Cyclic critics

In David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest," New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan described the United States government at war as "a centralized state ... for whom the enemy is its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments ... it does not function necessarily for the benefit of the Republic but rather for its own ends, its own perpetuation ... Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not so much from threats by foreign governments, but from detection from its own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom."\nSounds like typical New York Times roasting of the George W. Bush administration. Only thing is, Sheehan was writing about the Kennedy and Johnson administrations after the release of the Pentagon Papers. \nGuess it's not just those evil neo-conservative Republicans who secretly scheme to deprive us of our rights. What this sad fact tells me is that the behavior of the Bush administration, while often reprehensible, isn't that unique, and that administrations react the same way when faced with a politically unpopular war that isn't going well.\nFirst, Kennedy and Johnson, both good liberal Democrats, were just as secretive about the build-up in Vietnam and were just as willing to subvert U.S. law if necessary. Kennedy and Johnson were big fans of covert actions (putatively against communists) around the world. Senator J. William Fulbright once said of their actions that they were "in violation of the spirit and probably the letter as well, of treaties to which the United States is a party and of U.S. domestic legislation."\nFulbright went on to decry the hypocrisy of ignoring international and domestic law in the name of promoting democracy and freedom. The enemy may be different today, but Fulbright's advice is just as sound.\nThe second lesson of history concerns how we've gotten into such a mess in Iraq. A quick study of how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations deepened our involvement in Vietnam reveals remarkable similarities with today: a civilian leadership of the military cocky about its abilities, although some generals were less optimistic; reliance upon limited intelligence from dubious sources; a fundamental misreading of conditions in the target country; a dubious "domino theory" justification for the war ... Sounds pretty familiar.\nHowever, I want to be clear: Iraq is NOT Vietnam. The international situation and the military balance are different. What is the same is the domestic politics of the war, and the way an imperial presidency dragged the country into war. \nBy saying this, I don't want to excuse the actions of the Bush administration. I merely point out that there are historical precedents and that doomsayers predicting the end of the United States and our values might want to tone down the rhetoric. Instead of shrilly pronouncing the end of America, they should work to improve the situation. If they do, maybe this time the path back to an honest defense of our values won't include the Nixon administration.