Debunking the Vietnam Rhetoric

I am a Historiography nut. In my own work, I struggle to come to terms with how we write about what we live and how we represent the where, the when, and struggle to express our experiences through the why. The characters in my stories and personalities in my poems all handle an acute self-awareness, sometimes awkward, about space, place, time, setting, in relation to history--its documents and fictions. (Trite, maybe, but try writing about History and writing about writing history sometime and, then, attempt to explain it in a sentence or two.)

At any rate, I rushed to write my entry yesterday morning about the speech and anticipated reading more about Bush's use of history, as in his revising it. Instead, I read a lot of debunkings and what-did-we-expects.

Listening to Bush's speech on CSPAN Radio, I was most irked by his purposeful use of the material of recent US history to cultivate a space for not only an excuse to begin and remain at war in Iraq but an excuse to remain at war as long as it takes to find an excuse not to be at war. According to Bush's logic, it has taken over thirty years to understand why we should have remained in Vietnam. How can we possibly understand the courage of his convictions now? (I know, the logic doesn't make sense because it has nothing to do with Vietnam, but whatever already. This President is a question in begging.) After all, the rhetoric about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here is really a thinly veiled argument for Imperialism and Empire. We are making the world safe for US not for anybody else. (Once again, The Project for a New American Century is where this President has built his ideological base.)

Most of the blogging and news and commentary about the President's speech has been about debunking his analogy, his base rhetoric. I really do think that much of this rhetoric is meant simply to distract the people and their press through spectacular or sensational claims. I find it extremely boring reading and listening to people argue the merits of a simple comparison: in this case, Iraq to Vietnam. Of course, it is a comparison the President's caretakers are aware will incite a vigorous response. And that's what they want. It is a planned debate and they have considered the response through their risk assessment policies. Because if we don't remain captivated by the visceral death in Europe or the sad state of affairs of our mines and bridges, then the Administration understands we need something to keep us from actually addressing the continued funding of an illegal and tragic war in Iraq. What better than a good old intellectual debate about History and Rhetoric.

First, the Administration simply suggests, once again, that the media is only interested in showing the bad in Iraq. (Stir up their base. Cue Fox News. Cue Neo-Con and Neo-Liberal Hawks.) Second, the Administration urges that there is some logic to killing over there instead of over here. (Stir up the humanists. Rankle the moral sentiment of the center. Cue the blogosphere.) And third, the Administration offers a relatively absurd argument for why, in this case, History will show why we should try to understand the need for continued military action in the Middle East. (Cue the public sphere. We open a debate that almost everybody can participate in: the intellectuals can handle the material of history and its use in the President's rhetoric, the media can inform the masses about the accuracy of the President's presentation of historical fact, the politicians can argue about the value and intent and purpose of such statements, and the people who don't know anything about the issue can argue about patriotism, supporting the troops, and protecting the homeland. Once again, we are left with a boisterous and active public sphere. It looks like things are getting done. We re-enforce the status quo.)

I find it a crass spectacle meant to (mis)direct our efforts from stopping military action towards criticizing a President for his misinterpretation of History. The left needs to remember how tempting intellectual debates are to it and its discourse community. It is much easier to critique than to act. Etc; Etc; Etc.


Nevertheless, the Vietnam Comparison is worth debunking. After all, we should not permit the President to educate the masses if he is going to lie. Any of the prominent bloggers--left and right, for that matter--have handled the issue. I was surprised that David Shuster made quick work of Bush's central argument about "The Killing Fields" being a result of our withdrawal from Vietnam.

From Crooks and Liars...worth tuning in.