Why Can’t Obama See His Wars Are Unwinnable?
Robert McNamara, one of the “best and the brightest” technocrats behind the escalation of the Vietnam War, eventually came to regret his actions. But his public contrition, which included a book and a series of interviews for the documentary “The Fog of War,” were greeted with derision.
“Mr. McNamara must not escape the lasting moral condemnation of his countrymen,” editorialized The New York Times in 1995. “Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the infantry, dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late.”
McNamara’s change of heart came 58,000 American and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lives too late. If the dead could speak, surely they would ask: why couldn’t you see then what you understand so clearly now? Why didn’t you listen to the millions of experts, journalists and ordinary Americans who knew that death and defeat would be the only outcome?
Though Errol Morris’ film served as ipso facto indictment, its title was yet a kind of justification. There is no “fog of war.” There is only hubris, stubbornness, and the psychological compartmentalization that allows a man to sign papers that will lead others to die before going home to play with his children.
McNamara is dead. Barack Obama is his successor.
Some call McNamara’s life tragic. Tragedy-inducing is closer to the truth. Yes, he suffered guilt in his later years. “He wore the expression of a haunted man,” wrote the author of his Times obit. “He could be seen in the streets of Washington—stooped, his shirttail flapping in the wind—walking to and from his office a few blocks from the White House, wearing frayed running shoes and a thousand-yard stare.” But the men and women and boys and girls blown up by bombs and mines and impaled by bullets and maimed in countless ways deserve more vengeance than a pair of ratty Nikes. Neither McNamara nor LBJ nor the millions of Americans who were for the war merit understanding, much less sympathy.
Now Obama is following the same doomed journey.
“We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes,” McNamara warned long after the fact, speaking of “America’s enemies” but really just about people—people who live in other countries. People whose countries possess reserves of natural gas (Vietnam) or oil (Iraq) or are situated between energy reserves and deep-sea ports where oil tankers dock (Afghanistan and Pakistan).
Why can’t President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can’t he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm’s way?
“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo—men, women and children,” McNamara said. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He—and I’d say I—were behaving as war criminals.” 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all.
At least Japan started the war. What of Afghanistan and Iraq, where approximately 2,000,000 civilians have been killed by U.S. forces? Neither country attacked us. Shouldn’t Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest be prosecuted as war criminals? Why not Obama? After all, Obama is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq after the war there is supposedly coming to an end. He’s escalating the unjustifiable, unwinnable tragedy in Afghanistan—there are 68,000 U.S. troops there now, probably going up to 100,000 by next year—while spreading the conflict into Pakistan.
“Make no mistake, the international community is not winning in Afghanistan,” concluded the Atlantic Council in 2008. Things have only gotten worse as U.S. troop presence has increased: more violence, more drugs, less reconstruction.
Like McNamara, Obama doesn’t understand a basic truth: you can’t successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.
“What went wrong [in Vietnam] was a basic misunderstanding or misevaluation of the threat to our security represented by the North Vietnamese,” McNamara said in his Berkeley oral history.” Today’s domino theory is Bush’s (now Obama’s) clash of civilizations, the argument that unless we fight them “there” we will have to fight them here. Afghanistan and Iraq don’t present security threats to the United States. The presence of U.S. troops and drone planes, on the other hand…
In fairness to McNamara, it only took two years for him to call to an end of the bombing of North Vietnam. By 1966 he was advising LBJ to start pulling back. But, like a gambler trying to recoup and justify his losses, the president kept doubling down. “We didn’t know our opposition,” concluded McNamara. “So the first lesson is know your opponents. I want to suggest to you that we don’t know our potential opponents today.”
Actually, it’s worse than that. Then, like now, we don’t have opponents. We create them.
COPYRIGHT 2009 TED RALL
21 Comments.
Hm. I'd have to take issue with "At least Japan started the war…"
We did force an oil embargo against them, after all. Yes, they were an imperialistic shit-hole of a nation raping other lands…but guess who else was, too!
What did we think they'd do when we cut off their supplies of energy?
These so-called wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just a way for military industries to reap obscene profits. All of our nation's politicians work for these monsters.
To suggest that the President of the United States should have empathy when making decisions about war, is cowardly at best. Criminal at worst.
