The relationship between the United States and Iraq has become dangerously similar to the one that existed between America and South Vietnam from 1955 to 1973.
From 1955 to 1963, the United States backed Ngo Dinh Diem as the “president” of South Vietnam. During those eight years:
- Diem was a Catholic mandarin who was alienated from an overwhelmingly poor, 95% Buddhist country.
- The Shiite-dominated government of Iraq refuses to grant political concessions to alienated Sunnis.
- Diem’s authority didn’t extend far beyond Saigon.
- The Iraqi government controls little outside of Baghdad.
- Diem didn’t believe in democracy–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring it to Vietnam.
- Neither does the government in Baghdad.
Ngo Dinh Diem
- Diem was widely regarded in Vietnam as an illegitimate leader, imposed by the Americans.
- Ditto for the leaders of the Iraqi government.
- American soldiers were sent to Vietnam because America feared Communism.
- American soldiers have were sent to Iraq because America fears Islamic terrorism.
- American troops were ordered to train the South Vietnamese army to defend themselves against Communism.
- American troops were ordered to train the Iraqi army to defend themselves against terrorism.
- Americans quickly determined that the South Vietnamese army was worthless–and decided to fight the Vietcong in its place.
- Americans–such as Secretary of Defense Ash Carter–have determined that the Iraqi army is worthless. Yet many Americans on the Right believe the United States should commit American ground troops to fight ISIS in its place.
American soldiers in Vietnam
- The Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) fought to unify their country–and posed no threat to the United States.
- ISIS is warring on Shiite Muslims–and poses no direct threat to the United States.
- The far Right embraced the Vietnam war to assert American power in Asia.
- The far Right embraces the Iraqi war to assert American power in the Middle East.
- Americans entered Vietnam without an exit strategy.
- Americans entered Iraq without an exit strategy.
American soldiers in Iraq
The United States’ relationship with Diem ended on November 1, 1963. A coup led by generals of the South Vietnamese army ousted–and murdered–Diem.
But America continued to support successive and incompetent South Vietnamese dictatorships up to the end of the war in 1973.
Americans have been at war with Islamic expansionists since 2001. But Republicans and their Rightist supporters want more of the same.
Rick Perry, former governor of Texas, has stated: “We face a global struggle against radical Islamic terrorists, and we are in the early stages of this struggle.”
And New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has declared: “No wonder we’re not intimidating our adversaries and they’re running around wild in the world, because they know we’re not investing in our defense anymore.”
As political commentator Mark Shields said on the May 22 edition of The PBS Newshour:
“Rick Perry has said–wants boots on the ground. Other Republicans have said they want boots on the ground, but they don’t necessarily have to be American boots. They should be Arab boots.
“Now, there are 60 nations in this coalition. I haven’t seen people lining up to join this fight. I mean, in a proxy war, you are dependent upon your proxies. And the Iraqis turn out to be not particularly engaged, divided, not unified, not committed the same way….
“[Republicans are saying] Get tough, get tough, swagger; 10,000 troops….
“George Pataki said, put in as many as you need, and kill everybody you can and get out. Now, getting out, I think, was the question and it remains the dilemma to this moment.”
* * * * *
Almost 50 years ago, American “grunts” felt about their South Vietnamese “allies” as American troops now feel about their Iraqi “allies.”
Dr. Dennis Greenbaum, a former army medic, summed it up as follows:
American surgical team in Vietnam
“The highest [priority for medical treatment] was any U.S. person.
“The second highest was a U.S. dog from the canine corps.
“The third was NVA [North Vietnamese Army].
“The fourth was VC [Viet Cong].
“And the fifth was ARVIN [Army of the Republic of South Vietnam], because they had no particular value,” said Greenbaum.
When you despise the “ally” you’re spending lives and treasure to defend, it’s time to pack up.
President Obama should recognize this–and start shipping those troops home. And he should explain to Americans that a war among Islamics is actually in America’s best interests:
- While Islamic nations like Syria and Iraq wage war within their own borders, they will lack the resources–and incentive–to attack the United States.
- Every dead Hezbollah, ISIS and Al-Qaeda member makes the United States that much safer.
- The peoples of the Middle East have long memories for those who commit brutalities against them. In their veins, the cult of the blood feud runs deep.
