33 online
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 18 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 2/11/14

The Iraq Syndrome? AIPAC collides with Vietnam Syndrome's successor and Shatters

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   3 comments
Message Richard Congress

Anti-War Anniversary March
Anti-War Anniversary March
(Image by SchuminWeb)
  Details   DMCA

Horrified at the prospects of negotiations between the US and Iran that could lead to serious diplomacy and even (shudder) peace, APAIC and its minions revved up its standard steamroller campaign to save the day. Until now, whenever the lobby goes on the warpath, its targets immediately surrender and swear total fealty to the AIPAC/Israel juggernaut. But times have changed and AIPAC failed to get enough Democratic senators to sign on to a bill to increase sanctions against Iran, with the obvious goal of sabotaging any treaty between the US and Iran over its nuclear program.

The failure of the Israel lobby in the US to prevail in the Senate is a very big deal. The only comparable event was the failure of AIPAC's all out drive to stop the US government from selling advanced AWAC aircraft to Saudi Arabia which happened decades ago. It looks like a turning point ,which, considered along with the successes of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement and the growing alarm about this among the Israeli government and its apologists in the US, appears to be a serious blow to Israel, AIPAC, and the cheerleaders for a continues US military action in the Mideast.

Thus, Chris Hedges recent column "The Menace of the Military Mind" is all the more disconcerting for its failure to realize the actual existence of a growing resistance to militarism in the US,and the misleading pessimism he encourages. But more on that later.

Israel does not want peaceful relations between the US and Iran. They want to use Iran as a bogeyman to whip up support for a US/Israel military attack against Iran. They don't want any independent counterbalance to Israel's total military and political hegemony in the region. Iran says that it has the right to nuclear power like any other nation and it has no plans to build a bomb. The proposed treaty with the US allows inspection to verify that they have no nuclear weapons under development. The idea that Iran, even if it did end up with nuclear weapons, would be stupid enough to attack Israel is, in terms of reality, total idiot nonsense.

As a country, Iran is not small change. It is a large, technologically advancing country that can play a role in stabilizing the Mideast. Israel hates this possibility. It wants other countries in the region to be weak and unstable, easy prey for expansionism and bullying. The designated role for Iran as far as Israel is concerned is to be the major existential threat that will justify unlimited US dollars and political support for whatever Israel wants to do.

But despite all its past triumphs (remember the joint session of Congress with Democrats and Republicans jumping up and down like puppets on a string to give innumerable standing ovations to Netanyahu?) This time AIPAC/Israel lost. Obama dug in his heels and faced down the lobby. They gave up, for the time being, their legislative sabotage plan to scuttle the negotiations with Iran.

Why did this happen? What gave Obama some backbone?

He could see which way the winds were blowing. The arrogant over-reaching of Israel and AIPAC's foaming at the mouth slandering of anyone with the slightest questioning of Israeli policy has finally blown up in their faces. Partisans of unquestioning support for whatever Israel wants are now being seen in a more critical light by the population in general--it's hard not to notice that the Israel lobby is always cheerleading for war (by us) on behalf of Israel.

Unlike the Republican/Fox News/AIPAC axis of dimwits, Obama represents a smarter policy for preserving US military and economic dominance of the world. He knows the US has to put Israel in it's place--it is an adjunct of US imperial rule, not the opposite. Israel's bull in a china shop approach is too risky for intelligent capitalist politicians like Obama to put up with.

Obama is also discerning enough to see that people are tiring of warmongering bombast. And the change in public opinion is larger than just the growing discomfort with Israeli/AIPAC stridency for military action; there is the rise of a general unhappiness of the American people with the results of the post 9/11 policy of endless war.

The American people DO NOT WANT ENDLESS WAR. They've had enough. They have finally seen the fruits of the tissue of lies that got us into the Iraq war...which got us deeper into war in Afghanistan, and begat the back door to war in Libya...which begat drone war in Pakistan...which begat US attacks in Yemen. I don't have to keep going on in a biblical way for you to get the picture. The grinding wars and deployments are chewing up soldiers and spitting them out dead or wounded, more trillions go down the drain, while the economic picture is definitely not rosy. Also, did you notice the reception to the idea of the US getting involved in the Syrian civil war?

This is bad news for the people who really run America: the Military/NSA/banking-global corporate raider /Petrochemical axis who rely on military threats and force to maintain world dominance (this is what they really mean when they talk about National Security -- not the best interests of regular people).

The Vietnam war lasted for over 10 years. At first only a handful of weirdos protested. Tens of thousands of US soldiers died and many more were wounded, millions of Vietnamese, Laos, and Cambodians were killed. At its height there were 500,000 US troops there. Slowly the population realized that something was not right with the story they were being told by the media and politicians. The population turned against the war, protests were gigantic (a million marching in Washington...more than once). Finally, the troops--unwilling draftees--refused to fight, and in 1973 the US had to just stop the war and go home. They lost the war. Why? Due to the resistance of the Vietnamese to colonial domination and the organized power of the mass anti-war movement.

The Vietnam experience resulted in a strong resistance by the US population to any more wars. Dubbed the Vietnam Syndrome, military and political leaders worried that this could harm any future "needed" US military actions. The establishment and its tamed news media campaigned against this Vietnam Syndrome for decades. The far right waged a cultural and social war to reverse the social gains of blacks and women, and decried the 1960s as a era of loose morals, but the crusade to eradicate the bad memories of the Vietnam war, the lies and seeming pointlessness of it all-- that battle was also joined by supposedly more moderate politicians, the media and, of course, by the Pentagon brass.

The US military response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991was seen by pundits as a good war, a devastating, overwhelming attack on Saddam Hussein's army, a rousing, flag waving victory for the USA, which they hoped would put us back in the world policeman game.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Richard Congress Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

adjunct professor teaching ESL in the CUNY system. Old '60s person: active in civil rights, anti vietnam war organizing, spent time in Nicaragua in the '80 & worked against US funding of contras. Currently focused on Palestine struggle for equal (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Atheism: Good, Bad and Ugly

Ah Palestine: a non-existing land without people for a non-existing people

The Iraq Syndrome? AIPAC collides with Vietnam Syndrome's successor and Shatters

White House position: Two sides or one side? Equal blame, or is one side always blameless?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend