Commentary
Read our lips: Stop the war!
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor


Nov 15, 2006, 00:43

Even with losing the House and Senate plus governorships in key states like New York, Ohio and Massachusetts, will the president be able to read our lips and hear our words? After all, above being chastised for his administration’s moral and ethical corruption, voters have shouted: Stop the War! The question is will the message sink in, especially through the filters of Cheney, Rove, Rice, et al?

One would hope he won’t use the “resignation” of Donald Rumsfeld as a panacea for the admission that the war’s premise was a mistake (not to mention a crime). I say hope, because in his press address on Wednesday, November 8, he talked about “Staying the course,” “We want a victory,” “Defeat is not an option,” “I’m committed to Iraq,” and “If the job’s not complete, al Qaeda will take over.” And so on. That doesn’t sound like Stop the War to me.

And no matter what “fresh eyes” are provided by Rumsfeld’s replacement, ex CIA Chief Robert Gates, or whatever “constant assessing” will be done, the above statements are not likely to help read the lips or hear the message of the American people’s demand: Stop the War.

In fact, Gates served for 26 years in the CIA and NSC. Ironically, during the Iran-Contra affair, in 1987, Senate members questioned Gates’ nomination as director of Central Intelligence (DCI) for his allegedly passing intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq conflict. They ultimately nixed his nomination. In addition to facing long-standing accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, he has been cited as well with arming none other than Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq.

Nevertheless in 1991, despite these doubts about Gates’ honesty over Iran-Contra and other scandals, he was nominated again for the DCI spot by President GHW Bush. He was approved by leading Democrats swimming in “bipartisanship,” rather than exercising careful oversight of Gates’ history.

I don’t know how much that will serve in contributing towards withdrawing the troops, rather than prolonging the havoc. After departing the CIA, Gates became president of Texas A &M University, where he tended to the elder Bush’s papers. One thing is for sure. He’s a member in excellent standing with the Texas’ Good Old Boys Club.

In fact, Americans should raise the Stop the War volume now and take to the streets in protest to ensure the election demand is not missed. The volume should also be raised as well, so Democrats are not misguided to “Stay the Course,” which is an open-ended invitation to disaster.

We witnessed this as well in Vietnam in the changeover of administrations from Democrat Lyndon Johnson to Republican Richard Nixon. Johnson, after escalating the war in 1964 had begun peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese by 1968. These were summarily destroyed by Nixon and Henry Kissinger, starting in 1969, when Kissinger was National Security Advisor, and extending to 1973-4 when Henry was tricky Dick’s Secretary of State.

The dynamic duo introduced the policy of Vietnamization, essentially to bring home American troops by relying more on the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) for ground offensives, while escalating American bombing over North Vietnam. A unique add-on was expanding the war into Laos and Cambodia in 1970. The last two initiatives would spark intense campus protests all over America, most notoriously at Kent State and Jackson State, where students were shot and killed for exercising their rights to disagree.

Their sacrifice only led Nixon to increase his efforts to an even larger, deadlier series of bombings in December of ’72 on Hanoi and Haiphong. These were affectionately known as the “Christmas Bombings,” Santa and batteries not included. World condemnation for Nixon’s deadly gifts from the sky forced the administration to reconsider its strategy and negotiations.

The Paris Peace Agreement was finally reached in January 1973 and signed by America with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. It provided for the release of all southern political prisoners. The White House promised the Thiệu-Hương regime in Saigon it would not abandon them if they signed as well. Nevertheless the Thiệu-Hương regime battled on from March to shortly before the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

The end came as DRV tanks rolled in that morning and their forces captured the presidential palace, just as the last of our choppers were signaling sayonara from the rooftop of the US Embassy. And ironically, a year before, on August 8, 1974, we mercifully found Nixon waving V-for-Victory goodbyes before his chopper as a result of Watergate, i.e., the burglaries of the Democratic National Committee offices.

This was a tragically long and bloody way to go, from 1968 to 1975, to complete peace. I detail it so that we don’t fall in the memory hole and get quagmired in disaster again. After Johnson had turned down a second term in 1968, we thought the victory was won and the war would come to a quick end with a “conservative” president. Unfortunately, it didn’t.

For me, the most important reason Kennedy was killed was his reluctance to expand the Vietnam War in 1962-3 and his wish to bring the troops home. A year after JFK’s assassination, Johnson's lie about the US being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin resulted in the resolution that gave him the vast power to escalate the war and the price tag for it.

US wars, time proves, are easy to jump into, but, given the involvement of the military-industrial complex, are very difficult to unhook from -- unless, of course, the voters raise one hell of a ruckus. Back then, rukus-raising included marches on the Pentagon, Washington, New York, and major cities around the US and the world.

As to what the formula for withdrawal today should be, let’s go back to Vietnam again. After withdrawal, we knew Ho Chi Minh’s victory was inevitable. Right now, Iraq’s dominant power group is the Shiite Muslims, about 60 percent of the people. The Sunni Arabs (Saddam’s group), also Muslims, constitute about 20 percent, the Kurds the remaining 20 percent of the 25 million population. If they wish to carry on a civil war after the carnage we started, good luck to them. Perhaps the much respected Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a Shiite, can effectuate peace among his people.

I have a feeling the Iraqi people are as hungry for peace as the American people, since theirs are the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, who are being killed. I would hope that impulse would carry them to peace. If not, we don’t need any more blood on our hands. The resistance, I believe, will dissolve in Iraq when we do.

In fact, it was our illegal preemptive war that fed it and any “terror” elements that immigrated to Iraq to make trouble. The real question is will the oil interests allow us to walk away without being able to lock down and secure supply? That will probably be the biggest obstacle to face because so much money is involved.

In fact, I would say that is at the root (as in Brown Kellogg and Root) of President’s Bush’s axiom to “Stay the course.”

My worse nightmare is that it comes to this: when we shed more blood than we can bear, we will finally just walk away, like an exhausted street fighter from his exhausted opponent. For now President Bush, and Democrats, read our lips: STOP THE WAR, and bring home the troops, ASAP. We the people shall be heard. If not, there’s always the specter of good, old-fashioned impeachment.