New ‘revolution’ theory carries message for all

AS THE world is witnessing adventures to reinvigorate the existing hegemony, a new theory for ‘revolution’ is being formulated: intervention to support the Libyan ‘revolution’ is justified and is in the United Kingdom’s national interest. David Cameron, the British prime minister, said this while speaking on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. He said intervening was ‘the right thing to do.’ (BBC, Libya: UK forces should
be proud of role, says Cameron”, September 2)
Speaking after the Paris summit on Libya, Cameron said ‘the UK had played a significant military role in the NATO-led operation... We should be proud of what our forces did.’ (ibid)
Then, the world heard a proud pronouncement from leader of a proud nation as Cameron said: ‘I really want to challenge this idea that somehow the Americans see us a weak ally, they don’t—they see us as their strongest and most staunch ally.’ He said: ‘Americans were “very impressed” by what the UK and European forces had achieved.’ (ibid)
On the same news-event the Guardian made the following report:
Cameron ‘hailed Britain’s role in the intervention as “very significant”.’ He ‘insisted Britain would remain a “full-spectrum player” in the future and ‘signalled further interventions may lie ahead as he revealed that some members of the Arab League were “toughening their stance” over the situation in Syria.’ ‘[T]here were “lots of lessons to learn” from the conflict in Libya. ‘Despite trumpeting Britain’s role, Cameron said there was a danger of people in the west “taking too much credit for themselves” for what was really a Libyan triumph.’ (‘Libya intervention: British forces played key role, says Cameron’)
He ‘challenged House of Commons library figures that suggested Britain had performed just 10% of all strike sorties, saying the figure was twice that. ‘There were somewhere just less than 8,000 sorties,’ he insisted. ‘Britain performed 1,600 of those, so around a fifth of strike sorties.
That is punching at our weight
or even above our weight. We played a very important role, not just in the number of strike sorties but also in the fact that we were there right from the beginning.’ (ibid)
‘On the lack of intervention in Syria,’ according to the report, ‘he said Britain had “been in the vanguard in arguing for a tougher approach”.’ (ibid)
Now, the following observations can be made: (1) intervention is ‘justified’ irrespective of pronouncements in the UN charter; (2) national interests of world powers are integrally connected with ‘revolution’ in some other country; (3) any south or central or east Asian or Latin American country can expect a Libya intervention experience if there is any strategic resource in the country or the country is strategically important and intervention-able; (4) junior partners of the empire are not now suffering from inferiority complex, and they will take active role, signifying shifts in balance of power; (5) the empire has to be impressed, also having underlying meaning of a geopolitical reality; and (6) coming days may witness reinvigorated campaign from the world metropolis to reinforce its hegemony having significance in the periphery.
It can be expected that not only pro-people forces, but also ruling elites in resource-rich, strategically-positioned and intervention-able countries will take into consideration implication of these observations. The implication ranges from international arena to national periphery, from the lives of common people to the ruling elite’s or its faction’s ‘fate’.
It will not sound wise to imagine that the Libya expedition was planned after initiating expression of discontent in a Libyan town. Planning for actions like Libya expedition is not possible to formulate within days. Because, basically and primarily, it is not a planning for military movement, assault, supply, recovery, armaments, etc. Basically and primarily, it is a political planning that takes into account factors related to geopolitics, geo-economics and geo-strategy. This type of planning cannot be completed within a week or two and instantly after expression of a domestic discontent in a country. The planning turns complex as competing interests vie for respective shares. Not only political leadership, economic interests don’t plan, actually cannot plan, similar undertakings within weeks. So, ruling elites in some countries may sleep unaware while its fate will be determined on planning board long before the elites wake up.
