Why the 'Vietnam Syndrome' haunts U.S. warmakers today

Scan page 8

8 SOCIALIST ACTION JANUARY 1991 The following is an edited and abridged version of a talk given by Carole Seligman at a San Francisco Socialist Educational Conference on Oct. 13, 1990. Seligman is a National Committee member of Socialist Action.

Any historical analogy has its limitations, but the phenomenon in American politics called the "Vietnam Syndrome" is the most potent factor favoring the development of the new antiwar movement.

Vietnam, the name of a small Asian country 10,000 miles from Washington, D.C., became the name that symbolized very different things to different people in the United States-depending on what social class one belongs to.

• To the ruling rich that own and control the wealth and institutions of the United States, the Vietnam War symbolized the only decisive defeat ever suffered by American military might.

• To the working people of the neo-colonial world-exploited and plundered by the financial, political and military arms of imperialism-the Vietnam War represented an example of resistance and triumph over this exploitation.

• To the politically conscious generations of American people who resisted the Vietnam War from within the United States and built a movement powerful enough to win a clear majority of the American people to the antiwar cause, Vietnam stands for the possibilities of collective mass action to bring about real change.

For many people of my generation the Vietnam War was the main historical factor that shaped us; that formed us as thinking, moral, human beings; that taught us politics—that is, how to engage in revolutionary politics in the heartland of world imperialism. It taught many of us-especially those among us who didn't really know or understand the nature of the country into which we happened to be born-the brutal truth about the hyprocrisy of our so-called democracy.

This "democracy" claimed in the pages of its press that it was necessary to destroy peasant villages in Vietnam in order to "save them." Outrage against this hypocrisy and brutality taught us that one could fight back and that we could win the support of the American people in so doing.

Many, perhaps most of the families of the 58.000 American soldiers who died in that war—and the families of hundreds of thousarids of veterans who suffer from the physical and psychological wounds of fighting a war against a civilian population and a popular revolution- feel that the Vietnam War was an unjustified, bitter sacrifice.

American jails are filled with Vietnam veterans. American streets are filled with Vietnam veterans without jobs or homes to live in. American mental institutions make no pretense of seriously trying to deal with the aftermath of an unpopular war. The enormous growth in drug addiction in the United States is partially rooted in the Vietnam War.

All of these factors and more are aspects of what is called the Vietnam Syndrome. And they combine to create another aspect of this syndrome, the aspect that frightens and gives pause to the U.S. warmakers.

There is massive skepticism about U.S. foreign policy within the population-particularly about a policy which threatens another protracted war.

This is the political expression of the Vietnam Syndrome. The potential ability of such skepticism to be turned into conscious, organized opposition is a big factor affecting U.S. foreign policy. Today's antiwar movement must make full and conscious use of the Vietnam Syndrome.

During the Vietnam War there was constant discussion and debate in the antiwar movement over whether the government was even aware of the movement, let alone taking it into account in its plans. The government pretended to ignore the mass demonstrations.

Only at the end of the war, with the publication of the Pentagon Papers and the defection of a few government policy makers, like Daniel Ellsberg, did the movement as a whole learn how much the government was aware of every move the opposition made. This was made clear when government efforts to sabotage the movement through police and FBI disruptions became documented—mostly after the war was over.

So let me say from the outset: We in the new antiwar movement fighting against the U.S. war moves in the Middle East need to study and absorb, or in the case of the older generations, remember, the lessons of the Vietnam antiwar movement if we want to exploit the existence of the Vietnam Syndrome and put it to full use in building our movement today.

There are many important differences between the U.S. war against Vietnam and the potential U.S. war against Iraq. But there are important similarities, too, and we should discuss both.

A big difference is the world political context in which U.S. aggression takes place today. During the Vietnam War the workers' states led by degenerated Stalinist regimes (the Soviet Union, China, etc.) at least made the gesture of opposing U.S. aggression. They doled out limited but important aid to the Vietnamese revolutionaries which helped them in a very limited fashion to defend themselves.

The Soviet Union's political adherents in the United States, the Communist Party (CPUSA), were against the Vietnam War and were a significant force—-and obstacle in the antiwar movement. In contrast, today the CPUSA advocates economic sanctions against Iraq.

Similarly, today the Soviet Union's Stalinist leaders have embarked on the project of attempting to restore capitalism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe. They are making a huge political concession to U.S. imperialism—one of them being political support for U.S. aggression in the Middle East.

Before the Middle East crisis started, some people mistakenly floated the view that the world was moving toward peace and disarmament with the end of the Cold War and the lessening of tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.

