What Does It Mean to Be a “Good” Businessman?

 

                       Steve McLean

When you watch the 6 o’clock news, you hear about the wars in Gaza and Ukraine and the latest political scandal. That’s about all, before they switch to the weather, which may turn out to be the worst crisis of all. If you want to be overwhelmed though, just Google “Crisis Watch.” It goes country by country, describing dozens of political and humanitarian crises all over the world. I’ve long tried to avoid thinking about the terrible things that go on in the world. It started when I was in Vietnam, when I started paying attention to world events. It was horrifying then, and it may be even worse now. I decided at the time that since I couldn’t do anything about world events, I’d be better off spending my time trying to become a better doctor. 

Now that I’m retired, I’m cursed with having more time on my hands, and since I’m also addicted to Google, I inadvertently read about current crises. Today I became aware of the Yazidis, whose homeland is in northern Iraq. The Yazidis aren’t Muslims. They still follow an ancient nature worship, which as a Native American, I respect and even admire. It seems better to me to think of oneself as one with the deer and the antelope, than to follow rules thought up by some charismatic madman who has convinced his followers that he has a direct line to god. St. Francis is my favorite Christian saint. He admired the birds.   

Anyway, back in 2014, when we were occupying Iraq during one of our crusades to remake the world in our image, ISIS, or ISIL if you prefer, became powerful and took over a large part of Iraq and Syria possibly in response to our intervention there. And they decided to convert the Yazidis to Islam, or else. As a result, thousands of Yazidi women were sold into slavery, thousands of civilians killed, and hundreds of thousands made refugees. 

Aiding in this outrage was the Lafarge cement company. Yes, a cement company. They just happened to have mining operations in the area controlled by ISIS. Naturally their main concern was profits, not the lives of thousands of Yazidis, so they made a deal with ISIS to share 10% of their profits, and to make it sweeter, to provide cement for tunnels to make the ISIS fighters more secure from American bombs. 

Miraculously, Nadia Murad, one of the Yazidi women, escaped after suffering brutal torture and abuse, and the murder of all her family members. Since then she has successfully sued Lafarge on behalf of herself and hundreds of American Yazidis, and has won the Nobel Peace Prize. 

As is so often the case, this story reminds me of another piece of wisdom I learned from my cousin Steve. 

Steve has long said that being a “good” businessman doesn’t mean that you are a good person. Now I don’t mean that all businessmen are bad, only that it’s difficult to succeed in business without being a little bit unethical, putting down your competition, and sometimes even sacrificing the good of society to make a profit. There are countless examples in the news almost daily of companies polluting the environment, and hiding evidence of unsafe practices and substandard products. You can find lots more if you Google ‘consumer protection.’ 

This is all because the goal in business is to make as much money as possible. In order to do this, the “good” businessman’s incentive is to make his product as cheaply as possible: to use the cheapest materials, to pay his employees as little as possible, and to avoid giving them benefits, like health insurance, and retirement savings. In advertising, he will exaggerate the advantages of using his product, and hide any harmful results. If a product wears out quickly, that’s just fine, because it means the customer will have to buy another. “Good” businessmen oppose unions because they raise costs by demanding higher salaries, and expensive benefits. 

These practices violate my cousin Steve’s principle of “earning your oxygen,” since they benefit no one and often cause harm. They also fail to value each person’s contribution since most of the profits go to the top executives and to the shareholders because they are the ones with the power. If an executive causes the company to fail, he has a “golden” parachute to console him. 

In order to continue this system, “good” businessmen lobby Congressmen to avoid regulations. 

The trouble is that the capitalist system incentivizes cutting corners in order to maximize profits. The government’s solution has been regulation, an elaborate system of monitoring quality, setting standards, and requiring companies to provide employee benefits, but there is always fierce opposition, and it often works because politicians are also incentivized by money, and companies spend enormous sums supporting the candidates that go along with them. 

Actually it’s possible to run a business successfully without following the usual business practices. Steve operated a business before he retired, selling a piece of oil field equipment called a plunger lift, and he followed his principles of earning oxygen, and valuing each person’s contribution in running his business. He became friends with his customers, keeping pictures of each of them on his computer so he would be able to call each by name. He shared tape books with them and although he didn’t care about sports, he followed their favorite teams so he could discuss the current standings with them. 

Steve’s plungers were more efficient and durable than his competitors’ products, even though that cost him more to produce them. And he provided unparalleled customer service. When he sold a plunger he maintained it himself for a full month, and if he couldn’t make the plunger work to the customer’s satisfaction, there was no charge. He also guaranteed his equipment, charged no restocking fee, and loaned out equipment for free.  

Steve hired an assistant who worked for him during the last few years he was in business. The man he hired was a Libertarian, who believed in maximizing profits and limiting regulations. He insisted on a detailed contract which guaranteed him reimbursement for all expenses, and first choice of buying the company when Steve retired. He disapproved of Steve’s liberal services and guarantees, but he followed Steve's policies, and they worked well together. 

