HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Mark Hand
September
13, 2003
Facts
are facts but how you choose to interpret them is a subjective exercise. I
regard the U.S. invasion of Vietnam and adjacent countries as one of the
cruelest periods in human history. The U.S. government was responsible for the
deaths of about 2 million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians. That’s pretty
barbaric, in my opinion.
Others
view the 2 million dead with disappointment because the U.S. government failed
to use the measures necessary to “win” the war. These people argue that the
U.S. government’s inability to achieve a decisive victory in Indochina spawned
a Vietnam Syndrome that tempered the U.S. government’s willingness to intervene
in foreign lands in the post-1975 world.
In
historical terms, the U.S. establishment's reluctance to intervene overseas for
fear of entering a quagmire didn’t last long. The Carter administration
generally refrained from overt troop deployments, preferring instead to counsel
U.S. client states and surrogates around the world on the techniques and merits
of counterinsurgency and insurgency, depending on the regime in power. But
President Reagan quickly sought to confront the syndrome in his first term
through a morale-boosting invasion of an outpost of the Evil Empire. Or, at
least that’s how Reagan and the U.S. media sold the invasion of Grenada to the
American people.
In
the fall of 1983, a couple of days after 240 or so Marines were getting blown
up in Lebanon, Reagan, surely suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s,
sent U.S. troops to the tiny Caribbean nation to liberate U.S. medical students
and wipe out an alleged Communist staging ground in the Western Hemisphere.
After experiencing the terrible embarrassment in Beirut, the overseers of the
U.S. Empire knew a successful campaign in Grenada would prove helpful in
alleviating the pain of the setback in Lebanon and in stamping out the Vietnam
Syndrome.
Today,
with its sites set on total world domination, the U.S. government has
successfully transformed the Vietnam Syndrome into a quaint vestige of the Cold
War. Some people have pointed to the Vietnam Syndrome as a potential scenario
for the United States if it gets bogged down fighting an unconventional war
against a faceless enemy in Iraq. This argument fails to take into account the
fact that the political class and media in Washington are calling for an
expanded U.S. military presence in Iraq, not a rollback, as one would expect
from leaders afflicted with Vietnam Syndrome.
In
reality, the Vietnam Syndrome never existed. It was a concoction of the
hard-core believers in U.S. Empire who couldn't accept the fact that Vietnam
fell out of the control of the Western powers, starting with the French in the
1950s and then the Americans 20 years later.
The
fact is that every foreign adventure in U.S. history has enjoyed the
overwhelming support of the ruling class and press. The Vietnam War was a big
hit among the establishment, except for the rare periods when certain members
of the ruling elite began having second thoughts about the price that was being
paid to keep South Vietnam out of the hands of Ho Chi Minh. In his latest book,
Secrets,
Daniel Ellsberg emphasizes that there was a lack of public controversy in
mainstream circles about the war during its height in the late 1960s.
"For
two years after Lyndon Johnson's decision not to run again for president, from
his announcement on March 31, 1968, to Nixon's invasion of Cambodia on April
30, 1970, the Vietnam War more or less disappeared from the mainstream of
American political debate as a major issue," Ellsberg writes.
The
politicians had grown tired of the unprecedented rebellion seen in the 1960s,
from the civil rights movement to the antiwar activism. They were willing to be
duped into thinking that Nixon was moving to disengage the United States from
Vietnam.
If
lawmakers, even those from the "opposition party," aren't going to
stand up to the president, do you expect the U.S. populace to react any
differently? The U.S. government gets away with its militaristic ways for a
number of reasons, the most important being the brainwashing of its population,
starting during school-age years and continuing into adulthood through its
economic and media systems. The U.S. population is taught to salute the presidency
and view the institution as an untouchable monarchy. The U.S. government makes
the occasional blunder, but all foreign policy efforts are conducted with the
utmost respect for innocent life, we are told. Americans are taught not to
concern themselves with the affairs of the government, except at election time,
because their leaders know best. Without a sense of empowerment, Americans
retreat from government participation, which then produces a collective memory
loss of America's crimes of the past.
