Thoughts on Bloom continued
March 13, 2010
Entry 4:
Bloom on music is, actually, quite humorous. Read this passage describing a 13 year old boy: “Picture a 13 year old boy sitting in the living room of his family home doing his math assignment while wearing his Walkman headphones or watching MTV. He enjoys the liberties hard won over the centuries by the alliance of philosophic genius and political heroism, consecrated by the blood of martyrs; he is provided with comfort and leisure by the most productive economy ever known to mankind; science has penetrated the secrets of nature in order to provide him with the marvelous, lifelike electronic sound and image reproduction he is enjoying. And in what does progress culminate? A pubescent child whose body throbs with orgasmic rhythms; whose feelings are made articulate in hymns of the joys of onanism or the killing of parents; whose ambition is to win fame and wealth in imitating the drag-queen who makes the music. In short, life is made into a nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbational fantasy.” [pp. 74-75]
One cannot help but wonder whose fantasy this is….It just might be Bloom’s. But Bloom then goes on to link up rock music to Marxism, to wit: “Abstracting from the capitalist element in which it flourishes, [the left] regard it [rock] as a people’s art, coming from beneath the bourgeoisie’s layers of cultural repression. Its antinomianism and its longing for a world without constraint might seem to be the clarion of the proletarian revolution, and Marxists certainly do see that rock music dissolves the beliefs and morals necessary for liberal society and would approve of it for that alone.” [p. 77-78] I can only say, “WOW! What flights of imagination take hold in even the minds of those who are among the most intelligent people available.” It would seem that national security requires that we regulate rock n’ roll music as it makes us vulnerable to the Marxists! Again, “WOW” comes to mind.
This reminds of a story I heard from an old friend, may he rest in peace, who had attended the University of Rhode Island after emigrating here from Great Britain. He had to take a course in hygiene at URI – it was required of all students – and in that course a professor who said that if someone masturbated 20 times a week they would go blind. Seriously!! This is the kind of bullshit we were subjected to in those “good old days” Bloom seems to miss so much. Anyway, my friend said he almost burst laughing as he imagined a young man who had masturbated 19 times by the time Saturday rolled around trying not to masturbate until he got to Sunday for fear he would go blind!
Moreover, there is a much better, less simplistic and fear mongering take on rock n’ roll in an essay Eldridge Cleaver in his book, Soul On Ice, entitled “Convalescence.” In that essay, Cleaver links up rock n’ roll with the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. the Board of Education arguing that rock was doing what the Court’s decision was meant to do, integrate America society. As Cleaver put it in his essay, a great advantage of rock n’ roll, which is of course just the white man’s version of R & B, is that it taught whites to “shake their asses again.” As Cleaver notes, whites once had this ability but had lost it over time and needed to learn it again. That is, whites had to relearn that they were bodies as well as “minds,” which lesson would bring them closer to blacks, who represented the body rather than the mind. Cleaver also argued that this lesson would render whites healthy once again by rendering them whole.
Of course, Cleaver did not know that rock was actually part of a Marxist and masturbatory plot to overthrow the United States and even Western Civilization. But then there are all kinds of things we can learn from Bloom, even if many of these things would be worthy of a Walt Disney.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Bloom and TV
3d Entry: March 12, 2010
pp. 58-59: Bloom on Television
“Nietzsche said the newspaper had replaced the prayer in the life of the modern bourgeois, meaning that the busy, the cheap, the ephemeral, has usurped all that remained of the eternal in his daily life. Now television has replaced the newspaper. “
Now, this is a favorite whipping boy of those who feel that our souls are endangered in ways never present before. But how persuasive is this? When the prayer was the center of a life, were human beings so much better? This is really little more than a sophisticated version of the argument: “Well, two kids watched Beavis and Butthead and they burned down a house so these two kids did the same thing!” First: two out of how many? It is never said. And Bloom seems to think that when TV did not exist and everyone was reading books, all was fine with the world. But it wasn’t and, in part, because not everyone was reading books and even if they were all would not be fine. I mean when I was young, I attended mass all the time and priests said the mass in Latin. But they also were abusing young children and being protected by the church. Is that because the mass was said in Latin? I doubt it. It was because some priests were pedophiles and others, for whatever reasons, sought to protect these pedophiles. Every day, in elementary school, a passage from the Bible was read over the loud speaker. Did that make us better or touch our souls? No, because no one was listening! No one, to speak candidly, gave a shit because whatever was being read did not and could not touch us. But it made grownups feel better so it was done. No harm was done but no good was done either.
Bloom is continually falling into the trap of thinking there was, once upon a time, a golden time – long ago in the past or, for him, just before the 60s, when everything went to hell – for Bloom. This is comical, if you think about it. Before the 60s and advent of TV, rock n’ roll, drugs, the New Left, the Black Power movement, the feminist movement, the gay and lesbian coming out party, all was well in the United States. Children respected their parents, who in turn really cared for their children, related to them in healthy ways, and the schools were putting out philosophers right and left. Funny, though, I don’t remember my childhood that way at all. In fact, I would say that when I went to college – and this was before the 60s really became the 60s – people, students were pretty much like they are now. Most were there because, well, because someone thought it was a good idea. They might even had learned a thing or two while there. But it was a good time and that is what most remember about those years.
I mean would anyone want to resurrect the music of the 50s? The movies of the 50s? The race relations of the 50s? The male/female relations of the 50s? Just watch the TV show “Madmen” to answer these questions. And, you see, you can learn from TV.
pp. 58-59: Bloom on Television
“Nietzsche said the newspaper had replaced the prayer in the life of the modern bourgeois, meaning that the busy, the cheap, the ephemeral, has usurped all that remained of the eternal in his daily life. Now television has replaced the newspaper. “
Now, this is a favorite whipping boy of those who feel that our souls are endangered in ways never present before. But how persuasive is this? When the prayer was the center of a life, were human beings so much better? This is really little more than a sophisticated version of the argument: “Well, two kids watched Beavis and Butthead and they burned down a house so these two kids did the same thing!” First: two out of how many? It is never said. And Bloom seems to think that when TV did not exist and everyone was reading books, all was fine with the world. But it wasn’t and, in part, because not everyone was reading books and even if they were all would not be fine. I mean when I was young, I attended mass all the time and priests said the mass in Latin. But they also were abusing young children and being protected by the church. Is that because the mass was said in Latin? I doubt it. It was because some priests were pedophiles and others, for whatever reasons, sought to protect these pedophiles. Every day, in elementary school, a passage from the Bible was read over the loud speaker. Did that make us better or touch our souls? No, because no one was listening! No one, to speak candidly, gave a shit because whatever was being read did not and could not touch us. But it made grownups feel better so it was done. No harm was done but no good was done either.
Bloom is continually falling into the trap of thinking there was, once upon a time, a golden time – long ago in the past or, for him, just before the 60s, when everything went to hell – for Bloom. This is comical, if you think about it. Before the 60s and advent of TV, rock n’ roll, drugs, the New Left, the Black Power movement, the feminist movement, the gay and lesbian coming out party, all was well in the United States. Children respected their parents, who in turn really cared for their children, related to them in healthy ways, and the schools were putting out philosophers right and left. Funny, though, I don’t remember my childhood that way at all. In fact, I would say that when I went to college – and this was before the 60s really became the 60s – people, students were pretty much like they are now. Most were there because, well, because someone thought it was a good idea. They might even had learned a thing or two while there. But it was a good time and that is what most remember about those years.
I mean would anyone want to resurrect the music of the 50s? The movies of the 50s? The race relations of the 50s? The male/female relations of the 50s? Just watch the TV show “Madmen” to answer these questions. And, you see, you can learn from TV.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Allan Bloom, "The Closing of the American Mind"
Although this book was published some time ago, I am now discussing it with two students, two of the best students at Assumption College, who have been reading it. They wanted a different perspective than they would get from other members of the Political Science Department who tend to think Bloom is the "cat's meow," as my folks use to say. So I thought I would post my musings here as they are relevant to politics in the United States even today. Which is why Bloom's book is a worthwhile book....as unpersuasive as it ultimately is.
Thoughts on Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind
P. Schultz
Various Times
Entry March 10, 2010:
Page 42: Blooms says that when he was young he had a debate with a psychology professor at Cornell who said that his job was “to get rid of prejudices in his students.” For Bloom, this is comparable to ridding the world of a belief in Santa Claus! Wow, does Bloom really think that getting rid of some prejudices – e.g., that of American “exceptionalism” – is as easy as debunking the myth of Santa Claus? If so, it seems to me that Bloom could have profited from studying some psychology. Perhaps the psychology professor shared some of Bloom’s apparent delusion. Bloom then goes to say that it was his job to instill prejudices in his students, although he does not here state what these prejudices might be. So let’s consider some possibililities.
Perhaps Bloom would like to instill in his students some racial prejudices, such as the superiority of whites to blacks or vice versa. Or perhaps Bloom would like to instill in his students some anti-Semitism. Or perhaps – and this seems most likely to me – he wants to instill his students the prejudice that the American way of “democracy” – which he seems to take for granted and assert without argument – is “exceptional” and that we United Statesians are or at least were an “exceptional people.”
