The Forgotten Vietnam - Iraq Parallel
There used to be one word in the White House speechwriting shop that was absolutely taboo: Vietnam. The president was not even allowed to say it in a whisper. Now, in a daring reversal, the White House wordsmiths have written a presidential speech that puts Vietnam front and center. A gamble that big is a sure sign of desperation.
At first glance, it’s a gamble the administration seems certain to lose. Peace activists started saying “Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam” back when they were just a lunatic fringe. Now that it’s respectable to oppose the Iraq war, Democratic politicians constantly repeat the refrain: Vietnam taught us the folly of persisting in a war we can’t win. We can’t be foolish enough to make the same mistake again. With that view so widespread, it seems strange that Bush’s speechwriters would want anyone to think, much less talk, about Vietnam.
But if you are betting that the administration is bound to lose this gamble, don’t put down more than you can afford to part with. The Republicans are showing an uncanny ability to control the public debate. Remember just a couple of months ago, when it was Democratic Party gospel that this was indeed a war we couldn’t win? Somehow the gospel is being rewritten. As the Washington Post reports, the Dem party line now says that we are indeed “making progress” on the military front. Our troops are doing a superb job. It’s just those incompetent Iraqi politicians — looking for “power, revenge, and personal advantage,” Hillary Clinton says — who are blocking the path to a glorious victory.
The turnaround isn’t really so mysterious. The administration and the Pentagon PR machines have been working overtime to flood us with good news from Anbar province and other such good news places. If they can rewrite reality in today’s Iraq, why not in yesterday’s Vietnam and Cambodia? And if they can rewrite the military reality in Iraq so successfully, who’s to say they won’t have the same luck rewriting the political reality by the time Congess votes on funding the war?
But this still leaves the question: Why do so many people believe their good news? Why do Democrats at the highest level feel compelled to parrot the administration’s line? Part of the answer lies in a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq that doesn’t get much attention, though it’s among the most important of all.
Long ago, historians of the Vietnam war noted that the intense debate about the war that gripped America rarely made much reference to the suffering of the Vietnamese people. Only “peaceniks” on the far left paid much attention to the two million or more Vietnamese who died, to the corpses and torched villages and napalmed children that were the living — and dying — reality of the war. In the mainstream, where the “serious” discussion unfolded, the only question that mattered was: What is this war doing to the USA? Is it to our benefit to keep on fighting, or are we better off withdrawing?
For most Americans, Vietnam was merely a backdrop to the great dramatic conflict that gripped the United States. The heroes and villains, and the victims, in the drama were the Americans who supported and opposed the war. The Vietnamese, if they were seen at all, were merely extras with brief walk-on roles. They never got to speak, never got to tell their stories or say what they thought about the war. (This was also the case in most American movies about Vietnam.)
Now we are seeing much the same scenario played out again. Only this time it’s Iraq that forms the backdrop to the great American drama, much like those old Wild West shows where a curtain painted to look like a dusty main street formed the backdrop for the big showdown.
Is it Bush and Cheney or their antiwar critics who are wearing the white hats? That’s for you to decide. In either case, political leaders and the mainstream media make it clear that you are deciding for a particular vision of what America is all about, what makes America great, and what direction America should take in the future. What happens to the people of Iraq is mentioned only in passing, if at all.
Sad to say, this is probably a fairly accurate reflection of U.S. public opinion. Most people here don’t care too much what happened to the people of Vietnam or what is happening to the people of Iraq. A recent poll showed that the average American thinks under 10,000 Iraqi civilians have died in this war — a vast underestimate. More importantly, the number of Iraqi dead scarcely figures into the public debate. As with the Vietnam war, it’s all about what is happening to us.
That is why Bush’s speechwriters could take the gamble of raising the specter of Vietnam, and why they may very well win. Since the war was turned into a fictional drama, few people know, or care, what really happened in Vietnam. Therefore, it’s easy to change the story around. Few can refute Bush’s absurd version, in which the forecast “bloodbath” supposedly actually happened, and the U.S. withdrawal triggered the Khmer Rouge outrages in Cambodia.
So it all boils down to who can tell a better story about Vietnam and Iraq. A story isn’t better because it’s closer to the empirical facts. A story is better because it is yields a bigger emotional payoff: more gripping, more inspiring, more comforting, more flattering to our side, more confirming of what we believe.
On all those counts, the yarn Bush is spinning could easily prove a winner. It says that we were close to winning in Vietnam. But then the antiwar “cut and run” crowd snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. That let loose a bloody tide of chaos that engulfed southeast Asia, humiliated the U.S., and emboldened the terrorists, who now want to make Iraq a home base from which to launch their next attack upon us. But we have a chance to right all those wrongs — to stem the tide of chaos, regain our pride, crush the terrorists, keep our children safe, and show what America is really made of — if only we have the courage to fight for God’s truth.
Do the Democrats and antiwar forces have a story to tell that’s any better, or even nearly as good? I wonder. It’s a tall order. Already it looks like Bush’s story about good military news from Iraq is gaining converts rapidly. That’s why the Dems are scampering to join the “me too” chorus. But the antiwar side cannot win this showdown by trying to outdo the prowar side in praising the glories of the U.S. military occupiers. That’s only playing the game the Republicans have chosen, because they are confident no one can beat them at it.
The alternative is to refuse to take the administration’s new bait. The antiwar movement could refuse to use Iraq as a backdrop and Iraqis as extras in a drama about the trials and tribulations of America. Instead, we could insist that the issue is not about how well our soldiers are doing or what is happening here at home. It’s about what is happening in Iraq, where ordinary people like us have been dying and suffering in horrifying numbers ever since we occupied their country. We have no magic button that we can push to end the tragedy now. But we can do our best to refocus the debate on the real terror: the terror endured by the Iraqi people who live under military occupation every day.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: [email protected]
The more things change the more they stay the same, eh? So much for learning from the mistakes of the past. Well, I suppose the silver lining in this fiasco is that the us economy isn’t strong enough to maintain a long war. Unfortunately for the rest of the world when your economy collapses from the inflation of your currency….
The unforgotten parallel is that Vietnam and Iraq were both based on resource grabs. Iraq for oil and Vietnam for….
