Those Damn Hippies are Still Trouble:
How the 60s still affect us.

A funny thing happened on America's journey into the 21st Century to greater freedom and prosperity for all, a colossal train wreck otherwise known as the election of Ronald Reagan. Unlike the 60s being ushered in by a young vibrant and dynamic president promoting equality for all, the 80s was usher in with a old president prone to taking naps promoting trickle down (feel free to read that as piss on me economics) economics caring only for the rich.1 No wonder the decade of the 80s became called the decade of greed. Just as the age difference of the two presidents was in sharp contrast so were the policies of each as well as the times. One was a progressive believing that America could provide for all of its citizens; the other didn't give a damn for the unfortunate and chose to implement regressive policy. One chose to unite all Americans the other promoted class warfare. One promoted civil rights for all, the other tried to dismantle civil rights.
Not only was the two decades ushered in by major differences in policy, the general out look of Americans had changed greatly. As a nation we entered the 60s with a can do attitude unlike the 80s we were a nation of self-doubting Thomases, full of doubt and guilt. Americans entered the decade of the 60s full of hope for a better future, two cars in every garage unlike the 80s where many saw only a more dismal future with many giving up hope of ever owning their own home. One saw the greatest technological achievement of man, with Americans walking on the surface of the moon the other saw the space program going up in smoke with the explosion of the Challenger.
One was a decade of rebirth and growth the other was decade of decline and decay. One saw the highest standard of living achieved for the American workers the other saw the standard of living falling for the vast majority of workers. The 60s saw the birth of the grass root environmental movement, the 80s gave birth to the extremist group, Wise Use led and backed by multinational corporations hell bent on destroying and plundering the environment. One saw the investment in and building of new plants and equipment the other defined investing as leverage buyouts financed by junk bonds that built nothing. One saw us building the infrastructure like the interstate highway system the other saw reports of bridges that were unsafe and the decay of the infrastructure.
One saw the baby boomers coming of age, a generation of activist for a large part the other saw the generation X coming of age a generation of pathetic whiners in a large part.2 One is a decade mistaking thought of as a violent decade, the 60s when in actual fact the 80s were a far more violent decade. These are just a few of the stark contrasts between the two decades. But even more importantly one was the bold implementation of new policies named the New Frontier and the Great Society; the other was merely a reaction to the former too ashamed of itself to even give itself a name.
The first thing to understand about the 80s was it was a decade of reaction to the 60s. Just as reaction to the Civil War era came to dominate the country for decades afterwards, the sixties have came to dominate the country well into the 1990s. Like the Civil War the decade of the 60s saw the nation divided on the issues of the day. No time since the Civil war has the nation been as divided as it was during the 60s. Nor does this reaction to the 1960s appear to be abating anytime soon.
Perhaps one of the reasons that the Civil war and the 60s have both exerted so much influence in the following decades was there were no clear victories or closure. Unlike the New Deal era in which VJ Day provided the victory and the closure, there was no closure and no victory following the Civil War. Yes, the war was over and the slaves were free but to what extent did their freedom extend? Closure to that issue only came with the shameful decision of "Separate But Equal" in 1896, thirty years later. Likewise there has been no clear victory from the 1960s; civil rights and the feminist issues are both still in a state of flux as is the meaning and lessons from Vietnam.
It is the opinion of this writer that closure will only come with the passage of some landmark legislation or court decision. Unless we can confront the hard right soon, the decision is likely to be as shameful as the "Separate But Equal" ruling. This then would placate the hard right but leave the true resolution of the problem to future generations. At the moment the nation is simply to polarized to embrace an honorable solution. The only hopeful signs that we may eventually come to an honorable solution has been the lost of elections by members of the hard right giving way to more moderate voices.
Robert Reich, an economist made the statement that the New Deal liberalism was held together by the shared experiences of overcoming the depression and the war. Stated simply it was the politics of "we" not of "us and them". Kennedy and Johnson were the last Presidents to understand that. In speeches of both the telltale sign of "we" appears. Starting with the election of Nixon politics started to be centered on the "us Vs them". Certainly Nixon considered the anti-war movement to be part of "them" and the "us" part was the silent majority. This style of confrontational politics was continued under Reagan and Bush.
This writer was living in the Portland, Oregon area at the time of the 1994 elections. The Republicans gained control of the state house that year. The house had previously established a memorial award in the name of Frank Roberts for those that had performed exemplary public service. Roberts had been a life long public servant and a Democratic legislator. He was well liked and respected on both sides of the aisle, his wife Barbara was then governor. The Democrats asked for the award to be granted in the following legislative session, however in a raucous, mean spirited move they refuse to even consider the award. The award could have been granted to anyone, it was entirely a bipartisan award, the Republican temper tantrum that year not only was a disservice to the people of Oregon it was dragging the name of a good man through the mud.
Eventually this confrontational style of politics culminated in the impeachment of Clinton over a lousy blow job. Now how's that for a high crimes and misdemeanors. Only two of the articles of impeachment were passed along a razor thin party line margin to the Senate the other two were even too much for some members of the Republican Party. What is even more remarkable about this is that following the 1998 elections and the historic loses of the Republicans has been the lack of leadership in the house. First Newt resigns his seat and the speaker's position and runs off to hide under a rock. Then the new speaker designate, Livingston does the same on the day the vote for impeachment was taken. Yet this is the party that claimed they could run the country better than Clinton could. Perhaps they need some practice on how to run their own party before we allow them a shot at running the country and stop acting like a bunch of pious hypocrites. Both Newt and Livingston were outed in sexual escapades of their own by investigative reporters.
This is divisionist politics at its worst, even the opinion polls show that the American voters do not favor a impeachment by almost a three to one margin contrasted to the almost universal call for impeachment of Nixon. In fact the Republicans have set a dubious record of sorts following the impeachment vote of the House, the majority of voters, 59% now disapproves of the Republican Party. Yes, they even had to have one more article of impeachment than what Nixon faced. It's not the type of politics that the voters want. The voters want closure for many of the issues from the sixties. There is no better example of this than Jesse Jackson's triumphal march across Wisconsin in 1988. Yes, Jackson lost the primary there, but the people there reached out and embraced him conveying a sense of trying to heal the racial wounds of the nation even in the small rural white towns.86
Doinne goes on to argue that Jackson defense of the common people was what united white and blacks in Wisconsin. That Jackson saw the whites of modest means as victims of racism just as blacks were. Jackson argued that racism is not the sin of the white masses but rather the tool of choice of white elites to divide the nature coalition of the common man.86 Throughout this chapter we will show how the Republican Party has used this tool to gain and maintain power. And make no mistake about it; it is a tool of the fascist. It is a reactionary tool. Just as the hard right was trying to turn back the clock after the Civil War to slavery times the right wing extremists today are trying to reset the clock back to the 1950s to a time before the civil rights and feminist movement had achieve gains.
One of the themes of Reagan's campaign was the return of the hostages in Iran, Iran had already gone fascist replacing the Shah with a religious theocracy. How then did a small backward nation dare to take embassy personnel of the U.S. prisoners? Before answering that question we must first explore the root causes. We'll briefly look at the historic events stemming from the 60s that exerted so much influence on the 80s to provide a backdrop to the 80s. From this backdrop we can then gain a better understanding of the root causes of the events leading to the rise in fascism in America and also the world. Hitler used a divisionist policy to gain control of Germany; he blamed the Jews. In America the hard right uses the same tactic to gain control. Their extremist platform simply is not appealing to the vast number of voters so they must rely on dividing the country. They pit blacks against whites, rich against poor, employers against employees, environmentalist against capitalist, the retired against the workers, the young against the old and the educated against the uneducated.
This writer attributes the following events and movements from the 60s as the most influential in the following decades. They are still exerting powerful influences well into the 1990s both globally and domestically, roughly listed in their order of importance.21 Note the majority of these reasons are connected in more than a casual way to Vietnam.
1. The loss of Vietnam War and the end of U.S. hegemony.
2. The shift in wealth to the Mideast after the formation of OPEC.
3. Rise of Japan and Germany as economic powerhouses.
4. The rebirth of fundamental religion worldwide.
5. The resignation of Nixon.
6. The passage of civil rights legislation.
7. The sexual revolution of the 60s.
8. COINTELPRO
9. The decline of unions.
10.The change in party leadership of the Republicans and Democrats
This writer can think of no single event or policy from the 60s; that exerts more lingering effects domestically and internationally than the defeat of the U.S. in the Vietnam War. Face it we lost the war. I don't care that Nixon called it peace with dignity, we lost the war. As much as the simple lost of this war caused trouble domestically and internationally, denying the simple fact generated even more trouble. We blamed the military leaders for the lost. We blamed the lost on the draft. We blamed the political leaders for the lost. We blamed the lost on the high rate of drug use by our forces. We blamed the war protestors for the lost. We made excuses claiming that we had beaten the enemy in the Tet offensive. This damn war spanned the administrations of five presidents from Truman's covert aid to the French in Indochina to Nixon's expansion of the war into neighboring Cambodia. No one has yet seen the light at the end of the tunnel. We won't see that light at the end of the tunnel until as a nation we put aside our pride and face up to the fact that we lost the war and quit using it as a damn excuse.
Nor should any of the veterans that served during Nam misread this as an attempt to blame them or in any way distract from their honorable service to this country. The soldiers of Vietnam were honorable men that fought for what they believed in. Likewise, this writer places none of the blame on the anti-war protestors and like the soldiers the protestors were people fighting for what they believed. Rather you should be reading this as an attack on those directly responsible. This writer does not put the blame on any of the presidents except those that are noted. As for the presidents they were essentially powerless to stop the ever-deepening quagmire of Vietnam. Nixon and Johnson both could have probably withdrawn from Vietnam and survived politically as by that time public opinion was shifting against the war and they both deserve some of the blame. But lets give LBJ credit where credit is due, he chose not to seek reelection and further divide the country, a honorable action no mater what side of the fence you are standing. Nor do I place any of the blame on the reasons listed above.
It is now known with certainty that Nixon actively worked to stall the Paris peace negations of LBJ. Using Anna Chennault, the widow of a WWII general, Nixon persuaded South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu to sabotage the Paris peace talks since Nixon would give him better deal than Johnson would. When a wiretap revealed the Chennault channel to Johnson, Humphrey refused to capitalize on the information fearing it would provoke a national crisis.74 Here is the first example of how the hard right used the war to divide the nation for partisan gain and to hell with a honorable peace and what is best for the nation. We likewise note the statesman character of Humphrey in setting aside personal and partisan gain for the betterment of the nation.
No, this writer places the blame and there is plenty to go around on the right wing extremists and their rabid fear of communism, they were the ones that successfully created the rabid anti-communism paranoia in this country. We were right to oppose communism. But to what limits was this opposition to communism healthy before becoming harmful? Just as there is a fine line between a social drinker an alcoholic there is a fine line in opposing communism in the name of patriotism before the opposition becomes an unhealthy phobia. The old adage "Better Dead than Red" is just one example of the inflammatory rhetoric of those times. Pursuing the fight against the enemy until it divides the country or to the brink of widespread dissention is not patriotism. And yes, Nam did just that.



To fully appreciate the anti-red hysteria of the early 60s one needs to have lived through this era. This writer has done so, he can remember the duck and cover drills in schools, like a slab of a Formica desk was going to protect anyone from a nuclear blast. I can remember taking the 7th grade final in science, in which three fourths of the questions were related to civil defense. One needs to remember the frantic rush to establish and build civil defense shelters. But we continued building bombs until we could nuke the whole Soviet nation sixty times over. The fools were not content with just destroying a nation they wanted to shake the ashes as well. It didn't mater a twit to the these fools if we had destroyed the whole damn planet in a all out nuclear exchange as long as some one remained to claim the ashes for capitalism. In such an exchange the lucky ones would have been at ground zero, the survivors would have cursed the fools for their ideological war until they died a horrendous death from radiation poisoning, starvation or disease.
I can remember with an amusing grin the anti-red propaganda stories, that were required reading in schools. Anyone remember Animal Farm? In short the war drums were beating loudly. Not a single voice was raised for sanity to do so would have been unwise if not unhealthy. Kennedy was criticized unjustly for the failure of the Bay of Pigs, for his failure to use force during the Cuban Missile crisis, for his policy of dente with the Soviets. He even had to use the FBI to shut down an illegal CIA training camp for Cuban gorillas. The CIA actively tried to sabotage his policy of dente by plotting to blow up Soviet ships in Cuba harbors. How did the CIA become so out of control that it openly defied the President?
After all didn't Khrushchev beat the podium with his shoe at the UN claiming he was going to bury us? Does anyone remember Khrushchev and Nixon's kitchen debate? Amazing that they couldn't find more pressing subjects to debate than kitchen appliances. Had not Tail Gunner Joe found communist moles in the government a few short years before by waving and ever changing lists of names in front of the media? All the domestic politics were cloaked in the anti-red hysteria. The bill to construct the interstate highway system was passed because it was needed for national defense. The space program was launched to beat the Russians to the moon least they launch an attack from there. Parts of the farm program were justified in setting aside a store of grains so we could overcome and survive a nuclear attack.
The John Birchers and others were distributing lists of the communist plot to take over the country. Those lists blamed the decline in morals as part of the communist plot. These lists circulated in the late fifties and early sixties and had already blamed the yet non-existent sexual revolution as part of a communist plot to subvert America. They likewise blamed the banning of forced school pray as part of the plot. Yes this writer can remember being forced to pray to a god that he neither accepted or believed in, he didn't like it then and he detests it even more today. This writer can even remember being told after the Kennedy half dollar was released that the initials of the designer located under the bust was proof that Kennedy was a communist, in the crazed minds of the hard right they looked like a hammer and sickle. This was not patriotism; it was nothing short of a phobia perpetrated on the American public by a bunch of paranoid raving loons. But who were these paranoid loons and what was their motivation?
In case there is anyone that questions that Eisenhower was essentially powerless to stop the ever deepening commitment to Vietnam, let me remind them that the John Birchers were calling Eisenhower a communist. They labeled him as a fellow traveler. If he had not chosen to support South Vietnam he would have been impeached, ran out of office or possibly have been the target of an assassination. One only has to read Richard Dudman's book published in 1961 to get a feel for how the rabid right was able to influence and control public opinion at that time.6 He lists many of the retired military officers that were members of John Birch Society and the closely aligned American Security Council, the listings could be more closely described as a who's who of retired high-ranking military officers7. General Walker being the name that is commonly remembered and the furthest out of touch with reality. Walker was the general that distributed John Birch literature while on active duty in Germany. Subscribers to the ACS reads like a list of corporate America, in addition founders of many of these corporations were members and sources for funding. Another name associated with the ACS is Donner; the Donner Foundation supports many right wing groups and institutes. In another chapter we will take a closer look to the funding activities of the Donner Foundation including donations to groups that were involved in the impeachment attempt of Clinton.
Dudman goes on to allude that these far right organizations of hard right corporate leaders and their close association with both retired and active military personnel, who supported hard right causes and extreme measures may have been the object behind Eisenhower's cryptic warning of the military industrial complex in his farewell address8. Besides the large number of former military officers members of the ACS included the heads of many corporations: Sears, Motorola, U.S. Steel, GE, and Illinois Central Railroad. Others involved in the Birchers included the Koch and Hunt both heads of oil companies.42
Lets note here that the American Security Council had roots from three racial and anti-Semitic, pro Hitler groups from the 1930s according to Alan J. Weberman.33 The groups were America First Committee, American Vigilante Intelligence Federation and the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies. Weberman also claims that William Regnery was a co-founder of the ACS. This is the same Regnery that owns Regnery Press that has been responsible for many of the anti-Clinton books. Lets note also the similarity in behavior that borders on treason of the hard right in their effort to impeach Clinton and the early 1960s hard right's distrust of elected and appointed officials. Needless to say, the factual content of the books from Regnery is more fictional than truthful.
Yes, this writer believes that a large part of the cold war was due to the rants coming from the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address. If there is one single point that is outstanding about the Eisenhower administration it was his failure to lead. He deferred decision on issue after issue hoping for the best. Was he beginning to see the danger of his lack of leadership? This was Ike's last public address as President, obviously he would only include issues that he felt were important. He certainly was well aware that it would be part of his legacy. Was he beginning to see that the Cold War was nothing but a cover to transfer the wealth of the masses to the few elite? Was he beginning to see the dangers of absolute corporatism that has become the privileged child of the Republican Party today? Folks he didn't include that warning for no reason, he sensed that it was a real and imminent threat to democracy. Eisenhower was anything but an alarmist.
Yes, he later tried to modify his statement somewhat. But this is proof of nothing. If anything it raises another disturbing question. Was he powerless to stop it? Ridiculous you say? No, it would not be the first time that the President of the United States learnt that corporate leaders had more power than the President as the following example shows.
On February 27, 1942 Thurman Arnold, head of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, armed with documents under his arm and followed with a team of aides marched into 30 Rockefeller Plaza. Following him was Secretary of the Navy, Franklin Knox and Sectary of the Army, Henry Stimson. Arnold laid down the charges of Standard Oil's continue favoritism of Hitler in rubber deals and patent arrangements. Taking pains to ensure they understood that he had the proof outlining that the Rockefellers, Teagle and Farish had acted against the interest of America. At the end Arnold coolly proposed a $1.5 million fine and a consent decree by which Standard would turn over to the government all patents that Frank Howard had picked up in Holland. Farish rejected the proposal on the spot. He pointed out that the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force depended on oil from Standard. In other words he blackmailed the government on the spot. To settle the issue Farish proposed a fine of $50,000 spread out over a list of corporations so long that no one would be forced to pay more than $600.78 Arnold, Stimsom and Knox realized that they were powerless against corporate America.
Nor is that view of the rabid anti communists hardly extreme, the public allowed Tail Gunner Joe to run amuck in the early 50s. Its even more damning considering that many of the victims of Tail Gunner Joe were labor leaders and people from the media. These were precisely the people that could stand up and expose corporate America for what it really was. There were calls at the time through out the nation for the impeachment of Earl Warren as a communist extending all the way into the early 60s. The Birchers even promoted a writing contest for school pupils, the winner would be chosen on who could give the best reasons for the impeachment of Warren; they likewise had billboards through out the south primarily, calling for his impeachment. An outgrowth of their influence was the non-recognition of China until 1971 and then only Nixon a politician with a reputation for hard on communism dared to recognize China. There was several groups that actively opposed communist China most notable was the Committeeof One Million. Remember that two tiny islands about thirty miles off the coast of Mainland China were an issue in the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates. Instead as a nation we clung to the absurd policy of recognizing only the tiny nation of Formosa as the government in exile of China. But few writers are willing to look or acknowledge the power that a few extremists backed by corporate America have in directing nation policy or public attitudes.
There is one additional group to blame for the involvement in Vietnam that the press likewise has overlooked. That would be the multinational oil companies. As a teen coming of age during the 60s, I can recall spots on the evening newscasts of reporters interviewing a company commander. The commander would explain that presently he was guarding the oil company's exploration efforts in the sector that they had just cleared and secured. Once the company had finished, they would then clear another area that the company wanted to explore next. The key here is the oil companies determined what areas to clear next, what a hell of a way to fight communism.
The one single event that triggered my opposition forever on the war was the newscasts covering the evacuation of American civilians from Vietnam. The reporters mechanically named each person being evacuated and there position or job title as they boarded the flights out. Approximately half of those civilians were employees of oil companies. They were not the gophers that punched holes in the ground but instead they were VPs of various divisions within the companies or they were high ranking system engineers. Not exactly the type of civilians you would except to be vacationing in the center of a civil war, when they are the same types that think they are dying over a paper cut. In short the gophers had found what these muckrakers wanted. As final proof of this, once the Paris Peace Accord was signed one of the first diplomatic efforts North Vietnam undertook was to ask for membership in OPEC. Their request for membership was denied. Presently the oil companies are actively exploring off the coast of Vietnam. The media has never explored this involvement of corporate interest in Vietnam during our involvement. There is more than one book waiting for a writer that is willing to explore the topic; the oil companies were not alone there. But it does illustrate the conservative bias in the media, a bias that can kill stories by neglect.
Major General Smedly D. Butler was one of the most decorated soldiers from WWI, he strongly supported the Bonus Marchers. Perhaps he summed up the corporate welfare aspects of U. S. military involvement better than anyone. Here is a quote of him summing up his military career in his retirement.
"There isn't a trick In the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" (to point out enemies), its "muscle men" (to destroy enemies), its "brain guys," (to plan war preparations) and a "Big Boss," (super-nationalistic capitalism).
I Was a "Racketeer"
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent 33 years and 4 months In active service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from a second lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."99
Only one of the five presidents had the courage to face the truth during the war. That was Jack Kennedy, he issued a withdrawal of forces totaling about ten percent of the total force in Vietnam in October 1963. His plan called for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of the 1965. As the following quote taken from the report of the McNamara-Taylor mission to South Vietnam, this was point two in the document.
"A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential function now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time."3
Additionally, National Security Agency Memo number 263 issued on October 5, 1963 called for the withdrawal of 1000, of the 16,000 U.S. forces in Vietnam.4 Unfortunately Kennedy was assassinated shortly after withdrawing the first group. There still are those that dispute Kennedy's planned withdrawal even in light of these documents. But Kennedy had already showed his independence and wiliness to disagree with the advice given to him by his military advisors in the Cuban missile crisis. If he had followed the advice of his military advisors at the time of bombing the sites, it would have most likely have led to an all out nuclear war. As documents from the former USSR show that over twenty nuclear warheads were already in Cuba at the time.13 He had already learned from experience that the CIA had lied to him about the Bay of Pigs invasion and had threaten to break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them in the wind. He was a president that was pragmatic in his approach after once setting course. Thus the doubt is unjustified, as it seems clear he had set course on an American withdrawal of forces. Some writers have gone on to claim that the JFK assassination was due to the withdrawal.