Ellsberg’s
Secrets offers a perfect illustration of how the American public allows
its government to continue to repeat its horrors. Since releasing the Pentagon
Papers in the early 1970s, Ellsberg has remained a committed antiwar activist.
He hasn’t forgotten the horrors that the U.S. government inflicted on the
Vietnamese people.
While
Ellsberg may have a good memory of America's imperial past, the American public
has forgotten him. This was illustrated soon after the U.S. bombs starting
falling in Baghdad in late March, when thousands of people, including Ellsberg,
were engaging in acts of civil disobedience in cities across the country.
During
the second day of the official invasion, Ellsberg arrived late for a planned
demonstration on downtown Washington's H Street in front of the White House. He
found a group of protesters already staging their die-in in the middle of the
street. Intent on participating, the 71-year-old Ellsberg weaved between the
police officers surrounding the participants in the die-in and quickly jumped
into the circle, laying down in the middle of the group.
About
20 minutes later, Ellsberg was picked up from the ground and escorted to a
waiting Metro D.C. police paddy wagon. While the police were processing him
before placing him in the vehicle, Phyllis Armstrong, a
veteran
reporter from the local CBS affiliate, WUSA-TV, began interviewing the
handcuffed Ellsberg. The first question out of her mouth was, “Do you support
the troops?” The only audible part of Ellsberg’s response was, “Yes, I support
the troops but …”
Armstrong
obviously had no idea who she was interviewing. She asked Ellsberg how to spell
his name and Ellsberg politely answered while sporting a smirk.
How
quickly we forget. But that’s the way the government and media want it.
Ellsberg was no longer the most dangerous man in America and therefore his
message was no longer of interest to the media. It had been more than 30 years
since his 15 minutes of fame and he was just another face among the millions of
people around the world who wanted to stop the U.S. military’s invasion of
Iraq.
In
Secrets, his memoir of the Vietnam and Pentagon Papers era, Ellsberg
offers a portrait of an extremely violent period in our country’s history.
Sadly, the radical nature of the U.S. state during the Vietnam War, as
represented in Secrets, has taken hold again today, with the Bush
Administration’s adoption of extremist policies around the world and here at
home.
In
the book, Ellsberg describes conversations that took place in the White House
during the Vietnam War that ring eerily similar to the discussions that almost
certainly are taking place in the Oval Office today regarding how to confront
al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Here's one exchange, on U.S. military tactics in
Vietnam, between Nixon and Henry Kissinger captured by Nixon's secret tapes:
Nixon: See, the attack in the North that
we have in mind … power plants, whatever's left — POL [petroleum], the docks …
And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand
people.
Nixon: No, no, no … I'd rather use the
nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be
too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother
you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
Here's
a later exchange:
Nixon: The only place where you and I
disagree … is with regard to the bombing. You're so goddamned concerned about
civilians and I don't give a damn. I don't care.
Kissinger: I'm concerned about the
civilians because I don't want the world to be mobilized against you as a
butcher.
One
of the must memorable passages of Secrets is when Ellsberg explains how his
release of the Pentagon Papers to the press was not illegal under the U.S.
Constitution and still would not be today. Ellsberg writes:
"But
Congress had never passed any law that provided criminal sanctions against what
I had done: copying and giving official ‘classified’ information without
authorization to newspapers, to Congress, and to what our constitutional
principles regard as our "sovereign public.' … There is no explicit or
intended statutory basis at all for the classification system that has existed
through a succession of executive orders since World War II."
And
in the 32 years since the Pentagon Papers controversy, the secrecy surrounding
the U.S. national security apparatus has grown even tighter. In the past three
years, the executive branch of the government has entered its least transparent
stage in U.S. history. Too bad there aren’t more Washington insiders like
Daniel Ellsberg fighting to make the U.S. government live up to its billing as
a democracy in which those who the public has entrusted with positions of power
understand they are obligated to answer to the public, and not vice versa.
Mark Hand is editor of Press Action,
where this article first appeared (www.pressaction.com).
He can be reached at: mark@pressaction.com
* The
Cascading Power of a Myth
* The Struggle Against
Going Mainstream
* Cockburn and the Workers World Party