Whistling Past the Afghan Graveyard of Empires

Keep whistling ... (Photobucket; ChuckFitz)

Keep whistling … (Photobucket; ChuckFitz)

W.J. Astore

I read the news today, oh boy.  President Obama has decided to keep thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan until 2017, effectively kicking the war to the next president.  According to the New York Times, “The Obama administration sees the choice to slow down the United States’ Afghan exit as the best of bad options.”  Not to be cynical, but the decision to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan until 2017 is obviously intended to prevent an Iraq-like collapse in 2016, a collapse that Republicans would seize upon in next year’s election cycle to portray democrats as weak and feckless.  All politics is local, as Tip O’Neill said.

Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires, but the United States believes if we whistle loud enough past it, no harm will come to us.  In other words, we refuse to learn anything from history, the theme of an article I wrote back in 2009 for TomDispatch on the lessons of Vietnam for Obama, recently anointed as presidential savior.  Sections (2) and especially (4) below seem especially germane to today’s news of yet another extension to America’s troop commitment to Afghanistan.

Mary McCarthy in Vietnam, Barack Obama in Afghanistan
Seven Lessons and Many Questions for the President

By William Astore (written in 2009)

In 1967, outraged by the course of the Vietnam War, as well as her country’s role in prolonging and worsening it, Mary McCarthy, novelist, memoirist, and author of the bestseller The Group, went to Saigon, then the capital of South Vietnam, to judge the situation for herself. The next year, she went to the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi. She wrote accounts of both journeys, published originally in pamphlet format as Vietnam (1967) and Hanoi (1968), and later gathered with her other writings on Vietnam as a book, The Seventeenth Degree (1974). As pamphlets, McCarthy’s accounts sold poorly and passed into obscurity; deservedly so, some would say.

Those who’d say this, however, would be wrong. McCarthy brought a novelist’s keen eye to America’s activities and its rhetoric in Vietnam. By no means a military expert, not even an expert on Vietnam — she only made a conscious decision to study the war in Vietnam after she returned from her trip to Saigon — her impressionistic writings were nevertheless insightful precisely because she had long been a critical thinker beholden to no authority.

Her insights into our approach to war-fighting and to foreign cultures are as telling today as they were 40 years ago, so much so that President Obama and his advisors might do well to add her unconventional lessons to their all-too-conventional thinking on our spreading war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What were those lessons? Here are seven of them, each followed by questions that, four decades later, someone at President Obama’s next press conference should consider asking him:

1. McCarthy’s most fundamental objection was to the way, in Vietnam, the U.S. government decided to apply “technology and a superior power to a political situation that will not yield to this.” At the very least, the United States was guilty of folly, but McCarthy went further. She condemned our technocentric and hegemonic form of warfare as “wicked” because of its “absolute indifference to the cost in human lives” to the Vietnamese people.

Even in 1967, the widespread, at times indiscriminate, nature of American killing was well known. For example, U.S. planes dropped roughly 7 million tons of bombs on Vietnam and parts of Laos and Cambodia during the war, nearly five times the tonnage used against Germany during World War II. The U.S. even waged war on the Vietnamese jungle and forest, which so effectively hid Vietnamese guerrilla forces, spraying roughly 20 million gallons of toxic herbicides (including the dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange) on it.

In her outrage, McCarthy dared to compare the seeming indifference of many of her fellow citizens toward the blunt-edged sword of technological destruction we had loosed on Vietnam to the moral obtuseness of ordinary Germans under Adolf Hitler.

Questions for President Obama: Aren’t we once again relying on the destructive power of technology to “solve” complex political and religious struggles? Aren’t we yet again showing indifference to the human costs of war, especially when borne by non-Americans? Even though we’re using far fewer bombs in the Af-Pak highlands than we did in Vietnam, aren’t we still morally culpable when these “precision-guided munitions” miss their targets and instead claim innocents, or hit suspected “terrorists” who suddenly morph into wedding parties? In those cases, do we not seek false comfort in the phrase, C’est la guerre, or at least that modern equivalent: unavoidable collateral damage?

2. As Richard Nixon campaigned for the presidency in 1968 by calling for “peace with honor” in Vietnam, McCarthy offered her own warning about the dangers that arose when the office of the presidency collided with an American desire never to be labeled a loser: “The American so-called free-enterprise system, highly competitive, investment-conscious, expansionist, repels a loser policy by instinctive defense movements centering in the ganglia of the presidency. No matter what direction the incumbent, as candidate, was pointing in, he slowly pivots once he assumes office.”

Questions for President Obama: Have you, like Vietnam-era presidents, pivoted toward yet another surge simply to avoid the label of “loser” in Afghanistan? And if the cost of victory (however defined) is hundreds, or even thousands, more American military casualties, hundreds of billions of additional dollars spent, and extensive collateral damage and blowback, will this “victory” not be a pyrrhic one, achieved at a price so dear as to be indistinguishable from defeat?

3. Though critical of the U.S. military in Vietnam, McCarthy was even more critical of American civilian officials there. “On the whole,” she wrote, they “behaved like a team of promoters with a dubious ‘growth’ stock they were brokering.” At least military men were often more forthright than the civilians, if not necessarily more self-aware, McCarthy noted, because they were part of the war — the product, so to speak — not its salesmen.

Questions for President Obama: In promising to send a new “surge” of State Department personnel and other civilians into Afghanistan, are you prepared as well to parse their words? Are you braced in case they sell you a false bill of goods, even if the sellers themselves, in their eagerness to speak fairy tales to power, continually ignore the Fantasyland nature of their tale?

4. Well before Bush administration officials boasted about creating their own reality and new “facts on the ground” in Iraq, Mary McCarthy recognized the danger of another type of “fact”: “The more troops and matériel committed to Vietnam, the more retreat appears to be cut off — not by an enemy, but by our own numbers. To call for withdrawal in the face of that commitment… is to seem to argue not against a policy, but against facts, which by their very nature are unanswerable.”

Questions for President Obama: If your surge in Afghanistan fails, will you be able to de-escalate as quickly as you escalated? Or will the fact that you’ve put more troops in harm’s way (with all their equipment and all the money that will go into new base and airfield and road construction), and committed more of your prestige to prevailing, make it even harder to consider leaving?

5. A cursory reading of The Pentagon Papers, the famously secret government documents on Vietnam leaked to the New York Times by Daniel Ellsberg, reveals how skeptical America’s top officials were, early on, in pursuing a military solution to the situation in South Vietnam. Nevertheless, knowing better, the “best and brightest,” as journalist David Halberstam termed them in his famous, ironic book title, still talked themselves into it; and they did so, as McCarthy noted, because they set seemingly meaningful goals (“metrics” or “benchmarks,” we’d say today), which they then convinced themselves they were actually achieving. When you trick yourself into believing that you’re meeting your goals, as Halberstam noted, there’s no reason to reexamine your course of action.

Questions for President Obama: Much has been written about an internal struggle within your administration over the wisdom of surging in Afghanistan. Now, you, too, have called for the setting of “benchmarks”for your new strategy’s success. Are you wise enough to set them to capture the complexities of political realities on the ground rather than playing to American strengths? Are you capable of re-examining them, even when your advisors assure you that they are being achieved?

6. In her day, Mary McCarthy recognized the inequities of burden-sharing at home when it came to the war in Vietnam: “Casualty figures, still low [in 1967], seldom strike home outside rural and low-income groups — the silent part of society. The absence of sacrifices [among the privileged classes] has had its effect on the opposition [to the war], which feels no need, on the whole, to turn away from its habitual standards and practices — what for? We have not withdrawn our sympathy from American power and from the way of life that is tied to it — a connection that is more evident to a low-grade G.I. in Vietnam than to most American intellectuals.”

Questions for President Obama: Are you willing to listen to the common G.I. as well as to the generals who have your ear? Are you willing to insist on greater equity in burden-sharing, since once again most of the burden of Iraq and Afghanistan has fallen on “the silent part of society”? Are you able to recognize that the “best and brightest” in the corridors of power may not be the wisest exactly because they have so little to lose (and perhaps much to gain) from our “overseas contingency operations”?

7. McCarthy was remarkably perceptive when it came to the seductiveness of American technological prowess. Our technological superiority, she wrote, was a large part of “our willingness to get into Vietnam and stay there… The technological gap between us and the North Vietnamese constituted, we thought, an advantage which obliged us not to quit.”

Questions for President Obama: Rather than providing us with a war-winning edge, might our robot drones, satellite imagery, and all our other gadgetry of war seduce us into believing that we can “prevail” at a reasonable and sustainable cost? Indeed, do we think we should prevail precisely because our high-tech military brags of “full spectrum dominance”?

One bonus lesson from Mary McCarthy before we take our leave of her: Even now, we speak too often of “Bush’s war” or, more recently, “Obama’s war.” Before we start chattering mindlessly about Iraq and Afghanistan as American tragedies, we would do well to recall what McCarthy had to say about the war in Vietnam: “There is something distasteful,” she wrote, “in the very notion of approaching [Vietnam] as an American tragedy, whose protagonist is a great suffering Texan [President Lyndon Baines Johnson].”

Yes, there is something distasteful about a media that blithely refers to Bush’s or Obama’s war as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans suffer. For American troops, after all, are not the only ones paying the ultimate price when the U.S. fights foreign wars for ill-considered reasons and misguided goals.