But then there are these sentences, which are to say the least quite remarkable: “Think of all we learn about the world from men’s belief in Santa Clauses, and all that we learn about the soul from those who believe in them. By contrast, merely methodological excision from the soul of the imagination that projects Gods and heroes onto the wall of the cave does not promote knowledge of the soul; it only lobotomizes it, cripples its powers.” [p. 42]
Now what do these sentences mean? Seriously. Leave aside the rather simplistic reference to Santa Claus as the illustration of “prejudice” that infects men’s souls. Although it is hard to leave that aside, as noted above. Can this prejudice really instruct us about the soul? Other prejudices are far more deeply embedded in our souls, such as the superiority of the American way of life – the conviction of which and the strength of which was demonstrated after 9/11 for all to see. It was there to see before 9/11 but not all could see it. It was less visible and even Bloom missed it.
But do these sentences mean that our most important beliefs are merely “prejudices”? And if they are, is the cultivation of such prejudices beneficial for the soul? If this is the case, then it would seem that it is not so much the truth that feeds the soul as it is prejudice. Could this be what Bloom thinks? It is at least a possibility.
2d Entry: March 10, 2010:
P. 26: Bloom on confronting his “relativistic” students: “If I pose routine questions designed to confute them and make them think, such as, ‘If you had been a British administrator in India, would you have let the natives under your governance burn the widow at the funeral of a man who had died,’ they either remain silent or reply that the British should never have been there in the first place.”
Both responses are interesting in ways Bloom doesn’t appreciate. Some of those not responding are tuned into Bloom’s game, his desire to “confute” them and they don’t want to play. Others, sympathetic to Bloom’s agenda, also don’t answer because that confirms their previously arrived at conclusion that their classmates are relativists! “Oh, look, those relativists can’t answer Bloom’s question. Well, they certainly can’t be trusted with defending Western Civilization!” But the British, apparently, could, even if it meant, as it did, colonizing other human beings without their consent!
The second answer though is really interesting because (a) it is not relativistic. It is passing judgment on Britain’s imperialism and condemning that phenomenon. This is hardly “relativistic.” Imperialism, even white, Western imperialism is unjust and perhaps inhuman. But apparently Bloom cannot see this or, rather, chooses to ignore it.
(b) It is correcting Bloom by saying, “Hey man, you are asking the wrong question. The more important question is not how British administrators should behave in their colonies but whether they should have colonies at all! And your question just obscures the more important question.” Indeed, it does. And this raises a further question: Just whom is Bloom’s enemy? Is the relativists or those who have different values than Bloom, who have a different understanding of justice, say, than Bloom? This needs clarification because insofar as it is the latter, Bloom cannot get away with dismissing those he is criticizing without confronting, head on, their arguments about justice. That this is probably the case is strengthened by Bloom’s argument on page 33, where he distinguishes between the civil rights movement “in its early days” and “the Black Power movement.” Bloom argues that the latter “had at its core the view that the Constitutional tradition was always corrupt and was constructed as a defense of slavery. Its demand was for black identity, not universal rights.”
Well, as a matter of logic, the last two are not diametrically opposed. In fact, in the thought of Malcolm X they fit together very well: “Yes, don’t forget I am a man,” Malcolm might be thought of as saying. “But also remember that I am a black man! And that means something in the United States that it does not mean in Muslim countries.” Hence, Malcolm abandoned his slave name, “Little” and went with “X” to illustrate that he did know his “real” name because of the injustice of slavery. This is, again, hardly relativistic.
Moreover, Lincoln was gave a speech, “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” in which he said that the Constitution was defective, a thought Lincoln reiterated at Gettysburg when he called for “a new birth of freedom” because, apparently, the old one was defective or corrupt. So if Bloom wants to take on those who argued that the Constitution was corrupt from the outset, he has to take on Lincoln to say nothing of the Anti-Federalists.
Thoughts on Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind
P. Schultz
Various Times
Entry March 10, 2010:
Page 42: Blooms says that when he was young he had a debate with a psychology professor at Cornell who said that his job was “to get rid of prejudices in his students.” For Bloom, this is comparable to ridding the world of a belief in Santa Claus! Wow, does Bloom really think that getting rid of some prejudices – e.g., that of American “exceptionalism” – is as easy as debunking the myth of Santa Claus? If so, it seems to me that Bloom could have profited from studying some psychology. Perhaps the psychology professor shared some of Bloom’s apparent delusion. Bloom then goes to say that it was his job to instill prejudices in his students, although he does not here state what these prejudices might be. So let’s consider some possibililities.
