Another "Bright Shining Lie"
On the first Saturday of each new month during the summer a group of Vietnam Veterans gather at the Vietnam Memorial in the early morning hours to wash The Wall. It is an act of homage, honoring our Brothers and Sisters. We are joined by a local service group, Civil Air Patrol Cadets, recruited to continue the work after we are gone. Each person has his or her motives for coming together in that hallowed place. For me, it is an act of contrition.
From 1971 through 1974 I served in the White House as a Special Assistant to the President. Part of my role involved the crafting of speeches arguing the case for staying the course in Vietnam. These speeches represented, in the aggregate, a monument to specious reasoning and a misapprehension of the imperatives of great power. President Nixon did not coin the phrase "I am not going to be the first president to lose a war." That self-regarding sentiment came from President Lyndon Johnson.
Still, President Nixon adopted it, and the popular wisdom of foreign policy "thinkers" reaching back to the 50s dressed it in the more presentable language of global realpolitik. If the communists took Indochina, Thailand would fall, then Burma and on across the Asian sub-continent. Jingoists, confused over which way the dominoes might fall, and never reluctant to send other people's sons and daughters to war, warned that if the communists weren't stopped in Southeast Asia we would be fighting them in the streets of San Francisco.
Establishment gray beards joined the chattering classes to insist that if the US withdrew from Vietnam, the US would lose its credibility, would cease to be a great power, its word never again to be trusted by its allies and others who looked to us for leadership in the struggle against global tyranny. It was all, as Neil Sheehan, writing about John Paul Vann, called it: "a bright shining lie." And the worst lie of all, in repeated appeals to the grieving hearts of our fellow citizens, was that we could only redeem the lives of our fallen by "winning" the war. Braced by that lie, we sacrificed more.
At length, President Nixon, the grand master of realpolitik, began the necessary process of extracting America from Vietnam. The fears we promoted in the speeches I and others wrote and promoted proved baseless. Inevitably, the angers set loose by our misadventure in Vietnam persisted for years.
In the end, it was John McCain, brutalized as a prisoner of war, who completed his Vietnam service by leading the fight to lance the boil of bitterness that disfigured the face of America in the aftermath of the war. It was John McCain, much honored for his wartime heroism, who brought further honor upon himself by standing for reconciliation with an old foe. Implicit in McCain's healing leadership was the understanding that our withdrawal from Vietnam, where our nation lost a war but our warriors never lost a battle, did not disgrace the memory of the more than 58,000 who died there.
If disgrace is to be assigned, it rests not with those who served, but with those who misused their service. The fighters of Vietnam, after all, defending their homeland, were only the instrument of our losses. It was America's misguided leadership that was the agent of those losses.
So, it is a sorrow now to hear John McCain, in pursuit of the White House, accusing Senator Barack Obama of dishonoring the sacrifices of American soldiers by calling for the withdrawal of US forces from a conflict promoted, as was Vietnam, by deceiving the American people. It is inexplicable, as the war in Iraq itself is inexplicable, that Senator McCain should charge that Barack Obama "is willing to lose a war in order to win the presidency." Buried near the surface of that discreditable allegation is the insistence that America must put still more of its best at risk in order to redeem those it has already lost.
The Senator insists we must win in Iraq. Yet, after a war that has lasted longer than World War II, and after the loss of more than 4,000 American lives, a definition of "winning" has still to be offered by the authors of this fiasco and their supporters. Senator Obama's fitness to be Commander-in-Chief is reaffirmed by his determination to end this folly, despite attacks on his motives and his patriotism. It was that determination that has served to persuade Iraq that it must now put its own house in order. And that is as close to "winning" as we are going to get in this war.
It is often said, and correctly, that Iraq is a very different war from Vietnam, but this much they have in common: American lives were wasted in Vietnam and they are being wasted in Iraq. However much American blood is shed in that sour soil, it will not be sweetened sufficiently to nurture up the seeds of democracy.
Noel Koch is a member of the steering committee of Vets For Obama. Visit their official site or join them on Facebook.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Iraqis call Baghdad the City of Walls and the killing fields:
http://www
http://www
Twelve foot partitions separating the Sunnis and Shiites keep the violence down. A simmering undercurrent of discontent and anger could explode any day. Sewage covers the streets. Iraqis feel like they are in prison. That is no way to live.
A park in the middle of town was converted into a grave yard. Another grave yard on the outskirts of town has hundreds of graves each marked by a piece of trash or metal without names. It is called no-man's land.
Iraqis are desperate. They are living in filth and death surrounds them.
That is the world Bush created for Iraqis.
Whether the US withdraws or not, America lost its honour the day Bush sent the troops into Iraq. If he had started bringing the troops home the day after the US captured Saddam, Bush might have redeemed America's standing.
Iraqis are not soured on democracy; they are rightfully soured on America.
Thank you Mr. Koch for the words of wisdom. I tell you that I am a mother and a wife and a grandmother and not a warrior, but I have read history and been a student at the University of Chicago where Barack Obama taught. Poor John McCain may be an honorable man but he is not behaving like one. He is being mean and contemptuos , that a young " nobody without experience" can dare challenge a hero. Barack Obama understands leadership, has a broad education, understands the political process and most importantly is not handcuffed to the 20th century political shackles of our past administrations. We have greater societal issues when we are trying to move our nation from a country mired in the last throes of trying to lead with guns instead of exerting leadership in the survival of the whole world. We have become amateurs at diplomacy and negotiation and have yet to find our bearings in managing the great sisues of our time which has moved past the industrial and information age. That's what Obama meant when he said Senator McCain had "lost his bearings" and Senator McCain better start speaking intelligently if he wants to be considred a serious contender.
Thank you for this diary. We don't know how or when this will end because there are strange turns when a nation embarks on a March of Folly. At the moment, it doesn't look good.
I often wonder what "Acts of Contrition" we will see from the many enablers of the Bush Administration.
will we see deathbed confessions and begging forgiveness?
will we see great attempts at humanity?
will we see profiteers "confessing" in a tell-all book? will they donate the profits to Vets?
time will tell
Good to see a post that puts the Iraq fiasco in the perspective of the Vietnam fiasco, which many Americans today either are too young to remember or seem to have forgotten about. Another bright shining lie that was told then and is being repeated now was: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Needless to say, after we left Vietnam the Viet Cong did not land in Los Angeles, and the Arab hordes will not invade America if we leave Iraq. In fact, once the irritant of the US military presence was removed, the political situation in Southeast Asia stabilized fairly quickly, and I believe the same thing will happen after the US military presence is removed from Iraq. Our ham-handed military intervention is not producing stability; it is delaying it.
I've noticed with this occupation as well as the Vietnam "police action" (neither, did congress declared war on) there are a small minority of vets and soldiers that want to keep up the killing until every last person is dead. Why is that? What is it, in these few that want to keep killing and maiming, till forever? Neither one of those countries attacked us or were going to attack us or even could attack us. Right now in Iraq there are what, maybe 5000, 7,500 foreign fighters "al qiada". These fighters were not there until we invaded, and for that, 1.3 million innocents should die. Not to mention the several million displaced, several more million have become refugees, hundreds of thousands are un-whole. Blackwater and other mercenaries were shooting Iraqi citizens for sport. This has been well documented. (continued)
Today as an Iraqi child (there are millions), I can't imagine what I would do, if I had been "lucky" to have survived to adutlesence. Five years ago at nine years old, I had witnessed my mother and my brothers and my sisters being torn to shreds by several automatic weapons. Bits of my mothers brains and sprays of my siblings blood splashed on my face and pajamas. This horrific event plays over and over in my mind. This horror has and is still taking place hundreds of thousands of times. Can they ever forget or forgive? Will they? Should they? Could you or I? Where will they direct their new found, justifiable anger and hate that was not there before our invasion? Now we are fighting people who don't want an occupier in their sovereign nation. What gives us the right? We are committing murder. (cont)
I am older and probably won't be around when our children and their children have that moral debt thrust upon them. I fear it will not be pretty. I doubt the architects of this evil slaughter will be here either. I believe the only way to regain some sort of security for our children, is to gather the little honor our nation has left and MAN UP to this terrible disaster. Then we can begin to repair our relationship, and their country. Not with shipped in workers but with the Iraqi' people themselves. Rebuilding their country with their own hands and labor will help to restore their national pride.
Maybe the vets and soldiers who wish to remain and keep fighting in Iraq have no hope of repairing our relationship or don't believe it can be repaired. For them, maybe the only answer is to eliminate a whole nation of people, to continue with the genocide. I feel if Noel Koch can face up to the truth of his responsibility for the cheer leading of Nam. Then so can we admit to our failures with Iraq.
