A Fire in the Lake

 

A Fire in the Lake

Peter Schultz

 

                  In her book, Fire in the Lake, Frances Fitzgerald analyzed America’s involvement and war-making in Vietnam. The following are some of her and some of my reflections on that enterprise.

 

                  “Americans … assumed [that] the Vietnamese [would] trust them, to take their advice with gratitude, to cooperate in their mutual enterprise of defeating the Communists. The Buddhist crisis came as a terrible shock …. Not only the Buddhists but also General Ky and Colonel Loan seemed to resent American interference. The crisis exposed the contradiction between the American desire to get the GVN [Government of Vietnam] on its feet and their desire to maintain some control over GVN politics….” [368]

 

                  “Did their [the Vietnamese] view of the United States as a ruthless, omnipotent force have something to do with their long history of colonial rule? If so, could the Americans, whatever their intentions, cope with these suspicions any better than the French…?” [ibid]

 

                  What are we witnessing here? Are we witnessing the impossibility of a cooperative colonialism? Of a peaceful colonialism? Of a progressive colonialism? Are we witnessing why the United States’ “involvement” in Vietnam, like the French involvement, was bound to fail; that is, to fail to achieve the United States’s best intentions?

 

                  Regardless of how well-intentioned US elites may have been, there was “no possible basis for cooperation between the two governments or between the Vietnamese government and the rest of the non-Communist groups in Vietnam.” [ibid] War was the inevitable so long as the US chose to involve itself in Vietnam. It was the only possible outcome. Colonialism, imperialism, regardless of the intentions of the colonizers or imperialists, inevitably lead to war. As Fowler (in The Quiet American) put it: Innocence should be treated as madness and the innocent should be treated as lepers.

 

                  And this includes the best and the brightest. The most crucial knowledge is knowing the limits of the political. Only with that knowledge can well-intentioned but ultimately inhuman politics, such as that the United States practiced in Vietnam, be avoided. Ironically, those with the best of intentions, viz., the best and the brightest, are the most dangerous politically. They are like a “fire in the lake.”

Strategic Hamlets

 

Strategic Hamlets

Peter Schultz

 

                  The strategic hamlet program in Vietnam “was by far the most ambitious of the Diemist land programs,” according to Frances Fitzgerald in her book Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam.”  But it turned out that these strategic hamlets were mirages, little more than “fortified settlements that the armed forces could actually surround.” [155] “At least one American admitted that the NLF was not wrong in calling the settlements concentration camps” – without the ovens. “If the American and British officials really envisioned happy and prosperous peasants standing up to defend their villages … their wishful thinking was mighty indeed.” [157] Moreover, it was usually the case that “the circle of artillery and barbed wire enclosed a political void that waited for the NLF.”

 

                  So, on the one hand, the strategic hamlets were actually assisting the NLF, while being sold as the means of defeating them. The Americans and Diem had become allies, as it were, of the insurgents, the NLF and the communists. If this doesn’t qualify as madness, it is difficult to know what would. One of the most ambitious anti-communist programs, supported by the Americans and the Diemists, was not anti-communist at all. In fact, it might be labeled pro-communist.

 

                  Moreover, the strategic hamlet program treated Vietnamese villages and villagers as if they were the enemy. As had happened with the French, when the Americans moved in the Vietnamese became the enemy, along with the communists. Hence, it was delusional to say that the Americans were there to help the Vietnamese. They were there to defeat, which they called “modernization,” traditional Vietnamese, defeating via “modernization” or “Americanization” traditional Vietnam. Which is to say that the strategic hamlets were created in order to get some Vietnamese who were willing to kill other Vietnamese, those labeled “communists.” Talk about “wishful thinking.” The Americans in Vietnam wanted to “train” the Vietnamese; that is, to get some Vietnamese to kill or oppress other Vietnamese, by making some Vietnamese enemies of other Vietnamese. The Americans in Vietnam were facilitating civil war in Vietnam, under the guise of “helping“ the Vietnamese.  

 

                  Such civil wars lie at the roots of imperialism, which is why imperialism always involves inhuman cruelty. The Americans, just like the French, being forced to create or fortify or continue such a civil war in Vietnam needed cover stories to hide what they were in fact doing, and so embraced anti-communism and such fantasies as “the domino theory.” The strategic hamlet program could never succeed in creating “happy and prosperous peasants” but it could succeed in turning Vietnamese against Vietnamese and, thereby, serve the cause of those like the NLF who sought to unify Vietnam. So, not only did the Americans lose in Vietnam, they deserved to lose.