Fire in the Lake by Frances Fitzgerald [Excerpts]
Once they had conquered Vietnam, the French looked to their new colony to become a source or raw materials for their burgeoning industrial plant and a buyer for their manufactured goods. But in the mid-nineteenth century Vietnam was only a potential source. To achieve the common aim of all colonialist countries, France first had to transform what was essentially a subsistence economy serving the Vietnamese peasants and landlords into an economy that produced surpluses for the international market. Given the particular geography of the country, the French enterprise consisted of the creation of large plantations and the development of mines to extract the rich deposits of coal, zinc, and tin. The restriction of Vietnamese trade to French markets came as a corollary. To encourage and support the establishment of French colonists and entrepreneurs, the French administration built roads, canals, railroads, and market cities linking the Vietnamese interior with the shipping routes. These public works benefited the French almost exclusively at the time, but the French officials financed them largely by an increase of taxes on the Vietnamese peasantry. Following metropolitan practice, they levied taxes in money instead of kind, and upon trade in commodities more than upon property values and capital. They also established a government monopoly on salt, alcohol, and opium, and raised the prices on these goods to six times what they had been before the occupation. The result was a sudden growth in the number of landless and impoverished people - people ready to accept employment in the French plantation and mines under the most exploitative of terms. The French, however, took this new work force for granted, understanding it to be the normal complement of poor people that existed in this “backward” country.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/9/20/1260831.html
I think Professor Chernus ought to spend some time in the History department. There was indeed a “bloodbath” after we left Vietnam- tens of thousands dying in reeducation labor camps and over a million boat people lost (no one really knows). And of course many millions suffering from a regime which only fairly recently has acted to alleviate the suffering caused by its brutality and mismanagement.
I do agree though that it is entirely disgraceful the way the media and most Americans focus on our casualties and not the suffering that has been unleashed by our actions. Still that doesn’t help us with where to go form here.
Anyone commenting that this is as simple as just get out- end the war, doesn’t have clue as to what the situation is in Iraq today. It is a complex formula of sectarian civil war that will not end, and in fact will greatly increase, as soon as we leave. And there are grave consequences which will follow our retreat- both in Iraq, in our struggle with militant Islam and our overall strategic standing in the world. And despite the horrific circumstances that exist there today there are large components of Iraqis who would still not turn the clock back- certainly not the Kurds (yes they are Iraqi and are very glad we got rid of Saddam), and though they wish they had done the job themselves and want us to leave now the majority of Shiites would not turn back the clock as they, as the majority, had taken the brunt of Bathist brutality. They believe that their time has come and will not stop the violence until they have inherited what they feel is rightly theirs.
Unfortunately the Sunnis believe they can somehow regain their power, and yes you have the Islamic fighters (yes Al Queada wasn’t there before but they are sure there now), and then of course there is the tribal and criminal element that has thrived in the chaos we have created. Unfortunately, as a recent article in Foreign Affairs stated, history has shown that usually the only way these sectarian conflicts end is when enough blood has been spilled and someone cries uncle and surrenders out of exhaustion- often over a decade.
Any analogy is going to inaccurate, so says NPR yesterday. My problem with Geroge’s is that it stops at fighting, it does not go on to “post-fighting”
No matter when the US leaves Iraq, there will be a “bloodbath”. No one nation on Earth can stop it. In his Vietnam analogy, Georgie is right. But he stops there to build his fuax case.
This is 2007 - one of our favored trading partners: Vietnam and a war that killed 53,000 Americans. You can visit Vietnam as a tourist destination, take a look at your country of orgin in your goods, “Made in Vietnam”, your cup of coffee at Starbucks probably started out in Vietnam (3rd largest coffee exporting nation).
As to humanitarian, does anyone now consider the plight of the Vietnamese after our “withdrawal”? Of course not, the forces of economics and capitalism took over and the dead and rotting in SE Asia are just a “cost of goods sold”
So it will be in Iraq. We will leave. After a period of time, the Sunnis, Shiite, Kurds, Christians and whatevers will reach a tipping point in their violence towards each other, the forces of economics will kick in, and in 2023, we can all go a visit Iraq, buy Iraqi goods, and be buying Iraqi oil.
It is about time that the US stops meddling in places where they do not belong and they do not understand and are not wanted. The place for our treasure to be used is here for universal health care, better schools for all, decent housing, and now: repairing our crumbling infrastructure. (see Boston Big Dig: brought to you by Halliburton)
Will the population in 2023 be able to live with it? Aren’t you enjoying the “cost of goods sold” from Vietnam?
Whether we leave Iraq now or in 2009, the inevtiable results will be the same as in Vietnam, but by leaving now, maybe we can save some of our treasure: our sons and daughters, our economy, and reclaim our moral standard (ain’t gonna happen - what a shame)
The biggest parallel between Vietnam and Iraq….no member of the Bush or Cheney families fought in either war.
As long as there are Republicans, you can forget better health care, schools and jobs for our people. The Republican ideology is simple - PROFIT. The Dems are proving to be no better but that, I believe, is because they want to compete with the Repubs. Let’s get to work beating the Republican Party and relegating them to the dustbin of history and then reform the Democratic Party to reflect the Progressive ideals which are suppose to drive it.
There are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam as Chernus amply points out, but there are also differences. In Vietnam there were basically two sides to the conflict, the nationalist communist faction of Ho Chi Minh and the pro-American faction in the south. In Iraq you have Kurds, Shia, Sunni and various subdivisions within the major groups. There is no organized opposition government. There is no clearly defined enemy army in Iraq as ther was in Vietnam. It’s just a free form slaughter-fest. The malaki government is failing. The Iraqi people do not have a unifying political movement that represents their interests. Their only choice is a puppet government that wants to give away their sovereignty and resources to the occupier or continued chaos.
Unbelievable - a horrible, genocidal conflict is once again brought up to remind us how important death and destruction needs to be. You can’t argue with this mindset, the rich propaganda was alive during the war itself with the convincing argument: we were always “a million or so dead bodies short of victory, if only we’d been allowed to kill more then we were allowed to” The failed US colonial war was managed carefully, we were allowed to incinerate peasants or allow them to die of disease but we could not drop a nuclear bomb on Hanoi.
Insane, totally insane. When Bonzo came to DC, Nutmeg Island was the first victory that would lead to the redeeming embrace of militarism at the end of Gulf I.
In the Vietnam War the price of oil didn’t go up to $80 a barrel…
clairty you and George are both wrong about “bloodbaths” in Viet Nam after the war. Yes there were reeducation camps (1 day to 20 years) and people died. But, there was no bloodbath. America evacuated most of their allies before April 30th 1975. The majority of the boat people were economic refugees, more a result of the Americam Embargo against Viet Nam than political freedom.
And no matter how complex the problem is today remember that we started the war,
Hoa binh
clarity pretends that there is some good the U.S. military occupiers can do by staying in Iraq. Staying will not produce any benefit, no matter what. The sooner the U.S gets out of Iraq, the better. The longer this horror goes on, the worse.
You live in a land of make-believe, in which the U.S. military invaders and occupiers who have turned Iraq into a cauldron of death can somehow do something good by continuing to occupy the country. Madness.
As if the intentions of the invader and occupier were at all anything decent in the first place, as if the intentions of the invader and occupier could somehow now become something decent.
It is true that “simply getting out” will not miraculously solve all problems and turn Iraq into paradise. It is also plainly true that the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is not going to miraculously solve any problem whatsoever, but will only prolong the horror and continue to destroy millions of lives.
“It’s simple, Steve. Why don’t you and your boys just get the f*@k out of Iraq?”
According to studies, approximatly 1 million south vietnamese were imprisoned in “re-education” camps after the war. Approximatly 165,000 were killed or died in these camps. Of those released, approximatley 60% were re-arrested. The final mass release of prisoners happened in 1989.
Penny Coleman gives real parallels between Vietnam and Iraq wars. It also mentions about the psychopathic political and military leadership of the US.
War Psychiatry And Iraq Atrocities: How Killing Becomes A Reflex
By Penny Coleman
22 August, 2007
Alternet
In 1971, Lt. William Calley was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the massacre of some 500 civilians in the Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai. In response to Calley’s conviction, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) convened the “Winter Soldier Investigation.” Over a three-day period, more than a hundred veterans testified to atrocities they had witnessed committed by U.S. troops against Vietnamese civilians. Their expressed intention was to demonstrate that My Lai was not unique, that it was instead the inevitable result of U.S. policy. It was a travesty of justice, they claimed, to focus blame on the soldiers when it was the policy makers, McNamara, Bundy, Rostow, Johnson, LeMay, Nixon and the others who were truly responsible for the war crimes that had been committed.
In 2004, the release of the Abu Grahib photographs broke the unforgivable silence in the mainstream press about atrocities committed by American soldiers in Iraq. Haditha followed, then Mahmoudiyah, Ishaqi, and at this writing, countless other instances of savage, homicidal violence directed at civilians have been reported. The July 30 issue of the Nation included an article, “The Other War,” by Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian, which used interviews with 50 combat veterans to make the case that American soldiers are using indiscriminate and often lethal force in their dealings with Iraqi civilians. These veterans, the authors report, have “returned home deeply disturbed by the disparity between the reality of the war and the way it is portrayed by the U.S. government and American media.” I would wager that they are more deeply disturbed by the reality itself than the way the media reports it, but certainly government and media distortions are another layer of betrayal. In a letter protesting that article, Paul Rieckhoff, president of the anti-war organization Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, made an argument parallel to that of VVAW, namely that “(a)nyone who wants to write a serious piece about the ethical lapses of the U.S. troops should start and end the article by putting blame where it belongs — on the politicians who sent our troops to war unprepared and without a clear mission” (the Nation, 7/13/07).
I’m not suggesting that American soldiers take no responsibility for their actions. Like Rieckhoff, I would argue that we must balance outrage at criminal and sadistic acts with the insistence that we “guard against blaming this new generation of veterans for the terrible and tragic circumstances” that led to those acts. And I agree that, once again, the architects have been given a free pass and that the soldiers, who are doing exactly what they have been trained to do, are taking the blame. But I want to focus on an aspect of the situation that is never addressed in the mainstream media, and not often enough elsewhere: specifically that American troops are trained to act in criminal and sadistic ways.
Military training has been part of the experience of millions of young American men since the Revolutionary War. Prior to the Vietnam era, however, that training consisted largely of practicing military skills and learning to manage military equipment. It is only in the last half century that training has evolved into an entirely new phenomenon that makes use of the principles of operant conditioning to overcome what studies done over the last century have consistently demonstrated, namely, that healthy human beings have an inherent aversion to killing others of their own species.
Operant conditioning holds that organisms, including human beings, move through their environment rather haphazardly until they encounter a reinforcing stimulus. The experience of that stimulus becomes associated in memory with the behavior that immediately preceded it. In other words, a behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence, reward or punishment, modifies the organism’s tendency to repeat the behavior. Today’s recruits are intentionally and methodically subjected to a training regimen that is explicitly designed to turn them into reflexive killers. And it is very effective. It is also carefully concealed. The military would prefer to keep their methods out of sight because of the moral and ethical discussions, not to mention the legal restraints, which public scrutiny and constitutional debate might impose. Or so I would like to believe.
War Psychiatry, the army’s textbook on combat trauma, notes that “pseudospeciation, the ability of humans and some other primates to classify certain members of their own species as ‘other,’ can neutralize the threshold of inhibition so they can kill conspecifics.” Modern military training has developed carefully sequenced and choreographed elements of what many would call brainwashing to disconnect recruits from their civilian identities. The values, standards and behaviors they have absorbed over a lifetime from their families, schools, religions and communities are scorned and punished. Using cruelty, humiliation, degradation and cognitive disorientation, recruits are reprogrammed with an entirely new set of learned responses. Every aspect of combat behavior is rehearsed until response becomes reflexive. Operant conditioning has vastly improved the efficacy of American soldiers, at least by military standards. It has proven to be a reliable way to turn off the switch that controls a soldier’s inherent aversion to killing. American soldiers do kill more often and more efficiently. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing, calls this form of training “psychological warfare, [but] psychological warfare conducted not upon the enemy, but upon one’s own troops.”
The psychological warfare that is being conducted on today’s recruits is a truly disturbing indication of the worldview of our leadership, both military and political. The group identity they are drilling into these kids, the “insider” identity, is based on explicit contempt not only for the declared enemy of the week, but for the entire civilian population, with a special emphasis on women and homosexuals. In an army that is now 15 percent female and who knows (don’t ask, don’t tell) what percentage gay, drill instructors still rely on labels like “girl” or “pussy,” “lady” or “fairy” to humiliate, degrade and ultimately exact conformity. Recruits are drilled with marching chants that privilege their relationships with their weapons over their relationships with women (”you used to be my beauty queen, now I love my M-16″), or that overtly conflate sex and violence (”this is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for fighting, this is for fun.”). Aside from teaching these kids to quash their innate feelings about killing in general, they are being programmed with a distorted version of not only what it means to be a man, but of what it means to be a citizen. To ascend to the warrior class, one must learn to despise and distrust all that is not military. Chaim Shatan, a psychiatrist who worked with Vietnam-era veterans, described this transformative process as deliberate, as opposed to capricious, sadism, “whose purpose is to inculcate obedience to command.”
There are any number of ways that modern training methods both support violence, aggression and obedience and help to disconnect a reflex action from its moral, ethical, spiritual or social implications, but one of the best illustrations of this process is the marching chants, or “jodies,” as they are known in the services. “Jody” is the derivative of an African-American work song about Joe de Grinder, a devilish ladies’ man who is at home making time with the soldier’s girlfriend while the soldier is stuck in the war (”ain’t no use in going home; Jody’s on your telephone”). According to the military, jodies build morale while distracting attention from monotonous, often strenuous, exertion. The following, originally a product of the Vietnam era, has been resurrected for training purposes in every war since and is an example of the kind of morale building that has been judged appropriate to the formation of an American soldier:
Shell the town and kill the people.
Drop the napalm in the square.
Do it on a Sunday morning
While they’re on their way to prayer.
Aim your missiles at the schoolhouse.
See the teacher ring the bell.
See the children’s smiling faces
As their schoolhouse burns to hell
Throw some candy to the children.
Wait till they all gather round.
Then you take your M-16 now
And mow the little fuckers down.