Did the lost of this war to a third rate agrarian country lead to the massive uprising of communism willing to do battle with the U.S. as the war mongers predicted? Undoubtedly it embolden and inspired some, but there was no massive uprising. Yes, there were a few nations where socialism or communism was leading revolutions. But repressive right wing dictators led these nations for the most part. So these revolutions were more about freedom than a rise of communism. The only objections to these revolutions were from the American corporations with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The many covert operations in Central and South America that the CIA conducted for American corporations serve as prime examples. The USSR was invited rather unceremoniously to leave Egypt. Cuba became bogged down in their own version of Vietnam in Angola. Likewise, the USSR became bogged down in Afghanistan. In short about the only ground that was ceded to the communist was in Southeast Asia.
Did it lead to a massive defection of U.S. allies questioning our will and commitment that the war hawks predicted? No, I can think of no ally that defected, with the possible exception of France. But then France has always exhibited a mean streak of independent thinking and actions. Remember it was the U.S. that offered sanctuary to both the Shah of Iran and Marcos of the Philippines, two despots that we had shamefully supported in the past. The granting of permission for the Shah to enter this country was the single most important event that triggered the taking of the U.S. embassy hostages. President Carter could have refused to admit the Shah justifying it by the Shah's human rights abuse but instead chose the humane option of allowing the ailing Shah to die in comfort in the U.S.
Did it lead to the end of U.S. hegemony? Not hardly, some people are now claiming in 1998 that the U.S. is the only world superpower. I would view that as a little premature and a dangerous thought, all Russia needs to regain its superpower status is a strong leader.
What it has led to is the division of the American public. Instead of seeking closure of the wound it still remains a festering sore. Jimmy Carter in a vain attempt to seek closure issued a general pardon to the draft dodgers. But the far right elements do not want closure of this wound; they actively seek means to open it, keep it festering and infect it. By keeping the American people divided, it's easier for them to gain control of the issues and obtain power. Take for instance the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, they detailed our involvement in Vietnam from the very beginning until the day they were written and the past mistakes made. Any president following the release of these papers was then aware of the tragic mistake of continuing on the course of escalation. Nixon had the opportunity to do the right thing and pull out but he chose instead to use the Pentagon papers for personal political gain as the following quote shows:
June 17,1971, Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Kissinger 5:17-6:13pm, Oval Office
Haldeman: You maybe can blackmail {Lyndon B.] Johnson on this stuff {Pentagon Papers].
Nixon: What?
Haldeman: You can blackmail Johnson on this stuff and it might be worth doin... The bombing halt stuff is all in that same file or in some of the same hands...
Nixon: Do we have it? I've asked for it. You said you didn't have it.
Haldeman: We can't find it.
Kissinger: We have nothing here, Mr. President.
Nixon: Well, damn it, I asked for that because I need it.
Kissinger: But Bob and I have been trying to put the damn thing together.
Haldeman: We have a basic history in constructing our own, but there is a file on it.
Nixon: Where?
Haldeman: [Presidential aid Tom Charles] Hudson swears to God there's a file on it and it's at Brookings [Institution, a centralist Washington think tank].
Nixon: Bob? Bob? Now do you remember Hudson's plan [for White House sponsored break-ins as Part of domestic counter-intelligence operations] Implement it.
Kissinger: Now Brookings has no right to have classified documents.
Nixon: I want it implemented... Goddamnit, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.11
This was the value of the Pentagon Papers for Nixon, and the hard right has never stopped using Vietnam for political gain. Remember it was the hard right that attempted to paint Clinton as a draft dodger during the Vietnam War in the 1992 election. The lost still serves the hard right needs thirty years later. The far right uses Vietnam in two manners to support their agenda. For issues they support they frame it as a war against communism to those issues they oppose they frame it as involvement in a foreign nation's civil war.
This is self evident in Bosnia where the U.S. has sent troops under the command of the UN on a peace mission. Instead the hard right claims this is just the start of another Vietnam quagmire and that we have no business to get involved in a civil war of another country. Perhaps, these moral hypocrites are willing to stand aside and condone genocide by their own inaction, waiting for it to spill out beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavian republic as it did in WWI but that is no excuse to stand aside. That's the same policy of appeasement that led to the rise of the Third Reich and the same Republican isolationist views prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It is the same views of the old hard right group from the 1930s, like the America First group. Perhaps, Truman made the best statement concerning the Republican isolationists the day after the bombing of Pearl in a letter to his cousin Ethel Nolan:
"Sat up all night and listened to the radio, got to Pittsburgh at 3:30 where I met Senator Chavez of N. Mex who came from Chicago, Sen. Davis of Pa. who lives there and Curly Brooks, the great Republican Isolationist from Chicago. He's a new Senator from Ill. Legionnaire, fat, curly haired, Has a small synthetic blonde wife and is the most important Chicago Tribune Senator. He looked as if he'd swallowed a hot stove and that is the way all those anti-preparedness boys looked the next day."14
Hiding across two oceans has never served this country well. Bosnia is not Vietnam; we did not cancel a free election in Bosnia as Eisenhower did in Vietnam. We are not viewed as an imperialist in Bosnia as we were viewed in Vietnam. In short as a world superpower we have a moral obligation and duty to preserve the peace and promote freedom but we do not have the right to impose our will on others as we tried to do in Vietnam. Shirking that duty or misusing it will only generate more global problems and quicken our demise as a superpower.
And therein lies the controversy of Bosnia; the hard right doesn't give a damn about moral obligation or duty. In Bosnia they lack a boogey man like communism to demonize, although, they are making a vain attempt to demonize the UN. Secondly every other war we have been involved in has involved the protection of corporate America's assets. If corporate America had found a way to make a fast buck off this police action, they would be clamoring for more troops and expanding the effort. In short our past military aid and covert actions in foreign lands has had nothing to do with promoting freedom but rather to maintain the status quo for corporate America. Central and South America provides the ideal example in our wiliness to protect any petty despot that supports corporate America and our wiliness to overthrow any government there that starts to promote real freedom for its citizens such as a redistribution of land to peasants.
But you do not need to take the word of your writer on this. In 1979 Reagan's future UN Ambassador, Jeane Kirkpatrick wrote an article entitled Dictatorships and Double Standards. In which she urged U.S. support for authoritarian regimes as opposed to totalitarian regimes. The former abused the human rights of their citizens but were reliable allies and candidates for democratization, she claimed.100 In other words they were willing to do business with corporate America.
We covertly supported the assassination of Allende in Chile and installed Augusto Pinochet. In his seventeen-year reign of terror, Pinochet tortured his opponents and had a history of human rights abuse. This covert support for the overthrow of Allende had nothing to do with freedom or stopping communism, it was solely due to protecting the interests of corporate America in particular the copper mining industry. Currently he is seeking asylum in Britain rather than return to Chile and face charges. The Reagan lackey the Iron Maiden, Thatcher wants to protect him. So much for the human rights, justice and liberty can be damned if there is a profit to be made.44 Fortunately the majority of the Brits had the good sense to refuse protecting a despot. He will face trial for his crimes against humanity.
But these are the same yahoos that defended the illegal Iran/Contra mess in Nicaragua. This was nothing more than another civil war in a country led by a right wing tyrant but the hard right in America had managed to cloak it as a fight against communism. Supporting the Contras had nothing to do with freedom or the fight against communism; it was nothing more than a fight to preserve the status quo for American corporations. Additionally the right wing extremist managed to cover up for the most part its real interest in Central America, the corporate exploitation of the nation. For the doubters of American corporate exploitation of Central American countries, one can review the articles from the Cincinnati Enquirer's expose of Chiquita Banana maintained by the Council of Hemisphere Affairs5.
The religious right played a large role in Central America for the Reagan administration. Following the coup in 1982 in Guatemala Pat Robertson interviewed Rios Montt and promised to send aid and missionaries. Weeks later a Gospel Outreach pastor met with the Reagan administration. Shortly there after the State Department held a special briefing for leaders of the religious right and endorsed Operation International Love Lift. By then thousands had been massacred, the targets were mostly the indigenous population. Some Gospel Outreach members apparently took part in the torture and interrogation operation. One Gospel Outreach pastor went on to defend the killings as follows:
"The Army doesn't massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and the Indians are demon possessed; they are communist. We hold Brother Efrain Rios Mott like the King of David of the Old Testament. He is the king of the New Testament."101
It is always easier to kill when you have god on your side.
Or alternatively read Deterring Democracy by Noam Chomsky and how American corporations dominate the region.15. For those still doubting the will of the U.S. one needs look no further than the embargo on Cuba. Yes, its still in effect in 1998, the reason is Cuba is still communist and the hard right in the U.S. will not tolerate a left of center government in Latin America. It will however, overlook the faults and support any tyrant that is right of center as long as he's willing to do business with corporate America. Once his usefulness expires so does his support, just ask Noriega. He was on the CIA payroll and provided covert help in Reagan's illegal scheme to aid the Contras.
But once he out lived his usefulness, Bush brought down the full might of the U.S. military on him. Nor were the American people ever told the truth about the heavy civilian casualties. The Central American Human Rights Commission (CODEHUCA) reported much heavier casualty figures than put out by the U.S military. Then there is the matter of the mass graves we had left behind driving the true figures even higher than what had been previously reported. But these reports seldom reach the citizens of the U.S. the corporate media protects its benefactors and remains silent.
Additionally, the new stealth fighters were used against targets with no radar and only a couple of WWII vintage anti-aircraft guns to defend themselves.16 Now just ask yourself why would we risk the use of our newest fighters on a banana republic that didn't have a chance in hell. It is the opinion of this writer that the U.S. looks for a war about ever 10 to 15 years. It has been going on like clockwork ever since Korea. The driving reason for this quest for war on a regular basis is to provide a testing ground for a new generation of weapons as well as a means to funnel tax payers money to the corporations that supply the weapons all cloaked under the mantle of false patriotism. Vietnam was our testing ground for the new helicopter gunships and the M16 after the M14 rifle proved a failure, Reagan's bombing of Libya tested some smart weapons, Panama a small test for the stealth fighters.
And of course, Bush couldn't resist testing the new weapons in a massive way in the Gulf War just as Hitler tested his weapons in the Spanish civil war. This writer was struck by the surreal nature of the television coverage of the Gulf War. All one needed to do was to place a swastika on those uniforms and one would not have been able to tell the difference between the reports and Nazi propaganda films from the 1930-40s. My God, even the helmets were reminiscence of the Nazis.



But even scarier than the propaganda films was the giddy attitude of the average citizen after they were sure we would prevail. The public embraced each new report with glee, opening bragging about the capabilities of our military showing no remorse even for the highway slaughter or that of civilians. Some of the exuberance was no doubt due to the reestablishment of the supremacy of the U.S. military following the defeat in Vietnam. But it still is a dangerous form of nationalism; it's the same result as what Hitler was able to achieve by stirring the masses into a frenzy with his propaganda films.
Nor did it go unnoticed by our allies; Japan for one warned us and expressed deep concern over it. This writer deplores the glorification of war and the military. Patriotism is one thing but the glorification of war is not patriotism. This glorification of the military was extended after the conclusion of the war with a ticker tape parade in New York City. It was not enough for the Bush White House to win the war; they needed to gloat over it as well. Storming Norm was made into a celebrity overnight. There was talk of running Powell as a Republican Presidential candidate. This is the same type of extreme nationalism that the Nazis used to gain power.
