Home › Opinion › Opinion
Howry: History must be learned
Forgetting or ignoring past can be disastrous
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
History can be a great teacher when it is accurately reported and properly interpreted. The debate about the comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq is a prime example of where parallels take on greater significance than perhaps they should, and interpretations are being offered that are based more on emotion than fact. Still, no doubt, there are lessons that can be drawn from Vietnam and applied to the war in Iraq. But there is another history lesson, one far more recent than Vietnam that merits attention.
The president was embattled. Thousands of American troops were in harm's way, and the opposition party was demanding the immediate withdrawal of U.S. soldiers. The president responded by declaring that when times get tough the U.S. can't "cut and run."
What began as a humanitarian action escalated into a violent conflict that climaxed with the deaths of 18 U.S. soldiers. The bodies of two soldiers were dragged through the streets, a grisly image that was caught on video and broadcast to the world.
The battle of Mogadishu, Somalia, in June 1993, which was graphically chronicled in the popular book and movie, "Black Hawk Down," was a punch to the gut of the American public. It dramatically altered developing plans for nation-building in that country. President Clinton's hopes of establishing a lasting solution disintegrated in the public backlash.
The subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops was viewed as a clear sign that the American public had no stomach for war casualties. There are many who speculate that what happened in Somalia convinced Osama bin Laden the U.S. could be beat and encouraged him down the path that led to 9/11.
The debate about whether the U.S. should have pulled out of Somalia still rages, just as the debate about our continued presence in Iraq rages in Congress and across the country. A major part of that debate is about supporting the troops. One side argues that by supporting the troops and staying the course, we will eventually achieve our goals. The other side argues that the best way to support the troops is to get out of the quagmire and bring them home. What all agree on is that American lives should not be lost needlessly, either in an unwinnable cause or because of a lack of commitment to the mission.
The historical lessons of Vietnam and Somalia have not provided a clear or incontrovertible answer about the correct course. What we do know is that many Americans lost their lives in the two conflicts. The answer about whether they were lost in vain, or whether something of value was achieved, continues to elude us.
It is fascinating, and not in a good way, that President Bush used the same phrase as Clinton in arguing for the continued U.S. presence in Iraq. It is equally fascinating that in Somalia it was the Republicans who were demanding immediate withdrawal, and it was the Democratic president who was accusing them of wanting to cut and run. This reversal of roles speaks to politics, not principle, and is disheartening.
The sentiment of supporting the troops is powerful and from it stems the one history lesson that has been ignored in Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq. The men and women who make the decisions that place American troops in harm's way are seldom, if ever, held accountable.
When U.S. troops were sent into conflict undermanned, undersupplied and shackled with unreasonable restraints, who was held accountable? When U.S. troops were sent into conflict with faulty, inadequate equipment supplied by profiteering contractors in league with elected officials, who was held accountable? When U.S. troops were sent into conflict with an almost impossible mission and without absolute commitment to achieving success of that mission, who was held accountable?
Those are, or at least should be, criminal actions. Yet, only the most obvious and egregious offenders are ever held to account and put in jail. And they are seldom, if ever, the true decision makers.
To really support the troops requires more than rhetoric. True support would be for those who make the decisions to put their lives and livelihoods on the line as well. The U.S. is the most powerful country perhaps in the history of the world. There is no way it should ever lose an armed conflict. The failures this country has suffered have never been the fault of the troops. What history has taught us is that those who were at fault were never held accountable.
The philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The country's experiences in Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq and its failure to learn from those experiences suggest a slight alteration that might go like this: "Those who cannot remember the past or choose to ignore it are not only condemned to repeat it, but deserve the consequences."
— Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star and can be reached by phone at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by cassandra on September 2, 2007 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Howry almost seems to be saying that the US should continue to have a strong military presence in Iraq. This is history's lesson "properly reported and properly interpreted." Had we remained in Somalia . . . well, that's not really clear.
And it is unlikely that it had much if anything to do with 9/11. Like, it's a reach and a half to promote a weak Republican position. Not that I'm surprised. This is an essentially Republican leaning newspaper, part of a Republican leaning group and I would guess Mr. Howry's own voter registration leans in that direction.
About history--a. It is impossible to record and transmit to others EVERYTHING that happened. b. selection must be made as to what is significant, what not c. interpretation is an integral part of that selection d. interpretation is based on one's individual and group membership/interest.
Howard Zinn's interesting reversal, looking at history from the perspective of the non-dominant groups, gave us his "People's History of the United States" and a whole different way of looking at things. No doubt, it was not "properly reported and properly interpreted."
Looking at things through less biased lenses, it would appear that the crooks and profiteers WERE the decision makers, not just irrelevant pests needing "accountability"--Halliburton, Dick Cheney, non-competitive contracts, Exxon, oil interests, privatizing Irai oil industry, etc., etc..
I've often thought that terrorists must be stupid, that they bomb busses which don't contain the policy makers rather than corporate board rooms which do.
First it's 9/11, then WMD, then it's democracy, then it's THEY'LL know we can be beaten, what next?
Posted by allblacks on September 2, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's funny that Cassandra skipped over the battle of Mogadishu like that. Everyone (rightly) decries the 3000+ deaths in Iraq, but ignores the Battle of Mogadishu. Were those lives "wasted" also? What about the lives lost on the USS Cole or the Khobar barracks? And the string could reasonably be followed all the way back to our quick pull out from Lebanon in 82 after the barracks bombing.
Maybe we should pull out of Iraq now..then we should pull out of Korea (where the casulaties will be many times worse in a much shorter time if it turns into a fight), Macedonia, Kuwait, Kosovo, Japan and Germany, too.
Posted by cassandra on September 2, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Got it. What's next is the "Islamofascists" or perhaps just generic bad guys.
And it's closer to 4000 dead, substantially more if one counts the mercenaries.
Posted by cassandra on September 2, 2007 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Bush crazies are going to Bomb Iran. It's all over the real news. Have they never heard of Stalingrad, speaking of history?
I don't see any way to stop them before they kill more.
Posted by Nosmo_King on September 2, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
^the skies falling! the skies falling!
Posted by cassandra on September 2, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...
Only one of many reports
Posted by cassandra on September 2, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
One of the points a naval officer talking about the plans makes in another article is that unlike Somalia or Kosova, no one in the service seems clear about the goal, no one has a clear idea of why we are doing this and what the long range plan is.
Killing terrorist won't serve. It's like Mickey's dilemma in the Sorcerer's apprentice--you chop one and two rise up. Other than securing Iraq for the peaceful exploitation of the Iraqi oil fields by the US/UK corporations and possibly quelling Israel's concerns about the regional hostility to their occupation of Palestine, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate US interest.
Posted by allblacks on September 2, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Never answered my question.
And now the argument comes full circle with the bit about Israel occupying Palestine. If we are to start giving back territory won in war then you must be all for Aztlan, or whatever it's called. Hope you like living in Mexico.
Posted by lthrnek on September 3, 2007 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We went to Vietnam for much the same reason we went to Korea. . . To stop the Communist North from forcefully taking over the south. The politicians decided to play "General" and we lost both wars. The Marines went into Somalia to extract our American civilians and embassy personnel but the politicians decided to play "Nation Building." We lost that one too. In Iraq, every General Officer I knew was firmly against going in when we did and were asking the question, "What are we going to have when we win?" The Neo-Con politicians didn't listen, took over and we're losing this one too. Mr. Santayana is right again . . .
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.