It's Not War

The latest Newsweek reports on the length of American wars. By their accounting:

Vietnam War 8 years, 5 months, 21 days
American Revolution 8 years, 4 months, 16 days
War in Afghanistan 7 years, 11 months, 22 days
Iraq War 6 years, 6 months, 9 days
World War II 6 years, 2 days
World War I 4 years, 3 months, 15 days
Gulf War 1 months, 13 days

War is a battle to invade or repel an invasion. It may or may not topple a government when it is over. At its conclusion, either a government has surrendered or two governments have negotiated a peace.

Occupation is a battle to rule a people. There is only one official government. If there is no government change to come, no opposing army to surrender, and no land to conquer or give up, there is no way to "date" the end of that battle.

The War in Afghanistan threatens to become the longest American war because it is an occupation. You can date the fall of Iraq or the Taliban supported government in Afghanistan. By that measure the wars were short. There is no good way to date the end of the occupation - or even a good way to end an occupation.

[It's worth noting that the American Revolution also ended with victory on the side of the lesser power whose chief advantage was that they had no where else to go as they battled an occupying force.]

24 Hour News Channel Now?

When I was a kid, the world was a busy place.

In 1968 ...

Nearly 17,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam – about 50% more than it had been the year before or would be in 1969 and 9X what it had been as recently as 1965.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy were killed.


Jackie Kennedy - our former first lady - married Aristotle Onassis - a Greek shipping tycoon.

The Black Panthers engaged in shoot outs with Oakland police as one of many deadly racial conflicts across the country.


The ’68 Olympics was rocked when American gold and bronze medal winners raised their fist during the awards ceremony in the symbol of black power. (Did I mention that there was an Olympics?)

Intel was founded.

NASA launched Apollo 7, the first manned space craft and Apollo 8,the first time any humans saw the dark side of the moon or orbited around it.

Yale announced that it would admit women.

Nixon won the presidency.

Does anyone else think that 24 hour news channels were invented about 40 years too late? Given that TV news was one hour back then, the ratio of remarkable events to actual remarks must have been about 386X what it is today.

Fighting the Viet Cong in the Middle East

This morning, thousands of San Diegans are discussing how the Chargers could have won yesterday. Two weeks in a row, the Chargers would have won if games were only two minutes shorter.

But the Chargers are 0-2. The “could have won” sentiment is very real but largely irrelevant.

This month’s Atlantic reports that the biggest proponents of staying the course in Iraq are those who think that we could have won in Vietnam. We could have won, I suppose. The Nazis could have won World War 2.

And had we won in Vietnam, what would have been different today? Would Asia have been saved from the dominoes of communism and instead be a hotbed of capitalist activity – even places like communist China?

Why did Americans lose interest in supporting a decades-long war in southeast Asia? Because sometimes it matters less what you could do than what you ought to do. Could we eventually “win” in Iraq? Could be. You could keep that job but lose your family life. You could buy that car but not afford a vacation for the next five years. The real question is whether this victory is worth pursuing at the cost of sustained deficit spending and loss of life. Would our foreign policy be better served by investing $100 billion a year in Iraq or into research on alternative energy?

It is worth remembering that Osama bin Laden never thought he could topple the American government directly; he did, however, think that he could get us to over-react in ways that would seriously weaken our country (driving deficit spending, for instance, that could strain our financial markets) like when an immune system turns on itself in an allergic reaction.

Could we win in Iraq during the next century, as McCain proposes? Perhaps, assuming that we have nothing better to do with our time, attention, and resources between now and 2100. And assuming that the focus on "winning" over there doesn't mean that we lose here at home.

Sources Say - Bush to Invade Vietnam

Bernard had asked me to dinner at P.F. Chang’s. He said that he was supposed to eat with his sister and her husband and couldn’t face it alone.

“This is supposed to be a nice restaurant,” Bernard’s sister Mattie scoffed, “but they don’t even give dinner rolls.”
Bernard rolled his eyes. “It’s Chinese food, Mattie. Chinese food. They …” his voice trailed off. After 73 years, he knew better than to try to explain things to her.
“Or, as the Chinese call it, ‘food,’” I volunteered. The confusion in Mattie’s eyes was matched only by the alarm in Bernard’s as he shook his head, indicating that I shouldn’t say such things.
“She has a memory like a bunny rabbit’s tail. It’s short and fuzzy,” Bernard had told me in route to the restaurant. “She has three stories you’ll hear – at least one of them twice.”
“What are they?” I asked.
“What?” he said. “You want to hear the stories three times tonight? It’s not enough that she repeats these stories – you want me to tell them to you first?”
“Good point,” I said.
And with that, Bernard proceeded to tell me the stories.

