Vietnam: War crimes as policy

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Tue May 1 11:45:22 PDT 2001


Christopher Caldwell:
> ...
> Vistica's overarching question- "Did Kerrey and his men commit crimes of war,
> or were they just applying the basic rules of a dirty war as best they
> understood them?" -- thus misses the point, or, rather, draws a distinction
> without a difference. Crimes of war were the basic rules....
> There are doubtless times when wars have to be fought this way. But almost
> no Americans would have countenanced the Vietnam War if they'd known it was
> being fought this way.
> ...

It seems doubtful whether wars can be fought in any other way, except under extraordinary circumstances. Certainly, where the contested ground is populated, especially by the enemy's people, the war will chiefly be waged against civilians, not only as collateral damagees, but as the targets of theft, arson, rape and murder. This is what happened in Vietnam; it is what I have read and what has been personally told to me by people who fought in Korea, North Africa, Europe and the Philippines. Nevertheless, plenty of people who should have known better were ready to go, or rather send someone else to go to Serbia and do the same there.

So I have to assume that as far as _upcoming_ wars are concerned, what Americans would have countenanced won't make any difference, at least until there's a major change in their beliefs.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list