It will be a daydream for the ruling elites of the type of countries mentioned above to assume that they will be spared by naked imperialism or energy imperialism if they cross swords with their masters. (Now, it seems, crisis imperialism will be an appropriate term as imperialism is moving through crises, as it is deepening its crises while it is trying to get rid of its crises, as crises it is creating are not only of peoples, but also of its world system, as it delves external issues more vigorously than issues in its home, as it is expanding the expanse of crises while it is moving/jumping from one theatre of adventure to another, and some more reasons.) Facts already in hand produce tragic-comical stories/characters: Noriega, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet, and some more. None of them took the role as Gaddafi, and Gaddafi was not like these lackeys. They were pliable. But they were ‘relieved’ the day they appeared useless to their master.
Some other facts are there that help understand a ‘revolution’ with companies’ ‘fair and logical benefits’:
‘The race for Libya’s oil’, the Guardian says, ‘appears to have started: […] BP is already holding talks with members of the interim government, while France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said it was “fair and logical” for its companies to benefit.’ (‘Libya: Gaddafi says he will fight to the end – live coverage’)
‘The [UK] government’, the Guardian says, ‘has admitted that the international development minister, Alan Duncan, took part in meetings between officials operating a Whitehall cell to control the Libyan oil market and Vitol – a company for which Duncan has previously acted as a consultant.’ The ‘Libyan oil cell’ in the Foreign Office since May silently waged a crucial campaign against Gaddafi. It prevented Gaddafi importing and exporting oil while allowed oil to reach the rebels, and that oil came via Vitol. ‘Duncan, a former oil trader and multi-millionaire, has had a 30-year friendship with the managing director of Vitol, Ian Taylor, at one point operating as a consultant to the company and as a non-executive director to a subsidiary firm. Taylor has also been a Tory donor, declared on Duncan’s parliamentary register of interests. Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government’s disclosure of the existence of the oil cell was mired in mystery about Duncan’s role in it. “Given Alan Duncan’s reported links with Vitol this curious briefing from within government actually raises more questions than it answers,” he said. Civil servants in the Foreign Office are known to have expressed deep concerns about the existence of the cell, warning that it appeared to be encroaching too far on commercial purposes. One person with knowledge of the Whitehall machinations described their mood as “mutinous”.’ (‘Government admits Alan Duncan’s links to company in “Libyan oil cell”’, September 2)
Vitol, the world’s largest oil and refined products trader, handles about 5 million barrels a day and controls 200 super-tankers and other vessels. The company with annual turn over of more than $140bn is engaged in exploration from Russia to West Africa, and has a presence in every leading oil-producing country including Iraq and Syria. Vitol paid $17.5m in fines in 2007 for providing kickbacks to Saddam’s Iraq, and had to face court in 1996 over oil deals in Serbia as it made a $1m payment to a Serb and a secret oil deal to provide fuel to Milosevic’s Serbia. It came under investigation in 1993 for selling ‘contaminated’ oil to Pakistan causing the country £100m damage. (ibid)
‘Good wishes’ for ‘revolution’ and its connections are now coming to light: ‘revolution’ is ‘connected’ with national interests of the world powers and oil companies’ benefit, with ‘reputed’ oil traders and minister! Everything is ‘fair’ and ‘just’ in war, revolution and friendship! Ethics and moral standing of interventionist-‘revolution’ stand above all ethics and morality! These facts are helping people in countries learn lessons in a charged world. Probably, ruling elites in countries will also learn from the Libyan experience.
By tearing of all masks the ‘humanitarian’ interventionists have imposed their crude logic over Libya, and are re-conveying the old message to all: rulers, lackeys and independents, and people yearning for democracy. The message is: capital shall not spare anybody including friend and foe, and any place as it faces deep, prolonged crises. Its crises have made it more aggressive and crude, and have pressed it to shed of all pretensions. Its adventures will deepen and complicate its inner relationships instead of resolving its crises. Factors of the complication are within its entities and between its entities.

A New “Revolution” Theory And Its Proud Adherents

As the world is witnessing attempts to reinvigorate the existing hegemony a new theory for “revolution” is being formulated: Intervention to support the [Libyan] revolution is justified and is in the UK’s national interest. Mr. David Cameron, the British prime minister, said this while speaking on the BBC Radio 4’s Today program. He said that intervening was “the right thing to do”. (BBC, “Libya: UK forces should be proud of role, says Cameron”, Sept. 2, 2011)

Moreover, speaking after the Paris Summit on Libya on Sept. 1, Mr. Cameron said “the UK had played a significant military role in the Nato-led operation ... We should be proud of what our forces did.” (ibid.)

Then, the world heard a proud pronouncement from leader of a proud nation as Mr. Cameron said: “I really want to challenge this idea that somehow the Americans see us a weak ally, they don’t - they see us as their strongest and most staunch ally.” He said: “Americans were ‘very impressed’ by what UK and European forces had achieved.”(ibid.)

On the same news-event Guardian made the following report:

Mr. Cameron “hailed Britain’s role in the intervention as ‘very significant’.” He “insisted Britain would remain a ‘full-spectrum player’ in the future, despite defence cuts, and signalled further interventions may lie ahead as he revealed that some members of the Arab League were ‘toughening their stance’ over the situation in Syria.” “[T]here were ‘lots of lessons to learn’ from the conflict in Libya, and that the government would ‘take our time learning them’. Despite trumpeting Britain’s role, Cameron said there was a danger of people in the west ‘taking too much credit for themselves’ for what was really a Libyan triumph.” (“Libya intervention: British forces played key role, says Cameron”)

He “challenged House of Commons library figures that suggested Britain had performed just 10% of all strike sorties, saying the figure was twice that. ‘There were somewhere just less than 8,000 sorties,’ he insisted. ‘Britain performed 1,600 of those, so around a fifth of strike sorties. That is punching at our weight or even above our weight. We played a very important role, not just in the number of strike sorties but also in the fact that we were there right from the beginning.” (ibid.)

“On the lack of intervention in Syria,” according to the report, “he said Britain had ‘been in the vanguard in arguing for a tougher approach’.” (ibid.)

Now, the following observations can be deduced: (1) Intervention is “justified” irrespective of pronouncements in the UN charter. (2) National interests of world powers are integrally connected with “revolution” in some other country. (3) Any south or central or east Asian or Latin American country can expect a Libya Intervention Experience (LIE) if there is any strategic resource in the country or the country is strategically important and intervention-able. (4) Junior partners of the Empire are not now suffering from inferiority complex. (5) The Empire has to be impressed. (6) Coming days may witness reinvigorated effort from the world metropolis to reinforce its hegemony.

Some other facts are there that help understand a “revolution” with companies’ “fair and logical benefits”:

“The race for Libya’s oil appears to have started: […] BP is already holding talks with members of the interim government, while France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said it was ‘fair and logical’ for its companies to benefit.” (Guardian, “Libya: Gaddafi says he will fight to the end – live coverage”)

“The [UK] government has admitted that the international development minister, Alan Duncan, took part in meetings between officials operating a Whitehall cell to control the Libyan oil market and Vitol – a company for which Duncan has previously acted as a consultant” said a Guardian report.

The report said:

“The ‘Libyan oil cell’ involved a group of officials working in the Foreign Office since May waging a quiet campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by controlling the flow of oil in the country.

“It is said to have played a discreet but crucial role in the campaign in Libya by helping to enforce the sanctions regime to prevent Gaddafi importing and exporting oil while allowing oil to reach the rebels in the east. That oil came via one company, Vitol.

“Duncan, a former oil trader and multi-millionaire, has had a 30-year friendship with the managing director of Vitol, Ian Taylor, at one point operating as a consultant to the company and as a non-executive director to a subsidiary firm. Taylor has also been a Tory donor, declared on Duncan’s parliamentary register of interests.

“Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign secretary, said the government’s disclosure of the existence of the oil cell was mired in mystery about Duncan’s role in it. ‘Given Alan Duncan’s reported links with Vitol this curious briefing from within government actually raises more questions than it answers,’ he said.

“It is understood Vitol had been working with the rebels in the east before the establishment of the cell but had struggled with the sanctions in place amid concerns that Gaddafi was circumventing the restrictions while the rebels were suffering from them.

“Civil servants in the Foreign Office are known to have expressed deep concerns about the existence of the cell, warning that it appeared to be encroaching too far on commercial purposes. One person with knowledge of the Whitehall machinations described their mood as ‘mutinous’.

“Vitol is the largest trader of oil and refined products in the world. The business […] buys and sells more oil and gas than household names such as BP and Shell.

“Vitol handles about 5m barrels a day and controls 200 supertankers and other vessels to move it around the world. The company […] does not control the giant oil fields or petrol stations associated with the likes of BP and Shell but does engage in exploration from Russia to West Africa, as well as storage and a host of other activities. It also turns over revenues of more than $140bn (£87bn) in a good year. It has a presence in every leading oil-producing country, including Iraq and Syria.

“Taylor has retained a good friendship with Duncan since the two met as oil traders at Shell. The Tory politician sat on the board of oil company Arawak until it was bought in 2009 by Vitol. As shadow leader of the house in 2008 Duncan declared donations in the register of members’ financial interests that he received, via the Conservative party, from Taylor.

“Vitol was forced to pay $17.5m in fines in 2007 after pleading guilty to providing kickbacks to Saddam’s Iraq under the oil-for-food programme.

“The business also found itself in court in 1996 over oil deals in Serbia. It transpired that a $1m payment had been made to the Serbian war criminal Arkan and there had been a secret oil deal to provide Slobadan Milosevic’s Serbia with fuel.

“The company was also investigated in 1993 after selling 280,000 tonnes of ‘contaminated’ oil to Pakistan’s state-owned power company causing £100m worth of damage.” (“Government admits Alan Duncan’s links to company in ‘Libyan oil cell’”, Sept. 2, 2011)

“Good wishes” for “revolution” and its connections are now coming to light: “revolution” is “connected” with national interests of the world powers and oil companies’ benefit, with “reputed” oil traders and minister! Everything is “fair” and “just” in war, revolution and friendship! Ethics and moral standing of “revolution stand” above all ethics and morality! These facts are helping people in countries learn lessons in a charged world. 

Americans’ Disapproval Of “Spoiled Children” And “Disgusting Jokes”

It will be inappropriate to discern results from recent polls on performance of the US Congress as a crisis. But it is significant. A number of polls show: significant percentage of the Americans taking part in the polls are not happy with their legislature and with both the parties. The disapproval is at its historic low, the lowest ever in more than three decades.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed only 14% of the respondents approved the Congress’ debt ceiling performance.

A CBS News/New York Times poll showed that 82% of the respondents disapproved the way Congress has conducted the debt ceiling job.

A Pew Research Center poll showed the overall dissatisfaction the respondents felt to their legislators after the debt ceiling debate.

The CBS News/New York Times poll indicated that more than 80% of the respondents believed that the debt debate was more about political gain than about doing what was best for the US. About 75% opined that the debt negotiations harmed US image abroad. It indicated an 84% disapproval rating. It showed that 77% of respondents believed that their elected officials acted like “spoiled children” during the debt ceiling talks. The NYT poll score was the worst score since it started asking Americans to rate Congress back in 1977.

The Pew poll asked the respondents’ feelings about their elected officials. “Ridiculous”, “disgusting”, “childish”, “joke”, and similar terms were used. This increased the negative listing to 72%. Only 2% responded positively.

The protracted debt ceiling debate brought the US government to the door of shutdown. It was also facing a possible default for the first time in its history.

A single performance or a few days’ conducting of business by a state organization or a single factor does not shape public attitude. Overall situation casts its shadow on public perception. Condition of the US public is not happy one for long time. This is reflected in public reactions/expressions, protest, etc., and in a part of mainstream media despite capital’s control over it.

After the defeat of the first bailout bill Time wrote: “There was a lack of trust, a loss of confidence, a popular revolt.” On voting no by the majority it wrote: “This is a remarkable event, the culmination of a historic sense of betrayal that Americans have long felt for their representatives in Washington. The[…]credit crisis…exposed a much deeper and more fundamental problem: a crisis of political credibility that now threatens to harm our nation further[…]The problem has been growing for years. Roughly 28% of Americans approve of President Bush. Roughly 18% of Americans approve of Congress. Now those low numbers and majority of bad feelings have manifested themselves in the starkest of terms [….A] critical mass of voters refused to trust their leaders[…T]he nation now risks great financial hardship, because there was no one to […] explain the situation.[…]Years ago, the trust between the people and their politicians was broken. Credibility was lost. The reserve of goodwill went bankrupt. And when they needed it most, our nation’s leaders found that they had squandered their ability to exert influence over the people who chose them to lead. (“The Bailout Defeat: A Political Credibility Crisis”)

The reality of lost credibility is much wide, and much deeper.

Joe Klein, a Time journalist, made an “Election Road Trip” in 2010. He traveled more than 6,000 miles and “talked to dozens of politicians […] and hundreds of voters. The voters […] tended to be extremely frustrated with the national conversation[,] tended to be more anxious than angry.” He “found the same themes dominant everywhere — a rethinking of basic assumptions, a moment of national introspection. There was a unanimous sense that Washington was broken beyond repair. But the disgraceful behavior of the financial community, and its debilitating effects on the American economy over the past 30 years, was the issue that raised the most passion, […] Many Americans also were confused and frustrated by the constant state of war since […] 9/11. But for every occasion they raised Afghanistan, they mentioned China 25 times; economics completely trumped terrorism as a matter of concern.” (Time, “Encountering Anguish and Anxiety Across America”, Oct. 18, 2010)

Poverty, hunger, rich-poor gap, unemployment, bulldozing foreclosed houses, rising education costs, etc. are now almost overwhelming facts of American way of life. The following New York datelined news report on pawn shops reveals at least a part of common Americans’ way life.

“Profits at pawn shop operator Ezcorp Inc. have jumped by an average 46 percent annually for five years. The stock has doubled from a year ago, to about $38.
“And companies profiting from their bad fortune will continue to do so.
“Among them:
“Stock in payday lender Advance America Cash Advance Centers (AEA) has doubled […] to just under $8. Rival Cash America International Inc. (CSH) is up 64 percent, to $58. Such firms typically provide high interest loans -- due on payday -- to people who can’t borrow from traditional lenders.
“Profits at Encore Capital Group, a debt collector […] rose nearly 50 percent last year. […]The stock (ECPG) is up 59 percent from a year ago, to more than $30.
“Stock in Rent-A-Center (RCII), which leases televisions, couches, computers and more, is up 57 percent from a year ago to nearly $32.
[…]
“On top of that, one in seven Americans now live below the poverty line, a 17-year high.
[…]
“It’s that things could get worse -- making customers too poor to borrow or buy even from these outfits. Rent-A-Center, the furniture store, is already suffering. Some of its core low-income shoppers have seen money they would have spent leasing a couch or cocktail table eaten up by rising food and fuel bills.
“[…]According to Nick Mitchell, an analyst at Northcoast Research, wealthier customers, say those making $45,000, are feeling so strapped lately that they’re starting to rent furniture, too.” (AP, “How bad is it? Pawn shops, payday lenders are hot down on the US?”, July 8, 2011)

The news report shows the US citizens’ living reality: increasing poverty or tough economic condition engulfing many and increasing profit of capital that thrives on tough economic condition. At the same time, the citizens are coming across news/information on life of the ultra-rich, human and financial costs of wars, and performance of elected representatives. These and similar incidents are influencing public perception. Strong anguish, rejection, desperation, etc. are being reflected in many ways including through trifling and sarcastic style. A survey result shows a part of the style.

A North Carolina based Public Policy Polling’s survey results, released on July 21, 2011, found that 52% of the 928 respondents approve of the job the Almighty’s done while 9% disapprove. A question in the survey was: “If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its performance?” The news report presenting the survey finding said: “So about half the public isn’t too thrilled with the way God is handling, well, everything.” (The Atlantic Wire, “Only 52% of Americans Approve of God's Job Performance”, Jul 21, 2011)

Disapproval of a politician or another carries a significance, and disapproval of an institution or an organ of state carries another significance. The significance in the case of institution is more than in cases of individuals (obviously with exceptions). The difference is more in terms of quality than quantity.

