Quiet Americans

I was watching The Quiet American last night - not the original; the new one with Michael Cain and Brendan Frasier. It's a great movie, based on a great book by the late Graham Greene. For those who don't know the story, Frasier plays Pyle (reference to the famous American war correspondent Ernie Pyle), a naive CIA agent sent to Viet Nam to try to secretly install an American-backed government; Cain plays Fowler (obvious reference to being a chicken), a jaded, world-weary journalist stationed in Saigon just prior to the fall of Dien Bien Phu. The two men's lives intersect, and they form and uneasy friendship, drawn together by their genuine respect and appreciation of each other, but divided by their love for the same woman and their positions on opposite sides of the growing conflict in Viet Nam. And here's where the story really gets interesting.

This story tries to examine the complexities of interfering in the politics of other nations. The French, who have long held Viet Nam as a colony, are being challenged by the communists led by Ho Chi Minh; meanwhile, the Americans, fearing the communists will defeat the French and take over all of Southeast Asia, are trying to install a pro-American, "democratic" government. Caught between these competing forces are the Viet Namese, most of whom just want to be left alone to live their lives. Amid this milieu, Fowler wants to remain detached and objective, but Pyle's presence forces him to become involved and to take sides.

At one point, Pyle tells Fowler that he wants to help the Viet Namese be "free." Fowler asks him what what his definition of "free" is, and Pyle says that it means that the Viet Namese should have the right to choose their own leaders for them selves. To this, Fowler asks Pyle what would happen if the Viet Namese were allowed to choose their own leaders and elected Ho Chi Minh? Pyle has no answer to this question, and Fowler walks away and leaves Pyle to work it out for himself.

This is precisely where the story - and the war in Viet Nam - are so reminiscent of what is currently going on in Iraq. We went in and overthrew a dictator to make the Iraqis "free," according to President Bush. Now, fighting an ongoing war against Islamic extremists - who apparently want to turn Iraq into a fundamentalist theocracy, something akin to Iran - the US is trying to set up "free" elections, so the Iraqis can choose their own government. And here's where Fowler's question echoes so loudly. What if the Iraqis - given the choice - do elect a fundamentalist theocracry similar to Iran's? And what if that freely elected theocratic government orders the US out of the country and takes control of all the country's oil production? Given the fact that we have 140,00 troops on the ground - protecting not just the Iraqis from militants but also protecting American interests - does it seem likely that Bush would accept the outcome of such an election, willingly withdraw the troops and abandon our "interests" in Iraq?

I fear that - given his limited view of complex geopolitical realities and his history of ignoring his own advisors - George Bush would refuse to acquiesce to the scenario I have laid out above, or any other scenario that doesn't leave Iraq as a de facto American protectorate complete with a carbon copy of the US constitution. Our "interests" in Iraq - which is really another way of saying the interests of big oil companies - would never allow Bush and Cheney - who are, after all, cozilly in bed with the oil companies - to do anything else. And what I fear would follow under a second Bush/Cheney term would be a build up of American troops in Iraq and a deepening quagmire similar to Viet Nam.

It comes down to a difference in philosophy: Kerry believes in the old adage of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, which you only use when absolutely necessary; on the other hand, Bush believes in speaking loudly and swinging his big stick at anyone who doesn't agree with him immediately. What we need now is a man like Kerry who can see and understand the complexities of geopolitics, and who is open to the advice and help of other countries. As the biggest swinging dick on the block, we need to learn how to exert our strength and influence in quieter, gentler ways. After all, when you know that you can always beat up everybody else on the block, you don't really need to. We all - as a country - need to learn to speak more softly. We need to learn to be quiet Americans.