Tet, Cronkite, opinion journalism, and a changing press: Part I (“to tell a conflicted people a higher truth”)
While Bush formulates a new plan for Iraq, and others say all is lost there no matter what, I’m reminded of a famous “all is lost” moment from that ever-festering sore of history, the Vietnam War: Walter Cronkite’s editorial on Tet.
Cronkite’s famous post-Tet broadcast of February 27, 1968, delivered on the CBS Evening News, is widely regarded as a turning point in the Vietnam War, as well as broadcast journalism. It caused President Johnson to famously say, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the country,” and was apparently instrumental in Johnson’s decision to drop out of the 1968 Presidential race.
Those too young to remember may find such a set of circumstances almost impossible to believe. But Walter Cronkite,”the most trusted man in America” during his 18-year tenure as the anchor for the CBS evening news, is widely regarded to have had great influence on public opinion.
Take a moment to mull that one over and contemplate how the times they have a’changed: it would not seem possible for a major network anchor to be the “most trusted man in America” today (and, by the way, that “most trusted” designation wasn’t just hyperbole; Cronkite was actually judged that in a Gallup Poll of the time. And, of course, today it would be “the most trusted person in America.” But I digress.)
The avuncular Cronkite (and it seems no piece on Cronkite can avoid that perfect description of the man: “avuncular”) held America’s trust for most of his time at the job. Was it simply a more naive era? The fact that so many Americans got their news from that TV half hour (which Cronkite was instrumental in making a full half hour rather than the 15 minutes he originally inherited) through either CBS, or NBC’s rival Huntley-Brinkley, made it seem as though the truth were being told there—after all, there were few competing stories to hear.
And do not underestimate Cronkite’s voice and demeanor, perfect for television. Never slick, not handsome, he seemed profoundly sincere, with a deep and resonant voice and a slight (at least to me) resemblance to another familiar and fatherly icon of the times with the same first name, Walt Disney. Cronkite had distinguished himself during his coverage of the Kennedy assassination, displaying controlled but moving emotion as he took off his glasses to announce the President’s death. It was a deep bonding with the US public through a traumatic time.
Cronkite earned his trust the hard way: by reporting the unvarnished news. In this 2002 radio interview (well worth listening to for insight into his thought process at the time) Cronkite describes his orientation towards his job prior to that watershed moment of the Tet offensive broadcast.
Previously the top brass at CBS, as well as the reporters there, had understood their function to be reporting “the facts, just the facts.” Editorializing was kept strictly separate; at CBS, it was a function of Eric Sevareid, and clearly labeled as such.
The president of CBS news, Dick Salant, was a man of almost fanatical devotion to the principles of non-editorializing journalism, according to Cronkite’s interview. Cronkite said that, till Tet, he “almost wouldn’t let us put an adjective in a sentence” when reporting, he’d been such a stickler for “just the facts.”
But, according to Cronkite, as the Vietnamese War had worn on, and because of the confusion of the American people about the war, reflected in letters to the station, Salant sent Cronkite on a trip to Vietnam with the idea of doing a piece of opinion journalism when he came back, in order to help the American people “understand” what was going on by explicitly editorializing and advising them.
One can speculate long and hard about why Salant decided it was time to make such a drastic change. From Cronkite’s interview, it appears that the brass at CBS was part of the turmoil of the 60s with its “question authority” ethos. If you listen to Cronkite (and he expresses not a moment’s ambivalence about his actions), you may hear, as I did, an anger at a military that seemed heedless of the difficulties of the Vietnam endeavor, and too sanguine–similar to the “cakewalk” accusation towards the present Iraq War.
Another fact that becomes apparent in the Cronkite interview is that he felt personally betrayed by the military men he’d talked to as Vietnam churned on. He’d been a war correspondent in the Second World War, and that conflict, in which the press had been heavily censored, had featured public pronouncements of public optimism but private “off the record” discussions with the press that were more realistic and often more gloomy. Cronkite had been privy to these. But during Vietnam, when there was no official censorship, the military self-censored when talking to the press—they were profoundly optimistic, because they knew everything they said would be reported. Cronkite seemed miffed that he wasn’t given the inside info, as he had been in WWII.
Cronkite is up-front about these differences in his interview. I think it’s ironic that, if there had been more censorship during the Vietnam War, war correspondents such as Cronkite might have understood better where the military was coming from and might have cut them some slack. However, that’s mere speculation. What actually happened is that Cronkite felt betrayed, and he and Salant thought the American people had been betrayed, and they felt it was important enough that they needed to break their own long-standing rule and spill the beans to the American people.
It never seems to have occurred to them, of course, that in reacting to Tet as they did they were participating in a different falsehood, the propagation of North Vietnamese propaganda about the situation.
Whatever Cronkite’s motivations may have been, it’s hard to overestimate the effect it had when he suddenly stated on air that the meaning of Tet was that the situation in Vietnam was hopelessly stalemated and the war could not be won. We’re used to this sort of thing now, and many of us have learned to brush it off. But then, to much of America, Cronkite’s was the voice of trusted authority that could not be denied—despite the fact that he had no special expertise to make such a proclamation.
Of course, we are reaping the fruit of that moment today. Journalism has changed, and not for the better, mixing opinion and facts in messy attempts to influence public opinion rather than inform. In connection with that radio interview, for example, see this statement, rather typical of the genre:
It was a bold move for Cronkite, and it was an seminal moment for journalism, to go beyond the reporting of events, to tell a conflicted people a higher truth, something beyond the cataloguing of casualties or shifting front lines.
To tell a conflicted people a higher truth. That seems to say it all, does it not?
[ADDENDUM: Here is the text of Cronkite’s Tet statement:
“Report from Vietnam,” Walter Cronkite Broadcast, February 27, 1968.
Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we’d like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I’m not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won’t show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi’s winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that-negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer’s almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy’s intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.
This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.]
[Part II here.]
It seems sad that Cronkite got this authority from the assumption that most of what he did was the reporting of “facts.” So when he did finally “editorialize,” of course people took it more seriously than they would today! When you presume not to trust, than you can say what you like, because no one will take it all that seriously.
Growing up my parents instilled in us a deep disdain for the New York Times, Walter Cronkite and any mainstream news person–and this was in the sixties. Just because CBS keeps successfully marketing Cronkite as the “most trusted man in America,” doesn’t mean everyone believed that then or now. Just like we didn’t buy into the Kennedys and Camelot either. Looking back it may be easy to assume everyone bought the party line. However, that is like believing some poll saying Hilary Clinton is the most admired woman in America today. Propaganda then, propaganda now.
Cronkite sounds omninously like Steve here.
You know when Steve repeats his often contested argument that “it won’t happen” to any attempt to turn the tide of battle. On the basis that any escalation will simply be matched by greater terroist will or whatever.
The real betrayal was from Cronkite. He abused his power, concerning war strategy that he knew nothing about. And simply had an axe to grind. Typical of the fake liberals, caring nothing for anyone else except themselves.
Take a moment to mull that one over and contemplate how the times they have a’changed: it would not seem possible for a major network anchor to be the “most trusted man in America” today
The networks and their anchors are fully aware of that, and angry and frustrated.
Well, speaking of the devil, I saw Colin Powell yesterday (Neo linked, so I’m not completely off base.) Basically, one thing stuck in my mind. Powell said that he was opposed to an increase in forces unless there was a clearly defined mission. Then he said something like, if the mission is to control Baghdad, we don’t have enough people in the armed forces for that. (Baghdad has a population of about 8 million, I think.)
So I went looking around for information and found an article from 2004 at the Carlisle Institute (a military institute, a kind of think tank for officers.) And I found out a couple things.
1. We reduced the size of the Army by 300 K after Gulf War I, and the Marine Corps by 25 K.
2. The Army has about 480 K people in it. That’s all. There are about 500 K people in the reserves and National Guard.
As has always been the case, the US Army has a high percentage of support personnel to actual fighting troops, usually, when ballparking it, I have always assumed 10 to 1. I was right.
3. The total infantry in the US Army (these are the guys who are actually out there walking the streets) is a mere 49 K. Total reserve infantry is 57 K.
So, essentially we have 100 K infantrymen in the US Army, and the Marine Corps, at 175, probably provides another 20 K.
Total Army and Marines: let’s say 500 K Army, and 200 K Marines, for a total of 700 K, and infantrymen of 70 K. Let’s say we double that to include all the Ready Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve. That makes 1.4 M people, of which 140 K actually fit the model of “soldiers.”
4. Out of the 700 K Army and Marines, we have the following going on: 140 K in Iraq (which must mean that the Air Force and Navy are not counted in these computations), 30 K in Kuwait and other Gulf Countries, 20 K in Afghanistan, 25 K in Korea, and (let’s say) approximate 15 K Marines in Okinawa and other special assignments (sea duty, embassy duty) all over the world. This comes to approximately 230 K.
This means about one third of all available forces are currently deployed. Following your basic rotation, 1 online, 1 getting ready to go online, and 1 resting and refitting, we have no more assets to employ.
If the ratio of 10:1 holds good, and we have 140 K there, then we only have 14 K infantrymen in Iraq. I agree with General Powell: 14 K is not enough to pacify a city of 8 million.
A “push” of 20-30-50 K could be achieved (this is the current idea) by extending the tours of those there and accelerating the deployment of their replacements. This would give us, at most, about 19 K infantrymen to control a city of 8 million.
New York City has a population of a little over 8 million. It has 40 K people on the police force.
So I think Powell’s argument is unassailable. We do not have the troops in Iraq to provide security, we do not have enough people in the armed forces of the United States to provide such security.
I am not interested in follow
I am not interested in following the implication of where this leaves us in the War on Iraq, but I think the argument is now decisive that we have to rapidly and significantly increase the size of our armed forces.
Hello Neo Neocon,
For good order I just surfed in but wanted to welcome you to the Right Side!
There is a huge range of positions within the conservative camp and plenty of room for those with different ideas so long as they do not disgard the fundamentals that we hold so dearly and won at such great cost.
All men are created equal and we are endowed with certain inalienable rights….
Democracy is the struggle of the ages and we must defend it as best we can. The return to a State of Nature of tyranny is an easy path for weak hearts.
I have not read your site yet but would beg you to read deeply into history to the Greeks, the Romans, the rise of liberal democracy in England and the constant attacks from fascism and communism in many different guises.
Best wishes,
TH
Steve makes what could be an honest mistake in presuming that only Infantry are kicking in doors.
Not so. Some of the other combat arms people have been trained as “instant Infantry”.
In addition, we have tens of thousands of Iraqi army guys, another possibly honest mistake of Steve’s, who may be of some use in Sadr City.
NY’s cops include traffic patrol and other items not explicitly devoted to security.
Powell may be right, but he makes the point “if” the mission is to secure or stabilize Baghdad. What if the mission is something else, such as gutting Sadr’s militia.
