2007, Meet 1978 . . .
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Warns Us from Our Past
By Hunter Baker Posted in War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sometimes, it's good to write. At other times, it is good to merely repeat. I'll repeat Solzhenitsyn speaking at Harvard in 1978 (he was booed if I recall correctly):
However, the most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear? The American Intelligentsia lost its [nerve] and as a consequence thereof danger has come much closer to the United States. But there is no awareness of this. Your shortsighted politicians who signed the hasty Vietnam capitulation seemingly gave America a carefree breathing pause; however, a hundredfold Vietnam now looms over you. That small Vietnam had been a warning and an occasion to mobilize the nation's courage. But if a full-fledged America suffered a real defeat from a small communist half-country, how can the West hope to stand firm in the future?
END.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Week #3: Ten Weeks To Testimony — Comments (0) »
2007, Meet 1978 . . . 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
A major aspect of "the surge" has been an effort by General Patraeus to get us off our butts, out of our FOBs and in AQ's faces more frequently. That's what began to flip Al Anbar.
"Scott Thomas" - The New Republic's Winter Soldier
Has not so much to do with military tactics, strategy, or even objectives, as with recognition of a threat to the nation.
The counterparts to those who then refused to recognise that the Vietnam conflict was very much a part of the Cold War are with us again in those (again, primarily the fawning duo of Democrats and media) who call the GWOT a bumper sticker and refuse to recognise the strategic importance of the struggle in Iraq.
Solzhenitsyn was always concerned about morality. His view, and one I agree with, was that the fight against communists was a fight between good and evil. Détente was a farce because it allowed a powerful, evil regime to not only exist in the world, but Détente also allowed them to grow stronger and stronger through our inaction.
What we learned from the Cold War was that evil must be destroyed because its mission is to destroy us. The method by which that happens was not so much a concern of Solzhenitsyn. He reasoned, and rightly so, when we understand the morality of the mission before us, the right strategy will be developed and executed. Solzhenitsyn lamented that the United States could not only see that the struggle between the US and the Soviets was a struggle between good and evil, but that we were even unwilling to consider that a possibility.
Another poignant quote from that speech is:
Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself? - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
It is as valid as the day he spoke it.
That's changing, I hope.
Try to remember, though, when someone in a position respected by American society said of some act of barbarism, "that is evil."
Ronald Reagan earned the disdain of many Americans with position and influence when he referred to the former Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire."
Today, it is still common to for broadcasters and experts to use words like "crazy" or "insane," not "evil."
I suppose a slogan for trying to turn this country's perceptions around might be "Remember: Saying 'Evil' Isn't Bad."
===Trying to be a first-rate reporter on the average American newspaper is like trying to play Bach's 'St. Matthew's Passion' on a ukulele. (Bagdikian's Observation)
but a crank in America after the Harvard speech. Being a dissident was fine in another country as American liberals saw it, but don't bring that courage to this country and criticize them, nobility of character has it's limits.
Solzhenitsyn made the mistake of thinking that in a free society adults could face the truth, so plain by 1978. How could he know the people he criticized here were similar to those he resisted abroad, only restrained by law, custom and a constitution that shackled their more questionable ambitions.
Is it not a liberal commonplace, enough to turn your ear to tin, "speaking truth to power", spoken by people who can't grow the federal government fast enough?
Solzhenitsyn did, and he was rejected, scorned, and consigned to oblivion.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Our goal in Vietnam was not to win. It was not offensive, but defensive. The rules of engagement were cloudy, the identity of the enemy often uncertain, and our military was stuck in the middle. Had our mission been the defeat of N. Vietnam, we would have won. But that was not our goal. Containment was, and containment is purely defensive. Militaries are trained to ATTACK and WIN. Not to just stand their ground. When we have our military do anything other than fight for victory, we endanger their effectiveness and their mission.
We are facing a parallel problem in Iraq. In a matter of days, our military won--we toppled Saddam and his government and wiped out the "valiant" Republican Guard (either through death, surrender, or flight). But now our goal is recovery, and our military is struggling at this, as good as they are. We are fighting a second war in Iraq, and this one is for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Just like our military's goal in Vietnam was not conquest, our military's goal in Iraq is no longer conquest. That's where the parallels end, IMO, between Vietnam and Iraq, but I think its an important one.
**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_