Will we ever learn?
by Mike Ferner
During the Vietnam war, there was a vibrant, courageous resistance movement within the military itself. Young men and some women did anything they could to end the killing. They demonstrated, sabotaged military equipment and fragged their officers. They also published dozens of underground newspapers, one of which was put out by the crew of the carrier, USS Kitty Hawk, cheekily called Kitty Litter.
Going through some dusty files the other day, I saw the November,
1971 issue ("Cost: $PRICELESS"), which included the article "Indochina
War Is Not Over." It examined
Nixon's "Vietnamization" strategy of replacing U.S. troops
with South Vietnamese. For the same reasons as today, raining death from
above was a necessary part of the process.
The swabbie who wrote that article 42 years ago could have easily written the same thing today -- word for word -- and therein is serious food for thought for today's peace movement. (Emphases and spelling errors in the following excerpt were in the original.)
"It's quite clear that no American government will ever again be able to put a large conscripted army in the field. For years American troops have been in silent mutiny in Vietnam. They are refusing to fight. They have become aware that the government has lied to them, it has fooled them and tricked them and conscripted them to fight a war they intensely oppose. As the soldiers saw what was happening in Vietnam, they realized that the Vietnamese were not their enemies. They began to select enemies within their own ranks. In 1970, 209 officers were killed by their own men.
The message became clear to the Makers-of-War. They could not commit massive ground troops to an unpopular war. So, if you are a Maker-of-War, what do you do? Do you say, "this country is based on democratic ideals and since 73% of the people want out of Vietnam, we are going to end the war now?' Not if you are a Maker-of-War.
You get other people to fight that war. You give them the weapons and you train them and"replace the ground troops"as long as Mother's sons are not coming home in plastic bags there will be no domestic opposition to continuing that war.
In a special issue of the (Teledyne Ryan) Reporter, a trade magazine of the Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Corp., was devoted to a discussion of the Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV). Launched from an aircraft carrier, these aircraft, piloted remotely by technicians in the safty and comfort of the mother ship, can carry a variety of weapons and perform a number of functions. Receiving data from electronic sensors dropped by other RPVs, the RPV can be guided automatically to a target. Only the so-called enemy gets killed. There are no POWs, and if a civilian, woman or child is its victim, there will be no warrior, conscience struck, to expose the murder to the American people. It's a way to fight wars without having to draft Americans, or to convince folks back home that the war is just, or, for that matter, even having to tell them much about what is going on.
The advantage of this weapons system to the Makers-of-War is that a handfull of specially trained, highly paid technocrats can rain death on millions of people from sanctuaries 50 miles off shore.
Teledyne Ryan is bold enough to say almost this very thing. "In summary, the future of Remotely Piloted Vehicles is as bright as it has ever been. The lower cost, political acceptability, low risk of life and versatile mission capabilities of RPVs make them very attractive candidates in a world of shrinking budgets and unpopular military operations.'
Two generations later, some observations:
1) Drones are not new.
2) How far has the movement come in 42 years if we are once again focusing on the particular evils of drones?
3) Does this teach us anything about our strategy or lack thereof?
To be sure, drones are a malevolent manifestation of the Empire's capabilities. We revile them for all the right reasons. Shining a light on them can be a good tactic. I don't argue we ignore them.
But what does it say about us, about our ability to work successfully for social change, if today we think we're doing something significant by campaigning against drones, 42 years after they caught the attention of the G.I. resistance movement? If in the intervening decades since 1971 we had been more conscious and strategic about our organizing, might we be further down the road of social change by now?
In other words, over the last 42 years, what has been the "opportunity cost" of how we've worked for peace?
To address that question, I'll assume the movement's primary task is to change the values of society, from the bottom up, to eliminate war and militarism from our culture. This assumption is significant. It means we understand that change comes from the people. It acknowledges the strength of the grassroots.
Unfortunately, our strategies have not kept pace. We still devote the vast majority of our thinking, time, energy and money to reacting against a succession of various evils.
Without a conscious strategy "to change the values of society from the bottom up," we will forever be reacting to the latest, most disgusting manifestation of Empire's will. Yes, there is educational value in opposing drones or depleted uranium or sending Special Forces into XYZ-land. Maybe, over time, many of these "one night stands" might change society's values. If so, we should consider ourselves more lucky than smart. And it's not the best we can do.
To abolish war and militarism we need a conscious, coherent strategy and accompanying tactics that will allow us to work with the forces in society that the mostly white, middle class peace movement talks about working with but rarely does. Specifically, I mean go beyond our typical confines to build solid relationships across lines of race and class.
That requires local grassroots organizing, not just activism.