As a kid I was taught at school to hide under my wooden desk from a nuclear explosion – it was called “duck-and-cover.” But little good would that cover have done me growing up in New York City, an obvious initial target in any nuclear confrontation. Then, as now, our government was good with words; not so good when it came to common sense or rational thinking.
We then faced – and still do face – an existential threat from a nuclear attack. “Existential” meaning a threat to our very existence. We know now, although the threat was real, that the USSR was far more reluctant than our own government to begin any nuclear exchange. We should have realized it then: no nation, having undergone the physical destruction of Nazi invasion and retreat, along with the loss of more than 25 million citizens, would have been anxious for a repeat wartime adventure. World War II was not a “good” war for Russia, nor were WWI and the revolution/civil war that followed. For Russia, it had been a half-century of death – death up close and so very personal, leaving no family untouched.
In the 60s and into the 70s we were sold a war in Vietnam based on something called the “domino theory.” Simply put, if we didn’t fight ‘em there we’d soon be fighting ‘em here. Well, it took us almost 10 years before we gave up, but we finally lost (closer to 25 if you count our financing and support of the French effort in what was then called “Indochina,” and the years building up South Vietnam). It turned out that there were no “dominos.” And the only invasion we’ve had to put up with was from the cheap clothing they now ship to our stores.
It turned out that the Vietnamese hated and feared those Chinese we were so worried about more than we did, and had done so for about a thousand years. They went to war with China soon after we left. So much for the “Communist Monolith,” not to mention that the same Chinese – still Communist, by the way – are now supporting our economy and supplying us with gads of consumer goods. So much for the superior thinking of the “best and brightest” of three presidential administrations.
Forget all that revisionist nonsense you hear about “we could have won.” We wouldn’t have – the Vietnamese always had so much more at stake and a greater willingness to sacrifice – and our Army was disintegrating at the end. There are good reasons why Colin Powell and his generation of officers (who served there at the beginning of their careers) wanted an all-volunteer Army and no more Vietnams – and it wasn’t because they came close to winning. It went on so long, not because we were always almost on the cusp of victory, but because our so called “leaders” – our politicians and generals – were afraid to face the political consequences of defeat. Young Americans died because they didn’t want to admit error or lose their jobs. No one was willing to say “enough, this is stupid.” (At least not out loud.) Kids died because their leaders wanted to save face.
Sound familiar?
The morons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current bunch keeping us there, are making the “geniuses” that led us into Vietnam look brilliant in comparison. It was nonsense then, but it’s nonsense-squared now. Terrorism is not an existential threat. It poses, at best, some physical danger to a very small number of unlucky citizens – more Americans die every year from accidents in their bathtubs than are killed by terrorists – and a minor economic cost.
A few thousand – or is it only a few hundred? – raggedy-assed terrorists scattered over the world do not pose a threat to our existence as a nation. But our inappropriate response surely does. It’s a waste of lives and treasure that could be better spent elsewhere – at home, for instance. And we will come to rue the hatred it is engendering.
Our military budget is now over 700 billion a year – call it a trillion if we throw in veterans benefits and miscellaneous military costs hidden in other Federal departments – the highest it has ever been. More than the combined military spending of all other nations on Earth. Throw in another trillion for each of the wars. To paraphrase the late Senator Dirkson, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we might just be talking national bankruptcy. We fought Vietnam on the credit card too. That old “guns and butter” routine. The price we paid was the “stagflation” of the 70s. And that was, arguably, a relatively richer and more powerful United States. The Biblical phrase “those that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind” comes to mind.
But we will not, nay, probably can not, simply say “no more; we made a mistake; there is no overriding national interest worth this sacrifice at stake.” The Russians could. They gave Afghanistan nine years and left. Our stay is now going on ten. An irony is that in the old USSR political leaders dictated to the generals (Gorbachev’s dismantling of the Empire and survival of a coup attempt prove that), whereas in the US of A the opposite seems to have taken hold. We seem to adore our military – probably because most of us feel guilty about not serving. Indeed, about not having to make any sacrifice what so ever. And this awe, which should be reserved for the grunts who are doing the sacrificing and dying, seems also to be extended to the Generals – Generals who have led us through ten years of failure at inordinate expense.
Speaking of Generals . . . I find something untoward about the personal appearance of General Petraeus on the news lately. Petraeus’ combat experience has been confined to two tours in Iraq – the second of which, where he damped down the violence by buying off Sunni insurgents, is highly touted – and his present command in Afghanistan (he graduated West Point in 1974 and didn’t serve in Vietnam). I’ve contrasted his appearance in my photo with that of General Eisenhower.
Observe, if you will, the medals and other paraphernalia attached to the uniforms. Eisenhower’s career should need no introduction, nor should that of General Macarthur and Admiral Nimitz in the second photo (taken at as ceremonial a moment as you can imagine – the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay). Macarthur, a General without any noticeable lack of self-esteem throughout his career, earned a Medal of Honor, two DSCs and seven Silver Stars along with numerous lesser awards. All in a career that spanned from before WWI to Korea. The decorations he would have been entitled to wear on his uniform are shown alongside. As countless photos attest, he rarely wore any at all. It would seem that the budget is not the only thing undergoing expansion in our military.
