>Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and so forth. I think American foreign
>policy has been remarkably consistent for a long long time now [think about
>the "conquest" of the New World, the use of slaves, genocide of Indians
>etc] so the parallels go further than Vietnam and Latin America.   As for
>that, there are similarities: both started as "counterinsurgency"
>operations that snowballed; both involved the extensive use of state
>terror; both caused untold misery and destruction.  And, yes, I think the
>lessons of Vietnam did make it harder for Reagan and Bush to do more, but
>I'd add the caveat that the American military, also aware of Vietnam, had
>no great interests in fighting in Nicaragua, El Salvador, especially Cuba.
>The civilian "cowboys" are almost always more dangerous than the guys in
>uniform; they have bigger goals, like global economic hegemony--that's the
>way the military-industrial complex works.
>
>
>        First, I'd recommend that everyone read that essay. It should be
required
>to participate on this list!  As for the question, I'm not claiming to be
>in Chomsky's league, or his shoes, but I suspect he'd advocate speaking
>truth to everyone.  Clearly, we don't have access to the major media
>centers [and "our" media, like Pacifica, is of questionable reliability
>anymore] so we're not going to get through that way.  And those in power
>are pretty well aware of what they're doing, so anything "we" point out to
>"them" isn't going to make a difference.  Still, anytime we have a venue,
>it's important to tell people what the real deal is.  I like to speak in
>the community for this reason. I've spoken to the "usual supects"--campus
>radical groups, labor, Greens, etc.--plenty, but I also speak to church and
>school groups whenever I can.  I don't buy this media crap about how
>"conservative" this country is.  I've spoken to church groups here in Texas
>who were very responsive to what I said [no, not just Unitarians!].  So
>spread the word, at the water cooler at work, in between pitches at the
>Little League game, while getting a hair cut, etc.  I think you'll be
>surprised at how many people are sympathetic.  Obviously, no revolutionary
>change is imminent, so we have to talk with people and give them our rap
>and in time, more people will listen to it and be persuaded.
>

I hate to challenge the positive tone of this last point, but I think an
important distinction is missing here. Even if U.S. policy has been
consistent across various actions, Vietnam and Central America present two
significant cases, in the sense that both were almost entirely manufactured
actions. Each of the "conquest" of the New World, the use of slaves, and
the genocide of Indians served particular purposes; in these cases and
others the American state asserted control over territory inside the
developing empire, or found the most efficient, even if unjust, way to
generate wealth. But Central America and Vietnam served entirely different
purposes - in both cases the economy was in good order, the strategic goals
were beside the point (in the sense that these actions could have taken
place anywhere, and it isn't even necessary, IMV, to speak of the war in
Central America as a war in particular states, Nicaragua or El Salvador),
defeat, in the histrorical sense of fairly complete military failure, was
not a realistic possibility,  the level of military support was
inconsistent and often covert, and popular support at home was inconsistent.

If this is at all true, it might be important to consider other possible
causes for the two conflicts, and these are not difficult to imagine,
because there are few reasonable candidates. Eg., since military power
economic power and territorial control had been already, in general terms,
achieved, these conflicts substantiated the ideology underlying economic
power, in the sense that economic power in the U.S. state is thought to be
the inevitable result of trusting and protecting free market capitalism,
and so Marxist or socialist models creeping in to Vietnam or Nicaragua were
a challenge to be conquered. While other cases are worthy of consideration,
IMV most here would agree that the suggestion above is probably at least
part of the right answer.

This is why I have a problem with the claim that America now is not a
conservative political community. Of course terms like this are slippery as
H, but I think I know what the intent of the claim was, and even if I know
and participate in some groups on the 'usual suspects' list. The only
explanation that goes though, as far as I am concerned, is that Kennedy,
Reagan, Bush, Clinton, etc.., represent a significant and powerful group,
and this group is both more numerous and more conservative than the elites
of the American state at any time before. Indeed, there are pockets who do
not subscribe to the prevailing conditions, but these groups are not nearly
as strong in numbers, and certainly not in power, as the group to whom
these leaders respond. And when the pocket groups make enough noise, this
is when the elite reconsiders their endorsement (because stability is the
old friend of prosperity, and the wars aren't really strategically
significant anyway), this is when leaders ease military support for their
plundering, or send it underground, and this is how most contemporary
military adventures come and go. I think the American state has in the past
three decades entered a new stage of development, and this stage is
characterized by historically distinct military actions like Vietnam and
Central America, which are the only and necessary exercise for the strongly
conservative ideology which serves the economic power of the empire.


--
Michael Kocsis
[log in to unmask]