Thankfully, the brainwashing has not yet been developed that will override the humanity of most American soldiers. According to the troops interviewed in the Nation, the kind of psychotic brutality described in the marching cadence above is indulged by only a minority. Still, they described atrocities committed against civilians as “common” — and almost never punished. As multiple deployments become the norm, however, and as more scrambled psyches are sent back into combat instead of into treatment, it is frightening to consider that the brainwashing may yet prevail. Given the training to which these soldiers have been subjected and the chaotic conditions in which they find themselves, it is inevitable that more will succumb to fear and rage and frustration. They will inevitably be overwhelmed by cumulative doses of horror, and they will lose control of their judgment and their compassion. Thirty-six years ago, American veterans tried to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the official response to civilian atrocities, the version that scapegoated soldiers and ignored those who gave the orders. As then Lt. John Kerry put it, “We could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel (that it is) not reds, and not redcoats (that threaten this country), but the crimes which we are committing.” The soldiers who, following orders, have run over children in the road rather than slow down their convoy will never be the same again, regardless of whether government and the media tell the truth. Nor will the soldiers manning checkpoints who shoot, as ordered, and kill entire families who failed to stop, only to learn later that no one had bothered to share with them that the American signal to stop — a hand held up, palm towards the oncoming vehicle — to an Iraqi means, “Hello, come here.” I have heard a number of the men cited in the Nation article speak about their combat experiences, and they are tormented by what they saw and did. They want to tell their stories, not because they are looking for absolution, but because they want to believe that Americans want to know. But neither are they willing to take the blame.
They have already carried home the psychic wounds and the dangerous reflexive habits of violence that will always diminish their lives and their relationships. In return, they are hoping we will listen to them this time when they ask us to look a little harder, dig a little deeper, use a little more discernment. Or have we already arrived at a point in our collective moral development when, as Shatan predicted, “Like Eichmann, we … consider evil to be banal and routine?”
Penny Coleman is the widow of a Vietnam veteran who took his own life after coming home. Her latest book, Flashback: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicide and the Lessons of War, was released on Memorial Day, 2006.
“Most people here don’t care too much what happened to the people of Vietnam or what is happening to the people of Iraq.”
Most people here don’t care too much about what’s happening to most people HERE, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, which they might not have, since, well, they don’t care. 50 million can’t afford basic health care? Who cares? 12 million kids in poverty? Who cares? Record foreclosures? As long as the rich don’t lose any money, who cares? Global warming? Who cares - buy an SUV and drive more than ever. Obesity pandemic? Pass the fries, who cares? No body armor for the troops? Who cares?
People here only care about really important stuff, like what Lindsay ate for breakfast, okay?
Forget history, his entire rational is spacious at best….
We left Vietnam… Millions of people died. Great monday morning Quarterbacking there W. Do you suspect Bush Jr. read this in Time Magazine, while at his country club just before getting his second appetizer from the clubhouse? Or maybe he waited untill he had a few drinks in him after dessert… it might have been at somepoint after his father drove home in their luxury car, back to their Mansion. Somewhere along the lines, Bush picked up this little tidbit about what was happening in Vietnam. Ironically, he certainly would never have know what was going on if it wasn’t for the press.
Sooooo…
If we had stayed in Vietnam…. Millions of Civilians (in addition to the Millions already killed) along with tens of thousands more US soldiers would have continued to have died for an indefinate number of years…under this logic, we might as well pullout not only to prevent Americans from dying, but also not to compound the Vietnemese and other civilians with EVEN MORE deaths that resulted compared with a pullout.
Now lets consider what would have happened if we never went into Vietnam to begin with…. oh hey, none of this nonsense would have ever occured!!!! Ironically, Vietnam, currently being the evil communists we were all told to hate, are now our buddies despite being communist! Go figure.
Keep in mind his second grade version of history is coming from a man who absolutely can’t he admit a mistake, or did anything wrong… Two years ago on national television, casually and seemingly jubilant, Bush says “ya know, I think about 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died so far.”
Now Bush is called a frontman, but for him Cheney etc…Now if you actually do approve of the Bush Admin, and actually think they are leaders, if you want to listen to how ‘inspirational’ ‘honest’ and ‘credible’ your leadership is in the white house, my suggestion is go to youtube, for instance, and just watch when these morons have to talk UNSCRIPTED for more than a minute, by themselves, without help, and when their talking points run out after that minute…very rare that it’s unscripted or not staged, but the Gonzalez hearing about the Attorney Firings and the Wiretapping programs is a start… If you haven’t had the oppurtunity to watch it, I suggest you sit down with a bottle of wine, 6pack of beer, or your favorite liquor…
Because typically when any normal, competent, aware, and intelligent person watches these fools lie right to our faces, and not only lie, but can’t even hide it with their erractic body language, a normal person watching TV, their reaction to this is to just charge straight forward head first and bust through the glass monitor of the Television set. Essentially, after listening to them lie, normal people will want to kill themselves, not so much for the fact that of what they’re saying and their lies, but because of the fact that nobody is doing anything about it, not the democrats, and 33-40% of our public is braindead enough (and quite extensively) to actually fall for it.
So again, when you watch their inscripted hearings, you better have alcohol handy. It’s the only thing you can do to prevent this inevitable instinctual reaction to bullshit falling out of the administration’s mouths.
Funny that scientists still don’t know why people get anurisms. It’s when a blood vessel bursts randomly in someones brain, and they die immediately. Now, my theory is that most people found dead from an anurism during the past 6+ years, most likely had the television set on tuned into Bush and his cronies talking, and they didn’t have any alcohol, but they dropped dead from the anurism just before they would have busted their heads through the glass of the Tv sets.
Ironically, Vietnam, supposedly the site of a disastrous withdrawal by the US, is practically the only country (besides Albania, I guess) where Bush received a relatively friendly reception.
Frank, Am afraid you nailed it. Lots of good comments here, especially the ones who ask, what would have happened if we’d stayed in Vietnam longer? As I recall, there was a daily bloodbath in Vietnam while we were there.___ Some of it was mine.
We all know Bush had no business invading Iraq and it’s a fact the plans to invade were made by Rummy before 9-11, that event only accelerated the issue. There are some parralels of Iraq and Vietnam. Both wars were motivated by profit and both were and are a disaster, both harmed our economy in many ways and we lost the first and the second.
There is one MAJOR difference of the two conflicts. In Vietnam we used Agent Orange, a horrible chemical mistake. It was used so the guerilla fighters could not sneak up on our outposts and bases so easily. Of course the chemical was sprayed on our troops in the process, insuring a long, slow, painful life and death for thousands of vets. Meanwhile, in Iraq a far different poison was and is used, ‘depleted uranium’, or DU ammunition. In comparrison, Agent Orange is a toothache.
