“War is hell,” said General Sherman, and he was winning. It’s
worse than hell when you lose, especially for the folks at the top who always promise
glorious triumphs when sounding the trumpet to get the war going.
Biden may be old and sick, but if he were presiding over
victory in one of his wars, I’m not sure anyone could have browbeaten him into
stepping aside. FDR was half dead in 1944 when he ran for his fourth term, and
he carried 38 states.
When wars go badly, the disgruntled tend to keep quiet about
it even in countries where dissenters aren’t shot. Loyalty to the boys (and
girls) in uniform requires that citizens keep “supporting” them long past the
point when doubts about the outcome are impossible to ignore.
Unhappiness about the progress of warmaking is therefore
likely to be sublimated, channeled into other forms of discontent. I lived
through an illustrative episode in my adolescence watching support for LBJ, a
wildly popular figure in 1964, collapse.
Of course, there were others factors aside from the Vietnam
quagmire. Johnson pushed through major civil rights legislation and alienated racists.
Some people disliked the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid although there
was a broad national consensus in their favor. He was an effective horse-trader
and acknowledged to be a master politician.
But Johnson’s decision to gamble everything on war in Asia
did him in. The death toll was unacceptable—of Americans, that is. (After
Vietnam, the war party kept the body counts way down.)
Nixon promised to put an end to the war and then, once in
office, escalated. It wasn’t for a proud militarist to preside over humiliating
battlefield defeat. Eventually, he too was ousted, ostensibly over electoral
shenanigans that would be scarcely noticed today.
The unpopular war had undermined two presidents. Young
draftees kept dying—until compulsory service ended in 1971. Atrocity tales
filtered back home, even before the notorious My Lai massacre came to light. The
secret expansion into Cambodia sparked new horrified amazement.
All the while, official discourse was dominated by
Kissingerian types promising that things were going just fine, that we should
stick with the leadership just a little longer, and that dissent aided the
enemy. Extreme militarists continued to denounce grumblers and call for even
heavier bombing of North Vietnam’s cities and ports, even for nuking them. Demagogues
encouraged blue-collar workers to attack antiwar protests and to hate “draft
dodgers” and peaceniks.
But a substantial minority of the population viewed all this
as profoundly immoral as well as stupid. Happy talk about progress on the
battlefield wasn’t as convincing in 1971, ‘72, ‘73, even as Nixon racked up a
historic electoral victory over George McGovern. Nixon’s support was broad but
paper-thin. Less than 2 years after his historic 49-state victory, Nixon was
out.
Fast forward to today: we’re doing great in Ukraine; Russia
is a gas station parading as a country (Nigeria with snow); its soldiers are
drunks; and its equipment is all rusty. No one can challenge mighty NATO with
the greatest fighting force in history behind it. Any day now, the Ukrainians
will bounce back and chase Putin/Hitler’s armies back into Russia, which will
then collapse and shatter into various parts, just like in 1991.
And Joe Biden is at the top of his game and not at all
senile.
The defeat of the West in its European war of choice will be
far more destabilizing than the ragtag departure from 20 years of occupation in
Afghanistan. No one will take the blame for the debacle because in this country
we don’t do responsibility. But someone will have to preside over it, and a
likely candidate is someone expendable, a last-minute placeholder pushed into
the spotlight at exactly the worst moment.
In 1974 it was Leslie Lynch King, Jr., who had been
shoehorned into the vice presidency just months before after an old-fashioned
cash-in-shoeboxes scandal. Leslie was better known by the name he adopted after
his mother got remarried—to Gerald Ford, Sr.
Poor Leslie/Gerald was left holding the bag as the
helicopters sailed away from the rooftop of the Saigon embassy. Who will get
that undesirable job when the U.S. decides that Ukraine is Europe’s problem and
walks away from another ignominious debacle?
Welcome, President Kamala.
2 comments:
"European war of choice." Really? Not Russian war of choice? It wasn't Nato that invaded Ukraine.
The U.S./NATO avoided diplomacy and ignored Russian concerns about a hostile military alliance on its borders with the option of placing nuclear weapons with a 5-minute flying time to Moscow. The U.S. almost went ballistic over a similar problem in 1962. They knew it would lead to war, and it did. They thought it would be an easy victory and now don't know what to do.
Post a Comment