However, just the opposite has proven to be the case. The drive of U.S. imperialism to ensure its ownership and control of raw materials, resources, and markets around the world has been exacerbated by the lessening threat of Soviet opposition. Today, with Soviet approval, over 500,000 U.S. (and Allied) troops stand poised to invade Iraq. This new world context, the open collaboration of Gorbachev with Bush, is a major point of difference from the context of the Vietnamese revolution.

Another major difference is the nature of "the enemy." During the Vietnam War the genuine revolutionary struggle for self-determination and freedom from imperialism of the Vietnamese people gained tremendous respect from large sections of the U.S. antiwar movement, particularly, the student leftsploit the existence of the Vietnam yndrome and put it to full use in building ir movement today.

Scan page 9

There are many important differences tween the U.S. war against Vietnam and e potential U.S. war against Iraq. But there e important similarities, too, and we lould discuss both.

A big difference is the world political conxt in which U.S. aggression takes place day. During the Vietnam War the workers' ates led by degenerated Stalinist regimes he Soviet Union, China, etc.) at least made le gesture of opposing U.S. aggression. hey doled out limited but important aid to le Vietnamese revolutionaries which helped lem in a very limited fashion to defend emselves.

The Soviet Union's political adherents in le United States, the Communist Party PUSA), were against the Vietnam War id were a significant force-and obstacle1 the antiwar movement. In contrast, today le CPUSA advocates economic sanctions gainst Iraq.

Similarly, today the Soviet Union's talinist leaders have embarked on the proict of attempting to restore capitalism in le U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe. They are laking a huge political concession to U.S. nperialism-one of them being political ipport for U.S. aggression in the Middle ast.

Before the Middle East crisis started, some cople mistakenly floated the view that the orld was moving toward peace and disarlament with the end of the Cold War and le lessening of tensions between the United tates and the Soviet Union.

However, just the opposite has proven to e the case. The drive of U.S. imperialism › ensure its ownership and control of raw laterials, resources, and markets around the 'orld has been exacerbated by thẹ lessening ireat of Soviet opposition. Today, with oviet approval, over 500,000 U.S. (and illied) troops stand poised to invade Iraq. his new world context, the open collaboraion of Gorbachev with Bush, is a major oint of difference from the context of the Tietnamese revolution.

Another major difference is the nature of the enemy." During the Vietnam War the ¡enuine revolutionary struggle for self-deermination and freedom from imperialism of hẹ Vietnamese people gained tremendous repect from large sections of the U.S. antiwar novement, particularly, the student leftwing of the movement.

Today, Saddam Hussein, the right-wing dictator of Iraq, previously armed and financed by U.S. imperialism, and a former CIA-backed torturer, inspires no sympathy, nor is he identified with the revolutionary struggle of the Arab masses by antiwar activists of any political persuasion.

The most conscious antiwar fighters, however, make no mistake of confusing our opinions of Saddam Hussein with any justification for U.S. military aggression in the Middle East. Neither should abhorrence for Hussein weaken the support or identification of conscious anti-imperialists with the desire for self-determination of the Arab and Palestinian peoples.

Another way of looking at this question of "who is the enemy?" brings out a similarity between government propaganda now and the propaganda of the 1960s.

Although American jingosim and national chauvinism were considerably weakened with the success of the Chinese Revolution and rise of anti-colonial revolutions following World War II, as well as the Civil Rights and Black Power movements in the United States, this didn't stop the. rulers from giving the Vietnam War a racist undertone.

We should not underestimate the potential impact of attempts by the U.S. government to stir up anti-Arab racism (and the role of the Zionists in promoting racism as well). But we can acknowledge that this factor is not as useful a tool for the capitalists as it has been in the past.

Mass support exists in this country for Black South Africa and for the poor peoples of Central America. These factors affect the racist arguments. I can well envision a repeat of the Vietnam experience of AfricanAmericans in demonstrations carrying placards and banners reading "No Viet Cong ever called me nigger," coming back to haunt current national chauvinists.

GIs not immune to antiwar ideas One factor affecting mass consciousness on the war issue in terms of the Vietnam Syndrome is the draft and the fear of its reinstatement. Although many of the soldiers now in the Middle East are in the military by choice, many are there because of the phenomenon called the "economic draft." Young people enlist in the armed forces due to the lack of decent jobs or job training in the civilian sector.

This, combined with continued discrimination and institutionalized racism, causes disproportionate numbers of Black and Latino youth to sign up in the armed forces in the expectation of getting training and entry into decent jobs afterwards. The presence of so many numbers of oppressed national minorities in the military is not a good omen from the U.S. rulers' point of view. It will be hard to insulate these troops from the antiwar movement as it develops.