Secrecy

 

Secrecy

Peter Schultz

 

                  L. Fletcher Prouty in his excellent book, The Secret Team, has some interesting things to say about secrecy. For example: “a peculiar and dangerous characteristic … [is] derived [from] secrecy.” It those agents working on Pakistan, for example, are not doing so, but are working on another program, a cover story needs be developed. The story “is false – a lie.” The lie is permissible, necessary, and justified. “So if you are on a classified project, it is all right, in fact … essential, for you to lie. So you lie. The other man lies, everyone lies.” [472]

 

                  “In the Pentagon there are many offices established to do one thing. They really do not do that thing at all, but something entirely different. As a result, [many] cannot say what they are doing; or if they are forced to say something they lie.” [ibid]

 

                  When these persons lie to policy makers about their alleged analyses, they are guaranteeing failure for the simple reason that those policies undertaken are based on lies, i.e., they are not “reality based.” So, for example, a war on drugs, which is actually a way of controlling certain groups of people, e.g., blacks, is bound to fail as a war on drugs because that war is a fantasy; it is not real. It will never be successful vis-à-vis drugs, although it may be successful in incarcerating huge numbers of black people.

 

                  The Vietnam War, billed as an anti-Communist war, was bound to fail because the “communists” in Vietnam weren’t real. They were a figment of American imaginations, a label pinned on some Vietnamese to justify the war that American elites wanted to wage there. The war was real, but the communists were not. Ho Chi Minh was not, except in the imagination of some Americans, a communist, just as bin Laden to many Muslims was not a ”terrorist.” And, so, a war on terror and terrorists was bound to fail, just as the war on communism and communists in Vietnam was bound to fail.

 

                  No doubt this will sound strange to most people. But the longer you look at politics, the stranger the world becomes. For example, why is it that otherwise decent people are perfectly willing to engage in or support what have to be described as indecent, even savage acts? Why did decent, god-fearing Brits, for example, support the brutality that took place in Kenya in the 1950s? Why is it that decent, god-fearing Americans supported slavery and wars against indigenous people? How can such duplicities coexist and do so frequently? Is such duplicity intrinsic to the political? Considered empirically, that would seem to be the case.

 

                  In order to hide such duplicity, cover stories are needed, just as they are needed to hide the duplicitous character of the actions of government agencies and officials. American elites wanted to make war in Vietnam, to demonstrate their power there, and they needed cover stories which took different forms, e.g., anti-Communism or the domino theory. As Prouty pointed out with regard to the Pentagon, America elites could not say why they were making war Vietnam and, so, when they were forced to say something, they lied. Although deadly and destructive, this was merely normal political behavior. In fact, it was so normal that some politicians, like Ronald Reagan, did not even know they were lying. They believed their lies, which is more frightening than being bald-faced liars.

 

                  Truth-telliing plays no role in government and politics. Political success, such as it is, is impossible without duplicity, without lies, without making the truth disappear. And, so, those who speak the truth are subversives, are intrinsically and always enemies of the state, enemies of the establishment. Hence, Socrates’ fate, which he accepted and even counseled others to accept, e.g., Crito. Insofar as duplicity is intrinsic to the political, there is no way out, which Socrates recognized. Unless he lied, he knew he would be found guilty – because, truth be told, from a political viewpoint he was. And Socrates always sought and told the truth.

Why Presidents Cannot Just Say No

 

Why Presidents Cannot Just Say No

Peter Schultz

 

                  Nothing should be more suspect than action.

 

                  “When [the] country … enters the … world of covert operations, it creates a national Frankenstein … [so] that major factions within the Government do not know how something happened, who authorized it, and why it was done. The system begins to run itself from the moment of data input…. From the agents’ first bit of information … everything [happens] out of response-mechanisms to the [threat]. Therefore, the system must do something…. Nowhere [is] there anything built in to say ‘Stop’.” [The Secret Team, Prouty, 209-210]

 

                  JFK, in the runup to the Bay of Pigs invasion, abandoned the National Security Council [NSC] and “He allowed himself and his principal advisers to be made captives of the proponents of the plan.” Secrecy made deliberations “within the … NSC system” impossible – which is what the CIA and plan’s proponents were counting on.

 

                  And this is what “the single vision” finds desirable and is reflected by Hamilton’s praise for “energy in the executive” as the leading character of good government. Action, not deliberation, is thought to be the key to good government. And secrecy serves action while sacrificing deliberation or by sacrificing deliberation. “In the area of covert operations it is especially important to have someone of high authority in the position to say ‘No…’” The presidency, which was built for action, for “energy,” is not such an authority.

 

                  Left up to presidents, final decisions will rarely be “No.” Presidents should, it is commonly thought, be strong, should act with “secrecy and dispatch,” as Hamilton put in the Federalist. And, so, Trump’s Venezuelan war is unsurprising, as was Obama’s Afghan war, as was Bush’s Iraq war, as were Nixon’s, LBJ’s, and JFK’s Vietnam wars. Presidents rarely “Just Say No.” [Possible exceptions: JFK’s actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis and his call for introspection and reflection in his American University address.]

Incompetence and Politics

 

Incompetence and Politics

Peter Schultz

 

                  John Paul Vann, a leading figure during the Vietnam War who dissented from the conventional wisdom regarding that war, proposed that the Americans, if they took over the war, could reform the Vietnamese military, thereby winning that war.

 

                  But what if it was the Americans and their incompetence that was losing that war? So, instead of the conventional wisdom being that “the war couldn’t be won,” the truth would be that “the Americans couldn’t win the war” because of their incompetence, an incompetence hidden behind the humongous, overwhelmingly powerful national security state of the United States.

 

                  A common thought is that progress and incompetence are incompatible, that progress is proof of competence. But what if, for example, the development of the United States into the powerful and prosperous nation it has become serves to hide an intrinsic incompetence among US elites? By this view, the existence of slavery in the United States contributed to development of the United States into a great nation, as well as hiding the incompetence that accompanied the development of that greatness. Perhaps progress and incompetence often go hand-in-hand, and, thanks in large part to slavery, the US progressed despite its incompetence.

 

                  By this view, incompetence is a key variable of American politics. So, because this phenomenon must be hidden, duplicity becomes the coin of the realm, so to speak. And centrality of incompetence appears repeatedly, for example, in Vietnam, on 9/11, in Bush’s invasion of Iraq, in Obama’s war in Afghanistan, in Cuba, Libya, Ukraine, as well as in systemic failures such as mass incarceration, the immigration crisis, the border crisis, and repeated economic failures.

 

                  Could It be that incompetence is more pronounced, more important in the political arena than, say, corruption? Could it be more important, more decisive than, say, venality? In fact, could it be that focusing on venality is a way of hiding the incompetence, the intrinsic incompetence of our elites? And insofar as that incompetence is due to the ignorance of our elites, it cuts deeper into their claims that they are legitimate rulers because ignorance, when unrecognized, is easily hidden behind claims of expertise, moral decency, or patriotic fervor. The war in Vietnam was waged by a US military that relied on large amounts of “intelligence” or data about their war, as well as claims of being fervent US patriots. Under these claims of data-driven expertise and of being committed patriots, the incompetence of the military and political elites pretty much disappeared. Even the Pentagon Papers focused on the duplicity of these elites without indicating that that duplicity was covering up a pervasive incompetence. Perhaps then it would be advisable to focus not so much on “the character issue,” as on “the incompetence issue.” Incompetent experts and incompetent patriots are problematic in ways that overwhelming power cannot offset.  

What Was the Vietnam War?

 

What Was the Vietnam War?

Peter Schultz

 

                  What was the Vietnam War? Was it a “mistake” or was it a “culmination?’ That is, was it an aberration that could be blamed on certain personalities or certain theories, such as “the domino theory?” Or was it the culmination of decades of American foreign policy that was traceable to the most basic features of the American political order? How you answer this question goes a long way to explaining how you understand politics and the political.

 

                  Many, maybe even most people like to think that the Vietnam War and America’s other wars, e.g., in Iraq or Afghanistan, were distinct or peculiar events best understood by experts who have studied them. But what if the Vietnam War – and other wars – were integral to the most basic features of the American political order, what might be called America’s “regime?” As such intrinsic events, changing personnel, either partisans or bureaucratic, would not change them, except perhaps marginally. Even those with pacifistic tendencies would, if they acquired power, find themselves driven toward war because that is what the regime needed and facilitated. There would be no “Vietnam syndrome,” that is, no syndrome peculiar to the Vietnam War. Insofar as there were syndromes, they would more appropriately be labelled “American syndromes”, and they could not be dealt with unless the basic political order was changed. And such changes would require being radical, that is, going to the roots of the established order. Changing presidents or changing policies would be of very little usefulness in rearranging the established order in the United States.

 

                  Such radicalism will rarely prevail because, well, because it is radical and, as such, would be opposed by the most prominent, most authoritative, and most powerful components of the established order. Those who are empowered and honored by the established order are unlikely to see the need or have any desire for changing it. After all, it worked for them, identifying them as being the most virtuous Americans. They were successful. As such, they would be identified as “the best and the brightest.” That is, they are the best that the established order has to offer.

 

                  But, ironically, by electing, honoring, and empowering the best and the brightest, the failures of established order would be not only maintained but fortified. And these failures would need to be covered over, hidden, disappeared. A politics of duplicity will be necessary and would become the coin of the realm, so to speak.

 

Regarding the Vietnam War, JFK practiced duplicity to try to end America’s war there, while LBJ practiced duplicity to make the war there an American war. And Nixon practiced duplicity for four years in order to achieve “peace with honor” and end America’s involvement there, at the cost of more than 20,000 American soldiers and over at least several hundred thousand Vietnamese. And for that deadly duplicity, Henry Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and Nixon was reelected in one of the greatest landslides in American history. Both achieved, at least temporarily, greatness and the established order was maintained and fortified. Ironically, however, that meant that more “Vietnams” were guaranteed, as indeed has proven to be the case.