Perhaps Bloom would like to instill in his students some racial prejudices, such as the superiority of whites to blacks or vice versa. Or perhaps Bloom would like to instill in his students some anti-Semitism. Or perhaps – and this seems most likely to me – he wants to instill his students the prejudice that the American way of “democracy” – which he seems to take for granted and assert without argument – is “exceptional” and that we United Statesians are or at least were an “exceptional people.”
But then there are these sentences, which are to say the least quite remarkable: “Think of all we learn about the world from men’s belief in Santa Clauses, and all that we learn about the soul from those who believe in them. By contrast, merely methodological excision from the soul of the imagination that projects Gods and heroes onto the wall of the cave does not promote knowledge of the soul; it only lobotomizes it, cripples its powers.” [p. 42]
Now what do these sentences mean? Seriously. Leave aside the rather simplistic reference to Santa Claus as the illustration of “prejudice” that infects men’s souls. Although it is hard to leave that aside, as noted above. Can this prejudice really instruct us about the soul? Other prejudices are far more deeply embedded in our souls, such as the superiority of the American way of life – the conviction of which and the strength of which was demonstrated after 9/11 for all to see. It was there to see before 9/11 but not all could see it. It was less visible and even Bloom missed it.
But do these sentences mean that our most important beliefs are merely “prejudices”? And if they are, is the cultivation of such prejudices beneficial for the soul? If this is the case, then it would seem that it is not so much the truth that feeds the soul as it is prejudice. Could this be what Bloom thinks? It is at least a possibility.
2d Entry: March 10, 2010:
P. 26: Bloom on confronting his “relativistic” students: “If I pose routine questions designed to confute them and make them think, such as, ‘If you had been a British administrator in India, would you have let the natives under your governance burn the widow at the funeral of a man who had died,’ they either remain silent or reply that the British should never have been there in the first place.”
Both responses are interesting in ways Bloom doesn’t appreciate. Some of those not responding are tuned into Bloom’s game, his desire to “confute” them and they don’t want to play. Others, sympathetic to Bloom’s agenda, also don’t answer because that confirms their previously arrived at conclusion that their classmates are relativists! “Oh, look, those relativists can’t answer Bloom’s question. Well, they certainly can’t be trusted with defending Western Civilization!” But the British, apparently, could, even if it meant, as it did, colonizing other human beings without their consent!
The second answer though is really interesting because (a) it is not relativistic. It is passing judgment on Britain’s imperialism and condemning that phenomenon. This is hardly “relativistic.” Imperialism, even white, Western imperialism is unjust and perhaps inhuman. But apparently Bloom cannot see this or, rather, chooses to ignore it.
(b) It is correcting Bloom by saying, “Hey man, you are asking the wrong question. The more important question is not how British administrators should behave in their colonies but whether they should have colonies at all! And your question just obscures the more important question.” Indeed, it does. And this raises a further question: Just whom is Bloom’s enemy? Is the relativists or those who have different values than Bloom, who have a different understanding of justice, say, than Bloom? This needs clarification because insofar as it is the latter, Bloom cannot get away with dismissing those he is criticizing without confronting, head on, their arguments about justice. That this is probably the case is strengthened by Bloom’s argument on page 33, where he distinguishes between the civil rights movement “in its early days” and “the Black Power movement.” Bloom argues that the latter “had at its core the view that the Constitutional tradition was always corrupt and was constructed as a defense of slavery. Its demand was for black identity, not universal rights.”
Well, as a matter of logic, the last two are not diametrically opposed. In fact, in the thought of Malcolm X they fit together very well: “Yes, don’t forget I am a man,” Malcolm might be thought of as saying. “But also remember that I am a black man! And that means something in the United States that it does not mean in Muslim countries.” Hence, Malcolm abandoned his slave name, “Little” and went with “X” to illustrate that he did know his “real” name because of the injustice of slavery. This is, again, hardly relativistic.
Moreover, Lincoln was gave a speech, “On the Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” in which he said that the Constitution was defective, a thought Lincoln reiterated at Gettysburg when he called for “a new birth of freedom” because, apparently, the old one was defective or corrupt. So if Bloom wants to take on those who argued that the Constitution was corrupt from the outset, he has to take on Lincoln to say nothing of the Anti-Federalists.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Afghanistan and "Women"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/asia/07women.html?ref=world
This is a link to an article in the New York Times, Sunday, March 7, 2010 about what is being called the latest experiment by our military in Afghanistan. The plan is to send women Marines in with men Marines so the women can talk with Afghani women in order to gather "information." Of course, publicly, the emphasis is on information and not "intel" but stuff about the Taliban is more than welcome. Now it is worthwhile to think about this for a few minutes.