- This conflict could easily become the Islamic equivalent of “the Hundred Years’ War” that raged from 1337 to 1453 between England and France.
When Adolf Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, then-Senator Harry Truman said: “I hope the Russians kill lots of Nazis and vice versa.”
That should be America’s view whenever its sworn enemies start killing off each other. Americans should welcome such self-slaughters, not become entrapped in them.


ABC NEWS, AIG, BAILOUT PROGRAM, BUSINESS REGULATION, CBSNEWS, CEOS, CNN, COLLEGE GRADUATES, CORPORATE BAILOUTS, DRUG-TESTING, FACEBOOK, FINANCE, GREED, NBC NEWS, REPUBLICANS, T.A.R.P. PROGRAM, TEA PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIMOTHY GEITHNER, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT, USA TODAY, WALL STREET, WELFARE
GREED-TESTING FOR CEOs
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 15, 2015 at 12:01 amRobert Benmosche, the CEO of American International Group (AIG) had some blunt advice to college graduates searching for work in a tight job market.
Robert Benmosche
“You have to accept the hand that’s been dealt you in life,” Benmosche said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “Don’t cry about it. Deal with it.”
Typical advice from a one-percenter whose company, AIG, suffered a liquidity crisis when its credit ratings were downgraded below “AA” levels in September, 2008.
And how did AIG “deal with” its own crisis? It went crying to its Uncle Sugar, the United States Government, for a bailout.
Which it promptly got.
The United States Federal Reserve Bank, on September 16, 2008, made an $85 billion loan to the company to meet increased collateral obligations resulting from its credit rating downgrade–and thus saving it from certain bankruptcy.
In return, the Government took an 80% stake in the firm.
(The bailout eventually ballooned to $182 billion in exchange for a 92% stake.)
College graduates, said Benmosche, needed to seize the opportunities that become available to them, even if their options are limited.
“They want me to talk to the students and give them a sense of encouragement, especially with the high unemployment,” said Benmosche.
“My advice will be, ‘Whatever opportunity comes your way, take it. Take it and treat it as if it’s the only one that’s coming your way, because that actually may be the truth.’”
Of course, willing-to-work college graduates who can’t find willing-to-hire employers won’t be able to count on a generous bailout from the Federal Government.
To which most of them will owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans.
It’s long past time to apply to “untouchable” CEOs like Robert Benmosche the same criteria that right-wing Republicans demand be applied to welfare recipients.
Throughout the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug-testing in Congress and more than 30 states.
Some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs.
The concept of background screening is actually sound. But Republicans are aiming it at the wrong end of the economic spectrum.
Since 2008, the government has handed out billions of dollars in bailouts to the wealthiest corporations in the country.
The reason: To rescue the economy from the calamity produced by the criminal greed and recklessness of those same corporations.
For example:
Total of federal monies invested: $3 trillion.
It’s important to note that these figures–supplied by the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Congressional Budget Ooffice and the White House–date from November 16, 2009.
And it’s equally important to remember that welfare recipients did not
The 2010 documentary Inside Job chronicles the events leading to the 2008 global financial crisis. One of its most insightful moments occurs at a party held by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
“We can’t control our greed,” the CEO of a large bank admits to his fellow guests. “You should regulate us more.”
Greed is defined as an excessive desire for wealth or goods. At its worst, greed trumps rationality, judgment and concern about the damage it may cause.
Greed begins in the neurochemistry of the brain. A neurotransmitter called dopamine fuels our greed. The higher the dopamine levels in the brain, the greater the pleasure we experience.
Cocaine, for example, directly increases dopamine levels. So does money.
Harvard researcher Hans Breiter has found, via magnetic resonance imaging studies, that the craving for money activates the same regions of the brain as the lust for sex, cocaine or any other pleasure-inducer.
Dopamine is most reliably activated by an experience we haven’t had before. We crave recreating that experience.
But snorting the same amount of cocaine, or earning the same sum of money, does not cause dopamine levels to increase. So the pleasure-seeker must increase the amount of stimuli to keep enjoying the euphoria.
In time, this incessant craving for pleasure becomes an addiction. And feeding that addiction–-with ever more money–becomes the overriding goal.
Thus, the infamous line–”Greed is good”–in the 1987 film, Wall Street, turns out to be both false and deadly for all concerned.
Share this: