In the fall of 2004, as I was getting closer to finishing my undergraduate education, I began to breathe easier knowing that I’d soon be leaving the constant barrage of “left-wing propaganda” at the University of Oregon. Like many current college-aged conservatives – I was holding on for dear life to the mainline conservative mantras in the hope that I would pull through my college experience without succumbing to the mind-washing ideologies surrounding me.
No conservative agenda was more attacked than the War in Iraq, and naturally, I defended that war all the more fiercely. But that began to change when I took a seemingly unrelated class on the history of Vietnam. Reading former Communist Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang’s book A Vietcong Memoir allowed me to look at a conflict similar to Iraq without being concerned about the current political debate.
An Overview of Ideology in Vietnam
For Americans on the outside looking in, the politics around the Vietnam War were commonly drawn up in the oversimplistic terms of American might versus the global Communist revolution. Yet for those within South Vietnam’s nationalist struggle for independence, like Truong, the War and the time period surrounding it meant something completely different. Starting from his first encounter with Ho Chi Minh until his eventual exile a few years after the War, Truong and many like him in the various organizations he helped pioneer and participate in, saw independence as the ends of a struggle that employed various means.
He did not want to see Vietnam be the subject of a colonial power (such as France), occupying country (such as the United states) or global ideology (such as Communism). Truong was above all, a nationalist who wanted to see an end to foreign occupation, influence and manipulation in the South as well as a strong, liberal, free and democratic government structure to eventually be unified with the North through peaceful means.
How Violence Becomes the Answer
Why was an otherwise peaceful, democratically-minded individual like Truong drawn to ally himself with such radical and violent communist groups? After all, Truong was not a communist, nor was he sympathetic with their ideology, methods or goals – however, he hated seeing his country occupied. He wanted to be free – left alone by the powers of the world so that he, and his countrymen, could make for themselves a society that reflected their values and culture.
But the US, the latest in a line of occupying powers, was not leaving anytime soon. Moreover, they subverted these noble ideals as illegitimate regime after regime was set up by US agencies. For people like Truong, it was clear that the US was not going to be bargained with and that war was the only alternative left open to them in order to secure freedom. The communists were the most prepared for war and they had plenty of funding from China to make things painful for the US in the South.
The Iraq Parallels
In a war against occupiers, people who would otherwise be enemies (communists and nationalists in this case) are drawn into tight alliances. In many ways, we are seeing the same thing in Iraq – there is strong support for democracy oriented movements in the middle-east. Iraq was burgeoning with such a movement before the US-led invasion, hence the easy sell to the public by US officials. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example:
I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
But liberation soon turned into another long occupation in their land and those who originally welcomed us are ready for us to go and let them pick up the mess. But we aren’t leaving, and our leaders and future leaders are pledging years of occupation. Naturally, at some point, after seeing his family and friends traumatized by the violence surrounding him, the typical peace-minded Iraqi is going to give up on waiting and instead join with terrorists and insurgents. Though he is probably a moderate Muslim and hates the terrorists, he hates the US (and the occupation it represents) more and would rather ally with radical terrorists and try to do something about it than sit back as his life is destroyed as collateral.
In fact, we should consider that imitation is the best form of flattery. Many of the insurgents, rather than hating US ideals, are demonstrating the universality of freedom and liberty. They love those ideals which founded the US – and they are fighting an occupying power just as our founders did some two centuries ago.
Consider the state motto of New Hampshire, “live free or die” – it is a noble phrase, and yet in many ways, it is the rally cry of those moderate Iraqis who have joined with their enemies (and ours) to fight the US.
You may also be interested in:
http://www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=1002&catID=1
I don’t agree with the writer’s choice of Giuliani, but he is very accurate in his analysis of why Ron Paul is such a kook.
I don’t agree with the writer’s choice of Giuliani, but he is very accurate in his analysis of why Ron Paul is such a kook.
Clearly, the writer of that article is a kook. Using the Civil War as an example of a “non congress declared war”? What? Of course the Civil War was never declared by congress, it was a civil war. Kinda hard for the South to declare war legally through congress when they had seceded. Does this guy have pudding for brains?
Also, pointing out that the president is the commander in chief in no way gives the commander in chief the authority to declare war. It merely gives him the power to deploy and direct the troops. It’s not a matter of “poor interpretation”, but constitutional legality. Only Congress can declare war. Just because perhaps presidents have been unlawfully declaring war for years doesn’t make it correct, which is EXACTLY Ron Paul’s point.
Besides, the Barbary skirmishes are not equivalent to foreign occupation and permanent overseas bases on foreign soil.
Don’t you think if it was actually unconstitutional, Thomas Jefferson wouldn’t have done it? Just maybe??? He kinda is one of the founding fathers… Ron Paul doesn’t have a clue what “constitutional” means.
Jefferson tested the limits of the Constitution just like every President has. That Congress let him get away with it is unfortunate, but that doesn’t change the plain meaning of the Constitution. America has a long tradition of giving lip service to the Constitution but flouting its terms. That’s one American tradition we should not take pride in.
OR maybe you’re misinterpreting the Constitution…
I watched a great PBS program dealing with this exact subject. This is a major doctrine of Dick Cheney and the article cited is just a verbatum regurgitation. Here is the full show, well worth the watch
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/
I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t stretched the limits, but Paul is equally wrong in his view of Presidential power.
Bush hasn’t done jack. This one actually is Cheney, and it’s well documented.
Ok, when I say Bush, I mean his administration. Bush is ultimately responsible, even if the one pushing for it is Cheney.
Jefferson also pushed the Louisiana Purchase even though he knew it was unconstitutional. He originally wanted an amendment, but his advisors convinced him that would take too long.
Also we had unconstitutional central banks right at the start of our country as well.
The founding fathers set things up because they knew they’d all try and one-up each other on using the power of government. Just because there is a long and historic precedent for abusing the constitution does not make modern abuses fine.
Darius wrote: “http://www.eatthemushroom.com/mag/article.asp?id=1002&catID=1
I don’t agree with the writer’s choice of Giuliani, but he is very accurate in his analysis of why Ron Paul is such a kook.”
What a horribly written article! The fact that something happens all the time does not make it legitimate. Let’s take it down to the most basic level: murder has happened an uncountable number of times in the nation’s history, but this does not justify murder.
This author didn’t make Ron Paul look like a kook, he made himself look like a wackjob! Until we find the Philosopher King, let’s adhere to the Checks and Balances.
I think what the author is trying to say is that if the founding fathers didn’t mind doing it, then maybe, just maybe, they interpreted the constitution differently than some, such as Ron Paul, want to now. Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong, but it does seem odd that they would set up the constitution only to start breaking it immediately.
Until we find the Philosopher King, let’s adhere to the Checks and Balances.
Gurr8, this is exactly correct. The founding fathers were well read on Plato and his critics. I think they all realized that no one among them was fit for a king and so they reacted by creating the foundation they did.
I think what the author is trying to say is that if the founding fathers didn’t mind doing it, then maybe, just maybe, they interpreted the constitution differently than some, such as Ron Paul, want to now.
Darius, differently as in what – the “rule of law was made to be broken” philosophy? Or, “we keep some parts of the constitution but throw away the ones we don’t like.” There is no record of this whatsoever.
Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong, but it does seem odd that they would set up the constitution only to start breaking it immediately.
Of course they would – they are men. There is no difference between the men of 1786 and the men of 2007 – none. Just as greedy, dishonest and power-hungry. The fact is that the best in these men happened to show through for a brief time in the face of a major conflict and they put it to consistent and historic law in the founding documents. But even getting there was a battle of wills and greed.
It’s ironic (and I am speaking in general, not to Darius) that many protestants abhor the notion of sainting great men and women in church history, yet will stick people like Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Washington on plateau of good intentions and higher morals. Even political perfection of the Platonic model.
I think what the author is trying to say is that if the founding fathers didn’t mind doing it, then maybe, just maybe, they interpreted the constitution differently than some, such as Ron Paul, want to now. Perhaps the founding fathers were wrong, but it does seem odd that they would set up the constitution only to start breaking it immediately.
I see what you are saying Darius, but I think you are coming at it from a wrong direction. One must look at context. The founding fathers found central power to be the downfall of nations. We even fought a civil war about centralized vs decentralized power! Hence the reason why we made checks and balances, with three branches of government. They understood the danger of having one person wield the power of a standing army…it was too much like a king. History tells us that he who controls the army, controls the power. After all, Caesar rendered the Roman senate moot by doing such a thing. So I have to look at intentions for interpretation. If you read the Constitution, much of it is hard to decipher in any other way than how it is written, especially with the knowledge of the founding fathers intentions. I think it was for the benefit of the nation, as well as themselves. While far from perfect, I think many of them possessed enough intuition to know the temptations of power. Did many of them still fall into the trap? Yes. But can you imagine where we may be now, and what may have been the case, had the Constitution not been ratified, and had there not been at least a handful of men who paid more than lip service to it? This is why I agree with Ron Paul on this issue. The actions of past presidents don’t validate their actions as much as show what has been known since the dawn of time…that the lust for power often overwhelms even the greatest of intentions. The actions of the past do not lead to a conclusion of misinterpretation, when the intentions have been clear from the start…we, as flawed people, just really don’t like paying attention.