The early signs of resistance by reservists and active duty soldiers is a sign of big trouble for the U.S. rulers should a protracted war take place.

One of the most important lessons of the anti-Vietnam War movement was that the soldiers could not remain insulated from the antiwar sentiment that was developing in the population. Of course the main factor was the inadvisability of fighting a war against a popular revolution that enjoyed the mass support of the Vietnamese people.

But the ability of the American antiwar movement to make the conscious decision to orient to winning over the American troops to the antiwar position was also decisive. Towards the end of the Vietnam War the government came to the conclusion that the American army fighting there was no longer "a reliable fighting force."

Role of students and women An interesting similarity between today's antiwar movement and the Vietnam antiwar movement is the spontaneous creation of the same organizational forms. Through ad hoc committees, coalitions and community-based groupings, demonstrations, rallies and teach-ins to oppose the war have arisen throughout the U.S. and the world.

The main forces moving into opposition and actively discussing, educating, and organizing against the war are students. There are two main reasons for this.

One, before the factors that move masses into action are apparentcasualties and body bags, real matérial changes in life—the people who have spare time to consider issues, like students and intellectuals (many of whom work part-time hours and have no families to support) will take the lead.

Two, in the general context of U.S. politics today, the main driving force of all politics-class division and class struggle-are hidden because of the unprecedented lengthy period of prosperity and stability of American capitalism This has been responsible for the almost complete absorption or co-optation of all the American trade unions and any potential militant leaders of the American working class into the organizations and institutions of the capitalist state.

Unfortunately, there is no political party, for example, a labor party, representing the interests of the American working class—or even of its most exploited and oppressed section—the Black, Latino and women section. The union officialdom is engaged in a program of partnership with their own bosses in competition with workers in other countries and other industries.

Even the leaderships of organizations of the oppressed, such as in the women's movement and the movements of nationally oppressed groups, are engaged in political al. liances with Democratic Party politicians that undermine the very purpose for their existence as representing the interests of the oppressed.

The refusal of the leaderships of these organizations to implement policies dictated by the needs and interests of the majority was in effect during the anti-Vietnam War movement and remain in effect today. This void has caused students to play the vanguard oppositional role in the emerging antiwar Red-baiting: Less of a problem A big difference between the early Vietnam student movement and today's movement is the failure of the use of anti-communism (red-baiting) as a deterrent to united action.

During the first several years of the Vietnam antiwar movement, a big fight was waged over a non-exclusion policy. The leaderships of the early 1960s' "Ban the Bomb" demonstrations tried to suppress "leftist" placards opposing the Vietnam War. Later, when opposition to the Vietnam war developed further there were many struggles to ensure that the movement would be open to all those who opposed the war—not just liberals. This has not been an issue in the new antiwar movement.

Another big difference between today and the 1960s is the role of women in the movement. The women's movement itself, that is, the second wave of American feminism, came directly out of the civil rights and antiwar movements-often with a lot of anger directed at sexism among leaders of the antiwar organizations.

Today the new movement is stronger because of the leadership role women are playing in much greater numbers than before. More women are taking part in teach-ins and campus organizing. I think it's undeniable that part of the reason for this is that the big fight for abortion rights has empowered a massive number of women and caused them to radicalize and question everything—not just specifically women's issues—but everything. This factor puts the new movement a big step ahead of our predecessors because of its access to expanded forces, talents, leadership, and creativity.

What policies should guide us?

Now that I've touched on some of the big differences in the movements of the 1960's and today, let me say that despite these differences we can still learn an enormous amount from the old movement and work to avoid its mistakes. In fact we can arrive at some general outlines of what policies should guide our efforts to build the movement based on how these tactics or strategies worked in the p The most con Vietnam War 1 tionary Marx Socialist Worl time), some nor some of the radi These folks even though the at first, was un] war continued because the Vie defense of thei the antiwar m reach and win American peop this very idea w In the early 1! ing a boom per Politically, the , "anti-communi organized oppo vestiges of Mr sponsible for nists and radic still existed. M "communism" 1 this with the p the Second Wor But big chang country. In the against "Jim ( struggle which American "den thy and suppor youth. Internati dented upsurg around the figh nial occupiers. this was the 19 Revolutionar as building blo to the Vietnam on the Americ: been participan dependent unio they remember radicalized wh interests.

This was on the SWP to tr ment. Their vis their sons and d pose the war if self (mass, pea a way as to le them to do so w After many y

Scan page 10

Inam veteran ne memorial. makes it o sund profle again... sn more.

----- pull-quotes -----

ndrome' rs today

I am a Vietnam veteran. I like the memorial. And it it makes it to battle again... I'll like it even more.