The Vietnam Syndrome Revisited
In the 1980's, activists produced a button that read "El Salvador
is Spanish for Vietnam." Although it provided a punchy reminder of a
bloody conflict, the comparison was inappropriate. While the US was
supporting a repressive regime against a leftist insurgency, it
committed little in the way of troops; moreover, unlike Vietnam, the
US was successful in containing the insurgency. So much so that the
former guerillas have largely been integrated into the political
process.
However, in Iraq, the comparison has a better fit: A war started
under dubious circumstances (Gulf of Tonkin incident vs. Weapons of
Mass Destruction); involving regime change (the assassination of Diem
vs. the overthrow of Saddam Hussein); and a gaping sinkhole of money,
troops and resources with no end in sight (the aftermath of the Tet
offensive vs. the Iraqi Intafada). Small wonder then, that the issue
should provide such a focal point in the US presidential race.
George W. Bush famously avoided Vietnam by finding a berth in the
Texas National Guard. Many of the Republican leaders such as John
Ashcroft and Dick Cheney also avoided service in Vietnam. So, it came
as no surprise when John Kerry, who not only served but was also
decorated in the war, made this a central point of his campaign. (A
decision he has come to regret since he obviously underestimated the
Republican slander machine). Yet, while Kerry came to oppose the war
after his return, he seems to have little difference with Bush today;
other than saying he would have conducted the war better (a more
efficient war?).
And yet, many on the left see Kerry as at least a lesser evil. In
the last two issues of Left
Business Observer, Doug Henwood has editorialized about the need
to support Kerry ("until November 2). Likewise "anarchist" professor
Noam Chomsky who continues to use the analogy of expanding the cage
to support imperialist politicians. The argument is reminiscent of
the International Socialists perennial election slogan "Vote
[insert pseudo-left candidate here] with no illusions." Ah,
but only people voting have illusions.
Likewise in Iraq, where ostensible leftists, feeling they have
little power to effect change, have opted to support the Iraqi
Intafada in the name self-determination or opposing imperialism. The
partisans of the Intafada are clearly opposed to the US presence in
Iraq, but what would they replace it with? It seems increasingly
clear that the real opposition to the US is the fundamentalists, who
were largely contained during the rule of the Baath party. Given the
recent car bomb massacre of schoolchildren and the increasingly
militant Islamic rhetoric, it seems likely the insurgents, if
successful, will establish a regime every bit as bloody and
repressive as the one the US overthrew. And as capitalist.
In both of these situations, a key factor has been overlooked.
Electing a lesser imperialist candidate with a more human face will
not make the US a more equitable, less capitalist state. It is likely
that Kerry will be able to screw workers more effectively since many
believe the Democrats are the friends of labour. Supporting the
insurgents in Iraq will not make Iraq a more democratic country. The
solution to the problems of US and Iraqi society lies not in
supporting lesser evils, but in the American, the Iraqi and the
global working class. For only the working class has the social power
to uproot the social relations of capitalism and create a New World.
Anything else leaves us destined to be discussing the Iraq Syndrome
two decades hence.
Home Page / Index
/ Articles / Reviews
/ History / Links /
Publications/ Martin
Glaberman Archive /