THE HANDSTAND | AUGUST 2004 |
A Comparative view of Iraq-Vietnam Wars By Richard Pelto Al-Jazeerah, July
9, 2004
My experience on those trips may say something about how the uses of power influence mankinds capacity to understand what most affects lives. The first priority of thought processes of those with power is the security and stability of whatever they have managed to acquire, or what they seek to acquire in order to add to that power; if ideas threaten that sense of "stability," they become mentally poisonous, necessitating a process of selective perception. Those congressmen probably came to the realization that acting on all the facts I presented them with would jeopardize their ability to continue wielding what power they had. My Vietnam class and what is now occurring in Iraq illustrate many parallels of powers inability to take into account the human factors resulting from conquest. History has a difficult time putting "right" or "wrong" into a frame of reference when considering the rationales of those who hold or seek power when they perform some kind of action that involves unthinkable human consequences. The personal experiences of individuals must be looked at rather than the historical review of rationales in order to gain insight into what has occurred, and it is important to realize that "policy" decision-making may ignore what is most important: consequences. In fulfilling a probable policy, Bush recently announced the arrival of "freedom" in Iraq with the transfer of power to an American-appointed governing council. But for some reason the media reports no celebratory crackle of automatic gunfire as occurred when news was released of Saddam Husseins capture. No news can be found of people flooding the Baghdad avenues showing new-found patriotism. Instead American tanks and humvees are described rumbling down boulevards where concertina wire and concrete walls block roadways. In other words, there is a gap between how people act and the way they ideally would act if Bushs words had any credibility. These moments in
Iraq remind me of riding a bicycle through the streets of
Saigon in 1967, just after a "democratic"
election had created a new "democratic,"
American-manipulated, Vietnam government. From an
American point of view, some one should have been
celebrating. But there was the same quiet along with
barbed wire and armed guards warily watching the many
passersby moving silently through the sultry heat. There
were many roadside signs with skull and crossbones in
front of buildings to indicate mines had been planted.
But there was no sign of celebration. In Vietnam, torture and arrests withoout judicial process were occurring in a prison near Saigon, at Poulo Condon Island where the Con Son Tiger pits were used for torture. In Iraq, fate allowed the U.S. public to become aware through pictures of the same type of thing at the Abu Ghraib prison. In neither case was the U.S. administration happy about whatever knowledge the public was able to gain about what went on in those prisons. As the New York Times wrote editorially, "While piously declaring its determination to unearth the truth about Abu Ghraib, the Bush Administration has spent nearly two months obstructing investigations by the Army and members of congress. It has dragged out the Armys inquiry, withheld crucial government documents from a Senate committee and stonewalled senators over dozens of Red Cross reports that document horrible mistreatment of Iraqis at military prisons." It is clear that the Bush Administration wants the American public to know as little as possible of the human consequences of its use-any-means-to-achieve-an-end Iraq policy.
Little news of
this kind gains much play in American media, and all the
characteristics of "group think" are involved
in the decision-making of those making policy. Here are
the symptoms of that: those pursuing "policy"
goals in both Iraq and Vietnam would find ways to avoid
expert opinion that might discourage the ends they set
out to achieve. They do so believing they are exhibiting
some kind of divine and inherent morality. At the same
time, they are being highly selective in gathering
information, while protecting themselves from negative
views or information, and exuding an illusion of
invulnerability which is probably encouraged by having
the capacity to wield so much power. In addition, the
"realism" behind policy in Vietnam meant
"facing" and not allowing questions of the
spectre of voracious Communist expansionism and a
probable domino effect; "realism" in Iraq means
calling anything associated with Saddam Hussein
"terrorism," "Hitlerish," or
"Baathist dead-enders," and connecting
this with the "terrorism" of 9-11, calling
anyone who questions the "war" as being soft on
terrorism, and ubiquitously planting in the American mind
the words: "WEAPONS Of MASS DESTRUCTION!. As Vice
President Cheney put it, "We dont negotiate
with evil; we defeat it." What is happening
to people is secondary, especially if what is occurring
may create doubts about U.S. policys moral purpose.