Writers like Rall sit behind their keyboards with such self-satisfaction because they have the luxury of empathy.
If I knew a sitting president was actively engaging in empathy when making decisions about war, I would want the president removed from office immediately due to incompetence.
Kissinger said it best – and said it correctly. "Soldiers are nothing more than pawns to be used in the execution of foreign policy." How dare you suggest the leaders of the free world second-guess themselves when making decisions that affect us all, just so he can feel good about himself.
What a shameful piece.
Ted, the Q'uran has been around a lot longer than either of us. It preaches extinction of infidels and non-Muslims. I've read passages and I'm guessing you have too.
Your essays are always good but this seems like a bit of a stretch. Scratch that; a huge stretch. I would take it then you support Obama's worldwide apology tour which from reading this blog, you don't.
No; we don't 'create' enemies. 9/11 was not our construct. Iraq is free now from a genocidal dictator and we haven't installed any flags of ownership. There is no colonialism (and, in fact, as a concept it's one that's highly inaccurate and susceptible to frequent liberal misuse.)
Thanks for the space…
Anonymous 6:36,
>>Kissinger said it best – and said it correctly. "Soldiers are nothing more than pawns to be used in the execution of foreign policy.">>
No, soldiers exist for the defense of this country, and only for that. To use them for anything else is making them into mercenaries. The soldiers in Vietnam, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan, are being used in a mercenary capacity.
Anonymous 7:39,
The so-called enemies that we have in the Muslim world, are largely the creation of the West, or came into being because of Western policies in the area. Not some holy book.
It's like Ted said, we create our opponents.
9:23, our opponents don't waver at all, they're there even when we turn the diplomatic cheek (Clinton years). You need to articulate what these 'Western policies' are that invite hostility from the Muslim world. Freedom and domocracy? It enrages them.
But I doubt we should appease them by becoming, well… what Obama wants Honduras to be. Now there's a country with balls. A country that values its constitution, unlike here where it's frequently viewed as an unwelcome burden by the left. Because today's pols are just so much smarter than Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams. /sarc
To Susan Stark,
You obviously know nothing about foreign policy.
Writers like Rall sit behind their keyboards with such self-satisfaction because they have the luxury of empathy.
Go read To Afghanistan and Back and Silk Road to Ruin before you spout such ignorant bullshit again, and maybe you'll learn where Ted's empathy comes from.
Ted, the Q'uran has been around a lot longer than either of us. It preaches extinction of infidels and non-Muslims. I've read passages and I'm guessing you have too.
The Bible is much older than the Qu'ran, and originated the concept of holy war. Should the entire West also be held accountable for its Scripture of choice?
No; we don't 'create' enemies. 9/11 was not our construct.
You probably think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because they hated America's freedoms too. (I don't believe the energy embargo justified the Japanese attack, but it certainly explains it, and was partly responsible for making Japan an enemy of the US.) You need to read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback.
I can't agree. Macnamara was a good person in a bad situation, Bush was an evil bastard who deliberately screwed up what should have been a short kicking of some terrorists to make money for his friends.
It isn't the Americans who have invaded Pakistan and forced a medieval judicial system on the natives, and it isn't the Americans who attacked Mumbai, London, Barcelona, New York, Casablanca, and places all over Africa in the last decade and a half. That was Al-Qaeda. Remember them? Blew up that ship one time? Fancy themselves as architecture critics?
You need to stop seeing Al-Q as a mindless automaton "created" by American elites, they are a force in their own right. They don't have to run around killing civilians, they choose to do this because they have their own insane, colonial vision. I don't neccisarily agree with the way it's being fought or the corrupt regime that's been put in power in Kabul, but pulling out of Afghanistan / Pakistan would be a terrible mistake, with consequences that don't bear thinking about – especially when you consider that Pakistan has about 100 nuclear weapons.
"These so-called wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just a way for military industries to reap obscene profits. All of our nation's politicians work for these monsters."
that pretty much says it all on the subject of US warmongering. it really is all about money, and how much of it the ruling elite can steal. and ted, you fall into their bullshit trap every time you focus on "national security," because our wars are never really about national security; that's just a red herring the elites use to whip up fearful idiots like badnewswade and all these anonymouses into supporting their mass murder for profit scheme.
we go to war so the MIC can loot the treasury and so our corporations can steal the world's resources. and that's it. the real reason hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people are dying is so rich fuckers can get richer. all the talk from politicians about battling terrorism and spreading democracy is nothing but disingenuous bullshit.
and you know, ted, you really don't even need to write coumns about this stuff. smedley butler already wrote the definitive "column," a long, long time ago. every time you get the urge to pontificate about imperialist america's murderous foreign policy, you should just link to "war is a racket" instead. maybe if americans read that every week, we'd have fewer cheneyite dipshits running around spouting all that "islam is evil" and "we have to fight them over there or else" and "they hate freedom" idiocy.
Soon they're gonna ask for more troops. This shit better be worked out before my son turns 18.
Dorme bene, love Tyler Durden.
if the coalition leaves Afghanistan something much worse will take over
Joe, I always appreciate reading recommendations.
Still; there is no way that anti-Americanism as an historical threat is brought on by Western values or 'colonialism.' Were we to sip sweet tea on the back stoop and watch firelies hasten down the wind in our own backyard, there would still be strong hatred our way. Now, a subsection of people certainly hate the US or its policies for anything that they find unacceptable. But to say we create our enemies is not tethered to any type of reality at all.
It's actually sad to read people like the sample posted at 3:05 pm. Not because you're stupid or an obot or whatever derogatory term could be thrown.
Is Iran's latest ignited struggle similar to war for profit? How about Honduras and the pro-domocracy protesters fighting for their constitution? Another muscle show for the profiteers? No.
It's one thing to critique or oppose war. 3:05, your summary is based on a wrong assumption that the world is filled with happy people and dictators… and that the US carries a concealed weapon at every global diplomatic meeting. We're the baddie… NOT.
Me: I'll stick with assessing the facts and looking at each development in context of the whole. Cheney is not Darth Vader, as much as you want that media fable to breath life. Remember: Obama campaigned on everything antiBush. Then he got into office, saw the intel and started to adopt many of Bush's policies. Because of the intel. Let's look at what he's doing now for an accurate gauge as to what you should be feeling.
A leader without empathy is a tyrant. A person who wishes to live under a tyrant is a peasant. A human without empathy ceases to be a human.
I see a list of countries Al-Q has attacked. Shall we examine the list of countries America has attacked? Then add all the corrupt, brutal torture regimes America has installed and/or supported, overtly or covertly. It would give some perspective, perhaps showing what pikers Al-Q are in the international terrorism game.
Fuck with enough people enough times and you make enemies. Denial of this simple reality, plus a blinkered and incomplete view of history, might make you want to focus on religion. A complete lack of sense of irony might even make you spout nonsense about freedom "enraging" these people (the Taliban were freedom fighters while battling our Soviet enemies — see Rambo II).
The terrorists have enjoyed a recruitment boom based on the people's desire to FREE themselves from the foreign invaders. These people yearn for freedom as much as any human anywhere. Only a fool believes otherwise.
In the end jingoistic twaddle will rule the day among the thoughtless. It falls to others to try and be heard above the din. Thank you Mr. Rall.
Kissinger said it best – and said it correctly. "Soldiers are nothing more than pawns to be used in the execution of foreign policy."
Bullshit. U.S. soldiers exist to protect the Constitution. Anyone encouraging their employment otherwise is a traitor, like Kissinger and the poster attached to Kissigner’s anus here.
Empathy isn’t the issue. Justice is. Cowardice is kowtowing to a monster’s demand for rape and murder and defending said monster against all attacks.
You need to articulate what these 'Western policies' are that invite hostility from the Muslim world. Freedom and domocracy? It enrages them.
This poster is a liar. U.S. interference in the middle east had the direct result of creating terrorism. Is this poster stupid enough to think that the people on this site haven’t heard of blowback? Besides, our government ATTACKS successful democracies in the middle east and other places because our government hates freedom when it cuts into its backers’ profit margin.
especially when you consider that Pakistan has about 100 nuclear weapons.
Like I said: a liar.
Macnamara was a good person in a bad situation
Bullshit yet again. MacNamara created the “bad situation.” The immorality of Vietnam was obvious when the French were trying to employ violence there. MacNamara was distraught because his attempt to do evil failed practically; had it not, he would have made no ethical review.
But to say we create our enemies is not tethered to any type of reality at all.
Have schools stopped teaching any history whatsoever? I’ve heard holocost denials with better grasp of history. This anonymous should google “shah” and “iran,” and then, for bonus points, try for “amercan soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia” and “Osama Bin Laden.” And/or he could save himself time by just buying the book Blowback.
Seriously, this ignorance isn’t even troll-level funny. It’s sad.
^ It's great that Britney Spears was finally given a cabinet post. Actually no one of consequence, we agree on several points. In the unfurling of chatroom dialogue, in its slow-mo style it's easiest to say I agree with a couple of your points. When you're logical. (You might be Ted.) I got the Shah. Got it all. I know. Otherwise, NO and no: we don't create enemies EXCEPT those who are pre-disposed to follow an extremist dogma anyway.
Save the goofy don't they teach history in school bullsh-t. It's so yesterday. Besides, the radical neoAmericans have drizzled their special DNA over most of our curriculum.
"Empathy isn’t the issue. Justice is."
That's fascinating that you write that. You know where we could take that. Whose justice. Based on what history. What end purpose. But I do agree with you and the actual intent of what you're saying.
Word games: don't play 'em.
Empathy is irrelevant, so I have no idea what word games you're talking about. Empathy has as much to do with this as pizza. It takes no significant amount of empathy to recognize that murder is wrong and war is bad.
And we create enemies when we murder parents with drone rockets. If you're implying that a bunch of kids the government has tortured and raped in prison or a couple of pre-teens made orphans due to U.S. terror attacks are "pre-disposed to follow an extremist dogma," then that's strait racism. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd suppose it was mere stupidity. (It can't be ignorance — you "got it all.")
The U.S. may arm and train nutcases and monsters — School of the Americas, Taliban — but it casually creates more honorable enemies with every shell fired. Mislead people about that and one dehumanizes the victims of U.S. policy.
Ted,
I'm a long-time fan of your cartoons. I'm asking because you are clearly intelligent and knowledgeable about central Asia.
How do we prevent the endgame of an Islamic terrorist group gaining access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Pakistan is currently engaged in a civil war against the Taliban. It is possible that the pro-western government could either lose that war or lose an election to Islamic militants. Does our presence make this outcome more or less likely? If it looks like the Taliban is close to getting an A-bomb, would you believe our involvement justified?
Besides, our government ATTACKS successful democracies in the middle east
When was the last time that actually happened? 1952?
and other places because our government hates freedom when it cuts into its backers’ profit margin.
True, but that doesn't change the equally undemocratic nature of Islamic fundamentalism.
Like I said: a liar.
What, Pakistan doesn't have any nuclear weapons? Well, in that case I stand corrected along with Wikipedia, the Indian government, the Pakistani government, the Federation of Atomic Scientists, AQ Khan…
Seriously dude, don't call me a liar and then start telling lies. It isn't going to make anyone with a working internet connection agree with you, you know.
When was the last time that actually happened? 1952?
You're conveniently ignoring backing Saddam Hussein against pro-democracy forces and general anti-populist stances with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel.
True, but that doesn't change the equally undemocratic nature of Islamic fundamentalism.
. . . nor does it change the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is damn near a red herring and wouldn't be a threat at all without the U.S. government. Osama bin Laden received CIA training and resources, his beef was with the U.S. government in Saudi Arabia, and his goals were nearly completely secular. He's a piece of shit, but he's only an effective piece of shit because of U.S. policy that's good for our elites and bad for our people.
What, Pakistan doesn't have any nuclear weapons?
The issue isn't the possession of said weapons, but how they got them and their intent of use. The lie is the idea that fundamentalists are a threat in Pakistan because of said weapons — they're not. Fundies in Pakistan are a political minority and they only gain power if the country is distabilized — which the U.S. is trying hard to do. And Pakistan only got the bomb because the U.S. dropped the ball on weapons proliferation.
I don't seek your agreement. I do not want to see complete bullshit go unchallenged.