1968 Redux: Echoes of Vietnam in Iraq--especially from the press

OpinionJournal.com ^ | June 10, 2007 | Robert McFarlane

[gpapa]

Thirty-nine years ago, halfway through my second tour in Vietnam, the Tet Offensive was launched by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, who were soundly defeated on the battlefield. Two measures of that battle--both relevant to the situation in Iraq today--stand out for me. The first relates to an important lesson U.S. forces had learned after three years of conflict: the vital role of "winning hearts and minds" of the local population. The second concerns the power of the press to affect our ability to sustain violent warfare.

[Felis_irritable]

I was talking over this treasonous bit of history with the missus this afternoon and how I thought Iraq is Tet redux.

The pitiful part is prolly most people don’t know what *really* happened during Tet ‘68 to begin with...

[ClaireSolt]

If it is a pattern, then maybe all that has gone before is not just a bunch of mistakes. Maybre, rather, that is what it took to bring us to this point where a different approach is called for.

[JSteff]

“The pitiful part is prolly most people don’t know what *really* happened during Tet ‘68 to begin with...”

The Viet Cong and the NVA were destroyed as a fighting force. Had we pushed we could have finished them.

Giap credits the media and the antiwar/peace protesters with being a major force in securing victory so quick (after Tet) for him. Particularly since the VC were destroyed in Tet and most major engagements after that were NVA affairs.

The VC were reduced to lugging supplies down the HCM trail and digging tunnels for the NVA.

[nathanbedford]

I posted before the 04 elections that the George Bush and the media were in a foot race. George Bush was racing to get past the elections before the media could effectively lower the public's threshold to tolerate casualties. Despite the fact that the media had allies in Iraq doing their best to inflict more casualties during the run-up to the election, the media failed by 60,000 votes in Ohio to unhorse George Bush.

By 2006 the lines had crossed and America's pain quotient and clearly been exceeded. Republicans everywhere were drubbed. As I posted in a vanity, Why We Lost, published a few days after the election, the root of the matter lies in Iraq:

America has repudiated the war in Iraq.

The American people have spoken respecting the war in Iraq: they do not tolerate the war in which they see no plan for victory but where they do see blood and treasure being spilled to no purpose with no end in sight.

The repudiation of the Republican mandate is broad although perhaps not equally deep and evidently focused on three issues: (1) the war in Iraq. (2) corruption, the so-called, "culture of corruption" (Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Foley) and which Republicans like us probably think of in terms of spending. (3) incompetence. (Katrina, Iraq) Of the three, Iraq was obviously the dominant factor.

In fact, growing restiveness with the war in Iraq, predictable at least since the Bush reelection by such a narrow margin in Ohio in 04, is the overwhelming reason for the Republican debacle. The Democrats nationalized the election by converting it into a referendum on the war. In the process they managed successfully to demonize George Bush as an incompetent bumbler. They defeated candidates by morphing them into George Bush.

The essential reason for the defeat was that it was anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush.

85 percent of Americans said the “major reason” was disapproval of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, 71 percent said disapproval of Bush’s overall job performance, 67 percent cited dissatisfaction with how Republicans have handled government spending and the deficit, 63 percent said disapproval of the overall performance of Republicans in Congress, 61 percent said Democrats’ ideas and proposals for changing course in Iraq. Tellingly, just 27 percent said a major reason the Democrats won was because they had better candidates. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/newsweek/

Recognizing harsh realities does not mean that one approves of those realities. But we are where we are and we must deal with it. As I posted,

The harsh reality is that not only must America win decisively every battle, win it without casualties, win it within weeks, win it on television, it must be PERCEIVED to have done all these things. You can argue all you want that we are killing terrorists by the bushel but the world sees it different. We have lost the war because we have lost the war of perception just as the Israelis lost the war of perception a few months back in Lebanon

We wage asymmetrical guerrilla war in urban environments while the press has convinced the American public that our casualty level is too high and ultimate victory is impossible.

It is the job of the commander-in-chief to rally the troops and to rally the public. George Bush has failed miserably in the latter task.

[ClaireSolt]

Aside from the fact that you just repeat Dem talking points, what have you said. The Dems are winning a propaganda war.

[malia]

bump

[nathanbedford]

Apart from being unfair, your comment is wildly inaccurate.

There is no repetition of "Dem talking points", to the contrary I make it clear what we are up against. You, of all posters who has exchanged posts with me on this issue over many, many months, should know that I have been made making this case since before the 04 election. I am not late to this opinion. Nor am I under illusion about the trap Bush has let the media put him in-and by extension we Americans and we conservatives who are about to lose the next election and, God help us, the war in Iraq, to boot.