The ironies, disapproval, etc. expressed in the above mentioned polls, etc. are not final and static expression of public “mind”. There is no doubt that the Congress’ approval rating will improve. But this may again dip down. However, the “mind” will develop further despite manipulation by capital controlled media as media’s manipulation power is not stronger than facts of life. At one stage, facts of life overwhelm media’s power as media cannot fill stomach although it can make one feel happy for a certain period. But hard facts of hard life throw away manipulated feeling of happiness. Media can stuff itself with celebrity gossips and photographs, but cannot keep people aloof and apolitical for long time from the feeling of suffering. That feeling leads people to search for the causes of suffering.

Jane Fonda And America’s Vietnam War

Jane Fonda is news again. The issue is America’s Vietnam War. Memories of the war still haunt many. The war memories are also bright in the brains of those who resisted and opposed the war.

The acrid memory is difficult to blank out for those who had to accept defeat. For those standing against imperialism, it is impossible to forget the war.

In mid-July, in a blog posting on show business website TheWrap.com, Jane Fonda wrote that she was scheduled to appear on home shopping TV network QVC to introduce her book Prime Time about aging and life cycles. But QVC reported receiving angry calls regarding her anti-war activism of the 1960s and ’70s, and it decided to cancel Jane’s appearance. She wrote at the website: “[T]his has gone on far too long, this spreading of lies about me! … I love my country. I have never done anything to hurt my country or the men and women who have fought and continue to fight for us.” QVC, a unit of Liberty Media Corp, acknowledged Fonda’s appearance was cancelled, but said it was because of a “programming change.” She described it as QVC’s caving in to “extremist” pressure to cancel her appearance.

Jane Fonda, daughter of late screen legend Henry Fonda, won Oscars for roles in the films “Coming Home” (1978) and “Klute” (1971). Her 1972 visit to Hanoi, the capital of erstwhile North Vietnam, angered Vietnam War mongers. They nicknamed her “Hanoi Jane”. She is still ridiculed by hawks as they fail to get rid of memories of defeat. During her North Vietnam visit, she posed for photos showing her sitting atop a Viet Cong anti-aircraft gun seat. She expressed regret about those images.

An Empire’s manipulation with its subjects’ minds, its power for the manipulation, and its confusing definitions get exposed with this incident. To it, aggression is patriotism, opposing war of aggression is synonymous to treachery. It turns indifferent to people making supreme sacrifices for independence, sovereignty, honor and dignity, and the right to self-determination. Its statements are made to appear authentic, although the authenticity stands on a void foundation of propaganda and media manipulation. It makes “truths”, and unmakes those when necessary; it hides truths and leads eyes and ears to its desired target that it intends to appear as stark fact although a single ingredient of fact is absent there. On behalf of the entire humanity, brave Vietnam stood for humane senses and duties. The Empire cannot provide an explanation to the supreme sacrifices the monks made on the streets of Saigon (now, Ho Chi Minh City), it cannot defend its action in My Lai, it cannot dissect the murder of Nguyen Van Troi.

That’s the reason the “American public”, as Jane Fonda writes about America’s Indo-China War (the war the Empire carried on in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia only a few decades back) in her My Life So Far, “did not yet know that the United States had been secretly bombing Cambodia since March 1969. Nor did we know that U.S. bombers, from 1964 through 1969, had secretly obliterated an entire civilization in the Plain of Jars in northeastern Laos.”

Jane tried to know the truth. Time keeps a role for itself in life. In many cases, age influences posture and type of action of individuals. So, Jane “mistakenly thought that the more militant [she] appeared, the more seriously [she] would be taken.” (ibid.)

