Vietnam, the Media and Lies

by Bill  Laurie

“There were some worthy, honest, and intelligent reporters in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. Dickey Chapelle, Robert Shaplen, Liz Trotta, Peter Braestrup, Hugh Mulligan, Keyes Beech, Neil Davis, Denis Warner, were among those who objectively, and without resort to sensationalism, conveyed elements of truth, parts of the puzzle, to the American public. Their efforts notwithstanding, the fog of nonsense spewed out by others obscured and effectively censored honest, logical, comprehensive reporting, denying the American public information needed to develop accurately informed opinions. News media malfeasance was complemented by brilliant manipulative Hanoi propaganda, and a corresponding U.S. government inability or unwillingness to make a case for its own efforts. The American public could not hope to understand what was taking place, and does not today.

No one, least of all South Vietnamese, American, or other allied forces, was oblivious of or happy with the endemic corruption and incompetence, yet, because of flawed and narrowly focused “reporting,” the story of South Vietnam’s progress and improvement remains untold. American reporters never wrote or televised stories about DR, Phan Quang Dan, Gen. Ngo Quang Truong, Gen. Nguyen Khoa Nam, the 81st Biet Kich, the Hau Nghia RF, Col. Mach Van Truong, Gen. Le Minh Dao, Tran Ngoc Chau, Col. Ha Mai Viet, writer Nguyen Manh Con, or RVN Marine Sergeant Van Luom, who stood alone on the Dong Ha Bridge and knocked out the lead tank in an NVA armor column with a shoulder-fired antitank missile, an act, in the words of an American witness, of inspiring “defiance and bravery.”
Knowing little of this, the American public was understandably disenchanted.

The news media seldom, if ever, accompanied American or Australian troops on MEDCAPS or DENTCAPs (Dental Civic Action Projects, extremely welcome to rural people with painful tooth conditions). In the first six months of 1969, more than 200,000 villagers received medical care and 15,000 received dental care from the 3rd U.S. Marine division alone. Instead, the American public was subjected to repeated coverage of the My Lai atrocity, which, like the photo of Gen. Loan, was considered symbolic and representative of the entire war.

Wolfgang Leonhard, a Soviet communist agent before defecting to the West, was tasked with analyzing Western news media stories. He and his colleagues were puzzled over superficial news coverage predominating in the newspapers they read. “Generally, we could only shake our heads over them, and often we were exceedingly disappointed. There was usually not even mention of the really significant events that were causing endless discussions amongst ourselves and on which we were passionately eager to read a serious Western commentary. ‘They don’t seem to know what is going on’ was the main theme of our conversations when we talked to each other on the subject.”

One of the more tragic ironies of Vietnam and the news media failure is that there were many fascinating and positive stories to be told. The American people would have appreciated seeing hour-long specials on, for example, U.S. Marine Corps CAP units, a squad of 14 Marines living in one hamlet for their entire tour, working with and defending “their “ hamlet alongside local PF. USMC CAPs had a higher voluntary extension rate than among their line unit counterparts. Why? It would have made for a good story. It would have been equally enlightening to see programs showing U.S. troops helping an orphanage, or volunteering to teach English. The American public deserved to know about a VNAF Skyraider pilot who had been shot down five times, and continued flying, despite his several fused vertebrae. They deserved to know that American forces could take on the NVA, in their own backyard, and prevail. Something might have been learned from Americans who volunteered for three, four, five, six, or even seven tours as advisors, choosing to serve in Vietnam again and again, not as bloodthirsty and uncaring killers, but as very normal, decent human beings who could eloquently and convincingly explain their motivations, which was ultimately to see Vietnamese people have a life of peace and decent government. Geopolitics and the Cold War, all relatively abstract concepts, were not a primary concern, taking a back seat to basic human concerns for that which is fair.

