Go forth with the bayonet!

[mikelewis]

The United States is supporting Guatemala in an effort to stop Chavez from winning a seat on council — a platform to voice opposition to what he calls Washington's "imperialist" policies. The U.S. has said that Chavez, whose government maintains friendly ties with North Korea and Iran, would be a disruptive force on the 15-member council.

Chavez, a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, has warned that Washington could attempt to drag out Monday's vote for days, weeks or even years if neither candidate garners the required two-thirds majority to win a seat on the council.

"Go forth with the bayonet! Venezuela is going to the Security Council," said Chavez, encouraging Venezuela's ambassador to the United Nations, Francisco Arias Cardenas, on the eve of the vote.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061016/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_un

I’m not really sure from where Chavez gleaned this turn of phrase. My hunch is that it’s an adaptation from Stonewall Jackson’s famous quote. Of course, it could be homogenous to Venezuela’s revolution but in the context of his statement, ole Stonewalls quote seems just as good a reference as any...

In the First Battle of Bull Run, the battle where Stonewall Jackson earned his infamous moniker, the Union army was pressing hard and a report came in to General Jackson, “General, they are beating us back!" Unperturbed, the General quite calmly replied, “Sir, we will give them the bayonet." It was this statement that inspired one of the Rebel Generals to rally his men around Jackson by pointing to the General and hollering, "Look! There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Rally behind the Virginians!" The Confederates did indeed rally around Stonewall Jackson and they began driving the Union back. As the battle began to turn in favor of the rebels, Jackson ordered his men, “Hold your fire until they're on you. Then fire and give them the bayonet. And when you charge, yell like furies!” The Yankee attack dissipated under the ferocity inspired by Jackson and the Confederates claimed the victory…

The First Battle of Bull Run took place over 140 years ago and it hardly seems fitting to compare it to Chavez’s battle to gain a seat on the U.N. Security Council; however this is what came to my mind when I read his quote, “Go forth with the bayonet!” It seemed a bit extravagant to say something like that about something so meaningless but apparently a great many countries are very concerned about who gains this seat. In fact, the contentious battle over a seat at that impotent table has even caused such a political row in Chile that they have decided to abstain from even casting their vote.

The Bush Administration seems to view this ineffective seat as a prize to be won as well…

Each side accuses the other of buying votes. Venezuela says the United States is threatening small countries with the cutoff of aid if they do not support Guatemala. The U.S. says Chavez's practice of spreading around cut-price oil and direct financial aid is a clear effort to win favor.

The conflict over the UN seat, one of two non-permanent spots on the council reserved for Latin America and the Caribbean, presents Chile and others in the region with a dilemma.

Do they anger the United States, which still has diplomatic and economic levers in the region? Or do they anger Chavez, who happily plays the energy card and unlike President Bush has a strong base of popular support throughout Latin America?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610150354oct15,1,4935847.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

So what is it about this seat that has both Chavez and Bush all in a tizzy? What is it that is driving such magnanimous rhetoric and secret back-door dealings? It isn’t like the Security Council actually provides any security to the world. What good does the Security Council offer the people of the Darfur region of the Sudan? What good did the Security Council offer the people of Lebanon? How effective was the Security Council in addressing Bush’s War in Iraq? Why fight over such a meaningless chair? Why get down and dirty, fighting in the trenches with the bloodiest type of warfare known to man, over something that has done nothing to provide anyone on the Earth any security whatsoever?...

Maybe, just maybe, these other nations believe that, in spite of it’s failures, the promise of the Council and the hope for Security that it was supposed to offer isn’t just words on a piece of paper. Maybe they believe that with the right spirit driving the council, it can act as a force that does fight the good fight and can use it’s powers to right some of the wrongs in the world. Maybe this fight is turning into a symbol of United defiance against unbridled aggression and self-serving hegemony. More than likely it’s just another meaningless battle over a meaningless chair in a building that serves no real purpose but apparently it has become a prize Bush wants and symbol Chavez is willing to fight for.

I’m sure Americans do not really care at all about who gets this seat. Because we are lost in the thrall of another synthetic election or because we are mired in the latest scandal over this or that, America will never notice, nor care, who sits in that seat… But to some world powers, it seems like this insignificant battle has meaning that could have very significant consequences for the future security of our world. That, in and of itself should be reason to take note of this minor battle… if Bush’s proxy loses this seat, this could be viewed as a rejection of U.S. hegemony and a beginning toward a world of diminished U.S. power; if he wins, it will be just another affirmation that our money in Bush’s hands can buy anything.

The First Battle of Bull Run was never intended to be a great battle of the civil war. The Yankee General planned on a limited engagement to take a little town called Manassas Junction and allow his new recruits their first taste of battle. It was only meant to be a taste and a sure victory but when the dust settled, the reality of defeat clarified to both the North and the South that they were now in a very real war and furthermore it created a folk hero around which the South could rally. The Yankee’s lost that battle because they didn't want it bad enough. They weren't prepared for one man who had resolved to fight and who stood up and ordered “Go forth with the Bayonet!” I wonder if we’ll lose this battle as well and if we do, I wonder if that defeat will have any meaning.

[hsher]

1. You must admit, this guy is colorful

Hugo Chavez is interesting to say the least. I bet he studies our history just that closely to have used the quote. I must admit it gave me a knot in my stomach to hear Jon Stewart make fun of him the other week. I thought to myself Jeez Jon, whose side are you on? Scary shades of what Daily Show will be like if we indeed take the House and Senate, then regain a Dem president. It chilled me to the bone hearing Stewart sound damn near conservative like that... shudder :scared:

Hope he never does it again.

[mikelewis]

2. I don't know how to take Chavez either...

While I don't dislike him, I also don't necessarily trust him either. America is too vulnerable right now and that presents a lot of opportunity. I don't believe he's an evil dictator like he's being painted out to be but I worry about his popularity and how that will affect our relationships; not only on the world stage but here in America as well. He claims to be a freind of the American people and has done nothing overtly to discredit that but I worry that the outside forces will look at the division in America and think they can exploit that for thier own ends. Right now, it's only a worry and Chavez has done nothing to promote that fear in my mind but we need to get our house in order before we go looking to solidify freindships. I also thought Jon was being a bit too harsh on Hugo but it didn't bother me too much... differing on a few ideas is healthy and right now, I can stand a bit of rhetorical distance from President Chavez... at least until we've righted our ship.

[hsher]

3. Indeed

>>America is too vulnerable right now

Isn't this scarily true. China and North Korea, for instance, have a long, complex relationship together. Both are very patient peoples with long histories. Both despise the Japanese and share similar reasons, although that doesn't really apply to what I'm about to say - which is:

Here's an imaginative flight of total fancy:

What if China and Pyongyang had a quiet agreement to sacrifice North Korea and its people for one deadly, devastating strike on the U.S., with China coming in from behind our back as we defend ourselves from Pyongyang, and Kim Jong Il promised control of a conquered, formerly prosperous postwar South Korea as payment for the deal? I study Chinese warfare and ancient war strategy, and they are exactly patient and imaginative enough to do this. We are at just the right vulnerable, disunified, fattened and prosperous, sluggish point for them to attempt it, and control what's left of the world afterward. I wrote a screenplay about it just this year.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Every Chinese person in East Asia would be incinerated within 30 minutes,

and I suppose just about every person of Chinese descent in North America would be strung up and disemboweled.

Of course, this is an imaginative flight of fancy to answer yours.

:hide:

[hsher]

5. This will sound weird, but...

... your answer is exactly what happened in my script. Chinese-Americans, in fact all Asians, immediately experienced round-up, imprisonment and execution as war criminals. And they had done nothing wrong. The Chinese were indeed largely incinerated. But a large portion of us were as well.

We lost New York, San Francisco and several other large coastal cities.

A producer who used to work with John Cassevetes loves the script, read it coming back from Amsterdam, and thinks I should try to get it made. The New Mexico Film Office turned it down for funding saying it was too violent, and also cited a gay love story central to the script as their reasoning. It'll cost me about $5-10 million to get it done right. I don't have access to that kind of funding, so the film is in limbo until Cassavetes lady and I meet later this week. We'll see what happens, but I'm not too optimistic...

[Swamp Rat]

6. Good luck!

I hope it gets made someday... so, perhaps, we do not have to experience it.

IMO, keep the gay love story no matter who criticizes it.

[hsher]

8. Definitely. Me too.

And... that Time cover is chillsome. I half expected one like this soon enough, but then they turned around and surprised me with that Elephant Ass cover!

[Swamp Rat]

9. Btw

I come from a long line of ranchers from New Mexico, and I still have property adjacent to White Sands (which used to belong to our family before the Child Bomb experiment and Eminent Domain). Ironically, that area would likely be the safest place during a nuclear exchange with China.

[vickitulsa]

11. Interesting backstory on you, Swamp Rat!

:) Had no idea you have such a remarkable family history in a region some of us think about quite often. May I ask why you say you think it would be the safest place in the event of a nuclear exchange?


I wanted to tell you, btw, that the Ameropithecus Estupidus graphic you posted above -- which is totally brilliant IMO -- must be making it out into the population, because my brother (who isn't an internet denizen at all) mentioned that very term to me a few days ago! When I asked, he didn't recall seeing your creative graphic, but I am sending it to him ... perhaps his memory just needs jogging like my own often does.


I doubt you need the encouragement for this, but do keep up your most excellent work! :hi: You communicate so much very quickly this way, and it sticks in the minds of those who see your creations.

:yourock:

[Swamp Rat]

12. Oh thank you!

This is indeed great news that my pix have reached a wider audience! :bounce: :hug:

I could spend hours writing about the modus operandi behind my work, but maybe I'll save it for publication, if I ever get around to that coffee table book. :D

Honestly, I don't think any place will be safe in a global nuclear exchange - "DUCK, AND COVER!" - but it is less likely China would bomb that part of the desert... though Los Alamos is not too far away, so maybe that area would be affected.

See a PM for the rest. ;)

[vickitulsa]

10. I encourage you to keep pursuing this too -- it sounds like

just the sort of speculative "future horror" that could unfold in the immediate future, so I would think someone in Hollywood or elsewhere like an indie filmmaker could be VERY interested in your screenplay!

Since Hollywood seems to have been the market that kickstarted the major disaster scenario that intrigues so many, beginning about 30 years ago with The Poseidon Adventure, they might want to continue in the subsequent trend that has caught almost everyone up in its relentless push for more feasible (or not so feasible) catastrophes.

I happen to think many of these creative efforts have a very positive value in America and the world today because of the eye-opening warnings inherent in what they present.

You probably know enough to expect demands for a substantial re-write, maybe even by another writer favored by a studio. But I hope you resist the temptation to let anyone pressure you into permitting a lot of compromising on your script.

There's a clarity and purpose in what you've presented here for us that seems to me most insightful, so I'll bet your manuscript reflects that. It deserves protecting -- even if that means you must wait longer and search harder for a backer or a studio!

Of course that's easy for me to say, and you must do what you feel is right for your work. :)

Sounds great, though -- and I wish you the best of luck with your screenplay!

[hsher]

13. Thank you... definitely trying and looking

I used to be quite the handy little screenwriter back in my day. Got tired of being pushed around by producers, and temporarily left the biz. Now political activism is my fave career - that, and of course, my wee Daily Show comic which has taken on a life of its own. There's not a whole lot of room to advance doing a Daily Show parody comic strip, though... about how long before I get that cease & desist letter from Jon Stewart's company, Busboy?

Oh well. In the meantime, I'll continue shopping the script and doing my Stewart doodles. Thanks for the kind encouragement. I'd go see that movie in a heartbeat. That's why I want to shoot it... because I want to go SEE it!

[Avalux]

18. I don't understand your criticism of Stewart in this instance.

Chilled you the bone? Come on. A huge stretch to equate a comedian making fun of Chavez to conservatisism.

[vickitulsa]

7. Intriguing and insightful analysis, Mike!

I'm not sure if you've got the right answer in there among the possibilities, but it seems likely you covered it from one angle or another given the depth and breadth of your thoughtful piece. I find the Stonewall Jackson reference interesting as well.

Good work! And thanks for opening our eyes to the sort of thing Americans rarely seem to understand -- the fierce resistance to U.S. greed and bullying no matter what front it's on or why specifically in any one instance the effort is being made to oppose the U.S. government's will.

Chavez has me sort of stymied as to his ultimate motivations. It's not too hard to see him as a firebrand type who is making an opportunistic name for himself by very publicly defying and even taunting our current (p)Resident. In a sense, it doesn't even matter if this man with some substantial popularity in his own region of the world eventually wins the coveted seat on the Security Council or not, because it's the rhetoric and the challenge to U.S. power that may have the most meaning here.

Might not this seat be contested so fiercely because in one sense and as you say it does NOT have a true significance? That way no matter who wins it, the main event was in the fight and the courage (or gall) to pursue it that Chavez demonstrates, right?

He puts himself on display as a very vocal opponent of the * regime, and how could he NOT be well aware of how such a position will be perceived by the many Bu$h-haters around the globe?

But Chavez's motives and passions may actually lie even deeper than that, and he could be simply utilizing whatever vehicles and events crop up in moving toward a more important underlying goal that we can't be certain about unless he successfully reaches it!

I definitely believe your (and our) time and effort spent questioning the reasons each man involved in this fight over a "meaningless" seat in an ineffective international council is worthwhile. It could turn out that noticing the distinct aroma of a cracked natural gas line in the midst of an earthquake zone that is shaking the world all around us might be what saves a lot of lives in a crucial subplot.

And if that eventuality develops, it's plausible to expect that attention we pay to other similar "cracked pipe" possibilities could prevent even more significant and widespread damage!

You surely have me wondering about it....

