Sartre's essay on Vietnam is close and personal to me. My father was drafted to go to Vietnam in 1964. He received his draft notification after he finished high school. He was part of the initial draft after the Gulf of Tonkin incident. His tour was finished in 1966. Relating what he tells me both in the United States, and in Vietnam, Sartre certainly makes some pretty accurate claims. If I could speak for my father, I do not think he would disagree. With that being said, Vietnam has been an interest, and Sartre's essay certainly misses, but at the same time, hits the mark concerning the American war with Vietnam.

Sartre begins his essay with a brief account of genocide. He asks the question in relation to genocide if the Americans had an implicit aim of the act. But before that, we must understand that the Vietnam war was a proxy war. Despite the rhetoric, the Cold War was a revolving dance of death between two superpowers who mobilized their citizenry to support harsh and brutal measures against innocent peoples in the domain of what they perceived to be within their legitimate global interests. This is why it is no surprise that Sartre claims that capitalist societies were engaged in the process of giving birth to total war which expresses their true nature.

The claim that capitalism is a total war, and this is its essence, is more or less accurate. Capital, in classical Marxism must always expand insofar to new markets and to create new commodities. Capital presupposes an empty space that is open for which it can grow and spread. Yet, the space for which it can grow is never empty. People, environment, societies, culture, etc generally impede its growth. As a result, I think Sartre uses capitalism as a total war in a two fold manner. The first is that capital in creating new markets and commodities cannot have an outside. Capital is totalizing insofar that nothing can escape it. For if it does this is loss in wealth, and the sphere of new needs and wants. Culture, people, society and environment all must become a market under the umbrella of capital. The second use of total war is that capital is essentially one. American capital, Canadian capital, French, Russian, Iraqi, Bosnian capital are a network of homogeneous unity. With wealth transcending borders, and investment being infinitude throughout society, capital cannot be seen as unique, singular or individual. Rather capital is like a spider web. If you pull on one section, various other sections will be effected. Thus, this second meaning of total is that total of one.

Sartre claims that colonization cannot take place without the systematic elimination of the distinctive features of the native society. The consequence is the colonized people lose their identity, culture and custom. I agree with Sartre, however Vietnam was not a colonization experiment. Vietnam was imperial, but not imperialism. Imperialism is when the state organizes a design for conquest, pillage, and slavery. That was never the case. It was imperial however insofar that the expansion of capital must spread into Indo-China. As I argued before, since capital is not designated to a state boundary, it can not be seen within state terms. The state actors is largely irrelevant for the expansion of capital, even though it will not be irrelevant to the individual (or groups) in the trenches. I recall my father saying to me countless times that he knew exactly why he was there. He was not there to defend Vietnam, or the United States against Chinese and Soviet expansion. He was there as a consequence of economic policy.

With that being said, I think Sartre makes a great point of people being stripped of any personal, custom, culture, language, etc because of capital colonization. Since capital must expand into every conceivable aspect of society, every aspect of society will mirror capital. Capital is not only a form of obtaining wealth, but it is a mode of production. Social institutions such as education, the hospital, the barracks, the military, the prison, will mimic one another in relation to the mode of production. The school for example runs like a factory. The school is regulated by a time table. People are systematically controlled in order to regulate their bodies (when they can, and cannot go to the bathroom). Rows are set up to be observed from an authority, be it a manager or teacher. Its compartmentalized in accord to their specific function. Be it, the philosophy department is distinct from the political science department. The process is to discipline groups of people in accord to the mode of production, which in turn strips any unique individuality and leaves only a docile body which has the function to produce, consume and obey. Thus, Sartre is completely correct to say that genocide is the intentional act of eliminating peoples, culture, heritage, language, etc, since capital primary function is to be one with no other, or exception.

Nevertheless, genocide cannot reach complete destruction or elimination of a people provided if they preform a function. If they do not preform a function, then elimination is inevitable. An example would be the North American indigenous people. Sartre rightly perceives that if you completely eliminate the social body, or a people, you paradoxically harm yourself. As a result of this, capital must reduce as far as possible the social body for certain set functions. Be it, to be productive, and to consume. In sum, man must be stripped to the bare minimum without reaching the point of death.

Sartre also makes a statement that, “the colonial armies were powerless against partisans backed by the entire population”. This is a critical insight that Sartre picks up on, and Che Guevara makes explicit in his documents of guerrilla warfare. For the United States, to eliminate the people's war, you must eliminate the people. Interesting enough the United States found itself not in an environment which was unfamiliar, a typical apologist statement, but in a war that was not localized, centered, or hierarchical. The head so to speak could not be cut off. Currently the US is fighting another war with a similar structure, the Al-Qaeda network. Like Al-Qaeda, The Viet-Cong was structured among networks with no head, or sovereign territory. As a result, as Sartre rightly perceives every Vietnamese becomes suspect, and every Vietnamese will be killed because it is Vietnamese. Interesting enough, this relates back to my father's statement when he told me that he did not know what he was doing, but he knew that he would shoot at anything with “slanted eyes”.

Since all is suspect, bombs become indiscriminate and all become fused together. This can be seen with random carpet bombs, and burning of whole villages. This strategy nevertheless, is based on an environmental model. The United States realized that the enemy was not localed or centered. Success then is not cutting the head off, but destroying the totality of what supports it, be it, the social, environmental, physical, etc. Take away the water and the fish will die. Because of the counterinsurgency was a network with no center, highly complex and unknowable, the environmental model spreads wider and more indiscriminate. As a result, it was inevitable that bombings were going to spread to Cambodia and Laos.

Another interesting point Sartre points out is the statement, “the national group known as 'Vietnam' is not physically eliminated, yet it no longer exists: it has been economically, politically and culturally suppressed”. Sartre further elaborates “that destruction – unless it is total – will always be in effectual”. These two statements are mutually bound. It has been well documented that Vietnam as a cultural and historical entity was almost extinct, and no aspect of Vietnam escaped that wrath of the American military machine.

After the realization that the United States was going to lose the Vietnam war, the escalation of death and destruction had to be the only logical conclusion. To be effective the war had to become total simply because if it did not, some aspects of Vietnam could escape and be used for Soviet and Chinese exploitation. For the United States this is not a possibility. Its the theory of if I cannot have it, nobody can have it. Nevertheless, Sartre claims that while Vietnam as a historical and cultural entity had to be eliminated, it is, and Sartre is one of the few individuals I have read to claim that Vietnam was a partial victory for the United States. Be it, he does not say it explicitly.

Sartre claims that “Vietnam is not physically eliminated, yet it no longer exist”, implicitly claims that Vietnam was a partial victory for the United States or even a smashing success. Granted the major aims of Vietnam were not achieved, insofar a market outlets, but the minor victories were magnificent. First of all, there was a huge massacre. Four or five million in total. The land was devastated. People can no longer farm. There is countless unexploded ordinance lying around to randomly blow up. Its social and economic development was completely destroyed, and will never be a model for anybody else. In sum, nothing that could be useful can be used. Vietnam cease to function, or in other words, it no longer exists.

Since Vietnam no longer exist, and cease to have a function, it becomes a black mark on the global map where capital and interference can no longer go. That essentially means that capital steaming off the United States or the Soviet Union can exploit its resources. Since neither superpower can exploit the material resources, everyone goes back to zero, and no harm is done. Be it, harm to the two superpowers. Neither the United States, nor the Soviet Union gained an advantage. As a result, they simply move to another area of the global map where they perceive to be their legitimate interest and start over.

Sartre does have some critical insight in regards to this essay, most notably how genocide is to be thought of. Generally, in contemporary society, genocide refers to the elimination of a people of race. However, this definition certainly is too restrictive for Sartre. He claims that the deliberate attacks on the civilian population, hospitals, schools, churches, language, culture, psychological affects and heritage, all results in a form of genocide, insofar genocide is elimination of the other. This is certainly true, but we certainly could never apply that as a strict criteria. If we did, we would have to assume that ever state, or capital as a system of economics and mode of production is essentially genocide.

If genocide is the deliberate elimination of race, culture, etc in a systematic procedure to create a single totality, then the nation-state system is guilty of genocide. The nation-state system essentially encompasses a segment of people who are arbitrarily born and place them under an aegis of uniformity. This principle to conform to a single rule or standard within state system comes in many forms. Generally, they come under the novel themes of nationalism, or patriotism. Other forms include citizenry. I am an American. My class, my gender, my thoughts are all secondary. Likewise, the multitude of peoples who are themselves unique situational singularities are imposed with citizenry. This citizenry imposes certain duties. When George Bush tells his people to be fruitful and multiply it should only be in regards to the citizen's duty to the state in order to perpetuate the state system. Likewise, through modern bureaucracy, and social institutions that mirror one another both in form and function, essentially eliminates thinking, creativity, motive, uniqueness, freedom and individuality and creates a mass of uniform people with the same thoughts, desires, wants, and needs. Hence, a social-factory for state production. As a result, genocide is in degrees. It comes in the form of death, but as well as State homogeneity.