History Through a Bush

I wasn't going to write about George W. Bush's recent disfigurement of the history of the Vietnam War because I didn't believe it was worthy of a response. But when I read David Kirkpatrick's piece in The New York Times saying that Bush's remarks "sent historians scurrying toward their keyboards," I felt I better join my esteemed colleagues and "scurry" (like a rat?) to my computer.

On August 22, 2007, Bush told the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their annual convention in Kansas City, Missouri:

"The world would learn just how costly these misinterpretations would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea. . . . "

The Historian-in-Chief put forth a novel interpretation of the meaning of these Vietnam War factoids. I guess the Munich 1938 analogy had exhausted its usefulness, so Bush's speechwriters pulled out this gem. The point was clear: the United States must continue occupying Iraq or a genocidal bloodbath will unfold there, "just like Vietnam."

Let's recall a few factoids of our own.

Let's recall that according to former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara the U.S. was directly responsible for the deaths of over 3 million Vietnamese.

Let's also recall that President Richard Nixon began "secretly" bombing Cambodia in March 1969, and when the B-52s fell silent a few years later the United States had rained over 112,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia. The bombing terrorized people in the countryside and created population displacements the likes of which Cambodians had never experienced.

Let's also recall that in 1970 Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to overthrow Prince Norodom Sihanouk and install the obscure General Lon Nol as the new puppet dictator.

Let's also remember that China backed the Khmer Rouge, which swelled in the aftermath of the bombing and the coup from a fringe group of about 3,000 fighters to over 30,000, especially after Prince Sihanouk, embittered at the CIA for ousting him, sided with the Khmer Rouge to resist the U.S.-backed regime. (To get a taste of just how angry Sihanouk was with the CIA just read his book entitled: My War with the CIA.)

Nixon's carpet-bombing scared the daylights out of the peasantry of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge exploited the fear and chaos to grab more influence and power (kind of like how Bush has exploited the fear of another 9/11 to enhance his power).

When Nixon ordered U.S. forces and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam into Cambodia for an "incursion" in May 1970, sparking mass protests in America as well as the Kent and Jackson State killings, he made the situation far worse because it sparked marriages of convenience between political factions in Cambodia that probably never would have occurred under any other set of circumstances. (It was also a total failure.)

The Khmer Rouge, in effect, rode the American B-52s into power.

Let's recall too that the entire time the Khmer Rouge was annihilating the intelligentsia, the urban elite, and anyone else who got in its way, China was its principal financial and military supporter. Both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter believed that the progress being made with the historic "opening" with China was far more important than trying to put an end to the Chinese-backed "killing fields." In fact, after the People's Army of Vietnam overthrew Pol Pot in 1978 with the support of the Cambodian people, the Carter administration refused to recognize the new government and denounced the Vietnamese for their "unlawful" intervention in Cambodia.

In Vietnam, the "boat people" and other victims of the war who fled the country in the aftermath of the American defeat in April 1975 had been part of an artificial governing class in Saigon that owed its existence to the massive amounts of economic and military aid the United States had lavished on South Vietnam beginning in the mid-1950s. The Vietnamese refugees were the predictable outcome of 30 years of war and occupation. If one takes even the most cursory look at the United States' "Commercial Import Program" (CIP) for South Vietnam that was begun in the early years of the Ngo Dinh Diem regime (1955-1963) and continued in various forms all the way to 1975, it is clear that the American largess created an unsustainable "middle class" in Vietnam that suffered the wrath of its fellow Vietnamese when the Saigon government fell. But what really collapsed the regime of General Nguyen Van Thieu were the oil shocks of the early 1970s, which made the artificial economy of South Vietnam untenable. Just go to a used bookstore and find a copy of George McT. Kahin's Intervention: How America Became Involved in Vietnam, (1986), and read about the origins of the United States' client regime in Saigon; it was never a self-sustaining entity (like the current Iraqi government).

In short, it was the military and economic policies of the U.S. in Southeast Asia, starting with the financing of the French war shortly after World War Two, which created the social conditions for the humanitarian catastrophes that followed.

In Iraq, the city of Ramadi is widely heralded as a great military "victory" and success story. The Vietnam scholar, Marilyn Young, in an essay in her recent edited work, "Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam," points out that American Marines attacked Ramadi in July 2004, and then again in February 2005, and again in June 2006. She quotes a reporter's description of the city: "Whole city blocks here look like a scene from some post-apocalyptic world: row after row of buildings shot up, boarded up, caved in, tumbled down." Half the population fled and the American forces razed to the ground Central Ramadi and constructed a fortified "green zone." The U.S. military is carrying out similar operations in other Iraqi cities setting up check-points and constructing enormous earthen berms to seal off cities in what are called "clear and hold" operations, (similar to the "strategic hamlet" program in Vietnam). It is nearly impossible to distinguish insurgents and "bad guys" from ordinary Iraqi civilians, (as it was in Vietnam). The tens of thousands of displaced women, children and old men add to the chaos of a "war" that has no front lines, (as was the case in Vietnam). These are the kind of analogies that have relevance, not Bush's twisted self-serving "lessons."

