the post-911 Situation, Vietnam & Pynchon

[The Great Quail]

Doug writes,

>Are they really?  The U.S. fought in Vietnam in part to "contain" Communism
>within a broader strategy of seeking to eliminate or contain Communism; the
>U.S. fights in Afghanistan for similar reasons, substitute "terrorism" for
>"Communism".

See, that's the substitution that you feel comfortable making, and I 
do not. I find it specious. I feel as if you use Vietman as a general 
template rather than a specific situation. If time flowed in reverse, 
would you feel as comfortable substituting Naziism for Communism? 
Where would you take a stand that violence is acceptable? (I mean 
that sincerely.) Just because the US has an antagonism against a 
people, it does not mean you can interchange the circumstances with 
other people with whom we have had antagonisms.

Communism was perceived as a threat; which has some legitimacy, even 
though it was greatly exaggerated, misunderstood, and used 
opportunistically. But Communism was a rival political ideology; not 
a base method of coercion through violent means. (Although of course 
Communist and Democratic states certainly did a lot of that; all 
states do.) The terrorists we are now fighting are in conflict with 
us directly; they have attacked our soil, or people, our embassies, 
or politicians, and so on, they have done this *directly.* They have 
declared war upon us, and there methods are best described as 
terrorism. And in my opinion, they are too powerful, and have too 
much national support (Taliban, for starters) to approach them as 
criminals and try to extradite them. They are hate-filled and brutal 
people who wish our whole state to be destroyed, and have attacked us 
several times. They offer no "better way of life," they have no rival 
ideology to speak of that doesn't offer only repression and 
totalitarianism. This is not even remotely the same as Communism or 
our response in Vietnam. The Vietnamese did not attack us, we went 
there and became embroiled in a terrible postcolonial civil war. We 
were not under attack by these people, and when they did attack us, 
it was not because they were Communists attacking Capitalists, but 
because we had become involved all on our own. (Oh, and thanks a lot, 
France.)

I think we overreacted to "Communism," and I think we fought an 
unjust war. I do not think this current war is an overreaction to 
"Terrorism," nor do I think trying to kill these people -- the 
terrorists and their direct national supporters -- is the same as 
killing Vietnamese.

Indeed, the terrorists are Islamic, and yet we do not officially 
perceive Islam as a Communism-style ideological threat. It is violent 
fundamentalism that is the threat, and a very real one.

>The U.S. fought in Vietnam in part to keep oil flowing;

Partly, perhaps -- but that was hardly the main reason.

>certainly this is lies at the heart of the strategic concerns the U.S. has
>in Central Asia and the Middle East at present.

Well, of course it lies there! Hell, if the region had no oil, we 
wouldn't care if they all went nuts on each other, or just opened 
fruit stands. (Well, of course, there's Israel. I don't want to be 
reductionist myself.) But I disagree when you say, "at present." 
While oil may be the root cause of our involvement and concern in the 
Middle East (which has actually been fairly limited compared to 
colonial Europe and imperialist USSR) it is certainly not "at the 
heart" of our attacks against the Taliban, or our desire to crush 
Islamic terrorism. What is at the heart of this is simple -- they 
bombed us worse than anyone else in our history ever has.

I think you have the tendency to look only to the most base, worst, 
corrupt aspects of the US political system sometimes, and draw the 
conclusion that these things are sole motivations, and everything 
else is hypocrisy.

>Some historians have
>argued, convincingly, that the U.S. fought in Vietnam in part within an
>ongoing U.S.  imperialism project

I have read this too, and I think there is some truth in it, but I 
also think hysteria regarding "Communism" was more in play, as well 
as simple global politics. I mean, it's not like we wanted to 
colonize Vietnam.

>that began in the19th century; just as
>clearly in the present Situation, the U.S. has now taken up again the Great
>Game that imperial powers began in the 19th century.

