To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Vietnam then, Iraq today

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Noam Chomsky at Dec 20, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
We can learn a lot from what happened in Vietnam. Protest was very slow in developing.  By the time it reached a significant scale in 1967, the highly respected (and rather hawkish) military historian and Vietnam specialist Bernard Fall was wondering whether Vietnam would become "extinct" as a cultural-historic entity under the blows of the most powerful attack ever launched against a region this size.  But by then, protest was becoming substantial, sufficiently so that Johnson could not call a national emergency, as during World War II, but had to fight a "guns-and-butter war" to keep the population quiet.  A national emergency should have been very "good" for the economy, as it was during WWII, the greatest period of economic growth in American history.  But a guns-and-butter war is bad for the economy, as others had found out too.  The Nazis, for example, had to wage war that way, not trusting their population, and were never able to mobilize as efficiently as the Western democracies.  Their economic czar, Alfred Speer, believed that their inability to match the voluntary totalitarian character of the democracies set back their war effort considerably, perhaps enough to lose the war. LBJ faced the same dilemma, as a result of massive popular protest. After the Tet offensive, the Joint Chiefs were unwilling to send more troops because they felt they would need them for civil disorder control in the US if the war escalated any further.  The Tet offensive convinced the business world that the war was simply becoming too costly, and it was pointless to move on from destruction of Vietnam -- already achieved, satisfying the major war aims -- to conquest of Vietnam, a higher goal that wasn't worth that much.  So yes, the business world turned against the war -- as a direct result of the popular activism that made the war impossible to fight except in ways that would be harmful to domestic power interests.  Of course, the propaganda system likes to claim that it was a business decision, and that the population came to oppose the war because too many soldiers were dying -- the so-called "Vietnam syndrome" concocted by doctrinal systems to prevent recognition that it was popular activism that brought the war to an end, indirectly but effectively.  That's a lesson that people are not allowed to learn: too dangerous. I don't think the situation is comparable now.  First, controlling Iraq is vastly more significant than controlling Vietnam, a marginal issue once the threat of successful independent development had been crushed.  Second, the national resistance movement in Indochina was far beyond anything that exists in Iraq.  There was also a deterrent to unlimited US violence.  The northern part of North Vietnam was partially spared because of fear of retaliation by powerful enemies: recall, for example, that when the US was bombing North Vietnam it was attacking an internal Chinese railway, that happened to cross Vietnam. And when the US was bombing Haiphong harbor, it was hitting Russian ships.  In the case of Iraq, there is virtually no deterrent or outside support.  Also, although such crimes as Fallujah rank high in the history of modern war crimes, and would call for the death penalty for enemies, the attack on Iraq has not come close to the destruction of South Vietnam in the early 60s, along with the rest of Indochina in later years.  And resistance at home is far greater than at a comparable moment of the Vietnam war.  There are many other differences.  I don't see a lot of point in pursuing analogies -- though it does make good sense to be clear about what actually happened in Vietnam, which is quite different from the doctrinal versions. I don't see any reason to doubt, for a moment, that popular activism could end the Iraq war.  Already, a large majority of the population thinks that the US should leave if Iraqis want it to, that the UN should take the lead, not the US, in all aspects of the occupation, and that the use of force is legitimate except in self-defense.  It's up to organizers and activists to do something to bring popular opinion into the arena of influencing policy, not just on these but on a host of other issues.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (14)

Person

tercüme

By Cevirihizmetleri, Tercüme at Jun 29, 2007 16:46 PM
as a direct result of the popular activism that made the war impossible to fight except in ways that would be harmful to domestic power interests. Of course, the propaganda system likes to claim that it was a business decision, and that the population came to oppose the war because too many soldiers were dying -- the so-called "Vietnam syndrome" concocted by doctrinal systems to prevent recognition that it was popular activism that brought the war to an end, indirectly but effectively. That's a lesson that people are not allowed to learn: too dangerous. I don't think the situation is comparable now. First, controlling Iraq is vastly more significant than controlling Vietnam tercüme ingilizce tercüme elektrik emlak çeviri tercüman link ekle kiral?k ev

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Shannon, James at Jan 05, 2005 01:48 AM
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson Mark his words - Systemic fiscal fraud within the financial markets caused by government sanctioned criminal corporate rackiteering and accounting fiction will be the destruction of us all.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Shannon, James at Jan 05, 2005 01:41 AM
Viet Nam and Iraq have only one thing in common. Both use/d stupid young boys to do the killing for rich white folk. Today is hugely different than the 60's. The country has gone incredibly soft and self centered. Compassion and justice and socialism are only good for the rich and those who work for the fourth reich -teachers -fireman-policemen -mayors- presidents and so on. The US is populated by indoctrinated fools who are too stupid and corrupted by patriotism to admit how far we have sunk. Pending world financial disaster is 15 years out. The materialistic binge of the last 22 years will be paid as the baby boomers liquidate assets and drive the financial markets to the day of reckoning.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By K, Mr at Jan 03, 2005 05:44 AM
supply a 'slush' fund for rent payers and morgage payers and maybe supply the food and lodging for a sustained protest for like ten million at least. this government is entrenched. It can modify elections, create warcrimes at will. there is no end to the yankee evil. evil in a sense of allowances for no other objective solutions other than their narrow selfish views. freedoms is something that does not exist for all. economic freedom is something capitalists know all about. i have no economic freedom. i'm under economic human rights violations why should they treat iraqi's any better? these people have no values other than self interest. global perspectives and mental maps are incomplete. our world leaders are untrained for the tasks which they are faced with. global perspectives are biased, racist without morals other than to their own special interests. a group rules the world and these masters of the universe need to deal with a globalized strike. that's the peoples response. but when?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Idstockmann, Stockmann at Dec 31, 2004 06:41 AM
I have a nagging question that I haven't seen commented about ; perhaps someone reading these Blogs may be able to point me towards some information... Does Iraq and Iran fit into the US policy towards "ringing" the Caspian Sea area with milotary bases and puppet governments in order to secure the oil thereunder (darunter ? excuse the Englisch ), and what of the newly announced Russisch/Chinese milotary manouevers planned jointly...are these countries (surely, they are) aware of Americas new secret plans regarding the Caspian oil ? Can we call this the Caspian Connection now and when might this secret hit the public eye ?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Itsgrimm, Apian at Dec 30, 2004 01:13 AM
This may be a first: The Pentagon Agrees With Noam Chomsky! From the Defence Science Board Report to the Pentagon December, 2004: 'On "the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds", the report says, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended". "American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies." "Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising ... in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. "American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims." The result is that al-Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world.'