We then faced – and still do face – an existential threat from a nuclear attack. “Existential” meaning a threat to our very existence. We know now, although the threat was real, that the USSR was far more reluctant than our own government to begin any nuclear exchange. We should have realized it then: no nation, having undergone the physical destruction of Nazi invasion and retreat, along with the loss of more than 25 million citizens, would have been anxious for a repeat wartime adventure. World War II was not a “good” war for Russia, nor were WWI and the revolution/civil war that followed. For Russia, it had been a half-century of death – death up close and so very personal, leaving no family untouched.
In the 60s and into the 70s we were sold a war in Vietnam based on something called the “domino theory.” Simply put, if we didn’t fight ‘em there we’d soon be fighting ‘em here. Well, it took us almost 10 years before we gave up, but we finally lost (closer to 25 if you count our financing and support of the French effort in what was then called “Indochina,” and the years building up South Vietnam). It turned out that there were no “dominos.” And the only invasion we’ve had to put up with was from the cheap clothing they now ship to our stores.
It turned out that the Vietnamese hated and feared those Chinese we were so worried about more than we did, and had done so for about a thousand years. They went to war with China soon after we left. So much for the “Communist Monolith,” not to mention that the same Chinese – still Communist, by the way – are now supporting our economy and supplying us with gads of consumer goods. So much for the superior thinking of the “best and brightest” of three presidential administrations.
Forget all that revisionist nonsense you hear about “we could have won.” We wouldn’t have – the Vietnamese always had so much more at stake and a greater willingness to sacrifice – and our Army was disintegrating at the end. There are good reasons why Colin Powell and his generation of officers (who served there at the beginning of their careers) wanted an all-volunteer Army and no more Vietnams – and it wasn’t because they came close to winning. It went on so long, not because we were always almost on the cusp of victory, but because our so called “leaders” – our politicians and generals – were afraid to face the political consequences of defeat. Young Americans died because they didn’t want to admit error or lose their jobs. No one was willing to say “enough, this is stupid.” (At least not out loud.) Kids died because their leaders wanted to save face.
Sound familiar?
The morons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current bunch keeping us there, are making the “geniuses” that led us into Vietnam look brilliant in comparison. It was nonsense then, but it’s nonsense-squared now. Terrorism is not an existential threat. It poses, at best, some physical danger to a very small number of unlucky citizens – more Americans die every year from accidents in their bathtubs than are killed by terrorists – and a minor economic cost.
A few thousand – or is it only a few hundred? – raggedy-assed terrorists scattered over the world do not pose a threat to our existence as a nation. But our inappropriate response surely does. It’s a waste of lives and treasure that could be better spent elsewhere – at home, for instance. And we will come to rue the hatred it is engendering.
Our military budget is now over 700 billion a year – call it a trillion if we throw in veterans benefits and miscellaneous military costs hidden in other Federal departments – the highest it has ever been. More than the combined military spending of all other nations on Earth. Throw in another trillion for each of the wars. To paraphrase the late Senator Dirkson, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we might just be talking national bankruptcy. We fought Vietnam on the credit card too. That old “guns and butter” routine. The price we paid was the “stagflation” of the 70s. And that was, arguably, a relatively richer and more powerful United States. The Biblical phrase “those that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind” comes to mind.
But we will not, nay, probably can not, simply say “no more; we made a mistake; there is no overriding national interest worth this sacrifice at stake.” The Russians could. They gave Afghanistan nine years and left. Our stay is now going on ten. An irony is that in the old USSR political leaders dictated to the generals (Gorbachev’s dismantling of the Empire and survival of a coup attempt prove that), whereas in the US of A the opposite seems to have taken hold. We seem to adore our military – probably because most of us feel guilty about not serving. Indeed, about not having to make any sacrifice what so ever. And this awe, which should be reserved for the grunts who are doing the sacrificing and dying, seems also to be extended to the Generals – Generals who have led us through ten years of failure at inordinate expense.
Speaking of Generals . . . I find something untoward about the personal appearance of General Petraeus on the news lately. Petraeus’ combat experience has been confined to two tours in Iraq – the second of which, where he damped down the violence by buying off Sunni insurgents, is highly touted – and his present command in Afghanistan (he graduated West Point in 1974 and didn’t serve in Vietnam). I’ve contrasted his appearance in my photo with that of General Eisenhower.
Observe, if you will, the medals and other paraphernalia attached to the uniforms. Eisenhower’s career should need no introduction, nor should that of General Macarthur and Admiral Nimitz in the second photo (taken at as ceremonial a moment as you can imagine – the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay). Macarthur, a General without any noticeable lack of self-esteem throughout his career, earned a Medal of Honor, two DSCs and seven Silver Stars along with numerous lesser awards. All in a career that spanned from before WWI to Korea. The decorations he would have been entitled to wear on his uniform are shown alongside. As countless photos attest, he rarely wore any at all. It would seem that the budget is not the only thing undergoing expansion in our military.