Many still ignore the fact, that the use of DU has permanently ruined a nation’s land for safe living.___ FOREVER!! It is the worst crime against humanity and the enviroment of our planet that has ever been committed in history. Those thousands of tons of DU we have scattered in the Mid-East will be deadly for over four billion years. DU is an invisible, silent death, blowing in the wind. Many don’t believe it, because the variety of illneses and cancers caused by inhaling the poisonous dust are not attributed to DU. Our government is jumping through hoops to hide the fruth, they even have WHO repeating their lies. The truth will out someday.
Just one example of many. There has been a 1,200% increase of cancers in children in Iraq since 1998 and the cancer rate was alreadhy high from the use of DU in the First Gulf War. I’ll quit now before someone asks me to once more shut up about DU.
A few similarities between Vietnam and Iraq:
No Bush or Cheney fighting and dying.
Pyrrhic victory desired.
Total disregard for non-white life.
“Total disregard for non-white life.”
Deselby the problem here is you assume the administration gives a shit about the lives and well being of American soldiers. In reality, he doesn’t care about them either- that’s why we’re not withdrawing.
I have no doubt he has less regard for non-white peoples though
Anytime that massive instability is forced into a nation by destroying the normal civil authority and destroying the infrastructure a bloodbath is all but inevitable.
Our presence merely delays (if not increases) the bloodbath that is coming. In the meantime all the dead and wounded each day are an extra bonus for the grateful Iraq people.
Now Bu$h the inferior is again commenting on the leaders we have installed. Just like Vietnam we may remove the leaders for showing to much independence. Will we assassinate? Tune in next week for the continuing saga of: THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
Perhaps a couple of other points ought to be added to the discussion. First, where was Bush during the Vietnam War? Oh, that’s right, he either did not show up or flew a fighter jet around the airport traffic pattern a few times (very impressive). Cheney, five deferments… well we won’t go there. Second, who is the major adviser to Cheney and Bush with the Iraq War? Henry Kissinger, Dr. Death himself. Enough said.
Well, one thing we could say is that US acts in Iraq (e.g., use of depleted uranium) are as depraved as any of imperial US under our precedent genocidal chattel slavery or native American exterminations.
“Approximatly 165,000 were killed or died in these camps.”
Yes, but at least ten times that many died under US bombs in Vietnam and Cambodia in the final years of the war. So, can we seriously call this a “bloodbath” or was it just a denouement of the conflict?
As far as “re-education camps”, we could use some of them in this country…
GANDHI: Terrific posting on the programming used to promote violent killers, a/k/a soldiers. The one thing missing in this discussion is the new role religious indoctrination is playing in fueling the passion for murdering “other.” (See comments on the Left Behind article posted on CD yesterday).
MASTERSHAKE said, “Now, my theory is that most people found dead from an anurism during the past 6+ years, most likely had the television set on tuned into Bush and his cronies talking.” Love the humor… who knows, it could be true!
The U.S. will not leave Iraq for many decades to come.
There are large U.S. military bases across Iraq. Iraq is a strategic buffer protecting the Persian Gulf against Iran.
Do you want to do something about this? This will be an eye-catcher. Go out and rent the movie, “Full metal jacket”. Do your computer magic and make a clip show for YOUTUBE. Make a montage with the indifferent, hateful, attitudes of the soldiers, toward the “gooks”; blend that with a few clips of idiot king Bush. But now here’s the kicker. In order for it to get seen by the millions of mind-numb zombies of americans, you need to title it in the bases of all terms. And that movie has it. Remember that classic scene, “Me so horny, me love you long time”. Who knows? You’re internet addicted teenager, might even ask you about the Vietnam war.
gandhi’s got a point:
“War Psychiatry, the army’s textbook on combat trauma, notes that “pseudospeciation, the ability of humans and some other primates to classify certain members of their own species as ‘other,’ can neutralize the threshold of inhibition so they can kill conspecifics.” Modern military training has developed carefully sequenced and choreographed elements of what many would call brainwashing to disconnect recruits from their civilian identities. The values, standards and behaviors they have absorbed over a lifetime from their families, schools, religions and communities are scorned and punished. Using cruelty, humiliation, degradation and cognitive disorientation, recruits are reprogrammed with an entirely new set of learned responses. Every aspect of combat behavior is rehearsed until response becomes reflexive. Operant conditioning has vastly improved the efficacy of American soldiers, at least by military standards. It has proven to be a reliable way to turn off the switch that controls a soldier’s inherent aversion to killing.”
True.
However, the mind is a multi-dimensional maze of interconnected neuro-circuitry and “thoughts” and experiences and other factors beyond our analysis.
This is why “they are tormented by what they saw and did.”
The killing conditioning described is not absolute or permanent, and can cross over with other learning and experience.
“Spiritual” realizations can also dissolve temporary or relative psychological conditioning. An awakening can occur in unexpected ways and at unpredictable times.
The conflict can be carried silently for years before emerging, and few are immune.
I have known a variety of PTSD victims over a period of 45 years. I will limit this post to the phenomenon of moral insight occurring at some time after the killing that conflicts with the earlier death training.
Some people actually experience the conflict during combat but manage to stuff the effects during duty.
Most military PTSD treatment deals more with overall combat stress symptoms. It is not a popular subject within the military to explore the ultimate morality of killing, and not emphasized in PTSD therapy if that therapy is ever given.
The first person I experienced was my mother’s brother. He was a “strong” and ethical person to begin with and was well trained by the military. He dropped bombs on the civilians of Dresden during WWII. On one level, he knew he was a decorated “hero” according to his previous conditioning and all surrounding values. He shared a few thoughts with me on one occasion.
This is a vivid and formative memory for me as I met him when I was a very open child. He acted “normal” but there was a subtle and twisted inner tension. He had a strange and tormented presence that I sensed without knowing why initially.
This posting is the first time I have gone public with the history.
The stress of surviving a record number of missions was a factor but ultimately it was the realization that he was blowing helpless humans to bits that haunted and broke his mind.
He told me that on a very intense
night mission he could suddenly feel the suffering of the people on the ground. He had a conflicting compassionate realization when he imagined and internalized the suffering of others.
In a sense his mind split and destabilized complete with a variety of symptoms. it was called “shell shock” back then. ECT gave partial relief from depression but he never found a comfortable place in this world.
Although raised a populist Methodist, after the war he stopped going to church.
He died young of alcoholism after breaking with his family. He was found very dead and very alone in a trailer in Texas with his wife and children in Illinois. My mother refused to talk about his passing.
Several adulthood friends I have known were destroyed by the very process that I have described during or after the Vietnam era. This is not the time to describe them one by one, mind by mind, heart by heart or each unique life-shattering conflict within. But all those I knew lived tragically with the
inner struggle, that as the old say goes, turns you every which way but loose.
I still retain the pain I shared with them as a friend opening up and lending a hand. Yet,
in a way I am thankful for the experience.
Perhaps the difficulty of opening to the suffering of others is why nations hesitate to accept or understand the deaths of their victims, past and present.
The horror would would last at least one lifetime.
