[For more on Nick Turse's Kill Anything That Moves, see this recent Firedoglake Book Salon. --MyFDL Editor]

Do the Vietnam-era policies Nick Turse uncovered in Kill Anything That Moves apply to Obama's modern wars?
Meet the new boss who, upon his inauguration, declared that the right to life is unalienable. Let me be clear, that doesn’t mean he can’t take yours.
In fact, he runs through a list of men, women, and children on Tuesdays, hung over from inaugurations or not, and picks whom to murder and murders them.
We’re not supposed to call it murder, of course, because it’s properly assassination. Except that no public figures are being assassinated; 98% of those killed are not targeted at all; some are targeted for suspicious behavior without knowing their names; one type of suspicious behavior is the act of retrieving the dead and wounded from a previous strike; and those targeted are not targeted for politics but for resisting illegal occupations. Moreover, an assassination is a type of murder.
We’re not supposed to call it murder, nonetheless, because it sounds more Objective to call it killing. But murder is a type of killing, specifically unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Killing by accident is not murder and not what the president is doing. Killing legally is not murder and not what the president is doing — at least not as far as anyone knows or according to any interpretation of law put forward. Killing indirectly by encouraging poverty or environmental destruction or denial of healthcare may be things the president is doing, but they are not murder and not drone wars.
Imagine if a non-president went through a list of everyone in your local elementary school, picked out whom to kill, and ordered them killed. You would call it murder. You would call it mass-murder. You would call it conspiracy to commit mass murder. Why would electing that mass murderer president change anything? Why would moving the victims abroad change anything?
KILL ANYTHING THAT MOVES
“Kill Anything That Moves is the title of an important new book from Nick Turse, covering the mass-murdering enterprise known in Vietnam as the American War, and in the United States as the Vietnam War. Turse documents that policy decisions handed down from the top led consistently, over a period of years, to the ongoing slaughter of millions of civilians in Vietnam. Much of the killing was done by hand or with guns or artillery, but the lion’s share came in the form of 3.4 million combat sorties flown by U.S. and South Vietnamese aircraft between 1965 and 1972. Air strikes are President Obama’s primary instrument of foreign relations as well; he ordered 20,000 air strikes in his first term.
The well-known Mylai massacre in Vietnam was not an aberration, but an almost typical incident and by no means the worst of them. Turse documents a pattern of ongoing atrocities so pervasive that one is compelled to begin viewing the war itself as one large atrocity. Something similar could be done for the endless war on everywhere that we are currently living through. Scattered atrocities and scandals in Afghanistan and Iraq are interpreted as freak occurrences having nothing to do with the general thrust of the war. And yet they are its essence.
“Kill anything that moves,” was an order given to U.S. troops in Vietnam indoctrinated with racist hatred for the Vietnamese. “360 degree rotational fire” was a command on the streets of Iraq given to U.S. troops similarly conditioned to hate, and similarly worn down with physical exhaustion.
Dead children in Vietnam resulted in comments like “Tough shit, they grow up to be VC.” One of the U.S. helicopter killers in Iraq heard in the Collateral Murder video says of dead children, “Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”
In Vietnam anyone dead was the enemy, and sometimes weapons would be planted on them. In drone wars, any dead males are militants, and in Iraq and Afghanistan weapons have often been planted on victims.
The U.S. military during the Vietnam War shifted from keeping prisoners toward murdering prisoners, just as the Endless War on Everywhere has shifted from incarceration toward murder with the change in president from Bush to Obama.
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, rules of engagement were broadened until the rules allowed shooting at anything that moved. In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. military sought to win people over by terrorizing them. In Vietnam, as in Afghanistan, whole villages were eliminated.
In Vietnam, refugees suffered in horrible camps, while in Afghanistan children are rapidly freezing to death in a refugee camp near Kabul.
Torture was common in Vietnam, including water-boarding. But it wasn’t at that time yet depicted in a Hollywood movie as a positive occurrence.
Napalm, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and other widely despised and banned weapons were used in Vietnam as in the current war.
Vast environmental destruction was part of both wars.
Gang rape was a part of both wars.
The mutilation of corpses was common in both wars.
Bulldozers flattened people’s villages in Vietnam, not unlike what U.S.-made bulldozers do now to Palestine.
Mass murders of civilians in Vietnam, as in Afghanistan, tended to be driven by a desire for revenge.