I disagree. While we would certainly not complain if we had better 
access to oil in these regions, the imperial powers of the 19th 
century were more interested in colonization and empire building to 
directly take over resources. We are interested in (1) disabling and 
retarding terrorist networks, (2) increasing our capitalist coffers, 
(3) increasing our oil reserves, and (4) promoting our modern, 
democratic capitalist way of life. None of these directly involves 
colonization, annexation, and so on. (Which is not to say that they 
don't involve some capitalism ugliness.) In fact, it would be 
delightful if some of these Islamic countries could develop a more 
democratic tradition that didn't self-annihilate, but let's face it, 
they *like* Islam being the basis for their laws and government. We 
really don't speak the same language at times.

>So there are
>meaningful parallels. We see a direct line of descent from the politicians
>and military strategists who planned and executed the Vietnam War (at least
>one of them -- Kissenger -- we see on the Tube, explaining why we need this
>war and why it must go on indefinitely)

Well, yeah, of course Kissinger likes this War. He'd like it if we 
invaded Canada. I meant, he's hardly credible.

>  to  the politicians and military
>strategists who now plan and execute the war in Afghanistan, as well as the
>fact that many of the corporations that will profit from supplying weapon
>systems, other goods, and services to the U.S. military remain the same,

Yes, of course they will benefit. But that hardly means that's the 
reason we are going to war. If a country suddenly rolled tanks into 
California, and we went to war to fight back, would you complain that 
the weapon-supplying corporations would benefit? I just don't attach 
such the significance to it that you do; not in the current 
situation, at least.

>One way -- just one way, and certainly not the only way -- to read Vineland

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and I read it like that, too.

>Is anything like that happening
>right now, or in the context of the post-Gulf War strategy to contain or
>eliminate terrorism (at least the terrorists who don't support U.S. foreign
>policy).

Actually, you know what? I really don't think so. Of course the 
government may squawk about some war protesters, but the time of Kent 
State is over, for both sides. There's just not that much active 
protest of this war, and the governmet really isn't trying to shut 
down forums for what exists. (Though their paternalism bothers me, 
and they should be closely watched.) I am sure there are some details 
the CIA and the Pentagon are not telling us, but I don't see any 
evidence of conspiracies, gross lies, and cover-ups so far. To be 
honest, I just see a bunch of stressed out people trying to wage a 
just war. Maybe I am naive, maybe you are right, and maybe if this 
thing drags on for years, I will look at it differently.

>GR also alludes to this,  but the text is far more complex, and
>open to many more interpretations,  one of the reasons, I believe, that
>some Pynchon scholars prefer it to Vineland.

Heh heh...very true!

>One way -- just one way, and
>certainly not the only way -- to read M&D is to see it going straight to
>the heart of the genocide and profit motive that underlie the development
>of corporations in the first place and the role they play in the European
>imperialism project in Africa, Asia, and America;

Again, I agree with you 100%.

>Disregard such readings as "propaganda" if you will,

Not at all; again, I agree with you. I just think that this situation 
is different than Vietnam or even the Gulf War. I do not agree with 
many of the more paranoid articles you have passed along.  But I do 
believe a lot of what you do as well -- though I tend to see Eurpean 
and American imperialism and colonialism as just another shitty fact 
of life, and nothing special or particularly more or less evil than 
anything any other power has done throughout history. I also look 
more on the positive achievements of the West, I think. I also think 
that we, especially in America, have been trying to evolve, and I 
think we are the most enlightened and positive empire in world 
history, with promise for even better a future. No one gets a free 
ride, though, and our Empire has crushed many in its path of 
development.

>Or, are you among the Pynchon
>readers who prefer to ignore the political and historical content of his
>work and read it in a vacuum, not seeking to relate it to the world in
>which we live?

No, actually I am not like that at all. I agree with you in your 
claims that Pynchon is a moral writer; I just don't agree with you to 
the length that you carry it.

>Quail, you said the other day that you thought that Pynchon would be
>opposed to the current war.  Assuming you still think that,

I do, yes.

