Go, Dick.
This is going to be brief. My back is a disaster area today, and that's no Jonathan Harris imitation.
I was listening to President Obama speaking at the NATO summit this past week, talking about ending the Afghan War "responsibly". And I had this impulse to say, "Thanks, Nixon!" Back in the day, old Dick was winding down his war, so to speak, standing up a colonial army (the ARVN - south Vietnamese army) and always talking about "peace with honor" after nearly a decade of mindless slaughter. They were fighting "terrorists" as well - just look at Life magazine or some other news publication from the late 1960s and you'll see that that was one of the terms they used to describe the Viet Cong (NLF). Not so different.
Except that it was actually more brutal, as brutal and ugly as the Afghan war has been and continues to be. Vietnam and more generally Indochina was almost totally destroyed during the American war there, particularly from 1962 forward. People are still being killed by that war, by virtue of tons of unexploded ordinance, Agent Orange hotspots all over the south, and more. I don't want to minimize that fact. For every drone strike Obama launches, there were likely 1,000 sorties over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia dropping high explosives, napalm, and cluster bombs by the ton. The fact that this likely would not be tolerated today speaks to a gradual increase in our collective humanity. If anything constrains our leaders, it's that.
Still, even within these constraints, we can do a lot of damage. The drone strikes are a very easy option for the administration. It's a political winner, since American lives are not put in jeopardy, and it has the vague perception of accuracy going for it, though our targets have very little to say on the subject (because they are, of course, dead). It is a very corrosive weapon, though, on both legal and moral grounds, and it is likely causing a great deal more hatred of the United States than could be propagated by the likes of those we are targeting. Like Nixon's (and LBJ's) Vietnam war, it is approached as a project of eliminating the "bad guys" so that there will be fewer of them. That, of course, does not work and never will. Aside from being wrong, it is strategically stupid, and it is putting us in greater danger with every attack.
Still, the alternative to our little Nixon is Reagan on steroids - a Romney administration following a neocon-powered foreign policy, with multiple additional wars on tap. That being the case, well... Nixon's the one.
luv u,
jp
I was listening to President Obama speaking at the NATO summit this past week, talking about ending the Afghan War "responsibly". And I had this impulse to say, "Thanks, Nixon!" Back in the day, old Dick was winding down his war, so to speak, standing up a colonial army (the ARVN - south Vietnamese army) and always talking about "peace with honor" after nearly a decade of mindless slaughter. They were fighting "terrorists" as well - just look at Life magazine or some other news publication from the late 1960s and you'll see that that was one of the terms they used to describe the Viet Cong (NLF). Not so different.
Except that it was actually more brutal, as brutal and ugly as the Afghan war has been and continues to be. Vietnam and more generally Indochina was almost totally destroyed during the American war there, particularly from 1962 forward. People are still being killed by that war, by virtue of tons of unexploded ordinance, Agent Orange hotspots all over the south, and more. I don't want to minimize that fact. For every drone strike Obama launches, there were likely 1,000 sorties over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia dropping high explosives, napalm, and cluster bombs by the ton. The fact that this likely would not be tolerated today speaks to a gradual increase in our collective humanity. If anything constrains our leaders, it's that.Still, even within these constraints, we can do a lot of damage. The drone strikes are a very easy option for the administration. It's a political winner, since American lives are not put in jeopardy, and it has the vague perception of accuracy going for it, though our targets have very little to say on the subject (because they are, of course, dead). It is a very corrosive weapon, though, on both legal and moral grounds, and it is likely causing a great deal more hatred of the United States than could be propagated by the likes of those we are targeting. Like Nixon's (and LBJ's) Vietnam war, it is approached as a project of eliminating the "bad guys" so that there will be fewer of them. That, of course, does not work and never will. Aside from being wrong, it is strategically stupid, and it is putting us in greater danger with every attack.
Still, the alternative to our little Nixon is Reagan on steroids - a Romney administration following a neocon-powered foreign policy, with multiple additional wars on tap. That being the case, well... Nixon's the one.
luv u,
jp
Comments