That was not only a time of America’s war against peoples in Vietnam-Laos-Cambodia; that was a time “an America at war with itself…”; that was a time “antiwar sentiment was growing among active-duty servicemen”; that was a time “Master Sergeant Donald Duncan, a much decorated member of the special forces, the first enlisted man in Vietnam to be nominated for the Legion of Merit”, brought to Jane “newspaper articles about GI dissent and told stories about the ways servicemen were being denied their constitutional rights.” That was a time “soldiers questioned why, once they put on a uniform, they were deprived of the rights they had been conscripted to defend – the rights to speak freely, petition, assemble, and publish – and that when they claimed those rights, unjust punishments were meted out with no legal recourse.” That was a time “while the civilian anti-war movement was primarily white and middle-class, the GI movement was made up of working-class kids, sons and daughters … of farmers and hard hats, kids who couldn’t afford college deferments, and a preponderance of rural and urban poor, particularly blacks and Latinos.” “[W]hile dissent within the military had started in the mid-sixties mainly as random, individual acts, after the Tet offensive, things began to change. Dissident was no longer a matter of individual acts. GIs began to organize, not just around the growing antiwar sentiment in the military rank, but in response to the undemocratic nature of the military system itself.” (ibid.) That was a time, as Robert D. Heinl Jr., retired Marine Corps colonel and military historian, describes: “[O]ur army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous.” (Armed Forces Journal, quoted in My Life So Far) That was a time she “had heard and read things that threw into question everything [she] believed about [her] country.” Jane felt she “couldn’t slow down while people’s rights were being violated, while people were being killed, while the war continued.” That was a time “the war had become an American tragedy…” That was a time in “a battle that pits bamboo against B-52, the victory for bamboo symbolizes hope for the planet.” (ibid.)

These incidents and senses took her to Hanoi. She watched from the aircraft window, before her plane made landing, her “country’s planes – bombing a city where” she was “about to be received as a welcomed guest.” (ibid.) She learns in Vietnam: “It is the long-term, cumulative effects of seemingly weak things that achieve the impossible.” During that trip, she innocently and mistakenly sat atop an anti-aircraft gun seat. “But the gun was inactive, there were no planes overhead…” (ibid.) Consequently, she was criticized, condemned, a call was made to boycott her films.

But the “story” doesn’t conclude there as it didn’t begin there also. As a flash back an editorial comment can be recollected that can help fill in the gaps of the war path: “And”, Paul M Sweezy, Leo Huberman and Harry Magdoff wrote editorial comment in June 1954 in Monthly Review, “if we send American forces into Indo-China, as Dulles and other high government spokesmen have repeatedly threatened to do in the last two months, we shall be guilty of aggression ourselves.” (“What Every American Should Know About Indo-China”)

But the aggression was made.

“It was June 14, 1965, and Johnson reached out to former President Eisenhower for his counsel on the Vietnam War. A decision was looming over whether to expand the U.S. troop commitment to the conflict. Eisenhower advised not only supporting South Vietnamese forces in action but also urged direct offensive action by American troops. ‘We have got to win,’ he said. … Meanwhile, the debate among Johnson’s advisors was growing. ‘In raising our commitment from 50,000 to 100,000 or more men and deploying most of the increment in combat roles we are beginning a new war -- the United States directly against the Viet Cong,’ Under Secretary of State George Ball warned President Johnson. ‘Perhaps the large-scale introduction of American forces with their concentrated fire power will force Hanoi and the Viet Cong to the decision we are seeking. On the other hand,’ he presciently cautioned, ‘we may not be able to fight the war successfully enough -- even with 500,000 Americans in South Vietnam -- to achieve this purpose.’ Ball confronted President Johnson with lessons from recent history. ‘The French fought a war in Viet-Nam, and were finally defeated -- after seven years of bloody struggle and when they still had 250,000 combat-hardened veterans in the field, supported by an army of 205,000 Vietnamese.’ Ball’s dissent was aggressively countered by the administration’s hawks. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara strenuously argued that if South Vietnam fell, Thailand would be lost, too. Rusk envisioned a wave of falling dominoes – even India would collapse under the control of the Chinese communists.” (Gordon M Goldstein, former international security advisor to the strategic planning unit of the executive office of the UN secretary-general, Lessons in Disaster, 2008)

The number of the US forces increased. The war escalated as the years rolled on. The aggression experienced effective resistance unparallel in human history. The ruling classes in the Empire faced a critical time full with uncertain choices.

The resistance to the aggression and the significant resentment within the aggressor forces, as Jane Fonda mentioned, weakened the aggressor. They had to concede defeat that saved them from bigger and graver defeat.

But Jane is still being condemned for sitting atop a seat of an inactive AA gun.

And, the Lessons in Disaster are not being learnt in the Middle East, in Africa, in Latin America as empires deny learning from history, as that is a limitation of Naked Imperialism.