Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam War
Every presidential candidacy relies on a myth. Reagan was a great communicator; Clinton felt your pain. Both storylines were ridiculous. But rarely are the constructs used to market a party nominee as transparent or as fictional as those we’re being asked to swallow in 2008.
On the left–OK, not–we have Barack Obama. “The best orator of his generation!” says Ed Rendell, the Democratic power broker who has a day job as governor of Pennsylvania. “The best orator since Cicero!” Republican strategist Mary Matalin swoons. No doubt, Obama reads a mean speech. Take his Teleprompter away, though, and the dude is as lost as George Bush at a semiotics class. Forced to answer reporters’ questions off the cuff, Obama is so afraid of messing up that he…carefully…spaces…each…word…apart…
so…he…can…see…them…
coming…wayyy…in…advance.
Still more laughable than the notion of Obama as the second coming of JFK is the founding myth of the McCain campaign: (a) he is a war hero, and (b) said heroism increases his credibility on national security issues. “A Vietnam hero and national security pro,” The New York Times calls him in a typical media blandishment.
John McCain fought in Vietnam. There was nothing noble, much less heroic, about fighting in that war.
Some Americans may be suffering another of the periodic attacks of national amnesia that prevent us from honestly assessing our place in the world and its history, but others recall the truth about Vietnam: it was a disastrous, unjustifiable mess that anyone with an ounce of sense was against at the time.
Between one and two million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans were sent to their deaths by a succession of presidents and Congresses–fed to the flames of greed, hubris, and stupidity. The event used to justify starting the war–the Tonkin Gulf “incident”–never happened. The Vietnam War’s ideological foundation, the mantra cited to keep it going, was disproved after we lost. No Southeast Asian “dominos” fell to communism. To the contrary, the effect of the U.S. withdrawal was increased stability. When genocide broke out in neighboring Cambodia in the late 1970s, it was not the U.S., but a unified Vietnamese army–the evil communists–who stopped it.
Not even General Wesley Clark, shot four times in Vietnam, is allowed to question the McCain-as-war-hero narrative. “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president,” he argued. The Obama campaign, which sells its surrogates down the river with alarming regularity, promptly hung the former NATO commander out to dry: “Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.”
Even in an article criticizing the media for repeatedly framing McCain as a war hero, the liberal website Media Matters concedes: “McCain is, after all, a war hero; everybody agrees about that.”
Not everyone.
I was 12 when the last U.S. occupation troops fled Saigon. I remember how I–and most Americans–felt at the time.
We were relieved.
By the end of Nixon’s first term most people had turned against the war. Gallup polls taken in 1971 found that about 70 percent of Americans thought sending troops to Vietnam had been a mistake. Some believed it was immoral; others considered it unwinnable.
Since then, the political center has shifted right. We’ve seen the Reagan Revolution, Clinton’s Democratic centrism, and Bush’s post-9/11 flirtation with neo-McCarthyite fascism. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans–including Republicans–still think we should never have fought the Vietnam War.
“After the war’s 1975 conclusion,” Michael Tomasky wrote in The American Prospect in 2004, “Gallup has asked the question (“Did the U.S. make a mistake in sending troops to fight in Vietnam?”) five times, in 1985, 1990, 1993, 1995, and 2000. All five times…respondents were consistent in calling the war a mistake by a margin of more than 2 to 1: by 74 percent to 22 percent in 1990, for example, and by 69 percent to 24 percent in 2000.”
Moreover, Tomasky continued, “vast majorities continue to call the war ‘unjust.'” Even in 2004, after 9/11, 62 percent considered the war unjust. Only 33 percent still thought it was morally justified.
Vietnam was an illegal, undeclared war of aggression. Can those who fought in that immoral war really be heroes? This question appeared settled after Reagan visited a cemetery for Nazi soldiers, including members of the SS, at Bitburg, West Germany in 1985. “Those young men,” claimed Reagan, “are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.”
Americans didn’t buy it. Reagan’s poll numbers, typically between 60 and 65 percent at the time, plunged to 41 percent after the visit. Those who fight for an evil cause receive no praise.
So why is the McCain-as-war-hero myth so hard to unravel? By most accounts, John McCain demonstrated courage as a P.O.W., most notably by refusing his captors’ offer of early release. But that doesn’t make him a hero.
Hell, McCain isn’t even a victim.
At a time when more than a fourth of all combat troops in Vietnam were forcibly drafted (the actual victims), McCain volunteered to drop napalm on “gooks” (his term, not mine). He could have waited to see if his number came up in the draft lottery. Like Bush, he could have used family connections to weasel out of it. Finally, he could have joined the 100,000 draft-eligible males–true heroes, to a man–who went to Canada rather than kill people in a war that was plainly wrong.
When McCain was shot down during his 23rd bombing sortie, he was happily shooting up a civilian neighborhood in the middle of a major city. Vietnamese locals beat him when they pulled him out of a local lake; yeah, that must have sucked. But I can’t help think of what would have happened to Mohammed Atta had he somehow wound up alive on a lower Manhattan street on 9/11. How long would he have lasted?
Maybe he would have made it. I don’t know. But I do know this: no one would ever have considered him a war hero.
COPYRIGHT 2008 TED RALL
61 Comments.
Kurt,
Since both my parents are teachers who graduated near the tops of their classes at Illinois and David Lipscolm, I respectfully disagree with your assertion.
I didn't assert anything about your parents. What I did assert is that a large percentage of k-12 teachers get into education because it's easy and they tend to be bottom of the grade barrel.
Also, you made some statements that don't make sense. For instance, you claim that college profs are worthless, but the grades they hand out are worthwhile.
Where did I say their grades are worthwhile?
Lastly, your point about SOME teachers teaching because they don't have other options sort of proves my point about the market pricing teachers poorly.
I didn't say they don't have other options. I said they are lazy in college so they become "education" majors because it's easy. And let's be honest, compared to many other professions the work is easy.
Also, I don't believe I ever defended the libertarian position.
Kurt- I'm still amazed by your inability to accept that your opinions are based in your personal beliefs. Any idiot with a four-year degree can become a teacher. It is more difficult to become a doctor. The supply is greater, and so the price is lower. You seem to believe that labor should be payed simply based on need. So a garbageman should earn as much a dentist. That's a belief – but it's a whackjob belief based in a personal philosophy. Please just accept and quit trying to pass it off as hard science. It just embarrasses you.
In 48 states, you have to have an MA and 3 units of continuing education per year to stay a teacher for more than 2 years. At the end of a teachers career they have spent far more time in school than the average doctor. Almost every economist will admit that the market prices some things poorly. I never said it is a hard science. Economics and political science are soft sciences. The truth is, however, that years of human experience trend in the opposite direction of what most libertarians believe. Capital doesn't always chase the best ideas, in fact it frequently chases bad ideas because of group think. Private industry seeks power as well as economic advantage (as does public). Major public works don't get built without state intervention and haven't ever. I can go on and on, but were all the ideas that libertarians hold dear implemented, there would be a small oligarchy that would control everything and everybody else would be serfs…. And as a result, all innovation would cease. One just needs to look at the parts of the world with completely unregulated industry to see that.
On Jason's Points:
First off, there is a shortage of teachers… or haven't you picked up a newspaper lately. Not anybody can be a teacher either. It requires more education than most fields and pays less. That was my point anyway. The supply is low, but the price is still low for teachers. In the medical field, the supply of primary care docs is very low, but the price is very low. You can't swing a stick in CA without hitting a plastic surgeon, but those guys make an average of 1.9 million dollars a year. Labor is no more priced by supply and demand than is the price of electricity (just look at what private utilities charge per KWh compared to muni's, coops or publics right next door).
I didn't say that a garbage man should earn the same as a dentist, but I don't think a CEO should earn 562x what their average employee earns. Their contribution to that economic activity isn't 562x higher. It might be 15 or 20x higher. I don't even think doctors and teachers should earn the same, but it is irrational that Plastic Surgeons make 2.5x as much as Oncologists and Cardiologists.
Edward,
Your assertion about who ends up in teaching is not supported by facts. Sorry, it just isn't. At my alma mater, the average graduation GPA for teachers is 3.12. For pre-med it is 3.14. For Economics, it is 3.11. For Poli-sci it is 3.02. For business it is 2.89. For Philosophy it is 2.93. The lowest is communications at 2.71. You did assert that teachers are people who are lazy and dumb. You are wrong. There are some who are, but that isn't the norm.
Kurt,
I did not say anything about your alma mater. Congratulations to you if their GPA's are higher. I am talking about teachers in general, not specifically at your alma mater. BTW education courses are incredibly easy compared to medicine, engineering and law. And most k-12 "educators" don't have a clue about what they are teaching. They spend their time learning education processes.
Kurt – Despite my best efforts, I've done found nothing to support your statement that you need a Master's degree to be a teacher. Please show me anything you have to support it. Hell, I have a friend whose taking a rapid one-year program this year to allow her to teach elementary school. And doctors are required to take continuing education classes to keep their licenses, too. The notion that teachers spend more time in school than a doctor is absurd (unless, of course, you're counting the time they spend teaching).
There is a shortage of teachers – not because it's hard to be a teacher, but because nobody in their right mind would want to enter a profession that has been so thoroughly poisoned by the works and philosophies of Education PhDs. However, teacher vacancies can easily be filled with substitute teachers and other temp employees. You simply can't do that with a neurosurgeon.
Also, please don't make the silly assumption that I agree with all Libertarian philosophies. That is as ridiculous as my assuming that, simply because you agree with some historically Communist philosophies, you must agree with all of them – such as seizing all private properties and killing off the educated class.
Jason,
Its state law in every state except mississippi and Alabama. It shouldn't be too hard to find. It took me 15 seconds and a google search. Most states only allow a teacher to teach 2 years without earning a MA. Some let it slide for 4 (Michigan, Wisconson).
Edward,
Um… My school alma mater has 26k students and is probably a pretty good cross section. I checked out Michigan and Northwestern and got similar numbers. The problems of public schools are pretty simple. The public schools have to teach kids that are criminals and have severe learning issues as mainstream students, yet no additional resources are given to the teachers to do so… secondly, from a pure market perspective, you have once again proven my point about pay and the market not always pricing jobs very well. People will do all sorts of nasty things if they get paid enough. I know classically trained musicians that do rap backing tracks because it pays well.
Kurt – It's so great the way that you say such blatantly false things with such authority. I believe a legal profession is waiting for you.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070705070641AArQHA5
is just one of many sites that I've found for both California and Georgia that state a Master's isn't required. I haven't found ONE that says otherwise. Please share your knowledge with the rest of my class, my man!
Jason,
Read on on the CA website refereneced in your link. It says that you have to complete the coursework equivilent of an MA in education or in the the main subject they are teaching to renew the 5 year certificate for a teacher in CA.
Note.. I know about 40 teachers here in CA and only one doesn't have an MA. They all work very hard and are invested in the future of their kids. The complain mostly about wasting time on things mandated by the state or feds.
Kurt, this conversation is getting ridiculous. That website stated that teachers have to take a "teacher preparation program" at a college. Not a Master's program. You were wrong. Teachers don't need a Master's Degree. Teachers don't spend as much time in school as doctors. Stop acting like a jackass and just admit that you were wrong.
My sister-in-law is a teacher. As a consequence, most of my brother's best friends are teachers. Two of my poker buddies have wives that are teachers. Some of the acquaintances I met in college became teachers. None of them are bright, though they were able to plod along and get a 4-year degree.
To a person, these people are the laziest excuses of humanity I've ever had the unfortunate circumstance to deal with.
I sincerely wish that they had a decent work ethic, but basically they chose their profession to get summers off.
They have been teaching for several years (10+), and only one has an advanced degree (a Masters in Art), which somehow qualifies her to also serve as a guidance counselor.
Kurt,
I could walk into any k-12 classroom tomorrow and teach the whole year. Anyone with a basic education can. Teachers are easily replaceable and the market is placing them at exactly what they are worth.