New weaponry allowed U.S. troops in Vietnam to shoot long distances, resulting in a habit of shooting first and investigating later, a habit now developed for drone strikes.
Self-appointed teams on the ground and in helicopters went “hunting” for natives to kill in Vietnam as in Afghanistan.
And of course, Vietnamese leaders were targeted for assassination.
Then, as now, the atrocities and “war crimes” were committed with impunity as part of the crime that was the war itself. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say: because there was impunity then, it remains today.
Turse discovered that the military investigated numerous accusations, documented incidents, and then buried the reports. So did others in the government. So did the media, including Newsweek which buried a major investigation. Those who engaged in that coverup don’t have on their hands the blood that had already been spilled, but do have on their hands the blood that has been spilled since in similar wars that might have been prevented.
Vietnamese victims who saw their loved ones tortured, murdered, and mutilated are — in some cases — still furious with rage decades later. It’s not hard to calculate how long such rage will last in the nations now being “liberated.”
The crowd that turns out and shuts down Washington, D.C., for Obama inaugurations imagines that it is advancing peace and justice. But it does so by cheering for one of two teams regardless of that team’s performance. Were that size crowd to turn out just once for a substantive demand, for peace or justice or any of the good causes favored by the people involved, a real victory would be obtainable.
If the crowd learned this week that Obama is murdering people, and returned next week to demand an end to the murders, the resulting movement would indeed end them. Not only am I sure of that, but I hold it to be self-evident.



27 Comments

Dear David Swanson,
Thank you for an absolutely vital commentary which raises a real question: how can I advance other social or political concerns while following the imperative to maintain noncooperation with the Obama Administration agenda of assassination? It’s a painful dilemma, but one I suspect that lots of us may be feeling.
And the official line is that these “targeted operations” are _not_ “assassinations,” let alone murders, because they are simply lawful acts of killing enemy combatants! All the world’s a battlefield, and “enemies” killed on a battlefield aren’t assassinated, but simply “killed in action.”
Questions arise like: “Should we really be seeking to weaken the filibuster, when it might come in handy against a defense appropriation or simply to impede the business of assassination as usual?” I don’t want to say that we should oppose anything Obama favors, but that we should promote issues on an independent basis without lending him any legitimacy. This is a dilemma we may be confronting together through the next four years.
This is the kind of murderous hysteria I think moms and pops were thinking of after WWII. Amazing, its resurrection.
I favor eliminating the filibuster because a small group of senators is more often even worse than a large group, even though there may be instances when one could imagine a small group doing something useful.
The plutocrats want stumbling blocks for undesirable legislation.
Deservedly damning post. Thanks, Rec’d.
I’d add that ‘anonymous holds’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history, also.
Excellent post, David, but this:
, and returned next week to demand an end to the murders, the resulting movement would indeed end them. Not only am I sure of that, but I hold it to be self-evident.
…makes me wonder. Yes, maybe to the power of the crowds returning and making that demand, but consider how many people at this site know all about the murders *and* the NDAA and FISA…and still voted for Obomba. Shoot, the NYT and WaPo told all about the drone program, Terror Tuesday, Brennan’s fukkery, and I don’t know that Americans cared all that much (for various craven, ignorant, and self-serving reasons).
There is a case to be made about the people not knowing about either the Dark Military or the Shadow Banking System, but so much is being done with impunity in plain sight now.
I wish I believed your scenario, though.
Ack; sorry I messed up my html tags…
Rec’d, David. Thank you.
This should be front-paged instead of more fawning drivel about yesterday’s oligarch festivities.
I don’t quite buy the equation that if those same people showed up to protest the drone killings, they would stop. Unfortunately, what seems self-evident is that they’re mostly OK with it; how else can you go bask in the reflected glory of your king? I suspect the crowd control policies would change dramatically were Obama to get wind of an impending protest. He’s probably got at least a couple of domestic drones he can spare if it comes to that.
Exactly. They know enough. What they don’t want to know they put out of mind through denial, and close their eyes to new information. They are not at all unlike other mobs in history who have enabled murderers. Obama has all the latitude for evil that Bush had – and with his core supporters, he enjoys total latitude. He could incinerate Iran, round up OWS supporters for indefinite detention, and cut Social Security – all on the same day – and they would nod and smile.
It’s the invisible fence effect. If you cordon off a designated area with sensors and put a shock collar on Fido, in a surprisingly short amount of time Fido will not leave the area and will not do so after watching you remove the sensors. Fido will become a zealous defender of his area, especially to what you define as a threat. Fido will eagerly show his joy and submission when you deign to visit his area and tell him what he wants to hear. Correlation or coincidence?
“Those who do not move, do not notice their chains” – Rosa Luxemberg
the reason people shouldn’t have voted for him is that then they would be willing to shut down DC for peace and justice; if they could do both I wouldn’t mind so much that they voted for him
I would mind, do mind, actually…but then while Anti-War may be at the top of my list of postings, there are plenty of other issues that I care deeply about, and at which Obomba has totally failed 98% of American citizens. GMOs, unfair trade treaties, climate change response, economic justice, war on whistle-blowers, FISA, security state run amok, etc. You know the list. ;o)
Thanks, David.
One thing I can say from experience is that repeated protests can have an impact over a period of years, but it’s slow, and people get killed “as usual” as things proceed. Back in 1964, when I got involved in opposing the Vietnam war, it wasn’t that much “on the radar” for most people in the U.S.A., at least not as a hot and controversial issue. The photographs of victims of torture and napalm were pretty much the same in 1964 as in 1969, when the Moratorium movement began, but it took five years (and lots of escalation on the ground dramatically raising the level of American casualties) to get to that point. And there were Quaker and other groups doing small vigils and protests through all those years, as well as mass actions beginning in early 1965 when the regular bombing of North Vietnam began (e.g. the teach-ins — we had one in the school I was attending). Sadly, drone warfare whether against individual “targets” on a “kill list” or against anonymous civilians seems, much like the “air war” in Indochina, to be designed to minimize protest by having all the casualties inflicted on “them,” and none on “us.” But Daniel Ellsberg once stated shortly after the 1991 U.S.A-Iraq war that by 1973 or 1974, antiwar sentiment in the U.S.A. was based on a dislike for killing human beings generally, not just for casualties among “our troops.” So it can happy, but its a very long struggle.
I am against drone killings and missile strikes and the forever war on terror beyond any borders that was authorized by congress in the AUMF in Afganistan and renewed by Obama and congress.
That means the arguments that parse between what is murder and lawful killing are faulty. They are immoral, shortsighted and imprudent. There are means to achieve peaceful outcomes, but that would not be expedient, or the real reasons we go to war- for cheap resources, or to open up markets would be exposed.
I suspect that is what is behind our so-called leaders obtuseness to examine the long term effectiveness of their methods, if the goals were actually what they are telling us they are.
International Law Is Made By Powerful States
By Matthew Yglesias
Chomsky later thanked Yglesias for clarifying this.
Because Congress has enabled the War on Tactics without Borders and without End, the President can suspend portions of our Constitution under Emergency Orders in order to “keep us safe”, and therefore the secret panel writing up a secret kill list based on secret evidence without due process appeal is not material. (as I understand it)
The people who declare war and use drones also define the law, bring it into being, and rescind it. They are above, it for effective and practical purposes.
The Imperial power decides the law. Cuius regio, eius religio (“Whose realm, his religion”)
Once O has cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, old Americans will die. No one will call it murder, of course, but if you knowingly and willfully prevent someone from getting life saving medical treatment, what do you call it?
I think this should be revisited:
http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/obamas-speech-woodrow-wilson-center/p13974
Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave this August 2007 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
I dunno, do the children actually see the drone?
Some associated thoughts:
- Those who see America overhead:
- Those who don’t:
- And those who watch the video afterwards:
We’re such an exceptional country. Shooting anything that moves in Vietnam was pre-destined like the annexation of all the Americas by the Monroe Doctrine ( really written by Madison )! How else could LBJ make a statement against communism, and beat Goldwater at the same time.
Rarely is the question asked: Is our
c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶r̶e̶n̶[plutocracy capable of] learning? Apparently so, when profits and plunder are on the table:Here’s some military “intelligence” from the US Air Force Global Strike Command.
Dr. King would be proud to see our Global Strike team – comprised of Airmen, civilians and contractors from every race, creed, background and religion – standing side-by-side ensuring the most powerful weapons in the U.S. arsenal remain the credible bedrock of our national defense. . . Our team must overlook our differences to ensure perfection as we maintain and operate our weapon systems. . . Maintaining our commitment to our Global Strike team, our families and our nation is a fitting tribute to Dr. King as we celebrate his legacy.
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123333051
Glen Greenwald piece:
“US military says Martin Luther King would be proud of its weapons”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/martin-luther-king-military-weapons
Thank you for posting this from Glenn Greenwald Scrabbleddie …
Glenn Greenwald has been consistent at setting a course and navigating in ways that move The Lens of Seeing and Knowing towards what is factual,truthful and relevant.
Glenn Greenwald wrote this lead in to this GG piece –
……………………………………………………………..
“A repellent piece of propaganda appropriates the work and images of this nonviolence advocate to glorify U.S.militarism”
………………………………………………… GG
>>> …” a repellent piece of propaganda ”
>>> … ” to glorify U.S. militarism ”
One is more and more led to think and believe the deep intention is indeed to seed,germinate and grow pro American Empire and Militarism views and opinions via very polished propaganda claims and dissemination upon and amongst many USians in hope(s)/desire(s) to thwart the blooming of intelligent,reasoned rebuttal(s) or pushback(s) to American Empire and Militarism. USians then being told they are free and brave and liberated over and over.
The calculations being sought/done here in/with this blatant propaganda catapulting actually having little or nothing to do with genuine MLK stated concepts of freedom,liberation and common victory for all poor,downtrodden and shut out human beings.
The mockery of this plainly abusive of fact and truth claim on MLK legacy to do pro American Empire and Militarism propaganda and associated/attendant Pentagon/CIA propaganda is raw and is soon revealed as being a false suggestion when exposed to elementary MLK knowable/known legacy of MLK spoken and written histories.
At what point will enough USians move off this drip feed of distortion and misdirection based propaganda? Likely this would/will entail moving away and off USians prevailing R vs. D politics false framing(s) and empty political ritual(s) in tandem. Who will do this? Those who can. When will it happen? When it does. Sooner.Better.
It seems ever so likely those who created this MLK based propaganda distortion in service to American Empire and Militarism actually think this was/is a legitimate and valid premise to suggest.
A long road lies ahead for those of us who seek to be where such propaganda is not allowed or tolerated. Too bad we USians are now governed by the likes of who push/ pushed this willfully distorted propaganda.
… thank you David Swanson again then as well … stay with it
I’d been reading Glenn’s articles on Salon for years before his move to the Guardian– and know what a critic he is of the Obama administration’s carry-over of Bush’s war of terror and its associative civil liberty encroachments. Mr. Greenwald is great at exposing the systemic insanity of our lobbyist form of government– with it’s endemic myriad facets of dizzying stupidity. We really need more voices like his. If I we’re gay I’d have his babies. er, ah…
@shekissesfrogs My reaction to the Chomsky-Yglesias exchange is that while Chomsky was right the first time that assassinations are contrary to international law, he was not wrong the second time to agree with Yglesias that international law is often tailored to the convenience of the powers that be. As I should really discuss in a diary, there’s a good argument that neither Congress, when in 2001 it authorized the use of military force, nor the UN Security Council, meant to sanction kill lists and assassinations as a method of “self-defense.” They were, however, clearly sanctioning acts of lethal force excepted to kill and maim thousands, including “collateral” killings of civilians.
There are people with the International Committee of the Red Cross and like organizations who are seeking to contain and reduce the lethality of war, and they are leading critics of assassination and the rationalizations of “military necessity” often invoked to justify it. But even these people often recognize the political reality highlighted by Yglesias and an agreeing Chomsky when they concede that international law must not go so far as to become “irrelevant” because states are ignoring it. Then, again, the Obama Administration has no problem ignoring the fairly clear meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment against killings without “due process of law.” So this may be a weakness of law generally, international or otherwise.
That is some sick propaganda. When hijacking your national heros, it’s helpful if you don’t educate your children.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., on the Purpose of Education
Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
With such compromised and degenerate leadership in congress, it really is.
I came upon GG by chance back when GG was still at the UT site. Liked GG then and still do.
Went along to Salon when GG did that change — gotta admit I was glad when GG jumped the Salon site and went to TG/UK —
Salon was way too D zealot/ D slanted in ways that made going to Salon annoyingly useless** except to keep up with GG.
** See Joan Walsh,SK etc..