[Leica] Photos of War Dead

[Marc James Small <msmall@infionline.net>]

At 09:05 AM 11/16/03 -0800, Eric Welch wrote:
>That isn't how it happened. Listen to the reporters who were covering 
>the war for the Washington Post and New York Times and you see a 
>different picture. David Halberstam and his colleagues went over there 
>fully supporting the war as a way to contain communism. They were 
>convinced by the grunts that the war was un-winnable and that the 
>leadership were not telling the truth about body counts and other 
>aspects of the war (see Gulf of Tonkin).
>
>Of course, as the war drug on things changed. Walter Cronkit's coverage 
>of the Tet Offensive and his conclusion that he explained on the air 
>that the war was a mistake caused a lot of the public to shift their 
>attitudes. Researchers have actually traced that moment as the point 
>where the war effort began to lose steam.
>
>It all depends on perspective. I agree with you, that it was probably a 
>good thing that the media made the war's costs clear to the American 
>people, and that they pressured the government to stop and pull out. 
>That's what democracy is about. And the grumbling to this day by our 
>Military strategic thinkers (I learned that covering the Army's Command 
>College at Fort Leavenworth) that it was the media's fault we lost that 
>war\ is the perfect example of why the US puts civilians in charge of 
>the military.
>
>It might take some time, but eventually our system is self-correcting.

Eric

Several points.

First, I recognize that you are a proponent of "advocacy journalism" and I
trust that you recall that I am not.  Thus, I do not want a media which is
waving around the axes it intends to grind but, rather, wish the most
unbiased and neutral coverage I can get, coverage without cheap shots at
emotionalism and the like.  There IS a place for advocacy journalism in
fringe publications with a known political slant, such as THE DAILY WORKER
or THE NATIONAL REVIEW, but the takeover of the "mainstream" media over the
past sixty years by those claiming neutrality while advancing a political
or social agenda has not done this country any good at all.  (This
situation is exacerbated, of course, by the shift to broadcast media with
its emphasis on "immediacy" and "shock value".  There has been extensive
research into jury composition, for instance, which shows that convictions
are substantially likely if, say, a Black becomes involved in a firearms
incident than if a white guy does the same -- and my own trial experience
bears this out, as well.  The public who goes home and gets the pulse of
society from those "film at 11" guys never thinks too deeply on the
editorial approach of the broadcast media.)  Democracy, to this committed
citizen of the Great Republic, is NOT about the existence of a biased press
pressuring for its own agenda to become adopted.  It is about an electorate
selecting those who will make decisions based upon the popular welfare as
each voter believes it to be.

Second, Tet was a major victory for the US, as the Viet Cong was wiped out
by our vigorous and appropriate response.  From 1968 to 1975, almost all
hostile forces in the RVN were DRVN mainline units infiltrated south.  The
US did not properly exploit this victory, it is true, in large part from
the reality that 1968 was an election year and the outgoing Johnson
administration was attempting not to embarrass things for Hubert Humphrey's
campaign.

Third,  I recognize the role that Cronkite played in shaping US public
opinion during his two decades at CBS Evening News.  But, to be fair, the
US electorate continued to support the war until the end.  Some polls
simply asked a yes/no question, and, yes, those polls show US support
falling.  But the polls which asked more sophisticated queries, such as
Harris, which included discrimantors such as, "should the US a)do more to
win the Viet-Nam War?  b) do the same as it is doing now?  or c) pull out?"
found that the citizenry wanted the US to "win" in Viet-Nam but did not
want the US to continue to have young men killed for no discernible
purpose.  This factor was especially true among those most likely to vote,
as shown by the 1968 Presidential Election.

Fourth, you must not have spent much time covering the Command and General
Staff College.  I am both a graduate of their Command and Staff Course and
both a former instructor and Adjunct Faculty member.  They certainly DO
stress a lot of the problems with Viet-Nam in their coursework, especially
the necessity for high commanders to know when to tell the civilians their
personally held "best assessments" instead of simply saying, "can do, sir!"
to the President, as the JCS did at the time of Tonkin Gulf.  You probably
should read ON STRATEGY, a work that was long required reading at C&GS and
whcih is still highly recommended.  (The ethics block, now taught in the
earlier "CAS-Cubed" course, includes a block on GEN Harold K Johnston,
Chief of Staff of the Army from 1964 to 1968 and his own moral quandries
over whether or not he should have resigned in opposition to the war, on
the grounds that the civilian government refused to set and adhere to "war
aims", so that the military was simply trapped in an expensive war which
was giving us casualties without any goal towards which to work.)
(And remember that there are no longer more than a very small number of
Viet-Nam War veterans on active duty today.  For that matter, well over 90%
of those who were involved in Grenada are now gone, while almost 75% of
those from the First Gulf War are no longer in service.  The present crop
of soldiers really have no emotional connection to these earlier conflicts.)

Marc


msmall@infionline.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bąs fir gun ghrąs fir!


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html