W's Johnsonian Path

W’s Johnsonian Path, or, Deja-Vu All Over Again
19 December, 2006

“Though it isn’t really war
We’re sending fifty thousand more,
To help save Vietnam from Vietnamese”

                                 -Tom Paxton from “Lyndon Johnson Told The Nation”

“There you go again”

                                 -Ronald Reagan

   At this juncture, I suppose only about half of you out there remember Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency back in the 1960's.
   Lyndon B. Johnson, or “LBJ” came within millimeters of having history proclaim him as one of our greatest presidents. He had a clear vision for America, based on fairness and respect embodied in his “Great Society” compendium of social programmes. Although we didn’t believe it at the time, he truly had a compassionate heart. He also had one fatal ( albeit inherited ) flaw: the Vietnam War.

   Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that General Paul Westmorland was his fatal flaw, since as history unravels the story, Westmorland emerges as the character who, from a position of presumed trust, kept whispering in LBJ’s ear that the Vietnam War was winnable, (while knowing full well that winning was almost impossible) and all we needed was 50,000 more troops to do the job. This mantra in fact, became his refrain. Johnson, against his heart and (clearly) the emerging will of the American people, gave him that, and more again. As we all know, none of it worked, ever more soldiers died, and the momentum of the anti-war movement increased by leaps and bounds. Johnson declined to run for a second term, and Richard Nixon won the 1968 election as the “peace candidate” with his “secret plan to end the war” Thus the man who could have been our greatest president, doing more for the American people than perhaps any other, became a one-term-er instead. With all those elements in place, a finer tragedy could not have been written by Shakespeare or any ancient Greek.

   Now we are at 2006: George “W” Bush has just announced that he is considering sending even more troops to Iraq, despite the rising tide of public anger, the sinking polls and the Great November Message. It seems that our psychopathic “Decider” has decided to be LBJ and General Paul Westmorland all rolled up into one. No amount of logic, common sense or public non-support can seem to get through. (Although, logic and common sense, if used before 2003, would have clearly revealed that an Iraq war would be a quagmire and that we were far better off with Saddam in power. We on the Left saw it coming, and kept asking how those on the Right could be so blind).

   “W” did not need the Iraq War to cement his place in history as the worst president we have ever had. He had already achieved that before he decided to throw away trillions of dollars, 2950 (as of today) American lives, Iraqi lives by the tens of thousands, destroy a country, de-stabilise an entire region, depose a leader who did nothing to us and whose presence worked in our favour, (even as he let the mastermind of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks go scott free) all the while mortgaging our nation’s future to the Red Chinese.

   After Vietnam, (and the Russians in Afghanistan) I would have thought that by now we would have “gotten” guerrilla warfare. Apparently not.

   Guerrilla warfare is just about the only technique a relatively small, under-armed, under-equipped and under-financed, yet determined and well-trained group of forces can effectively use against a large, juggernaut-style military machine, (such as ours). It’s advantages are: (1:) the ability to use home turf to spectacular advantage, (2:)the ability to make the “battlefield” portable, and (3:) bring it to the enemy almost at will, coupled with (4:) the ability to launch a “blitzkrieg” style attack and disappear almost before the enemy gets a chance to return fire. Also included in the deal is (5:) one of the best military “bang for buck” ratios going.

   Just as in Vietnam, we still insist fighting this sort of war the way we fought Hitler, i.e. “conventional” warfare. Conventional warfare is fought between two military giants, (such as the United States and Germany in World War II). Both the Americans and the Germans were on the same page, that is we fought each other with the same weapons, namely, warships, tanks, rockets, bombers (etc.) and of course, infantry. If we could destroy the factories where the Germans made aeroplanes, we would reduce, and eventually eliminate, their ability to launch bombing sorties. If the Germans could cut our battlefield communications and supply lines, our troops would run out of munitions and be defeated. You get the idea.

   However in guerrilla warfare, we cannot destroy the factories were the enemy make bombers, because there are none. We cannot destroy their battlefield supply lines, because there are no grand battles. In guerrilla warfare, you are not fighting for territory, you are fighting only to destroy the enemy. The more your enemy tries to gain and hold territory, (the object of traditional warfare) the greater is your opportunity to destroy him as he spreads himself out thinner and wider in order to hold the territory he has just won. Gaining and holding territory requires the conventional forces and tactics not available to guerrilla forces. They can’t do that and they know they don’t need to. Obviously, once they cause the enemy to leave, they’ll have their territory anyway.

   So, why don’t we adopt and adapt these tactics? We would lose only a fraction of lives we lose now, the cost would be about one one-millionth of what it is now, and the whole effort would be about a million times more effective.

   You think I know the answer to that? All I know is that would be exactly what I would do, ( against Al-Qaeda, that is. I never would have attacked Iraq ). Who knows what the Great Minds Of Washington are thinking.....or are they?

-30-