I just concluded an exhausting, if not frustrating debate about Richard Nixon. It was surreal in parts.
I tend to argue in concrete terms and this annoys people who have no interest in arguing facts in politics. For them, it's all subjective.
It centered around the assertion made that Nixon was a "war criminal." My rebuttal was constructed to be taken in a larger context of the war in Vietnam. I asked, if he's a war criminal, then does it not follow it can be applied to JFK for starting the war and Johnson for escalating it? Yes, Nixon allowed bombing campaigns but he did eventually achieve the peace. I tend to see them, along with Kissinger and McNamara, as a group and not as individuals in terms of criminality - if this can be proven. What about Clinton's role in Kosovo? In other words, United States versus just war theory. It's just my take but one I think has merit in being expressed.
Indeed, the debate in legal and history circles centers about whether they each satisfy the tenets within the Just War theory. And in the case of the Vietnam clique, it was the overarching "Domino" theory in a Cold War context that led them into Vietnam.
This rebuttal angered the person. He never answered my claim. Instead choosing to say things like "I wasn't there" and that Nixon was pure evil and dumb (not in so many words). More insulting, that I was acting like an armchair historian and was defending a lunatic. Which, of course, wasn't my angle. The discussion was over for him.
But for me it wasn't.
He then, later, proceeded to engage in a game or moral and political equivalency comparing Nixon to Mao. To me, this is an astonishing claim. One that has NO merit anymore than Bush to Hitler. Mao killed 30-50 million (give or take, what's 20 million among friends?) to make a great leap forward that most likely led to two steps back. On this basis alone, I argue, the debate ends.
Not in his eyes.
I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. I guess I really am in the minority in holding analogies to strict rules.
Question: What is the mechanism or method in determining if (and which) a President is a war criminal? In the case of Vietnam and now the War on Terror, several Presidents are likely to be involved. Can one leader be targeted over an another or does the just war theory apply to all?
THAT was my point.
Hmmm...Nixon was certainly a criminal, but as for war criminal, I guess he gets a pass because of lax global standards generally. Personally, I think if he is judged a war criminal, LBJ and MacNamara belong there with him. JFK did start it, true, but it was a regular ole war during his term - not the nation-shredding that LBJ initiated and Nixon finished to save their faces, rather than admit to an awful policy. Still, that's what leaders of powerful states do, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThe reason think of them as criminal is because of the disproportionate power brought to bear on a backward nation with relatively little consequence for us. One or two million Vietnamese dead, 50,000 Americans, that sort of thing. The Napalm, the mass bombing with B-52s (talk about weapons of mass destruction!) and that sort of thing.
Does stupidity and arrogance on the part of a powerful nation constitute criminality? In an ethical sense, certainly, but as a legal case, it's pretty weak. I prefer to leave "war criminal" for the poor schmucks like Calley who are caught red-handed murdering hundreds of civilians. The big criminals go free, as usual, but such is life. Otherwise, we'd have permanent revolution, to nobody's benefit.
Someone who might be more properly termed a war criminal is Kissinger. I believe he is an evil person, evil in the true sense that he sloughs off his problems and failures by causing misery for others...but then, so many politicos fit that bill, not to mention the great black stars, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, yada yada yada...
First, Lichanos welcome. I thoroughly enjoy your comments over at MOR and can only be happy to see you add to this blog.
ReplyDeleteI think we're saying the same things.I especially like the sense of proportion about the deaths.
That was my overall argument with the gentleman - a friend and a doctor to boot.