After the war in the gulf we then started to learn that the media had once again been asleep at the wheel and only reported the official version during the war. We learnt that the Kuwaiti nurse that claimed the Iraqis were tossing babies out of incubators was not a nurse but a member of the royal family. In short the story about the incubators was false, it was propaganda used to beat the drums of war. Some of our new weapons for instance the Patriot Missile System was not as effective as the first reports and may not have brought down a single Scud. Now after several years, a mysterious disease is striking the soldiers that fought there. That may be related to either exposure to chemical weapons, depleted uranium shells or some of the untested vaccines they received. Yet, the Pentagon has denied any connection and has only lately came to grudgingly acknowledge their responsibility to the soldier. Just as they had refused to acknowledge the connection of Agent Orange use in Nam with later health problems of vets. This refusal to admit responsibility to the soldiers contracting service-related diseases also leads to self-doubting and distrust. Now isn't that a fine example of patriotism, treating our veterans as expendable commodities. But have you heard any of the war hawks calling for increase veteran's benefits? Not hardly, the ones that have expressed outrage over the mal-treatment of the vets have came from the left for the most part.
Chomsky also raises the interesting question of which way we will go after we have became the sole superpower in the world. Will we proceed on a righteous path that we seem to be following in Bosnia or will we just revert back to being an imperialistic monster that we were in Nicaragua? This writer is willing to state the choice will depend upon if we can defeat fascism at home. If we fail to reign in the hard right and their corporate sponsors then we are well along the road to imperialism and the next world war with America as the villain. You can bet your last dollar that if these right wingers had figured out a way to make a buck on the Bosinia mess they would be arguing for more troops and aid for the area.
As late as the summer of 1998 the hard right was still using the Vietnam War for political purposes. CNN and Time released a story jointly entitled Valley of Death about operation Tailwind. Tailwind was reported to be an operation using nerve gas on a village in which it was known to contain suspected defectors, deserters or simply those servicemen that had followed their conscience. The thrust of the operation was to kill those Americans found in that village. The story was poorly documented and was sure to draw a rebuttal from the Pentagon. Nor, is this the first story to make the claim, the use of nerve gas in Vietnam has popped up from time to time following the war. The rebuttal itself was likewise poorly documented and left much to be desired. Additionally the story brought wails of protest from former high-ranking officials including Kissenger and General Singlaub. Singlaub filed a suit against CNN in the same manner as Westmoreland had done earlier in another unrelated story. Westmoreland lost his suit.
Remember this is the same General Singlaub that President Carter fired for speaking out against his defense strategy. It seems as if the good general didn't believe in civilian control over the military. Yes, this is the same General Singlaub that has admitted to pass contact with the LaRouchians. Give the general his credit due, he did denounce the LaRouchians later for their extreme views and became a vicious critic of them.12 But this is the same General Singlaub that was a member of Western Goals, founded by Georgia Republican representative Larry McDonald, a top leader in the John Birch organization. This is the same Singlaub that became a director of the world Anti-Communist League (ACL). Past members of the ACL has included archconservatives, reactionaries, former Nazis and Nazi collaborators. This can leave one only wondering where the general's own extreme views end and those of the LaRouchians begin.
What's at stake here goes much deeper than the use of nerve gas in Vietnam. First a government that cloaks its documents in secret is promoting rumor mongering and a sense of distrust among its citizens. There is no need for many of the documents to be classified by either the military or the FBI, in many cases news clippings can be found in previously classified documents. Nor are there reasons to still classify the many documents from WWII in all but the rarest of incidents. Its past time for the Pentagon to release all documents pertaining to the use of gas and special operations and quit hiding behind a wall of secrecy for national security. But what is really at stake here, in the filing of those suits by former high-ranking officials is the implied threat. It sends a message to the media that by god if you fail to air the official version we are going to sue and destroy you. These suits are meant to intimidate and stifle future investigators into obedience and serve no other purpose.
Its long past the time that Americans quit bickering about the great red beast, communism was defeated globally when the Berlin Wall fell. Even China is rapidly moving to a free market system. We don't need the divisionist from the far right cloaking their messages of hate by equating liberalism or socialism with communism implying liberalism is inherently bad. But that has became a mainstay of Republican candidates electioneering practices. We don't need them cloaking corporatism under the banner of free markets or free enterprise when its nothing more than welfare for the rich. We need to move beyond ideology and look for real solutions. Undoubtedly those solutions are going to involve aspects from both the left and the right.
The loss of Vietnam did not alter our worldwide standing in any ways other than minor incidents. Yes, it did lead us to question the motivations behind government actions, but this is not unhealthy. Many Americans quickly moved beyond any self-doubting, as a nation we could have done the same. We could have learned from our mistakes and turned the experience into positive actions. Some positive actions did come out of the war, the draft was eliminated, the right to vote was granted to 18 year olds but we fell woefully short at learning any meaningful lessons from the experience. We are still willing to wage war for corporate America as we did in the Gulf. We still support despots ignoring their human rights abuse in the name of freedom. No, the real legacy of Vietnam is one of using and exploiting it to divide America in order to gain and maintain power by creating an artificial atmosphere of fear and self doubt. It has served the hard right well in that regard.
One final note on the need for closure of Vietnam, it's not just the right wing in America that uses war to divide a country. A week before France celebrated the 80th anniversary of the end of WWI, French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin asked the French to remember 49 soldiers executed for refusing to fight a battle in the 1917 offensive. The conservatives of that country were outraged over Jospin's actions.31 Are we still going to be calling war protesters draft dodgers 80 years after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords? As we near 2000 there are still those that label Clinton a draft dodger, his draft status was made an issue in the 1992 election campaign. Isn't it time we finally bring closure to this open sore? Its time as a nation that we salute those that fought in Vietnam and also those that fought in the streets to stop the bloody mess. Its time that the victim's families of Kent State are given compensation and an apology for their loss. And it's long past the time that we should give the boot to those that attempt to use Vietnam as a way to divide us.
We could have salvaged at least some positives from the Vietnam War in formulating and conducting foreign policy but that time has long past due in a large measure to the actions of the hard right. But given the Gulf War as an example, we haven't learnt a damn thing from Nam. The media still allowed lies to pass to the beat of the war drums whipping up a war frenzy. We still fought a war for the benefit of the corporate powers. And as a country we still allowed out military to test their new weapons in a needless war. No where in the press was it reported at the time that Texaco owned a large stake in Kuwait. Just trust the man with the star, ya sure.
Nor does it end with the Gulf War; the defense budget today is currently larger than the combined budget of the next eight largest militaries. So where is the so-called peace dividend from the fall of the Iron Curtain? Later in this chapter we allude to the Mideast countries wasting much of their oil wealth on military hardware, but presently the U.S. has squandered away the peace dividend. We allowed Reagan and his pie in the sky, Star Wars program to run the national debt past the three trillion mark. The military budget this size is nothing more than corporate welfare. Items included in the present budget include transport planes that the military has stated it doesn't want but then they are manufactured in Gingrich's congressional district, likewise the ships that are not wanted are made in Senator Lott's state. Bases that were scheduled to be close were reopened. Currently we have more generals serving than we did during WWII. The military has spent up to $600 on toilet seats so some damn prima donna doesn't get a sliver in his behind. Other waste includes private golf courses, $500 hammers, the list is almost endless. A good listing of this waste of taxpayer's money can be found on the Pentagon Follies site.34
The one glaring omission in the military budget has been adequate funding for training. But then money spent on training doesn't provide the windfall profits for business. Further many of the expenses of the military have been transferred to the Department of Energy, such as the clean up of Handford and much of the nuclear research thereby hiding the true size of the military budget. One could easily lop off half the budget without endangering the country. Many of the active duty personnel could be transferred into Reserve or National Guard units thereby preserving the overall strength and preparedness. For naysayers on the later, lets remind them of the number of Reserve and National Guard units that was called up during the Gulf War.
Yes, I do believe we need a strong military but we do not need to fight wars for corporate America. It's criminal in the manner in which we have conducted a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to corporate America under the disguise of false patriotism. As a nation we need to take a close look at the defense budget and eliminate the corporate welfare in it. It is another of the lessons from Vietnam that we have not learnt.
From a global perspective the second most important root cause for a shift in global politics was the formation of OPEC. OPEC was the brainchild of the Shah of Iran. Then President Richard Nixon allowed and encouraged the formation of OPEC rather than crush it in its infancy as a way to prop up the Shah of Iran. Nixon as vice president under Eisenhower was one of the first supporters of the Shah after the British retreat from the Mideast. This was the time of the Nixon doctrine, as he later told Ike: "The Shah is beginning to show more guts... If the Shah would lead, things would be better."9 After losing the 1962 California governors' race, Iran under the Shah was one of the few countries to receive Nixon cordially.In the 70s as the Shah faced increasing opposition at home, Nixon allowed him to not only to lead Iran but also to allow him to seek out power in the entire Mideast region. Nixon, Kissinger and Ford all thought of the Shah in strategic terms, according to Nixon he filled a power vacuum in the Mideast. They all chose to ignore his human rights abuses, which were responsible for his downfall. But once again the Shah was friendly to corporate America thus the hard right supported him and chose to overlook his abuses.
Generally the 70s was period of rapid economic expansion in the industrial world if not at times and outright boom period. The continued growth of the economy depended upon an ever-increasing supply of oil not only for fuel but also as the raw material for the production of basic feedstock chemicals. The relatively cheap price of oil discouraged further exploration and the production of energy efficient cars and conservation. In 1973 Atkins using his White Host office prepared a secret report with proposals to avert the growing oil threat. One of the proposals centered about energy conservation. Nixon aide John Ehrlichman responded angrily with the following quote; "Conservation is not a Republican ethic."10 In the United States the demand for oil ran beyond any surplus capacity. It was also the time period that saw a dramatic shift in the geographic production of oil, the U.S. production peaked the Mideast became the leading producers of crude. By 1971 the count of U.S drilling rigs fell to its lowest level declining from its peak year of 1955. The count was down to only a third of the level of the mid 1950s.17 The early 1970s marked the end of an era, the end of cheap energy and a constant oversupply of oil. It marked the beginning of a new era of constant shortages and an ever-increasing cost of energy.
In 1969 oil and energy was quietly slipping into the American political agenda. The outdate Mandatory Oil Import Program established by Eisenhower was laboring under stress. It's numerous loopholes and exceptions created great opportunities for those who could capitalize on them. This quota system was creating great disparities among companies and different regions. Oil producing countries, and large petrochemical companies were eager to see the quota system done away with. However, the independents were steadfast in their support for the quota system as it protected their market. In response to the growing demand for oil imports Nixon established the Cabinet Task Force on Oil Import Control led by Labor Secretary, George Shultz to review the system. The Task Force recommended dumping the quota system in favor of a system based on tariffs. The overall response to the recommendation was negative in the extreme. Nixon chose to ignore the recommendation of his task force. By 1971 Nixon imposed price controls on oil as part of his overall effort (cont.)