Another “Failure?”
P. Schultz
November 15, 2014
Below is a
link sent to me by a friend to an article on Libya and the results of the
West’s “successful” overthrow of Gaddafi as the ruling tyrant of that nation.
It led me, once again, to think about the fact that what are labeled “failures”
are, quite often, not “failures” at all or are deliberate failures. And you
would think that with so many of these “failures” happening that others would
also begin to wonder, “Was that really a ‘failure,” that is, an outcome that
was not intended?
As one
reads about the history and course of the Vietnam War, for example, it is
impossible not to wonder, “Why?” That is, why did American politicians decide
to follow the French into Vietnam and then to undertake, after the French left
in defeat, their own war in that country? It wasn’t, as is so often said, a
case of the arrogance of ignorance, as tempting as that explanation is to
accept. There were more than enough people, even people with power, arguing
that such a war was bound to end badly. Moreover, there was enough “data” about
to convince almost anyone that this was or would be the case. So then, “Why?”
Well, for
me, part of the answer to this question deals with what might be called “the
quagmire of US politics.” No, not the “quagmire of Vietnam;” the quagmire of US
politics. People tend to forget that the 60s were a time of political upheaval
or, more precisely, of attempts at political upheaval. That is, the reigning
political order, the “regime,” was beginning to be attacked, by blacks, by
hippies, by college students/boomers, by what was labeled “the drug culture,”
by the “sexual revolution,” to name just some of the forces then arising. So,
the “establishment,” the political class – which comprises both Republican
and Democratic power brokers – took a stand and it took that stand in
Vietnam, among other places. [Chicago was another place the political class
took a stand, thank you very much, Mayor Daley. And, of course, there was also
Kent State and Jackson State.]
But also a
failure in Vietnam, especially a costly failure there, one that followed a good
deal of bloodshed, including of course a good deal of American blood being
shed, would send a message, viz.: “The Communists are dangerous, even existential,
enemies. Look at what they did in Vietnam, the murders, the tortures, and the
bloodshed. We in the “West” must be always on our guard, always vigilant,
always armed to the teeth. So let us not hear anything about dismantling ‘the
military-industrial complex’ we, the ruling class, built following World
War II. Such talk is naïve and even perhaps treasonous. Vietnam, even or
especially our ‘failure’ there proves it! There are no viable alternatives to
our way of doing politics and to try other ways would disrespect all those
brave young people who died in the rice paddies of Vietnam.”
So, not
only failure but a costly failure served the purposes of ruling class, a result
helped along by some of those who were dissenting. I mean the ruling class
would have probably paid Jane Fonda’s travel expenses to go to “North” Vietnam
given all the mileage they could reap from her adventure there. What more evidence was needed to illustrate
the “treasonous” character of those dissenting from the war? What more evidence
of the character of the dissenters was needed than the “riots” they perpetrated
in Chicago? Kent State and Jackson State? Yes, they were unfortunate events but
then not all that surprising given the treasonous character of those
dissenting. And, of course, such events only underlined how endangered our
political system was at that time. More bloodshed to illustrate the seriousness
of the situation.
I could go
on. For example, LBJ’s decision not seek re-election in order, allegedly, to
“work for peace.” Note well: A president, a man with the best of intentions,
driven from office by those dissenters; a president voluntarily giving up power
to work for peace it meant so much to him, while the “long haired creeps” were
in the streets of Chicago “rioting.” Another “failure” that was hardly a
“failure.”
So, when it
is asked, as it is in the attached article, “As the country spun
into chaos, violence, militia rule and anarchy as a direct result of the NATO
intervention, they exhibited no interest whatsoever in doing anything to arrest
or reverse that collapse. What happened to their deeply felt humanitarianism?
Where did it go?” the answer is: They did not do anything “to arrest or reverse
that collapse” because that collapse was the goal all along. That “failure” was
not a failure at all or, if it were, it was one that served and serves the
powers that be, that undergirds the ruling class and its power. Oh, Machiavelli
would be proud, not surprised but proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment