MEDIA & 'NAM: LESSONS FOR IRAQ

[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.

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.

Yikes, Don, you really should read up on the basics of the Vietnam War before making crazy statements like that. Keep in mind that prior to the Tet Offensive, there had already been something like 20,000 U.S. causalities, and the public (through that dang liberal 1960s media) was being led to believe that the end was nearing, with the U.S./South victorious. This wasn't to be, of course, and 1968 turned out to be the bloodiest year in the war, with nearly 15,000 U.S. casualties (not to mention many times that amount in NVA and VC deaths, but who cares about those, right?). Are you suggesting that things were really going swimmingly, and if only the public were aware of the U.S. military heroics, the outcome may have been different?

And for the record, Vietnam didn't declare war on the U.S. And Ho Chi Minh was the CIA's buddy during WWII when their mutual enemy was the Japanese. The CIA giveth, the CIA taketh away...

For $#hits and grins, go to the library and have a look at pretty much any U.S. mass media publication from the late 1960s (newspapers, newsweeklies). If you think that the tone of those publications was antiwar and "liberal," you may want to reevaluate your classification scheme.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Correction: I meant the OSS, not the CIA.