PDA

View Full Version : Once more into the quicksand



Peter Lyderik
2nd January 2005, 08:30
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Once more into the quicksand

John Berthelsen
Weekend: December 24-26, 2004

That the universal cruelty and futility of war continues unchanged over generations is hardly a surprise, but a recently rediscovered 40-year-old book about the Indochina War nonetheless came as a striking but eloquent shock.

It is unfortunate that the neo-conservatives who surround United States President George W Bush hadn't read it before they decided to take democracy to the Middle East.

The book is The Quicksand War, written by Lucien Bodard, one of the foremost French foreign correspondents who covered Southeast Asia.

It was first published in English by Faber and Faber in 1963. The book went through several printings, including by Little, Brown in the US in 1967, before it slipped from view, although it is still available and relatively easy to find through used-book dealers on the Internet.

Translated and with a foreword by Patrick O'Brien, the author of the celebrated Aubrey-Maturin sea stories, it was condensed from two volumes of a four-volume set on the First Indochina War by Bodard. Regrettably, the other two volumes have never been translated.

Its language remains as fresh and as searing as yesterday's news about Baghdad. ``Monsieur, if we had had the sense to cut off a few dozen heads at the right moment,'' Bodard was told by innumerable colonials, ``there would still be a French Indochina.''

But they didn't cut off enough heads at the right time, although not for lack of trying. And before it was done, Indochina would be plunged into a seemingly endless and despairing cycle where ``in an area the size of France each side fought in the twilight, without seeing the other: Handfuls of men, lost in the enormous landscape, tried to creep up on one another through the darkness and the leaves, to kill at point-blank range. All the private enmities between the clans and tribes were exploited, and between the imperialists and the communists they exploded spontaneously.

``It was an inextricable tangle. Wars dating from every century were all going on at the same moment; the weapons ranged from blowpipes, spears and spells to machine guns and mortars.''

In this passage only the nationalities and locales need to be changed to reflect today's Middle Eastern violence, not only in Iraq but in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well: ``The Viets were carrying out a policy of atrocities; but this atmosphere of torture bore its own corruption and contagion with it. In the end, cruelty was practised on all sides. The Expeditionary Force's Asian partisans, continually threatened with a hideous death, killed the Vietminh with the most sophisticated torments - unless of course they came to an understanding with them.

``It was a pitiless war. Often it happened that even the French were caught up in this intoxication of torture and death. It was in the air one breathed, it arose from the country itself, forming part of its ways and customs: It emanated from the landscape, from weariness, over-excitement and example. Great strength of character was needed to keep it down.

``The Viets knowingly urged the French on to commit excesses, for they were well aware that as far as torture was concerned they were far beyond the French, both in efficiency and skill. For them, torture as a form of warfare finally became a technique that allowed them to gain an ascendancy over people and to win.''

Frustration would grow. ``For the French the whole question was where the Viets were going to strike; for the Viets it was to prevent it from being found out. The Expeditionary Force was like the blindfolded man in a game of blind-man's bluff, stretching out to catch hold of something, some hint of the truth. The Expeditionary Force was in the open, in the delta; its movements were thoroughly known and well in sight of the Viets all around, lying there hidden, unseen, elusive, on the edge of the jungle.''

Bodard was a close friend of the English writer Graham Greene, whose novel The Quiet American, set in the last years of the French occupation, describes the colossal misconceptions held by the Americans of life in a land they could not fathom.

It would be difficult not to find in Bodard's book the antecedents of Greene's Alden Pyle, the murdered American diplomat-spy killed for his interference in Franco-Vietnam affairs:

``All the Americans in Saigon, those in the embassy, those in the military mission and the special services and the USIS [US Information Service], to say nothing of the American journalists, were ill with Francophobia, virtually ill at the spectacle of the French setting up colonialism once more. They had such a wonderfully deep and sincere belief in the essential evil of it all. And they were so sure that America would do so much better than France and they themselves so much better than the French.''

In the same way that the Americans longed for a real Iraq until they got there, in Bodard's work they ``they longed for a real Vietnam, a friend of America, instead of this Vietnam given over as a prey to the French. In such a Vietnam they would be able to use all the `expansionist' theories they had learned at college and in the Protestant churches; expansion, that is, of the domain of the American spirit and the American way of life. It was more and more a Pilgrim's Progress crusade against French Machiavellianism, a crusade based on priggishness, schoolmarm's morality and frigid anger. More and more every day they behaved like frustrated righters of wrong.''

And here is Bodard describing a kind of tropical Green Zone: ``The Americans were shut away with their dollars, their luxury, their parties, their intrigues and their particular functions - for each of them had an exactly defined job. Their numbers continually grew; they were very rich and they were very bitter, and they bought the most splendid houses for their agencies and their dwellings, setting themselves up as little blocks of resistance, living apart, devoting themselves to work and taking such care of their health that they reached the point of eating and drinking nothing but what came from the States, including water.''

But the spirit of spin knows no nationality when in the service of military expediency: Commanding French General Marcel Carpentier's ``only positive measure was to set up an immense press section, for he did not like professional journalists; he was persuaded that newspapers would be delighted to print articles written by his own officers if they were provided free, and that they would therefore no longer send their own men - cynical, dubious characters.''

After the debacle at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French forces, including foreign legionnaires, had lost 94,000 lives. Some 300,000 Vietminh (the nationalist precursors to the Vietcong) are believed to have died, along with 250,000 civilians.

Soon, they would be followed by the Americans, who would lose another 58,000 before they called it quits and the communist flag was finally hoisted above a unified nation in 1975, leaving behind them 225,000 South Vietnamese soldiers, perhaps one million North Vietnamese and Vietcong, and as many as one million dead civilians.

Bodard describes the bewilderment of the French colonials - ``men of standing, respectable, worthy, jovial citizens with fat little bellies - the `colonial egg' - on spindly legs''. They described the old Indochina, the Indochina of the 60-year French protectorate, as an earthly paradise. `` `What didn't we do for the nha-ques (natives)?' they said to me. `We rescued them from abject poverty, we gave them schools, roads and hospitals and what is even more important, we brought them justice and security. But how can a country so overwhelmed with kindness possibly have blown up in our faces like this?'''

So far 1,303 American servicemen have died in Iraq. By some estimates, 100,000 Iraqi civilians have also perished.

BobW
2nd January 2005, 12:29
Bonjour Peter,

The major mistake of the reviewer, John Berthelsen, and possibly author Lucien Bodard is to use highly inaccurate terms such as "France" and "United States". France was so divided it approached Metternick's term for Italy as being a "geographical expression". The US was not as divided-but most definitely was not as unified as during FDR's administration.

By 1963 (JFK assassinated Nov 63) became more divided and continued to divide.

It is a mistake to view Indochina outside of the Cold War.

The "neocons" do not make US foreign policy. They are a "front". Look closer at the US oil lobby and US financial lobby. The neocons are props and also serve as lightning rods.

Was French IndoChina much different than immediate post WWII Greece-Turkey?

The Americans were not involved in "expansionist theories" any more than French Expeditionary Forces were "out in the open".

FDR and Stalin agreed that France should not return to IndoChina. FDR died and Truman took over. The key US policy ingredient at the time was the US "China Lobby". Note that Mao won the war in China and Chiang went to Taiwan. PR China recognized Ho Chi Minh's government. Moscow was nuclear by 1949 and Beijing was nuclear by 1964.

The US knew as much about IndoChina as Ho or Mao. Again, the US was divided (although not as much as France). Recall that the Phillippines was a US colony and later, quais colony. Nearby Vietnam was well known.

The overall issue-fully debated in the US- was whether the US would occupy the southern periphery of the Asian land mass. The US did not "call it quits".

The US won the geostrategic issue on 9 July 1971 when Kissinger secretly went to PR China via Pakistan. This was formalized by Nixon signing the Shanghai Communique on 27 Feb 72. They weren't agreeing on US imports of Tsingtao beer to compete with US brands. Surely-although not in public-discussions revolved around a Great Power on the southern frontier of China ingaged in warfare with 10 divisions and a hugh support structure.

Recall Geneva 1954 with a one day margin, negotiated both French IndoChina issues and also the US Korean War situation.

Kissinger's Paris meeting with Le Duc Tho in 1973 were formalities at best. The real work was months before. Note who armed Pol Pot to control the new Vietnam! (Hint: 2 Great Powers involved.)

Iraq isn't really related to this site but while quill is next to parchment, may I ask: Doesn't the US now control the pricing mechanism of OPEC Vienna?

Saluations,
BobW

Peter Lyderik
2nd January 2005, 15:09
Ok, if you say so.

