Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

For the Americans still in Iraq, and for the Iraqis still caught in the crossfire of the occupation, the war’s consequences will stretch on for years if not decades.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Someone Tell Frank Rich the War Is Not Over

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted August 16, 2005.


For the Americans still in Iraq, and for the Iraqis still caught in the crossfire of the occupation, the war’s consequences will stretch on for years if not decades.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Norman Solomon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

On Sunday, the New York Times published a piece by Frank Rich under the headline "Someone Tell the President the War Is Over." The article was a flurry of well-placed jabs about the Bush administration's lies and miscalculations for the Iraq war. But the essay was also a big straw in liberal wind now blowing toward dangerous conclusions.

Comparing today's war-related poll numbers for George W. Bush with those for President Lyndon B. Johnson, the columnist writes: "On March 31, 1968, as LBJ's ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire." And Rich extends his Vietnam analogy: "What lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam."

But Rich does not linger over the actual meaning of the "plan for retreat" and the "long extrication" -- which meant five more years of massive U.S. military assaults in Vietnam, followed by two more years of military aid to the Saigon government while fighting continued. The death toll during that period in Vietnam? Tens of thousands of Americans, perhaps a million Vietnamese people. That "extrication" was more than merely "long."

Rich's narrative does not just skitter past five years of horrific carnage inflicted by the U.S. government in Vietnam -- and elsewhere in Indochina -- after the spring of 1968. His storyline is also, in its own way, a complacent message that stands in sharp contrast to the real situation we now face: a U.S. war on Iraq that may persist for a terribly long time. For the Americans still in Iraq, and for the Iraqis still caught in the crossfire of the occupation, the experiences ahead will hardly be compatible with reassuring forecasts made by pundits in the summer of 2005.

Mocking President Bush's assertion on Aug. 11 that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Rich concludes: "The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there."

But of course Americans are not outta there. And President Bush reasserted last Thursday that withdrawal of U.S. troops is contingent on the U.S.-allied Iraqi forces achieving standards of performance and self-sufficiency that are little more than mirages.

Yes, eventually, U.S. troops may leave Iraq. But, in the summer of 2005, for commentators to declare the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Washington's latest imperial war to be a virtual fait accompli makes about as much sense as it would have in the spring of 1968.

Even after the commander in chief gives an order to begin systematic withdrawal of U.S. troops -- and we're very far from such a presidential order today -- there is likely to be continuation of massive U.S. military actions in Iraq. And even an actual sharp reduction of American troop levels on the ground hardly ensures a drop-off of Pentagon-inflicted violence. During the three years after July 1969, when President Nixon announced that the burden of fighting Communist forces would shift to Washington's South Vietnamese ally, the White House cut U.S. troop levels in Vietnam by more than 85 percent. During that same period, the tonnage rate of U.S. bombs falling on Vietnam actually increased.

Today, while the U.S. warfare in Iraq continues unabated, the message that "we're outta there" is pernicious. It looks past the ongoing need to demand complete U.S. withdrawal (if "we're outta there," why bother to protest?) and stands aloof from the very real political battles that will be fought to determine just how long or short the bloody "extrication" process will last.

We're not "outta there" -- until an antiwar movement in the United States can grow strong enough to make the demand stick. And we're not there yet. Not by a long shot.

Digg!

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to: WarMadeEasy.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the antiwar movement
Posted by: timg98376 on Aug 16, 2005 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The antiwar movement during the Vietnam era really gathered strength when it started to include working people and not just students or disaffected youth.

This is why the woman standing in protest outside Bush's Crawford ranch is such a potent image, she represents an opposition as core to society as, shall we say, motherhood and apple pie.

You can bet the Rove attack machine is plotting ferociously to somehow sabotage her effort, a difficult thing to do to a mother mourning the loss of her son, who was the victim of a war of agression that is a complete fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the antiwar movement Posted by: Djon
No draft, no homefront sacrifices, no body bags, rather...
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 16, 2005 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...tax cuts and spending = a pacified electorate.

There is an anti-war movement. But the electorate has been bought off again. It's the Republican way. No surprise, since our votes have always been for sale to the highest bidder.