 

And so it goes. While mistakes were made by the United States that contributed to its embrace of war in Vietnam, General Giap was more correct when he asserted it was America’s imperialism that led to its tragedy in Vietnam.

The Trial of Oliver North

 

The Trial of Oliver North

Peter Schultz

 

                  It is important to understand how the trial of Oliver North, and others, were part of a cover up regarding Iran-Contra. But it is important to understand that what was being covered up was that the default position, so to speak, of politics and government is failure. This is always what needs to be covered up. And turning politicians and bureaucrats (both civilian and military) into criminals serves that cause. How and why? At least two reasons.

 

                  Criminals like North can claim, quite truthfully, that they were well-intentioned. This is what North did, turning himself into a hero when he testified before Congress. But in fact, almost all criminals are well-intentioned insofar as, ala’ Tony Soprano or Michael Corleone, they do what they do for their own well-being and the well-being of their families and their friends. Malcolm Little, as small-time hood, was a better American, seeking status, wealth, and some excitement, than he was after he became Malcolm X, black revolutionary seeking to change American politics and society.

 

                  In the movie, Traffic, there is a revealing scene where the father and the boyfriend are looking for the father’s daughter in the ghetto. The father remarks how shocking life is in the ghetto, but the boyfriend shuts him up by pointing out that the social and economic order worked quite well for those involved, so well that if it were transported to the father’s toney neighborhood, young people would adopt it readily, and give up “going to law school” and other such endeavors. In other words, ghetto youths and wealthy youths are not all that different as they have the same motivations, the same intentions and, so, their alleged differences are not real. They are contrived to justify a War on Drugs.

 

                  Secondly, criminals are arrested, charged, and tried for certain activities, which means that they actually did somethings, did them successfully. Their actions are criminal, but they accomplished things, e.g., they built Las Vegas, they created vast and immensely wealthy drug cartels composed of huge economies and powerful players. Being a criminal means being competent. Whereas Reagan, North, Bush, et. al., were, as politicians, incompetent as they achieved via Iran Contra virtually nothing. Charging or treating them as criminals hides their incompetence, their failures.

 

                  So, politicians and bureaucrats must practice deception in order to hide their incompetence. But, more importantly, they must practice deception to hide the fact that failure is the default position of politics and government. Why is that so? Because the political arena is composed of the real and the contrived, of the real and the fantastical, of the real and the illusionary.

 

                  Take the War on Drugs: The drugs are real, but the dealers and users are not real. That is, they are real people, but they are not the people we think they are. As Traffic illustrates, the users are members of our own families and, so, as Michael Douglas’s character says when he quits being drug czar, a war on drugs is actually a war on our families and he didn’t want or know how to do that.

 

                  Or consider the war in Vietnam. Vietnam was real but South Vietnam was not. It was not a real country with a real government or a real army. South Vietnam was an American fantasy, an illusion, which led American elites to be delusional, cruelly delusional.

 

                  When you deal in illusions, you are bound to fail or to make things worse. It is difficult to call the Vietnam war “pro-American” because it left the United States demoralized and weaker militarily and economically than it had been before the US took over the war. Ditto the War on Drugs, which led to a war on families and to mass incarceration, which gave the United States to one of the largest prison populations, per capita, on the planet. If that’s success, it is a strange definition of success. It certainly should not be described as “pro-American.”

 

                  And how was the Vietnam war “anti-Communist” when the North Vietnamese economy actually grew during the American bombing campaigns? Moreover, the war solidified the relations between the Vietnamese, the Russians, and the Chinese, thereby unifying the Communist “world.” And the Chinese and the Russians sacrificed exactly zero soldiers in that war. Again, if that is considered successful “anti-Communism,” it is a strange definition of success.

 

                  These are the failures that need to be covered up. More importantly, the fact that failure is default position of the political, that failure in intrinsic to politics must be covered up. It would be quite significant if people realized that despite them thinking that ordinarily politics succeeds, the reverse was the case, viz., that politics and government ordinarily fail.

 

                  Consider two books in this regard: Why Empires Always Fail and Seeing Like a State. The former points out, with a wide-ranging history of empires, both ancient and recent, that empires always fail and always are based on and embrace inhuman cruelty. The latter points out that government projects almost never succeed and certainly don’t succeed without extraneous, i.e., unplanned measures occurring.

 

                  By criminalizing Ollie North, the establishment allowed him to successfully play the role of hero and to appear as something other than an incompetent, shallow Marine. And that, of course, is how we don’t want to think of our warrior Marines. It would be too revealing. But, more importantly, criminalizing North was a way to hide the fact that the default position of politics is failure. And this is, perhaps, the most important cover-up of all.