Opinion LOSE? What Do You Mean, LOSE? By Douglas Lummis	フレームで見る  英文をプリントする  脚注をプリントする
「アメリカが負ける？　何言ってるんだ？」 60年代、ベトナム戦争に反対だったアメリカ人もまさか自国が負けるとは思っていなかった。だがアメリカは負けた。そして今、イラクで…。

Berkeley, California, c. 1966. A group of students is sitting in the campus coffee shop, talking about the war. They are all critical of what the U.S. is doing in Vietnam, and are taking turns saying so.

"Did you see this picture in today's paper? That's what happens to a village when you drop napalm on it." "Did you read what McNamara said yesterday? The man's an idiot!" "It's grotesque. All that technology, against a people that has nothing. I hear Vietnam even imports nails!"

There is a British student there, listening quietly. After a while he speaks up, with a slight, apologetic smile: "America is going to lose, you know." There is stunned silence, followed by a chorus of voices: "LOSE! What do you mean, LOSE? America doesn't LOSE WARS." "Look at the weapons we have. Tanks, artillery. Fighters, B52 bombers. Helicopters with gatling guns. Napalm." "And nukes. Don't forget the nukes."

The British fellow had skilfully touched the Americans' weak point. For them, saying the war was wrong was permissible. But being told by a foreigner that America was going to lose was upsetting. While they had begun to doubt their country's virtue, they still had faith in its power.

But the Britisher was right: America lost.

This scene keeps coming up in my memory these days, because we are in a similar situation. Most Americans are again imagining their country is invincible, apparently forgetting that they lost a war just a few decades ago and unaware that they are losing one again.

It's true, given the economic and military power the country possesses, it almost seems a contradiction to put together the words "America ＝loses," rather like saying "fire ＝ freezes." But it happened then, and is happening now.

On my desk is a newspaper with the photograph of L. Paul Bremer, who had been head of the Occupation in Iraq, "handing over sovereignty" to the Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. "Sovereignty" in this case takes the form of a blue folder, which Bremer literally "hands over" to Allawi. This "transfer of sovereignty," which should be a major public event in a country's history, was held in secret and was attended by six people. After it was over, Bremer boarded a helicopter and left the country - happy, one supposes, to get out alive.

For contrast, think of the time the U.S. "handed over sovereignty" to Japan: the huge San Francisco Peace Conference of 1951.

But you can't hand over something you don't have. America never achieved sovereignty in Iraq. Sovereignty is not a blue folder. A government has sovereignty when it is accepted - enthusiastically is best, but reluctantly will do - as legitimate by the people over which it governs. The U.S. never achieved this in Iraq. The 138,000 U.S. troops, we hear, are barricaded inside their bases, and rarely go outside because it's dangerous. And the danger is not decreasing. The war continues. In the U.S. the public debate a year and a half ago was, "Where will the U.S. invade next?" Today it has shifted to "How can we get out of this mess without losing too much face?"

The strangest spectacle in the story is the Koizumi government scrambling to get on board this sinking ship.

Shukan ST: July 23, 2004

(C) All rights reserved