why did we expect otherwise? The Bush
Administration -- which wears blinders, just like successive
administrations with regard to Vietnam, so that it will see only
what it wants to see -- accepted everything the Iraqi opposition-in-exile
told them about what would happen once U.S. troops set foot on
Iraqi soil. The people would rise up, throw off the Saddam shackles
and place flowers at the feet of their American saviors.
It's at least conceivable that something
like that could have happened had the U.S. been lucky with its
opening-night overture bombing and decapitated the entire Iraqi
military/political leadership in one fell swoop. But without
an instantaneous success, the U.S. found itself fighting in Saddam's
war-scenario rather than being fully able to carry out its own.
And now the "coalition" (mainly
the U.S. and U.K., plus whatever others could be badgered and
bullied and bribed into lending their names but no troops) is
getting ready to enter Baghdad, for the jolly good fun of house-by-house,
street-by-street fighting in territory known exclusively by their
enemy.
It's going to be a turkey shoot for the
Iraqis as they ambush and booby trap and lead the U.S. troops
down one blind alley after another, for months, perhaps for years.
And you know what the response will be from the Superpower: more
bombing from the air in an urban environment, civilian casualties
galore, more sympathy for the Iraqis from the Arab world, less
patience with the U.S. around the globe, a vision of the U.S.
as a giant bully who just wants to beat up someone to demonstrate
his authority.
Whenever things looked dark in Vietnam,
the military would ask for another 100,000 troops. That'll make
us invulnerable, that'll take care of those gooks. We'll up the
ante. More B-52 bombings, more napalm, more infantry, the boys'll
be home by Christmas.
Things are looking poorly along the road
to Baghdad, so the call already is out: Another 100,000 troops
already are on their way to Iraq. (And you can bet your bottom
dollar that there are brass in the Pentagon thinking, but not
yet saying: "We told you so, you dumb civilian a-holes!")
Things have moved so quickly. The antiwar
marches were drawing millions in this country and around the
globe, and the fricking war hadn't even started yet! And now
that the war officially is on, conservative Foreign Service Officers
are resigning, conservative Republican Party officials are resigning,
Australian pilots are refusing their bomb-run orders -- all because,
in good conscience, they can't condone what their government
is asking them to do in this illegal and immoral war. That development
took years and years to happen in Vietnam. And we're just in
the opening weeks of this war.
Will Bush&Co. realize the truths
they should have realized before they launched their invasion,
and pack it in? Oh, terribly sorry, we made a bad mistake; rather
than waste more of our precious youth and treasure on this sorry
mess, we're pulling out and going back to the United Nations
for direction. Yeah, sure. It would take a government of great
moral courage to do something like that -- and, in case you haven't
noticed, that's not who's in charge these days.
No, too much is riding on this gigantic
gamble for PNAC and the rest of Bush&Co. In order to carry
out its vision for the region, and the world -- i.e., regional
and world dominance, control of natural resources, being able
to threaten and put down any would-be competitors (be they nation-states
or international organizations) -- Iraq has to fall. No ifs,
ands or buts.
These guys will bankrupt the U.S. before
they abandon their grandiose scheme, will send more and more
young men and women to their deaths to get what they want. They
want the world and they want it NOW, and nothing you or I say
will deter them from their self-appointed rounds. God has anointed
them, you see, and the geopolitical situation offers the opportunity
-- no other Superpower around to stop them -- so get out of our
way, damn it.
The idea that they can be defeated by
non-superpowers -- like the world's citizens boycotting American
goods, by millions of anti-war demonstrators leaning on their
governments abroad to combat U.S. imperial ambitions, the beginning
rumbles for impeachment, even (possibly) the United Nations stepping
in to force their hand -- simply hasn't entered their craniums.
Yet.
But they'd better start thinking such
thoughts, because their crass arrogance, bullyboy behavior, and
desperate flailing around militarily have energized the world
against them, and are starting to make inroads even into the
fearful American polity, who are starting to wonder whether these
are the best leaders for our already scary times. (There are
rumors circulating that the Bush Administration is examining
options to call off the 2004 elections, to take care of that
possibility outright. And, if not, to ensure that most of us
vote by computer touch-screens, with no paper trail with which
to double-check the results.)
In the meantime, prepare yourself for
more bad news out of Iraq. The boys won't be home anytime soon
-- even, or especially, if there's a "victory." The
PNAC scenario, you see, calls for the U.S. to establish a major
military base in Iraq, from which the next phase of the operation
to control the Middle East region ("benevolently,"
of course) will be run. Get ready to rumble.
Bernard Weiner,
a poet and playwright, was the San Francisco Chronicle's theater
critic/editor for 16 years; a Ph.D. in government & international
relations, he's taught at various universities, and currently
co-edits The Crisis
Papers
Yesterday's
Features
David
Lindorff
Liberating Iraqis from Their Homes
Neve Gordon
A Different Kind of Despair
John
Chuckman
Absurdities and Contradictions
Ron Jacobs
Bernie Sanders Voting Maybe on
War
Wayne
Madsen
The Siege of Washington
Mark Franchetti
Slaughter at the Bridge of Death
Robert
Fisk
Blood and Bandages of the Innocent
Robin Cook
Send Our Soldiers Home
Anthony
Gancarski
Investigate Perle
Uri Avnery
The Devil's Dictionary
Steve
Perry
War Web Log 03/31
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- Turkish Delights: a Pre-War Diary by Tariq Ali;
- The Plot to Frame the
Zapatistas: Talkers
and Cowards;
- Drugging Kids: The Plague of Neuroleptics;
- The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal:
a New Investigation.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|