First: Can you imagine what would happen if someone, some politician, were to criticize this "experiment" as foolish? It would, in all probability, be interpreted as sexist, as an attack on using women to help "win hearts and minds."
Second: Try to imagine how bureaucrats will try to assess the success of this experiment. Of course, they have to do so quantitatively or by the numbers so they would count the number of "interactions" and the number of times these "interactions" were successful in gathering "usable intel." And, moreover, as this is an experiment conducted by the military and assessed by the military the resulting "progess reports" will find "progress." As noted before here, that is what "progress reports" are meant to show, "Progress!"
Third: Imagine the hubris involved in thinking that we can pluck a few women - or men for that matter - out of American culture and put them down in Afghanistan so that they can "relate" to the Afghani women after a few hours of "training." Do you need proof that we Americans think there is a "method" or "program" to solve every problem? Well, this is it. "Yeah, that should work. American women who don't even know the language of those to whom they speaking [well, not really as an interpreter is required] to say nothing of knowing absolutely nothing about the local situation are going to be able win over the confidence of these Afghani women, win their 'hearts and minds.' By the gods, do we really think that these women are so desperate, desperate housewives, so to speak, that they will flock to interact with these foreigners?" Doesn't seem likely, does it?
Now if you were going to have these women actually live, side by side, with the Afghani women for relatively long periods of time, that might work. "Might work..." But of course this is not the plan. Send in the troops, send in a few women with them, and the Afghanis will see we are really on their side! This is about as foolish as dropping food packages after you have bombed people to demonstrate that you are really their side! Yeah, that would work for me. Bomb my neighborhood and then drop food and I would rally to your side!! NOT SO MUCH.
This is a link to an article in the New York Times, Sunday, March 7, 2010 about what is being called the latest experiment by our military in Afghanistan. The plan is to send women Marines in with men Marines so the women can talk with Afghani women in order to gather "information." Of course, publicly, the emphasis is on information and not "intel" but stuff about the Taliban is more than welcome. Now it is worthwhile to think about this for a few minutes.
First: Can you imagine what would happen if someone, some politician, were to criticize this "experiment" as foolish? It would, in all probability, be interpreted as sexist, as an attack on using women to help "win hearts and minds."
Second: Try to imagine how bureaucrats will try to assess the success of this experiment. Of course, they have to do so quantitatively or by the numbers so they would count the number of "interactions" and the number of times these "interactions" were successful in gathering "usable intel." And, moreover, as this is an experiment conducted by the military and assessed by the military the resulting "progess reports" will find "progress." As noted before here, that is what "progress reports" are meant to show, "Progress!"
Third: Imagine the hubris involved in thinking that we can pluck a few women - or men for that matter - out of American culture and put them down in Afghanistan so that they can "relate" to the Afghani women after a few hours of "training." Do you need proof that we Americans think there is a "method" or "program" to solve every problem? Well, this is it. "Yeah, that should work. American women who don't even know the language of those to whom they speaking [well, not really as an interpreter is required] to say nothing of knowing absolutely nothing about the local situation are going to be able win over the confidence of these Afghani women, win their 'hearts and minds.' By the gods, do we really think that these women are so desperate, desperate housewives, so to speak, that they will flock to interact with these foreigners?" Doesn't seem likely, does it?
Now if you were going to have these women actually live, side by side, with the Afghani women for relatively long periods of time, that might work. "Might work..." But of course this is not the plan. Send in the troops, send in a few women with them, and the Afghanis will see we are really on their side! This is about as foolish as dropping food packages after you have bombed people to demonstrate that you are really their side! Yeah, that would work for me. Bomb my neighborhood and then drop food and I would rally to your side!! NOT SO MUCH.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Corson continued
[Before Corson, on the advice of a friend I am reading a book entitled "The Imperial Cruise" by James Bradley. It is an eye-opener about the US, during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, entering into the Pacific and Asia. Actually, the entry preceded Teddy somewhat, e.g., with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in order to allow the Dole family and other whites to control the sugar industry in Hawaii. What is amazing is the racism that underlay our entry into Asia and especially our taking over of the Philippines in order to "civilize" the natives there because they were obviously unfit for self-government. Massacres and torture, including water boarding, were common to the US efforts to Americanize or civilize the Filipinos. Perhaps more on this later.]
