The US engagement policy abroad, for last forty or so years, has always been shaped with the lessons learnt in Vietnam in perspective, as it is being done now. President Obama, as I have noted previously, is supposed to make the decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. From the media gossip, one gets to understand the decision is likely to be that General McChrystal will get some troops, but not the 40,000 he requested for. This will actually be no decision at all - a few thousand American lives, and a few thousand Afghan lives, will be sacrificed because the President and his advisers will not be able to make up their minds. Common sense dictates that the solution is elsewhere, not in sending additional troops; but there will be this shadow of Vietnam weighing over their head. The civilian administration and democracy lost the war - that's the lesson learnt - and this time, no one would want to take that political risk. No one wants Afghanistan, and Pakistan, go over to the dark side. The consequences, everyone knows, will be severe. The strong visual imagery of planes slamming into World Trade Centre is enough to make a President lose his re-election, and hence, no one will take the risk.
I remember reading 'No More Vietnams' by Richard Nixon long time back. Back in the early nineties, when America has just emerged victorious in the first Gulf War but stopped short of driving into Baghdad. The debate in my university circles were about whether Americans were afraid that Saddam Hussein had dangerous weapons. The other opinion focused on Vietnam, there came Richard Nixon with all his wisdom, and the psychological effect that it must have had on American policy making about occupying territories in Asia. So, we talked about America retreating into a modern Monroe doctrine, keeping their large scale involvements to Western Hemisphere. With the Cold War and the need for containment going away, it was logical for the Americans to let countries in the other parts of the world follow their own course.
But, Richard Nixon, the perennial cold warrior, was advocating otherwise. He was urging Americans to get over Vietnam, because it was not a failure of American military power but one of American polity. He was making the case for strong engagements with intent, and his point was that America must remain engaged, militarily if needed, to run the world according to its wishes. It did seem that George HW Bush took his advice when he went into the Gulf, as did his circle of advisers, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. They definitely wanted to emerge out of Vietnam's shadows and believed they did, with a comprehensive and convincing victory in the First Gulf War.
This is the exact perspective which made George W to plan his adventures. The media and historians seem to ascribe to him a filial sense of responsibility to complete his father's unfinished task, by going into Baghdad. But, George W was actually taking advantage of what his father achieved - the beyond Vietnam mentality - a strong will to engage in other parts of the world. He had the same set of advisers - Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld - and it did feel Deja Vu over again.
But, the Vietnam experience refused to die. We talked about Vietnam in 2005/6 when Iraq seemed completely out of control. The President took the decisions based on his post-Vietnam, strong engagement mentality: sent more troops. It seemed to have worked, and that reaffirmed Richard Nixon's view of the failure in Vietnam: Not a military failure, but one of polity.
Obama's predicament today is to work under this shadow of Vietnam, when it is ever more real. Iraq was far more manageable than Afghanistan. It was a country with flat deserts, where air power is far more effective than the mountainous Afghanistan. Afghans are notoriously independent, they have been scarcely governed for centuries. The sense of Afghan justice and negotiation is far more swift and immediate than any democratic negotiation will permit. It is indeed one country where the limits of American Military power may become evident.
But more than that, this should focus ourselves on the lessons of Vietnam. Draw the parallels in your mind with what the apologists of troop surge are saying, and you will see Pakistan being portrayed as South Vietnam. A war must be fought in the North to win the peace in the South, to whom we are pledge-bound to protect. Further if we lose the South, it will unleash a domino effect in the region, ultimately threatening the peace and the prosperity, and in essence, the American way of life.
The problem is that America lost in Vietnam not for the lack of troops, but in spite of them. Nixon was indeed right, it was a failure of polity, but the war was not lost in American Congress. The war was lost in Saigon. South Vietnam became a failed state despite American support because it was a false state, poorly governed and without the moral legitimacy. The lessons from the Vietnam war should be about the pointlessness of puppet states, and not one of the size or engagement of the army.
The other lesson that should have been learnt is what armies can not do. If we all agree that we live in the age of information, we must concede that military power can not substitute moral legitimacy. So, in this age, there is no point trying to perfect a strategy which failed before [and adding up the colonial experience, it always failed]. What needs to be done is an all-out effort to win the peace and moral legitimacy in the broken states.
The United States administration is not doing a good job at that, so far. They are going to tolerate a rigged election, while making noises about a similar one in Iran. They are insisting on a pointless defence of Israel when it is increasingly clear that Israel has been taking advantage of this American protection and set out to do whatever they wish. They continue to try to prop up Pakistan and rescue it from failing, while it must acknowledge that Pakistan is a false state in the need of fundamental changes. In summary, the decision that needs to be made is whether the US has the necessary moral strength to win the moral legitimacy that it needs.
The hope is, as Winston Churchill put it, that 'Americans can be relied upon to do the right thing, after all options have been exhausted'.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
It's not often that I get to do things I like, but, as it happens, the lockdown came with a little gift. I was asked to develop, by an Indian entrepreneur with a strong commitment to education, a framework for a Liberal Education for one of his schools. And, as a part of this exercise, I was asked to develop a critique of Indian Education, if only to set the context of the proposal I am to make. I claim to have some unusual - therefore unique - qualification to do this job. I am, after all, an outsider in all senses. I have lived outside India for a long time, but never went too far away, making it my field of work for most of the period. I have also been outside the academe but never too far away: Just outside the bureaucracy but intimately into the conversations. I worked in the 'disruptive' end of education without the intention to disrupt and in For-profit without the desire for profit. Along the way, the only thing I consistently did is study educatio
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
In our age, the only way to be politically correct is to be democratic. This is a post-70s affair - those days, still, some people had alternative ideologies in mind. Those alternate ideas are dead and gone, long discredited, and it seems that we have only one system which can make people happy, free and live longer. So, we have this huge export industry of democracy, and democracy's warriors, which the American security establishment has lately become. The democracy's businessmen, the bond traders, the media barons and the Hollywood types, are feted everywhere. The consensus is deafening and dumbing. It is indeed awkward to ask now - whether democracy is the right system for every society. It indeed should be. Collective wisdom is better than individual autocracy. In societies where democratic elections have been few and far between, the popular vote has demonstrated the extra-ordinary political savvy of the usually disinterested masses. Democracy has proved to be an excell
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.