[mikelewis]

15. A close freind of mine spent a few years at the Pentagon...

working as a liason officer. His job put him in contact with intelligence that most people are unaware of though not necessarily confidential. I spoke to him about Chavez a while back and he told me that Chavez and Castro were actively involved in covert operations down in Florida and other places in the Southwest. He didn't elaborate on the details to any great degree but the thought of foriegn agents running intelligence operations on U.S. soil was very disturbing to me and enough to get me to question Chavez's motives. Of course this is only hearsay and nothing by which I'd expect anyone else to believe on it's face but my freind is a very reliable source and because of my faith in his integrity, my faith in Chavez is definitely shakey.

I also believe that you're right about the "main event was in the fight and the courage (or gall) to pursue". Our Declaration of Independence refers to the "pursuit of happiness" as our inalienable right not happiness itself. It's the struggle and the manner in which we fight that defines us as a people.

[hfojvt]

14. funny I was thinking of the Paoli massacre

http://www.ushistory.org/March/phila/paoli.htm

"Grey had ordered his men to remove the flints from their rifles before the attack began. Bayonets, — a weapon Americans considered barbaric — would be the weapon of choice.

53 Americans were killed and over 100 wounded in Grey's lightning raid. The use of the bayonet coupled with the notion that the British stabbed or burned the Americans who tried to surrender, made martyrs of those maimed and killed at Paoli."

Interesting to see southerners, and my man Stonewall, using the bayonet - a weapon Americans (or just Yankees?) considered barbaric.

[vickitulsa]

19. "Interesting to see southerners,

... and my man Stonewall, using the bayonet - a weapon Americans (or just Yankees?) considered barbaric."

YES, it is interesting, isn't it?! :)

I wasn't familiar with the Paoli story ... thanks for that info. Intriguing in its own right, and more food for thought on the topic....

[Toots]

16. One of the very first things you learn in the military is the "Spirit of

the Bayonet" What is that "Spirit of the Bayonet"? To Kill

[mikelewis]

17. "We Call It the Army Way of War"

We Call It the Army Way of War

"Against a lot of solid armies, it's necessary to go forth into death ground at bayonet point and kill the other guy, face to face. ... The United States continues to trust in airpower and magical technology, then hopes for the best. It may work. But history offers no particular cause for optimism."

-Army Col. Daniel P. Bolger, author of Death Ground: Today's American Infantry in Battle, quoted in May 1 Newhouse article.

I spent 4 years on active duty and the most terrible and frightening weapon I ever held was my bayonet. An M-60 or M-16 is cold and impersonal, it's death at a distance. The symbol of the bayonet brings death so close, you can smell its breath. I never did like that thing.

[vickitulsa]

20. Appreciate the additional info and sources you've provided.

I see now that you have a special, insider-influenced view on this subject thanks to your liaison friend whose integrity and opinion you trust. That kind of source may not offer documentable data, but it certainly helps you a lot and informs your thinking in a solid way.


My many veteran pals -- most of them from Nam but others too, and including some active duty young'uns who are their kin, talk about bayonets with a certain attitude. When you can get them to talk about their service experiences at all and in some detail, that is.

What I've noticed is that the vets I know seem to have had very personal and unique "relationships" with some of their weapons, but especially the ones they prefer, AND their bayonet, K-bar, or "combat knife."

When it comes down to the basics of weapons craft -- and a bayonet, like a knife, is, after all, VERY basic -- every individual fighter seems to have his own affinity (or lack of it) and perspective. Not too hard to imagine why this is so, and why most of them also seem to have pretty strong emotions about a stabbing or cutting weapon that is used in close-quarter fighting.

A friend of mine years ago who hailed from Prague had a pair of nicely preserved bayonets that had been the property of a German soldier in WWII. They were stolen from my friend in a home invasion, and we always figured the thief was someone who knew him and had seen those bayonets and a few other special keepsakes he liked to show people.

At the beaucoup gun-and-knife shows here in Tulsa, these sorts of weapons draw unique and intent folks who like to inspect the wares close-up ... to hold them in their own hands and check weight, balance, grips, and so on.

I have to wonder if Chavez's intention, or one of his purposes in using the bayonet line in his speech was to evoke some of the emotions and thoughts in others that have resulted? I doubt he just tossed that out without giving it some thought....

My own personal reaction was to consider how deadly serious and boldly "in your face" he was being when he said that -- as he has been a LOT lately.

Thinking about all this, I believe the man may be far more cunning and wily than I've previously recognized, as evidence of his mental agility and his diligent planning (or plotting?) emerges more all the time.

[Toots]

22. and how well did that bayonet fit that M-60 or M-16

They don't even issue them any more. Now you get the "infamous" Survival Knife

[ieoeja]

21. I doubt if that line is from US history.

Given that just about every country in the world has extensive history with the bayonet, I rather doubt his quote has the teeniest bit to do with US history.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Wasn't Stonewall jackson shot by his own troops?