According to Bush, if we leave Iraq there will be “genocide,” as surely as dandelions follow a spring rain. Add that to the list of lies and spin. It is true that tens of thousands of Vietnamese were killed, and hundreds of thousands exiled to re-education camps, by a triumphant Communist government after Saigon fell in 1975. But by the early 1970s as the worst American bombing was raging, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese were being killed, and millions being exiled from their homes—carnage that came to a dead stop once the war ended. As cruel as the Communist consolidation of power was, ending the war entailed an obvious net saving of lives. If we are comparing, the same should be true in Iraq. Let the U.S. save lives by leaving.
JConrad, your post was relatively large by this site’s standards. I’m sorry if i might seem hawkish, but to rap it up quickly; your message is that people might find it psychologically disturbing to blow someone else’s brains out. What an insight? Murder might be traumatic. What this site needs is those who have SUGGESTIONS, not super-long whine and cry anecdotes. Don’t try to be SMART, try to help.
“Long ago, historians of the Vietnam war noted that the intense debate about the war that gripped America rarely made much reference to the suffering of the Vietnamese people. Only ‘peaceniks’ on the far left paid much attention to the two million or more Vietnamese who died, to the corpses and torched villages and napalmed children that were the living — and dying — reality of the war. In the mainstream, where the ’serious’ discussion unfolded, the only question that mattered was: What is this war doing to the USA? Is it to our benefit to keep on fighting, or are we better off withdrawing?
For most Americans, Vietnam was merely a backdrop to the great dramatic conflict that gripped the United States. The heroes and villains, and the victims, in the drama were the Americans who supported and opposed the war. The Vietnamese, if they were seen at all, were merely extras with brief walk-on roles. They never got to speak, never got to tell their stories or say what they thought about the war. (This was also the case in most American movies about Vietnam.)”
A character in one of Toni Morrison’s novels (I can’t remember which one) remarks that the United States treats the rest of the world and its people “as mere footnotes to the history we’re writing.”
This administration has taken that attitude and ratcheted it up a notch. In “Without a Doubt,” his 10/7/04 article in the New York Times Magazine, Ron Suskind reports on his encounter with a presidential aide:
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as ‘people who believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
What’s so chilling about this administration is that it now considers American citizens, too, among the “others” who are subject to the hubris of history’s “actors.” So much for participatory democracy under the rule of “the Decider.”
The word “clarity” is one favored by the mass murdering neocons; ‘moral clarity’ always means ‘look how bad the commies [pnow, of course, the ‘islamofascist’] are, we aren’t THAT bad, where are OUR labor camps and killing fields if we are, hmmmm?” And when you point to the toxic fields & killing grounds of capitalism, they say “Well, that has nothing to do with US” or “What, you would prefer ________ [fill in the blank]?”
The ‘fight-the-war-responsibly-and-fight-the-real-terrorists’ crowd are in fact WORSE than the ones who initiated this war in the first place.
It’s clear to me that Ira Chernus doesn’t understand the real lesson of Vietnam the way the New York Times and Los Angeles Times do.
In Blair’s UK, the press have largely ignored the suffering of the Iraqis. George Galloway MP spoke out - with the result that he was expelled from Blair’s New Labour Party. Galloway then stood for election against the Blair party nominee (backed by the party machine. The people voted for Galloway. In Scotland, the only party that consistently opposed the folly of Iraq was the Scottish National Party. Its leader Alex Salmond was vilified in both the Scottish and English press and on the BBC. Then came the elections to the Scottish Parliament. What is the result? The SNP now form the (admittedly minority) government of Scotland and Alex Salmond is First Minister.
If the Democrats won’t get their finger out of their collective arses and oppose this criminal war (and the equally criminal totalitarianisation of your state), why don’t you get yourself some politicians that will oppose it?
Our system is broken and antiquated, with its holes patched by money.
I fear that there will be no getting politicians opposing this war, or the next. Lots of the usual rhetoric from the Democrats, and too many Americans too cautious to vote for a third party or independent — assuming that voting still works here anyway. Technically the US is a constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
It really seems that our time to chose is approaching. We’ll either continue to maintain a broken Republic and culture of corruption, or else we’ll need to begin the transformation to a modernized democracy. It’s clear that this process will begin from below, rather than above.
Damon: Thanks for the response. I learn every day by bouncing thoughts off a variety of people. And we all read differently. The article is asking why we refuse to experience the suffering of others. I risked a personal exposure since not a single comment explored the denial syndrome that is part of not allowing horrible things to NOT affect us. And gandhi had a somewhat clinical tone, although intellectually interesting, that did not explore the PTSD process that I tried honestly to describe. The “suggestion” that I implied was that if people were to empathize in depth, everything would change. Many PTSD victims refuse to talk because of the reaction you have presented. In AA meetings some people wait yeas before opening up the real can of worms. And most of the comments on this article talk about external political or historical conditions and not the psychology of why nations/individuals refuse to recognize what they have done to others. That political chat has been repeated over and over again. The “politics” would change if people changed their state of mind, one at a time. Not that I expect Bush/Cheney to wake up this time around.
I released some heavy latent memories writing that summary of decades of experience, actually breaking down twice, and then wondered if anyone wanted to go there before hitting the submit comment. I actually have a theory that the nation has suffered a cultural lobotomy removing vast areas of human potential. Your comments were helpful.
The blood of all the dead, the millions during the war and all those after, were fated as soon as the first American boot hit the ground in Vietnam.
The same is true for Iraq. Equivocating about when to leave just draws out the blood of the “during” and delays that of “after”.
The acronym FUBAR exists precisely for situations like this. The fool’s path always leads to disaster. The solution is not taking the first step…
…and holding those who do responsible.
Was it Andrew Card who said that the neo cons were creating new realities and the rest were just trying to keep up? That just when we got it figured out that they would create another new reality? This is what is happening to the Dems. They are always reacting to the newly stated reality. Always fighting from behind. And so it continues even after being told.
For those interested in a psychological analysis of warmongering, I have recently completed a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives–concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq–or an attack on Iran–will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
damon13 - I find your critique of JConrad insensitive and boorish. Just what wonderful help have you provided from atop your pedestal?
note:
thanks considerthis…so much for my touchy feely exploration…LOL !
sorry about the double negative…I guess I need to learn how to edit more carefully ?
“the denial syndrome that is part of not allowing horrible things to NOT affect us”
correction: the denial syndrome that is part of allowing horrible things to NOT affect us
And: Recently we had an Iraq vet here blow his brains out with a 9mm when his PTSD was ignored by the Guard and he apparently did not find anyone he could talk to. I have known people who waited twenty years to talk.
Alternate view: Some people actually adapt so effectively to combat that they learn to enjoy killing. That is a different topic.
I think Dr. Chernus is correct. The analogy of Vietnam will be an additioal gaffe in tact from an adminstration that has blundered and destroyed any essence of diplomacy and have increasingly demonstrated open contempt for the ‘public’ by continuing to overplay the orwellian doublespeak card at every opportunity.
