I have previously written about the [often-amazing] direct parallels between Vietnam and Iraq (see, "Vietnam & Iraq: From Quagmire to Quicksand"), from the lies that got us into each war, to Congressional surrender by using broad grants of discretion to the Executive, to the achievement of precisely the opposite of the stated goals of the conflict, to the claimed catastrophes that would befall the US if we withdrew, to the politicization of the military, to the US involvement in torture,and even to the appointment to the World Bank of the major failed architect of each war (MacNamara and Wolfowitz), and so on.
The generation that was mired in the Vietnam quagmire apparently learned no lessons. Or, perhaps, the people that manipulated the system not to participate in the Vietnam war were those who learned no lessons: Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Wolfowitz, et al. Those most careful about starting wars are those who have actually fought.
Now comes a revelation about Vietnam that, even 35 years later, should make everyone's blood boil. In reviewing Robert Dallek's book (Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger), here is how the Economist (May 19, 2007) put it:
"In Mr Dallek's view, each was willing to see lives sacrificed for domestic political advantage. In late 1970 Mr Kissinger believed that America could get out of Vietnam any time it wanted and that it would do so before the 1972 election. The president wanted to plan the removal of all American troops by the end of 1971. Mr Kissinger counselled against that idea because, if America's South Vietnamese allies were then destabilised, it might hurt Nixon's re-election campaign. He recommended a pull-out in the autumn of 1972, "so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election." Nothing was said about how many Americans, or Vietnamese, would die in the interim."
Nor did that stop Nixon and Kissinger from attacking viciously those who dissented from their policies. To the contrary, they used the full power of the White House to infiltrate dissenting groups, impugn the integrity of their opponents and steal their medical records. Not that this should have mattered, but Dallek's book reveals that all the while the opponents were espousing the very views held by Nixon and Kissinger themselves. When testifying before the Senate Watergate committee, John Mitchell, the Attorney General of the United States, excused all the illegalities: "all we were trying to do was re-elect the President". George McGovern, you see, would have ended the Vietnam war and brought the troops home, 10,000 or more dead fewer, exactly what Nixon and Kissinger had said they could do, if it were not for political advantage.
Suggest that the Bush Administration is extending the Iraq war for its own domestic political purposes, and the lockstep rightwing will visit you with cries of "outrageous", "impossible", "ridiculous", "insulting to the Presidency". Why no one occupying that office would ever do that! The President "deeply feels" the loss of any American life, and on and on and on... yeah, right. Of course, not a single member of the Bush family (nephews, nieces, daughters) has volunteered. Neither did the Nixon sons-in-law (in those days, women were not in combat, so his daughters were off the hook). At least LBJ's sons-in-law did -- curious, he was a Democrat.
And now, Henry Kissinger is back. We learn from Bob Woodward's State of Denial that Kissinger has been a frequent advisor to Bush and Cheney, telling them not to set a deadline that would force the Iraqi politicians to resolve their differences, and not to withdraw troops. Not that Kissinger is completely to blame -- he is providing Bush the rationale to do what he wanted to do anyhow -- use other peoples' children to lose their lives and limbs so he can "hang on" until the end of his term and, he thinks, escape the verdict of history that he screwed everything up. Just like Nixon.
The lockstep Republicans in Congress gave their votes to Bush -- one last time, we are told. Just what are they accomplishing of any lasting value by extending the war several more months -- other than the loss of a battalion of US troops per month to death and injury?
How many of the Republican members of Congress, under age 42, following the example of Pat Tillman, resigned their seats and interrupted their promising careers to volunteer for Iraq? ZERO. Congressmen Putnam (age 32), McHenry and Hensarling, just to pick 3, are you listening? How many in the Administration have done so? ZERO Is Don Bartlett, who just resigned as Communications Director, now going to volunteer for Iraq? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. Michael Reagan, Ronnie's adopted son and a rightwing talkradio host, lambasts Democrats over Vietnam (a few million died because of our withdrawal) and what will happen in Iraq. Did he serve in Vietnam? NO. Are his own children volunteering for Iraq? NO.
Yet, like Nixon and Kissinger, they are all very willing to have others make the supreme sacrifice, and, we now know with certainty, to spend those lives not for national defense, but for their own pathetic, cowardly careers -- or so they think.
That should tell us a lot.
Advertisement