Betrayal by the Brass: Dereliction of Duty, Part Two

Moral abdication and atrocity start at the top.

Guest post by Robert Gore at Straight Line Logic

Part One

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

United States Army Oath of Enlistment

As the British discovered trying the quell the American rebellion, it’s difficult to fight the natives on their own territory, even when many of them are on your side. The US faced the same situation in Vietnam, its difficulty magnified because Americans were of a different racial stock than those they subjugated.

Also unlike the British, the Americans were perceived—even by their ostensible allies—as another in a long line of imperial conquerors that stretched back to Chinese domination during the first millennium. Belying US rhetoric and propaganda, industrial warfare and atrocities destroyed South Vietnam and killed or alienated many of the South Vietnamese whose freedom we were supposedly defending.

To defeat a local population when much of it wages guerrilla war or covertly supports those who do, the invading power has to kill most and terrorize the rest.

The aim was described by Colonel Edward Lansdale, the famous CIA man on whom Graham Greene based his central character in The Quiet American.

Quoting Robert Taber’s The War of the Flea, Lansdale said, “There is only one means of defeating an insurgent people who will not surrender, and that is extermination. There is only one way to control a territory that harbours resistance, and that is to turn it into a desert.

The Killing of History,” John Pilger, Information Clearing House

The population subjugated, the invading power must maintain a satrap and garrison state. The invasion is usually easy compared to the occupation, as the imposed order fights continuing resistance. Garrison states are inherently unstable and the subjugated often outlast their conquerors.

None of this was news in the 1960s. America had its own Revolutionary War plus its and Europe’s experiences with imperialism and colonialism to draw on. By the mid-1960s, it was clear the US political leadership wouldn’t allow the military to completely subjugate either North or South Vietnam. North Vietnam was off-limits because a full-scale invasion might draw in the Chinese and memories of the Korean War were still fresh. South Vietnam was the US’s ostensible ally, but complete subjugation would have exposed US “protecting freedom” rhetoric as a lie. It would have provoked widespread revulsion among the US populace—seeing the war through the eyes of TV and print media already hostile to it—further stoking protest and resistance.

The US military leadership faced a situation where it could neither win nor withdraw. When did it have the duty to tell the civilian leadership that as fought, a war could not be won and continuing would only waste more blood and treasure? The question goes far beyond Vietnam.

After Vietnam, the US was supposedly beset by the Vietnam Syndrome: the public’s aversion to quagmires and refusal to endorse military interventions. That syndrome dissipated after 9/11 and the military has intervened repeatedly in a number of conflicts that have or threaten to become quagmires.

The military and political leadership have gotten clever about the public relations aspects of war. The media is never given the virtually free rein it had in Vietnam. The mainstream media is more docile now, rarely challenging official stories, explanations, and rationales. The alternative media doesn’t have the resources, personnel, and geographic reach to consistently do so.

The draft has been suspended; there are no campus war protests. The number of troops deployed in today’s conflicts are small fractions of what was deployed in Vietnam. Drones, long-range missiles, and other technologies equipped with sophisticated electronics allow the military to inflict destruction and death at long-range with minimal risk to US personnel.

Yet the Vietnam quandary persists: as fought today’s conflicts are not won, but spill blood and waste treasure. The mountains of Afghanistan are not the jungles of Vietnam, but just as in Vietnam, a substantial part of the population engages in guerrilla resistance against the US and its puppet regime. As in Vietnam, the war has bounteously funded the military and its contractors and fueled widespread corruption. It has gone on for sixteen years, making it America’s longest war. A war of complete subjugation and a garrison state would require many times the 11,000 troops the Pentagon officially acknowledges are now in Afghanistan.

With winning off the table, the US wages wars with all downside and no upside. There are the dead and wounded, and the burden of caring for the latter. The ambiguities of war goals, fighting guerrillas, and waging war on non-combatants takes a moral and psychological toll long after the soldiers return home. Hypocrisy and corruption in the military, its contractors, and allied governments embitter US personnel, the subjugated population, and the rest of the world. Wars and weapons make a significant contribution to the $20 trillion national debt. Even regime change wars like Iraq and Libya, ostensibly won, pose the challenges and costs of garrison states amidst insurgencies and sectarian warfare.

Given the costs and preclusion of winning, isn’t a general’s duty to present to the civilian leadership an appraisal and a choice? To state that a war as fought will be never be won; tell them that what it would take—“extermination” that turns the territory into a “desert”—and present the choice: that kind of war or no war at all? Isn’t that what the military leadership owes to the Constitution, to the political leadership, to the men and women they command, and to all Americans, instead of mindless drivel about “generational wars”?

If the political leadership presses wars that will never be won, for political reasons, for venal considerations of personal prestige, careerism, and financial gain, for any reason that senselessly prolongs those wars, shouldn’t an officer resign and publicly state his reasons for doing so? Isn’t that the duty owed to the dead and wounded—an individual effort to stop the carnage so that no more will be slaughtered and maimed, no more treasure wasted?

The Army Oath of Enlistment qualifies the duty to follow orders. It’s subject to the Constitution and to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If it weren’t, the oath would be a Nuremberg defense, a defense the US and its allies rejected after World War II. No one can abandon the requirements of morality simply because they’ve been ordered to do so. Yet that is what the military leadership has done these many years, with disastrous consequences for the country they’ve sworn to defend.

ISN’T IT GREAT TO READ A GREAT STORY?

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

24
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Anonymous
Anonymous

There is a difference between fighting to fight and fighting to win.

overthecliff
overthecliff

If we will not kill most and terrorize the rest and turn territory into a wasteland, we should not fight. I believe that is what it takes to win.

Whether we like it or not wars are inevitable. When involved fight to win.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran

Yeah, well, the military has weighed in and President Kelly has made his decision. So stand up straight for the anthem or you’re fired.

Ed
Ed

War is a racket…. Bankers benefit…

CCRider
CCRider

If you skipped past Pilger’s article you missed an extraordinary piece. He has america’s war karma nailed.

Ghost

I agree. This was a gem of an article inside Robert’s well written piece. Was like the surprise in a Cracker Jack box.

From the Pilger article: When Donald Trump addressed the United Nations on 19 September – a body established to spare humanity the “scourge of war” – he declared he was “ready, willing and able” to “totally destroy” North Korea and its 25 million people. His audience gasped, but Trump’s language was not unusual.
His rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, had boasted she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran, a nation of more than 80 million people. This is the American Way; only the euphemisms are missing now.

bryan
bryan

Fighting to win at any cost, using evil (torture,etc.) in your arsenal turns you into the monster you set out to slay. Is there nothing more apparent?

overthecliff
overthecliff

One thing that is more apparent is that if you don’t fight to win at any cost, you lose.

GilbertS
GilbertS

Unfortunately, I think if you’re going to really fight a monster, you must be willing to become as bad as the monster to beat it.
Otherwise, they’re going to find your weakness, what your limits are, and use them against you. If we’re not willing to face the monstrous, we shouldn’t be sending people off to do the monstrous.

For instance, the VC knew we wouldn’t cross the border to fight them, so they hid on the other side.

In Iraq, the anti-coalition forces knew we wouldn’t search or raid a mosque, so they used them.

At Gitmo, I read they thought we wouldn’t mess with a koran, so they tried to pass messages hidden in them. When guards attempted to search them, they used it as a propaganda coup against us and rioted.

In post-Gulf War 1 Iraq, they knew we were enforcing a no-fly zone, but not otherwise stopping them, so they took the opportunity to wipe out the marsh arabs right in front of us with full impunity.

According to a Vice interview with the Taliban I watched, they figured out we wouldn’t drone a group of fewer than 3 men, so the Taliban fighters in the interview made a point to stand 100′ apart in the open.

lmorris
lmorris

in Viet NAM we had to burn the village to save it.

Check Six
Check Six

Robert,

You have quoted the Oath for an individual enlisting. The officer’s Oath is as follows and is an Oath to the Constitution.

Officers Oath:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I find your writing most interesting and have recently purchased “The Golden Pinnacle” through Amazon from the TBP link.

If you have not read Fletcher Prouty’s “JFK, The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot Assassinate John F. Kennedy” I believe you would find it an outstanding source for understanding how we got there from WWII until the Tonkin Gulf.

My father and Prouty ran parallel from the Pacific in WWII to the late 50s in Vietnam. I was an F-4 pilot during the sixties and spent my time in various fun parts of Asia.

Keep up the good work!

Tomb of the Unknowns
Tomb of the Unknowns

Twenty Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Only the children of Congress, Senate, Bureaucrats, Military Officers (with Rank higher than O-5), Lawyers and Bankers will serve in direct combat arms (holding a rank of no higher than E-4) of the United States Military Service during all conflicts.

Mike
Mike

Excellent articles which I enjoyed but am in no way qualified to comment on. I enlisted in ’73 and never left the states; maybe I am a coward but have always been grateful I wasn’t required to engage in combat. As I have said before, this country needs to mind its own business and stay at home. I am in favor of withdrawing from NATO, the UN and bringing all of our servicemen home. Let people fight their own wars. If we are attacked that is different but until then why should we get involved? If we must fight a war of defense then use all of our resources to achieve victory and end it as quickly as possible. Anyone remember the old Steppenwolf song Monster…”no matter who wins, we just pay the cost.”

