The Price of Imperial Arrogance - by Stephen Lendman
Lyndon Johnson was a conflicted man about Vietnam almost from the time he took office. As early as May, 1964, he confessed his doubts about the conflict to his good friend Senator Richard Russell in one of the many phone calls he taped in the Oval Office. That was three months before the fateful Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave him congressional authorization for military action in Southeast Asia without needing a formal declaration of war for it. Later that year, he privately acknowledged the Tonkin Gulf incident never happened and told Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara "we concluded maybe they hadn't fired at all." He was referring to the claimed attacks by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on two US destroyers which, on its face, seemed preposterous but which propelled this country deeply into the Vietnam conflict that didn't end until President Gerald Ford evacuated the last of the US forces and a few South Vietnamese collaborators in humiliation from the rooftop of the US Embassy in Saigon 11 years later in April, 1975. They left behind a nation in ruins, its landscape devastated and chemically poisoned that remains so today, and a few million dead Southeast Asians in three countries showing the kind of men Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were - imperial war lords who never had to answer for their war crimes as they never do under a system of victor's justice. The only compensation the victims got was their freedom from US aggression when realizing it couldn't win it decided to give up a futile fight and pull out.
Long before he left office, Johnson knew the war was unwinnable, and in 1965 told Secretary McNamara "I don't believe they're ever going to quit. And I don't see....that we have any....plan for victory - militarily or diplomatically" - spoken as he was about to escalate the conflict dramatically by shipping over many thousands more US forces that would eventually exceed a half million before things began to be scaled down in preparation for the final exodus in disgrace and defeat. Johnson did it even while confiding to his closest Senate friend, Richard Russell, that he was on the horns of his greatest dilemma. He had to find a way out of the Vietnam mess he felt was pointless but said he couldn't do it without being impeached - for Johnson, a classic Hobson's choice or in his own words "I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't." He asked his savvy friend for advice, but Russell told him he had none. Johnson felt trapped, and in May, 1964, (when the US commitment stood at a 16,000 troop strength level) he told Russell "We're in quicksand up to our necks, and I just don't know what the hell to do about it."
He did a lot about it, but made a criminal and coward's choice that destroyed him. It was apparent on March 31,1968, two months after the momentous Tet offensive showed how hopeless things were and how pointless it was to pursue an agenda certain to fail. Johnson addressed the nation on national television that night saying he wouldn't seek reelection for another term. His only way out was to "cut and run" because he was so unpopular he had no chance to win. Lyndon Johnson left office in January, 1969 a disgraced and defeated man. This powerful, bigger-than-lfe figure was never the same again, and four years later he was dead.
Audible Echoes of Vietnam Today
Today, echos of Vietnam are heard again resonating from the Middle East more loudly than 30 years ago. Does anyone in Washington high circles understand George Santayana's famous dictum that "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it?" And do people in those circles know about British playwright George Bernard Shaw who said "We learn from history that we learn nothing from history" and could have explained how doomed this adventure would be from the start? There are just as many damn fools now as in the past, but the most dangerous ones are those who won't admit they got it wrong till it's too late and then it's someone else's problem. The only debate now is whether it's already beyond fixing, and no solution acceptable to Washington will work.
The elite there should read all 1000+ pages of noted longtime Middle East-based British journalist Robert Fisk's new book called The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East and learn how they're making the same mistakes that doomed the British occupiers after WW I. In a recent discussion of his book, Fisk compared today with then and explained: (today in Iraq) "It is not just similar, it is 'fingerprint' the same." During the "war to end all wars" the UK under Prime Minister Lloyd George (the Tony Blair of his time) invaded Iraq in 1917 and claimed, like George Bush, we (the UK) come "not as conquerors but as liberators." After the war, the Brits arbitrarily carved out the territory they called Iraq from the former greater Mesopotamia that was under Ottoman rule for almost 400 years until the war ended it. They told Iraqis they would have "democracy," held a referendum to prove it, and "elected" a puppet monarch who understood who was really in charge. In 1920, there was an insurrection, and Fallujah was the first town bombed followed by a siege against Najaf. Lloyd George defended his actions on the floor of the House of Commons (which British PMs must do unlike in the US) and claimed "if British troops leave Iraq there will be civil war." Sound familiar?
Winston Churchill was Secretary for War and Air for a time under George in the 1920s and thought it was a waste of British soldiers putting down tribal or sectarian revolts. Instead he advocated using the new Royal Air Force to bomb villages and was unconcerned if it targeted innocent civilians along with the legitimate resistance struggling (like today) to be free from a repressive occupation. He also authorized what Saddam was condemned for - using poison gas for the first time ever against a civilian population and at the time wrote: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against 'uncivilised' tribes." In a 2002 BBC poll, this "uncivilised" war criminal was voted the greatest-ever Briton, and his bust is now prominently displayed in the Oval Office occupied by the current war criminal ensconced in it.
British rule in the country was turbulent and harsh until Iraq became nominally independent in 1932 and later finally freed itself from British control after the Baathists expelled the Brits for good in the late 1950s, 40 years after they first arrived and not long after Saddam Hussein joined the party he would lead 22 years later. It took the Brits all that time to learn what the Bush administration should already know - Iraqis won't tolerate a foreign occupation, especially one as harsh as the one now imposed on them. This hopeless adventure was doomed the moment George Bush signed off on it, but the arrogance of imperial power blinded the neocons in Washington to what should have been obvious to them and eventually will be - the battle of Iraq can't be won, and the only alternative is a full, unconditional and immediate withdrawal along with reparations paid to help rebuild the country we pillaged and destroyed.
That happening is wishful thinking even though many in high places understand the futility of "staying the (present) course" and are scrambling for an alternate solution. It remains to be seen what they have in mind and if they can get the ruling neocon cabal to accept it or manage to sidestep them if they don't. It won't be any easier convincing an administration nominally headed by a man who believes he's on a messianic mission to decide he made a mistake and be willing to change course than it was to get a former president with a working brain to do it in 1969. He and his successor "stayed their course" for another blood-soaked six years that scarred this nation and the people of Southeast Asia who paid the greatest price and won't ever fully recover until they reject the chains of neoliberalism that allow the dominant West to strangle them.
How Bad Is It in Iraq and On the Home Front
First consider the enormous and growing economic cost according to an estimate by Joseph Stiglitz - 2001 economics Nobel laureate, former Chairman of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and chief economist at the World Bank until he quit his job in November, 1999 to speak publicly about his opposition to bank policies, and Linda Bilmes who teaches public finance at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. In January, 2006, they estimated the war's cost could reach $2 trillion but now believe that figure is low and may go much higher because of current and estimated future budgetary costs, the economic impact of lives lost, jobs interrupted, the risk premium in oil prices from uncertainty in the Middle East, the growing cost of veterans' long-term medical care and disability benefit obligations, the human and capital investment needed to "reset" or restore the military to its pre-war strength and preparedness, and a host of other direct and indirect costs including the most accurate measure of the amount eventually to be needed for the war when all budgetary items are included now and into the future.
The government doesn't calculate the total cost as Stiglitz and Bilmes say it should because of the way the it does its accounting. It uses a "cash accounting" system that would make a CPA wince (and likely lose his accreditation) and only reports expenses when payments are made, not when they're committed for as most all businesses must do by "accrual accounting" methodology that includes future obligations assumed but unpaid. Add it all up according to Stiglitz and Bilmes and it comes to $2 trillion + and counting because future obligations not yet in reported budgets are huge for years to come that will drain many billions of dollars from the federal treasury and put an enormous strain on an economy already reeling from massive deficits that are far greater than the phony numbers reported to hide how bad the country's fiscal condition really is.
Stiglitz and Bilmes also point out that going to war with Iraq (and Afghanistan) was a matter of choice and so is staying there that raises the cost the longer the conflict continues (as well as in Afghanistan not included in their calculations). And they go much further saying as overwhelming as the $2 trillion + budgetary, social and macroeconomic costs are already, more must be added to them such as the expenses incurred by other nations and this country's intangible ones that include the following:
-- the cost of our reduced capability to respond to national security threats in other parts of the world.
-- the cost of high and rising anti-American sentiment in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere - most everywhere.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
I much prefer to agree with people than disagree and I agree
with you 100% here, great article. I always tell my Republican or pro "Stay the Course" friends that nothing will improve with the war by staying longer. In a sea of horrible choices, the "least bad" choice is to get out as soon as possible. C-5s and transport ships should start loading up the troops today, right now, this minute.
As John Kerry said 30 or so years ago, "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
by
Steven Leser (226 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1615 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 9:55:20 AM
I really appreciate your balanced view, including the truth about the Democrats "ownership" of the total Iraq mess; it is very obvious to some of us that the Dems have no good or original ideas and, worse yet, have not even tried very hard to bring the public along with a specific strategy; they await the Baker output and will have no choice but to embrace it. But the one core problem with Baker and his crowd is that they will not easily put at risk U.S. access to oil in that region. So, I fear more and more loss of American lives and treasue.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (131 articles, 32 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 524 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 11:06:03 AM
The link above leads to my first article in www.opednews.com. In it I predicted what would happen in the US and abroad. Many of the things I predicted did happen. Some have not, thank goodness. But that article of mine kinda echoes Mr. Lendman's and we are in the same boat: our country behaves irrationally and the consequences are to be painful indeed.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 249 diaries, 3565 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 12:50:28 PM
Allow me to combine in one response to all as so busy as always and now have a very busy screen - making me dizzy.
I much prefer camaraderie to confrontation and have been very lucky as most responding to my articles say positive things that inspire me to do more.
Like you all I fear for what's ahead and see nothing either party doing to change things. Look who Repubs. choose as new party leaders. And new Dem majoriity leader a war hawk now posing as a peacenik - baloney and another slice for Pelosi who's bought and paid for by a host of special interests including the Israeli Lobby. So much for change.
And when a good guy like Conyers caves on impeachment you know it's hopeless. I emailed him a scathing commentary about selling out he'll never be forgiven for. I don't think we'll see Bush impeached because he's a braham, unlike the commoner Nixon, and part of Baker's unstated mission is to save his presidency to minimize damage to family - but heres my conclusion on that. The Bush political family dynasty has ended, thanks to George. Imagine, we actually owe him our thanks for that.
by
Stephen Lendman (268 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 1:02:45 PM
I really couldn't. You told me things I did not know. I am going to e-mail this to my brother. Thank you for putting this article up. it should be in Time or Newsweek.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 2:45:18 PM
Many thanks but guarantee you'll never see this kind of writing in Time, Newsweek, NYT or any of corporate media unless there are publications by those names on another planet. If learn of any, please forward -
by
Stephen Lendman (268 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments)
on Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 4:16:44 PM
I need to get some sleep, and have only read 1/4 of your article. I WILL read it through and respond more fully when time is available, but I want to interject the omission of a perspective your prose seems to picture, but your conclusions do not address.
Namly that this publicly blatant attack on the civil liberties of all citizens in the western world is being orchastrated by a small group of men playing Chaos against Order on a global scale, over a long time frame, with a known goal.
My feeling is, that cliff 567 has NO bearing in those plans. Other than to diseminate my views when ever possible.
by
cliff567 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 164 comments)
on Friday, November 17, 2006 at 4:42:35 AM
As always, a thought-provoking and well-researched article from Steve Lendman's amazingly prolific pen. Let me add here that those who now pay and will in the future continue to pay the price for the policy failures (the objective of destroying Iraq as a regional power in Southwest Asia has indeed been achieved, but in such a manner as to greatly weaken the military and diplomatic power of the United States - a result that definitely was not intended) of the Bush/Cheney court are not those responsible for these policies, but ordinary people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and, it is well to remember, the United States. A modern Nürnberg Tribunal - whether international or in the United States - where the responsible would be judged is simply not in the cards, nor even dismissal from office for high Crimes and Misdemeanors according to Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution ; no one with sufficient power to bring these men and women to trial is interested in doing so. And just as the US people accepted with a shrug the theft of the 2000 presidential elections, they will accept this lack of accountability as well. So, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, can it go....
A slight error has made its way into Steve's text : It was not the Baathists that ousted the remaining colonialist structures (by then the seat of Empire had passed from the Brits to the USA - remember the short-lived Baghdad Pact of 1955 ?) in 1958, but a group of younger Iraqi officers centred around the figures of Abdul Karim Quasim and Abdul Salim Arif. Quasim was an Iraqi nationalist, not a Pan-Arabist, and he repressed the Baathists, who tried to assassinate him in 1959 (a certain Saddam Hussein was shot in the leg in that was action, but managed to escape with the help of, it is said, the CIA, which had been involved in the attempt). A Baathist coup, supported by the US, Britain, and Egypt (sic ! - politics make strange bedfellows) against Quasim on 9 February 1963 was, however, successful, and Quasim was executed after a farcicial trial. What was it Marx said about history repeating itself ?...
by
mhenriday (0 articles, 11 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 151 comments)
on Sunday, November 19, 2006 at 2:18:02 PM
8 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
