Tuesday, March 05, 2013


--Guerras No!, Arcadio Esquivel 

Faulty assumptions, overly optimistic,
lack of reality
--General Ron Adams 

A great civilization is not conquered from without
until it has destroyed itself from within
--Will Durant

We Americans worship false political gods, despite thinking ourselves so secular, or so religious.

Here are some of our Golden Calves:
  • Anti-Communism
  • The Domino Theory
  • Counterinsurgency Theory
  • The Long War Theory
  • Necessity of Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
All of these beliefs have guided our thinking to accept irrational behavior from our government.  Logical behavior is a hard thing for the human animal to achieve with any regularity, and as on the personal level, so too on the political.

Anti-Communism was United States policy from around 1917 until we became their allies during World War II.  The day following Victory in Europe (VE Day), they reverted into their formerly reviled slot.  The U.S. created and tended a nuclear arsenal capable of ending life on the planet many times over in order to protect ourselves, thinking this Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) posture would ensure our safety; it was a tenuous safeguard, for we were not sure if the Communist hoards respected life in the same way that we did.

As the Soviet empire collapsed, they did not unleash a nuclear war, verifying that our arch-nemesis was not as anarchic as we has feared.  Perhaps the present-day nemesis -- the terrorists -- are similar in that world destruction-domination is not their goal.

The U.S. Army is currently questioning the validity of the COIN theory in warfare, and perhaps it will be remanded to the graveyard of ideas, just as was the Domino Theory.  COIN did not work when practiced in Vietnam, and Southeast Asian carapace did not fall to world Communist domination after Communist tanks rolled into Saigon in 1975.

This leads us to question another shibboleth and bulwark of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©), the Long War Theory.  The Long War concept justifies the open-ended roaming of the world seeking terrorists to neutralize, but the process encompasses its own weakness: Non-terrorists die in the project, forming the basis for the creation of future terrorists.  The Long War advocates are peddling the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone.

From where did the Long War concept emerge, and how did it become the darling of our military and political leaders?  Who decided that terrorism was to be a two-generation war? Why did the Department of Defense buy into such an irrational construct? Certainly it would seem there is a measure of self-serving job security involved for the hawkers of such an economically- and psychically draining policy.

The gods to which we bow usually have feet of clay.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous Nikolay Levin said...

And of course if the United States government took the "War on Terror" seriously they would refrain from, oh, sending arms anywhere near an opposition consisting of terrorists it fought a decade long war with, or not to be outdone, having its Special Forces Operators fighting alongside them the year before. To top it off, they would definitely resist harboring terrorists almost as vicious on its own soil, right?

To the untrained eye this would seem completely irrational. But, as a conclusion the anti-Establishment liberals and paleo-conservatives have been plagiarizing for years, it is all about swiping the labor, means of production and resources necessary for maintaining an increasingly unstable late capitalist society, the central theme of Vladimir Lenin's classic that has stood the test of time.

Going back, hundreds of American soldiers died fighting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia proper during the Vietnam War and yet the very same American government gave taxpayer money, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, to the very same Communist group not even a decade after the Vietnam War ended as part of its rapprochement with China and counter-Hanoi counter offensive.

Global Capital, after all, is an equal-opportunity imperialist. It will do anything and ally with anyone in their quest to acquire "investment opportunities" and a "friendly business climate" by carrot or stick. The French-led uranium grab is only the latest chapter.

If I'm citing Lenin on a Vietnam Veteran's blog it could only mean that a.) I'm foolhardy or b.) The Revolutions awfully slow today. But take that of what you will.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 10:05:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home