Politics by Barbara_Donnelly_Lane
Thoughts about tolerance - and breastfeeding
December 12, 2013 03:30 PM | 39125 views | 0 0 comments | 1194 1194 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

view as list
The Pitfalls of Political Withdrawals: Remembering the Hmong
by Barbara_Donnelly_Lane
December 19, 2011 10:42 AM | 1742 views | 3 3 comments | 76 76 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

     As our flags go down over Iraq and surge troops pack to leave Afghanistan, I cannot help but think about that other war to which our current entanglements in the Middle East are so often compared.   I especially worry that while President Barrack Obama is keeping campaign promises to antiwar activists that the United States might inadvertently inflict damage on allies who must continue to live in regions we evacuate long after we’re gone.  After all, this is exactly what happened to the Hmong in Laos after Vietnam.  To add insult to injury, not only were these allies abandoned for political reasons, most Americans have never even heard of them. 

     Even so, originating in the mountainous regions of China, the tribal Hmong people have a long history that extends more that 2,000 years.  They moved south to escape brutal Chinese oppression at the beginning of the 19 th century.  There they were subject to new influences, as Laos became a French protectorate in 1893. In the first half of the 20 th century, Hmong clans would fall on different sides of the “Free Lao” movement, which would further complicate their modern history. 

     Regardless, in 1961, one of these Hmong factions led by Vang Pao, a Royal Lao Army officer, answered the call of the CIA under President John F. Kennedy to open a secret front designed to resist the advance of communism. Armed by the United States to be guerillas in Laos and working as spies who gave safe haven to American pilots shot down over the jungle, these Hmong valiantly fought for American interests for more than a decade.

     Unfortunately, the Hmong decision to ally with the United States would prove to be a costly one.  Apparently unconcerned about the consequences that were inevitable for any American allies abandoned in the region, Congress stopped funding the war effort in Vietnam in 1975.  For many of the Hmong, this political action of “friends” in Washington meant exile or death was soon to follow.  

     In fact, many Hmong were simply shot and killed by the triumphant Pathet Lao communists. Soldiers who had served with Vang Pao were sent to “re-education” centers where they suffered through hard labor and starvation. Hmong peasants who remained in the hills were (and are) subjected to political indoctrination “seminars” and forced labor collectivization. 

     All of this gave rise to refugee camps that still exist on the Thai border, which is where I first encountered the Hmong.  In the 21 st century, those Hmong who are in these camps live in a perpetual no man’s land without hope of entering Thai society, kept under tight military scrutiny, and frightened of taking their children back to Laos. 

     For this reason, many Hmong are still granted political asylum to live in the United States, and there is even a Hmong community in the Atlanta area.  In light of our current withdrawals, it’s ironic that Vang Pao, the complicated but revered leader of the Hmong who continued to work for his people while in exile, just passed away in 2011. 

     Of course, I know the United States can never leave troops in any one country forever, and President George W. Bush created our withdrawal date in Iraq.  However, I cannot help but be concerned about the political machinations that seem to have infiltrated military decisions in the Middle East because I know—while liberals at home may think they’re doing something wonderful for the people we leave behind—if we are not careful, we will create new misery and hardship for those who bravely partnered with us to build better futures in their countries.  To prove this point I only need to remember the Hmong. 

comments (3)
view/post comments
Oliver G. Halle
December 20, 2011
I sympathize with Barbara's concern for the Hmong and her concerns for a post-Iraq without U.S. troops there to defend the likely civil unrest and religious conflict. But the U.S. has a long history of abandoning our friends, and Obama should not be singled out or blamed for keeping the agreement of his predecessor to withdraw. George H.W. Bush abandoned the Kurds and the Shiities following the first Gulf War after he promised them support for overthrowing Saddam. Eisenhower (one of my favorite 20th century presidents) gave tacit support to the the Hungarians in 1956---until the Soviets came in with tanks. The Prague Spring of 1968 ended badly, too, when our government provided assistance to the underground movement and then pulled the plug.

We can not stay in Iraq forever. Our military is already overextended and adding significantly to our deficits and national debt. England, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and the Soviet Union, among other nations, all went broke from their overseas military commitments. Perhaps if we had a draft (and lowered the cost of paying our volunteer force), Americans would view some of our military ventures a little differently. Perhaps too, if we were more selective about when and where to get involved, we would be in a better position to keep our commitments to those that support their causes and ours.

Talking with the Taliban?
by Barbara_Donnelly_Lane
November 16, 2011 03:47 PM | 2361 views | 4 4 comments | 73 73 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Rising to prominence in the wake of a power vacuum after years of devastating war in the late twentieth century, the Taliban derives its name from a plural version of the Arabic word talib or student because it was first controlled by disaffected youths educated in Pakistani madrassas.

An extremist group of radical Islamist militants, the Taliban has forced members of minority religions within Afghanistan to wear tags to identify themselves as non-Muslims, instituted medieval punishments such as stoning and amputation for petty crimes, outlawed free speech and education for women who are now treated by Taliban men as less than chattel, sanctioned murder, and reigned with uplifted fists closed as iron tight around guns as any Nazi fascist’s in the dark days of Hitler. The Taliban has openly harbored terrorists, killed American soldiers, and brutalized local populations with a totalitarian mindset focused on restoring an absolutist (and ideally global) caliphate in which human rights are secondary to an ideology built upon a terrifying zealotry.

Yet President Obama announced as part of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, our country is about to “reconcile [with] the Afghan people, including the Taliban.” Furthermore, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that, “You end wars, unfortunately, by talking with people whose interests and values are very much opposite of yours."


Is it common practice to leave a political entity with different interests and values, which many in the United States consider evil, standing in a country after they have been brought militarily to their knees? If so, why bother to go to war to topple them from power in the first place? Why did we follow a policy of deNazification after World War II? Why did Allied powers occupy Japan for seven years after an unconditional surrender that required a new constitution be written? How were those countries rebuilt in a more Western image when we certainly did not initially share the same ideals?

I understand that Afghanistan is a complex and multilayered political problem for the Obama administration. The years of war under Bush were no less frustrating. I also must acknowledge we have achieved part of our mission by destabilizing al-Qaida in the region and killing Osama bin Laden. However, if we are to claim any moral authority — or to seek any long-term solutions in what has long been a troubled country — it seems nonsensical to pretend the Taliban, which can’t be ignored ever again, can be moderated now through diplomacy.

Rather, if any move towards freedom or enlightenment or human dignity is ever to be made — those things we portend to uphold — a malicious group like this one, which is not even as old as I am, must be disabled, disbanded, destroyed before it takes deeper root. Period.  

comments (4)
view/post comments
November 23, 2011
Afghanistan is not and never has been a "nation" in the strictist meaning of the word. It's a hodge podge of scores of backward tribes with feuds dating back centuries. The people have zero concept of nationhood and don't care about it. We're negotiating with cavemen who possess RPGs.

The U.S. never should have gone in with a counter insurgency strategy and a big military footprint. The solution isn't to wipe out the Taliban. They or groups like them will be there years after we're gone. The solution is to pack up, tell the Afghan "leaders" we are watching with drones overhead all the time, then leave.

page 1 .. 2 3 
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides