by Ed Palm
We lost a great American on March 7th. To my generation at least, he was great. I’m referring to Joseph Allen McDonald, known to his Vietnam-Generation fans as Country Joe McDonald. He died from complications of Parkinson’s disease at age 84 in his home in Berkeley, California.
Country Joe burst on the scene at Woodstock with his satiric antiwar anthem “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die-Rag.” That song poses the musical question, “What are we fightin’ for?” And Joe’s answer: “Don’t ask me. I don’t give a damn. Next stop is Vietnam.” If you’ve never heard it, Google it. A video of Country Joe’s original Woodstock performance is available on YouTube.
Some readers may be put off by the irreverent mordant irony of the song: i.e., “Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box.” And it is prefaced with a variation of Joe’s inimitable “FISH” cheer. Those infected by the faux patriotism of the MAGA group might forgo it. Likewise those who have bought into the Reaganite revision of ours having been “a noble cause” in Vietnam. The myth persists that prior to the Tet Offensive of 1968 most of the troops were onboard with the cause. I reported to Vietnam in November of 1966 and rotated home in early January 1968—prior to the Tet Offensive. Most of the Marines I knew back then were profoundly skeptical of why we were there. Count me among that lot.
I was privileged to serve in the Corps’ Combined Action Program. Ours was not to search and destroy. Ours was to try to win those elusive hearts and minds out in the countryside—or as Life magazine characterized it in their issue of August 25, 1967, the mission was “to keep a village free.” The Corps stationed squads of Marines, augmented by Navy Corpsmen, in Vietnamese villages to train and patrol alongside village self-defense units known as Popular Forces. I learned firsthand what Graham Greene had tried to tell us in The Quiet American, the seminal novel of the American experience in Vietnam: We were “trying to [fight] a war with the help of people who just [weren’t] interested.”
To say the least, I came back from Vietnam embittered and disillusioned. I was a G.I. Bill student, a freshman at the University of Delaware, when I first heard Country Joe’s “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die-Rag.” It must have been September of 1969. I was at the Deer Park Tavern in Newark, Delaware, when the song came on the jukebox. It immediately struck a resonant chord in me, and the guys I was with called it up twice more in my honor.
I never could have imagined it at the time, but years hence, my path and Country Joe’s would cross. What Joe’s fans back at Woodstock didn’t know was that he was an honorably discharged Navy veteran. I met Joe in 1987 at the University of California, Berkeley. I was the Marine Officer Instructor with Berkeley’s Naval ROTC unit. Joe was organizing a series of events aimed at reconciling those who served with those who had protested the war. It would be called “A Vietnam Film Festival and Arts Fair.”
It just so happened that an arsonist had burned down Berkeley’s Navy and Air Force ROTC building on February 18, 1985. (Just my luck!) And I thought opening a dialogue between ROTC and the campus at large would be a good idea. So with the reluctant permission of my boss, a Navy captain, I attended the organizational meetings for Joe’s project.
During our first meeting, I mentioned to Joe that I had lost one of his albums in the arson fire that destroyed our building. At our next meeting, Joe presented me with a replacement album inscribed, “For Ed Palm, I hope this one doesn’t get burned. Peace and Love, Country Joe McDonald.” I’ll always cherish that album.
In the end, all three ROTC units—Navy, Army, and Air Force—officially ignored Joe’s “Vietnam Film Festival and Arts Fair.” That’s regrettable. It was an opportunity to show students and faculty that we were not war-loving, empty-headed martinets. If I say so myself, I could have been instrumental in that. I’d already gained a reputation as the liberal Marine.
An Afterword. Here’s a variation on one of Wordsworth’s sonnets: Country Joe, you should be singing at this hour! We have need of your satire.
–=≈=–
A former enlisted Marine and a Vietnam veteran, Ed Palm retired from the Marine Corps as a major and went on to an academic career. He lives in Forest, Virginia, and can be contacted at majorpalm@gmail.com.
–=≈=–
Now What?
To the Editor:
Trump’s attack on Iran comes as no surprise. It is entirely consistent with the rash, ego-driven behavior that he has shown throughout his second term. He has consistently acted as an autocrat, ignoring long-established democratic norms and laws, relying on his own erratic whims. When asked what might restrain his actions, Trump replied nothing “but my own mind.” He has threatened to forcibly annex Canada, the Panama Canal and Greenland. He has used the military without due process to destroy boats allegedly carrying drugs. Recently, he has removed the President of Venezuela in a military operation and has now started a war with Iran.