DurangoDan
DurangoDan

All who attack the petrodollar or fail to bow down to our central bankers threaten our way of life here in the capitol city (as in the Hunger Games). Their countries must be destroyed so we can then loan them the dollars by which to rebuild. Then they effectively become our slaves. Works every time. People are so predictable. About 75 percent of the dollar’s value is derived by this method. Our way of life ends if the petrodollar fails. Makes one proud to wave the flag.

BubblePuppy7
BubblePuppy7

Wow, Mike. I was just thinking of that song the other day. The lyrics from a song written in 1969:

“The spirit was freedom and justice

And it’s keepers seem generous and kind

It’s leaders were supposed to serve the country

But now they won’t pay it no mind


‘Cause the people grew fat and got lazy

And now their vote is a meaningless joke

They babble about law and order

But it’s all just an echo of what they’ve been told


Yeah, there’s a monster on the loose

It’s got our heads into a noose

And it just sits there watchin’


Our cities have turned into jungles

And corruption is stranglin’ the land

The police force is watching the people

And the people just can’t understand


We don’t know how to mind our own business
’
Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us

Now we are fighting a war over there

No matter who’s the winner

We can’t pay the cost


‘Cause there’s a monster on the loose

It’s got our heads into a noose

And it just sits there watching


America where are you now?

Don’t you care about your sons and daughters?

Don’t you know we need you now

We can’t fight alone against the monster.”

Sad to see that this song would be just as appropriate in 2017.

Mike
Mike

Yep, Would be a great song to play at rallies, wouldn’t it? This was always my favorite Steppenwolf song, next on the list was The Pusher.

Gloriously Deplorable Paul
Gloriously Deplorable Paul

TotU- Change “only” to “all” otherwise there wouldn’t be enough people in the ranks (unless that was the real point) and you have a winner.

rhs jr
rhs jr

Only Congress can declare War and add these two conditions to Amend 28: 1) there must be a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement thoroughly debated and approved before voting and 2) all War related funding must be up front.

indyjonesouthere
indyjonesouthere

peakingat70.com has a rather different history of Vietnam than the Graham Greene version. Its a 5 part series reviewing Burns Vietnam story.

GilbertS
GilbertS

I think it is possible to win a counterinsurgency if you nip it in the bud before it becomes an insurgency. I believe I read (forget which book on CI) there are 4 or 5 phases and theoretically you can stop it before it becomes armed resistance when it is still in the dialogue and public protest phases. Once the insurgency grows from public outrage to violence, it is essentially too late to stop without massive violence. I forget which book I was reading that laid that out, sorry.

I think you do have to be prepared to completely invade and garrison the entire country to do it and spend a whooooole lot of time there, and that is expensive and hazardous and extremely troop-intensive and it doesn’t fit our limited political warfare model, so we haven’t really tried it. Americans think wars only last a couple years, not decades.

Off the top of my head, I believe the only successful counterinsurgency was the British Malaysian Emergency, which only lasted from 1948-1989 with a brief time-out during the mid-1960s. The Brits were willing to use lots of troops and lots of violence, as well as the hearts-and-minds approach, and focused a whole lot of intelligence assets on fighting it. Can you imagine Americans being patient enough to wait 4 decades to win? I can’t.

Anyone ever read Sarkhan? It was written by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer, the same guys who wrote The Ugly American. In it, the authors describe a fictional Southeast Asian kingdom which has been targeted by communist cadre for revoltion, but they’re not strong enough to do it themselves.

Their plot is to create the impression of a powerful nascent communist movement to suck in the Americans and let the extremes of the American soldiers push the natives into their waiting arms. It was a fascinating book and apparently it was so close to real life, US intelligence allegedly attempted to suppress the book for a decade before it was re-released.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Most of the insurgents were of Chinese ethic origin , the British used the majority native Muslim Malaysians to ethically clean out this population. Wholesale mass murder of innocent men women children.And for what,so they could hold onto a piece of empire for a couple of years more. Of course British history books don’t say they were involved in mass ethic cleansing bigger in scale than what the Germans did in eastern Europe.

Brian
Brian

Yup, I’ve said that from the day we invaded Afcrapistan. The only way we will win in any of those areas is to CBR it. Chemical (banned), Biological (banned) or Radiological/Nuclear weapons.
So do we have the balls to do it? No…then knock it the fuck off and stand down.

Francis Marion

A comment from Gaul:

So, to sum up, all attempts at empire building will end in ruin both morally and physically.

Thousands of years of history from every corner of the globe and it is the same lesson over and over again. Yet here we are… very frustrating but not surprising I guess.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading