Tags for This Article:

McCain-John (3902)  Military (3110)  People (2811)  Republican (2395)  History (1204)  World (1190)  Iraq (1173)  Policy (1113)  Politicians (1012)  Elections (918)  Legislation (734)  Energy (701)  Issues (456)  Leader (203)  Business (190)  Communications (164)  Alternative (150)  Success (107)  USA (69)  Governance (30)  Practices (26) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
September 16, 2008 at 13:32:44

Headlined on 9/16/08:
Declaring Victory and Moving on -What a Horrible Concept!

by ALONE     Page 1 of 4 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

DECLARING VICTORY AND MOVING ON-WHAT A HORRIBLE CONCEPT! By  Kevin Anthony Stoda  

During the Vietnam War era in the 1960s, several generals and military officers suggested to the President of the United States (and all Americans, including the military), "Let's declare victory and go home!"

 

I have asked myself over the years whether (psychologically or) orally declaring a victory when there is not a clear victory is a good procedure for America to ever follow.

EXAMPLE OF POST-VIETNAM ERA 

As I studied the Vietnam War in the early 1980s in college, I thought at times, "What if people in the mid-1960s had simply taken the advice of these particular military leaders and got out of Vietnam much earlier on?"

 

I had speculated as follows.

 

 "On the surface level," I saw, "It would seem to be a sign of maturity to clearly accept the facts when a nation lacked any further chances of great success. We had long overstayed our usefulness in Vietnam and its region in a series of battles that would leave  two to four million people, mostly Southeast Asians, dead by 1975. A national acceptance of our needs (in America and abroad) to reduce future losses-i.e. in the mounting fruitless waste on energy, moneys and manpower-might be beneficial.  Such a move seemed more mature than sticking it out simply because of hubris or misguided illusions of self."

 

One would then be forced to work better internationally with all of one's neighbors and countries around the world.  This would mean respecting the ballot over the bullet when even our so-called enemies elected someone who rubbed us the wrong way.

 

Certainly, in retrospect, America would not have had to come home from Vietnam in 1975 with its tail between its legs, if agreements had been made to end the conflict earlier on.  It is quite possible that by working out a deal with North Vietnam, America may have been able to have helped keep Laos and Cambodia from going Communist.

 

As America finally high-tailed it out of Southeast Asia in the mid-1970s, a great national malaise hit many people in the American society. (Not that Jimmy Carter won any accolades for diagnosing this fact.)

 

Worse still, military America of 1979 was not ready to fight the Soviets and rising Middle Eastern leaders' various power plays at that time-i.e. without increasingly allying itself with thugs in Central America and despots or dictators in the Middle East throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

 

From 1975 onwards, America neither used the immediate postwar period to rebuild its military in a way to avoid allowing major wars to take place for decades to come nor revised its practices and self-images in a way that would lead many other nations and peoples to respect our foreign businesses and diplomatic practices in many post-colonial regions of the world, e.g. in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iran, in parts of Saudi Arabia, etc.

 

In short, throughout the last 70 years American leaders time and again have been fighting the last wars due to failure to recognize facts on the ground.  This strategy has been filled with errors (as well as poor international intelligence) and has been one of national avoidance and denial at opportunities to try to learn from mistakes.

 

In short, declaring victory and moving out is a delusion.   The fact is that America sometimes faces limits on its human and natural resources.  

America today is not the America of the late 1940s when the U.S.A. possessed much of the world's oil, gold and economic hegemony.  

Nor was America of the 1960s that sort of America, either. This obvious fact was missing from the American psyche of the 1960s and was still not fully understood after the Soviet Union collapsed.  This is why America, since NATO first began to expand 11 years ago, was simply waltzing its way to what we saw in Georgia this month.

DECLARING FULL VICTORY MAY DAMAGE THE U.S.A. 

In summary, in various ways, throughout the recent decades America has constantly failed to see the facts and has chosen image over substance. 

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

http://the-teacher.blogspot.com/

KEVIN STODA has been blessed to have either traveled in or worked in nearly 100 countries on five continents over the past two and a half decades.  He sees himself as a peace educator and have been   a promoter of good economic and social development--making him an enemy of my homelands humongous spending and its focus on using weapons to try and solve global issues.

"I am from Kansas so I also use the pseudonym 'Kansas' when I write and publish.  I keep two blogs--one with blogger and one with GNN.  My writings range from reviews to editorials or to travel observations.  I also make recommendations related to policy--having both a strong background in teaching foreign languages and degrees in teaching in history and the social sciences. As a midwesterner, I also write on religion and living out ones faith whether it be as a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist perspective."

On my own home page, I also provide information for language learners and travelers http://www.geocities.com/eslkevin/ ,  http://the-teacher.blogspot.com/ & http://alone.gnn.tv/

 

 

 

 

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments

Margaret Bassett is an 86-year old, currently living in senior housing, with a lifelong interest in political conumbrums. She hopes to hold out for one more presidential election. Bachelors from State University of Iowa (1944) and Masters from Roosevelt University (1975) help to unravel important requirements for modern communication. Early introduction to computer science (1966) trumps them. It's payback time. She's been "entitled" so long she hopes to find some good coming off the keyboa...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Margaret BassettMargaret Bassett is an 86-year old, currently living in senior housing, with a lifelong interest in political conumbrums. She hopes to hold out for one more presidential election. Bachelors from State University of Iowa (1944) and Masters from Roosevelt University (1975) help to unravel important requirements for modern communication. Early introduction to computer science (1966) trumps them. It's payback time. She's been "entitled" so long she hopes to find some good coming off the keyboa...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Two Iraq wars, two Bushes, then 92 and 08

"It's the economy, Stupid" played in 92.  The Rust Belt was hurting. The dawn of a PC on every desk was about to occur, and "globalization" was more a catch phrase than a symbol of misery.  Those 8 years were a tale of "burn" cash.  In other words, speculation was in venture capital.  CNBC anchors described start-ups as how many months/years of capital they had before they would have to start turning a profit.  Military operations were less important, but putting out inherited fires in Somalia and  Yugoslavia,  to a certain extent, engaged the press.  And the shadow of Saddam lingered. Dana Priest describes the military in "The Mission."

Then came 8 years of a total mlitary economy and the accompanying authoritarian governing style. 

2008 sees pre-emptive tactics and foreign policy built on fear.  NAFTA has gutted American towns and NCLB has anethesized children's brains. Advertising for electronic trinkets has maxed credit cards.  Media does what advertisers want.  Politicians are reelected if they keep the price of gas low.  It's not just the economy which is stupid, although it's heading  toward the looney bin.  South America, the Caucasus, and Europe have each formed regional entitites for trade and protection.  And the US of A limps along as the "greatest nation in the world" while wondering why the Fall of the Wall wasn't sufficient to prove that.  Duelling hegemonies! When all else fails, rant over others' religion.  That's worked through the millennia.  

Not too different from 1932, except everyone wonders where FDR is. He's dead.  When he was alive he had a good modus operandi--Try something, if it doesn't work, try again.  I privately doubt if he would like his AAA to turn in to agribusiness, SEC into a haven for derivatives, or Social Security into a last resort for those who claim disability because they lack training for less physical work.  TVA needs to deal with energy and transportation instead of recreation.  And the Interstate Highway system should be upgraded after half a century.  

by Margaret Bassett (31 articles, 1969 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 1282 comments) on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 2:14:18 PM
 


The author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and commom sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for societal "perfection".
Mary PittThe author is a very "with-it" old lady who aspires to bring a bit of truth, justice, and commom sense to a nation that has lost touch with its humanity in the search for societal "perfection".

Huzzah, Margaret!

I read the comments, intending to add a pithy comment, but you said it all much better than I could.  The readers of OEN would do better to listen to the "little old ladies".  We have lived a long time and seen a lot of history and are merely trying to keep most of it from being repeated.  I wonder how long it will be until someone decides that they should form a United Nations to assure peace in the world.

by Mary Pitt (66 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 185 comments) on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 7:03:57 PM
 


Just an average kid who grew up in the '60s. There sure was more good music then, and a livelier peace movement. Still, things are changing. Some people are seeing through the false reality we are surrounded with. We know it from what is alive inside and around us. Like the grass growing through the pavement, our lives defy their destruction.
Peace.

ClarkJust an average kid who grew up in the '60s. There sure was more good music then, and a livelier peace movement. Still, things are changing. Some people are seeing through the false reality we are surrounded with. We know it from what is alive inside and around us. Like the grass growing through the pavement, our lives defy their destruction.
Peace.

George Aiken

Senator George Aiken (R-VT) understood that the Viet Nam quagmire was not something the US could "win". He said "let's declare victory and get out" because he knew that the US was obsessed with "winning".

"Winning hearts and minds" was supposedly the objective, but how do you do that to people you have slaughtered and whose lands you have destroyed?

You seem to think that our problems today would be gone, if only our military was always strong enough, or if people hadn't been demoralized and turned against militarism by this senseless slaughter.

The main point of Aiken's was to end it, and say we won, because it really didn't matter how we got out, as long as we did.

You really think the Vietnamese would help us to intervene all around Southeast Asia, after what we did to them?

How about we take care of our own home? Abolish the military. We have enough weapons here if we are invaded. Our best defense, however, is using our (dwindling) immense wealth and power to help all to be secure in their own homes, and to make trade deals that benefit people everywhere.

That would help with the immigration problem too.

I say we declare victory everywhere, bring ALL our troops home from every base, and allow other nations to determine their own destiny.

Post-WWII military actions the US has engaged in are about either stealing resources, stamping out budding democracies, or both.

If we keep doing this, and our economy completely collapses, we will not have many friends in this world. They will see the USA as a vanquished monster, deserving its fate.

by Clark (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 6:07:20 PM
 


Retired NASA systems engineer for Earth Science data systems. I consider myself a citizen of planet Earth and consider Nationalism and other such beliefs which separate ourselves from each other are outmoded and are detrimental to the well being of the earth and all of the creatures that inhabit it.
Philip PeaseRetired NASA systems engineer for Earth Science data systems. I consider myself a citizen of planet Earth and consider Nationalism and other such beliefs which separate ourselves from each other are outmoded and are detrimental to the well being of the earth and all of the creatures that inhabit it.

Victory ???

In elections victory is defined as getting the most votes - well that is not true in the USA as we found out from the last election.

In war how is victory defined?  In the old wars we had to force our opponent to surrender; that was victory and we could bring our troops home.  Kill or capture the leader of the opposition - kill or capture Osama bin Laden and the war on terror is won and we can bring our troops home.  Certainly our Government leader could say we got rid of Saddam and so we could declare victory and bring our troops home and the war would be over.  It really is that easy.  Why don't we do that?  Because we are not in Iraq to fight terrorism; we are there to gain control over their oil resources and that means we need to maintain troops there for as long as their oil exists.  We can claim the war in Iraq is a success as soon as big oil corporations begin making profits from Iraq's oil.  If victory in Iraq is taking over control of the nation we did that; but don't expect to bring out troops home, because we plan to maintain control as long as the oil is there.

by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 141 comments) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 8:57:47 AM
 


KEVIN STODA has been blessed to have either traveled in or worked in nearly 100 countries on five continents over the past two and a half decades.  He sees himself as a peace educator and have been   a promoter of good economic and social development--making him an enemy of my homelands humongous spending and its focus on using weapons to try and solve global issues."I am from Kansas so I also use the pseudonym 'Kansas' when I write and publish.  I...

to see more of bio, click on member name

ALONEKEVIN STODA has been blessed to have either traveled in or worked in nearly 100 countries on five continents over the past two and a half decades.  He sees himself as a peace educator and have been   a promoter of good economic and social development--making him an enemy of my homelands humongous spending and its focus on using weapons to try and solve global issues."I am from Kansas so I also use the pseudonym 'Kansas' when I write and publish.  I...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Declaring victory is short term stuff

W. Bush claimed victory on May 1 , 2003:  "Mission Accomplished!"

His papa claimed, "No New Taxes."

Many Americans claim Reagan brought down the Wall.

Declaring victory over reality on the ground is misleading and doesn't take us to  a more critical and self-critical level.

I never stated, by the way, that Vietnam would help us in Cambodia or Laos if we left Vietnam.  I just feel that Pol Pot wouldn't have been alowed to take over Kampuchea if US had not stayed in the War after 67 or 68.

There are some reasons to believe that.

by ALONE (148 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 320 comments) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM
 

 

5 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Keith Olbermann Broke Up With Me! by Shannyn Moore

Children dying in Haiti, victims of food crisis exacerbated by four devastating tropical storms Posted by Stephen Fox

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety Posted by sadelaine

Surviving an Economic Crash: Resources and Tips by Kathryn Smith

Congress Opposes Bush Pardons by David Swanson

Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support GOP "Should Be Shot" Posted by Joan Brunwasser

Fate of Lakotahs Highlights America's Failed Native American Policies by Stephen Lendman

A Turkey By Any Other Name--Is Still the Governor of Alaska by Brasch

Obama may choose Monsanto's GE-nightmare over an organic human vision by Linn Cohen-Cole

The Coming of the Second Great Depression? Posted by Nathan White

Go To Top 50 Most Popular