>I wonder,
>instead of spending your time pontificating and excoriating Barbara, why
>don't you challenge rj/rjackson/jbor/?'s assertion that Pynchon would
>approve of the Bush's war on Afghanistan?

Because though I don't agree with him, I only see it as his opinion 
on a minor issue to me. If I posted my disagreements with every 
opinion that I don't hold to, I would jam up the list. Frankly, I 
just don't see the issue of Pynchon's agreement or disapproval as 
something I wish to debate. Also, there's just no real way of arguing 
what Pynchon thinks, without a tedious round of my quote/your quote. 
However, I am in more sharp disagreement with some of your opinions 
and NP postings, and more so, I am even more in disagreement with the 
attitude you often display.

Although, I am finding most of this most recent letter the most 
reasonable, calm, and thoughtful thing you've said in about this 
situation so far, and I am actually enjoying responding. I feel more 
like we are discussing, than shouting, harping, or "excoriating."

>Do you think, based on what we
>read in V., GR, Vineland, M&D, that Pynchon would really aprove such a
>venture, as rj/rjackson/jbor/?

Nope. But as I have also stated, I don't set my own moral compass by 
Pynchon. He is more left than me, which is just fine. He's a 
brilliant writer, and that's the most important thing to me.

>seems to be arguing, with all its trappings
>of uncritical flag-waving chauvinism, the cowboy vengeance rhetoric,

I don't think jbor is uncritical or a chauvinist; I myself am flying 
a US flag at home, and I don't think Bush has acted as a cowboy or 
out of vengeance.

>  the
>perversion of language that permits a Secretary of Defense to dismiss the
>killing of innocent civilians (in the hundreds now, according to many
>reputable sources outside the U.S.) by saying they have been warned and
>saying that if they're still near U.S. targets they must be working for the
>Taliban

Yes, that was horrible! A horrible thing to say, and all too 
reminiscent, as you remarked, of Vietnam. But I think I may be more 
open to complexity here, and I understand that the government is made 
up of disparate, image-conscious people, not all of them 
compassionate and intelligent. In fact, I think Rumsfeld is an ass. I 
think it's our duty to protest when they say things like that.

>(this he said, on TV, with a straight face; maybe he wasn't
>thinking about the two-month old baby bombed in the village of Karam , but
>I was)?

Again, war is horrible, and I feel sick that this is happening, but I 
think the alternatives will only lead to even more American dead. 
Innocent people die in war, it's the terrible fact, it's why I think 
it needs to be carefully weighed and then carried out with grimness 
and as much care as possible. I also hope that any government which 
follows the Taliban will have to be better for the people in the long 
run.

>In my personal opinion, and based on a close reading of Pynchon's
>novels as well as a small library of critical works relating to Pynchon's
>work, I don't see how anybody could argue, from the evidence in the novels,
>that the author (not the human being who lives in Manhattan, and not an
>"ideal author" constructed from textual evidence) would support the current
>war.  Do you agree?  If so, do you think that rj/rjackson/jbor/? is
>off-track to assert that Pynchon would support it?

Yes, I agree with you, and I disagree with jbor. But that is only a 
gut feeling on this one, because Pynchon does not seem to be a 
pacifist or appeaser, either. My feeling is that Pynchon probably 
thinks the terrorists should be routed, but by non-violent means, if 
possible. Though I do not adopt that stance myself -- as I've said, I 
think Pynchon's politics are more left leaning than my own. It 
wouldn't surprise me if he voted for Nader.

But then again, he could think this is a credible threat and support 
a limited war; I could *barely* see that; but it would still surprise 
me. I could also *barley* see him thinking this was all a conspiracy 
to get more oil; but that would surprise me a bit too.

For once, nice talking to you, Doug,

--Quail

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth:
http://www.TheModernWord.com

If I have said anything to the contrary I was mistaken.
If I say anything to the contrary again I shall be mistaken again.
Unless I am mistaken now. Into the dossier with it in any case,
in support of whatever thesis you fancy.
      --Samuel Beckett, "The Unnamable"