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Sign_in2001, Lings at Dec 26, 2004 14:05 PM
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7468.htm Check it out, a message from one of the iraqie resistance-organisations. And dont be afraid, there are no pictures of bearded men cutting of peoples heads, just music and pompous proclamations, in rather good english. (well, better than mine at least)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Rbussell, Roley at Dec 25, 2004 22:40 PM
I think Chomsky is right to point out that owning/colonising a country is different to destroying it; which is easier. For example, if the USA wanted to take Vietnam over, then it wouldnt have made sense to poison large sections of land with Dioxin (Agent Orange). That would mean destroying your own land. Anyway, the standard doctrine is that the USA, Australia, S Korea etc lost the War in Vietnam. But I find it a little difficult to swallow because Vietnam was smashed and sustained 5 million casualties while the US sustained about 200,000 casualties and was never attacked on its own soil, not even with terrorist attacks. When we had enough we left and maintained trade sanctions and embargoes for about 20 years after. So, I think that the allied forces did succeed in destroying Vietnam, even if people still debate whether or not the US actually wanted to own Vietnam. Listening to some of Martin Luther King's anti vietnam war speeches gives more insight into what was going on. And it eventually became a free market economy/democracy in its own time anyway. I think we won the Vietnam War, even if we feel bad about it today. Roley

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Thillll, R2d2 at Dec 25, 2004 04:02 AM
smith777... you say the US is "radicalizing the Muslims who already see themselves as victims of constant Western meddling. We can all expect, sadly, more terrorist attacks." It is strange that you characterize resistance to US imperialism and meddling as "terrorist attacks." I think that concedes a lot, specifically giving credibility to the assumption that we have the right to intervene and manipulate governments in our favor and those who resist are terrorists. Let us not forget that the US presence in Iraq is a manifestation of our expanding hegemony, and while you may differ I see attacks on the US troops there as resistance to imperialism, and fully justifiable.

Reply this comment

Person

By S, Bert at Dec 24, 2004 13:03 PM
Here in Europe we even heard the American army is using napalm in Iraq. Is this known in USA? Is it true in the first place? Does this not mean a frightening resemblance with Vietnam? Does it also mean army officers are getting very desperate?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Murphy2, Ajbmurphy at Dec 22, 2004 14:25 PM
I don't know much about Vietnam - but making historical comparisons only helps to a limited extent. However the Iraqi resistance has single-handedly (spelling!) managed to slow down US military expansion in the Middle East. Without violent, determined resistance the US (and allies) would probably have taken 'heart' from Iraq and continued the crusade. At least that has been halted (for now).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Thillll, R2d2 at Dec 21, 2004 23:30 PM
I think something that will further force the mass recognition of the need to eliminate the US control of Iraq is the continuous revelations of torture. This is something offensive to everyone (except possibly Rumsfeld), and will act as a lightning rod for mainstream popular disgust and distaste for our presence in Iraq. In case you aren't yet aware, the ACLU just yesterday released a handful of emails/memos documenting egregious US abuses. http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/doa.html

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Paymane, Paymun at Dec 21, 2004 09:30 AM
As Igor pointed out, public opinion is vastly against it. If the left decides to link its efforts to this cause, it will take a great step. Jan 20 presidential inauguration day, is one day to galvanize public support for ending iraq war. more importantly is to make sure, US does not build permanent military bases in Iraq. that's a more difficult task. it is also vital that we ramain vigilant, to stop other possible millitary adventures.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Vietnam then, Iraq today

By Volsky, Igor at Dec 21, 2004 00:53 AM
It was recently revealed that two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, a secret memo to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales' office concluded that "President Bush had the power to deploy military force "preemptively" against any terrorist groups or countries that supported them. Similar language is used in the official "substantiation" for American foreign policy, the National Security Strategy of 2002. (As Noam Chomsky has previously pointed out). Meanwhile, a UN report has rejected President Bush's arguments for preventive war, stating that "only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize" it. Thus, according to the UN, Bush's doctrine is illegal. None of this is mentioned in the Newsweek. Even though at this point it's probably futile to push for withdrawal by questioning the war's legality, the instability of the situation could eventually convince the public that the war is not worth fighting. Already, according to the latest CNN/NYTIMES poll, only about 39% of Americans support Bush's handling of Iraq and 51% believe that it was a mistake to go to war. more: www.politicalthought.net.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (14)

Loading_border