The Korea, Vietnam, Iraq Syndrome

Email Print


Three, Many Vietnams"! was Che Guevara’s famous call to arms.
Today we remain in the throes of our third Vietnam, Iraq. This is
the third time since World War II that hundreds of thousands of
U.S. troops have been sent abroad in a neo-colonialist war.1

The first "Vietnam"
was in fact Korea. And it was the first war to be televised to the
relatively few TV sets then in existence. Americans saw the bloody
battles in black and white with American soldiers killed day after
day. At the end of it all about 50,000 Americans and a million Asians
were dead, at the hands of Harry S. Truman who was deeply reviled
as the result of the war. Truman was unexpectedly defeated in the
first New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the presidential race,
which Eisenhower won on the promise of "going to Korea"
and ending the war – which he did, much to his credit. Today
we do not hear much about Eisenhower; but the bloodthirsty Truman,
the only human being to order the incineration of hundreds of thousands
with nuclear weapons of mass destruction, is hailed by the likes
of Democrat neocon Peter Beinart and other Democratic neocons as
a model for Democrats today. However, at the time of Korea organized,
antiwar sentiment was miniscule and there was little to no protest
over the draft.

Next was Vietnam
itself where our historical memory often seems to begin when most
pundits discuss war, apparently because their knowledge of history
only springs from their own personal memories. Kennedy and the rest
of "the best and the brightest" Democrats started this
war and by its ending another 50,000 Americans and two million Southeast
Asians, by Robert McNamara’s count, had been killed. Kennedy was
another "tough" Democrat, decrying a supposed missile
gap and promising to send troops anywhere in the world for "freedom."
But this time a massive opposition grew, slowly at first and then
gaining in speed. By 1968, Johnson had suffered the same fate as
Truman in New Hampshire and he was driven from office. By 1964 there
were sizable campus and street demonstrations against the war, driven
by Old Left and New, and by 1969 the demonstrations had grown to
hundreds of thousands. The draft became untenable and was abolished.
From now on the empire builders would have to make do with an "all-volunteer"
army recruited mainly from the ranks of those who were strapped
for cash or mesmerized by the culture of war.

Now we have
Iraq. And in this last election, the President who brought it upon
us was handed a resounding defeat – just as were Truman and
Johnson before him. But this time millions in the U.S. marched against
the war before it started, and 23 Senators refused to rubber stamp
Bush’s call to arms. Even the military was reluctant, and it took
enormous exertions of deception and manipulation, like calling for
a vote a month before the 2002 elections, leading most politicians
to vote their careers and ambitions instead of stopping the unnecessary
slaughter that knew lay ahead. Once again the United States has
left its signature in Iraq, killing around 500,000 so far and probably
more than that due to the Clintonian sanctions leading up to the
war. It seems that a consistent U.S. strategy, its signature, is
to level any third world country and visit mass murder on its population
if that country is considered an enemy. The hope is obviously that
those who displease the American Empire will know that there is
a great price to pay. Although American deaths have fallen far short
of those in Korea and Vietnam, the tens of thousands of injuries
would have been deaths in those earlier wars.

Vietnam generated
more opposition than Korea and now Iraq has generated more opposition
and earlier opposition than Vietnam – despite the absence of
the draft, which did so much to mobilize opposition to the war on
Vietnam. (Now we have Max Boot, resident neocon at the LA Times
calling for an army of foreign-born mercenaries who can be rewarded
for their fighting with U.S. citizenship.) And opposition to this
war does not come mainly or principally from students but from all
segments of the population. It was a grown-up opposition, symbolized
by Lila Lipscomb and Cindy Sheehan, whose sons were taken from them
by the machinations of the neocons. (The drawback to the lack of
youth has been a dearth of militancy and radicalism and uncompromising
idealism.) The opposition has sprung not only from the Left, but
from Libertarians and the non neocon Right which has returned to
its anti-imperial roots, largely abandoned after WWI.2
This stance is routinely smeared with the "isolationist"
label to no avail, and I soon expect to see bumper stickers proclaiming
"Isolationist, and Proud of It."

The fact is
that we have come a long way. The American people are increasingly
dissatisfied with war and Empire – in fact we are sick to death
of it. The Vietnam syndrome is no longer adequate to describe the
phenomenon since it is now the product of three colonial wars. Properly
it should be called the "Korea, Vietnam, Iraq Syndrome."
The masters of Empire, both Democrat and Republican, will try to
"cure" us of this sentiment, and we must be wary of this,
but in the end they will not succeed. They have lost the battle
in Iraq, and they have lost the battle for the hearts and minds
of Americans to sustain an empire.

So we stand
on the threshold of a full-blown Anti-imperial movement if we can
pull it off. We need to consolidate this now before the Empire decides
that it must wage war on China – which was part of the motivation
for Iraq in the first place and is now finding its way into the
screed of the propagandists of empire.3 We have
the forces, from Left and Right, to generate such a movement. We
must do it – or with the advance of technology, we may all
perish by accident if not by design.

This article
is prepared from unprepared remarks at a demonstration of the Antiwar
in Boston on Veterans Day.


  1. The numerous
    imperial wars fought by proxy armies for the U.S. from Angola
    to El Salvador to Afghanistan to Iran, which killed untold millions,
    do not qualify as "Vietnams" in Che’s definition. No
    one has yet adequately tallied the toll in lives and destruction
    claimed by these cruel wars.
  2. Justin
    Raimondo. Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of
    the Conservative Movement.
  3. Thomas
    Friedman. "China:
    Scapegoat or Sputnik
    ." NYT, Nov. 10, 2006.

17, 2006

Walsh [send him mail]
is a scientist who lives in Cambridge, MA, and is a frequent contributor

Email Print