Some folks have speculated that a number of governments fighting insurgencies in the last decade or so have a new strategy.
It takes advantage of the fact that real guerillas or insurgents must be in small groups and move all the time. Every damn’ day, they pick up and move. That means, of course, few amenities. Only what you can carry.
So governments from Colombia to Iraq have been providing de facto sanctuaries. Where the bad guys can coalesce, feeling secure that the area is apparently a government no-go zone. Where commanders, thinking of battle, assemble heavy weapons. Heavy weapons are not lightly abandoned. Concentrations of insurgents are…concentrated. The intel has a chance to delineate their locations.
In other words, to use the normal human desire to have a home besides that which you find each day by crawling into a new patch of scrub to allow the bad guys to put themselves into a trap.
If the mission is to go to Sadr city, the fighting will be hard, but the result, presuming we don’t pull a Fallujah I and back off in order to avoid upsetting the hippies, will be to end the reign of Sadr. Which will be a good thing.
This may not be the mission, but Powell has to be seen as not exactly on board here and his pronouncements taken with a grain of salt. He may be right about not being able to secure bdad–if we exclude the Iraqi Army–but he may be using that as a planted axiom. He doesn’t know the mission.
For what little it may be worth, I am persuaded that we must try to win in Baghdad largely for the reasons you’ve posited in the last few days about U.S. credibility. It is at best a partial solution because the war is about a lot more than Baghdad. It would, however, be a significant step in the right direction.
I disagree with your description of the “honest argument for leaving Iraq.” I am personally opposed to leaving Iraq right now, but I believe there are good faith arguments for doing so being made by a lot of patriotic people. They are not “cut and run” types (quite the opposite), and they hardly believe we have met our match or been defeated by our enemies.
Instead, they say: This is a broader war than just Iraq. The administration’s narrow focus on bolstering a dubious Iraqi government does not recognize, much less provide a strategy for winning, the greater war against militant Islam and its state sponsors.
Many (but by no means all) of these people, also believe a major problem we face is Islam itself – i.e., that in its most authentic and dynamic form, it is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-West, and anti-Semitic.
Consequently, these folks collectively believe that the imperatives the Bush administration has made of supporting the Maliki government and democratizing the greater Muslim world – Iraq being a test-case thereof – are unwise. They see popular elections (which the administration tries to sell as democratic elections) raising Islamists to power, they see Maliki supporting Hezbollah and making nice with Ahmadinejad, and they say: Why the hell are we putting our best and bravest in harm’s way for this?
Perceiving a lack of will to win that greater war, this camp says the smaller goals the administration has settled on in Iraq, and its dream of a democratic Middle East, are not important enough to U.S. national security to continue putting our troops in harm’s way.
These people now inflate the media’s count of those who oppose both the war and the president. But, in principle, they are not opposed to the “war on terror” properly understood, and their opposition to President Bush involves how the war is being prosecuted … not the decision to fight it in the first place. I think we are foolish if we don’t acknowledge these folks and listen to what they are saying. I think it’s particularly offensive to lump them in with the cut-n-run crowd. That’s not where they’re coming from.
On Iran and Syria, I believe it should be the unmistakable, unambiguous, proudly stated policy of the United States that we favor regime change. We want Syria out of Lebanon – not just in form but in substance. We want the Iranian regime out, period. It is ridiculous after all this time that we do not have a settled Iranian policy.
Do we need militarily to invade these places? I don’t think so. But we need to make them know they are the enemy, that we see them that way, that we are committed to having them out, that we su
No, I am not excluding the idea of giving cooks rifles and assigning them combat duties. So, question: to what extent are we using “instant infantry”? Figures?
Whichever way you call it our ground forces are just not adequate.
No, I am not excluding Iraqi army units. How reliable would an Iraqi army unit comprised of Shi’ites be in taking down a Shi’ite neighborhood? My guess is not very reliable.
As for the police force, it is completely UN-reliable by all reports.
The contrast to the NYPD points up the fact that in fact the NYPD is not confronting an armed populace in constant gun battles. Traffic control, sheesh ….
You can consult the article yourself, if you like. If you compute all the combat arms in the army you are still only talking about 100 K personnel. And there’s about 100 K to 200 K personnel who would be very badly placed in a combat situation, out of the 500 K.
Given that we have about 1/5th of our total armed (ground) forces in Iraq as I write, you are still looking at only about 30 K potential ground pounders today.
Powell didn’t specify the mission. But clearly, pacifying the capital is the one being most discussed. I wouldn’t mind taking out Sadr’s 60 K strong (by some counts) militia, but obviously we’d need close air support, etc.to achieve that.
The ground forces, and the armed forces, are too small for this mission. They weren’t too small (obviously) to defeat the Iraqi army and overthrow Saddam, but they have never been large enough to provide security to the Iraqi people, secure the border, and much else. This, clearly, wasn’t because we fought the war “on the cheap”. It now looks like we did it this way because we simply did not, and do not, have the personnel to do otherwise.
I have to reiterate my shock in finding out how small our ground forces are. My main point in posting today was to simply share that information. The numbers are low, and for a nation attempting to fight two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and still pose as a credible threat to other nations, much too low.
Read the article here
If the enemy is Islam, that means the enemy is Muslims.
Given that, are you up for the solution?
Some folks–van der Leun most explicitly–have said that a big hit on us means we kill scores and scores and scores of millions of Muslims.
The alternative is getting them to fix Islam. As the folks at AA know, you can’t fix somebody who doesn’t think he’s broken. And asking the Muslim masses to change themselves so they won’t be so hard on us doesn’t seem likely to be received with gladness.
You will recall what it took for the Japanese and Germans to revisit their assumptions of the middle Thirties.
IMO, if we don’t succeed in Iraq, the next step is to try talk therapy on expanionist Islam mixed with a bit of tentative force without follow through. The bad guys will be energized and we will never have another ally.
Then we’ll get hit bigtime and kill millions and millions and millions. We will, van der Leun admits, suffer agonies of guilt–we felt bad about the internment of Japanese Americans when we thought about it afterwards–about what we had done. Our society will never be the same.
Tell Syria they are the enemy but do nothing? This is supposed to have a result?
This is a big war, not a small war. It is not a war on terror, or a war on 9-11. It is a war frightening in its necessary scope.
Iraq could be a useful strategic position if we succeed. Even if it was a bad idea to start, it would be a worse idea to quit now.
Numbers? One point something billion Muslims. Ten percent are supposed to be the Salafist/Wahhabist/butthead type. Presuming the other ninety percent have absolutely nothing to do with anything–go ahead and presume that if you wish–that means we have about 125 million, give or take, serious opponents. The Germans and Japanese together in 1940 had how much population? I am not going to look it up, as I believe it is close enough either way to make the point.
In addition, we have to see that the other ninety percent support the first ten percent in any number of ways, beginning with being innocent civilians among whom the bad guys live. You need not know any single thing about what is going on to be an innocent civilian and thus restraining–for the moment–the use of US combat power.
And it goes on from there.
Money to “charities”. General intel. “Sure, I’ll give him the package next time I see him.”
Turboboost whining in the democracies to ramp up our guilt.
I am not the first one to say that this phase of the war is more important to the Muslims than it is to us. We can lose this phase. They will lose the subsequent phase, and cease to exist, into the bargain.
It might be difficult to convince the next Muslim you meet that this is all for him, because it isn’t. But he has more of a vested interest than we do.
Back to our original thread:
“It was a bold move for Cronkite, and it was an seminal moment for journalism, to go beyond the reporting of events, to tell a conflicted people a higher truth,….”
According to whom? That’s the problem isnt it?
From a bumper sticker seen on an old hippy van: “The surest obstacle on the path to the divine is the arrogant belief that there is but one route and yours is the only map.”
Funny how the “higher truth” only turns up in a leftist viewpoint, one that is never questioned.
Thank you for that important public service announcement.
Steve, I see, is continuing his fatuous one-note campaign re: “more troops”. Like virtually everything he has to say, this too is a banal no-brainer — other things being equal, sure, more troops are always going to be preferable to less; so are more guns, more bombs, more and better weapons, more money, etc. But “other things” aren’t equal, and we have to deal with reality. So for Steve and his ilk, this just becomes a way of avoiding reality while indulging in partisan games. Unlike Steve, Colin Powell actually knows something of what he’s talking about, and so is worth listening to. But Powell, sadly, is closer to the McLellan model of military commander than that of Grant or Sherman — build up the biggest armed force you can muster but never use it for fear of damage. You can have ten times the troop strength in Iraq than we now have, but if you’re afraid to use it, if you use it as merely a gendarmerie, or if you set it genteel and hobbling Rules of Engagement, then you’re merely setting yourself up for a bigger defeat.
mal, on the other hand, makes a good point in his post (truncated?), which is that not all opponents of continued involvement in Iraq are cut-n-runners. I agree that their arguments should be treated seriously, on their merits or lack of them. The fundamental problem, then, of the idea of getting out of Iraq so we can concentrate on the “real” WoT is that it fails to recognize the nature and consequences of defeat. For better or worse — and right now it’s increasingly looking like “worse”, certainly — Iraq is the focus of the war as it stands (with Afghanistan a much reduced side focus), and if we simply pull out of there now we will have lost the most significant battle in that war to date. And losses, aside from their more tangible effects, demoralize the losers and embolden the victors. There’ll be other battles, of course, all the more certainly if we lose this one. But I think Richard Aubrey is right that they’ll be much worse for both sides, after, and as a direct result of, such a defeat.
(With apologies for veering off topic.)
We increased our troop levels dramatically in 1965. That is the point that people became aware of Vietnam as a real war. 3 years later, they were tired of it. That is what Americans always do. 3 years, and we start looking for the exits. Even in popular wars. Thus – Yalta. Thus – Hiroshima.
Cronkite and Salant accurately sensed the fatigue of the citizenry, but arrogantly (or stupidly, or dishonestly) imposed their own explanation on this. It seems a magical confluence of events in retrospect, but something like it would have occurred anyway. I think Cronkite and the news media in general bear some responsibility for the manipulation and exaggeration, intentional or not. But not the whole blame.
Incidentally, that 3-year rule is the primary reason Americans think we are stalemated now. The facts on the ground are less powerful than the amount of time we’ve been following this.
It is not the time factor that frustrates Americans, it is the time factor added into the restrictions placed upon the military. Unnecessary restrictions, that prolong the war, and make it into an attritional one. America likes to attack, America hates sitting around like a garrison trooper waiting to be hit. And that’s what Vietnam looked like, soldiers sitting in one location doing garrison work, waiting to be attacked (Tet).
There’s two things you need for more troops deployed to Iraq, but not necessarily greater recruitment needs. Simply change the rotation schedule so that every combat division and battalion is deployed to Iraq. They are going to rotate through there eventually. It would also solve some of the craptastic reserve problems where they take you from your job for six months, then put you back into the civilian world, and you have to find a job. And then do this AGAIN the next six months.
If the combat battalions are just going to “rotate through Iraq”, why don’t we just send all of them to Iraq at once and have them kill every terrorist they can find, by changing the ROE. The ROE, in fact, is probably the most restrictive thing preventing security from being kept in Iraq. It is like American borders. If you can’t shoot criminals and arrest folks crossing the whatever, it don’t matter how many border patrolmen there are.
The reduced size of the Army and Marines are direct consequences of the “Peace Dividend” and our eight year Holiday from History . BTW Steve-O , who was it who signed it into law that 40% of all deployments would involve Guard and Reserve units?
As far as Powell, a nice sized chunk of whatever failures we have encountered can be laid at his and armitage’s feet.
“a higher truth”
Would that be a “fake but accurate” “higher truth”?
The “most trusted man in America” could editorialize with a lifted eyebrow or a sneer. THAT’s the unholy power of the visual media. It’s no accident that Hitler loved Leni Riefenstahl’s work. The ability of the populace to be swayed by a single (or limited) source of news is frightening; that’s why the internet and blogs are important. Hopefully, most of the nation’s future voters are learning to broaden their scope of information intake; I know my daughters are. They rarely pay any attention to mass media news.
“That is what Americans always do. 3 years, and we start looking for the exits. Even in popular wars.”
I gaming networks (and a few others) there is an acronym: QFT – Quoted For Truth. This is very much the case here.
The difference is that in the past we have been able to give the one final push (say, Hiroshima), now such a thing is unrealistic. It is no longer acceptable to have anyone that isn’t totally and directly involved die on the other side.
This also follows into something I’ve learned – that for many many people (over 50%) you have to touch the red iron to know it is hot. It doesn’t matter that *every* person in the past has done so and gotten burned – maybe this time it will be different. After all *I’m* the one doing it and *I* know differently fron all the others.
New breed of Democrats? I’ve heard that from die hard conservative (that are not remotely republicans – they are libertarians), hasn’t happened since the *one* time in the 60 and that had a very strong internal incident to change. Maybe true – it happens from time to time, but we will see.
Radical Islamist will suddenly love us if we do ? Other than become Radical Islamists (simply being Islamist isn’t enough – standard Islam isn’t that much different that Christianity) – not gonna happen.
We will have to have a real and total attack on the US for us to act (I do not think that any attack of any level on another western country will suffice) before the three year rule will be ignored. Given that our enemy doesn’t follow said rule – it will happen. We will have to touch the red hot iron, maybe even more than once. They have learned this very well.
Ah well, at one time I thought 9/11 was enough touching the red hot iron. I no longer think so. Other than the occasional post I think it is mostly railing against the inevitable. In the end time will tell, other than that I see no way to convince the other side and to keep people from moving over there – it is a much nicer place to be (well, until the next 9/11 happens, on 9/10 those of us saying that terrorist are seeking us got not much different than we get now: “Fear monger”). Hope I’m wrong, I hope it will not happen – but I see no way to look at how dedicated these people are and their agenda and come to any other conclusion.
One upshot of all this is the press is to all intents and purposes the 4th branch of our government, having given itself veto power to make and break presidencies. Somebody has aptly compared it to the praetorian guard.
Human nature being human nature, the press likes having all this power very much, and we won’t be free of them until somebody gives them a sharp and painful lesson in Constitutional history.
LOL he really said “cosmic disaster?”
Did he think the VC were going to set off their Intergalactic Hypernova Bomb Mark II?
An ex-CIA Iran analyist, Flynt Leverette, is accusing the White House of Censorship while he really isn’t saying anything new. To make matters worst, he is suggesting that giving security guarantees to the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the world will ensure and safeguard our national and strategic interests in the region. Please email your comments to this idiocy by clicking “comments” at the end of this article. This Netzine (link below) is the most widely read website by Iranians inside Iran. Thank you.
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2006/December/Leverett110/index.html
Iran Article Is Blocked Amid Dispute on Cause
By Scott Shane
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/washington/19secret.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
You might want to read my post on Khomeini “Islam in Danger”.
Neo called this Cronkite’s “all is lost moment” and then quotes him saying: “to say that we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism.” She is becoming a Master at this.
Ann says “growing up ,my parents INSTILLED in us a deep distrust for the NYT and Walter Cronkite..” while warning us about propaganda! Zero sense of irony. Who did they instill a trust for?
Meanwhile ,the faithful Ymarskar advises: ‘Why don’t we just send them all to Iraq at once and have them kill every terrorist they can find.” I assume he means everybody who bows to the East.If they are not holding a gun ,how else will you identify them? Like they did at My Lai, of course.
This is why I keep coming back.
“This is why I keep coming back.”
What, to enjoy the sound of your hollow laughter?
Remember, you can’t have “slaughter” without “laughter”….
I assume he means everybody who bows to the East.
Bows toward Mecca. Muslims in Asia would face West.
If they are not holding a gun ,how else will you identify them?
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Americans should stop wearing uniforms, blend into the civilian population, and fight fire with fire. To earn the loyalty of the people, one must become one with the people.
Somebody has aptly compared it to the praetorian guard.
Very, very good comparison Arm.
It doesn’t matter that *every* person in the past has done so and gotten burned – maybe this time it will be different. After all *I’m* the one doing it and *I* know differently fron all the others.
Very nice, strcpy. You should repost that under Neo’s phishing post. Hey Neo, this is the second answer to why people fall for the email scams.
Hope I’m wrong, I hope it will not happen – but I see no way to look at how dedicated these people are and their agenda and come to any other conclusion.
strcpy | 12.19.06 – 3:19 am | #
Salamander said pretty much the same thing in his latest post at his naval blog.
//I have to reiterate my shock in finding out how small our ground forces are. My main point in posting today was to simply share that information. The numbers are low, and for a nation attempting to fight two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) and still pose as a credible threat to other nations, much too low..//
Thanks to Powell, Armitage and Clinton. I was in his Army in the PC bloodletting that was the Reduction in Force 90’s.
Cronkite has always been a weird old commie to me–I’m 38.
We’ll not be able to fight and another war until the baby-boomers get over vietnam.
“If the enemy is Islam, that means the enemy is Muslims.”
Not neccessary. Military Islam is ideology, not a religion itself, and majority of Muslims do not sincerely support this ideology. They do not protest against it, because they are simple, uneducated folks, and ideologists of Jihad have credentials of ulems or imams. The same was true in respect to Communism: to defeat this ideology you had not have to fight all Russians, Poles or East Germanians, even if only negligible proportion of these peoples actually protested against Communist atrocites.
More than half of these 2 bln Muslims actually live in pro-western countries, such as Egipt, Turkey and Indonesia, whose governments can successfully fight islamists even without significant US help.
Militant Islam, as any other totalitarian movement, is giant on clay legs, and will collapse eventually if confronted with steady resolve, as Regan confronted Communism.
The enemy was the belief system of the Japanese. Killing Japanese helped to destroy their belief systems, but all that really matters is what Sun Tzu said. Break the will of the enemy to fight, and you will achieve supreme victory in war.
Nothing else matters. Not international treaties, not sovereignty, not number of troops, not redeployment timetables, and sure as heck not human rights.
‘Militant’ Islam isn’t going to go away as long as the U.S and Israel continue to control the region through it’s military and corrupt policies.
Given that, there is no U.S chance of winning a military victory there. None.
I’m hoping this site will still be around in a few years when defeat is total and humiliating….
“If the Bush Administration attacks Iran, it would be violating the U.N. Charter. And it would also be violating the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis. Point I, paragraph 1, of that accord states, “The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”
Not only is the goal of regime change illegal, it is also unachievable.
“Democracy cannot be imported, nor can it be given to a people by invading their nation, nor by bombing them with cluster bombs. It must be indigenous,” says Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights advocate who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003.
The Administration has refused to rule out the possibility of military strikes, and even the use of nuclear weapons, on Iran’s nuclear facilities and beyond, as if the Iraq quagmire has not taught it anything. And Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was formed only in 1932 with artificial boundaries that have no historical roots. Iran, on the other hand, has existed for thousands of years as an independent nation. Hence, Iranian nationalism is extremely fierce. Military strikes on Iran would create a potent mixture that combines fierce Iranian nationalism with the Shiites’ long tradition of martyrdom in defense of their homeland and religion. The attacks would engulf the entire region in flames.
“Iranians will not allow a single U.S. soldier to set foot in Iran,” declares Ebadi, and this is a woman who has been imprisoned by Iran’s hardliners and is constantly harassed for her work on behalf of political prisoners.
Armchair warriors, such as William Kristol, have been claiming that intense bombing of Iran will lead to an uprising by Iranians. The absurd argument is that, “We will destroy Iran, but Iranians will love us for bombing them, and hate the hardliners.” Although a large majority of Iranians despise the hardliners, anyone who has the slightest familiarity with Iran’s history knows that intense bombing of Iran will not lead to their downfall. Rather, it will help them consolidate power.”
Khomeini:” Islam is in danger”
What is the goal of Islamic fury and militant Islam birthed by A. Khomeini? From the cartoons of the Danish publication to hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran to the episode of Salman Rushdie death fatwa and from the assassination of the opponents of Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) in Europe to Sept 11th WTC atrocity and the hostage-takings and beheadings of innocent people in Iraq, the world has witnessed these disproportionately violent acts from the religion of peace.
We hear all the time from variety of sources that all these are reactions to the injustice towards Islam or in simpler terms are the resistance to the discriminations and torments that Muslims have suffered and still suffer. What discrimination? The muslims are allowed to have their mosques and practice their religion in the West while Christians are persecuted in muslim countries and are not allowed to practice their religion or build any churches in any muslim country. We haven’t had any relationship with the Islamic Republic for over 27 years now. So why the rage and the relentless hate toward the US, religious minorities, modernity, prosperty, and the West in general?
In my opinion the reason for all these brutal actions and hatemongering in the name of Islam was repeatedly pronounced by none other than Ayatollah Khomeini himself, “Islam is in danger” and they are fearful of this situation and see it necessary to repeatedly prove the power of Islam through acts of violence as did holy men of Aztec toward the end of their civilization. The human sacrifices of the innocent people by the holy men of Aztec at the end of that civilization in the American continent was to show the longevity of the *power* of their faith and to create fear and horror among those who might have allowed themselves the thought of the end of that civilization.
Their brand of power (and the Islamists) can only manifest in sheer brutality for it to cultivate the seed of revenge and violence in perpetuity. In other words Islamists fear danger from the intellectuals (Khomeini issued the death fatwa of over 30,000 of them in jails in 1986-87?), from ordinary people leaving one religion and accepting another spiritual direction and not necessarily abandoning religion.