Wars always entail death, injury and destruction. They should never be started on the whim of a single leader. In a democracy, wars must be justified in terms of an imminent threat to the country, and the threat must be specified and communicated to citizens. The strategic objectives of the war must be defined and the means of achieving them specified. Conditions that define the end of the war must be made explicit, and an end game strategy be formulated. It is irresponsible to engage in open-ended destruction of targets without defining what the war is intended to achieve. Additionally, no war should be undertaken without consideration of its possible consequences in human, political, and economic terms. The Trump administration has failed in all these dimensions.
It appears that Trump initiated the war on Iran on a whim without prudent consideration of the consequences of his action. His press secretary has said that Trump decided to launch the attack while his emissaries were engaged in negotiations because he had a “feeling” that Iran was going to attack first. Unfortunately, his feeling did not provide insight into potential downsides of the war. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz through which 20 percent of the global supply of crude oil is shipped. The strait has been closed since the first day of the war with the result that crude oil and gasoline prices have skyrocketed. The longer the strait is closed, the greater the disruption will be. Iran is proving not to be the pushover that Venezuela was and has recently attacked tankers, refineries and fuel depots around Hormuz indicating that they view the war as nowhere near being done. The implications for long-term inflation and economic disruption are dire.
Global commerce has become a vast, interconnected system, and the blowback from the closure of Hormuz will affect several products other than gasoline. For example, the Mideast’s natural gas and petroleum refining byproducts are used in the production of approximately one-third of globally used fertilizers. Just as farmers are preparing fields for spring planting, fertilizer prices have skyrocketed, guaranteeing that we will see higher food prices in the fall. Expect to see sustained inflation across dozens of other products due to the closing of Hormuz.
The war is estimated to be costing the U.S. one billion dollars per day which will require a large addendum to defense spending that will be funded through Treasury debt. This comes at a time when U.S. Treasury bonds are under pressure from global investors because of our current large national debt. The likely result will be an increase in Treasury Bond interest rates to attract wary investors. Higher bond costs will increase the costs of servicing the debt and cause even more inflation as the price of mortgages and car loans will rise.
Trump’s hubris has led him to underestimate Iranian resolve and believe that a war will be won easily. His air war is unlikely to result in immediate regime change without boots on the ground as demonstrated by the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader. The revolution expected to depose the Ayatollahs does not appear to have the grass roots organization that could quickly topple the current regime. As long as the Revolutionary Guards control Hormuz, Trump is faced with an unpopular long-term military campaign while the world suffers an economic calamity. National emergency anyone?
Robert D. Russell, Ph.D.
Harrisburg, Pa.
Robert:
Fittingly, considering the year, we could swear that we could hear, while reading your first paragraph, echoes of the “facts submitted to a candid world” in the Declaration of Independence.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Were We All Born Yesterday?
Dear Sir:
Most Americans are not familiar with the history of the United States and our involvement with horrible human rights violations that we helped create and support in Iran. While we have been well versed on the human rights abuses of the Islamic Clerics who have ruled Iran since 1979, the previous history has been erased from our memory. However, those abuses have not been erased from the memory of many Iranians.
The United States took the leading role in a 1953 covert operation, called Operation Ajax, whereby CIA-funded agents were used to foment unrest inside Iran by way of the harassment of religious and political leaders and a media disinformation campaign. In August 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh and his government were overthrown in a CIA-supported coup d’etat. As a result, the U.S. supported Mohammad Reza, known as the Shah of Iran, who returned to power. The Shah greatly expanded the military and turned it against his own people. It is estimated that over 50,000 Iranians who opposed the Shah were murdered by the army. (Harvard Crimson, December 6, 1979) The Shah ruled until the Islamic revolution in 1979, and the legacy of his abuses has fueled the hatred toward America ever since.
In the current war with Iran, it has been the hope of the Trump admiration that the Iranian people would rise up against the terror inflicted on them by the Islamic clerics. Unfortunately, that has not happened for a number of reasons. First, the Iranian people do not trust America because of our previous history supporting the Shah, who was as brutal a dictator as the current leadership. Second, they see our one-sided support for Israel to be against their national interests. And third, when American bombs and missiles kill children in schools, kill innocent civilians, and destroy many sacred religious and historical sites, it eliminates any good will Iranians had toward America, but rather creates anger and hatred against America and gives support to the current government.
While the reality of the current situation and our historical record in Iran might be inconvenient for many, it is important for us to accept this reality. Like in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Rich DiPentima
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
At first blush it seems preposterous to imagine that most Americans are unaware that our own government set this vast tragedy in motion more than 70 years ago. Then we recall how surprised we were, on landing in Vietnam in 1967, that the U.S. government had been trying to prop up France’s colonial government there just 13 years earlier.
We are currently up to our necks in what the inaptly-named “intelligence community” calls “blowback.” [“The unintended consequences and unwanted side-effects of a covert operation.” – Wikipedia]. It’s not comfortable reading, but Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback trilogy goes a long way towards explaining how we got into this mess.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Social Circle: Small Town, Big Prison
Dear Editor:
March 14’s New York Times has a two-page spread picturing plans for an 8,500-occupant detainment center to handle ICE captives in Social Circle, Georgia. “At over a million square feet, it would be larger than any single jail or prison building in America.” A sickening possibility. Human ingenuity used for this? Business profit made like this? Details: 2/3 used for pods and 1/3 for administration. First-floor layout shows 5000 people in 80 pods. One hour daily recreation in small space. The density of detainees will “need a huge amount of ventilation.” “At least some interior walls should be solid.” Department of Homeland Security’s recent structures with chain-link fence walls let outbreaks of measles and COVID spread.
Social Circle construction will start “as early as mid-May,” taking 60 to 75 days. Anyone in this inhumane scheme claim a conscience? Anyone in this shameful scheme show love to family and friends? Every WWII movie about Hitler’s cooperative Germans comes to mind. A new Swedish documentary, “The Swedish Connection,” about a diplomat who quietly saves thousands of Jewish lives from death camps, is on Netflix and reflects on our U.S.A. now. Watch it.
Lynn Rudmin Chong
Sanbornton, N.H.
Lynn:
Not to be cynical or anything, but we’d bet a significant chunk of townsfolk are talking this up as a great boon for the local economy.
The Editor
–=≈=–
Trump’s Bogus Talking Points
To the Editor:
We all plow through a lot of media: videos, talking heads, columns, internet, ads, talk shows…. I have a great way to save you time sorting through this barrage: the use of certain phrases shows the people talking/writing/bloviating don’t know what they’re talking about. If they use one of these phrases, you can tune them out, with zero loss.
For example, “Biden’s Open Border.” If someone uses this phrase, they’re just spouting propaganda. Some actual facts: from the BBC, Dec. 24, 2024, “U.S. deportations under Biden surpass Trump’s record;” and from NPR on Dec. 20, 2024, “deportations hit a 10-year high in 2024.” Biden did not have an “Open Border.” The term “Open Border” is an open lie.
“The Liberal Media.” The right wing claims that the media is controlled by liberals. The exact opposite is true: most media, of all types, radio, TV, newspapers, internet (think X) is owned by right wing owners. The phrase “Liberal Media” comes with a complete right wing bias.
“The Stolen Election,” referring to Trump’s loss in 2020. Trump and millions of his avid supporters talk about “the stolen election” all the time. But, talk is cheap, proof costs. In over one hundred court cases (you know, where you actually have to prove something not just spout off) the claim of a stolen election was unanimously rejected.
So, don’t bother to read stuff with these bogus phrases, it will be hogwash. There, I’ve saved you some time.
Michael Frandzel
Portsmouth, N.H.
–=≈=–
Ecumenical GOP Bigotry
To the Editor:
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) recently posted on social media that “Muslims don’t belong in American society.”
Similarly, in February, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) wrote on X: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has declined to condemn these comments, asserting, “I’ve spoken to those members and all members, as I always do, about our tone and our message and what we say.”
Anti-Arab racism receives little pushback in our country. Imagine the furor if the word “Jews” was substituted for “Muslims” in these statements.
Bigotry against any faith community undermines the principles our nation claims to uphold. History shows where such dehumanization leads. Both citizens and elected leaders must insist that dignity and equality belong to all Americans, without exception.
Terry Hansen
Grafton, Wisconsin
Terry:
Not only are Ogles and Fine bigots, they don’t understand America. What makes it, if not “Great” in current parlance, then at least worthy of respect, is that citizenship is no accident of birth, creed, or religion, but based on adherence to the Constitutional concept that all of us are equal.
The Editor
–=≈=–
The Cold War Viewed as a Good War
Dear Editor:
I read W.D Ehrhart’s column “Do Not Thank Me for My Service” with great interest. It made me reflect on my 28 years of military service from 1967-1995. I served during the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the first Gulf War. Thankfully, I was never sent to a combat zone during my years of service.
I can understand and appreciate Mr. Ehrhart’s reasoning for not wanting to be thanked for his service, which he believes never really protected our country and only did harm and caused suffering to people who never could or would hurt us. For all the wars and other military interventions Mr. Ehrhart mentioned, he is absolutely correct. I also do not wish to be thanked for any part I might have played in contributing to the harm and suffering they caused. However, I have one exception for which my service might deserve some recognition and thanks for.
That exception involves the Soviet Union and the so-called “Cold War” that existed from the end of WWII to the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 1990’s. I think that it could be reasonable to consider that the Soviet Union actually did pose a threat to America and the American people as well as our allies. While it is insane that both the U.S., the Soviets, and now Russia, among others, maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons—that is a reality. As unfortunate as that was, that reality demanded that the U.S. maintain a military force capable of providing a deterrent against any Soviet attack on our nation or our allies. If my service or the service of any other member of the military, including Mr. Ehrhart, helped to prevent a nuclear war by contributing to that deterrent, then we do deserve some thanks for that, and only that.
Rich DiPentima
Portsmouth, N.H.
Rich:
By “Cold War” we presume you mean the “Great Patriotic Crusade to Protect Capitalism Against the Greed of Serfdom.”
The Editor
–=≈=–
Tariffs: A Lose-Lose Proposition
To the Editor:
Trump’s tariffs have once again come into national focus following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the duties issued under the National Emergency Act are unconstitutional. What have we learned about the effects of the Trump tariffs during the past year?
Although the President persists that tariffs are paid by exporting countries, the evidence reveals this claim to be false. Tariffs are indeed a tax. Recent studies by Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve have shown that the cost of Trump’s tariffs have been borne primarily by the American consumer in the form of price increases while a small percentage has been absorbed by American businesses. Estimates are that the average family will pay approximately $1,000 extra this year because of Trump’s tariffs. This burden will disproportionally affect working class families rather than the financial elites.
Trump alleges that tariffs reduce the trade deficit and bring manufacturing jobs back to America. Neither claim has been borne out. The American consumer’s demand for imported goods has not abated. Although the trade deficit with China has decreased, the overall goods deficit hit a record high in 2025. Global corporations and Chinese manufacturers have been adept at transferring their products to supply chains outside of China, masking their origin in China, but not reducing the overall deficit. Trade deficits with Vietnam, Mexico, Taiwan and India were among the highest on record. Moreover, small businesses have borne the brunt of tariffs more so than large corporations. Multinational companies have the resources and bargaining power to reduce the damages of tariffs. They can spread their impact among large, diverse product lines and, as mentioned above, find alternate supply chains that reduce tariff impacts. Small businesses have neither financial nor informational resources to avoid tariffs and have little option but to pass on the costs to consumers.
Regarding manufacturing jobs, although there has been a slight increase in employment by U.S. steel producers, manufacturers lost approximately 108,000 jobs in 2025. Increased employment in steel production was more than matched by job losses by steel fabricators who import steel and aluminum parts and components. Tariffs on imported components have driven up fabricators’ costs and prices so that job losses in the industry exceed job gains by steel producers. For example, in a recent New York Times article a forklift manufacturer claimed that it was cheaper to import a forklift manufactured in Asia and pay the tariff on the completed product rather than pay the tariffs on the imported components and assemble them in the U.S.
There are economic justifications for tariffs. They can be effective retaliation for unfair trade practices or to protect critical industries but, in either case, they must be applied in a targeted, strategic manner. Trump’s chaotic, capricious application of tariffs provides few economic benefits while disrupting international trade and alienating allies. There is seemingly no overall plan in his application of tariffs beyond his whims and personal aggrandizement. He wields tariffs like a Mafia Don, rewarding his allies or punishing his enemies. He has boasted that he increased Swiss tariffs because he did not like the tone of the Swiss President in a telephone conversation. Such arbitrary use of tariffs provides no economic benefit and only alienates allies and trade partners. Moreover, he has reduced or eliminated tariffs for companies owned or managed by cronies or supporters, creating the appearance of crony capitalism at the least or outright corruption at the worst. Trump has lowered the U.S. to the level of a Banana Republic in the eyes of the world. His tariff policy is as disorganized as his mind. It is time for Congress to take away the tariff tool from the spoiled child in the White House.
Robert D. Russell, Ph.D.
Harrisburg, Pa.
Robert:
Thank you. Such a calm and well-reasoned analysis of tariffs—an important, if recently-overlooked front in Trump’s broader de facto war against America. Would that we had a fraction of your self-control.
You briefly touched on “the appearance of crony capitalism at the least or outright corruption at the worst” inherent in Trump’s use of tariffs. We would like to emphasize the fact that rapid and arbitrary imposition of tariffs provides those with inside information a splendid opportunity to reap windfalls.
To be fair, we must acknowledge that there is one thing preventing the president and his inner circle from raking in illicit profits: Trump calls it “My own morality.”
The Editor