Reply
Thu 23 Aug, 2007 10:46 am
Press Explores Bush's Iraq/Vietnam Link
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
Published: August 23, 2007 10:55 AM ET updated Thursday
After years of mocking those who drew comparisons between the U.S. engagements in Vietnam and Iraq, war supporters are now invoking them - led by commander-in-chief George W. Bush, in a much-publicized speech today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City.
Now, how will the media respond to the "Vietnamization" of rhetoric on Iraq, as unveiled by President Bush today? At least three major papers quickly sought out critics who have tried to debunk it.
USA Today located Stanley Karnow, one of the leading scholars on the Vietnam war. "Vietnam was not a bunch of sectarian groups fighting each other," as in Iraq. "Does he think we should have stayed in Vietnam?"
Robert Dallek, author of several celebrated biographies of recent U.S. presidents, including Lyndon Johnson, told the Los Angeles Times: ""It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president.
"We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn't work our will," he said.
"What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion," he continued. "We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out."
The New York Times also talked to Dallek, who pointed out that the slaughters of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia "was a consequence of our having gone into Cambodia and destabilized that country." And it interviewed Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and now professor of international relations at Boston University (his son was recently killed in Iraq).
Bacevich said of the Vietnam pullout: "It was not a precipitous withdrawal, it was a very deliberate disengagement. The Vietnam comparison should invite us to think harder about how to minimize the consequences of our military failure. If one is really concerned about the Iraqi people, and the fate that may be awaiting them as this war winds down, then we ought to get serious about opening our doors and to welcoming to the United States those Iraqis who have supported us."
Ironically, in the now-famous video from 1994 which surfaced last week, Dick Cheney used the word "quagmire" to refer to what would likely happen to us in Iraq if we invaded.
In this morning's speech, Bush said, "Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see things differently." He claimed that Osama bin Laden himself had predicted that the American public, remembering Vietnam, would also rise up against the Iraq occupation.
"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush added. "Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps,' and 'killing fields.' "
Latest figures from Iraqi officials and international humanitarian aid groups show that the current conflict in Iraq has led to 2 million refugees and 1.2 displaced Iraqis within the country. Estimates of the civilian death toll range from 100,000 to at least half a million.
Appearing on CNN today after the coverage of the Bush speech, former Reagan adviser and magazine editor David Gergen said, "He may well have stirred up a hornet's nest among historian. By invoking Vietnam, he raised the automatic question, 'Well, if you've learned so much from history, Mr. President, how did you ever get us involved in another quagmire?'" He added: "It's surprising to me that he would go back to that, and I think he's going to get a lot of criticism."
Gergen also pointed out that after 30 years Vietnam "has actually become quite a thriving country." He suggested that, as in that example, there will be some kind of bloodbath when we eventually pull out of Iraq, but perhaps it, too, will eventually prosper.
The Washington Post quoted Steven Smith, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations: "The president emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early. It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The longer you stay the worse it gets."
Shortly before his death earlier this year, legendary Vietnam war correspondent David Halberstam said, "I thought that in both Vietnam and Iraq, we were going against history. My view ?- and I think it was because of Vietnam ?- was that the forces against us were going to be hostile, that we would not be viewed as liberators. We were going to punch our fist into the largest hornets' nest in the world."
Who Was Last U.S. Soldier to Die in Vietnam?
In Wake of Bush Speech: Who Was Last U.S. Soldier to Die in Vietnam?
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
Published: August 22, 2007
NEW YORK In the wake of President Bush's speech today, renewing the debate over the lessons of Vietnam for the U.S. in Iraq today -- did we exit too soon or not quickly enough? -- it is useful to ask: Who was the last American soldier to die in Vietnam and when did it happen?
According to Arlington National Cemetery, and numerous other sources, he was Army Col. William B. Nolde, a 43-year-old father of five. He was killed Jan. 27, 1973, near An Loc - just 11 hours before the U.S. signed the Paris Peace Accords -- when an artillery shell exploded nearby.
This is how Time magazine reported it the following week: "The last hours of the Viet Nam War took a cruel human toll. Communist and South Vietnamese casualties ran into the thousands. Four U.S. airmen joined the missing-in-action list when their two aircraft were downed on the last day. Another four Americans were known to have been killed?-including Lieut. Colonel William B. Nolde, 43, of Mt. Pleasant, Mich., who was cut down in an artillery barrage at An Loc only eleven hours before the ceasefire. He was the 45,941st American to have died by enemy action in Viet Nam since 1961."
His Wikipedia entry opens: "Born in Menominee, Michigan, Nolde was a professor of military science at Central Michigan University before joining the army. As an officer, he served in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, acting as an advisor to the South Vietnamese forces in the latter
.
"While other Americans lost their lives after the truce was enacted, these were not recorded as combat casualties. During his time in the armed forces, he had accumulated four medals, including the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit."
His full military funeral was so momentous -- it included the same riderless horse who accompanied President Kennedy's coffin -- it was covered on the front page of The New York Times on Feb. 6, 1973.
That story began, "The Army buried one of its own today, Bill Nolde. And with him, it laid to rest - symbolically, at least - its years of torment in Vietnam."