But it is a really good book, just finished reading it, and agree with the writer it is a shame part 3 and 4 has never been translated to English.

ericthered
3rd January 2005, 17:40
Iraq isn't really related to this site but while quill is next to parchment, may I ask: Doesn't the US now control the pricing mechanism of OPEC Vienna?
Bob! Can you expand on this? What do you mean exactly by this?
I have always adhered to the notion that the Iraq war happened primarily because in 2000, Iraq dumped the US dollar and switched over to the Euro as its standard oil transaction currency. Ever since this dangerous precedent for OPEC, the US has been itching to find an excuse to invade and remove Saddam from power, which 9/11 convieniently provided. (It's interesting that North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, which are all on the US shit list, also have or are contemplating dumping the US dollar and switching to the Euro.
What are your thoughts on all this?

BobW
4th January 2005, 09:08
Bonjour Enricthered,

Fully agree with your above post other than aying Euro priced oil was one of a couple of other related matters for the US to enter Iraq with an expeditionary force.

We can see 3 clear reasons; all related. Keeping world oil priced in US dollars is reason 1. Access to oil supplies is reason 2. The third reason is the cost and pricing. Note that it's not by accident that the Brits are stationed in Basra and the US in Mosel, the southern and northern oil areas of Iraq. Note that London, although in the EU is still outside the Eurozone.

A major policy for the US is debt service. Although we Americans are paying larger than usual costs for oil, the revenue is NOT going to the Arab countries. It is routed to US Treasury deb service accounts.

Now to discuss how the above is performed;
With the US and ally UK controlling a large pool of oil, OPEC Vienna has, in substance, been defeated as a determinant of oil pricing. It is now performed by the US. The large oil flow from Iraq - coupled with manipulations on the petrol futures markets and the currency (foreign exchange ["FOREX"; sometimes "FEX"]) markets allow for oil pricing. Note that the largest financial markets for oil and FOREX are New York City and London. (Haven't forgotten Tokyo and Beijing.)

I'm leaving a lot out but will close by mentioning that London's North Sea oil fields are not hurting from all this.

Saluations,
BobW

Eagle eye
4th January 2005, 10:02
Veeeeery interesting insights in the preceding posts...Thanks BobW. :)

PS. I've just notice my new "rating"...Must get off whatever-and calm down just a little in keeping with New Year's resolutions...And "chop-chop" to any malingerers on this board...

ericthered
5th January 2005, 16:26
Yes, very interesting indeed. It nicely explains Europe's opposition to the Iraq war, and also the Americans' desperate attempts to find any sort of bogus excuse to invade.

Bob, one more question. If this was truly the reason for the war, then why didn't Europe just come right out and call the Americans on it? Hypocrisy on both sides would have been exposed, but in the end the Europeans would have been completely justified for opposing the war. After all, Iraq legitimately chose to dump the US dollar in favour of the Euro. The Americans, showing that they don't like capitalism when it works against them, would definitely have lost out.
Just curious.

Eagle eye
5th January 2005, 23:48
After all, Iraq legitimately chose to dump the US dollar in favour of the Euro.Last I heard the Chinese stopped using the dollar and adopted the Euro as their benchmark in Forex at about the same time Saddam did so..Venezuela has threatened; Cuba did so until Pres. Clinton decided to lighten the embargo bringing in US hard currency.

BobW
6th January 2005, 02:26
Bonjour Enricthered,

"Europe" was NOT opposed to the Iraq war. Some countries were. Some were not. Europe is divided. Illustrative; Spain supported the war. After the train terrorism, the government of Spain changed over to a different party and Madrid changed it's policy.

The US had no desperate attempts or bogus excuses for the invasion (other than what showed up in the popular literature, eg People Magazine, BBC, VOA, television. All the military and political literature discussed the Middle East and oil.

The French and German governments (note I did NOT write EU) DID challenge the US on Iraq. France itself is still divided-since it met such catastrophe from World War One (WWI !!). To date, France has not recovered from this loss. Europe is not EU. EU is faltering. When France and Germany, the 2 engines of the EU, abrogated the EU's Stability Pact, the collapse of the EU can be plotted out on graph paper. One downstream event to this is the collapse of the Euro as an international currency ("FOREX") based on the current situation.

"Legitimately" does not exist in international relations. Only the use of lethal force, coupled to diplomacy and the allied fields, governs. This is one reason the Legion is being upgraded into a stronger, more lethal force. Remove a little of the veneer and it's all the same as before with the imperial system coupled to the colonial system.

Perhaps a generation or 2 after Lord Fairfax had his proprietiary colony in British North America, we can use the word "capitalism". Clearly after the US Civil War (1861-1865), the US economy - and society- would make the British Fabians blush with envy. Don't forget many, many, many French and German citizens and French and German companies, own dollar denominated investments/businesses in the US.

"Every modern Western nation is now a democratic socialist mercantile state with a managed economy and managed trade. Corporations around the world are instruments of the government when it comes to export policy."
Dwayne Andreas, Chairman, Archer Daniels Midland. Aug 1995

Saluations,
BobW

BobW
6th January 2005, 02:40
Bonjour Eagle Eye,

Actually, PR China hinted that it would change over to the Euro. Chinese hints or tests, met the expected counterhint that the US marketplace would be restricted. They are still into the $US as of today.

This is a cautious balancing act for both the US and PRC.

The big talk going around now is insisting that PRC will "revalue" its currency. In basic terms, the US wants reduced costs for Chinese goods. Since this won't happen, we are seeing a reduced standard of living in the US.

This will assist in banging sense into America's lazy population.

The developing world has 5 billion people who are skilled and prepared to do the world's manufacturing jobs at less than 20% of current costs.

"Beware the sleeping dragon, for when she awakes, she will shake the world."
Napoleon

Saluations,
BobW

ericthered
6th January 2005, 09:44
Bonjour Enricthered,

"Europe" was NOT opposed to the Iraq war. Some countries were. Some were not. Europe is divided. Illustrative; Spain supported the war. After the train terrorism, the government of Spain changed over to a different party and Madrid changed it's policy.

The US had no desperate attempts or bogus excuses for the invasion (other than what showed up in the popular literature, eg People Magazine, BBC, VOA, television. All the military and political literature discussed the Middle East and oil.

The French and German governments (note I did NOT write EU) DID challenge the US on Iraq. France itself is still divided-since it met such catastrophe from World War One (WWI !!). To date, France has not recovered from this loss. Europe is not EU. EU is faltering. When France and Germany, the 2 engines of the EU, abrogated the EU's Stability Pact, the collapse of the EU can be plotted out on graph paper. One downstream event to this is the collapse of the Euro as an international currency ("FOREX") based on the current situation.

Hello again, BobW;

Absolutely correct, Europe was divided. As for Spain, I read somewhere (the Economist?) that she sided with the UK in hopes of getting something in return, most likely regarding the contentious issue of Gibraltar...? As for the other countries, I don't know, maybe you can provide more info. Every single country invovled in this whole rotten affair acted out of their own personal interest, that's the only thing I know for sure.

When I mentioned the Americans' bogus excuse for invading, I meant how they tried to sell it to the public. It's a shame that the basic generosity and good-heartedness of Americans was taken advantage of in this manner. The American public (or at least many of them) still truly believe that they went to war to "liberate" an oppressed people, and bring "Freedom" and "Democracy" to the Middle East. Interesting what you say about how the military and political literature was more truthful.

Bob, do you think that France opposes war nowadays because of WWI?? I think the results of WWI certainly paved the way for disaster in WWII, but since then as you know France has not hesitated to bloody its knuckles once in a while, in different places.

Anyway so can you or somebody else tell me more about the EU's Stability Pact, and how the EU is set to falter?

Thanks and salut!

BobW
7th January 2005, 02:19
Bonjour Erichthered,

First, I am no specialist on Europe. I only approach Europe from a global view. I'm an "ol' Asia hand" with a lot of international work outside of Asia. This is my perspective in looking at Europe.

"France" means the Fifth French Republic and the current key constituent blocs now at the top of the pile. It doen't miss my observation that France obtains 80% + - of its electricity from nuclear generation. The near opposite numbers reflect the USA.

I firmly believe that the social-psychological psyche of the Anglo French population (ie not adding the recent Arabic/Berber immigrants) is seered with the slaughter and devastation of WWI (one). This finds expression in the Anglo French very low birthrate. It's similiar in the USA but not as severe or as dangerous to the national economy.

I know little about the EU Stabilty Pact other than it is a key building block to establish a unified Europe; eg each member nation must comply with minimum-maximum national debt, minimum-maximum national spending, certain tax rate parameters, etc

France and Germany broke the limits re Stability Pact obligations.

A, if the "THE", main roadblock is French agricultural interests (the "CAP"-Common Agricultural Program [nearly the same in the USA but the US is so much larger it can absorb the harsh problems much easier than France]).

Since CAP will not readily go away, only one element is left to comply with the Stability Pact. In basic terms it is to lower the standard of living of the middle class. At issue is whether the Fifth French Republic can withstand the social strains if this is started. A reduced standard of living is going on in the USA right now - but - like agricultural issues - the USA is so much larger it can absorb the problems easier than France. Can France reduce it's standard of living? I do not know enough about Europe or France.

A sidebar; Germany is quiet. As soon as they absorb their Eastern German citizens, I won't be shocked to hear that the skinheads and greens are relegated to the edge of society. Germany will return as a renewed Prussian powerhouse.

Of course all public matters of state are "sold" as matters representing goodness, furthering the Saints, Patriarchs, "Gott Mit Uns", etc etc.

Castro is however probably not on any US target acquisition lists because his excellency probably has files that can cause more than headaches to some Americans still around the scene.

Having discussed all this raw politics establishing that I am a follower of "Realpolitk", I look at Iraq and the rest of the Arab "nations" the League set up at Versailles, and see the splender of US$ 7 trillion petrodollars - and still an impoverished society in the Arab world.

Saluations
and
Salut
BobW

Nota bene; A 19th century US Army saying: "Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition."

DanMitsu
8th January 2005, 12:10
I would like to say,. as i will. that this was the most informative post about the "big picture". Very thorough.

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
13th January 2005, 08:17
"Germany is quiet. As soon as they absorb their Eastern German citizens, I won't be shocked to hear that the skinheads and greens are relegated to the edge of society. Germany will return as a renewed Prussian powerhouse.Bit confused about this Bob. The "further" right has regained some popularity in Germany since unification. At points of social upheaval and economic crisis they tend to become active for obvious reasons, however, neo nazi groups were active in the East prior to the loss of power in the DDR. They don't reflect the politics of the mass of Germans living in unified Deutschland. However Green politics do - recycling, living in a clean environment and the health future generations form a large part of the conciousness of the middle classes. Germans are good citizens, they take their responsibilities to their land & fellow peoples seriously. Marx was a German. Communism in Russia? I think not.

BobW
13th January 2005, 14:06
Bonjour Dooms,

"Green politics" reflects unified German politics? A walk in the Black Forest always represented a clean environment.

Look at Green party energy politics. I anticipate - if not already accomplished (and I am not joking) that Berlin's Ostpolitik does not involve 1891 Mauser rifles facing a restructured Russia. I anticipate a nuclear armed Germany - along with a state of the art response to petrol costs: nuclear power generation. Thus, my position that the Greens will be moved well to the sidelines.

Saluations,
BobW

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
14th January 2005, 14:15
I´m sure that your right about the nuclear power issue, when you account for the population which unified Germany now comprises, it makes the most sense, and is the "Greenest" of all possibilities although ironically environmental politics tends to be somewhat conservative.

Eagle eye
15th January 2005, 02:11
Hope that Germany is never allowed to develop an atomic bomb though, after what happened fifty or so years ago: this should remain its historical price for eternity in the delicate and vital issue of rememberance ...

BobW
15th January 2005, 07:34
Bonjour Eagle Eye,

It's 60 year old technology. If sleepy Pakistan and Rep South Africa can obtain this type ordnance......

As soon as the dust settles, I'm expecting combinations of the aforesaid and lasers.

Not a pessimist or an optimist; just a realist. Plus, I'm not neglecting Tokyo's new, even more improved, constitution allowing for military upgrading.

Saluations,
BobW

Mick
15th January 2005, 08:03
Also add the additon to the PRC.....with a second missile force to defend (?)the Taiwan Strait according to their lasted defence white paper. I think the good old cold war would be nice to have back at least there was a bit of stability. Now every two bit hood with a bit of cash can get nuclear and bio weapons of some kind. I believe the world is getting worsen, not better. The balloon will burst but it's just a matter of where and when.

Eagle eye
15th January 2005, 16:20
That's a real fear: a dirty bomb in a capital. Terrorists have to be lucky once; law enforcement including anti-terrorist officials have to be lucky every time to avoid this scenario