It seems not to matter that the President lies or that it is dirty tricks that keep him in office. Few seem to care that the huge cost will be passed down to coming generations. As long as Congress is "spending like a drunk" and housing values soar, all is right with our world.

And anyone who says otherwise, we are told, is just Chicken Little with his sky falling. Maybe this time, Chicken Little knows whereof he speaks. It's time to resist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The War is Never Over
Posted by: nakis on Aug 17, 2005 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's just taken to another front.
The Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Drug War, The War on Terrorism, the War on Afghanistan, ad infinatum......

They are all just theatres of the class war.

And each one requires great energy and resources to fight and for the peace movements to fight. Precious resources that could better humanity. Instead becomes feed for the cannibalistic wealthy.

We can exist without these wars. Humanity can progress without the destruction and waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» we love war Posted by: Djon
War is a Smokescreen
Posted by: Sandra on Aug 17, 2005 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the various wars that we engage in and support provide cover for the dismantling and looting of our country by the Republican administration and Congress. If we have our minds on our sons and daughters dying in Iraq, we won't notice the contents of the Patriot Act, the class war, the looting of the national treasury. the attempt to gut Social Security, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: Wacre
The War is over...
Posted by: amilius on Aug 17, 2005 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 'War' is over. It's the Occupation and resulting insurgency that continue. Both are the result of ignorance by the administration that saw fit to inflict a revolution on a nation that our leaders only chose to imagine as 'threatening' so as to further empiric dreams of hubris. Ever notice how little is said about the 14 occupation bases that are almost finished? Four of them already are. These are not very gracious choices our nation has made. Wholesale destruction, mayhem, and armed occupation are things best avoided in sharing with other nations. W and Co., not having paid attention in their avoidance, missed the lesson of Viet Nam:

One does not disenfranchise a people in their own land without inviting consequence to one's self in one's own land.

Insurgents have no where else to go and find willing support among those who mistrust Washington's conspicuous ambitions. We will rue the consequences of W's choices for quite some time. Do you suppose in the Oedipal confict with Dad, that it occurred to W that at least Dad isn't vilified just yet? Oh yeah, that's why he sealed all of the documents from Dad's administration...
The question remains: With the 'War' over and the insurgency growing, does it serve the Iraqis and the US for us to attempt to 'referree' a major civil conflagration in the dissolution of the Iraqi nation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solomon's jealous
Posted by: Djon on Aug 17, 2005 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rich writes better than Solomon, right? And he's more aggressive. And he doesn't pretend to be entirely rational, which means he's more honest than Solomon.

Rich wrote an aggressive, dangerous article. Solomon's just trying to steal his thunder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Analogy
Posted by: villars on Aug 17, 2005 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The analogy between Vietnam and Iraq is basically on the mark.

We did not have an exit strategy from Vietnam and neither did our troops have any experience in jungle warfare before they went there (after first the French, then the English failed to defeat North Vietnam).

And we did not have an exit strategy before we began the war in Iraq and we were not prepared for an insurgent war to follow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

amnesty!
Posted by: liberalguy2 on Aug 17, 2005 9:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we need to offer the terrorists amnesty and offer to subsidize them! this would create goodwill and it would show the world that we care! we should offer them hugs instead of warfare! and counseling if they like. All criminals should be released from the prison system too. there rights are extremely important. They just need love and understanding! we should protests until we get these things! If we yell loud enough , someone will listen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: amnesty! Posted by: Ellie1
Let us reason together ...
Posted by: Meremark on Aug 17, 2005 11:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frank Rich can be astutely right without regard for the pragmatic real-politiks of extrication. The tide of popular sentiment has crested and now recedes, and reading such threshholds is Rich's peculiar gift.

He does not go far enough back in time to tell the sixty-year-old beginnings of the war frame that's ending. But he's got the right finish line, it's over, we're out of there.

In our dreams, now, and as Solomon says: that's a long way from really over. And that's what's wrong with 'the system,' the 'established politics,' if one goes on looking into it far enough. And that slow responsiveness to dreams and Solomon's pragmatick at it, is what is under the gun and ending in our day.

This criticism of Solomon for being uncomprehensive in faulting Rich for being uncomprehensive, is written as I'd like to have, in my dreams, and I concur in it -- here, Where Frank Rich goes wrong: the war in Iraq and the stakes for American imperialism, By Patrick Martin, 16 August 2005.. I recommend it to Norman, starting this way:

Frank Rich of the New York Times is one of a handful of columnists for the major daily newspapers in the United States who exhibit intelligence and compassion. He makes no secret of his loathing for the war in Iraq—a sentiment entirely to his credit and rare in the media. And he recognizes that the Bush administration, with its combination of criminality and recklessness, represents something qualitatively new and troubling in American political life.

That being said, the limitations of Rich’s liberalism were all too clearly on display in the column published on Sunday ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

huh?
Posted by: grazer on Aug 18, 2005 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a bizarre and rambling reply to Frank Rich's column. Rich isn't talking about timetables. He's talking about loss of public support for the war, which means the effort turns toward extrication, not victory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This "war" is over. The consequenses are just continuing.
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Aug 18, 2005 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The war in Iraq was over before troops ever set foot in it. With over 80 years of meddling in Iraqi affairs, this war, as well as Gulf War I was a war of deception and lies to continue the spread of FUD by those who stand behind the National Security Act of 1947. Since then, the US has been in a perpetual war for perpetual peace without ever having the legal consent of Congress. The US is now a national security state, not a democratic one.

When was the last time the US Congress declared war per the war powers act? I believe it was 12/7/1941.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

best critique of rich can be found via link below
Posted by: mikeroloff on Aug 18, 2005 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/rich-a16.shtml

Frank Rich of the New York Times is one of a handful of columnists for the major daily newspapers in the United States who exhibit intelligence and compassion. He makes no secret of his loathing for the war in Iraq—a sentiment entirely to his credit and rare in the media. And he recognizes that the Bush administration, with its combination of criminality and recklessness, represents something qualitatively new and troubling in American political life.

That being said, the limitations of Rich’s liberalism were all too clearly on display in the column published on Sunday under the headline, “Someone Tell the President the War Is Over.”

Rich compares Bush to the proverbial Japanese soldier marooned on a Pacific atoll and still fighting World War II, writing: “President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over.” Citing the growing public opposition to the war in Iraq and the danger of huge losses for the Republican Party in the 2006 mid-term elections, Rich declares, “Such political imperatives are rapidly bringing about the war’s end.”

The Times columnist is clearly encouraged by the media attention given to the antiwar activities of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a young soldier killed in Baghdad who is camped outside Bush’s Texas ranch, demanding a meeting with the president. He also cites the near-victory of an antiwar Iraq war veteran, running as the Democratic candidate in a special election for a normally safe Republican congressional seat in Ohio, and statements by nervous Republican politicians, concerned that the White House has failed to recognize the growth of public disillusionment with the war as the US death toll approaches 2,000.

Rich is not wrong to believe that, in terms of public opinion, the summer of 2005 has marked a decisive shift against the war. He makes a striking comparison, noting that Bush’s approval rating on the war, now down to 34 percent, nearly matches the low of 32 percent for Lyndon Johnson’s conduct of the war in Vietnam in March 1968, just before Johnson announced he would not seek re-election. Bush’s overall approval rating at 42 percent is just barely higher than Johnson’s 41 percent in his final year in office.

But it is self-delusion to believe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fresh Air of Real Debate
Posted by: Stonecutter on Aug 23, 2005 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Normally, I revere Frank Rich's writing and his point of view. However, Mr. Solomon is on the money....Rich was off base in his recent column, even if his intent was clear and in the spirit of his consistent opposition to this president and this war.

What's profoundly satisfying is the reality that Rich and Solomon are part of a larger, complex debate about the war in the progressive community, and that their views, however divergent, are based on facts, analysis, and reasoned opinion...not the dark fantasy, deception, and big lies that characterize the daily flow of drivel out of the administration.

If I have to live in this bizarro world currently shaped by neocon delusions and fundamentalist fever dreams, thank the Lord (the one that watches over all of us, not just the born-again zealots) that there's an Internet not yet controlled by Rumsfeld, and minds like Solomon and Rich and Pitt and hundreds of others that can speak freely and perhaps disagree, but with reason and logic firmly in their grasp.

Karl Rove and Karen Hughes may be channeling Goebbels by way of Lee Atwater, but not all of us are sedated by their twisted version of reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]