[statecom-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] Keep On Pushin'

[gary hicks]

gary hicks <big_g19462002 at yahoo.com> wrote:  Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: gary hicks <big_g19462002 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] Keep On Pushin'
To: gary hicks <big_g19462002 at yahoo.com>



Max Elbaum <maxie at igc.org> wrote:   Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:43:48 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: Max Elbaum <maxie at igc.org>
To: ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
Subject: [Ufpj-disc] Keep On Pushin'

**Please see footer for list protocol**

Washington's Wars and Occupations:
Month in Review #23
March 29, 2007
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras


TODAY'S ANTIWAR DILEMMAS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

In March 1965, before ordering the first deployment of U.S. ground troops to Vietnam
(U.S. "advisers" had been there for years) President Lyndon Johnson told
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: "I don't think anything is gonna 
be as bad as losing, and I don't see any way of winning." 

Johnson had just received a classified briefing saying that the U.S. client regime
in South Vietnam was about to collapse. Military experts informed the President 
that only a huge U.S. military commitment could avert defeat in the short run. They
said that looking ahead even "warfare of any design, scale or duration"
could not assure lasting success. Maxwell Taylor, then the country's most famous
active-duty general and Ambassador to South Vietnam, warned against sending U.S 
troops, arguing that Vietnamese civilians would turn to patriotic resistance against
the "white-faced soldier, armed, equipped and trained as he is" as a successor
to the hated French colonialists. 

A few days later Johnson commiserated about Vietnam with his old friend Richard 
Russell of Georgia, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I guess 
we got no choice, but it scares the death out of me," Johnson said. "Those
marines, they'll be killing a whole lot of friendly Vietnamese," Russell
responded.

"Airplanes ain't worth as damn, Dick," Johnson continued. Bombing 
only "lets you get your hopes up... A man can fight if he can see daylight 
down the road somewhere, but there ain't no daylight in Vietnam." 

The heartbreaking truth is that officials at the top level of the U.S. government
KNEW they could not win in Vietnam (and WHY they couldn't win) even before the
first bombing runs and deployments of U.S. ground troops. And they were right. Ten
years later the Vietnam War ended exactly the way it would have in 1965 if Washington
not massively intervened: U.S. troops fled the country under enemy fire, and Vietnam
was reunified under the leadership of the communist revolutionaries who had been
anchoring the fight for Vietnamese Independence for 50-plus years.

The cost between 1965 and 1975 was more than two million Vietnamese and 50,000 U.S.
dead; uncounted wounded and innumerable lives ravaged on all sides, much of Vietnam
poisoned by Agent Orange for two generations. 

All this carnage because of U.S. leaders' calculations about the damage to empire
if Washington was forced out of Vietnam, as well as fear of being politically destroyed
at home by the charge of "losing Vietnam." It took a decade, but in the
end the combination of Vietnamese tenacity, international isolation and protest,
and antiwar resistance at home forced the guardians of empire to confront the fact
that they would pay a bigger political price for staying than leaving. At a huge
cost in lives and anguish, the U.S. was finally forced to withdraw. 

AND NOW IRAQ

George Bush and a few ideology-based neocons may still believe that the U.S. can
"win" in Iraq. But all the reality-based sectors of the U.S. elite - from
the top generals in the Pentagon and Baghdad to the authors of the Baker-Hamilton
report to the Democratic and (most) Republican leaders on Capitol Hill - know this
is a fantasy. But just like Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara and Richard Russell 
in 1965, the imperatives of being Imperial Guardians prevent them from ending the
carnage. 

In fact, some of the imperatives to stay in Iraq are stronger than those which produced
a decade of senseless slaughter in Vietnam.

Vietnam after all was important to Washington only as a "domino" in the
Cold War. In itself the "loss" of Vietnam didn't deprive the U.S. 
of any crucial resources or endanger some area "vital to national defense."
But Iraq sits on huge oil fields right in the center of a region absolutely central
to the world's energy supply. Control over the Middle East has been a central
concern of Washington for decades and if anything it acquired heightened importance
after the end of the Cold War. The strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel,
and the influence of blank-check-for-Israel advocates in U.S. political life, is
also a big factor pressing for a U.S.-stay-forever policy in the Middle East that
was nonexistent regarding Southeast Asia. 

Also complicating matters: The Vietnamese struggle was led by a left-wing party 
with overwhelming support among the Vietnamese population. The Vietnamese revolutionaries
received sympathy and solidarity from people of conscience across the globe and 
were backed by the then-powerful Soviet bloc, China and the international left. 
While the Iraqi people likewise have the sympathy of most of humanity, Iraq has 
no unified political force commanding the allegiance of a majority or the solidarity
of a broad-based international movement. On the contrary, even as most Iraqis oppose
the U.S. occupation, competing Iraqi factions are engaged in a bloody civil war.

Inside the U.S., the anti-Vietnam War movement emerged out of a period of progressive
advance and was infused with near-utopian optimism. First and foremost, the Black
freedom struggle had become a powerful force which every other opposition movement
drew on for lessons, inspiration and strength. There was a direct line from the 
African-American upsurge to the revolt within the military itself, as Black soldiers
spearheaded the G.I. rebellion which rendered the U.S. occupation force virtually
unusable by 1971. 