Maybe people in the United States; due to apprehension that their superpower days and lifestyles furbushed on the backs of the unfortunates of the world will come to an end; may reduce their thought processes to accept this tripe on some level but the worldwide implications of this statement can be seen for what it is - an admission of defeat. The same can be seen from European allies with colonial histories as they twist logic and morality into bizarre shapes to justify the battle for te right to continually ‘colonize’ the world - there is genuine fear and desperation as it is becomig increasingly evident that military might has waned alarmingly and the advantage (the club) weilded by colonial powers is becoming ineffective. Although there is a desperate and persistent attempt to continue this through chardes such as the IMF, World Bank, dollar hegemony etc - the time is drawing near and Asia will rise out of the dark ages as did Europe. I doubt that this rise will and be with out redress of past wrongs -real or perceived.
The United States LOST the Vietnam war plain and simple. Yes - they killed millions and did damage to generations of vietnamese - but they lost and were unequivocally routed. Despite the post seventies and now resurgent 2000 efforts to label it a withdrawal - the facts ARE inescapable.
Thankfully - the US true to form built up its confidence by picking on emerging superpowers like Grenada and Panama to bolster its military ego. Once sure that they could indeed use military force with precision - they joined 20 other countries and did a blitzkreig attack on Baghdad and left after essentially carrying out a large multinational war game. However - to carry out a real war - this one - is beyond them - as it was beyond the soviet union.
A corallary would be the so-called dark ages of Europe - a euphemism for we got our asses handed to us by the muslims and others for a few hundred years - and we will pretend it never happened and instead put forth the ridiculous story of how we spontaneously regressed back into our tiny countries for a few centuries. Not that the muslims controlling most of the known world at the time had anything to do with it. This sentiment is galantly captured by Kipling in the charge of the light brigade. A recitation bestowing heroism on stupidty and being outright slaughtered by a superior force.
The loss of Iraq is much more damaging than losing Vietnam. Not only does it entail loss of prestige and pyscological advantage - but more tellingly the loss of real resources. Because unlike Vietnam it comes at a time when the so called ’superiority’ of america has vanished and been revealed for what it is - the same charlatan tactics of previous colonialists. Rambo - has not it seems made an appearnace in afghanistan or Iraq- instead we hae frightened men in armoured vehicles who attack when they have overwhelming advantage and back up. In addition, a nation that is the largest debtor on earth and prints up money for the world -is being seen increasingly as an vulgar spendthrift who is an incompetent bully. I suspect that if there is a resounding defeat of US/Allied forces in Afghanistan or Iraq -which will happen the longer we stay there - this will be in effect the deathknell of a Euorcentric world.
J CONRAD: I, too, applaud your thoughtful INDEPTH analysis; and as you stated, it was of an element missing from this particular thread.
DAMON: If you prefer short pieces, you have the option to not read others!
JOE T WALLACE says, “A character in one of Toni Morrison’s novels (I can’t remember which one) remarks that the United States treats the rest of the world and its people “as mere footnotes to the history we’re writing.” I’ve been looking at it for some time as the US seeing itself as LANDLORD (make that slum lord!) to the world… our militias march in, co-opt resources, and then rent them back to their owners! With interest attached! I used to say “a timeshare is to real estate” what mafia is to free enterprise. The US sees every mile of global real estate as its own veritable time share resort! GAIA happens to not especially like the idea as resource depletion has placed her carefully constructed ecosystems on a fragile time-line as they teeter on the brink of all-out systems implosion.
I can’t understand it, even during the first year of the Iraq invasion, it was commented on and seldom disagreed with that we would not, and should not, and would NEVER AGAIN put our troops in the middle of a civil war.
I guess it didn’t count if we started the civil war?
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. That’s all I know anymore.
The real reason we left Vietnam “before achieving victory” is that the draftees from the poor segments of society started fragging their own officers. Meanwhile, the richer segments of society–like Bush/Cheney–were carefully dodging the draft.
Evidently one objective Bush accomplished by what should be called his “Hey people, let’s not start arguing about whether we won or not in Vietnam when we argue about whether we will win or not in Iraq” speech… was to get people to start arguing about the two.
See most people don’t know diddly from squat about Iraq …not really but everybody, including their grandmothers (who actually do know better about it than they)… EVERYBODY …has an opinion about Vietnam.
Moreover by now, there are tons of people, none of whom agree who know tons and tons about Nam. Several people have actually read more than one book on the Vietnam War and feel a renewed need to show that to somebody and have found an unexpected second opportunity to belatedly justify all that expense and effort.
All are determined to prove …what? That they don’t really know what is happening in Iraq right now but they sure have a handle about what happened 35 years ago? Yeah.
To help stall leaving Iraq at least till the elections, Bush’s handlers and speechwriters having Bush give a speech with his pants down. Did they care about how embarassing this will be for Bush who had been a trained fighter pilot and serving in uniform during the Vietnam War and he went awol. Bush walked away rather than fighting in Nam himself. Bush’s delusions now have him being John Wayne and apparently his handlers have no shame. Or are that desperate …to let him go with it. Something of a tawdry irony, of a type much beloved by historians. Hypocrisy bare assed! It wasn’t just that Bush didn’t serve in Nam …he walked away during it. Now he brings Nam up?
Nobody knows diddly about squat in this country anymore. Nope. Not about Iraq that’s for sure anyways. Not since our news media signed that devil’s contract and sold their journalistic integrity soul and left us to fend for ourselves about what is and isn’t truth.
Once you knew that there were three things you just didn’t talk about at parties. Religion (which we now talk about way too much), the weather (once way too boring to talk about and now way too scary not to) and the Vietnam War. Yet now I guess we are supposed to talk about that. By restarting the revisionist debate about Nam, Bush seeks to have it conflated with Iraq.
SiouxRose:
Thanks, we need a variety of approaches.
It is all a teaching. I have no idea what prompted my style or voice last night. Seemed like someone else was writing it. A mini-catharsis at the keyboard.
But wow…my uncle was there with me as was my Beret buddy who fell apart after killing a lot of Vietnamese. Scorched earth policy means you kill the women and children in a village suspected of supporting the VC. An Assiniboine vet I have sun danced with still can’t shake the wound of waking up to the killing in Nam after he honestly thought he was fighting a just war. Some of the guys pierce themselves and rip the ties out of their chest to release their torment and to pray for those they have killed. Some take it to their graves.
I am not preaching from a conceptual liberal viewpoint. I understand the complexity of hurting other humans. In legal sports I have broken another person’s nose, collar bone, ribs, leg and given a few people concussions…up close and personal. I have also been on the receiving end, even stabbed once. Something primal happens during the fight but you begin to feel differently later.
Although I watched my father die slowly, I have never taken a human life. But I have killed more four-legged critters like deer and elk and others than I can count. I did it to feed my family on a teacher’s salary and for the shamanic hunting experience. I never trophy hunted. The first time is the worst but there is always a moment of regret and empathy as the wounded animal looks you in the eye with their last bloody breath. They make strange sounds when the lungs have filled up with blood. The native way is to do a small ritual and pray for the one you have killed.
And then there is the tradition of the spiritual warrior, but that would take up a lot of empty space.
Will this sound good tomorrow ?..this is “On The Road” style…no editing.
siouxrose:
Couldn’t agree with you more about the United States viewing itself as presumptive landlord to the world. According to Chalmers Johnson (”Blowback,” “The Sorrows of Empire,” and his latest - and best - “Nemesis”), we now have around 400,000 troops garrisoned on 737 bases spread over 130 countries. Not only have we become accustomed to getting our own way, but if we don’t, it’s almost considered a violation of the natural order. How could anyone possibly oppose us? Do they not understand that we’re Americans, we’re here to help, we have the best of intentions, we only want what’s best for them? Is it any wonder that Molly Ivins reported seeing a bumper sticker in Texas reading “Kick their ass. Take their gas.” There it is: our foreign policy in the Middle East.
Some time back, you’ll recall, U.S. forces took hostage Iranians who had been INVITED by the Iraqi government to participate in talks in Irbil. Their kidnapping was justified on the grounds that Iraq’s neighbor, Iran, was “meddling” in Iraqi affairs. This breathtaking example of chutzpah, as monstrous as it is laughable, went almost unremarked by our press and by our citizenry, so let me step in for them now: Who are we to accuse the Iranians of “meddling” after invading and occupying Iraq, a sovereign nation 6,000 miles from our shores, that did NOT have weapons of mass destruction it planned to use against us, and whose leader, Saddam Hussein, had NOTHING to do with al Qaeda and Ossama bin Laden, who attacked us on 9/11?
JConard, I think you’re not necessarily understanding my point. You have been discussing the POST traumatic stress disorder. And i want to highlight the PRE traumatic stress disorder. The disorder that people have not thinking about the consequences of their actions. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there wasn’t a draft; and thus our armed forces volunteered into service. At what point does an individual trained with an m-16 realize that he might be shooting at PEOPLE. I’m trying to decipher your response, as this topic seems to carry great emotional weight with you. But I’m not going to go there and instead would rather if you and I could mutually agree to tell the public that there are severe psychological repercussions to enlisting, going to war and supporting war.
considerthis. For the longest time, I really never thought I did anything. I simply refused to buy into the hype. And i didn’t have the help of progressive sites like these to tell me right from wrong. I instead did this odd and rare thing, I thought for myself. And since i self educated myself against a tidal current of misinformation, and came out unscathed; I’ll say whatever I want.
In Bush’s recent speech comparing Vietnam and Iraq,one of the things he failed to mention is that Vietnam was a trumped up war just like this one in Iraq! Nor, did he recognize that “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” and, “if Vietnam falls, so will the rest of SE Asia,” (that old “domino” theory) were the drum beats to justify staying in Vietnam and the same ones, warmed over, he is now using to stay the course in Iraq. Well, as we now know, did leave Vietnam and not a single one of the Viet Cong followed us home. Nor, did the rest of SE Asia fall like so many dominos. For Bush to use Vietnam as a comparison to Iraq is nothing short of a disgrace! The man is living in another world, one of lies, deceit, misleading, and so on. The real reason for being in Iraq is OIL and anyone with a grain of sense can see that.
One of the ‘stanch’ supporters, Australia, has now admitted that oil was an issue in determing to support Mr. Bush’s war.
Published on 5 Jul 2007 by The Age. Archived on 5 Jul 2007.
Nelson: Oil a factor in Australia’s Iraq deployment
by AAP
The Howard Government has today admitted that securing oil supplies is a factor in Australia’s continued military involvement in Iraq.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today oil was a factor in Australia’s contribution to the unpopular war, as “energy security” and stability in the Middle East would be crucial to the nation’s future.
See more at:
http://www.energybulletin.net/31700.html
And you can google Australia and support for Iraq war for more.
I doubt we will see the same admission from THIS administration, given the continuous lies that have been heaped on the American people
Damon: Try to go back to the original article and read carefully. One of his primary points was that Americans during Nam and now cannot understand the suffering they are causing via war. And no one was commenting on that huge issue. I made it clear that I was addressing the psychological process of how difficult it can be for people who have done terrible things to others to open up to that horror on the deepest levels of understanding. This is a universal problem and not just for trained grunts. When and if that denial is broken, anything can happen and is more common than most people realize…perhaps a truth of war. So our nation, like individuals tends to not think much about injustice and certainly does not want to go there on a deep internal level.
I live in a state with lots of poor reservation Indians and perhaps 10 percent of the white population is truly open to their dilemma both historical and present. “Same-same” as they say in Bangkok. Turn a blind eye. Another huge example: It took the Germans a long time to truly understand what they did during the holocaust, but now they are a reformed society. They refused to invade Iraq. How does that happen…a moral awakening that makes it impossible to do profoundly inhumane things ?
And as a nation we are conditioned to think and respond in certain ways. We live in a nation of denial and that is not an easy thing to cure.
I addressed Gandhi as his somewhat academic piece went almost exclusively into the brutal training designed to create mindless killers. He did that well, but did little to explain what happens when a trained killer has a change of perspective on the deepest levels…such as the heart and conscience. The military conditioning is not absolute and even during service people are dealing with mixed signals that later can be suicidally difficult to reconcile.
Then, you snapped at me for indulging in “whine and cry anecdotes”. Trust me, that is not my usual style…most people think I am on the bold side. But as people age they often broaden their horizons and look back on mistakes with regret. I hope to unload all the garbage before I am food for the worms !
What I did was go deep into memory with sincerity and share the PTSD torment of people I have loved to try to inject that reality in the discussion. A lot of people don’t want to go there or simply can’t due to their personality or psychology. I was also a little curious how many people might open up to that type of emotive material in discussion.
And about the young vet who blew his brains out here in our town…well it was tragic. Just out of high school he fell for the recruiting spin and 9/11 hysteria. He had no idea what he was doing when he signed up. Even had an older military brother. And, without even proper training he ended up behind a 50 cal. on a Bradley vehicle on patrol. Can’t be sure what happened to him, but in a situation like that most people shoot at anything that moves after being shot at a few times. Maybe he opened up on civilians ? The 50 BMG is intended for light armored vehicles or aircraft.
Anyway, he came home a wreck. And within the military talking about PTSD is often called “whining and crying”, like your comment to me. But in many cases that is really about avoiding disability responsibility for the vet. The grunt is also trained to be tough. So the person who is depressed and confused just might try to get away from their pain by ending their life, especially when there is no one around willing to open up and understand the internal situation.
Get it…I opened up in this format and you hit me with a sucker punch ?
Peace !