[Peace-discuss] The War is Lost - some comments on the comments (from David Swanson)

[Jenifer Cartwright]

Back to basics, or rather back to Bacevich -- did you all watch JFP's brown bag discussion yesterday?? Bacevich gave his view of the US mindset re endless war and military engagement and occupation and said that these are dated concepts and that things must change -- it's such a no-brainer, nobody could possibly disagree, so what's behind the continuation, in his opinion?? He told uo when and why this all began, and when and why it became ill-advised, and impractical... but he didn't say which "powers that be" are continuing to perpetuate these and why... nor who is benefiting... and whether there's any hope that things will change, looking unflinchingly at these. --Jenifer

--- On Fri, 9/24/10, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:

From: Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: [Peace-discuss] The War is Lost - some comments on the comments (from David Swanson)
To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Date: Friday, September 24, 2010, 7:25 PM

David Swanson, comparing 'the war is lost' comments now re Iraq and Afghanistan
with analogous ones re Vietnam, from as long ago as 1946.  See especially his
last few paragraphs:

   They knew they wouldn't "win" but just couldn't stand to "lose" and so
   kept it going.  Telling them they've lost is, therefore, not a clear
   solution.  Telling them to stop wasting our money is.
   So, let's not talk in their terms.

   If the United States were to elect officials and compel them to heed
   the public's wishes and retire from such foreign military adventures,
   we would all be better off.  Why in the world must that be called "losing"?

   They can't even explain what winning in Afghanistan would look like.
   Is there, then, any sense in behaving as if "winning" is an option?

   If wars are going to cease to be the legitimate and glorious campaigns
   of heroic leaders and become what they are under the law, namely
   crimes, then a whole different vocabulary is needed.  You cannot win
   or lose a crime; you can only continue or cease committing it.


----- Forwarded message from David Swanson <david at davidswanson.org> -----

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 19:59:33 -0400
From: David Swanson <david at davidswanson.org>
Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] ProsecuteThem! The War is Lost - some comments on the comments
To: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org


   In 1963 William Polk gave a presentation to the National War College
   that left the officers there furious.  He told them that guerrilla
   warfare was composed of politics, administration, and combat:


   "I told the audience that we had already lost the political issue --
   Ho Chi Minh had become the embodiment of Vietnamese nationalism.
   That, I suggested, was about 80 percent of the total struggle.
   Moreover, the Viet Minh or Viet Cong, as we had come to call them, had
   also so disrupted the administration of South Vietnam, killing large
   numbers of its officials, that it had ceased to be able to perform
   even basic functions.  That, I guessed, amounted to an additional 15
   percent of the struggle.  So, with only 5 percent at stake, we were
   holding the short end of the lever.  And because of the appalling
   corruption of South Vietnamese government, as I had a chance to
   observe firsthand, even that lever was in danger of breaking.  I
   warned the officers that the war was already lost."


   In December 1963 President Johnson set up a working group called the
   Sullivan Task Force.  Its findings differed from Polk's more in tone
   and intention than in substance.  This task force viewed escalating
   the war with the "Rolling Thunder" bombing campaign in the North as "a
   commitment to go all the way."  In fact, "the implicit judgment of the
   Sullivan Committee was that the bombing campaign would result in
   indefinite war, continuously escalating, with both sides embroiled in
   a perpetual stalemate."


   This should not have been news.  The U.S. State Department had known
   the War on Vietnam could not be won as early as 1946, as Polk
   recounts:


   "John Carter Vincent, whose career was subsequently ruined by hostile
   reaction to his insights on Vietnam and China, was then director of
   the Office of Far East Affairs in the State Department.  On December
   23, 1946, he presciently wrote the secretary of state that  'with
   inadequate forces, with public opinion sharply at odds, with a
   government rendered largely ineffective through internal division, the
   French have tried to accomplish in Indochina what a strong and united
   Britain has found it unwise to attempt in Burma.  Given the present
   elements in the situation, guerrilla warfare may continue
   indefinitely."
   They knew they wouldn't "win" but just couldn't stand to "lose" and so
   kept it going.  Telling them they've lost is, therefore, not a clear
   solution.  Telling them to stop wasting our money is.
   So, let's not talk in their terms.

   If the United States were to elect officials and compel them to heed
   the public's wishes and retire from such foreign military adventures,
   we would all be better off.  Why in the world must that be called
   "losing"?

   They can't even explain what winning in Afghanistan would look like.
   Is there, then, any sense in behaving as if "winning" is an option?

   If wars are going to cease to be the legitimate and glorious campaigns
   of heroic leaders and become what they are under the law, namely
   crimes, then a whole different vocabulary is needed.  You cannot win
   or lose a crime; you can only continue or cease committing it.

_______________________________________________
ufpj-activist mailing list

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

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100925/7e1a2cc8/attachment.html>