What Corson knew was that the faith conventional types put in "methods" was misplaced. That is, it is an article of faith, deeply ingrained in us, a indelible part of our psyches, that there are methods that can be used to solve our "problems." For example, there was the theory of "modernization" which was all the rage in the 60s and 70s in academe and government, by which method we could be able to bring "3d world" countries into the "1st World." Of course, today there is a new method by which the world will be improved; it is called "globalization." This is the "new" method by which the benefits of commercialism will be spread throughout the world, even somewhat equally.
Of course, in Vietnam as in Afghanistan today, there were methods that would "work." There was "search and destroy" on the military side and "pacification" on the non-military side. These were the methods that would "work" and by which we would "conquer" and change Vietnam, for its own good of course. It is important to underscore the significance of such beliefs, of this common belief in the overpowering character of methods, so as to understand those persecuting the war as they understood themselves. They did not see themselves as engaging in inhuman activities because they were, in their own minds, just doing what "the method" required. This is why Robert Strange McNamara - his real full name - never could think of himself as a "war criminal" or even as an "imperialist." He was in his own mind merely a functionary who was following "the method" he had learned. He bore the Vietnamese no ill will and he functioned, in his own mind, without any malice aforethought.
What makes Corson's book so interesting is that he rejected this faith in "the method" or, more generally, in "methods." Corson knew that there was no method by which the US could "win hearts and minds." He knew that there was only one way to go and that was to be with the Vietnamese, that is, the ordinary Vietnamese, living with them, living like them, and even dying with them when necessary. One of his strokes of genius was to have his men learn to play a game that the Vietnamese played all the time, a game that sounds like a form of checkers. Now can you see a bureaucrat trying to "methodize" this activity? Can you see a bureaucrat trying to come up with a way to measure the success of such activity? It cannot be done. So the bureaucrats do what they can and that makes them the prisoners of their own delusions. They will count how many Vietnamese were "relocated" - read "forced to leave their homes and their fields of rice" - because this is something that can be "methodized" and counted. Bureaucrats will count the number of elections held and the number of voters because they can count those things. But they cannot measure in any realistic way the impact of playing an indigenous game on the Vietnamese. What Corson knew or learned in Vietnam is that a bureaucratic mindset is obfuscating, not enlightening, that it does not undermine but rather supports the delusions of those in power. It is often said - untruthfully by the way - that the Americans won all the battles in Vietnam but still lost the war. But this delusional, pure and simple. Obviously, the Americans were not "winning" the battles; they just thought they were "winning." Just as we think we have won in Marja, in Afghanistan, so too we thought we had "won" at Khe San and so many other places in Vietnam. As the Vietnamese commander says near the end of the movie, "We Were Soldiers Once": "The Americans will think they have won this battle and the war will go on longer but the outcome will be the same." Yes, it would and it did.
What Corson knew was that the faith conventional types put in "methods" was misplaced. That is, it is an article of faith, deeply ingrained in us, a indelible part of our psyches, that there are methods that can be used to solve our "problems." For example, there was the theory of "modernization" which was all the rage in the 60s and 70s in academe and government, by which method we could be able to bring "3d world" countries into the "1st World." Of course, today there is a new method by which the world will be improved; it is called "globalization." This is the "new" method by which the benefits of commercialism will be spread throughout the world, even somewhat equally.
Of course, in Vietnam as in Afghanistan today, there were methods that would "work." There was "search and destroy" on the military side and "pacification" on the non-military side. These were the methods that would "work" and by which we would "conquer" and change Vietnam, for its own good of course. It is important to underscore the significance of such beliefs, of this common belief in the overpowering character of methods, so as to understand those persecuting the war as they understood themselves. They did not see themselves as engaging in inhuman activities because they were, in their own minds, just doing what "the method" required. This is why Robert Strange McNamara - his real full name - never could think of himself as a "war criminal" or even as an "imperialist." He was in his own mind merely a functionary who was following "the method" he had learned. He bore the Vietnamese no ill will and he functioned, in his own mind, without any malice aforethought.
