MEDIA & 'NAM: LESSONS FOR IRAQ

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

MEDIA & 'NAM: LESSONS FOR IRAQ

By ARTHUR HERMAN

February 25, 2008 -- CRITICS of the war in Iraq like to claim they "oppose the mission" but "support the troops." But the experience of Vietnam shows that turning our backs on the mission always means turning our backs on the courage of those who fought for that mission, and what they achieved through their skill and sacrifice.

Consider the battle that ended 40 years ago today, when US Marines and Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) troops retook the Imperial Palace at Hue, South Vietnam's third largest city, from Communist forces after a 27-day siege.

The fight for Hue tested the Marines in Vietnam as never before - and still offers vital lessons as we contemplate wars present and future.

Hue demonstrated how the media could distort American courage and success into a narrative of stalemate and defeat, with tragic political consequences. It also revealed how that narrative cheated US servicemen of the recognition they deserved for their skill and valor.

Aside from those who served there, few now know what the Marines accomplished at Hue. After 40 years, it's time to set the record straight.

The communist attack on the city was part of North Vietnam's 1968 Tet offensive. Viet Cong units had infiltrated the city dressed as ordinary civilians and after midnight on Jan. 30, 1968, they seized key strongpoints. Five thousand North Vietnamese Army (NVA) troops also swarmed down on the city.

There were no American units in or near Hue, and half of South Vietnamese troops were off duty because of the declared Tet cease-fire. The first inkling Americans had that the war had come to Hue was when a NVA rocket blew up a jeep outside Marine Maj. Frank Breth's window in the American command compound - which would be at the center of fierce fighting for the next six days.

Breth and others in the compound managed to beat off the initial attacks. Reinforcements arrived only piecemeal, company by company, starting with Company A of 1st Battalion, 1st Marines under Capt. Gordon Batcheller.

Beyond their limited numbers, the Marines were hampered by bone-chilling cold weather and rain that limited visibility and air support. And Hue's historic citadel and charming narrow streets, however charming to tourists, proved a nightmare for the men who had to fight for them.

Above all, the Marines suffered from strict rules of engagement that excluded the use of heavy artillery and air strikes within the bounds of the historic city until the very end. Apart from a handful of tanks, Marines had to retake Hue with the weapons they could carry on their backs.

The Marine Corps had not seen this kind of urban fighting since Korea and the recapture of Seoul - and back then they'd been fighting a demoralized enemy in full retreat. In Hue they faced fanatical VC and NVA embedded and fortified with mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns - foes ready to fight to the death.

The Marines had to learn on the job how to charge a house with hand grenades, then douse it room by room with M-16 fire. They discovered how a 106 mm. recoilless rifle could blow a hole through a reinforced wall, so they could storm in under cover of the dust and smoke of the backblast.

Sgt. Alfredo Gonzalez typified the Marines at Hue. Just 21, he took command of A Company when its CO was wounded. For five days, he led his men with the skill and determination that earned him the battle's only Medal of Honor - posthumously.

Others displayed similar tenacity and courage, of course - including the men of Capt. Michael Downs' F Company, Capt. Charles Meadows' G Company and Capt. George Christmas' H Company of 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, along with all the rest. Casualties were so high in 1st Battalion's D Company that all but the most seriously wounded men stayed in the fight.

Though outnumbered from start to finish, the Marines cleared the enemy from the southern and eastern sectors of Hue by Feb. 11. Then they relieved exhausted South Vietnamese troops to retake the city's historic citadel.

By Feb. 24, the Marines had regained almost all of Hue, even as the NVA was throwing in the towel and withdrawing its last troops. On the 25th, Marine Capt. James Coolican led soldiers from ARVN's elite Black Panthers in storming the last NVA stronghold, the Imperial Palace.

The city was declared secure after 147 Americans had been killed in action and 857 wounded, and more than 5,000 enemy had died.

For many, the sight of an American flag flying over the provincial administration building on Hue's Le Loi Street was as inspiring as when it flew over Mount Suribachi during the 1945 battle of Iwo Jima.

But Americans at home learned nothing about it. The media was so set on painting Tet as a US defeat that they largely ignored how the Marines at Hue had achieved a stupendous victory. They also ignored the discovery of bodies of 5,000 civilians who'd been ruthlessly murdered by Viet Cong death squads: teachers, doctors, nurses, businessmen, students.

The communist blood bath during the siege should have been a warning of the blood bath to come if Americans abandoned their commitments in South East Asia - which Americans, convinced by the media that they were (in Walter Cronkite's words) "mired in a stalemate" in Vietnam, eventually did.

Forty years later, we still need to confront the powerful lessons of Hue. The defeatist narrative put out by today's media may yet undermine military success in Iraq; it is certainly cheating our servicemen and -women of the recognition they deserve for their sacrifice.

What did the US media cover instead of the American victory at Hue? Among other things, the massacre at My Lai. Little has changed: In Fallujah in April 2004, US Marines armed only with rifles, pistols, hand grenades, and knives took on al Qaeda fighters room by room more than 200 times - and were totally ignored by a media obsessed by Abu Graib.