When Steve retired, he sold the company to his assistant for the accounts receivable. He essentially gave him the company, and then he gave him all his equipment, and continued to supply him with plungers at a reduced rate. The assistant then sold the company, went to work for Steve’s biggest customer, and quit using Steve’s plungers, driving the man who bought the company out of business. 

This violated the strict contract that the assistant had insisted on, which specified that the assistant would continue to use Steve’s products after Steve retired. When confronted with that, assistant claimed the contract wasn’t a legal document. 

Steve tried to compensate the buyer by selling him plungers at half price and fittings at a quarter price, but it wasn’t enough. The buyer still went broke.   

Steve might have made more money if he’d been a “good” businessman, but he made a good living, and he enjoyed his work. Instead of profits, his priorities were the relationships he made with his customers, and the quality of his products and service. He told me, “I enjoy making things work.” 

I’ve been thinking about Steve’s ideas for a while, and I’ve heard some research that shows organizations are more productive if they are less competitive and more cooperative. Also the workers are happier and more satisfied if new ideas are encouraged. The trouble is, we live in a competitive society and people who don’t conform are often put down or disregarded. 

So far, we have tried to make society fairer by creating regulations to control bad behavior, resulting in a huge and growing bureaucracy and mountains of red tape, when the real problem is our competitive culture and our attitude of “winner takes all.” I don’t know the answer, but I think it would be a good start if every day we would ask ourselves the question: “Did I earn my oxygen today?”

 

Pollyanna

 

                                              

                         Pollyanna

 

I thought I’d share another bit of wisdom from my cousin Steve. See posts Ambivalence and Earning Your Oxygen. 

Steve’s favorite movie is Pollyanna – the 1960 version. Pollyanna was based on a book by Eleanor H. Porter, published in 1913. It features an 11- year- old orphan who comes to live with her spinster aunt, Polly Harrington, who agrees to take her in out of a sense of duty. Pollyanna is disarmingly cheerful and she proceeds to make friends with everyone she meets, even those with serious difficulties. Her secret, taught to her by her father, is the “glad game,” which is thinking of a way to be glad over any sort of misfortune. The impact of Pollyanna’s  philosophy becomes clear when Pollyanna herself is seriously injured and the whole community rallies to cheer her up, even her aunt Polly. 

The 1913 book and the 1960 movie were extremely popular. Haley Mills won an Oscar for her role as Pollyanna in the movie. But, over the years, Pollyanna has become a pejorative, symbolic of someone who is naively optimistic and unwilling to face reality. 

Steve watches Pollyanna over and over, reminding himself to be empathetic and to look for the good in others, something perhaps we all should do, in a time when so many people form arbitrary opinions and refuse to listen to others or try to understand their point of view. 

A few years ago, as I was writing Wenonah’s Story, about my mother’s childhood and young adulthood during the First World War and the Depression, I read several books written during the early 1900’s, to get a better understanding of the times, and also of my mother, who was an avid reader. 

One of the books she recommended to me was A Girl of the Limberlost, by Gene Stratton-Porter, published in 1909. It was about Elnora, a girl who lived with her widowed mother on the edge of a swamp. Although they were poor and her mother was cold towards her, Elnora loved nature and was kind to everyone she met, so she earned the love and respect of those around her and eventually her mother. My aunt used to call my grandmother “Girl of the Limberlost.” She was like Elnora in her love of nature, and her yard was overgrown much like Elnora’s swamp. 

It occurred to me when Steve told me of his admiration for Pollyanna, that the plots of both novels were strikingly similar. They tell of young girls, unloved and living in poverty, who are nevertheless kind and generous, and who have a positive influence on those around them. Both novels were popular, especially among young people. As I read other novels of the time – Heidi, Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, Little Lord Fauntleroy and others – I realized that they had a common theme. They featured characters who succeeded by being kind and generous.    

Then I thought about the novels that are popular with teenagers now. The heroes and heroines nowadays succeed by outsmarting evil villains, instead of showing kindness and generosity to the poor or misguided. Their virtues are strength and cunning. Pollyanna and Elnora wouldn’t be admired now. They’d be laughed at. 

I’m certainly not nostalgic about the early 20^th century. There was no welfare for the poor, no civil rights for people of color, no retirement benefits for the elderly. It was a time before child labor laws, women’s rights to vote, and laws protecting farm and factory workers. 

But, as Steve says, the more you know, the less critical you can be. The popularity of these themes, this literature, reveals that people of the time valued kindness and generosity, not just wealth and power. Maybe it was because material gratification was harder to come by back then. I don’t know, but as Steve would say, ‘the more you look, the more good you will see in people.’ 

We can all learn from Pollyanna. She definitely earned her oxygen.