In February 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy summed up America's folly in Vietnam. And what he said then can be directly applied to the current occupation of Iraq:

"For the people of Vietnam the last three years have meant little but horror. . . . Whole provinces have been substantially destroyed. . . . With all of the lives and resources we have poured into Vietnam is there anyone to argue that a government with any support from its people, with any competence to rule, with any determination to defend itself, would not long ago have been victorious over any insurgent movement, however assisted from outside its borders?

"For twenty years, first the French and then the United States, have been predicting victory in Vietnam. In 1961 and 1962, as well as 1966 and 1967, we have been told that 'the tide is turning'; there is 'light at the end of the tunnel'; 'we can soon bring home the troops -- victory is near -- the enemy is tiring.' Once, in 1962, I participated in such predictions myself. But for twenty years we have been wrong. The history of conflict among nations does not record another such lengthy and consistent chronicle of error. It is time to discard so proven a fallacy and face the reality that a military victory is not in sight, and that it probably will never come.

"The best way to save our most precious stake in Vietnam -- the lives of our soldiers -- is to stop the enlargement of the war, and the best way to end casualties is to end the war."

Comments

[realpolitic]

Mr. Palermo really knows his history. Very impressive! A few more years in Vietnam would have meant several more Cheney deferments and a Bush re-enlistment in the Louisiana National Guard. O'Reilly would have stayed on as a high school teacher for a few more years. All the present day war hawks were hiding then!

[bronceye]

Did Bush stop to think that if we had stayed in Vietnam longer, he may have been called up to serve? Gonzo would have had a much harder time burning those papers.

[Spookcatcher]

Bush/Rove is really pushing the envelope of tolarance when they play with the epitaph of the War torn, both killed as well as still living survivors, American Veterans and War Protestors of the Vietnam Era alike. It should be considered an unforgiveable activity to re-employ the Fascist World View approach of the Rich White Supreme-ist superiority over the Nations effected, especially for survivors of the Indo-China escapades the U.S. perpetuated immediately after the ending of WW2. The U.S. funded the French in Indo-China! I am surprised those past tortured Nations current leaders haven't joined in our own American public's call for the AWOL Coward's impeachment by Our Congress publicly themselves. Or at least censured the U.S. in the U.N. until the Bush Administration agrees to refrain from Racist and Fascist revisionism activities. Why they don't take U.N. action against the U.S. for continuing the Occupational War in Iraq is inexcusable. It is America's turn to look for international help to call for regime change in our Country in the election of our leaders, and to publicly chastise the illegal shadow wars and economy manipulation of foreign soveriegn nations for the oligarchy that is holding Our U.S. Constitution hostage.

[tomcat27834]

Spookcatcher....very well stated. The American "populace" as a whole would not support a United Nations censoring for the U.S. "illegal" occupation of Iraq. However, the act (even though symbolic) would have a positive "cleansing" effect on our political system domestically and internationally.

[JacqueItch]

An Excellent post, JP.
However, the Bush analogy does hold up quite nicely if one takes into account the insanity of America being in VietNam in the first place with troops, or America being in Iraq with troops.
Both were equally uncalled for, both illegally trespassed against another nation's sovereignty, and both resulted in America badly losing respect in the world community.
Give Bush some credit. There are striking similarities. All of them negative.

[SRegnet]

What the US did in Vietnam was reprehensible,
but what we did there was seemingly for naive
political reasons. What we've done in Iraq
was for oil, but not for us alone at least,
although still motivated by profit, but for
the whole energy-consuming world.

We aren't about to involve the UN and we don't
need to involve NGO's. That will happen if or
when we do withdraw, all on its own. As the
two major factions tear each other part, they
will weaken & our influence will increase &
eventually something like peace will be attained.
And then oil (& profit) will flow again, in quantity,
just as we planned at the outset.

This disgusting scenario is nothing more than
'Realpolitik' & how it operates in the modern world.
The fate of people & even of (weak) countries doesn't
matter so much in this scheme of things. Not compared
with the fate of political parties & wealthy/powerful families
& corporations.

[ohplease]

Right on the money, Mr. Palermo. However,the US does need to get the UN and NGO's involved in putting things into some form of less than total civil war and mass slaughter before we pull out. It will involve eating a large portion of crow on our part but we might as well get it over with. We owe it to the iraqi people and to the brave kids who have died or been maimed for a failed, illegal and reckless foreign policy perpetrated by a bunch of Peter Principle poster boys.

[tonyinstpete]

I remember the period well. An Professor Palermo has it right. It was during the late winter and spring of 1968--just before he was assassinated in LA--that Bobby Kennedy became a particularly harsh and effective critic of the Vietnam War and Nixon's strategy. Kennedy won the all-important California primary the night he was called, and quite probably could have won (unlike his rival antiwar Democrat Gene McCarthy that most students like me supported)the presidency against Nixon that year.

[Doofus]

The President's point is probably well taken,
that once we leave, there could be (shall we
say) 'unrestrained sectarian violence among
various factions'. What do we suppose that Saddam
Hussein was doing all those years (other than amassing
cash) but keeping the sectarian violence to a minimum.

The strategy for US is to stay around til that part is over
and then pump out the oil. Shhh, don't tell anyone, ok?

In the mean time, we have to do what Saddam did,
less efficiently but in a 'kinder & gentler' way.

[Shizzlewhizzle]

Vietnam seems to be doing quite well with out us or the worthless French.One of the few mistakes Truman made was letting the French back into a land not theirs. Hitler rolled them in a few days in 1938,remember?

[Petebe]

The French should not be mocked so much for
their defeat in 1940 EVERYONE lost to Hitler then. Poland France Holland Britain(saved by the sea) etc. Russia(1941) lost more land and armies but had both to spare.
Britain was able to evaquate most of its soldiers only because the French 4th Army
fought bravely and held off the Germans
even knowing that France had been defeated.

[Roger4]

In order to make an informed decision, we would need a an effective study of the situation to determine what would happen, best guess. It would also be good to study the assertion that the terrorists will come here if we leave. I don't believe Bush or Cheney care about the truth; they have been getting what they want by instilling fear in the voters.

[Doofus]

Does anyone wonder why the terrorists wouldn't
(eventually) come here if we stay over there?

There were evidently complex political reasons
for our involvement in Vietnam which don't
seem to make sense anymore. 'Oil' is the
(main) reason for our being in Iraq. Could it
be any simpler?

The French? Got to love them. They understand
how the world works, non?

[oldpotsmuggler]

Try this for a fact: the American government has imprisoned more of our citizens for the thought crime of thinking that pot gives a good buzz than the Vietnamese government incarcertaed Vietnamese citizens for the thought crime of having fought against communism. The whole reason why there were "boat people" and are millions of Vietnamese immigrants in the U.S. is because there was not a mass killing of those who disagreed with the eventual winners.

It seems fair to say that Vietnamese society is more tolerant of differing political points of view than the U.S. society is of differing mind altering substances points of view.

In our country people get high when, where, and how mandated or they are subjected to a reorientation process that consists of a stretch in prison.

In Viet Nam, if you don't care for the status quo (or didn't, since the exodus has largely stopped) you just go some place where there are lots of jobs paying good wages, and send money back to the folks left behind.

I know which one of those approcahes seems to most humane to me.

[Tellmethetruth]

Vietnam: Overview of Seven Biggest Currency Earners in 2005

In a workshop of Nha Be Garment Company Dong Phong Vietnam is estimated to make export revenues of US$32.23 billion in 2005, up 21.6 per cent against 2004, according to the country's General Statistics Office. Nearly 69.2 per cent of the revenues came from seven biggest currency earners, namely crude oil, garment and textile, footwear, seafood, woodwork, electronics appliances, and rice...

Crude oil:Vietnam exported 18.08 million tones of crude oil worth nearly US$7.39 billion in 2005, mainly to China, Singapore, Japan, Britain and the United States, down 7.3 per cent in volume but up 30.3 per cent in value against 2004. Vietnam's crude oil production decreased 7.7 percent to roughly 18.5 million tones in 2005.

Recently, the Ministry of Planning and Investment proposed the Vietnamese Government lower crude oil exports between 2006 and 2010 so as to ensure sufficient supply of the product for domestic industries. Accordingly, the country's crude oil export will decline to 18.5 million tones in 2006 and 15.6 million tones in 2010. To reduce reliance on petroleum imports, Vietnam, a major crude oil exporter in Asia, is pouring some US$2.5 billion into constructing its first oil refinery named Dung Quat with annual processing capacity of 6.5 million tones in the central province of Quang Ngai, which is scheduled to become operational in late 2008 or early 2009, meeting about 40 per cent of the domestic demand for petroleum products. The refinery's construction officially kicked off in November 2005.

http://www.business-in-asia.com/vn_seven_top_revenue.htm

The truth that we went to war in Vietnam seems so difficult for Americans to accept. The only difference between then and now, when we are in another war for oil is the internet.