Karen,

 

The war in Viet-Nam had its seeds planted in the misery of the peasants.

 

In fact many (most) “communist revolutions” are peasant revolutions of which the organized communists take the helm and declare it to be a “communist revolution”. As they are often better trained, they become leaders, but their armies are not really communist in spite of heavy indoctrination.

 

You may recall my mentioning the Mekong Delta and how soon after American troops would clear an area, the cousins of the landlords would arrive to collect the rent – about 9 sacks of every 10 the peasants produced.

 

Rather bitterly, I said this is the way the US won the hearts and minds of the people.

 

While I am sure that similar peasant poverty conditions exist in Iraq, I don’t think they are the immediate problem. The problem there is the Mafia-like control the terrorists have over the people. Many won’t cooperate with the coalition (hence the “interrogations”) because they are just plain scared.

 

You’ll recall the Mafia would kill not an offender but his whole family. If I were an Iraqi family man, I would keep my mouth shut when the Americans asked questions. At least, I would if I were sensible. I would not expect the Iraqis to be any different from me.

 

As Iraqi troops become more experienced and more a part of the civilian landscape, the people will lose their fear and become part of the anti-terrorist operation. In fact, the other day I saw a TV news item in which civilians were saying how much they liked Iraqi patrols ‘because they are us’.

 

The fact that all but a handful or so of cities and towns in Iraq are peaceful – except for a rare sporadic incident - is not the kind of news for which one gets a Pulitzer. A good interview with someone who says the American occupation troops must leave tomorrow has a much better chance of seeing print.

 

We know that – even though the apparent glee that erupts from a setback of some kind seems directed more toward keeping one’s job (or advancing one’s politics) than providing us with a true picture of Iraq.

 

You have perhaps forgotten the hyperbole.

 

Remember the mass bombing of Baghdad that created a “firestorm”. Absolute nonsense. The tens of thousands of people who were being killed by the bombing was nonsense – the Red Cross reported relatively few reaching the hospitals. (Born out somewhat by the Iraqi Body Count which reported during the ‘official’ war a total of 7,350 deaths – though they say it was probably an undercount.)

 

How about the press fervor over the 300 tons of munitions that were missing to be used against us – due entirely to American stupidity. Hundreds of thousands of tons were dealt with by the army, but that was ignored.

 

 

The 300 tons story was ready to be released by the New York Times and “60 Minutes” on Sunday – two days before election – though they had it for more than a week before then. (The NYT had a change of heart and released it sooner thus messing up the 60 Minute “revelation”. Or it was broken early on the Internet – take your pick.)

 

The thrust of that story also was nonsense.

 

The Lancet ‘scientific’ body count was released on the Friday before the vote having been “fast-tracked” to affect the election – though that objective was feebly denied by Lancet.

 

Reminds me of Arnold in California – the LA Times put 30 reporters to work to get something on the candidate. They found that when he was a lot younger and in an industry that expected as much, he would perhaps grab a bottom or too – all part of the fun!?!

 

Then they found a real nasty bit that they released the Thursday before the election. Fortunately, it was found to be completely untrue a day or two later, so it failed to besmirch Arnold except with his opponents who would believe of him anything bad.

 

Bush’s speech, which I found was rather boring was nevertheless the speech of a wartime leader who must be completely optimistic as he rallies the ‘troops’.

 

I think a lot of the optimism was justified. Unfortunately, as I said, every setback reaches the headlines – the advances rarely do.

 

I rather think that the legacy of Bush will be either as the greatest Presidential goat – or the foremost visionary of the 21st century. Instead of doing nothing about bad things and hoping they’ll go away, an alternative is to grab the nettle and try positively to end them. Politicians, who have an intense desire to keep their noses clean, try to avoid doing anything.

 

They will view with alarm with regularity for that doesn’t cost them much. But, actually sticking their chins out is usually beyond them.

 

Bush took positive action. Whether it works or not will determine his place in history. It might offer a course of action for the UN. Not to react to a situation that has gone terribly wrong, but to quench it before it gets out of hand – an alternative that is far more desirable.

 

We’ll find out.

 

Harry

 

********************************************

Henry George School of Social Science

of Los Angeles

Box 655  Tujunga  CA 91042

818 352-4141

********************************************

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karen Watters Cole
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:18 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Futurework] We've had the speech now3

 

The most prominent theme from the punditry commentary on Pres. Bush’s Tuesday night speech at Ft Bragg, which may forever be remembered as a ill-advised TV commercial produced in campaign mode rather than governing mode, is that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika is not listening: not listening to their generals, not listening to diplomatic experts, not listening to the public. This tone-deaf isolationism has plagued them before, but now appears to have set in as a terminal condition, rather than a temporary one. 

These two examples from tenured Washington observers, below, are just a small sample of the 1) disappointed or 2) validated responses much of the political corps is expressing. Defending the administration is getting to be more difficult by the week, and those diehards who do should reconsider recent similar references like Baghdad Bob, whose glowing pronouncements on the eve of ‘shock and awe’ were ridiculed. A practical politician would have made significant changes before now, but the Troika zealously guard their neocon aerie, preferring delusion and “rhetorical sleight of hand” to alternative, workable solutions. KwC

Hoaglund: Subtle Shift in Goals. “One of the greatest handicaps the administration still confronts is a self-imposed refusal to listen to Iraqis about doing things the Iraqi way. >From trying to build a new Iraqi army on U.S. specifications and prejudices to preferring to contract with foreigners rather than employ Iraqis, U.S. officials have often made the perfect the enemy of the good.

Iraqi concern on that score could be exacerbated by the president's heavy emphasis Tuesday on fighting terrorists in Iraq so that Americans don't have to fight them on U.S. soil. That may help steady public support here -- no American can argue with that aim -- but it is a shifting of the goal posts from liberating Iraq from tyranny. Bush should have done more Tuesday to show that his anti-terrorism objectives are compatible with Iraqi needs.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902592.html?nav=hcmodule

 

Echoes of Vietnam

By Richard Cohen, Washington Post, Thursday, June 30, 2005; A23

About two years ago I sat down with a colleague and explained why Iraq was not going to be Vietnam. Iraq lacked a long-standing nationalist movement and a single charismatic leader like Ho Chi Minh. The insurgents did not have a sanctuary like North Vietnam, which supplied manpower, materiel and leadership, and the rebel cause in Iraq -- just what is it, exactly? -- was not worth dying for. On Tuesday President Bush proved me wrong. Iraq is beginning to look like Vietnam.

The similarity is most striking in the language the president used. First came the vast, insulting oversimplifications. The war in Iraq was tied over and over again to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, although that link was nonexistent. The Sept. 11 commission said in plain English that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Even a line such as we must "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home" had a musty, Vietnam-era sound to it. Whether it's true or not, it is an updated version of the domino theory: if not Saigon then San Francisco.

Second, just as Lyndon Johnson and others referred to communism as if it were a worldwide monolith, so Bush talks about terrorists. He mentioned "terrorists" 23 times, and while he also occasionally employed the word "insurgents," his emphasis was on the wanton murders of the former and not the political aims of the latter. He even cited the terrorist leader and al Qaeda associate "Zarqawi" by name, saying the United States would never "abandon the Iraqi people to men" like him -- strongly suggesting that he was the problem in Iraq. Abu Musab Zarqawi, though, is only part of the problem.

Bush sounded downright Johnsonian in talking about progress in Iraq. He cited rebuilt "roads and schools and health clinics," not to mention improvements in "sanitation, electricity and water." This, too, had a familiar ring. We got the same sort of statistics in Vietnam. Some of them were simply concocted, but most, I think, were sort of true. Roads were paved, schools were opened and village councils were elected -- and yet, somehow, it never mattered. The newly elected village council could meet in the newly opened school and get there on a newly paved road -- and spend the night planning an attack on U.S. forces. It is all so depressing.

In Vietnam, it took the United States forever to recognize that it was fighting not international communism but a durable and vibrant nationalist movement led by communists. Something similar may be happening in Iraq. Yes, foreign terrorists are flocking to the country. But the Sunni insurgency is a different thing. The Sunnis may work with foreign terrorists and gladly use their expertise, but their goals are not the same. The salient and depressing fact remains that no insurgency can survive for long without either the cooperation or the apathy of the populace. Someone's making bombs, and someone's not turning him in. Bush may extol Iraqi democracy, but at the moment not enough Iraqis feel it is worth dying for.

Finally, Bush descended to Vietnam-speak. This is the language used by the Johnson and Nixon administrations to obscure the truth by emitting a fog of numbers. Thus Bush cited the "8 million Iraqi men and women" who voted, the "30 nations" with troops in Iraq (a total joke, and the president knows it), the "40 countries" and "three international organizations" that have pledged "$34 billion" in reconstruction assistance (another joke), the "80 countries" that recently met in Brussels to aid Iraq, and the "160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions" -- one of them being, clearly, to stay out of harm's way.

The war Bush declared to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is not the war being waged. The two have only one thing in common: rhetorical sleight of hand. Yet the consequences of pulling out of Iraq would be awful. The day Saigon fell I was ashamed for my country -- an ugly, disgraceful retreat. I don't want that to happen again. But unless Bush rethinks his strategy, fires some people who long ago earned dismissal, examines his own assumptions (what's the point of continuing to isolate Iran and Syria when we need them both to seal Iraq's borders?) and talks turkey to the American people, he will lose everything good he set out to do, including the example Iraq could set for the rest of the Middle East. I know Iraq is not Vietnam. But Tuesday night it sure sounded like it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/29/AR2005062902585.html?nav=hcmodule

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to