 

PInk Panther

Killing One Person is a Tragedy, Killing a Million is a Statistic

 

                             Henry Kissinger

I know I’m breaking my cousin Steve’s rule that you should learn more about an issue before making a judgement, but with the war in Gaza killing tens of thousands, and the death of Henry Kissinger, who may have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, in the news, I just have to make a comment. 

The title of this post, “Killing  One Person is a Tragedy, Killing a Million is a Statistic” has been attributed to Joseph Stalin, of all people. He should know, being responsible for 43 million deaths, according to columnist Ron Bailey, in his article in the magazine, Reason.  Stalin probably said this to justify killing millions, so it’s ironic that his words are now used to condemn his unthinkable crime.

I just watched Fareed Zakaria’s program on CNN. He interviewed Henry Kissinger’s biographer, Niall Ferguson. When asked for his response to criticisms of Kissinger’s policies, his response was “disgusting.” I’m sure he knows a lot more about Kissinger than I do, but to me his response is just another example of the idea that ideology is more important than human life, and its corollary, that American lives are worth more than those in other countries. Kissinger supported our secret bombing of Cambodia near the end of the Vietnam war, starting an eight year genocide by the Khmer Rouge, hoping it would put us into a better negotiating position with North Vietnam. He backed West Pakistan in their war to put down East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in their fight for independence, because he thought it would weaken India and the Soviet Union in our cold war struggle against communism. That war cost the lives of as many as 500,000 people. Kissinger also supported Indonesia in putting down a rebellion in East Timor, as well as insurrections in Chile and Argentina, in hopes of getting governments more friendly to the U.S.. Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize, in spite of his responsibility for the lives lost. How absurd is this?   

Kissinger’s legacy brings to mind Israel’s killing of 15,000 Gazans, so far, mostly civilians, in response to the terrorist attacks by Hamas, which killed 1500 Israelis. That’s ten to one, so far. Israel’s actions are based on ideology, that Hamas must be destroyed as a political movement, that they have no choice, since Hamas is imbedded among the civilian population, and that Palestinian lives are not worth as much as Israelis. That’s not to mention the desire for revenge. 

Our response, that we support Israel, no matter their actions, likewise ignores the issue of lives lost. Israel and Gaza are not ethnic monoliths. They are diverse groups of individuals, each with his or her own beliefs, hopes, and talents; each with his own family and friends; each of whom is important in his own way. 

I support Israel’s right to exist, and also her right to defend herself, but why can’t the cost in human life be factored into decisions. Palestinian lives are worth as much as Israeli lives, as are Ukrainian, Russian, and American lives. We’re all humans. I suppose there are reasons to go to war, given the need to defend ourselves against those who would abuse or kill us, but loss of life needs to be considered. It’s the most important thing, to my mind. 

How differently would the Israeli government act if they weren’t dead set on revenge. I’m no expert on either diplomacy or war, but even I can think of some alternatives to destroying Gaza and everyone in it. Israel is one of the richest, most technologically sophisticated countries in the world. Why don’t they concentrate their bombing on the sites where Hamas is launching the bombs, or better, extend the cease fire? Why don’t they identify and indict those responsible for the attacks? Why don’t they agree to negotiate with Hamas to end the fighting? Why don’t they consider a plan which would give Palestinians independence? Why don’t they consider giving aid to the Gazans to rebuild their country, and help raise them out of poverty? Why don’t they stop building settlements on Palestinian land?   

Human life is precious. Why can’t we get that through our thick skulls?

 

The French Leave Vietnam, We Step In

    

               Dwight D Eisenhower and John F Kennedy

In January of 1953 Dwight Eisenhower became president. We had already been supporting the French in their effort to regain control of Vietnam for eight years, with money, advisors, and military equipment. With the Korean conflict ending, the Pentagon was concerned that the Chinese would be freed up to enter Vietnam in support of the Viet Minh, and we would be forced to enter the war ourselves. But they advised Eisenhower to avoid direct involvement at all costs. Winning would require a full commitment, which would be expensive and would put our international prestige on the line. 

The Korean war ended with an armistice in July of 1953, and the involved powers met the next April in Geneva to negotiate terms of the armistice. The Viet Minh had just defeated French forces at Dien Bien Phu, so Vietnam was included in the negotiations. According to the accords, Vietnam was divided into northern and southern sections, the north to be led by the communists under Ho Chi Minh, and the south by the Christian nationalist, Ngo Dinh Diem, appointed Premier by the French puppet, Bao Dai. Vietnam was to be united under leadership to be determined by elections held in 1956. 

Here was an excellent opportunity for the US to correct its mistake and get out of Vietnam. The French had been defeated and Vietnam was again under the control of the Vietnamese, Ho Chi Minh in the north and Ngo Dinh Diem in the south, and there was an international agreement in place to reunite the country under one government. Why didn’t we just abide by the agreement and get out of Vietnam, preserving what little respect we had left in SE Asia? 

As the French gradually phased out their control of the South Vietnamese government and military, Eisenhower put off the decision on whether to withdraw our support or transfer it to the new Diem government. He ordered a study by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which concluded that no amount of training would enable the South Vietnamese military to be successful against the communists without the backing of a strong effective leader, and they saw no evidence of that in Diem. 

Eisenhower sent a letter to Diem saying that US aid would depend on him establishing a government that would meet our standards of performance, and he sent a trusted colleague from WWII, General J Lawton Collins, to Vietnam to evaluate the situation. Collins’ report was also negative. He found no popular support for Diem, and he recommended withdrawing support if Diem failed to make progress.  As for sending in US troops, General Matthew Ridgeway, Army chief of staff, reported that Vietnam did not have the infrastructure to support a modern army, and entering the war would require the huge expense of building infrastructure and at least ten divisions of troops. He advised against it. 

In spite of all these recommendations, Eisenhower decided to continue sending financial aid to Diem, and he started making plans to train the South Vietnamese army. 

Why? 

According to Barbara Tuchman, “Once a (government) policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it.” Support of the South Vietnamese government had become established government policy.  

After the Geneva agreements, evidence continued to build that our support of Diem was a mistake. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and ineffective, and not supported by the people. Diem filled government positions with family members and Catholics in a country that was mostly Buddhist, and dealt with political opponents by jailing or executing them. He was turning into a dictator.  His army was weakened by desertions, and he could only count on a small part of it to be loyal to him. In 1955 he was almost overthrown by a coup. Even the French had given up on Diem’s government. They sent a diplomatic mission to Hanoi to try and make a deal with Ho Chi Minh to maintain economic ties after Diem fell. 

After the coup, there was another opportunity to withdraw our support for Diem. He hadn’t satisfied Eisenhower’s criteria for support. None of our allies supported him, not even France. But in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, even with his prestige as a WWII hero, Eisenhower continued to support Diem. Russian military forces had taken over Hungary, and communists under Fidel Castro had taken over Cuba while we did nothing. Why was Vietnam considered a greater threat? Because it had become established government policy. Eisenhower justified his decision with his “falling dominoes” theory, that if Vietnam fell to communism, then the other countries in Southeast Asia would also fall. 

Communism was the biggest issue during the Eisenhower administration. The USSR had exploded their own atom bomb, so the US was forced into an arms race as well as the “Cold War.” The communists were in power in most of eastern Europe, as well as in North Korea and China, and there were strong communist parties in several countries in western Europe, including France. Back home Joe McCarthy was heading up a Senate committee investigating communists in the US government, creating pressure on government officials to prove their anticommunist sentiments. 

Between 1955 and 1960 Diem made no attempt at democratic reforms. It was against his interest, which was in maintaining power. By giving others a say in decision making, and making the country more democratic, he would risk losing control. So as we bolstered his government by providing 60 to 75% of its funding, he used strong arm tactics rewarding people who informed on “traitors,” whom he jailed or put in re-education camps. His land reform program favored the landlords over the peasants and was riddled by corruption. When ten of his cabinet members quit and signed a manifesto demanding his resignation along with government reform, he had them thrown in jail. In 1960 he barely survived another coup. That same year the NLF, or National Liberation Front, was formed. They demanded reforms, and the overthrow of Diem and the American “imperialists.” They started building a network of insurgents in the South, which became known as Viet Cong, ready to take over when the Diem government fell.  

Meanwhile in North Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh was busy. Cut off from the rice fields of the South, his people suffered from hunger as he executed landlords and confiscated their farms. Opposition to his government was ruthlessly put down, as he consolidated power and built up his military, stockpiling weapons and recruiting troops, preparing for an invasion of the South. Refugees from South Vietnam were trained in guerilla tactics and sent back to join the Viet Cong. They infiltrated communities and used terror tactics to intimidate the population. According to the Saigon government the Viet Cong had assassinated 1400 local officials by 1960. In 1961, when John F Kennedy became president, Ho was ready to invade South Vietnam.

Earning Your Oxygen

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, Ambivalence, I’ve learned a lot from my cousin Steve. As I said before, he tries to be open minded, empathetic, and look for the good in people, and he has found that the more you know about people, the harder it is to judge them. 

Another thing Steve considers important is what he calls  “earning your oxygen.” The basic requirements for earning your oxygen are what you might guess: supporting your family, and being kind and generous with your time and resources. Steve has worked hard all his life. He’s retired now, but still finds ways to earn his oxygen. One way is by washing dishes at the local animal shelter. Who would have thought an animal shelter would need a dish washer, but it’s a big job. It takes him upward of four hours, twice a week. 

Also Steve has been compiling a detailed genealogy of his and his wife’s family. He’s sent me some parts of it that relate to our cousins, and just that amounts to thousands of pages of data, a huge accomplishment, and a wonderful heritage for our families. 

