Flackbacks -- Vietnam
Crooks and Liars has video of the "Hardball with Chris Matthews" interview of the parents of Marine Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder who was among the 14 Marines killed in a single attack on August 4, 2005, in Iraq.
They report that their son was increasingly disturbed at the lack of progress, given the amount of military effort in Iraq. The military fights for ground that cannot be held, and that quickly reverts to enemy hands. There are not enough troops, the tactics are not sufficient for the situation, and we are not winning.
Bush's war has often been compared to the Vietnam War, but this interview brought it home to me. I graduated high school in 1966, so my cohort contributed many soldiers at the height of the Vietnam War. At 18, I believed that our country and our president wouldn't take us to war unless it had to be fought. Over the next two years, I came to believe that our country wasn't deployed troops in a way that would lead to victory. Instead, we were fighting without end in sight, and without signifigant gains.
In 1970, the movie Patton was released. I remember that it lead to my epiphany about the Vietnam War, that we needed a Patton who would protect his troops by fighting all-out to end the conflict and bring the troops home. Instead we had a war lead by politicians and a growing number of dead and injured, whose sacrifices brought no gains. To me, that disrespect for life was obscene, profane, and blasphemous. I thought we should either fight to win or bring the troops home. That war left the military broken--not enough people wanted to serve an institution that dishonored its own members.
And here we are again with Bush's war. The troops are maimed and killed to take a town, then they move on and can't leave the personnel to hold the town, so it reverts to the enemy. And the troops have to ask, why? Our troops are willing to sacrifice life and limb to win a just cause, but this politicians' war demands from them unending battle without significant gains or any end of combat within sight. And it's breaking the military again.
The Bush administration has reminded me of the Nixon years in so many ways, beginning with the carried-over crew from the Nixon administration, including Karl Rove and his CREEP-y dirty tricks. Bush's war is a replay of Vietnam, a lesson Bush never learned while he hoed hard down dissolution row.
I'd like to see a history book from 2025. Will it be known as Bush's War or Bush's Folly? Will he be tried for his war crimes against the American people? Will he ever face the consequences for his illegal war?
Imagine: A police officer tells a suspect to throw down his weapons or the police office will shoot. The suspect says he's unarmed and raises his arms. The police officer repeats that the suspect must throw down his weapons--or he'll shoot. The suspect repeats that he is unarmed. The police officer gives the suspect until the count of 30 to disarm. The suspect insists that he's unarmed, and just before the police officer reaches the number 30, he shoots and kills the suspect. It turns out the suspect was unarmed, just as he claimed. Will the police officer have to answer for this? Can the police officer escape inquiry by shifting the investigation--"Actually, I shot him because I believe he was involved with that kidnapping yesterday." And when it turns out the suspect wasn't involved in the kidnapping, the police officer shifts again, declaring that he shot and killed the suspect to bring peace to the mean and ugly streets.
Bush told Saddam to yield his weapons of mass distruction or the U.S. would attack. You know the rest. Bush will shift his rationalizations endlessly to evade his real reasons, because the U.S. public would not be willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters without a noble cause.
For a Christianist, Bush is singularly unwilling to repent or even to acknowledge his mistakes. This is a Christian nation, and we are willing to forgive the repentant sinner. Clinton was redeemed by his honest and sincere repentance, and he regained much of his lost stature. I just don't know that Bush is capable of either owning his mistake or owning the consequences. Or maybe Republican Jesus says it best.
They report that their son was increasingly disturbed at the lack of progress, given the amount of military effort in Iraq. The military fights for ground that cannot be held, and that quickly reverts to enemy hands. There are not enough troops, the tactics are not sufficient for the situation, and we are not winning.
Bush's war has often been compared to the Vietnam War, but this interview brought it home to me. I graduated high school in 1966, so my cohort contributed many soldiers at the height of the Vietnam War. At 18, I believed that our country and our president wouldn't take us to war unless it had to be fought. Over the next two years, I came to believe that our country wasn't deployed troops in a way that would lead to victory. Instead, we were fighting without end in sight, and without signifigant gains.
In 1970, the movie Patton was released. I remember that it lead to my epiphany about the Vietnam War, that we needed a Patton who would protect his troops by fighting all-out to end the conflict and bring the troops home. Instead we had a war lead by politicians and a growing number of dead and injured, whose sacrifices brought no gains. To me, that disrespect for life was obscene, profane, and blasphemous. I thought we should either fight to win or bring the troops home. That war left the military broken--not enough people wanted to serve an institution that dishonored its own members.
And here we are again with Bush's war. The troops are maimed and killed to take a town, then they move on and can't leave the personnel to hold the town, so it reverts to the enemy. And the troops have to ask, why? Our troops are willing to sacrifice life and limb to win a just cause, but this politicians' war demands from them unending battle without significant gains or any end of combat within sight. And it's breaking the military again.
The Bush administration has reminded me of the Nixon years in so many ways, beginning with the carried-over crew from the Nixon administration, including Karl Rove and his CREEP-y dirty tricks. Bush's war is a replay of Vietnam, a lesson Bush never learned while he hoed hard down dissolution row.
I'd like to see a history book from 2025. Will it be known as Bush's War or Bush's Folly? Will he be tried for his war crimes against the American people? Will he ever face the consequences for his illegal war?
Imagine: A police officer tells a suspect to throw down his weapons or the police office will shoot. The suspect says he's unarmed and raises his arms. The police officer repeats that the suspect must throw down his weapons--or he'll shoot. The suspect repeats that he is unarmed. The police officer gives the suspect until the count of 30 to disarm. The suspect insists that he's unarmed, and just before the police officer reaches the number 30, he shoots and kills the suspect. It turns out the suspect was unarmed, just as he claimed. Will the police officer have to answer for this? Can the police officer escape inquiry by shifting the investigation--"Actually, I shot him because I believe he was involved with that kidnapping yesterday." And when it turns out the suspect wasn't involved in the kidnapping, the police officer shifts again, declaring that he shot and killed the suspect to bring peace to the mean and ugly streets.
Bush told Saddam to yield his weapons of mass distruction or the U.S. would attack. You know the rest. Bush will shift his rationalizations endlessly to evade his real reasons, because the U.S. public would not be willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters without a noble cause.
For a Christianist, Bush is singularly unwilling to repent or even to acknowledge his mistakes. This is a Christian nation, and we are willing to forgive the repentant sinner. Clinton was redeemed by his honest and sincere repentance, and he regained much of his lost stature. I just don't know that Bush is capable of either owning his mistake or owning the consequences. Or maybe Republican Jesus says it best.
posted by Lynn Holleman Rudloff | 12:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home