The Fog of War
I just finished watching The Fog of War, a documentary that combines interviews with Robert McNamara with footage from WWII and Vietnam. Now, I knew nothing of him before seeing this movie, which I find amazing considering that he was a central figure in the last two major conflicts in the US, not to mention president of the World Bank for 13 years. But I didn't. I had heard his name, but who he was or what he'd done, nothing.
I've gathered that he is a hated and reviled figure in the US because of his involvement in Vietnam. I know that, having learned most of what I know about him from this movie, my view of him is biased, but I think it says something about the quality of the current US administration that he comes off as relatively humble and introspective. He, at least, seems to understand that the US and its economic interests are not the only factors that need be considered, and that there are moral consequences to actions, no matter what the reasons for carrying them out. There is ample audio evidence in the movie to show that he was trying to get the US out of Vietnam, so I wonder how much American hatred of him is rooted in their (justified) hatred of the war rather than in him personally.
It's amazing how similar the rhetoric used by Johnson and Bush are, though. The fact that both have a Texas accent doesn't help, of course, but it's like Bush just ganked Johnson's speeches wholesale sometimes. One soundbite in particular that I remember is Johnson claiming that the US was in Vietnam fighting for Vietnamese liberation. Ring any bells? I'm not sure whose genius idea it was to parrot Vietnamese rhetoric in support of the Iraq war, though.
Where McNamara lost me was in his justification of the actions of the World Bank. He talked about attending what I assume was the 1999 Seattle WTO meetings. He walked through the crowd, and most people didn't recognize him. One woman did, though, and confronted him about what the WTO/World Bank/IMF do. His response to her was to ask her why she was protesting that instead of taking action on the fact that infant mortality in D.C. was twice what it was in Cuba. Irrelevant! Yes, one might want to look at why Cuba, the "evil" communist regime, is twice as effective at preventing infant mortality as the US nation's capital. But that in no way invalidates concerns about the economic colonialism being carried out by the WTO. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
By coincidence, I was thinking today about the tsunami, and the way that Bush may try to use it to improve his image. I think it's important to remember that if the US is generous with disaster relief, it in no way exonerates them for their actions in the Middle East. They can't be allowed to deflect attention from that by using Southeast Asia as a shield. They're estimating over 100,000 deaths in Asia so far, which is about the same number that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are horrible, and one has nothing to do with the other.
I've gathered that he is a hated and reviled figure in the US because of his involvement in Vietnam. I know that, having learned most of what I know about him from this movie, my view of him is biased, but I think it says something about the quality of the current US administration that he comes off as relatively humble and introspective. He, at least, seems to understand that the US and its economic interests are not the only factors that need be considered, and that there are moral consequences to actions, no matter what the reasons for carrying them out. There is ample audio evidence in the movie to show that he was trying to get the US out of Vietnam, so I wonder how much American hatred of him is rooted in their (justified) hatred of the war rather than in him personally.
It's amazing how similar the rhetoric used by Johnson and Bush are, though. The fact that both have a Texas accent doesn't help, of course, but it's like Bush just ganked Johnson's speeches wholesale sometimes. One soundbite in particular that I remember is Johnson claiming that the US was in Vietnam fighting for Vietnamese liberation. Ring any bells? I'm not sure whose genius idea it was to parrot Vietnamese rhetoric in support of the Iraq war, though.
Where McNamara lost me was in his justification of the actions of the World Bank. He talked about attending what I assume was the 1999 Seattle WTO meetings. He walked through the crowd, and most people didn't recognize him. One woman did, though, and confronted him about what the WTO/World Bank/IMF do. His response to her was to ask her why she was protesting that instead of taking action on the fact that infant mortality in D.C. was twice what it was in Cuba. Irrelevant! Yes, one might want to look at why Cuba, the "evil" communist regime, is twice as effective at preventing infant mortality as the US nation's capital. But that in no way invalidates concerns about the economic colonialism being carried out by the WTO. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
By coincidence, I was thinking today about the tsunami, and the way that Bush may try to use it to improve his image. I think it's important to remember that if the US is generous with disaster relief, it in no way exonerates them for their actions in the Middle East. They can't be allowed to deflect attention from that by using Southeast Asia as a shield. They're estimating over 100,000 deaths in Asia so far, which is about the same number that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both are horrible, and one has nothing to do with the other.
posted by Joanne at 7:29 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home