The Neo-Con Narrative for the Vietnam War revision of History: Bush’s thinks it is right
August 26th 2007 08:48
The Neo-Con Narrative for the Vietnam War revision of History: Bush’s thinks it is right
If only we had won the Vietnam War then America would not have lost its way and been forced to eat humble American pie.
If only we had have stayed the course in Vietnam them Communism would have been defeated in the theatre of war.
If only we were allowed to win thenb we would all be better off today.
This is the hidden narrative of George Bush’s speech that for all intensive purposes espouses the Neo-Con view of the Vienam War. Like all armies that are defeated the US forces had to face up to a backlash and some deep sould searching. 50,000 dead and over 500,000 casualties did not indicate a lack of willingness to sacrifice. The fact that more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in World War 2 did not indicate a lack of effort to ruin the Vietcong. Despite the effort and the sacrifice the War was still a humiliating loss.
The images of the helicopters evacuating people from the top of the US Embassy have now burn them selves into the halls of infamy. It is gives rise to a different narrative that does not gel with the Neo-Con view of America the invincible. The war was lost and for the sake of narrow opinion of millitary might equally the worth of a nation we must somehow believe that it should not have happened. The preferred narrative is one of an overwhelming victory over not just Vietnam but Communist China, the USSR and the ideology of Communism. The preferred narrative has millitary might, in the preferred hands, being the decider of all things right and wrong.
The problem with preferred narratives is that historical events rarely bend to match them. If it was so then every propagandist would hailed as the greatest person in history. We could write the script and history must follow. If only things were that simple for Hitler, Napoleon and Gengis Khan. If only the Roman Empire could rely upon its projected image. If only the sun did not set upon the British Empire. Each of these had narratives that wanted to happen but each has turned out to be different. Humiliation of defeat is part of history even for the people who think that are totally in the right. Ironically in order for someones preferred narrative to succeed someone elses’s narrative must be wrong. Often we can have two versions of the same event that tell conflicting stories. Did a massacre occur or was it a great victory over a ruthless army?
The problem with the Neo-Con version of Vietnam history is that it omits evidence, distorts facts and tells direct lies to create itself. The boldest of the lies is that the US pullout created the killing field in Cambodia. This is demostrably wrong by the fact that at no stage was the conflict declared to be with Cambodia and the main operations the US took there were saturation bombings that also killed scores of civilians. Such actions were not only tactically pointless but led to Pol Pot coming to power. For years there was no interest in Cambodia from the West until the Vietcong invaded. It was only after this that the story of the killing fields came to light. For more than ten years after the story broke the US and Australia recognised the murderous regime of Pol Pot seat at the UN.
The second issue of the out pouring of refugees from Vietnam as an example of what will happen in Iraq is a half truth at best. There are already 4 million Iraqi refugees who have fled Iraq since the invasion and there has been little effort from the Coalition of the willing to help them out. No major effort to resettle the refugees in the member nations of the invading forces has even been talked about. This fact conflicted with the narrative of a liberated Iraq and so it was never mentioned.
This is a whole fear mongering attitude in the Bush Neo-Con camp that seems to want to carry on the conflict for another President to deal with. In some ways he is like President Johnson who kept the conclict in Vietnam going rather than be the America President who lost a war. Losing a war is humiliting and more so in the Hollywood version of the world where you expect your side to always win. Yet the Vietnam war was lost and trying to explain how it could have been won is pure tripe. It is like the German’s trying to explain how Hitler should and could have won WW2. The war was lost and so we should all get over it.
However the history of the Vietnam War defeat could easily be repeated if all that has been gleened from it was that we should use more propaganda.
The future narrative of the Iraq conflict may actually be a result of an Neo-Con narrative that cannot face reality.
The narrative of this photo does not follow the image that neocons want us to believe
If only we were allowed to win thenb we would all be better off today.
This is the hidden narrative of George Bush’s speech that for all intensive purposes espouses the Neo-Con view of the Vienam War. Like all armies that are defeated the US forces had to face up to a backlash and some deep sould searching. 50,000 dead and over 500,000 casualties did not indicate a lack of willingness to sacrifice. The fact that more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped in World War 2 did not indicate a lack of effort to ruin the Vietcong. Despite the effort and the sacrifice the War was still a humiliating loss.
The images of the helicopters evacuating people from the top of the US Embassy have now burn them selves into the halls of infamy. It is gives rise to a different narrative that does not gel with the Neo-Con view of America the invincible. The war was lost and for the sake of narrow opinion of millitary might equally the worth of a nation we must somehow believe that it should not have happened. The preferred narrative is one of an overwhelming victory over not just Vietnam but Communist China, the USSR and the ideology of Communism. The preferred narrative has millitary might, in the preferred hands, being the decider of all things right and wrong.
The problem with preferred narratives is that historical events rarely bend to match them. If it was so then every propagandist would hailed as the greatest person in history. We could write the script and history must follow. If only things were that simple for Hitler, Napoleon and Gengis Khan. If only the Roman Empire could rely upon its projected image. If only the sun did not set upon the British Empire. Each of these had narratives that wanted to happen but each has turned out to be different. Humiliation of defeat is part of history even for the people who think that are totally in the right. Ironically in order for someones preferred narrative to succeed someone elses’s narrative must be wrong. Often we can have two versions of the same event that tell conflicting stories. Did a massacre occur or was it a great victory over a ruthless army?
The problem with the Neo-Con version of Vietnam history is that it omits evidence, distorts facts and tells direct lies to create itself. The boldest of the lies is that the US pullout created the killing field in Cambodia. This is demostrably wrong by the fact that at no stage was the conflict declared to be with Cambodia and the main operations the US took there were saturation bombings that also killed scores of civilians. Such actions were not only tactically pointless but led to Pol Pot coming to power. For years there was no interest in Cambodia from the West until the Vietcong invaded. It was only after this that the story of the killing fields came to light. For more than ten years after the story broke the US and Australia recognised the murderous regime of Pol Pot seat at the UN.
The second issue of the out pouring of refugees from Vietnam as an example of what will happen in Iraq is a half truth at best. There are already 4 million Iraqi refugees who have fled Iraq since the invasion and there has been little effort from the Coalition of the willing to help them out. No major effort to resettle the refugees in the member nations of the invading forces has even been talked about. This fact conflicted with the narrative of a liberated Iraq and so it was never mentioned.
This is a whole fear mongering attitude in the Bush Neo-Con camp that seems to want to carry on the conflict for another President to deal with. In some ways he is like President Johnson who kept the conclict in Vietnam going rather than be the America President who lost a war. Losing a war is humiliting and more so in the Hollywood version of the world where you expect your side to always win. Yet the Vietnam war was lost and trying to explain how it could have been won is pure tripe. It is like the German’s trying to explain how Hitler should and could have won WW2. The war was lost and so we should all get over it.
However the history of the Vietnam War defeat could easily be repeated if all that has been gleened from it was that we should use more propaganda.
The future narrative of the Iraq conflict may actually be a result of an Neo-Con narrative that cannot face reality.
| 47 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thankyou for your comment.
My post was writen to address what imformation is already in the public arena and is easily varifiable.
If it is question of who was there then where was George Bush at the time?