If you want to kill the messenger, kill the media, not me

[nathanbedford]

Interestingly, this just popped up on a companion thread:

International Media. International news coverage can affect insurgencies even when not seeking to do so. By publicizing a conflict—particularly its humanitarian costs—the international media brings pressure to cease hostilities or arrive at a speedy settlement. But this seldom falls equally on both insurgents and counterinsurgents. There is more pressure on the government to make concessions than on insurgents to cease operations. Governments are more susceptible to international pressure than insurgencies. Most insurgencies, especially those involved in crime, can survive with little or no outside support. No government can. The world has more leverage over states than over insurgents. Media coverage leads outsiders to use this influence, holding states to higher ethical standards.

In addition, most members of the media have an inherent anti-authoritarian bias. While they may not state it openly, they often assume that there is some justification for an insurgency. The tendency is to accord insurgents “victim” status. And the public loves a victim. Hence extensive international media coverage of an insurgency tends to promote the perception of moral parity. Seldom are insurgents portrayed as illegitimate aggressors. This tendency is amplified when the United States is involved. There is a growing hostility toward the United States among the global media which leads to negative coverage of any cause that Washington supports.

International media and other sources for the transmission of information level the psychological playing field. In the 20th century, insurgents struggled to reach external audiences. Only bold and intrepid reporters would venture to the difficult, dangerous areas where insurgents operated. It was the paradoxical logic again: insurgents protected themselves by remaining in remote regions, but this made it difficult to publicize their cause. Now the global media, satellite communications, cell phones, the Internet, and other information technology gives insurgents instant access to national and world audiences. Once the communications channels opened, the flexibility of insurgents and their lack of ethical and legal constraints gave them advantages in the psychological battlespace. This did not assure success—many insurgents transmitted ineffective messages or put themselves in danger by publicity—but it did offer an opportunity to make a connection with supporters they might not otherwise have found. Like spam email, the greater the bulk of the transmission, the greater the likelihood that someone will be receptive (while nonreceptive audiences simply ignore unwanted messages).

In Iraq, for instance, Al Zawaraa television, which is owned by a Sunni member of Iraq’s Parliament living in Damascus and distributed by Nilesat, an Egyptian government- owned company, is considered the semiofficial voice of the Sunni insurgents, broadcasting propaganda videos they produce, including those showing bloody attacks.105 It has signed a distribution deal with several European companies to broadcast it there and in the United States. The wildly popular Qatarbased news network Al Jazeera, while less overtly linked to the insurgents than Al Zawaraa, contributed to the rebel information campaign through a steady barrage of criticism of the United States and the Iraqi government (at least until expelled in 2004). Whether one believes that Al Jazeera offered a “balanced” perspective (as it claimed) or supported the insurgents, it complicated counterinsurgent information operations and provided the insurgents publicity (and hence legitimacy) they would not otherwise have had. This also helped them adjust and refine their operations. As Tony Cordesman puts it in his study of the Iraq conflict:

Iraqi terrorist and insurgent organizations have learned that media reporting on the results of their attacks provides a powerful indicator of their success and what kind of attack to strike at in the future (sic). While many attacks are planned long in advance or use “targeting” based on infiltration or simple observation, others are linked to media reporting on events, movements, etc. The end result is that insurgents can “swarm” around given types of targets, striking at vulnerable points where the target and method of attack is known to have success.106

Nonmedia information sources, particularly the Internet, are an even more powerful tool for insurgents. Websites are used for recruitment and building linkages with other groups both in Iraq and externally.107 The Internet is used to disseminate videos, pictures, and accounts of attacks as part of the insurgency’s psychological operations and as a training aid. Cordesman notes that “Terrorist and insurgent organizations from all over the world have established the equivalent of an informal tactical net in which they exchange techniques for carrying out attacks, technical data on weapons, etc.”108 There may be more than 800 insurgent websites. And this does not even count the thousands of others which link to them. The Internet, even more than the media, is beyond the control of counterinsurgents. Techniques such as pressuring companies or states which host insurgent websites is futile.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1847817/posts

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

WALTER CRONKITE’s falsely
declaring Communist North Vietnam’s TET Offensive defeat a victory on American national TV...

HILLARY RODHAM, BILL CLINTON, JOHN KERRY, JANE FONDA, TOM HAYDEN & Co’s support of Communist North Vietnam’s hostile takeover of a then Free South Vietnam during the Vietnam War...

Sen. TED KENNEDY’s fooling a post-WATERGATE Democrat Congress into cutting off all our funding for a then Free South Vietnam’s funding for its Fight for it’s own Freedom, just when the Communist Soviet Union had given $6 Billion in Military Aid to the North for its ‘Final Solution’ in the South...

...ended up giving us all to sadly see in the End:

.

Pictures of vietnamese Re-Education (SLAVE LABOR) Camps

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts

http://www.JourneyFromTheFall.com

.

What Price is there to pay now by the still Free of the world with the CLINTONS & Co. back in our White House, I wonder..?

12 million suddenly missing Iraqi purple voting fingers for starters, perhaps..?

.

The still Free can just BET on it.

.

[StarCMC]

BTTT and ping.

[Jim Noble]

The Viet Cong and the NVA were destroyed as a fighting force.

