Monday, October 15, 2012
France, America, Vietnam and the Middle East
I'm watching a French film made in 1967 with episodes by three great French film makers, including Alain Rennais, and one Swiss, Jean-Luc Godard. Of course, America is in the film because after their defeat at Diem Bien Phu, the French passed the baton in Vietnam to the United States. The US was in Vietnam in the 1950s and, like France, their pride and power were engaged. And, whatever may separate France and America politically and culturally, one experience binds them tightly, although without words. Vietnam. Both countries, one after the other, came face to face with the intransigent determination of Marxist communism, Asian guerrilla warfare and nationalism. It was the French experience in Vietnam that made it thinkable for President de Gaulle to withdraw from Algeria. It is, even today, the collective memory that makes America hesitant to jump in anywhere...even in a situation as obvious as Syria. President Obama is probably not fully aware of the Vietnam roots in his Middle East policy. Only President Bush seemed to overcome the "Vietnam effect" and it cost him the visceral hatred of many Americans and most French, themselves unaware of what his aggressive policy in Iraq and the Middle East conjured up from their buried national psychic nightmare in Vietnam. And today, the people of Syria are paying the price for a war that occurred before most of them were born. But, the Middle East and Vietnam are very different. There were no insurmountable national interests at stake in Vietnam. There are in the Middle East - terrorist roots that threaten the entire world, the Suez Canal, nuclear capability in the hands of terrorists and the Iran that supports them, petroleim. And Europe and America have been engaged on their own soil...in New York City, Madrid, London, Paris...by terrorist attacks. But, a fundamental question was never answered in Vietnam -- how can non-local Great Powers assist those in non-western countries and regions to throw off non-majoritarian groups bound by a particular non-humaine philosophy without becoming occupying powers themselves. No one had ever answered this question. Not Alexander the Great. Not the Roman armies. Not the British Raj. But it is the basic question facing the West as it tries to save people in the Middle East from tyranny, protect Israel and stabilize an important human crossroads.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're a better man than I am Gunga Din if you can answer that one.
ReplyDeleteYou are so right about the influence of Vietnam on both the French and American experience in the Golden triangle post their withdraw.
ReplyDeleteThe USA had two distinctly periods in Vietnam. the first was the early 50's thru JFK's first few months is office. And the second was the period post JFK' early experience in Vietnam. before JFK we were in Vietnam fore a somewhat humanity reason - saving the South Vietnamese people from communists rule and the certain blood shed that would accompany their take over.
Post 1961 Vietnam was all about the "Domino Theory" in Indochina and our (USA) need for a deep water port in the region, but not Hawaii. The Philippines is where we placed these deep water ports at great expense. But the USA couldn't afford to loose the Philippines Island and have to fall back to Hawaii. The Domino Theory of all the countries in Indochina falling to the communists never happened.
All the great conquerors that you mentioned fell victim to the same fault. They in time advanced far to far from the home base.
To answer your question: They simply can not. To rebuild a nation, to split a nation on the east/West axises, to approach "Nation Building", to change hundreds or thousands of rules and regulations on living with an outsider protection force can not be done.
And your right it is the basic question facing the West in it's attempt to stabilize the entire Middle east all at once. If it were done country by country, depending on one success to ease into the next one, and so on would work. But such an undertaking would be expensive in dollars and lives, patience, and political popularity. And is any nation - even the USA - willing to undertake such a job and do it right, not just fast!