There are no just wars. The death, the depravity, and destruction should never have pretense of being a noble endeavour. War is like being dragged face first through fifteen kilometres of shit, nobility and honour be damned.
We’re going to look at a “bad” war, that is a war that we did all the things we usually do, but couldn’t manage to spin a victory or even a “Mission Accomplished” out of the briny wash. Vietnam seems to cause soul-searching in the US. The Vietnam War should do that at the barest of minimums. I wonder how much “soul-searching” the Vietnamese do considering it was their country that was systematically raped, poisoned and bombed into a moonscape.
War kills people, like you and like me. Not the Enemy, not the “evildoers” but women, men and children. Families, friends, acquaintances are all maliciously erased by the callous hand of war. The article from Alter.net that excerpts a book by Nick Turse is about the humiliations, gang rapes and murders visited upon the women of Vietnam by the invading American troops. Make no mistake, this happens in every war and is committed by almost every military.
“In 1971, Major Gordon Livingston, a West Point graduate who served as regimental surgeon with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, testified before members of Congress about the ease with which Americans killed Vietnamese. “Above 90 percent of the Americans with whom I had contact in Vietnam,” said Dr. Livingston, treated the Vietnamese as subhuman and with “nearly universal contempt.” To illustrate his point, Livingston told his listeners about a helicopter pilot who swooped down on two Vietnamese women riding bicycles and killed them with the helicopter skids. The pilot was temporarily grounded as the incident was being investigated, and Livingston spoke to him in his medical capacity. He found that the man felt no remorse about the killings and only regretted not receiving his pay during the investigation.”
War makes us forget who we are and what we value. Once we strip the humanity from our enemies, anything becomes possible.
“General George S. Patton III. Son of the famed World War II general of the same name, the younger Patton was known for his bloodthirsty attitude and the macabre souvenirs that he kept, including a Vietnamese skull that sat on his desk. He even carried it around at his end-of- tour farewell party. Of course, Patton was just one of many Americans who collected and displayed Vietnamese body parts.” [..]
Some soldiers hacked the heads off Vietnamese to keep, trade, or exchange for prizes offered by commanders. Many more cut off the ears of their victims, in the hopes that disfiguring the dead would frighten the enemy. Some of these trophies were presented to superiors as gifts or as proof to confirm a body count; others were retained by the “grunts” and worn on necklaces or otherwise displayed. While ears were the most common souvenirs of this type, scalps, penises, noses, breasts, teeth, and fingers were also favored.”
Ah yes, even this very day, we boldly proclaim our civilization and our humanity to all of those who would listen. Can you imagine the rage and indignation of those who have suffered at our hands?
“In a rather medieval display, some American troops hacked the heads off the dead and mounted them on pikes or poles to frighten guerrillas or local Vietnamese villagers. Others, in a more modern variant of the same practice, lashed corpses to U.S. vehicles and drove through towns and villages to send a similar message. And while South Vietnamese troops were often singled out in the press for making public displays of dead guerrillas, U.S. troops did much the same, sometimes even more spectacularly. Alexander Haig— who went on to serve as a division brigade commander, vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, and then President Nixon’s chief of staff— recalled that in 1966, when he was the operations officer with the 1st Infantry Division, one tactic under discussion involved throwing bodies out of aircraft.
“I was there when some staffers recommended dropping dead North Vietnamese soldiers from helicopters . . . simply for the psychology of it,” Haig remembered decades later. “I said ‘If that happens I’m resigning right here and now.’ And it didn’t happen.” The historical record, though, contradicts Haig’s last sentence. In November 1966, the New York Times reported that, following a particularly successful battle, an “elated” Lieutenant Colonel Jack Whitted of the 1st Infantry Division had the corpses of dead revolutionary troops loaded into a helicopter. “We’re giving the bodies back to Victor Charles!” he shouted. “We’ll dump the bodies in the next clearing.” The corpses were then hurled out.”
There is no moral high ground once a war starts. It is an “all in” affair. Compassion, empathy, kindness are all sacrificed on the altar of war. All that is left are the atrocities, which both sides gleefully pursue without hesitation, and without remorse.
“As a result, sexual violence and sexual exploitation became an omnipresent part of the American War. With their husbands or fathers away at war or dead because of it, without other employment prospects and desperate to provide for their families, many women found that catering to the desires of U.S. soldiers was their only option.By 1966, as the feminist scholar Susan Brownmiller observed, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 1st Infantry Division, and the 4th Infantry Division had all already “established official military brothels within the perimeter of their basecamps.” At the 1st Infantry Division base at Lai Khe, refugee women—recruited by the South Vietnamese province chief and channeled into their jobs by the mayor of the town—worked in sixty curtained cubicles kept under military police guard.”
War destroys country and people. Women who bring life are often made to suffer the worst.
“Most rapes and other crimes against Vietnamese women, however, did take place in the field — in hamlets and villages populated mainly by women and children when the Americans arrived. Rape was a way of asserting dominance, and sometimes a weapon of war, employed in field interrogations of women captives to gain information about enemy troops. Aside from any such considerations, rural women were generally assumed by Americans to be secret saboteurs or the wives and girlfriends of Viet Cong guerrillas, and thus fair game.
“The reports of sexual assault implicated units up and down the country. A veteran who served with 198th Light Infantry Brigade testified that he knew of ten to fifteen incidents, within a span of just six or seven months, in which soldiers from his unit raped young girls. A soldier who served with the 25th Infantry Division admitted that, in his unit, rape was virtually standard operating procedure. One member of the Americal Division remembered fellow soldiers on patrol through a village suddenly singling out a girl to be raped. “All three grunts grabbed the gook chick and began dragging her into the hootch. I didn’t know what to do,” he recalled. “As a result of this one experience I learned to recognize the sounds of rape at a great distance . . . Over the next two months I would hear this sound on the average of once every third day.”
In November 1966, soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division brazenly kidnapped a young Vietnamese woman named Phan Thi Mao to use as a sexual slave. One unit member testified that, prior to the mission, his patrol leader had explicitly stated, “We would get the woman for the purpose of boom boom, or sexual intercourse, and at the end of five days we would kill her.” The sergeant was true to his word. The woman was kidnapped, raped by four of the patrol members in turn, and murdered the following day.”
I’m done for commenting on this article.
18 comments
January 23, 2013 at 6:59 am
john zande
A disturbing read
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 8:33 am
Darwin O'Connor
Would a war that prevented more death, depravity and destruction then it caused be just?
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 11:05 am
The Arbourist
@DO’C
Is there even an answer to that? One can always hypothesize an outcome that would have been worse if war “x” never happened. War is never just because with it brings the rape, murder and torture of innocents.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 11:08 am
The Arbourist
@John Zande
Yep. A read that everyone thinking about supporting America’s next imperial campaign needs to read. Or crack open pretty much any historical work by Howard Zinn.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 11:12 am
Darwin O'Connor
Nazi domination of Europe would have also brought rape, murder and torture of innocents. So did Taliban domination of Afghanistan.
Predicting the future isn’t easy, but it doesn’t justify doing nothing in all cases.
Just look at global warming. We don’t know for sure exactly the suffering that will be brought by acting or not acting, but the evidence clearly suggests acting is the better option.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 11:13 am
john zande
You’ve inspired me to write a post. Piecing it together right now
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 11:32 am
The Arbourist
@DO’C
Quoting Zinn now. The bolding is mine.
“Whatever alternative scenarios we can imagine to replace World War II and its mountain of corpses, it really doesn’t matter any more. That was is over. The practical effect of declaring World War II just is not for that war, but for the wars that follow. And that effect has been a dangerous one, because the glow of rightness that accompanied that war has been transferred, by false analogy and emotional carryover, to other wars. To put it another way, perhaps the worst consequence of World War II is that it kept alive the idea that war could be just.
Looking at World War II in perspective, looking at the world it created and the terror that grips our century, should we not bury for all time the idea of just war?
Some of the participants in that “good war” had second thoughts. Former GI Tommy Bridges, who after the war became a policeman in Michigan, expressed his feelings to Studs Terkel:
It was a useless war, as every war is…. How gaddamn foolish it is, the war. They’s no war in the world that’s worth fighting for, I don’t care where it is. They can’t tell me any different. Money, money is the thing that causes it all. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised that the people that start wars and promote’em are the men that make the money, make the ammunition, make the clothing and so forth. Just think of the poor kids that are starvin’ to death in Asia and so forth that could be fed with how much you make one big shell out o£”
British domination brought rape and murder and the torture of innocents to India.
Russian (then US) domination brought rape and murder and the the torture of innocents to Afghanistan.
US domination brought rape and murder and the the torture of innocents of Vietnam.
Chinese domination brought rape and murder and the torture of innocents to Korea
US domination brought rape and murder and the torture of innocents to Iraq, twice.
US domination brought rape and murder and the torture of innocents to the Philippines
US domination brought rape and murder and the torture of innocents to Nicaragua.
US domination brought rape and murder and the torture of innocents to Mexico.
Tell me again about justice and war.
That is not my stance. My stance is that war is never just, nor should it ever be cast as such. War, as Smedley Butler put it, is a racket. Nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 11:50 am
Darwin O'Connor
Since World War II there has been far less war then there used to be. Before then where wars between the great powers of the world every few decades and many more lesser wars most people have forgotten about. Vietnam and Afghanistan has been mere skirmishes compared to what came before.
There are probably many factors that brought the relative peace that we’ve had since World War II. Nuclear weapons and the UN are probably factors, as is the memories of the horrors of World War II.
“Russian (then US) domination brought rape and murder and the the torture of innocents to Afghanistan.”
There was a time between Russian and US domination in Afghanistan. If anything the amount of murder and torture of innocents was even worse then when they where dominated.
Until you can convince everyone in the world to stop raping and murdering and torture, sometimes you have to choose between a terrible thing and an even more terrible thing.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 12:16 pm
syrbal
War is increasingly a crime for profit activity. But the first crime is committed not by soldiers sent to fight it…those who rapidly lose their humanity in the process, but by the politicians who sit in safety and find benefits for themselves and their friends. Those callous people who will not negotiate to create peaceable solutions as long as there is a buck to be made in murder; those whose re-election is tied to continual lies that cover bad actions that push others into war as a last desperate resort.
We do not win wars anymore. War has become an economic extension carried out long term for profit by those who do not bear its risks. Rape and murder of several kinds are the handmaidens of EVERY war and exist in every nation, not only those in which the US in involved. But it is increasingly degrading that we scapegoat traumatized men for falling into a shadow of reactive savagery that is the common recourse of those ordered to do impossible things and for lied about reasons.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Darwin O'Connor
There may have been many wars started in order for some people to make a profit. Maybe even all of them.
That does not prove there cannot be a just war.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 12:38 pm
syrbal
In the modern world, with the terrible ability to destroy not only enemy soldiers, but the civilian populace AND the civilization’s necessities so very easily, I think that concept is becoming more oxymoronic.
Modern American soldiery is becoming a class of professionals to be used for purposes quite aside from defense of country, although the patriotic double-speak goes a-pace with flag pins and magnetic yellow ribbons.
If there WAS ever a just war? It has not happened in the 21st century.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Darwin O'Connor
We are still pretty early in the 21st century.
The Libyan war went pretty well. The bombing caused minimal civilian casualty and the rebels seemed to be less abusive then the government troops and mercenaries. The country seems to be moving along the bumpy and winding road to democracy.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 1:16 pm
syrbal
The key phrase there is “less abusive than the government troops and mercenaries”…the governments promulgating war for whatever stated reasons are clearly not interested in justice.
Just war is based on the premise of justice. If “rebels” are necessary to bring attention to an issue, justice is being denied. A war to reply to rebels is hardly therefore, “just” since addressing issued before and instead of military action would have been far better, and far more just.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm
Darwin O'Connor
To be clear, by government troops, I mean Gaddafi’s Libyan government troops and rebels are the group we supported trying to over through the Gaddafi government.
The Libyan government wasn’t interested in justice. It would have been far better and more just to address the issue without a war. They did attempt mass protests.
The option of war may not have been true justice, but I think it was justifiable.
LikeLike
January 23, 2013 at 5:21 pm
syrbal
No government is more interested in justice than it is its own survival. The American government is keeping rules on the books created to fight “terrorists”….but useful for subduing its own populace if things get worse and protests not so subdued as the Occupy movement should occur.
LikeLike
January 24, 2013 at 6:49 am
Darwin O'Connor
Like I said, the road to democracy is bumpy and winding. I can’t see the end of the road from where we are.
LikeLike
January 24, 2013 at 10:54 am
syrbal
Sadly, neither can I. I applaud your desire to believe in the concept of just war…really I do; I once made that same effort myself. But the more I look around, the more I feel a bit like my least favorite Shakespearean “hero”…Hamlet! Because “something” is certainly rotten almost anywhere one looks!
LikeLike
January 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm
bleatmop
There may or may not be such a thing as a just war, but there is definitely such a thing as a necessary war. WW2 was a necessary war in the face of Nazi aggression. The world would have been a much darker place fascism had prevailed under Nazi rule. Human rights, workers rights, woman’s rights, multiculturalism, freedom of belief, ect. would all either be severely curtailed or non-existent.
There are tragedies and abominations that happen during all wars, this is know. However, for a nation to stand by and let another commit greater abominations would be worse. Stopping ethnic clensing and genocide may not be pretty, but it is better than letting it happen. The war efforts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia may not have been just, but I considered them necessary.
LikeLike