JACK'S BLOG
|
|
9/6/2012 3 Comments Have you ever listened to the words of Give Peace a Chance? Really Listened? Do they make sense to you?Vietnam: Retrospective Part 8 of 8"(Let me tell you now) Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout Revolution, Evolution, Masturbation, Flagellation, Regulation, Integrations, mediations, United Nations, congratulations All we are saying is give peace a chance All we are saying is give peace a chance" – John Lennon/Paul McCartney, 1969 Give Peace a Chance became the anthem of the antiwar movement. Although this refrain had all the force and effect of children pulling the covers over their heads when they feared monsters lurking in the dark, flower children argued that conflicts had been won by peaceful resistance. The successes of Gandhi and Martin Luther King were ready historical examples. When Nixon replaced Johnson as President, the United States made one more attempt at driving the North Vietnamese out of the south. He raised the restrictions on pursuing the communists into their sanctuaries. He even authorized the bombing of strategic targets in North Vietnam. Then, in an unexpected move, Nixon drove a wedge between North Vietnam’s communist sponsors. He opened relations with China thereby allowing old rifts between the two communist giants to re-emerge. Border disputes flared up between China and Russia. They had differing views of the conduct of the war between communism and capitalism. They even had differing views of their shared ideology. Thus, the harmony that provided North Vietnam with seemingly unlimited war material began to dry up as Russia and China began rearming themselves for a potential Sino-Soviet conflict. Ultimately, like any schoolyard bully, the North Vietnamese had to accept the fact that they had met their match on the battlefield. Peace was about to be given a chance. However, the North Vietnamese knew that they still held a trump card: The American anti-war movement. They used the peace accord as a subterfuge to remove the Americans from the battlefield and make one last push to invade the south. It worked only because the anti-war movement prevailed in convincing Congress to suspend all support of South Vietnam. There was nothing left to resist communist aggression. The path of pacifism was trampled under the feet of communist aggression, and more than 2.5 million people died in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. What then is the path to peace? To answer this, you must first define peace. If we can’t agree on this, we can’t find a path to it. However, if we agree that it is the absence of war, the answer is easy. First, remain strong, strong enough to deter all who might conspire to disturb peace. Then, if any are foolish enough to attack, destroy them. Destroy their capacity to make war. Destroy their will to make war. Do it quickly and decisively as we did in World War II. Think about it. Who are America’s greatest allies today? The French? The English? The Russians? These were our main allies during World War II, and yet, they are failing allies today. They are weak. They make themselves small to avoid appearing aggressive (as they did prior to World War II) and their behavior encourages attacks. The once mighty British navy now numbers less than twenty ships. The French army never regained its strength after surrendering to the Nazis. These nations are now attacked by terrorists far more often than the United States. Now look to our former enemies, Japan and Germany, two of our greatest allies today despite the fact that we destroyed their cities, gutted their institutions of government, and even stripped them of their rights to self-determination. We built new ones for them. Now, we are at peace with them, and they are strong. How many terrorist attacks have occurred within their borders compared to our traditional allies? Interesting, isn’t it? Why can’t peace be everlasting? Every time we let down our guard and exhibit weakness, we encourage a new enemy. Today, they attack us with terrorism, and they’re winning. You disagree? Look at how your lives have changed. The economy has tanked. We have surrendered freedom of movement and peaceful assembly to agents who frisk and observe us as though we are the enemy. We pretend to be strong. We invade Iraq and Afghanistan while the agents of terrorism lurk in other places, some even our “allies.” And, when we take command of a place, we gather tribal leaders and allow them to reestablish the same institutions and customs that inspired them to attack us in the first place. Why don’t we do in Iraq and Afghanistan as MacArthur did in Japan, and teach them a new way of governing themselves and living as peaceful, civilized nations. More astounding is the fact that there are some, even in those places that sponsor terrorism, who plead for our help. How easy it would be to lend them a hand, even a kind word of encouragement would be welcome. And yet our government denies they even exist. We continue to exhibit weakness despite the fact that history cries out to us to be strong. It reminds me of a popular TV series Kung Fu (1972-75) wherein a Shaolin Monk played by David Carradine, exiled to America in the days of the early westward expansion, wanders into one misadventure after another. Even though he has the ability to stop bad people from committing crimes or otherwise perpetrating evil deeds, he refuses until someone is hurt. Then, and only then, he acts, and the problem is resolved. Is there something more noble in fixing a problem rather than preventing it? Ultimately, we who served in Vietnam, won our battles there. Name just one that the Viet Cong or the North Vietnamese Army won. We lost only when we returned to be vilified by the antiwar protesters. Is it possible that they were the real losers?
All that pacifists believed in and struggled for has proven illusory. The peace that they sought is always beyond their reach. They abandon tried and proven principles of what works, and replace them with what they believe ought to work. They are driven by the best of intentions only to discover that their path leads straight to the gates of war and hell. Why won’t they learn?
3 Comments
9/7/2012 01:17:15 am
Giving peace a chance works only if everybody wants peace. And there is always someone or some nation that doesn't. For them, greed and the lust for power gets in the way. The weak fall quickly. Only the strong survive. Only the strong have peace.
Reply
9/8/2012 07:14:24 am
Triple the number of women in power and then check back with me on this in 50 years. :)
Reply
9/8/2012 07:38:47 am
There's a time when I would have said the same thing, maybe 40 or 50 years ago. However, I've seen examples of women in power that have given me pause. Even more illuminating have been the girls that I've seen in recent years. They have been some of the dirtiest fighters I ever met. The language, the physical violence - what are they trying to be? Boys with breasts? Sad
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|