Over the last several years Steve has lost most of his hearing. I don’t hear so well either, so our biweekly phone calls are a challenge. The good thing about it is that we probably communicate with each other better than we do with anyone else. Steve carries a marker and writing board, but he can’t really communicate well enough to participate in a conversation. Nevertheless, he attends all his grandchildren’s events and takes pictures which he compiles into a folder for each child. 

Since Steve has introduced me to the concept of earning your oxygen, I find myself using it to judge my own actions and plans. I like to play the violin, but I’ve decided that I’m not really earning my oxygen unless I’m using it to give someone else pleasure. So, although I was trained to play classical music, I’ve developed a repertoire of popular music to play for audiences. I recently gave up playing weekly at a hospice facility because as I’ve gotten older it’s harder to maintain my energy level enough to play for two hours. Since then, I’ve felt that I need to do something to replace that effort. I’m considering performing for shorter periods, or applying to be a tutor at the local grade school. 

Earning your oxygen is also useful in judging others. The usual things that we admire or aspire to aren’t necessarily worth much oxygen. Making a good grade, being successful in your profession, winning a contest, being chosen as a leader, having or making a lot of money, being a member of a prominent family, don’t really earn any oxygen. Whether you earn oxygen or not depends on how you use your accomplishments. For instance, if you are fair in your leadership role, and use your influence to benefit others in some way, then you’re earning your oxygen. On the other hand if you become prominent by pushing others aside, or use your position just to attain more power or wealth, then you’re creating an oxygen deficit. 

Earning your oxygen requires no special ability or talent. I know a couple who have a child who is severely incapacitated by cerebral palsy. She can only respond by waving her arms or crying out. Her parents were told that she wouldn’t live more than a year, but she’s now over fifty. She’s a big part of their lives. She goes everywhere with them. All their friends know her and accept her as part of the group. Her parents each have professions and lead full lives in spite of having to spend considerable time and effort in meeting her needs. She’s definitely earning her oxygen. 

I think that earning your oxygen makes you a better person, and by definition it benefits others. I’ve also found that the more oxygen you earn, the happier and more satisfied you are in life.

 

They Can't Take That Away

Vietnam, Why Did We Got Involved?

 

                    Potsdam Conference, July, 1945

Back in 1969, when I went to Vietnam, I didn’t much question our reasons for entering the conflict. I accepted the government line that we were justified in intervening there to fight against the spread of communism. I do remember thinking that maybe we should have just let the Vietnamese settle their differences among themselves. I still think that if we hadn’t become involved, it wouldn’t have escalated into a major war.  

Since then, I’ve questioned our motives for being there, and for staying as long as we did, in spite of the tremendous costs of the war, both for the Americans and the Vietnamese. I now realize that we were involved there for almost 30 years.  during the terms of five presidents, both Democrat and Republican, from Truman to Nixon. Our reasons for entering were based on speculation, not facts, and every president had opportunities to get out, but kept pursuing the same policy, in spite of mounting evidence that our involvement was folly.  

The historian, Barbara Tuchman, published a book in 1984, The March of Folly[i], in which she points out this conundrum, the tendency of governments to pursue policies that “prevailing information indicate as hopeless.” Our involvement in Vietnam is the example she sights from modern history.

It was 1945 when the United States first became involved in Vietnam, or French Indochina as it was then known. I was only three years old. As WWII was ending, Franklin Roosevelt, president during the war, was vehemently opposed to the return of the French to Vietnam, which they had oppressed and exploited for over eighty years, but he died in April of that year, just four months before the Japanese surrender, and Harry Truman became president. Viet Minh guerilla forces under Ho Chi Minh took control of Vietnam after the Japanese surrender, and the Free French party under Charles de Gaulle took control of France after the fall of the Nazis. They both requested aid from the US, the Viet Minh to set up a new government and to defend themselves against the return of the French, and the French, to reimpose their rule over Vietnam.  

Tuchman contends that after WWII we had an opportunity to “gain for America an enviable primacy among Western nations and confirm the foundation of goodwill in Asia by aligning ourselves with, even supporting, the independence movements.” Truman decided instead to side with French.

There was ample evidence from the start, that siding with the French was a mistake. First of all, the Vietnamese hated the French. They had revolted multiple times against the French before the war and were even more determined to prevent their return afterwards. Bao Dai, hereditary emperor of Vietnam, and actually supported by the French, said in a letter to de Gaulle, “You would understand better if you could see what is happening here, if you could feel this desire for independence which is in everyone’s heart and which no human force can any longer restrain. Even if you come to re-establish a French administration here, it will no longer be obeyed: each village will be a nest of resistance, each former collaborator an enemy, and your officials and colonists will themselves ask to leave this atmosphere which they will be unable to breathe.” Second, knowledgeable officials in the US government advised against supporting French return to Vietnam.  Charles Yost, political officer in Bangkok, reported that American prestige in SE Asia was seriously deteriorating due to our failure to support nationalist movements. John Ohly of the State Department warned that we could replace France as Vietnam’s oppressors. Third, military experts in the Pentagon reported that the Vietnamese revolutionaries couldn’t be defeated by outside intervention. Even General Jacques Leclerc, hero of the French liberation, said, “It would take 500,000 men to do it (take control of Vietnam), and even then it could not be done.”

 Why would President Truman ignore all this and support the French in their reconquest of Vietnam? Truman, British Prime Minister Clement Atlee, and Russian Premier Joseph Stalin had discussed the disposition of Vietnam at the Potsdam conference in July of ’45, prior to the end of WWII. Independence for Vietnam was not considered then, since it was still under the control of Japan, and Vietnam was not considered “ready” for independence. There was a feeling that former colonies needed guidance before they could rule themselves. So at Potsdam the decision was made to divide the country temporarily into northern and southern sections at the 16^th parallel, with Nationalist China in control of the northern part and Britain in control of the south.

Since the USSR had taken advantage of Germany’s surrender to annex most of eastern Europe, there was a fear that communism would spread over the world. Actually there was no evidence of Russian influence in Vietnam, but this fear of communism led some American leaders to favor French return to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, popular leader of the Viet Minh, was indeed a communist. He joined the communist party while living in France because the communists there supported independence movements in several countries, but his main aim was independence for Vietnam. During WWII Ho fought with the American OSS (Office of Strategic Services), forerunner of the CIA, against the Japanese. After the war, he expected that the US would support his fight for independence, like we had the Filipinos. The OSS officers who worked with Ho wanted to support the Viet Minh, but their chief vetoed them since Ho was communist. What really tipped the scales in France’s favor was when Charles de Gaulle demanded that we transport French troops to Vietnam to reimpose French control. He told the American ambassador in Paris, “If you are against us in Indochina,”  it would cause “terrific disappointment” in France, which could drive her into the Soviet orbit. “We do not want to become Communist…but I hope you do not push into it.” When de Gaulle visited Washington weeks later Truman agreed to his request.

 Over the next six months, as French troops were arriving in Vietnam on American ships, supplied with American equipment, sometimes even wearing American uniforms, Ho Chi Minh appealed to President Truman on eight separate occasions for support and financial aid, but his requests went unanswered. 

Truman’s decision to oppose Vietnamese independence was based on fantasy. The fantasy that the Vietnamese would be better off under the colonial domination of France. The fantasy that the Vietnamese communists were Russian puppets, and the fantasy that we would be welcomed as liberators. By the end of his administration, we were sending millions of dollars, as well as military equipment, and MAAG (Military Assistance Advisory Group) military advisors, to aid the French. He justified his efforts by what came to be known as the “Truman Doctrine,” described in a speech to Congress in March of 1947: “It is the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”^[ii] The Vietnamese revolutionaries were not a minority, and the outside pressure trying to subjugate them was us. 

[i] The March of Folly, From Troy to Vietnam, Barbara W Tuchman, Ballantine Books, NY, 1984

 [ii] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/truman-doctrine

The Folly of the Israel Hamas War

 

                                                                    Gaza City

                                        

The book I’m reading now is The March of Folly, by Barbara Tuchman, about the tendency of governments and leaders make foolish, tragic decisions, and then to continue the policies in spite of evidence that they’re folly. Her examples are the Trojans taking the wooden horse filled with Greeks into their city, the Renaissance Popes provoking the Protestant secession, the British losing her American colonies, and finally America’s travesty in Vietnam. The conclusions Ms. Tuchman draws are very perceptive and timely, even though her book was published in 1984. 

She concludes that “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it.” That was certainly true in Vietnam, where we were involved for almost 30 years, with each of five different presidents trying to justify the original decision. 

We made a similar mistake more recently in Afghanistan. We fought there for 20 years through the administrations of four different presidents, trying first to defeat Al-Qaeda, and then the Taliban – resulting in our humiliating defeat in 2021, when we finally withdrew our troops. 

As I follow the news of the world’s latest conflicts, I’m afraid Tuchman’s observations may apply to them as well. First, Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, which was supposed to be over in a couple of weeks, has lasted over a year. His reasons for the invasion, allegedly to weaken NATO and create a buffer zone between Russia and the rest of Europe, have backfired. NATO is stronger than ever, and may even add Ukraine as a new member. In spite of the failure of his policy, Putin seems to be following Tuchman’s rule, attempting to justify his policy and persisting in his war. 

As I observe Netanyahu’s response to Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel, and our unquestioning support of him, I see the same situation developing. He has vowed to destroy Hamas, but he seems destined to kill an enormous number of civilians in the process, and to create a humanitarian crisis for those remaining. The conflict has already involved the West Bank Palestinians, Hezbollah and Iran, and who knows where the war will spread to next. 

I’m afraid Netanyahu is likely to follow Tuchman’s rule and continue his invasion of Gaza, refusing to back off from his futile attempt to destroy Palestinian opposition, and the more ships and arms we send to support him, the more likely we are to be drawn in with him. 

I know it’s complicated, but someone should show concern for the almost 12,000 lives already lost in Israel and Gaza. As was shown in WWII,  Vietnam, and Afghanistan, dropping more bombs does not result in de-escalation of a conflict. It’s more likely to make the Palestinians more resolute in their resistance, and to make it easier to recruit more terrorists. The best course at this point would be for both sides to declare that sacrificing more lives will not solve the problem, and to start a real negotiation that aims for independence and survival for both Israel and Palestine.   

Fat chance.

Ambivalence

 

        
                                

                                                               Steven McLean

I’ve been reading a book - rereading actually - The March of Folly, by Barbara Tuchman. It gives examples of governments’ tendency to pursue hopeless policies, and then to cling tenaciously to those policies in the face of mounting evidence that they are “folly.” The US involvement in Vietnam is one of her examples. 

Anyway, Ms. Tuchman describes Lyndon Johnson, one of five presidents responsible for prolonging our involvement in Vietnam, as a man driven mainly by political motives. This was kind of a shock to me because I had previously read a book published by the Associated Press, Eyewitness History of the Vietnamese War, which describes Johnson as a man of courage and principle, who started the process of withdrawal from Vietnam. 

Neither writer says anything that is untrue. They just emphasize different facts. This caused me to feel ambivalence toward President Johnson, in place of the admiration and respect I had for him after reading the first book. This conundrum reminded me of a principle I learned from my cousin Steve, the importance of being ambivalent. 

Steve and I are close in age and we have similar interests. We’ve never lived near each other, but I’ve always felt close to him, and we’ve always maintained contact. When we were little we saw each other each summer when his mother would bring him down to Pauls Valley to see our grandmother. As we got older we went camping together, and when we were in college we corresponded by mail. When I was in practice, he travelled a lot selling oil field equipment, and sometimes when I was off he’d come by and we’d spent the day talking as he drove from one well to another. Now that we’re older and somewhat disabled, we still get together by phone every other week and chat about whatever comes to mind. In fact, we’re scheduled to talk tomorrow night. 

Steve is one of those people who are always interested in something. When we were kids he collected stuff: stamps, rocks. He lived in Texas, where not much grows except cacti, so he became interested in cacti. He took me out into the desert once and showed me a dozen or more varieties of cacti.  When his parents took him on road trips he would have them stop at all the historical markers, and he made special trips to mines in Texas, Arizona, Colorado and Mexico, collecting different minerals. In college, he majored in geochemistry, specializing in clay minerology, and he amazed me with the different uses for clay. Slick shiny magazine covers for one thing. He did a survey once of a potential site for a landfill for hazardous waste. I learned from him that landfills should be bordered by clay deposits so the toxic waste can’t leak out into the ground water. His geochemical studies revealed a clay mineral type that was previously unknown in Texas, and was forming in a unique environment. 

I’ve learned a lot from Steve over the years, and I still do, when we talk every other Friday night. He isn’t just interesting for all he knows, he also has a lot of wisdom too. One of the things he takes pride in is being ambivalent. He believes that the more you know about people, the less sure you can be about your opinion of them. More knowledge makes you more empathetic, but it also raises more questions about their motivation and judgement. So Steve tries to be open minded, and he looks for the good in people. He told me, “I am the most judgmental about people who are judgmental.” 

I have a tendency to jump to conclusions, but I’ve found some scientific research that backs Steve up. Studies have shown that while people with strong opinions often get their way, an organization is more productive, and the people are happier and feel more fulfilled, when differences of opinion are encouraged. I’ve come to believe that is an important principle, especially in these times when the population seems so polarized. I learned that listening to NPR radio, while Steve figured it out on his own, with an assist from Pollyanna, his favorite movie (he added).

Life is Precious:

 

 I think almost everyone agrees that life is precious. We all treasure our relationships with our family, our friends, and our heritage. We all have goals we’d like to achieve, and heroes we’d like to emulate. The entertainment industry is supported by empathy for the characters in its dramas, and the advertising industry by aspiration for a certain life style. We all feel sympathy for those in need or suffering, and the death of a loved one, even when expected or “natural” is a tragic loss. Most countries have outlawed the death penalty, even for murderers.

 

The accidental death of my mother’s oldest brother tore her family apart, and, one way or another colored their lives thereafter. Another of her brothers decided to run for the state legislature when he was barely old enough to vote, and became a prominent politician for the next 20 years, helping our family with jobs and inspiration during the Great Depression.

