|
||
Cronkite's 1968 Dissent on Vietnam Helped Save Thousands of Lives
I probably failed to watch the late Walter Cronkite's most important TV news moment: his famous February 1968 commentary (so out of character) after returning from Vietnam in which he cast strong doubt on our mission there and its chances for success. Yes, the JFK assassination and moon landing drew more viewers but this broadcast would help save many thousands of lives, U.S. and Vietnamese, perhaps even a million.
I may have missed it at the time because I was then leading my campus Clean for Gene McCarthy campaign. McCarthy was about to drive Lyndon Johnson out of the race with a surprisingly strong second place finish in the New Hampshire primary. Surely, Walter had softened up LBJ for the kill.
In fact, perhaps the most famous quote about Cronkite was Johnson saying that if he'd "lost Cronkite" on Vietnam he'd lost "Middle America."
Cronkite also earned my gratitude later that year when he grew visibly upset on screen -- telegraphing his disgust -- when CBS showed images of protesters getting beaten up in streets of Chicago near the Democratic Convention gathering. I was out there, myself, though not beaten. When Dan Rather was roughed up on the floor of the convention, Cronkite denounced the "thugs" who were doing it.
Of course, the war continued for years, we even invaded Cambodia, and Vietnamese kept perishing in horrid numbers. But a U.S. "surge" in troop levels -- let alone the nuclear option -- was no longer thinkable. American troops eventually started to come home as Vietnamization and negotiation (along with much aerial bombing) eventually took center stage.
Thirty-five years later, Cronkite opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and continued his criticism in the years the followed, making some links to Vietnam. When hawkish Rep. John Murtha called for a U.S. retreat from Iraq some called it a "Cronkite moment." But, as we knew then (and even more so since), John Murtha was no Walter Cronkite.
Anyway, I can't think of a greater tribute to Cronkite than simply reprinting the transcript of the February '68 Vietnam commentary. It follows.
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.
Greg Mitchell''s latest book is "Why Obama Won." He is editor of Editor & Publisher.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The more we see news turning into entertainment the more prescient Mr. Paddy Chayefsky becomes in retrospect. The screenplay for the film "Network" seemed off the wall when it was released in 1976. Today it seems more of an understatement. Ned Beatty's lecture to Peter Finch on "Corporate Cosmology" is brilliant and it was a prophecy of how Washington operates in 2009.
Cronkite's ability to cross generations was simply amazing; this was his great gift.
Even Gen Xers like me have been heavily influenced by him:
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m7d20-Walter-Cronkites-influence-on-Generation-X
Raymond Gellner – National Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner
__________________________________________________________
Wow....powerful stuff. I served in Vietnam in 1968....arrived just before the so-called Tet offensive. Anyone who turned against the Vietnam War had to be against the Iraq debacle. It was the same damn thing all over again! Two words come to mind about Cronkite: Integrity & Professionalism.
MILLIONS of people in the US (not to mention other countries) knew as early as 1963 that the war in Vietnam was a civil war in which the US had no vital interest, and anyone familiar with France's misadventure there could have deduced that a military victory was bound to elude the US. As the war ground on, especially by 1965, anyone who read newspapers knew the government was lying through its teeth. And Cronkite didn't know till he went over and looked? Or was it Tet that changed his mind? MILLIONS of Americans marched against the war in 1965, 1966, 1967. They, not Walter Cronkite, were the epitome of skepticism, informed realism, and political resistance. And they were mocked and belittled by all the networks' news anchors. Cronkite's later mythologizing of himself as a decisive voice against the war was unfortunate. He should have expressed regret that he was five years late.
Cronkite was one of the first casualties of the Fourth Estate in the U.S., when news anchors were converted from active editors to mere copy readers. E.g. from 1956 to 1961, it was "Walter Cronkite with the News", and by 1962 this had become "CBS News with Walter Cronkite". A seemingly small change, but not in reality.
Those who aren't familiar with James Aubrey at CBS during this period might be interested to read about him. Despite Bill Paley's objections, Aubrey had begun to bridge the network's "two towers of power" (news and entertainment). By 1962 this process was well underway, it was the beginning of the end of truly unbiased news reporting in our major media.
Viet-Nam.
America "won" over 50,000 US troops' deaths.
Some "victory" that was. NOT.
War? A tragedy we keep on repeating so that the
Republican WAR PROFITEERS can shovel out tax money out of
US Treasury and into corporate pockets.
War's a GREAT BUSINESS to be in.
Military-Industrial Complex is alive & well over
people's DEAD BODIES.
The US is going down to "War Incorporated"
Sad.... but freedom is measured by our resistance in keeping it and resisting those who would take it away!
The profiteers call their way "freedom" as well.
"..War? A tragedy we keep on repeating so that the
Republican WAR PROFITEERS can shovel out tax money out of
US Treasury and into corporate pockets..."
Democrats were in charge during the majority f the Vietnam war. It's not a R vs D thing.
They ALL profit from War.
Have we learned anything from Vietnam? The protests against the Vietnam war were a combination of moral outrage and simply saving your own butt. Walter Cronkite validated those protests. With the voluntary military we have enabled our leaders to wage war with little political stress because there is no shared sacrifice.
Scrifice?
Get real.
War IS EVIL!
No winners, just sacrife to the war mongers and profiteers who never die in sacrifice!
Cronkite's 1968 Dissent on Vietnam Helped Save Thousands of Lives
* * * * * * * * * * * *
In the end the lost lives were lost for nothing, but the pride of some silly, misguided old men.
Hey, not "for nothing"!
Corporations make lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from WAR.
Why are people NAIVE about THAT?
I'm not.
The United Corporate State of War and Subjugation.
Our country tis of thee you are bleeding!
BUT the war went on for another 5 years -- Crokite was just one of thousands ignored by
Johnson, Nixon, and all the other of the "brightest and the best."
I remember Tet and I remember Cronkite's reporting on the war.
Nixon listened to the "silent majority' He did not listen to Crokite. Or any other voice of reason.
Cronkite freaked out over Tet and saw the war as lost at that point.
The Viet Kong were destroyed as a fighting force during Tet and the US won the battle, but the propaganda victory was North Vietnams and the American left's to share.
The North Vietnamese Army defeated the South. Did you want another 50,000 American dead to prevent that happening?
And now Vietnam makes all your GAP clothing, and has found huge deposits of oil, for the irony challenged
True, the NVA defeated the ARVN in 1975, but in 1968 during the Tet offensive the ARVN made a somewhat passable show for themselves - not that it was much - for the only time in the war. Not against the NVA, mind you, but against the VC.
And, yes, the fact that Viet Nam now makes many clothes for the American market is ironic. Anyone who would have predicted it in 1968 or 1975 would have been accused by both left and right of taking stronger LSD than Timothy Leary at his most extreme.
Thanks, Mr. Mitchell, for the timely reminders that; #1. civil DISSENT, __SAVED__ thousands of lives by bringing the Vietnam War to an end. The fact is, that the United States had NO business supporting the French attempts to reassert colonial, murderously DICTATORIAL control in Vietnam after WWII (they had sided with Japan during that war, helping the Japanese army sieze so many rice crops that an artificial (created) famine killed one million Vietnamese peasants in 1944-1945)
(in an effort to retain that colonial regime, the French Foreign Legion accepted former Nazi stormtroopers for their war vs the VietMinh!)
After the French got their tails kicked fair and square (despite MILLIONS of tons of US supplies & support), the United States stepped in where the French left off, trying to establish a CATHOLIC dictatorship on a 90% Buddhist country. Now it is true that South Korea is far more "free" and productive than the despotic North Korea; but North Korea's regime was entirely a product of Soviet & Chinese creation, while the VietMinh were truly an indigenous force who had been allied with America during WWII. Such finesse distinctions are rarely made in the DC (neo-con) intellectual & press monolith.
and, #2. that "DEMOCRAT" authoritarians and elected officials are nearly as quick to SUPPRESS THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE as are their blatantly Right-Wing authoritarian Republican friends.
Very good points. And to those always claiming that the new Vietnam regime killed "millions" after the fall of Saigon, that distinction belongs mainly to the U.S. The highest toll was taken in Cambodia, which was destabilized after a U.S. backed coup. The Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge took over and killed millions -- adding to the millions killed by the U.S. in its indiscriminate bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Ironically, the Khmer Rouge slaughter was stopped not by the U.S. but by the new Vietnam regime, which invaded and shut down the genocide.
The communists in Vietnam were indeed brutal during and after the war, but they couldn't hold a candle to the U.S. -- and certainly not the Khmer Rouge -- when it came to slaughtering people on a mass scale.
If Diogenes met Walter he could have ended his search.
58,000 American boys died for nothing
What about the 2,000,000 Vietnamese?
What about them? How many Vietnamese gave their lives to interfere in *our* civil war?
Vietnam was 58,000+ American lives flushed directly down the toilet, and U.S. defense spending since the end of WWII represents the greatest squandering of national wealth in human history.
But those comments may have cost a million or more Cambodian lives.
Somehow, those don't seem to count.
Very questionable.
Our invasion and bombing of Cambodia most likely so weakened the Cambodian government that the Khmer Rouge were able to take over.
Few can deny the importance of Cronkite's characterization of the war, but the assertion that he was responsible for saving thousands perhaps a million lives is bizarre. He was just one of many Americans who opposed the war. Cronkite was a very good reporter; he was not a saint, nor a savior .
Respect the man instead of attempting to create a myth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
