It is
conventional wisdom that it was the draft that ended the Vietnam war. According
to this explanation, cowardly college students subject to the draft and their
unpatriotic families, forced an end to the war. This is Karl Marx’s
explanation. Material interests, not empty morality, are said to have brought
the war to an end.
That fact
that in those days the US still had an independent media of sorts that
sometimes framed the war in moral terms is ignored. Are we sure, for example,
that the film of the naked little
girl
running in terror down the road burning with napalm was ineffectual in
arousing moral opposition to the war? Are we certain that it wasn’t an aroused
moral conscience that brought about the end of the war but was college
students’ fears for their lives and limbs?
If we ascribe
ending the war to material interests, it makes ending the war look as unworthy
as the war itself.
Yet,
virtually every conservative columnist, commentator, newsperson and politician,
as well as today’s antiwar protesters and apparently the Pentagon, believes
that a military draft would reduce Americans’ toleration for wars because of
body bags coming home to middle and upper class parents. Apparently, the lower
class doesn’t mind its kids coming back in body bags.
Those in
thrall to this explanation, which derives from Marx’s materialist explanation
of history, do not notice that Vietnam was our longest war. It apparently took
almost forever for the material interest of students and their parents to
realize itself and stop the war.
Why are we
afraid to say that the war stopped because American troops and the American
population got tired, offended even, from killing women, children and
noncombatants? Vietnam had not attacked the US. The US had interjected itself
into a civil war in a far off place, as it has done in Afghanistan.
By invading
Iraq the US started a civil war between Sunni and Shi’ite. In Pakistan the US
has started a civil war between the religious tribal population and the secular
US puppet state. In Palestine the US started a civil war between Fatah and
Hamas.
One
continuously reads from those Americans opposed to America’s wars of aggression
that the wars are possible because they don’t affect Americans, just those few
who sign up for the voluntary military. Thus, there are insufficient material
interests at stake to stop the war. This is a common explanation for the
weakness of the antiwar movement.
One could
argue instead that it is the triumph of Karl Marx’s materialist thinking that
has made moral protests impotent. What is morality? You can’t weigh it, define
it, measure it. It can be dismissed as the whining of material interests. In
contrast, material interests, such as lives, limbs, and bank accounts are real.
For
whatever the reason, morality has shown itself to be an impotent force in 21st
century America. Americans show no remorse at over one million dead Iraqis and 4
million displaced Iraqis due entirely to an American invasion based on lies and
deception. The lies and deception are now well proven. Yet, there has been no apology
for the horrors that Americans inflicted on Iraq.
Afghanistan
is another example. Intentional lies conflated the Taliban with al Qaeda and “terrorists.” The diverse peoples in
Afghanistan who were first ravaged by Soviet bombs are now ravaged by American
bombs. Weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, people waiting for fuel or
food, people asleep in their homes, people attending Mosques have all been
murdered and are murdered routinely by US and its NATO puppets.
Each time
civilians are murdered, the US denies it, only to be contradicted every time by
the evidence.
Why is the
president of the United States contemplating sending yet tens of thousands more
US troops to kill people in Afghanistan?
The answer
is that the United States is an immoral country, with an immoral people and an
immoral government. Americans no longer have a moral conscience. They have gone
over to the Dark Side.
Humanity
has endeavored for millennia to control evil with morality. In the American “superpower,” this effort has
collapsed and failed.
The United
States needs to be censured for its immoral behavior, not have that behavior
rationalized as being in its material interests.
Paul
Craig Roberts [email
him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President
Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has
held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University,
and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was
awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the
author of Supply-Side
Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation
and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown:
Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M.
Stratton of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the
Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for
Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent
epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.