Veterans who can say "I was at Hue" or "I was at Fallujah" deserve the same respect as those who served in the many American battles that have passed into legend for sheer guts and determination, like Iwo Jima and Bastogne.

If our country continues to fail them in that, why think anyone is going to risk the same sacrifice for us again?

Arthur Herman's new book, "Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age," is due out in April.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02252008/posto...9156.htm?page=0

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Don, the silence is a victory. Mostly liberal here and would prefer to avoid it. They are to invested in defeat and denial, hence the follower syndrome.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Believe it or not - its not only the "liberal left" and the "liberal media" who thought (and still think) that this war was a bad idea.

This article is yet another divisive attempt by armchair cowboys and yahoos (whose views are very much in the minority these days) to suggest that their claim on public opinion is somehow stronger than it is and that criticial opinion of what most people now recognise as a flawed and badly thought out policy is somehow dangerous and unpatriotic.

Stale. Like week old bread.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Believe it or not right or wrong is not up to public opinion. Often doing the right thing is hard. Doing hard things is often not popular. I want my country doing the right thing not the popular thing. It takes leadership to do the right thing. People that only wish to do the popular things are weak and should not be elected to leadership positions, as the are followers.

So all this talk about polls this and polls that are completely meaningless when it comes to doing what is right and just. This only shows that the people are getting weaker and more selfish.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Believe it or not right or wrong is not up to public opinion. Often doing the right thing is hard. Doing hard things is often not popular. I want my country doing the right thing not the popular thing. It takes leadership to do the right thing. People that only wish to do the popular things are weak and should not be elected to leadership positions, as the are followers.

So all this talk about polls this and polls that are completely meaningless when it comes to doing what is right and just. This only shows that the people are getting weaker and more selfish.

Who decides what is the "right" thing?

Given the complex debates over public policy issues - I'd say the "right" thing isn't something you can pull out of a hat.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Don, the silence is a victory. Mostly liberal here and would prefer to avoid it. They are to invested in defeat and denial, hence the follower syndrome.

I know CarolsMarc. They are so good at shifting the conversation when the circumstances change. But to defeat their own country no matter what the cost. That makes me sad.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don, the silence is a victory. Mostly liberal here and would prefer to avoid it. They are to invested in defeat and denial, hence the follower syndrome.

I know CarolsMarc. They are so good at shifting the conversation when the circumstances change. But to defeat their own country no matter what the cost. That makes me sad.

Don't make me laugh. Who's shifting the conversation? And from where is being shifted?

The only thing I see - is the posting of an article that suggests two deeply unpopular wars amount of some sort of "moral crusade".

Put simply. Its tosh. And naiive tosh at that.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Number 6

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Believe it or not right or wrong is not up to public opinion. Often doing the right thing is hard. Doing hard things is often not popular. I want my country doing the right thing not the popular thing. It takes leadership to do the right thing. People that only wish to do the popular things are weak and should not be elected to leadership positions, as the are followers.

So all this talk about polls this and polls that are completely meaningless when it comes to doing what is right and just. This only shows that the people are getting weaker and more selfish.

The fact remains that popular support is crucial to military success. If a significant percentage of the public perceives that a war is not just or worthwhile, or that it is counterproductive, destructive, and unjustifiable, changes will have to be made.

I agree that popular opinion and polls do not always correspond to right or wrong, but if you're going to be sending people off to war, you'd better have the support of a sizable majority or the campaign doesn't stand a chance.

I think that's what we learned from 'Nam.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Believe it or not right or wrong is not up to public opinion. Often doing the right thing is hard. Doing hard things is often not popular. I want my country doing the right thing not the popular thing. It takes leadership to do the right thing. People that only wish to do the popular things are weak and should not be elected to leadership positions, as the are followers.

So all this talk about polls this and polls that are completely meaningless when it comes to doing what is right and just. This only shows that the people are getting weaker and more selfish.

The fact remains that popular support is crucial to military success. If a significant percentage of the public perceives that a war is not just or worthwhile, or that it is counterproductive, destructive, and unjustifiable, changes will have to be made.

I agree that popular opinion and polls do not always correspond to right or wrong, but if you're going to be sending people off to war, you'd better have the support of a sizable majority or the campaign doesn't stand a chance.

I think that's what we learned from 'Nam.

Or didn't learn. As the case appears to be.

Seriously - is there ever going to be an end to this Talk-Radio inspired claptrap. This is about the 3rd of 4th time I've read almost the exact same article, with the same boring old catchphrases.

It didn't ring true on previous occasions, and it sure doesn't now.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

This article isn't the first to note that soldiers who fight heroically in controversial or lesser known wars simply don't get the admiration and attention (think of Vietnam vs. WW II). Is it unfair? Indeed. You fight in an unpopular (or even losing) war, you don't get the parades and the recognition. This has been the reality since time immemorial. If the issue is with this aspect of human society, well, good luck changing it. Who cares about the losers? Certainly not history.

Vietnam was a typical "win the battles but lose the war" conflict, and Tet put this in stark relief.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This article isn't the first to note that soldiers who fight heroically in controversial or lesser known wars simply don't get the admiration and attention (think of Vietnam vs. WW II). Is it unfair? Indeed. You fight in an unpopular (or even losing) war, you don't get the parades and the recognition. This has been the reality since time immemorial. If the issue is with this aspect of human society, well, good luck changing it. Who cares about the losers? Certainly not history.

Vietnam was a typical "win the battles but lose the war" conflict, and Tet put this in stark relief.

Its more to do with the notion that keeps popping up that not supporting the war is some sort of "investment in defeat" and somehow "dangerous" for the country. It's the biggest load of twaddle going.

As for comparing Vietnam and Iraq - the comparisons aren't very clear, IMO anyway (at least - not outside of the political dodginess of the thing itself). Considering that in Vietnam, in addition to the controversy (i.e. why are we doing this) the larger issue was that there was still a national draft. We don't have that nowaday's of course - people volunteer.

[Ban Hammer 15,133]

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

This article isn't the first to note that soldiers who fight heroically in controversial or lesser known wars simply don't get the admiration and attention (think of Vietnam vs. WW II). Is it unfair? Indeed. You fight in an unpopular (or even losing) war, you don't get the parades and the recognition. This has been the reality since time immemorial. If the issue is with this aspect of human society, well, good luck changing it. Who cares about the losers? Certainly not history.

Vietnam was a typical "win the battles but lose the war" conflict, and Tet put this in stark relief.

Its more to do with the notion that keeps popping up that not supporting the war is some sort of "investment in defeat" and somehow "dangerous" for the country. It's the biggest load of twaddle going.

As for comparing Vietnam and Iraq - the comparisons aren't very clear, IMO anyway (at least - not outside of the political dodginess of the thing itself). Considering that in Vietnam, in addition to the controversy (i.e. why are we doing this) the larger issue was that there was still a national draft. We don't have that nowaday's of course - people volunteer.

It is an investment in defeat. What the Vietnam war really taught us is that when anybody goes to war with the US you will never win militarily, But all you have to do is give some ammo to the pacifist left and they will win the war for the enemy. All with out ever winning a battle.

What did this country ever do to you for you to consider it the biggest threat on the planet? We have tried to be the champions of the oppressed and abused people around the world since WW2? At great cost in treasure and blood. But misguided people think that we are the ones that need to be destroyed. If and when this world ever loses the United States of America, It will be the last day without tyranny that this world will ever see.

[Alex+R 0]

You know what the TRUTH about the media and Nam was? The media continued to support the war by treating it as a noble quest looooooooong after the public decided it wasn't. It was remarkable, actually. Look it up.

One of the most important lessons we learned from Nam, and I'm probably the most qualified person here to say what the media establishment is teaching its young, is mostly about My Lai, and how the country forgot about it so quickly.

eta: On another note, as a citizen, I am not proud of what the soldiers do in many cases. I am proud of them for doing something they believe in and for risking great amounts for doing it (when, if and while that is the case), because that is a higher thing to do, but I disagree with most military actions.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Alex+R

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This article isn't the first to note that soldiers who fight heroically in controversial or lesser known wars simply don't get the admiration and attention (think of Vietnam vs. WW II). Is it unfair? Indeed. You fight in an unpopular (or even losing) war, you don't get the parades and the recognition. This has been the reality since time immemorial. If the issue is with this aspect of human society, well, good luck changing it. Who cares about the losers? Certainly not history.

Vietnam was a typical "win the battles but lose the war" conflict, and Tet put this in stark relief.

Its more to do with the notion that keeps popping up that not supporting the war is some sort of "investment in defeat" and somehow "dangerous" for the country. It's the biggest load of twaddle going.

As for comparing Vietnam and Iraq - the comparisons aren't very clear, IMO anyway (at least - not outside of the political dodginess of the thing itself). Considering that in Vietnam, in addition to the controversy (i.e. why are we doing this) the larger issue was that there was still a national draft. We don't have that nowaday's of course - people volunteer.

It is an investment in defeat. What the Vietnam war really taught us is that when anybody goes to war with the US you will never win militarily, But all you have to do is give some ammo to the pacifist left and they will win the war for the enemy. All with out ever winning a battle.

What did this country ever do to you for you to consider it the biggest threat on the planet? We have tried to be the champions of the oppressed and abused people around the world since WW2? At great cost in treasure and blood. But misguided people think that we are the ones that need to be destroyed. If and when this world ever loses the United States of America, It will be the last day without tyranny that this world will ever see.

1. Repeating the Talk-Radio soundbites does not make them any less idiotic.

2. I don't consider the US to be the "biggest threat" on the planet - again I'm not sure why it is or has to be that clear cut - why there has to be some sort of Mordor-style enemy all the time. In regards to the sorts of unilateral military actions seen in Vietnam and Iraq - the US is little different from every other major imperial power in history. Its gets involved in these things because it serves its own interests. You can dress it up with pretensions of morality if you want - but there isn't really anything "moral" about it.