Incidentally in the Islamist Iran (the heart of Islam) of the last two decades more people have left Islam than in the secular Turkey. Why would they risk their very lives to convert knowing the apostasy laws of the Islamists murderes? Why does Islam feel so insecure and vulnerable?
Islam is in danger of becoming irrelevant (Islam and globalization) by its own self-defeating behavior or at the hands of other religious extremists of Christian persuasion. It’s only a matter of time when a counterbalance force emerges (think of the return of Christians Crusaders Wars) to get rid of the establishment of Islamic ummah:
It is clear that, one way or another; the demonic Islamic revolutionary terrorism will be driven from the face of earth, just as it was done in the days of Pope Urban II.
Islamic Imperialism of Iran (see Ahmadinejad call for revival of Islamic civilization and the return of Islamic ummah yesterday in Malaysia) has nothing to do with the US policies in the Middle East or the continuation of chaos and carnage in Iraq which the mullahs benefit from the most.
The Islamic Republic’s hegemonic program started 28 years ago. As I mentioned before, the violence and terrorism exported by the IR has to do with the fact that Khomeini and perhaps many Islamic leaders saw that Islam was doomed and was bound to become irrelevant in an increasingly modern and global world. So, like a good CEO in charge of a transnational Islamic Corporation, he decided to reduce the competitive advantages of the modern and secular society by brainwashing and demonizing everything Western and to promote martyrdom, terrorim, and dying for allah to rescue this religion from becoming immaterial to the lives of their constituents.
In essence, this religion is fighting for its very survival because they know they have nothing to offer to the post-modern man. I end this rant with a quote from Robert M. Pirsig:
“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”
I would submit that in fact the International Jihad WAS the Islamic Reformation of our times, right in keeping with the cycles of Islam.
Islam goes through cycles of “uppitiness” following which its internal contradictions cause it to lose one too many wars, and it gets beaten back (by military force usually) into some more benign form for about another 200 years or so…
In fact, Islam has never been non-militant…only subdued.
The true nature and intent of the other side was understood in 641 by Cyrus, the governor of Egypt, who said of the invading Muslim army “They love death more than we love life”.
What they will barter with, as always, is not peace and stability but “Islam, Tribute or Sword”.
http://www.ghandchi.com/437-GeographyEng.htm
http://fleetingperusal.blogspot.com
“Thanks to Powell, Armitage and Clinton. I was in his Army in the PC bloodletting that was the Reduction in Force 90’s.”
Please. Give me a break. Like Rumsfeld was all just dying to have a bigger army. Does the name “Eric Shinseki” mean anything to you?
It’s incredible that neocons and republicans have been in absolute power, virtually free reign over all branches of government for the last 6 years but somehow everything that is wrong with the country is the fault of the Clinton administration.
And talk about not being able to get over Vietnam, that has to be one of the top 3 topics around here. Americans decided it wasn’t worth it to pour another 60,000 of their young people into that meat grinder.
Here’s a quote about Tet from your beloved wiki:
“Some academics have pointed out that regardless of the ultimate military success of the US at the end of the T?t offensive, the offensive had shown that< b>three years into the war US intelligence was inept in not being able to even detect a national uprising, that the scale of the offensive showed that the insurgency had not been defeated by the introduction of hundreds of thousands of soldiers from the US, and that those supporting the war could not credibly describe a strategy for victory.
Rather than offering a hope for success, many supporters of the war fell back on patriotic arguments and the idea that the war had to continue on in its current form forever because a lack of success was better than an admission of failure.”
No wonder you guys keep coming back to this…
(Again, off-topic, but important: )
Tobias: Not only is the goal of regime change illegal…
There’s a comedy that SNL writers would envy about the invocation of law in connection with a regime that took a diplomatic mission hostage. The Iranian regime has been a moral outlaw and rogue from its inception, and changing it by hook or by crook would be a favor to the world. Anyone’s free to say, of course, that that would be “illegal”, but in the absence of a justice system that means about as much as saying it’s purple.
And let’s get another thing straight: it would be nice if the Iranian people finally took it into their heads to rid themselves of their “hardliners” (aka genocidal fanatics), but our concern is to see to it that that regime doesn’t continue to fan the conflict in Iraq, and above all doesn’t get its hands on the means to carry out its genocidal fantasies. In that context, rest assured it will be the US, not the Iranians, that decide whether or not US soldiers set foot in Iran. The Iranians can do what they like — rally to a fanatical, brutal, vicious, and tyrannical regime, or finally turn against it and aid their liberators. But after 9/11, and in the time of Ahmadinejad, threats, whether from the Iranians themselves or from their Western apologists, just don’t amount to much — if anything, they become additional reasons to end this grotesque abomination.
Sally: I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks.
unknown blogger said “It’s incredible that neocons and republicans have been in absolute power, virtually free reign over all branches of government for the last 6 years…”
I take it you don’t actually know the meaning of the words “absolute power,” and “free reign,” (sic) then. In the American system, bare majorities in the legislative bodies and ongoing split decisions in the judicial branch suggest that the minority party does in fact have considerable influence. That hyperbole – fairly common from the left these days – seems to be a residue of resentment from the 40 years that the Dems actually had large majorities. Sour grapes now.
As to the wiki article on Vietnam. “Some academics have pointed out…” well, we couldn’t ask for any better authority than that, could we?
It’s too bad Bush believes in the Constitution too much to ever wish or seek to acquire absolute power. It would be quite interesting if he did.
Just incase I didnt get my self (deservedly) banned for that “drive by” hostile comment I made awhile back in response to someone elses comment on religion, I’d like to offer this for consideration.
There are only 2 exit strategies. No mater where, when or how of the battle/war, this holds true:
1. Victory
2. Defeat.
Anything else is the product of delusion.
One requires a vanguished enemy, Two requries our own vanquishing.
There’s been some here and else where spouting nonesense about the US military being so preoccupied with Iraq that other aspects of the GWOT are left unaddressed. Bull.
We’ve had and in most cases continue to have active engagements in Central America, South and Central Asia, Horn of Africa and African continent. Just because you’re not hearing about them every day does not mean its not happening. Everything told to us also gets told to the enemy at the very same moment. Some folk are grown up enough to understand that and make sure they keep their cake holes shut and dont draw the domestic enemy’s (MSM)attention.
Korea? Not a heavy issue, troop commitment wise. The blithly unaware, and largely uneducatable will be surpised to learn that South Korea has a massively capable military. We’ll help with strat and tac air interdiction but not too much else would be required.
Syria? Iran? Truth. A single division, well equiped and supplied would walk through either of those nations from end to end without much chance of serious problem.
Seriously. If needed, a pair of divisions (for rotation, refit, rest purposes) if properly supplied and supported by air and not so overly concerned with civilian casualty issues could fight their way from the west coast of Turkey to the east coast of Indonesia. We are that good. Nothing can stop us on the ground except for nukes and the ever growing cult of cowardice at home.
AVI:
Name one thing that the Bush administration wanted to do in Iraq that was blocked by the Democratic minority, or Congress in general, ESPECIALLY regarding troop levels in Iraq.
You can’t because there isn’t one. Bush has had free reign over the mission in Iraq. (You would prefer I said “free ring” perhaps?)
As for the academics, it’s easy to make fun of their tweed jackets. A bit more difficult to challenge the truthfulness any of the points raised above, or I assume you would have done so.
UB: “You can’t because there isn’t one. Bush has had free reign over the mission in Iraq. (You would prefer I said “free ring” perhaps?)”
No, I’d prefer that you said “free rein”, as that is the correct phrasing. “Rein” as in “control of horses with reins”.
Seems your beloved academics failed in their duty with you.
Well UB, it isn’t just that the Democrats didn’t, or didn’t even try, to block Bush — it’s that, in large numbers, they supported Bush. At least, while it looked as though the going was going to be easy. As soon as it got tough, of course, the Dems got going — backtracking.
Cronkite always reminded me of Captain Kangaroo. Sometimes I got confused – like during the My Lai incident, I thought Mr. Greenjeans massacred all those villagers and Dennis the Apprentice turned him in. Haven’t really been right since then.
Too bad Cronkite didn’t have Bunny Rabbit and Mr. Moose to keep him honest. The impact of his Tet editorial might have been tempered a bit if someone had thought to dump some ping-pong balls on his head when he finished.
Here’s an idea – all journalists must now have puppet sidekicks. Somebody call Brian Henson…
Well that proves it stumbley, I’m an idiot. But as for my beloved academics, still no one here has even attempted to refute their points, or even any of mine for that matter. Much more important to correct spelling I guess.
Sally, gave it a shot, although it’s very clear to me that until the last election Bush neither asked for nor wanted Democratic support, or even pretended to. Nor to hear from ANY one that wasn’t already in agreement with his course of action.
“no one here has even attempted to refute their points”
Okay, some academics have said that the North Vietnamese TET offensive was actually unsuccessful, and that Cronkite’s broadcast helped to turn the tide of the war against America and the South.
There. My sources are as good as yours. Happy?
The Democrats blocked and killed Bolton.
Is Bolton a more important political power base than Iraq and stopping what they call Bush’s “recklessness” in Iraq? Or are the Democrats cowards, who side with the strong horse? Manipulating Democrats is easier than manipulating terrorists, people.
What Grimmy says is true, Neo. You have only seen a small small portion of the overhwelming battle jutsu of the American military and economic power. It is like doing a pull up with 2 fingers on one hand. You got 3 more fingers to put into the game.
Unk is correct. Bush should have taken advantage of the cowardice of the Democrats to be a loyal anything, and conducted a reign of terror in Baghdad. That would have made Bush popular amongst Americans, and he wouldn’t have so many leaks in his branch of the gov. It would also have helped in Iraq, and silenced Democrat opposition.
One Democrat obstruction was when Murtha tagged some pork in a Defense bill, so that the President couldn’t veto it without vetoing the entire defense budget. The pork was to get Murtha more political and personal power. If the President had shut down the power of the Democrats with veto intimidations and execute writ order enforcement, the President wouldn’t be besieged on all sides at the moment.
“Cronkite“:
I saw the Cronkite editorial in Vietnam. My opinion at that time was that he gave voice to what everybody already knew. Had he said “we’re winning” he would have been off television within a week.
The editorial was not the turning point of the war. The Tet offensive was.
Before Tet broke the main thrust was the “border war” which included Khe San and references to Dien Bien Phu. The point was that Tet made that strategy pointless. And, additionally, we had no strategy that would prevent another Tet in five or ten years time.
“It caused President Johnson to famously say, ‘If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the country…’.”
According to Joseph Campbell, the LBJ quote is an urban legend. See, for instance:
https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/chris-matthews-invokes-if-ive-lost-cronkite-media-myth-in-nyt-review/