“I voted for Bush. I thought it was unfair that he lost to that boy from Arkansas.” Mattie rolled her eyes. “What a mistake that turned out to be.”
”That was his father,” Bernard said.
“The boy’s father beat Bush?” Mattie asked.
“No, he …” Bernard trailed off. “Never mind.”

“I am so glad that he’s going back into Vietnam,” she continued.
“He’s what?” asked Bernard.
“He said on the TV the other day. Bush thought it was wrong that we left Vietnam.”
“He didn’t say he was going back in.”
“I’m sure he did,” Mattie said, turning to her husband who was looking entirely baffled by the house chow mein. “Didn’t he honey?”
“Um, yes dear.”
“I think they call it a troop surge,” she leaned forward conspiratorially. “Once we go back in we can at least bring those poor Oriental people some decent food.”

On the way home from the PF Chang’s, I had to pull over so Bernard could step outside to hyperventilate. It seemed appropriate that my fortune cookie had read, “You will soon feel a sense of great relief.” As soon as we’d said good-bye to Mattie, I had.

Bush Re-Defines Vietnam, Failure, and Leadership

This from the BBC:

President Bush is seeking to redeem the Vietnam War.

He has tried to turn conventional wisdom about that war (that it was a quagmire and a sideshow in strategic terms) on its head.

Having finally given up on stopping his critics from drawing parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, Bush has decided to it would be easier to re-define failure than it would be to change the course of events in Iraq. The statistics measuring "progress" in Iraq are damning for all but the delusional.

It is not just that the Iraqi war and occupation is now forecast to cost about $1 trillion. (Enough to give every working person in America a tax refund of $7,500.) 2,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country every day, and for good reason. In July alone, nearly 2,000 Iraqi civilians were killed. Each day, about 60 Iraqis are being killed - up from about 30 a day last year. (And given the difference in population, 60 a day is equivalent to about 1,000 Americans being killed each day!) About a million Iraqis have been killed since the occupation. American forces dropped five times as many bombs in Iraq in the first six months of 2007 than they did in the first six months of 2006.

Folks in Baghdad get only about 1 to 2 hours a day of electricity, in a country where average daytime temperatures are 110 to 120 degrees a day. 17 of Prime Minister Maliki's 37 ministers have walked out. (The equivalent of having every other cabinet member and his department (e.g., defense and education and environmental protection agency) separate from Bush's government.) $11 billion of Iraqi reconstruction funds are missing. About 30% of the equipment given to Iraqi troops by the Pentagon (including 110,000 AK-47 rifles) is also missing. The percentage of babies born underweight since the occupation has spiked to 11% (compared to 3% before the invasion).

If, as Bush claims, all this constitutes a success, then how could Vietnam be anything but a success. How could it not be? The fact that 5.1 million Vietnamese were killed during the war (4 million civilians) would do little to suggest it was ought but success. It cost us about $120 billion (back when a billion was real money) and 58,209 American lives. None of that mattered. What matters to George is that we failed to continue pounding our head against the wall. After dropping more bombs on Vietnam than we dropped on all of Europe during World War 2, we gave up too soon. A stunning conclusion to reach without the assistance of alcohol.

Once Bush has managed to redefine Vietnam and Iraq as successes (and what, one can't help but asking, would these wars have looked like had they been failures?), he plans to redefine space, time, and subprime mortgages. For you see, Bush is also redefining leadership. To put words in his mouth (given that there is no sock handy), "Leadership is shared delusion."

********
Sharing the outrage over Bush's defense of Vietnam:
Mediamatters
Jim Hoagland at the San Diego Union-Tribune

Brushes with History - Kennedy, Cash, Nixon & Kurt

I've had a variety of serendipitous moments in my life, times when I was at the right place at what felt like a momentous occasion.

In 2003, I was in on a business trip when I awoke to the radio news announcement that Johnny Cash had died. My hotel was in Folsom, CA. Although I wasn't imprisoned, I did feel blue.

In 1994, I was standing on the steps of the Hanoi Opera House when I first heard that Richard Nixon had died. The Vietnamese government offered a fairly terse comment on his death, something akin to "We have heard that Richard Nixon died. Apparently he is dead now." I was part of a group hosting a trade show featuring American companies. I was told that it was the first time the American flag had flown beside the (formerly north) Vietnamese flag in Hanoi. It felt to me as though an era had passed, the conversion of communists by Pepsi and Post Cereal instead of guns and tanks.