In Iraq, what has to have been highly motivated people
gave, and continue to give up their lives in frequent
suicide bombings. In Vietnam, Buddhists gave the ultimate
sacrifice by self-immolating themselves in public protest
because of the actions of the American puppet government
headed by President Diem. A North Vietnamese described
such sacrifice in this way, when noting the
self-immolation of an American, Norman Morrison, who
sacrificed his life to protest the Vietnam war: "He
sacrificed himself for justice, not for economic
self-interest." Willingness to die for a cause gains
almost reverent awe in any society, but when the actions
are directed against America, the U.S. dismisses them as
"terrorist acts," rather than attempts to
desperately make a statement, to communicate something. In Saigon, a girl
would ride on the back of a motor scooter and the driver
would pull next to an American standing on a corner. The
girl would shoot him, and then the busy streets would
part magically as the scooter scuttled for safety, and
the crowd would then converge and frustrate any police or
military pursuit. I have read of no Iraqi attempts to
stop or hinder hit and run attacks on Americans or
American civilian interests in the congested Iraq cities.
As Capt. Travis Van Hecke, an artillery commander in Iraq
put it, "People are reluctant to help us." In
both countries, the insurgents know that the center of
gravity in the war lies in the support of the people.
Polls in Iraq show that a significant majority of Iraqis
now want the U.S. to leave. In one town in Iraq, Baquba,
resistance fighters distribute fliers hours before an
attack in order to tell people to stay off the streets or
close their shops. Soon the new
puppet government in Iraq may face the same kind of
problems that arose in Vietnam after the U.S. had
established its fraudulently-filled, so-called elected
government in Saigon. A student of mine in Saigon,
NguyenVan Minh, described it this way: He said the
Americans subsequent to the elections sanctioned the
elimination of those not in step with the Saigon
government. Thus, he said, those who dared to say
something, to do something to advance their beliefs, were
threatened with jail--at minimum one year--at maximum the
gamut from execution to life imprisonment and being
shipped to Poulo Condon Island for 10, 20, 30 years
hard labor-- and American promises of freedom of speech,
assembly and petition disappeared in the shadow of
new-found necessity. Wide ranges of people were jailed
from Army officers, police, civil servants, students,
laborers, to the old and female. Brutality and unconcern
for judicial justification became indelibly associated
with U.S. policy in Vietnam. In Iraq, the conditions are
ripe for the same being true, and may now be evidenced by
newly-passed intrusive laws that in effect allow martial
law control of the populace. According to the
New York Times, Ismael Saddam, a 32-year-old driver,
glared at a tank and Humvee rolling past a long line of
cars waiting to refuel in ovenlike heat when he described
his national concern: "Its for sure I feel
national pride kindle in my heart because of this. We
reject occupation. So we accept an Iraqi ruler (referring
to someone like Saddam Hussein). Its much better
than the occupiers." Ly Chanh Trung, a professor of philosophy at Saigon University, wrote Februarry 25, 1969, "We must recognize the horrible consequences of war, describe the bloody wounds the war has caused to the body and soul of our people, and then we can write moving words to call for peace. Only war victims and those who have endured directly the consequences of war can speak these agonizing words. Because only they can call for peace, and be entirely sincere because peace is a demand from the depths of their souls...I want peace because I am Vietnamese. As I am Vietnamese, I cannot endure seeing the blood of my people flow more and more---not the blood of armies, but that of the innocent population, old men and women, young wives and children. I cannot endure seeing foreigners indifferently devastate our country by the most modern and terrible means and speak of the so-called "protection of freedom." Out of the human suffering Ly describes come romantic inspiration like the following excerpts from a poem written by Vietnamese communist, Le Duc Tho: "The enemy
there By Richard PeltoŠJuly 9, 2004 |