Odd, then, that they won the war.

[TomasUSMC]

Iraq is much worse than Nam. We are wasting time while Iran makes or buys nukes. North Vietnam wasn’t getting nukes.

At least in Nam the Democratic President bombed the enemy in its sanctuaries. Today, Bush’s own actions prove that our own republican Bush trembles at the mere mention of Iran...even as the Iranians kill American troops.... all the while our troops are being handcuffed with terrible rules of engagement.... handcuffed again by our own republican WH!

Give me Cheney in a wheelchair over Bush on a bike.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

IRAN recently stated publically that:

“It’s now time for the world to start imagining a world without an America in it”

CLINTON publically stated after the 9/11 Attacks that:

“There may not even be an America around in 300 years”

.

Thus...

THE Battle for the 21st Century has been enjoined by our Enemies within and without.

Pray and Prepare and VOTE Right.

.

[JSteff]

“America’s pain quotient and clearly been exceeded.”

That was largely driven by the dems, antiwar movements, and the MSM who are of course largely liberal/socialist. I too said at the beginning of the war that it was a point that needed to be addressed.

It was not and largely because the admin missed the signs along the way. They did not educate (sell) the public on the reasons for, and happenings of the conflict, and developments throughout war from the run up to the latest calls of quagmire (which started from before we went in).

The admin let the dems with their allies the MSM get traction on every horrible mud pie they threw. From the the hearings at the UN, to the shock and awe, to tortures (underwear on the prisoners heads), to Guantanamo (club Gitmo), to the phone taps (of terrorists phones who the dems gave US citizenship rights to), etc, etc, etc. The admin handled the marketing side of the conflict wrong.

In the absence of current data from the side of the admin, the dems/MSM/UN had an easy time of selling this as another US war crime from the start. The public support was there and the admin took it for granted. Patriotism was hard for Washington to keep up and the lack of support nearly doomed our country before it was a country.

The only thing was back in the 1770’s news good and bad traveled slowly enough Washington and the states had a chance to end the war before the MSM of the time could destroy the fledgling movement that became our country.

In todays world the president did not have the luxury of a vacuum of data and the preponderance of it was controlled by the dems/MSM/liberals/UN types. Their message was loud and constant and as every adverting firm will tell you repetition wins the advertising wars.

Bush lost that war long ago and I think he thought that most Americans were current enough on world events to know the importance of the struggle we are in. That is way too much trust in the capabilities of the average citizen to obtain information on their own, let alone spend the time to filter it correctly.

We lost the war in Viet Nam because our government lost the PR war. We had that war won too. This admin seems to have grasped now how bad the marketing situation is now. I just fear it may be too late. The deaths because we pulled out of VN were between 8 and 10 million who directly were murdered in that region.

This will be much worse if we pull out without some semblance of a victory.

[ClaireSolt]

I think you put the accent on the wrong syllable. The government has supplied lots of info, but the media has refused to convey it. Meanwhile, we have just won a long stuggle in Columbia without all this attention. Turn the camera off.

[ClaireSolt]

Everybody can chose what angle to report. Many, including you take up a subject from the left point of view. That is essentially always defensive. I am not blaming you. It starts with the AP. They frame and cast the mould by choosing what to report. Only when we have a more positive news gathering source will we see the world differently.

[JSteff]

“The government has supplied lots of info, but the media has refused to convey it.”

I still don’t think it was “marketed or sold” right. Pres. Bush did not make a forceful enough effort nor was he as strong as he could have been. No I am not a PR person but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

Seriously though, I think it could have been “sold” better. Part of that would have been for Pres. Bush to have worried less about being kind to liberal MSM people (and the dems) and have been stronger in his positions and presence in public. Conservative convictions carry through and I don’t think we saw that often.

As to the Columbia thing, I am embarrassed to say I let that slip under my radar the last year or so. Some catching up is required, but if it was “won” that is great! However, that was not sold very strongly either or I definitely would have seen it somewhere... and I catch a pretty broad view in my daily mining of the news. If it is there usually I will find it and dig for more info.

Getting a message out really is about repetition. If the President said something about it EVERY public chance he had, someone would have reported it even if just to bring out how nutty it was that he kept repeating it over and over. Same thing with Iraq and the war on terror.

[ClaireSolt]

I could not disagree more. I am so sick of propaganda. The government should be in the background not screaming louder. It is not the center of existance.

[JSteff]

” I am so sick of propaganda. The government should be in the background not screaming louder.”

Nice thought, but given current circumstances that is not reality. My remarks addressed Presidnet Bush and not the entire government. In reality with a press that is not reporting the FACTS but rather it’s own, or the democratic party line any conservative or republican is not going to have his actions accurately report.. as FACTS.

The FACTS and DATA that should be reported in an unbiased way for the public to develop it’s own opinions are given a full spin through the liberal/dem/socialist washer and come out as propaganda for the democratic party. Your idealized view on the subject ignores that reality.