Vets as Stooges

by Bruce Patterson

The National Socialists rose to power in Germany on the strength of what is called the "stab in the back" theory. According to the theory, the German soldiers stretched thin along the Eastern and Western Fronts hadn't lost the Great War. No, the soldiers in the trenches — the flower of Germany's youth — had been sold out by the weak-kneed, spineless politicians back home. According to the "stab in the back" theory, the generals in the field had been hamstrung by political indecision in Berlin, while German foot soldiers were forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs due to the squeamishness of the civilian leadership. Had the full force of the German Imperial Army been unleashed, the theory went, they would have been invincible.

Of course the Germans were beaten in WWI the moment they got locked into a two-front war. About the only remarkable thing about the German defeat was how long it took (the German leadership didn't pursue peace until their civilian population was on the edge of mass starvation and an entire generation of young German males had been wiped from the face of the earth).

Once the "stab in the back" theory had been accepted as Gospel by the average German citizen, they lost touch with reality and WWII became all but inevitable. Hitler became the perfect embodiment of the German people's noble yearning to restore their nation's Honor and Glory. Few politicians were ever as popular as Hitler.

The German acceptance of the "stab in the back" theory also led the Allies in WWII to follow a strategy of total war until total victory. The Allies demanded the unconditional surrender of the Germans so that, the second time around, there could be left no doubt in the mind of any surviving German about just who won, and just who lost, this war. Before it was over, German armies would be annihilated, German cities would be pulverized and incinerated, and hundreds of thousands of German civilians would be deliberately and systematically massacred in order to prove to the survivors that defeat was no illusion.

The moment the last of the Americans were chased out of Indochina, right-wingers in this country adopted the Nazi's "stab in the back" theory as their own. And once the American version of the theory became generally accepted, even to the point of being taught in some schools, the American military invasion of someplace like Iraq became all but inevitable. For what more logical way to remove the "stain" of Vietnam and the "humiliation" of America's total defeat than by producing an unqualified military victory?

Now that America's sorry predicament in Iraq has been made obvious, we are treated to the spectacle of some Bushite Vietnam veterans coming out of the woodwork and resurrecting the most putrid aspects of the old "stab in the back" theory in their attacks on John Kerry. According to these Bush spokesmen (they are issued "talking points"), Kerry's anti-war activities way back during our country's first Iraq War were, at the very least, unpatriotic. Hearing these aggrieved Vietnam veterans go on, the implication becomes clear that if our troops in Vietnam hadn't been exposed to the "demoralizing" effects of "enemy sympathizers" like John Kerry, then now there would be hundreds of thousands of grinning Americans living in prosperity in Indochina instead of the other way around. If it hadn't been for weak-kneed and disloyal anti-war veterans like John Kerry, these Bushites are insinuating, America would have prevailed and Saigon would still be Saigon.

Because even these attack dogs know that not all Americans are completely ignorant of their history, they color their insinuations of treason with more specific allegations concerning Kerry having "slandered" our soldiers while they were "bravely fighting to keep us free." Kerry supposedly did this while testifying before the Senate back in 1971. At the time Kerry said that in Vietnam — "Yes, Toto, this isn't Kansas" — American GIs were actually killing people. By spilling the beans in such a public fashion, these veterans charge, by letting the cat out of the bag on national TV, John Kerry had betrayed his comrades and had turned his back on The Motherland.

As for all of those millions of dead Indochinese — they jumped into their graves all by themselves.

The kind of people who gave us the Indochina War have now given us the Iraq War. So I think these Bushite veterans have some explaining to do. Like, when it comes to the point of arguing over the nature of martial courage, how dare any Vietnam veteran side with a chickenhawk like George Bush against a decorated combat veteran like John Kerry? How is that not a betrayal? As soldiers during the Indochina War, both John Kerry and George Bush showed what they were made of. Any veteran with a military bone left in his or her body knows the difference between those two kinds of soldiers.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Maybe I shouldn't be asking for spots on zebras. These Vietnam veterans with their "talking points" are party loyalists, after all, and they are not trying to spread the truth, much less look after anyone's morals. To the contrary, they are out to win a political campaign. They are out to win and so no kind of lie, and no kind of distortion, and no kind of dirty trick is beneath them.

Like old, cigar chomping Chicago ward bosses under the Daley Machine, the Bushites are proud of their corruption. They are proud of their own importance to the rackets, and proud of the municipal contributions they make in return for small, inconsequential considerations. The Machine controls the pork barrel and the patronage, the very life blood of the city — climb aboard the gravy train or get left behind at the station.

Like true functionaries everywhere, these vets wind up being stooges because of their own individual appetites and ambitions.

If combat veterans have anything legitimate to contribute to the national dialog, it must be as honest moral witnesses and as advocates for soldiers — and not as stooges for this faction or that. Veteran's perceptions are worse than worthless if, while in the service of a faction, they ignore what they know to be the most basic elements of warfare — in effect reinventing war according to their faction's new fantasy rules.

For instance, the very first rule of tactics is never to do what your enemy wants you to do. If your enemy wants you to enter a particular canyon, or to make your landing on a particular beach, don't do it! Because America's enemies were and remain those who organized the atrocities of September 11th, and because they publicly begged the Bushites to invade Iraq, by doing so the Bushites played right into their hands. This is what they have done and no military person, whether honest or dishonest, can rewrite the rules of tactics. Tactically speaking, George Bush is the best thing that ever happened to Osama bin Laden.

As a recently released report by the Army's Center for Strategic Studies pointed out, the "cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number." In other words, if your enemy is Germany, make an alliance with Russia. But do not — repeat — do not attempt to fight Germany and Russia at the same time. As the Army's post-mortem on the American invasion of Iraq went on to conclude, by multiplying our enemies, by pushing away our allies and by so vastly increasing the size of the area of our military operations, the Bushites have brought us to the brink of disaster.

Beyond pursuing stupid tactics and embracing a losing strategy, how else could these War Leaders mess up? How about in the area of logistics? The American invasion of Iraq has been a textbook case of a "logistical nightmare." Again, our worst enemies couldn't have picked a better place for us to futilely squander our national treasure. Due to a lack of planning, a lack of allies and a lack of common borders, even today the Bushites are unable to reliably deliver to our GIs on the line in Iraq even items as inexpensive and as portable as toothpaste. In light of the logistical chaos of the last 16 months, it's clear that if the Bushites had just divided among the long suffering Iraqi people the scores of billions of dollars they have already spent just on Shipping and Handling, the Iraqis would love America and there would be no insurgency.

Another component of war is Intelligence. In a nutshell, Intelligence consists of knowing all you can about your enemies. Of course, when the Bushites chose to invade Iraq, they didn't need any Intelligence because they wouldn't encounter any enemies. They would exterminate the opposing army by remote control and, having been "shocked and awed" by such a massive and lethal display of America's irresistible technological superiority, the civilian population would fall upon their knees and welcome their conquerors as liberators. That was the theory and that was the promise the Bushites made.

Naturally, once the Bushites realized that by invading a foreign country they'd started a war, they were utterly without Intelligence.

Beyond strategy, tactics, logistics and Intelligence — to a soldier this is the ABC's — you have terrain and timing. Fighting a war within an urban landscape is any army's worst case nightmare scenario, so — why not? — the Bushites chose to have our GIs fight and die in an urban war. So far as the quality of their timing, when, as the stewards of the world's "pre-eminent" military power, you cannot successfully capture a criminal escaping on foot or "pacify" a tiny country like Afghanistan, that's God's way of telling you that you've already got your hands full.

I could go on — the spectacular breadth of their incompetence is truly awesome to behold — but you get the point. George Bush chose to become a War President, so now he must be judged as a War President. To let him off the hook in such matters is to be a stooge and, in this crisis, America doesn't need any more stooges. Unless we are to abandon our GIs in Iraq altogether, decide in our patriotic minds that they are expendable and forget about them, their fates, their families and friends, at the very least we owe them competent leadership.