Today's antiwar movement, in contrast, follows 30-plus years of right-wing rollback,
which has weakened the Black community and the other social sectors that provided
the base for the antiwar, anti-racist and progressive motion of the 1960s. 

Last, for all the anticommunist hysteria of the Vietnam era, no one from the International
Communist Conspiracy (and certainly no Vietnamese) ever actually attacked the U.S.
But the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 was an all-too-real crime against
humanity which traumatized the country. It provided Washington with a perfect excuse
to justify its military adventures, and with a powerful ideological weapon for manipulating
popular fears, demonizing Arabs and Muslims, and intimidating critics. 

WHAT IS SURPRISING AND WHAT IS NOT

Given these - and many other - realities, it should come as no surprise that those
who hold power in Washington are not yet ready to quit Iraq. No surprise that the
Bush administration still talks about "making progress" while spinning
out one lie after another. No surprise that top Democrats bash George Bush and talk
the antiwar talk but won't cut off funds for the killing. No surprise that even
many politicians who realize that the occupation is futile are too scared of being
charged with "surrendering-Iraq-to-the-terrorists" to take a firm stand.
No surprise that Democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton, as the New York
Times put it, "has been practicing her salute... cultivating relationships 
with generals and admirals, prepping herself on wartime needs and strategy."
No surprise that there is a huge gap between the sentiments of the U.S. people -
the majority of whom now favor a strict timeline for getting out of Iraq - and a
policy-making elite that is still stuck in Lyndon Johnson's belief that nothing
"is gonna be as bad as losing."

All this is even more immoral than it is futile. But it is how an imperial government
works. 

Indeed, more remarkable than Washington's persistence is how badly (from an 
imperialist point of view) the Bush administration has bungled its Iraq adventure;
how many bitter divisions have emerged within the camp of those who initially hailed
the war as righteous and successful; how large a section of the U.S. people have
seen through the lies and fear-mongering to take an antiwar stance. In March 2003
not a single Neocon, barely a handful of realists and liberals, and not even a majority
of the antiwar left anticipated that four years later the administration would be
so much on the defensive and ruling class ideologues from William Buckley to Zbigniew
Brzezinski would be publicly saying the war is lost. 

KEEP ON PUSHIN' 

Such hard-nosed political assessments must be added to our outrage over each day
the Iraq occupation continues. The antiwar movement has worked hard for four years;
we must dig in for another round. Much has been accomplished in terms of changing
public opinion, hurting the military's ability to recruit, supporting G.I. resisters,
exerting pressure on Congress, and exposing administration lies. Now stepped-up 
efforts are needed on all these fronts and more.

The time is ripe for an uptick in civil disobedience and direct action so that no
institution conducting this war can escape exposure and protest. Broader educational
efforts are needed to reach sectors of the population who dislike the war but have
not had direct human contact with individuals pressing a progressive case for immediate
withdrawal. Special responsibilities fall on the anti-racist, anti-empire wing of
the antiwar movement to expose "occupation lite" schemes while building
unity of action with even the most vacillating groups to the maximum extent possible.
In a long and complicated fight like this one, our task is not to burn bridges but
to keep them up so that people now distant from us can walk over them to join our
ranks. There really is no daylight for the U.S. war-makers at the end of their Iraq
tunnel. Sooner or later they will be forced out as they were in Vietnam. Our responsibility
is to hasten that day. 

Of course we wanted and demanded more from the post-mid-term election Congress. 
The meager result is a useful lesson in how U.S. politics works. The older folks
among us learned from parallel experiences during the agony of Vietnam; the younger
folks among us are learning ever faster. Together we can all appreciate - and try
to practice - the sentiment in Curtis Mayfield's heartfelt anthem of the sixties
struggle: 

I've got to keep on pushing 
I can't stop now
Move up a little higher
Some way, somehow

'Cause I've got my strength
And it don't make sense
Not to keep on pushin'


War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a project fiscally sponsored by the Center for Third
World Organizing. Donations to War Times are tax-deductible; you can donate on-line
at http://www.war-times.org or send a check to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, c/o 
P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA 94662. 


***************************************
This is a list for member groups of United for Peace and Justice to discuss organizing plans and the work of this coalition. 

List guidelines:

This list is open to any member of a UFPJ member group. Please sign your postings with your name and the name of the group to which you belong.

Please refrain from off-topic posts. News articles belong on the ufpj-news at yahoogroups.com list. If you wish to engage others in discussion around a particular news item, campaign, or concept, please write a brief intro above the item you forward that can serve to focus discussion. This will ensure that the list is a useful tool for communication and debate between UFPJ member groups. 

We want to encourage full and vigorous conversation, but also want people to be attentive to overposting. A good guideline is to limit your posts to one per day, except in unusual circumstances. Personal attacks and racist, sexist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated. 

Moderation will be exercised at the discretion of the list administrators, in order to provide a useful platform for discussion that makes space for a diversity of voices. 
_______________________________________________
Ufpj-disc mailing list

Post: Ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc

To Unsubscribe
Send email to: Ufpj-disc-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-disc/big_g19462002%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: big_g19462002 at yahoo.com

    
---------------------------------
  Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. 

 
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.