What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
How to Spot a Police
Spy
Is it the
guy who asks you after the meeting about how the antiwar movement
needs to get "serious" and asks you lots of questions
about terrorism and "fighting back"? Jennifer Van Bergen
reports, first-hand. Part
2 of our series on what really happened on 9/11/2001: the physics
of collapse, and how not to make a "pancake" by Manuel
Garcia, PLUS Engineer Pierre Sprey on why "controlled demolition"
theories are off target.What
you just missed, but can still get, in our last newsletter: Paul
Craig Roberts on the Collapse of America. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
In recent days, reports have begun to
appear in mainstream US media sources such as Time magazine
and the Los Angeles Times hinting at a new strategy on
Iraq from Washington. This strategy, which is scheduled to be
officially made public after the November Congressional elections,
is the product of a so-called bipartisan commission headed by
one of the Empire's old guard, James Baker III. Baker, who served
under Reagan, George Bush the Elder and helped to ensure the
younger Bush's ascendancy to the White House in the fraudulent
election of 2000, is one of those men in the circles of US power
that never goes away. Like Henry Kissinger, Baker is played
up in the mainstream media as a wise man, whose voice of reason
is always welcome. Of course, reason and wisdom, like beauty,
is often in the eye of the beholder.
Clark Clifford was also such
a man. Never far from the men who made the decisions during
his adult life and always available for advice on how to keep
the empire intact, Mr. Clifford was called into service as an
advisor to Lyndon Baines Johnson(LBJ) in spring of 1968, not
long after the humiliating political defeat of US desires in
Vietnam during Tet 1968. Rather coincidentally, it seems, the
events of Tet 1968 have been brought up recently by none other
than George Bush himself in regards to the war in Iraq. Bush
noted similarities between the two events in a question-and-answer
session on October 18, 2006 when he was asked to comment on a
column written by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman
wherein Friedman made the comment that the current offensive
is the "jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive" in
Iraq. Ignoring the simplistic characterization of the resistance
for now, Friedman went on to say that although "It would
be depressing to see the jihadists influence our politics with
a Tet-like media/war frenzy," the fact is that fewer and
fewer US residents are convinced that a continued US military
presence in Iraq is doing any good. In typical fashion, Friedman
is not calling for withdrawal, but he's not urging a continuation
of the occupation, either. He's just not taking a stand.
Anyhow, back to the wise men
Clifford and Baker. In the spring of 1968, LBJ met with generals,
advisors other than Clifford, and Clifford himself. The topic
was what to do about Vietnam? There were those at the table
who were convinced that another large increase in US troop numbers
and bombing raids could win the war. In addition, these men--generals
and civilians alike--urged Johnson to give the go ahead for the
commander of US forces in Vietnam, General Westmoreland, to invade
Laos and Cambodia in order to destroy enemy sanctuaries that
they believed existed in those countries. It was this group
of men who wanted a total victory and believed such an outcome
was still possible, the US public be damned.
Clark Clifford represented
the other group of advisors. This group still believed in the
rightness of the US mission in Vietnam, but felt that the cost
to the United States was too high to increase the military assault.
Already, the effects of the war were being felt on the economy
and the military was growing thin. There were simply no more
soldiers to send unless the number of men drafted was drastically
increased (at a time when there were already 500,000 GIs in Vietnam)
and no one wanted to extend tours of duty or forcibly return
GIs who had already served one tour in the war zone. In addition,
the US public was torn in two over the war and those opposing
the war were reaching a majority. The answer to this situation
from those advisors represented by Clifford was to change tactics.
What this meant on the ground was this: run a less aggressive
ground war, use bombing as leverage in negotiations, and begin
to negotiate with the NLF and Hanoi. These men felt that this
plan ran a better chance at keeping the US in Vietnam after hostilities
had ceased than the elusive chase for total victory would. It
would be months before elements of this strategy would begin
to be part of US Vietnam policy and years before US forces would
end their hostilities there. The inauguration of Richard Nixon
in January 1969 would actually temporarily expand the ground
war once again and US forces did eventually invade Cambodia in
May 1970--a move that (it could be argued) actually shortened
the war, thanks to the outbreak of rebellion across the nation
after the invasion was announced.
Today, we have James Baker
and his task force. According to news articles based on leaks
from the task force's report, its underlying assumption is that
Washington can no longer achieve its original goals in Iraq.
What this seems to mean is that the attempts to install "democracy"
in the country will be put aside. Instead, the new US goals
will be to achieve "stability" and set up a government
that can contain the forces aligned against US desires in the
region. Just like Clifford and his cohorts encouraged negotiation
with the NLF and Hanoi, Baker's commission is supposedly calling
for similar negotiations with Syria and Iran (although apparently
not with the resistance). To this end, one has to wonder about
the US involvement in spreading recent rumors that a military
coup is being planned in Baghdad. Indeed, one has to wonder
how much involvement the US has in the coup itself, if those
rumors are true. It's not like that would be unusual. History
proves that not only does the US have a history of supporting
and installing military governments in countries around the world,
it has played the major role in establishing the succession of
failed governments in Baghdad ever since it invaded in 2003.
If the debates of 1968 over
US policy in Vietnam have any relevance to today's situation
in Iraq, and I believe they do, than the most obvious aspect
of that relevance is in the arguments that are certain to occur
between those in the Bush administration who still believe a
total victory in Iraq is possible and those who think it's time
for another approach. One can be certain that those debates
will be as heated as any that occurred in LBJ's White House.
After all, Dick Cheney said as recently as October 19, 2006
that the only answer in Iraq is total victory. His nominal bos,
George W., reiterated the same phrase the following day, insisting
that he will stay the bloody course already embarked on. On
the other hand, if the fundamental objective of this whole Iraq
exploit was to gain and maintain control of the oil under that
nation's sands, then Mr. Cheney and his ultrahawks may have to
settle for something less, despite their lust.
For those in the US antiwar
movement, our fundamental task remains the same: immediate and
unconditional withdrawal of all US forces. There is no other
way to end this war except through total annihilation of the
majority of Iraq's people. However, as the recommendations of
the task force become common knowledge, we are certain to see
various Congresspeople and others in the circles of power that
have given hope to some of us back away from talk of any kind
of withdrawal, putting their hopes instead in one more ill-fated
plan to win. Indeed, that's part of the reason the task force
is bipartisan. The White House wants a veneer of consensus to
its goals--a veneer too many Democrats are only too willing to
provide.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