What makes Corson's book so interesting is that he rejected this faith in "the method" or, more generally, in "methods." Corson knew that there was no method by which the US could "win hearts and minds." He knew that there was only one way to go and that was to be with the Vietnamese, that is, the ordinary Vietnamese, living with them, living like them, and even dying with them when necessary. One of his strokes of genius was to have his men learn to play a game that the Vietnamese played all the time, a game that sounds like a form of checkers. Now can you see a bureaucrat trying to "methodize" this activity? Can you see a bureaucrat trying to come up with a way to measure the success of such activity? It cannot be done. So the bureaucrats do what they can and that makes them the prisoners of their own delusions. They will count how many Vietnamese were "relocated" - read "forced to leave their homes and their fields of rice" - because this is something that can be "methodized" and counted. Bureaucrats will count the number of elections held and the number of voters because they can count those things. But they cannot measure in any realistic way the impact of playing an indigenous game on the Vietnamese. What Corson knew or learned in Vietnam is that a bureaucratic mindset is obfuscating, not enlightening, that it does not undermine but rather supports the delusions of those in power. It is often said - untruthfully by the way - that the Americans won all the battles in Vietnam but still lost the war. But this delusional, pure and simple. Obviously, the Americans were not "winning" the battles; they just thought they were "winning." Just as we think we have won in Marja, in Afghanistan, so too we thought we had "won" at Khe San and so many other places in Vietnam. As the Vietnamese commander says near the end of the movie, "We Were Soldiers Once": "The Americans will think they have won this battle and the war will go on longer but the outcome will be the same." Yes, it would and it did.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
More From Corson
Here are some more interesting arguments made by William Corson in his book, "Betrayal," which I cited in my last post. Corson manages to put our options in Vietnam in a wholly new light. He thinks, or at least seems to think, that by exercising these options we could have won the war there. I am not so sure but at least Corson shows that he can think independently. For example, he criticizes the way the political system characterized our options as either (a) escalate the conflict or (b) pull out. Or as Corson puts it, both sides in the debate over Vietnam viewed the choice as either "to stay" or "not to stay." Hawks or doves, that was, allegedly, our choice. In one chapter in "Betrayal," which is entitled "Birdwatching in Vietnam," Corson enumerates and then elaborates on the many different kinds of birds one can see in Nam, to wit: vultures, parrots, woodpeckers, magpies, dodos, owls, falcons, hummingbirds, and peacocks. This is good stuff. But here is another paragraph from Corson which sheds a light on the situation in Nam that, to my knowledge, no one and certainly no one in power had ever seen.
"Central to this action [withdrawing our total sanction of the GVN, the Government of Viet Nam] is the fact that the general officers of the ARVN are (1) not competent to lead their forces and (2) are considered by the able fighting men to be 'turncoats' an opportunists. The second reason is the key, but it has been ignored by our leadership ever since we have been in Vietnam. Consider if you will how the leaders of George Washington's Continental Army would have reacted if after the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War the junior officers who served under the British commander, General Cornwallis, had been appointed generals in the new United States Army. That is what happened in Vietnam. Every general officer in the ARVN either served on the side of the French in the Vietminh war or sat out the war in a French university. The highest ranking officer in the ARVN who fought against the French is a colonel. More to the point is the fact that seven out of eight of the elite ARVN battalions [Rangers, Airborne, and Marines, etc.] are commanded by officers who did fight the French - and in many cases they then held ranks two or three grades above the rank they currently hold in the ARVN.
"The ARVN officers who fought on the side of the Vietminh are an interesting breed of cat. As a group they are ascetics among whores....These men have refused, as a matter of principle, to participate in the 'take.'" [pp. 278-79]
Corson looked at Vietnam through the lens of Vietnam, not through the lens of an ideologically focused anti-communism or nation-building. I wonder if anyone is doing this in Afghanistan today, where it seems that once again escalation or non-escalation are the only two choices we are told are available.
"Central to this action [withdrawing our total sanction of the GVN, the Government of Viet Nam] is the fact that the general officers of the ARVN are (1) not competent to lead their forces and (2) are considered by the able fighting men to be 'turncoats' an opportunists. The second reason is the key, but it has been ignored by our leadership ever since we have been in Vietnam. Consider if you will how the leaders of George Washington's Continental Army would have reacted if after the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War the junior officers who served under the British commander, General Cornwallis, had been appointed generals in the new United States Army. That is what happened in Vietnam. Every general officer in the ARVN either served on the side of the French in the Vietminh war or sat out the war in a French university. The highest ranking officer in the ARVN who fought against the French is a colonel. More to the point is the fact that seven out of eight of the elite ARVN battalions [Rangers, Airborne, and Marines, etc.] are commanded by officers who did fight the French - and in many cases they then held ranks two or three grades above the rank they currently hold in the ARVN.
"The ARVN officers who fought on the side of the Vietminh are an interesting breed of cat. As a group they are ascetics among whores....These men have refused, as a matter of principle, to participate in the 'take.'" [pp. 278-79]
Corson looked at Vietnam through the lens of Vietnam, not through the lens of an ideologically focused anti-communism or nation-building. I wonder if anyone is doing this in Afghanistan today, where it seems that once again escalation or non-escalation are the only two choices we are told are available.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Betrayal
Discovery, discovery!! I have uncovered a marvelous book on VietNam entitled "Betrayal" by William R. Corson, who was a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps and was in charge of what is called "the Other War" in Nam, that is, pacification. Colonel Corson retired from the Marine Corps right before his book was published, which is understandable after you have read the book, which is an indictment of how the United States fought both "the War" and "the Other War." Let me just quote at length some passages here, reminding the reader that this book was published in 1968 and therefore written before that. For those who may not know, this was about the time LBJ decided he could not run for reelection because of the war and was the time that US "involvement" in Nam was nearing its peak in terms of men stationed there.
"From the American and Vietnamese point of view what may we reasonably expect if the hawks have their way and there is a massive escalation of the war? The American and Vietnamese people are not going to gain a thing; in fact, they - not the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong - are going to lose all. Bigger and bigger 'victories' will not only hasten the total destruction of South Vietnamese society, but at some time in the future the quest for victory will produce a grievous military defeat for American forces." [p. 286]
"Probably by the time this book reaches print the American eagle will be walking in the mud. The enemy is just a short step away from introducing heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles, and when that happens the helicopter will be shot out of the sky. The contest between our forces and the enemy has been like a bull fight. Slowly but surely they are wearing us down to where we must fight on their ground and on their terms, and when they succeed we will suffer a military defeat. The Westmoreland/JCS answer to the basic deficiency is more troops. All more troops will do is to put off the final reckoning - but not eliminate it.
"General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese Defense Minister, has said that when the United States has a million men in South Vietnam, North Vietnam will have won the war. Giap's meaning is clear. The presence and the actions of one million US troops will destroy what is left of South Vietnam. The people will finally withdraw what little support still remains for our efforts and the cold, naked brutality of our messianic anti-communism will be exposed. The foretaste of things to come with more escalation was revealed in all of its horrendous irrationality at the city of Ben Tre during the Tet offensive. The American spokesman said, 'We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.' This is the language of madness, a madness which if allowed to continue will destroy not only the people of Vietnam, but also the moral fabric and strength of America." [p. 289]
What makes Corson's book so interesting is that he does not think that the only option was to pull out of Nam, although that was one option. He argues that the government, our government, frequently sets up policies with an "either/or" framework, even though other options exist. Corson talks about these other options in his book and they seem to make sense. What makes the book valuable is the same thing that makes it relevant today when we are "engaged" in Iraq and Afghanistan. It left me wondering what other options we have today that are just dismissed because they don't fit into, say, a bureaucratic model of government and war-making. But anyway, this is a book worth reading.
"From the American and Vietnamese point of view what may we reasonably expect if the hawks have their way and there is a massive escalation of the war? The American and Vietnamese people are not going to gain a thing; in fact, they - not the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong - are going to lose all. Bigger and bigger 'victories' will not only hasten the total destruction of South Vietnamese society, but at some time in the future the quest for victory will produce a grievous military defeat for American forces." [p. 286]
"Probably by the time this book reaches print the American eagle will be walking in the mud. The enemy is just a short step away from introducing heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles, and when that happens the helicopter will be shot out of the sky. The contest between our forces and the enemy has been like a bull fight. Slowly but surely they are wearing us down to where we must fight on their ground and on their terms, and when they succeed we will suffer a military defeat. The Westmoreland/JCS answer to the basic deficiency is more troops. All more troops will do is to put off the final reckoning - but not eliminate it.
"General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese Defense Minister, has said that when the United States has a million men in South Vietnam, North Vietnam will have won the war. Giap's meaning is clear. The presence and the actions of one million US troops will destroy what is left of South Vietnam. The people will finally withdraw what little support still remains for our efforts and the cold, naked brutality of our messianic anti-communism will be exposed. The foretaste of things to come with more escalation was revealed in all of its horrendous irrationality at the city of Ben Tre during the Tet offensive. The American spokesman said, 'We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.' This is the language of madness, a madness which if allowed to continue will destroy not only the people of Vietnam, but also the moral fabric and strength of America." [p. 289]
What makes Corson's book so interesting is that he does not think that the only option was to pull out of Nam, although that was one option. He argues that the government, our government, frequently sets up policies with an "either/or" framework, even though other options exist. Corson talks about these other options in his book and they seem to make sense. What makes the book valuable is the same thing that makes it relevant today when we are "engaged" in Iraq and Afghanistan. It left me wondering what other options we have today that are just dismissed because they don't fit into, say, a bureaucratic model of government and war-making. But anyway, this is a book worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)