 

You never know how someone, no matter how seemingly insignificant, will affect your life. We have some friends whose daughter has severe cerebral palsy. Her doctors told them she wouldn’t live beyond infancy, but she’s in her 50’s now and is an important part of their lives. She goes everywhere with them. All their friends accept her as part of the family. It would be devastating if they lost her.

 

One of the lessons I learned in Vietnam is that war turns reverence for life on its head, especially the lives of “the enemy,” which in Vietnam was practically everyone. I was shocked when I first heard the Vietnamese referred to as “gooks,” or “dinks.” Vietnamese taken to the hospital were sometimes dropped off their stretchers “accidentally,” and even dropped out of helicopters to avoid taking them to the hospital. There was one ward at the main hospital reserved for Vietnamese. I went there one night and mentioned to the nurse that many of them were groaning in pain. Her response was “They just want attention. They don’t feel pain like we do.”  

 

I used to attend the commanding general’s briefing every Friday morning. Every unit in the division, battalion and above, was represented by an officer. There were several generals, but mostly colonels and lieutenant colonels, the men responsible for the strategy of the war, and the lives of the thousands of men under their command. I was responsible for reporting the health statistics: how many cases of malaria, hepatitis, plague, trench foot. How many amputations. How many men had to be evacuated for higher level care, or sent home.

 

What shocked me was the atmosphere of the meetings. What everyone was interested in was the “body count.” It was like they were discussing a ball game. “How many gooks did you kill this week? We got 20 but lost 5.” To these men, lives were just statistics, even the lives of their own men. 

 

It strikes me that our leaders view the current wars the same. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis, and the Palestinian body count is currently estimated at 8500. I don’t know what the latest numbers are for Ukrainians and Russians. What justifies this slaughter, this total disregard for the value of life? Netanyahu says his aim is revenge, and Putin wants to be another Peter the Great. I guess Peter the Great killed a lot of people too. As for Hamas, I’ve never understood terrorists, but they share the same disregard for life. It’s worth sacrificing thousands for what? Independence for Gaza? Destruction of Israel? Glory?

 

In Vietnam the goal was “attrition,” which, I have learned, means destroying the enemy’s resources so they can no longer fight. Vietnam’s resources were their rice fields, and their people, because their people supported the revolution. So winning meant killing all the people, so there’s no one left to fight. I’ve heard Putin’s strategy also described as attrition, and from the sound of Netanyahu’s statements, he’s aiming for the same thing.

 

Where’s the reverence for life in all this? How would the fatalities vote if they could be resurrected for a referendum? When I was in Vietnam I listened to a speech by the president, in which he said, “I don’t want to be the first president to lose a war.” We were fighting and dying so he could save face?

 

Somehow those who have died and are about to die should have a say in the decisions our leaders make about war.

 

Funeral March of a Marionette

 

Vietnam, Lessons learned, 1  

Back in 1969, just as I was finishing my internship, I was drafted into the army and sent to Vietnam. My experience there made a painful and indelible impression on me. It exposed me to the horrors of war, the death, suffering and destruction it causes, both immediate and lasting. For years I was unable to talk about Vietnam without becoming upset. As our collective memory of that debacle has faded, we seem as a society, as a world, as individuals to keep making the same mistakes. Someone needs to remind us of the lessons we should have learned from Vietnam.

 

For years I’ve avoided talking or even thinking about Vietnam, but as I get older – I’m 81 now – I feel like I have to say something, to try and articulate some of what I’ve experienced, and felt, and learned – hopefully.

 

My wife Sarah gets upset when she sees how much attention is paid to the Ukraine and Israeli-Hamas wars, and how little to the other conflicts / crises in the world: Haiti, Congo, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Sudan, just to name a few. It reminds me of how I felt watching the news during my tour in Vietnam. Just as now, there were conflicts all over the world, Israel, Ireland, Africa, and it seemed like no one cared. Many of the younger people were “Hippies,” into finding different kinds of pleasure: free love, drugs. “If it feels good, do it,” was their slogan. They demonstrated over our involvement in Vietnam, but it was because they thought it was a waste. We were fighting and dying for them, and they were either apathetic, or joining the resistance. What upset me instead was how we were destroying their country and killing a generation of Vietnamese.

 

What Sarah pointed out to me was that we (as a society) care more about people who look like us – white, middle class, and preferably able to speak English. It’s a form of racism. So when there’s a genocide going on in Rwanda, or in Vietnam, we don’t care as much about the people there – in, as our former president so eloquently called them, the S-hole countries.

 

Our ability to empathize is greater towards people with more things in common with us.

Dream a Little Dream of Me

Tennessee Waltz

San Antonio Rose

Ghost Riders

Battle Hymn and America the Beautiful

Besame Mucho

Finian's Rainbow

Bacharach Medley

Stormy Weather

Desafinado

Chestnuts