Eventually, an accounting of the death toll would rise and more than 50,000 names would go up on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.
George Bush Meets Graham Greene
George Bush Meets Graham Greene
By Greg Mitchell - E & P
August 22, 2007
In his speech linking Vietnam and Iraq, the president cited Greene's 1955 classic "The Quiet American." But who is the "naive" one? And who has "noble motives"?
Now that's going too far. George W. Bush cited my favorite 20th century novel and its author - Graham Greene's prescient "The Quiet American" (also a fine movie starring Michael Caine) - in his speech on Wednesday that drew several dubious links between the catastrophic Vietnam and Iraq conflicts. Perhaps because it's unlikely he's ever read the book it was difficult to figure out exactly what the president meant.
Bush could have used a fact-checker as well. He describes Alden Pyle, the U.S. operative, as the "main character" in the book, when it's actually the narrator of the story, Thomas Fowler, the Saigon-based British newspaper correspondent. And, of course, "many" back in the 1970s did not say there would be "no" consequences for the Vietnamese after our pullout, as Bush alleged. Finally, I would love to know the name of the purported "anti-war senator" and find out if the views ascribed to him are accurate or the stuff of urban legend.
In any case, here's the Bush statement today: "In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called ?'The Quiet American.' It was set in Saigon and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: ?'I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.'
"After America entered the Vietnam War, Graham Greene -- the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. Matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people. In 1972, one anti-war senator put it this way: ?'What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?'"
Now, what the hell does Bush mean by all this?
My initial reaction was that Bush was equating the novelist with critics of both the Vietnam and Iraq wars who found "naïve" the views of those promoting a war who had only "noble" ideals (e.g. Bush) and would succeed if the Greenes of the world just got out of the way. If this is true, Bush was trying to identify with Pyle.
Maybe someone should tell him that Pyle, in the novel, helps arrange and then defends a terror bombing that kills and maims civilians.
But others have suggested that Bush meant that Greene and his ilk are the naïve ones. Here's Frank James of the Chicago Tribune at the paper's blog The Swamp: "Bush seemed to be seizing on Greene's idea of U.S. naivete on entering the war and trying to turn it around and apply it to those now calling for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
"But Greene wrote his book about the way American bumbled into Vietnam, not how it left it. By reminding people of Greene's book, Bush was inviting listeners to recall the mistakes his administration made in entering and prosecuting the Iraq War. Did he really want to do that?"
Then there was Joe Klein at Time magazine's Swampland blog calling "The Quiet American" a novel "whose hero is the young William Kristol...actually, no, the hero is an idealistic American intelligence officer named Alden Pyle, who causes great disasters in the name of a higher good. In other words, he's a premature neoconservative. I would hope that the President will re-read, or perhaps just read the book, as soon as possible because it is as good a description as there is about the futility of trying to forcibly impose western ways on an ancient culture."
Well, you be the judge.
Greene's novel, in any case, pits the cynical, apolitical newspaperman (who has a Vietnamese girlfriend and an opium habit) against the Pyle character, who seems to be a U.S. aid official linked to the CIA (and purportedly based on the legendary Edward Lansdale). Pyle is attempting to find a "third force, " a democratic alternative to the French-backed puppet government and the Communist insurgents. With brilliant writing, biting humor and keen insight on local politics and customs (based on Greene's research there), the novel perfectly anticipates the massive U.S. urge to intervene deeply and then escalate.
Fowler, the typical newspaperman, has no use for "isms" and "ocracies," and just wants the "facts." He tells Pyle "you and your like are trying to make a war with the help of people who just aren't interested." What do they want? "They want enough rice. They don't want to be shot at. They want one day to be much the same as another. They don't want our white skins around telling them what they want."
Pyle replies: "If Indo-china goes&hellip."
"I know the record. Siam goes. Malaya goes. Indonesia goes. What does ?'go' mean?"
Pyle ultimately assists an urban bombing to be blamed on Viet Minh insurgents, and many civilians die. Greene observes that "a woman sat on the ground with what was left of her baby in her lap; with a kind of modesty she had covered it with her straw peasant hat." Fowler asks Pyle how many such deaths he would accept in "building a national democratic front." Pyle responds: "Anyway, they died in the right cause. &hellip They died for democracy."
Bush would never say something like that but plenty of Greene's comments about Pyle would apply to him. (Philip Noyce, director of the recent film based on the book, has said "Bush is the ultimate Alden Pyle.") Greene's description of the character even sounds like the young Bush, with a crew cut and a "wide campus gaze." If only he was merely "reading the Sunday supplements at home and following the baseball" instead of mucking around in foreign lands.
Pyle, he writes, was "impregnably armoured by his good intentions and his ignorance....Innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm. You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity."
Long before that, Greene had opened his novel with a few lines from Byron:
"This is the patent age of new inventions
For killing bodies, and for saving souls
All propagated with the best intentions."
Or as Greene himself wrote of a character in "The Heart of the Matter," another novel: "He entered the territory of lies without a passport for return."
Related:Read Greg Mitchell's piece about the "Vietnamization" of rhetoric on Iraq.