Americans would have benefited by hearing of Captain Nguyen Quy An, Lt. Vu Tung, and Warrant Officer Nguyen Quang Hien of the famed 219 Kingbees. Were it not for the action of these men, John Litter, Bob Stratliff and Wiley L . Craney, by their own testimony, would have been killed or captured after their helicopter had been shot down in Laos. They were rescued by Captain An and his crew while under fire and surrounded by NVA. Captain An would later lose both his hands by keeping control of a burning helicopter, saving the lives of others on board who would have died had the flame-engulfed chopper fallen from the sky.

Americans were mesmerized by the NVA’s (North Vietnamese Army) 25-day hold on Hue City in 1968, and presumably would be similarly impressed by the 92nd Ranger Battalion 400-day stand at the remote base of Tong Le Chan. Completely cut off, resupplied only by air, the 92nd held, with ambulatory wounded refusing evacuation. Had an NVA unit held out for over 400 days, surrounded and cut off, it would have made headline news. The 92nd Rangers did it and nothing was said.  Had a handful of VC (Viet Cong) high school boys held off an allied attack, it would also would have made headlines. A handful of high school boys did resist VC/NVA forces at the “Truong Tieu Sinh Quan,” a junior high school military academy for sons of RVNAF (South Vietnamese) military fatalities. They resisted to the end in 1975, with twelve- and thirteen-year-old boys sending younger kids home, staying in their barricaded school and fighting on. Many of them were killed and when the Communists came in, they fought them. The Communists could not get into that academy. NVA forces eventually surrounded the school, threatened to level it with rockets, kill everyone inside, and negotiated a surrender. This last stand would presumably have had all the drama and “human interest” for a “big story,” and had VC adolescents been involved opposing RVNAF, the story would undoubtedly have been trumpeted to the American public. To this day, next to nothing has been said or printed, and the cadets at Truong Tieu Sinh Quan are not even a footnote to history.

Coverage of these stories could have gone on and should have gone side-by-side with negative reporting on corruption, civilian casualties, drug use, and other presumed universal evils of American involvement in Southeast Asia. It is neither suggested nor desired that blemishes or morally repugnant aspects be ignored or covered up. It is asserted, however, that it would have been far more honest to have contrasted examples of deplorable behavior with other aspects, not in the least rare, of which many Vietnam veterans are familiar with and participated in. Fairness and objectivity also demand that equal coverage be applied to the VC/NVA shortcomings and ruthless excesses shown in proportion to their existence and occurrence. Had all this been done, the American public would have been able to understand something, and certainly much more than the psuedo-understanding derived from the “shoot-em-up-bang-bang” reporting they were continually exposed to. For any number of reasons, “positive” news did little for a reporter’s career or ego, a career based on finding or inventing “stories” accentuating the negative while heightening public discontent.

Ignorance of military and Southeast Asia matters, of communist revolutionary warfare, fueled by potential for lucrative career advancement, unwilling or unable to report on South Vietnamese or Laotian troops except in cases of failure, apparently enthused by the visual impact of war and the destruction it causes, sometimes disdainful of South Vietnamese if not American troops while ignoring Australian, Korean, Thai, and New Zeland forces, the news media proved incapable of depicting Vietnam, and Hanoi’s War, in its entirety . The American public saw the same “bang-bang” every year, and were misled into assuming nothing had changed, nothing was accomplished. Allied temporary defeats were portrayed as permanent setbacks, while victories and accomplishments went unreported, or were, with smug theatrics, cast aside as government propaganda.

News media misrepresentation not only misled and uninformed the American public, but also prohibited its ability to think and make logical inferences on its own.

In the final analysis, Vietnam, Southeast Asia, Hanoi’s war, and American involvement could not be, and cannot be, understood, in good part because of media failings, moral, intellectual, and otherwise. Without recognizing this, and knowing that what was reported was not the all-comprehensive truth of the matter, the subject itself cannot be understood. Overall, and efforts of responsible reporters notwithstanding, the nature and extent of news media failure in Vietnam exceeds that of allied military forces who were attempting to and succeeding, despite documented lies and bumbling, to stop Hanoi’s War. Many people died and millions more have greatly suffered simply because the whole story was never told. And because what was portrayed in media reporting was demonstrably not, to use the famous Cronkite phrase, “the way it is.”  This bitter judgment is itself based on beliefs articulated by Robert Elegant, himself a journalist :

“Illusionary events reported by the press as well as real events within the press corps were more decisive than the clash of arms or the contention of ideologies. For the first time in modern history, the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield but on the printed page, and above all, on the television screen.”

Looking back coolly, I believe it can be said that South Vietnam and American forces actually won the limited military struggle. They virtually crushed the Viet Cong in the South, the “native” guerillas who were directed, reinforced, and equipped from Hanoi, and thereafter they threw back the invasion by regular North Vietnamese divisions. Nonetheless, the war was finally lost to the invaders after the U.S. disengagement because the political pressures built up by the media had made it quite impossible for Washington to maintain even the minimal material and moral support that would have enabled the Saigon regime to continue effective resistance.”  Elegant, a highly acclaimed British reporter on Vietnam, later added these terrible words:

“Never before Vietnam had the collective policy of the media sought by graphic and unremitting distortion, the victory of the enemies of the correspondents own side.”

Could this possibly be the truth about the performance of the U.S. media in Vietnam? In ending this series, from my extended observation and study of the media while on the home front during the war, this is certainly the way it looked to me. And many others. Said Senator Margaret Chase Smith, “The press has become more sympathetic to the enemy than to our own national interest.” (Congressional Record, June 16, 1971)

—Bill  Laurie -Vietnam War historian

Today We Were Rock Stars.

We shut the aircraft down and what we saw was 350 plus people ranging in ages from 6 months to old and gray standing silently at a fence watching our every movement. I walked around the nose of my aircraft a mere 150 feet away from this crowd, I gave a simple smile and raised my arm up over my head and was greeted with the most substantial roar of levity that I have ever heard in my life. 350 plus people were cheering. Not because I play an instrument in some notable band, acted in a big Hollywood movie, or wrote some famous novel. They were cheering because I am part of something bigger than that. I am part of a team made up of men and women who all wear a uniform of some kind symbolized by a colorful patch known as the Stars and Stripes. A team that helped liberate an entire culture of people almost killed off because they were different. Like the Americans were to the Jews we are to the Kurds.

Before I ramble anymore about this occasion I feel that I am obligated to expose you to what happened to these people. Halajba, the town we flew too, sits directly on the Iranian border. In fact almost a one quarter of the town is in Iran. During the 1980s there was a conflict known as the Iran/Iraq war. This city was at the frontlines of this battle. Historically speaking the Kurdish people have been oppressed and looked down upon by their Arab counterparts in Iraq because they are not Arabic. They are different. They are a melting pot of many different beliefs; their cultural heritage stems across every religion known to man. This diversity sets them apart and makes them great. Well Islamic Arabs known as Sunni and Shia don’t have a good history of liking people who are different. The perfect illustration of this is the fact that the Sunni and Shia can’t even agree on their own religion. Minor differences between these two branches such as how many times a day they pray, certain important figures in their history, and different holidays is grounds enough for them to not even like each other. Now the Kurds have always been at the bottom of this hierarchy; Saddam was a Sunni and for many years the Sunni Arabs had a good life. The Shia and Kurds were oppressed by this regime quite fiercely with the The Kurds receiving the brunt of it. During the Iran/Iraq war Saddam bombed many cities like this without remorse simply because they were Kurdish. Many ruined cityscapes still litter this country side from that conflict. If that wasn’t enough in 1987 Saddam organized an operation completely aimed at eradicating or otherwise imprisoning every Kurd in the country. It began with interment into concentration style camps outside of the major cities. This was followed by the bombing of Kurdish cities. All this climaxed in 1988 when Saddam launched a massive chemical weapons attack which left over 5,000 fatalities in Halajba alone. The final toll of Kurdish fatalities ranged from 300,000 to 500,000 killed. Thousands more wounded and imprisoned. All this was because they were different.

