According to Pentagon internal documents by the late '60s the Pentagon planers were afraid that the army was going to crack from within and that they could not control their own soldiers. Also according to the same internal documents the military planners were worried that they might have to use the army for internal suppression and that they couldn't continue fighting in S.E. Asia and control the population at home. No matter how much slaughter and violence that the U.S. perpetrated in Vietnam it could have been even worse.
Ask yourself, why was the war against Cambodia a "secret" war. It was only a secret from the U.S. people. Again the U.S.G. was trying to avoid further protest. If the war had been out in the open, if it had been an all out invasion similar to the invasion of South Vietnam, then the violence could have been much worse.
Why during the late '70s and through the '80s was their so much chattering by the U.S. intellectual classes about the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome." Because our militaristic intellectuals did not like the limits put on the use of military action that this "Syndrome" imposed upon the rulers in the U.S. The "Vietnam Syndrome" also had its effect in limiting the horrendous slaughter in Central America during the '80s. The Reagan Administration had to do in "secret" things they would normally have done in the open.
Further this limitation that our population puts on the violence of our rulers continues today. If the U.S. rulers could impose conscription on the population then they would not be worried about exhausting the military in a few years, if the current level of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continues. Also the ability of the U.S. to expand the war to Iran would be much easier if the population as a whole could actually be mobilized for war then the U.S. rulers would have less worries about their ability to use force and violence.
The task for those who would like to further limit the violence of the rulers and owners of U.S. society is to increase the cost of violence on those rulers and owners. To do this the solution is now as it always has been, increase the level of conscious organization of the population, increase the education of the population.
As far as I can see, your position is perpetuating the myth
> that somehow "we the people" can meaningfully influence U. S. government
> policies and actions, if only we'd try hard enough. In practical terms,
> every member of LBO "speaking out" and "acting out" about the gross
> injustices of the U. S. government will not affect U. S. policy one
> iota. I agree that this is a disheartening view, but that's where we
> are. It doesn't help anything to pretend that we live in a true
> democracy where our voices make a difference. (Perhaps the unshakeable
> faith that ordinary working people can shape U. S. government policy
> is--the modern opiate of the masses?)
Why do you insist that what I say has anything to do with "democracy?" In general the same task of limiting the violence of the rulers and owners of society maintains for all decent people who live under a dictatorship as well as a business-run republic such as ours. For example, Albert Speer makes the point in his autobiography that the Nazi regime was unable to put mobilize all sections of the population for war in the same way that Britain and the U.S. were able to do so. Thus Hitler until 1943 tried to fight a "guns and butter" war, and when he was unable to fight this kind of war many of the military leaders began to realize that the war might be lost.
But there is a deeper problem in what you are saying. If you really believe the following, and I quote you, ___"So in practical terms, you or I taking responsibility for the actions of the U. S. state is about as silly as you or I taking responsibility for the actions of the Iranian government. "___ Then in "practical terms" nobody in the U.S. had any reason to organize against the Vietnam War or the wars the U.S. fought in Central America. We might as well organize to limit the violence of the Iranian government or the Indian government or the Burmese government or simply do nothing at all. Frankly, I don't think you really believe what you are saying. If what you are saying is true then there was no reason for abolitionists to organize to try to stop slavery, or to organize try to limit the effects of imperialism anywhere. Is this what you really believe? Do you really believe that we have as much responsibility to organize to end the actions of foreign governments as we do to end the actions of the government that we in part benefit from?
One final note: We live in a business run republic. But we also live in a country with a very high level of individual freedom, esp. compared to most countries around the world. We have more freedom to organize than any other country I have spend a great length of time in (Central American countries and Brazil mostly). This greater amount of freedom means a greater amount of responsibility. We could use our greater amount of political freedom to raise the costs of the uses of violence to the rulers and owners of our society.
Nothing I have said is new. I am just saying what I am sure you already know. In fact I actually think that you knew that this would be my reply and for some reason you prefer to play dumb.
Jerry
Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/