In early June of 1968, Robert Kennedy came to my little town of Yuba City to deliver a speech. I was 7 and my father, who I have since learned is a fairly staunch conservative, was curious enough to take me and my sister to the center of town to hear Kennedy speak. After he spoke, I rather inexplicably broke away from my father in the midst of what might have been the largest crowd I have ever seen, and pressed towards Kennedy. I still remember the details of "shaking hands" with Kennedy. He was riding in a big convertible and was leaning out of the car to shake hands, and people were actually gripping his waist to keep him in the car. I was amazed to see two things - one, he wasn't really shaking hands so much as touching as many people as he could and, two, people were literally tearing at his cuff links, pulling souvenirs of the man off of him as if he were a store mannequin. Days later, he won the California primary and was assassinated.

This brings me to this week. As readers of this blog will know, Kurt Vonnegut was one of my best friends in high school (not having met me, he didn't realize this). Heading to Indianapolis this week for a business trip, I'd forgotten that this is Kurt's hometown. I'd forgotten until spotting "The Last Interview" with Kurt Vonnegut in the US Airways magazine. This is my first trip to Indianapolis and I'll likely be out here 6 to 12 times over the next few months. What year did I finally visit my old friend's hometown? In the "Year of Vonnegut." Somehow, given I missed his childhood here, the timing felt right.

And just to close the loop, Robert Kennedy first heard of Martin Luther King's assassination here in Indianapolis. Speaking to a largely black audience, he spoke movingly and spontaneously about Martin Luther King, race, and the importance of getting beyond violence. Most major American cities had race riots in reaction to the news of King's assassination, but Indianapolis did not. Many attribute this to Kennedy's speech.

Some days just feel like now. Other days actually feel like history. Yesterday offered such a moment.

Iraq & the Clash of Myths

It is possible that the seeds for the insurgency in Iraq lay, not just the poor execution of the Bush administration's strategy, but, instead, in overlooking the importance of myth in nation building. Creating nation-states has always heavily relied on myth and still does, even in this age of science and technology.

The myth of Iraq as seen by Bush was that America would liberate the Iraqis from an evil dictator and they would celebrate their freedom by embracing capitalism and democracy.

But when it comes to nation building, myth has to make you the hero, not the rescued victim.

I went to Vietnam in 1994. I was working with a group founded by a trio of Vietnamese-Americans putting on a trade show featuring American companies. The group I was with was largely made up of people who fled their homes when Saigon fell to the communists. All of us felt trepidation as we stepped off the plane in Hanoi.

There were so many remarkable things about this trip, but one that stands out was the reaction of these Vietnamese-Americans when we visited Ho Chi Minh's tomb. It was obvious that mingled with their fear was real pride in "Bac [Uncle] Ho." Here was a Vietnamese who defeated two of the most powerful nations in history - sending French and American troops back home in the struggle for independence. Before that – hundreds of years before - they had gained their independence from the Chinese. This contributed to the myth that defined the Vietnamese: a people who resisted foreign occupation even in the face of incredible odds.

One vital contribution to the emergence of nation-states like England, France, and Germany was the cultivation of myth. Stories of national identity gave the individual a sense of national pride and distinction from other peoples. The discovery, in 1455, of Tacitus's Germania from Roman times helped to provide a sense of unity and superiority to a people governed by 300-some different governments. Stories of King Arthur and Charlemagne (one fabricated and one revived) helped to create a sense of national destiny that predated the recent history of division in what became England and France.

Iraqis were never particularly likely to gain a sense of national identity from George Bush's rescue myth. It's hard to found a country on a shared sense of rescued victim. Founding myths have to provide a sense of distinction and pride.

The insurgents are now creating a myth that could feed a strong sense of national identity. How intoxicating to be part of a force that "defeated" the most powerful military in world history? Rather than lead to the embrace of Western culture and institutions, this kind of myth is likely to frame this Iraqi war as proof of the corruption of Western institutions and people who, in spite of their obvious advantages and technological superiority, were unable to overcome the Iraqi people who kept themselves pure of Western influence.

In this time of science, technology, and economic theory, it is easy to dismiss myth as inconsequential and misguided. Yet we need shared stories, we need myths that provide a sense of identity. If a people can't share stories, it's hard to share much else - especially something as ethereal as a nation-state.