Copyright 2009 and 2015 William Astore.

17 thoughts on “Whistling Past the Afghan Graveyard of Empires

    • Yes , he is a robotic con man.
      Anyone who watched his performance in announcing that he is again going back on the promise he made to the American people to end our involvement in Afghanistan could see the con. After kicking the ball forward to the next president in 2017 to deal with this disaster he had the temerity to say, in his ” I am really sincere now” voice, that he was really sorry because he likes peace more but we could not abandon the Afghan people now.
      One cannot wonder how, after 14 years of American ‘boots on the ground’ how a force size of half our current level was t accomplish that. But then remember , it is some other peoples kids, husbands, brothers will die r be seriously wounded in this dead end that is Afghanistan.
      No mention of the fact that the Taliban control more territory now than they did when we turned things over to the faux Afghan government, or that our recent crime of bombing a hospital in Kunduz removed all sympathy the
      Afghan People ( not the corrupt government) might have had for our presence in their country. the con goes on.

  1. Another Catastrophic Success

    With their tails tucked proudly ‘tween their legs,
    Advancing towards the exits march the dregs
    Of empire, whose retreat this question begs:
    “No promised omelet, just the broken eggs??

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2011

  2. Will Rogers on war in Afghanistan:

    “If you get into trouble that far from home, you’ve got to be asking for it.”

  3. When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains
    And the women come out to cut up what remains
    Then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    And go to your Gawd like a soldier.
    — Rudyard Kipling

    Or, stated another way, how about:

    “Jaded, Jingoistic Jingles”

    Someone else would choose, they said,
    Those by whom we’d soon be led

    Johnson? Nixon? who could tell?
    Both pledged not to give us hell

    Either way they picked the scam
    We got more of Vietnam

    Vote the Repugs; vote the Dems
    Fall for their same stratagems

    Vote them out then vote them back
    Then get even more Iraq

    Don’t require to see the plan
    Just have some Afghanistan

    Don’t suppose they think you dumb
    Just that your soft head’s gone numb

    Lost your job? Laid off? Been fired?
    Tax your kids before they’re hired

    If it’s an election year
    Count on them to flog some fear

    Weddings by the queers, you say?
    Pregnant women gone astray?

    Immigrants out cutting lawns?
    Burning flags while Congress yawns?

    Hooked on gas and credit cards?
    Just acquire some more canards

    Fight them there; don’t fight them here
    Don’t observe the danger near

    Culture war and backlash, too
    That’s all they intend for you

    Watch them on your TV tube
    Buy their bullshit retail, rube

    Need some Bill to feel your pain?
    Crooked talk straight from McCain?

    Don’t thank them and don’t thank me
    Thank your own stupidity

    Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2006

  4. After recently rediscovering a backbone to utter some sincere words about this country’s insane firearms fetish, Obama ever so briefly rose again to presidential status. But this latest cave-in to the Good Ol’ Boys at the Pentagon knocks my overall grade for his presidency back down to D-minus. The only thing that saves him from a grade of F is the reality that, yes, the Republican opposition-obstructionists have hamstrung him every step of the way. Yet only the classic definition of insanity can explain this country’s foreign policy: they (government) keep doing the same thing on foreign soil endlessly and somehow expect different results to materialize. “Oh, the Russkies couldn’t conquer these backward tribes but OUR boys and our advanced tech toys WILL.” Right.

  5. Pingback: “They Died for Henry Kissinger’s ‘Credibility’: The Real History of Our Vietnam Immorality” & Other Important Historical Articles | Eslkevin's Blog

  6. Pingback: Tourists of Empire - LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and progressives

  7. Pingback: Tourists of Empire from Tom's Dispatch by William Astore | TomDispatch | Op-Ed | Daniel C. Lavery, author, former naval officer, and civil rights attorney website

  8. Pingback: We still think we’re heroes: The sad denialism that plagues American foreign policyViralStorms | ViralStorms

  9. Pingback: We still think we’re heroes: The sad denialism that plagues American foreign … | Vietnam Tours

  10. Pingback: Tourists of Empire | Global Times

  11. Pingback: Los turistas del Imperio | El Portal Informativo de la Clase Obrera

  12. Pingback: Taking Selfies in Iraq and Afghanistan ~ by William Astore, published in TomDispatch.com | thewallwillfall

  13. Pingback: Feeding the Disease of Terrorism | The Contrary Perspective

  14. Pingback: Feeding the Disease of Terrorism | Stop Making Sense

  15. Pingback: Afghanistan’s Endless War: Interview with Dr Lucy Morgan Edwards | Stop Making Sense

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s