Today was a side of the war that I had never before seen. I saw the fighting last time I was here. The tracers illuminating the night skies, the bombs and hellfires being dropped on insurgents while inserting fresh troops and pulling out the dead and wounded ones. I saw the fear and terror that people can leash upon one another. The awesome horrific sight of what firepower can do to soft skin targets of both friendlies and enemies. I was prepared to go to war again. To see and experience those horrific moments not often spoken about by those who were there. Today I stood in awe as I was thanked, not by a passerby at the airport or some restaurant I was eating at, but by an entire nation of people that we as a team helped save and preserve. Because of our efforts, which started after the first Gulf War to present, these people have emerged as a supreme culture of individuals at once on the brink of extinction. This is no longer a war as far as a traditional definition would go; it is about the people of Iraq now. It’s not about bullets and bombs but handshakes and smiles. We have done our job and we did it well and I don’t care what any peace loving tree hugging hippy says after watching CNN because today I was personally thanked by more people of another country then that of my own country. If that is not a testament to the job that we have done here than I do not know what is. These are free people who have lived with 3,000 years of oppression. They are free because of our efforts. They are free because of our sacrifice.

Feel free to pass this story and pictures along to every American. It is our duty to make sure that they know the truth about what we are doing over here and the results of those efforts. The liberal media would try and disgrace our sacrifice or otherwise downplay the importance of our mission in Iraq and that is just not fair to the fighting men and women of the United States of America. This is a reminder to those liberal hippies that sometimes there are people in this world who need a good ass kicking to help save the little guy and no one does it better than an American Soldier. Hooah!

SGT Christopher A. Hoffert
Afghanistan ‘04-’05, Iraq ‘06-’07, and ‘09-’10
Alpha Company 3rd Battalion 25th Combat Aviation Brigade
FOB Diamondback, Iraq
3 Oct 2009

Obama’s Health Care Ambush
By Michael Fowler

Methinks thou doest protest too….little. Every parent knows that when the kids are suddenly quiet for more than a few minutes this means trouble. Children wrongly believe that silence will reduce unwanted attention from their parents when doing something wrong. Silence is information. When I was in the U.S. Marines, Force Recon unit, we learned that the first attack was generally a diversion for a far more serious and silent attack. Sun Tzu’s wrote about this in The Art of War, “Big noise in east; attack in west.” It may seem like crazy advice America, but look out behind you.

Right in front of us is the main attack: Socialized medicine. We must fight it, it is a real attack and President Barack Obama will fight for it if he can. This is a big noisy assault on liberty from the east called socialism. I believe that there is good reason to think Obamacare is not the main attack but a diversion. Allow me to lay out a few points.

Point One: Insurance companies are silent. If the insurance companies thought for one second that they were going to lose one dime on this deal they would be screaming bloody murder, and spending millions on advertising telling us how this plan would ruin health care in America. There would be no end to “Chicken-Little” television. However, Aristotle’s dictum tells us “silence implies consent.”

Point Two: Health care workers are silent.

Point Three: Money buys political power.

Point Four: Capitalism operates on two basic principles of liberty, which equates power being in the hand of the people, the buyer. One is the power to choose between products or services offered at market. Two is the power not to purchase the product or services. These two basic principles give the buyer the ultimate power to spend the fruit of his labor (income) how and if he pleases.

Point Five: A true government takeover of health insurance would destroy the entire industry. Again we hear nothing.

Point Six: Fifty-two fiscally conservative House Democrats known as the Blue Dogs receive considerably more in contributions than those Democrats who support a public option.

Point Seven: The Athenian Democracy collapsed when politicians discovered the ability to rob the public treasury. Now, industry has learned how to rob the public treasury by buying politicians.

Holding those points in mind, let’s also include a little history from California. In the 1960’s the auto-insurance industry was successful in lobbying Sacramento to pass a mandatory insurance law. The reasoning was that when everyone paid it would lower the costs. Yet, after passage rates did not change, nor did purchasing increase. Then, in the mid-1980’s, lobbyists urged the state again to pass a new law: enforcement. Now a trooper could require you to prove you had auto insurance. All of sudden, rates which had hardly changed since 1910, when indexed, shot up like a rocket. This was exactly the opposite of what the insurance companies had promised. This caused the insurance revolt of 1988 and the passage of Proposition 103—which the insurance companies fought in court for 20 years. This happened because the second principle of capitalism was removed, the power to refuse the product. When this occurred, there was a lack of motivation on the part of the seller to keep the price low. Thus, the people had to use the legislative process to regulate the price.

The logical conclusion of this evidence is that insurance lobbyists are paying off the Democrats for their votes. Is there evidence to support this? Max Sieben Baucus, Democrat senator from Montana, is the current chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Finance. He is influential in the debate over healthcare reform and has received more “contributions” than any other senator—a staggering $3,973,485 from 2003 to 2008 from the health sector. It is no surprise he is opposed to the single-payer option. While running for presidential office, then Illinois Senator Barack Obama received over 19 million dollars from the health industry. Why would they donate so much money to someone who would shut down their industry—unless, the deal was in the bag all ready?

Attack from the West

Silence is information just as noise is information. I submit that insurance companies are silently working every angle in order to achieve mandatory health insurance—the Baucus plan. They have given millions to Mr. Obama, the Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans. They are covering all of their bases.

As the baby boomers age and continue to vastly outnumber the next generation, the so- called Generation X, they are no longer funding the insurance agencies coffers, and the Gen Xers are not a significant source of new customers to cover the growing bill. So the insurances companies are looking to Mr. Baucus to create a government mandate that will force all Americans to purchase their product. When the baby boomers were young and healthy, the money from premiums abounded, and everyone got rich. Now it’s pay day for the baby boomers and the money is gone. The insurance companies ran a scam, and they need Sen. Baucus to bail them out with our money.

Obamacare will fail; it has never really been the plan. The real plan is to pass mandatory insurance consumption by all citizens. But first they have to scare the public with the specter of socialism in order to get them to accept a lesser option of mandatory insurance. Everyone on both sides has agreed that reform is needed. This may or may not be true, but it is common ground that will provide a foundation for a return to a government-sponsored “company-store” of yesteryear or debt bondage, which is tantamount to slavery.

How so? The American people will be forced give the fruits of their labor to the insurance companies without their consent or agreement. Arguments will be made to justify such actions. Slave owners likewise made such arguments to justify their actions. They claimed that they provided a service to slaves: food, housing, education, security and healthcare in exchange for labor—yet it was slavery. The difference between slavery and freedom is choice. We must explain to others that the most basic form of power is the right to be free, the right to say no and the right to refuse a company’s product.

We have a socialist-communist system of distributing medical care. Instead of letting people hire their own physicians and pay them, no one pays his or her own medical bills. Instead, there’s a third party payment system. It is a communist system and it has a communist result. – Milton Friedman

If Obamacare passes, the Democrats win socialism and if Mr. Baucus wins, the insurance companies win our money—either way the American people will lose. In the end, this will be the largest theft of liberty to ever occur. Both can be stopped cold once the people can see that what is happening is a direct infringement of their rights.
Healthcare reform is the domestic enemy that waits snarling in the dark to strike at liberty today. If allowed to pass, it will invalidate the deaths of every fallen solider from Valley Forge to Gettysburg and beyond who fought for a right to be free.

Originally written for the Edmund Burke Institute’s Reflections Magazine:  Here

http://www.ebireflections.org/index.php?vol=001_vol&iss=009_issue&section=05_public_policy&item=01_public_policy.html#id05_public_policy

-Michael Fowler is Director of Veterans for Academic Freedom.org, an instructor of Christian apologetics, author and talk-radio host.