Thank You Noel for this article and your volunteering at the Wall. I forgive you.
Lies work...
Denying them just fuels them more...
You have to lie about your opponent, too.
Being honest and forthright guarantees a loss.
Thank you Mr Koch, for this informative piece that puts great perspective on what is happening again by a few in our name. The search by the same class of "leaders" who still do not send their sons or daughters off to fight and die in war has not changed. The search for, or creation of, an "enemy" to fight and the expenditures of war that make huge profit for a few has not changed, only the enemy and the lie. And still it is the innocent who suffer most, this time by the hundreds of thousands with millions displaced and unheard of profit made by some.
For Berettasskeeter and others that have served, thank you for serving. You have my respect and admiration for your courage and strength. I am someone you would call on the left. I worked with many left leaning people who worked with Veterans of WWII and the Viet Nam era. I first worked with Vets to help them get their benefits and make progress with that. Later, I helped with parole planning for Veteran inmates and needed their GI benefits to get back on track. Later yet, I helped those with PTSD recover. I had friends who died in Viet Nam. I remained friends with their family members and we all dealt with that. People create false divisions. We are all in this together. I have never served in battle and cannot fully appreciate how difficult that would be. My battles as a lefty have been always to try to help those who have not had the advantages and those who have paid a higher price than others. I think we can be mutually respective as leftys, rightys and those in between. If we are going to be successful, in this country, we really do need to see that lots of things are important. Just because some of us focus on one part and others focus on other parts, rather than getting into a right/wrong mindset, we might consider that all concerns are worthy of factoring in. It appears that Senator Obama is trying to see thingsin that unusual way.
And all we can ask of ourselves, and of one another, is that we be willing to learn from both our successes and our failures. You honor both those who died in Vietnam, and your own commitment to learn and grow, every time you wash that wall. And perhaps you might consider giving yourself a moment in which you promise to forgive youself for who were and what you did? After all, we all do the best we know how to do at the time.
It's a shame that John McCain is either incapable, or unwilling, of learning. Either way - he is not fit to be President. If there's anything the American People should have gleaned from the last 7 years of hell - it's that an Administration that cannot admit that it was wrong poses a greater threat to our national security than anything Al Qaeda ever thought of doing.
I very much agree with poneezo2.
"where our nation lost a war but our warriors never lost a battle,"
Shiny.
The repetition of this phrase does a disservice to those who died and were wounded at battles not known by particular names as well as the battle at La Drang valley.
I believe that was Ia Drang Valley.
I'm a Vietnam vet, and while I generally agree with Mr. Koch's comments, I disagree with a few. It looks as if his Vets for Obama website has censored some comments. Only "Yes-people" need submit.
Obama beats McSame all to hell, but I expect nuance allowed with some disagreements, not blind fawning. Why waste my time with blind adulation?
welcome back fellow namvet.me was in the herd and the 145th and SF.riddle me this...how come maccain is the only former pow with a mental condition.
Rev, I salute your service to our country. I fully back and support O for President, and I have to say I have not seen any suggestions that I "fawn" or "blindly adore" him or his policies in any of the email communications I've received from his campaign gurus, nor in his campaign ads, nor in his week-long trip abroad, nor in his personal demeanor in any of his televised appearances. The only places I've seen any reference whatsoever to suggestions that anyone is supposed to exhibit those kinds of ridiculous human emotions for any candidate were in the Repub ads and in the gleeful pro-McSame diatribes by the MSM talking heads.
I agree. I am tired of being demeaned because I support Obama. I don't worship him, or think he is some perfect being. There are several issues I disagree with him. But I do think Obama is very intelligent and has a better mind frame than McCain, with a vision for our country that will strengthen us as we move into the 21st century. It's not about idol worship, it's about love for America and knowing we can do better than the last seven years. I believe Obama is the best candidate to take us forward out of the destructive governing of Bush/Cheney. Bush will go down as one of the worse presidents in American history. It's time for a change, and a chance to put his policies behind us.
What's the matter? Don't you like opposing views? I can do this all night!
The author would have you believe that the Vietnam War began with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, lie or otherwise. That is not the truth. The war had already begun. Tonkin was merely the precipitator for escalation!
The author would also have you believe that our hasty departure from Southeast Asia was a good thing. Consider that the Khmer Rouge slaughtered almost 25% of their population after we left. Consider also that the Vietnamese pursued a policy of genocide against their hill tribes, mostly animist or Christian, and all filled with hate against the relative newcomers from China, and filled with hate for Communists. The Thai had to pursue a decades-long series of border clashes with the Pathet Lao and with the Khmer, who wished to push communism into their country.
The Left in this country is responsible for this, and will be responsible for any slaughter in Iraq if we leave too soon.
Semper fi
WTF
The reason we 'left' Vietnam was the draft lottery. When the rich could no longer hide their children from service.
Would you have us still attempting to police Southeast Asia?
I'm just curious, what article did YOU read?
I see no reference to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, nor any implication that it "began" the war.
I also fail to see anywhere in his article a proclamation that our "hasty departure" from Southeast Asia" was a "good thing". Ultimately he declares that "Inevitably, the angers set loose by our misadventure in Vietnam persisted for years.", I fail to see how you could misconstrue such a statement as to believe that Mr. Koch views it as a "good thing" but I'm not entirely surprised given some of the other "spin-jobs" your mind has produced.
As for the "history" that you then proceed to, post American involvement, much of what you cite is largely debated, with the actions of the Khmer Rouge and Pather Lao being attributed to Pol Pot of Cambodia.
Point in fact, your comment of the Hill Tribes hate for the "communists" and "newcomers from China" is virtually absurd given that the SRVN Government aligned themselves with Russia, rather than China.
Once again, your "history" seems flawed, and your arguments may as well be directed at the wind as you fail to debate what was actually said, in favor of debating what you "wish" was said.
Wow, where to begin, you have so many facts wrong. I didn't see the Gulf of Tonkin even mentioned, so you must have hallucinated that one.
As for the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia was living peaceably enough until Nixon started the bombing campaign there. That is what gave the Khmer Rouge its credibility to fight the neutral government--viewed as weak by the Cambodian people. Then Nixon got US puppet Lon Nol installed. The Khmer Rouge were a result of Nixon's policies, not the evacutation of Viet Nam.
The responsibility for any slaughter that occurs in Iraq will rest with Bush and his conservative supporters. There was no reason for the invasion. All it did was destabilize the region and guarantee that there would be a civil war in Iraq. No matter how long we stay, that civil war will eventually occur.
Does "Semper fi" really mean "Hi Sailor!"?
How long would you have had us stay in Vietnam to prevent these things from happening? How many lives and how much money would you have had us spend? People throughout history and throughout the world have conflicts -- Muslim vs. Jew, Sunni vs. Shia, Catholic vs. Protestant -- and they need to work out solutions for themselves. It is not the responsibility of the United States to solve all these conflicts by military force -- or, even more senselessly, to try to stifle them. In fact history suggests that our meddling only delays the resolution of such conflicts and makes the inevitable outbreak of violence worse.
Great piece - thank you.
Just one point of contention: I often see American writers claim that the current war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II. I suspect that's because many Americans place the beginning of WW II on December 7, 1941, with the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, World War II began on September 1, 1939 and ended with the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945 - nearly 6 years later - while the invasion of Iraq took place on March 20, 2003 and the horrific conflict has lasted over 5 years, 4 months, and counting. Sadly, however, I have little doubt the claim will eventually be true next spring.
Don't overlook, eleven months from Normandy to Berlin.
Sure didn't. That happened from June of '44 to April/May '45. Japan surrendered 3 months later.
While we're at it, the Pacific War really began in July, 1937 when Japan invaded China. (Some people would place the start in September, 1931 with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria.
I am fairly certain that the claim is "Has lasted longer than America's involvement in WWII" (where "involvement" means the period of "declared war").
Hope that helps.
Of course the author is entitled to choose his frame of reference, but since the crux of his point is balanced on a comparison between the duration of WWII and that of the conflict in Iraq, it's essential to clearly state that he's only referring to the period of the war in which the US was involved. Otherwise, the integrity of the argument is seriously compromised, don't you think?
Nice point. I once wrote a letter to the editor of the News &Observer in Raleigh, NC about the fact that this war has gone on longer than our involvement in WWII. I went on to note it was probably because President Truman never stood up on TV and said "I hardly ever think of Emperor Togo! I'd say he seldom crosses my mind! In the summer of 2002, I comtiplated the copyrighting of
"a personal little "I got him for you. Daddy. war"
Please vote for Obama and let's bring our troops home.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
