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.

Comments

[jeaton]

Let's not forget the war continued another 6 years after Cronkite's on air comment. Nixon and Kissinger escalated the effort and the rest is history.

[aofh]

Had Humphrey won in 68 your statement that Cronkite's dissent saved thousands of live in Vietnam might have been true. I think his reporting from as early as 66 may have had an influence on Johnson in that regard. Unfortunately, we elected Richard Nixon in 68 who not only championed the war but went so far as to undermine the peace talks Johnson initiated. American casualties doubled after Nixon gained office and the war spread (secretly from America's point of view) into Laos and Cambodia. Nonetheless, Cronkite's integrity is already soarly missed in the American body politic.

[kitkatborn]

God be good to him.

[andyg]

Not in Cambodia.

[Tecumseh]

Cronkite Had Something To Say About Bushism, Too
This is the title of a piece at Daily Kos referring to an NPR comment Mr. Cronkite made in 2004 on the anniversary of Edward Murrow's broadcast challenging McCarthyism. Like the writer there, I remember this challenge to the current generation of reporters bringing tears to my eyes. Would the media get off their asses and do their jobs after being shamed by Walter Cronkite and the ghost of Edward R. Murrow? Sadly, the answer was no. Only the blogosphere was willing to point out the fact that the emperor had no clothes.

[SethBLiNK]

How unlike any reporting we see now this is.

The coverage is not emotional and employs very little in the way of opinion, unless you call subjective in depth analysis of the situation opinion. Technically, it is. But compare that to the ranting and raving we see today, on both sides of any question. Is there a single known reporter now whose analysis can ever be considered outside the context of his or her already well publicized opinion?

Cronkite put in the years establishing himself as a reporter of the facts so that when he reached the decision to put out what would be considered for him a rare opinion piece the world and its leaders had no choice but to pay heed.

The man will be missed. The principals he represented are already sorely missing.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

In case you are ot old enough, this & many other broadcasts, some mentioned by the author constitute the reason that Cronkite was called "the most trusted person in America". Great Journalist. Great American.

[DMM1029]

Well, I was in my living room pondering joining the army at the time. After this, I said hell no I won't go. To any doubters, LBJ apparently said at the time, "If we've lost Cronkrite, we've lost the nation." Up against the wall MFs.

[Srkdqltr]

I don't know how old the folks here are who are posting that Cronkite didn't do anything to end the war His attitude against the war after his visit there seemed to change attitudes. His attitude and the increased coverage of the war and the weekly listing of names of all killed there that week gradually changed attitudes and created an awareness of what was going on that, I think, softened some of the hard line for the war.
The folks who wanted this war were strong. The pro war attitude was very strong and anti war was looked on as soft or cowardly. There was still a very strong WW2 pro-war, war was good, faction who didn't want to see the war end.
It took a long time after Cronkite's statements but he made it more acceptable to be against the war.
That is my view. I was in my late 20's at the time and against the war. Not a militant. I did think that demonstrating against the war was necessary. That is how I remember the time.

[lawgrrl]

Thank you for sharing---very interesting. Makes me feel like my generation (born in 73) is so lame.

[goldcoastsailor]

The Vietnam war was always waiting to gobble you up if you graduated or dropped out of college, and the draft finally did catch up with me in 1970. It was a time of constant high anxiety and partying like there was no tomorrow, because there might not be. I think you give Cronkite a little too much credit, we all tried to stop the war, some by just disrespecting it.

[sticksnstones]

Perhaps, but it would be hard to deny the fact that Walter had a much larger audience. And whether appropriate or not, his credibility with America at large swayed public opinion from that time forward more so than any other faction. I for one, owe this man my thanks for that.

[kauaiphil]

Born a military brat in 1948, I couldn't wait to get old enough to kill a godless commie. But one of the books I read when I was about 12 was "On Guerrilla Warfare," by Che. By 1966, when I was about to graduate from high school, I was convinced that there was no way to "win" that war, but felt it was my duty to join up. Fortunally, an ex-military social studies teacher convinced my to go to college instead. In 1967, after a motorcycle accident, I spent a couple of weeks at Ft. Sam Houston Army Hospital in San Antonio. It changed my life forever. At the University of Texas 1969-71, I was on the executive committe of The Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. I attended the November 15, 1969 demonstration in Washington D.C. I hope Walter knew that he saved lives. I believe my daily work in the anti-war movement, in those years, saved some too. I still can't believe that Bush was "re-elected," and that Congress and the American people allowed him to invade Iraq in the first place. Was it Gore Vidal who said, "The United States of Amnesia?" I am now a 61 year old godless socialist. Funny how things work out.

[k4freedom]

More American lives were lost in Vietnam because the 'strategy' was cooked up in the White House instead of in the field by commanders who knew how to 'win'....and by a constant barrage against our troops from those at home...most notaby Jane Fonda, and those like her whom the North Vietnamese use like cheap whores.

[ProfessorDuh]

Nonsense. The war was a complete, pointless waste and a slaughter, fought for nothing but a "domino theory" that was proven completely false.

[Bob Soper]

The Vietnam war, much like the current clusterf**ks in Iraq & Afghanistan, can be traced to war profiteers driving our foreign policy. Look at which defense industries (and banks) have made gigantic profits during these conflicts, and look at the incestuous relationships they have with our military leadership & elected officials.
As the great Major General Smedley Butler, USMC tells us from beyond the grave: war is a racket.

[wyldthings]

Proffessorduh, Tell that to the people of Laos and Cambodia where over 3,000,000 people died as the Communists invaded these countries after South Vietnam was taken over by the North. I love the fact that from Jane Fonda on down you refuse to accept that the Communists slaughtered millions in Southeast Asia after we left.

[gschear]

Win what.
Check the labels on the clothes you buy. Chances are it says Made in the Republic of Vietnam. Made by someone who most assuredly had relatives among the milion Vietnamese killed during the War.
Thats what we were fighting against.? An insidious invasion of...textiles?
Every conflict that an incompetent President leads us into is not a football game to be won to keep our 'stats' up. This is why we are supposed to think. That is why our now non-existent Press needed to report, probe and question. As a nation we are doomed to do this over and over because at our core we are now a blind nation full of stupid people who refuse to learn from mistakes because in their view this country is incapable being wrong and anyone who says different is a dirty islamoMarxiFascistCommieNazi.
Cue Lee Greenwood.

[3dtrix]

Nonsense - sheer twaddle. This is the spurious reasoning that led the neocons to use Iraq as a "do-over"...

[sticksnstones]

A " do-over ", I'll add, with the same result ...

[3dtrix]

The affront to reason that this argument encapsulates - which has been fruitlessly flogged these many years - has cost our nation dearly in lives, treasure and standing. It makes my blood boil - and illustrates that the so-called "conservatives" are INCAPABLE of learning the lessons of history. For all the jingoistic palaver about "patriotism" and "loving freedom" (check the moniker) inevitably plastered to such drivel is the inescapable reality that OUR OWN NATION won its independence in a war breathtakingly similar to Viet Nam - a war fought by guerrillas and insurgents against the world's greatest military power, across an ocean, which was supplied by private contractors for the benefit of a financial in-crowd in opposition to domestic sentiment. Love of homeland and intimate knowledge of the lay of the land defeated superior firepower in both cases - and arguably England had a much better reason to be on the Atlantic seaboard than the US had in Viet Nam. As long as I draw breath - I will NEVER allow such destructive nonsense to stand unchallenged...

[gschear]

Excellent post.
An invading army from 10,000 miles away can occupy a nation indefinately as long as it is willing to spend it's treasure and send it's dead home. Eventually 'home' tires of this exercise.
Ask George Washington.
Ask Vo Nguyen Giap
Ask Robert McNamera

[offred]

k4freedom, define "win." Is it that we go in to another country, lose our soldiers and treasure, kill the bad guys, take what we want, tromp all over the civilian population, and leave U.S. bases in the country for a hundred years? Or is it Iraq submitting a document thanking the U.S. for help in deposing Saddam Hussein and then waving goodbye and bands playing music as the last U.S. troops leave? Is it helping set up a viable government and infrastructure to replace the ones we destroyed and then leaving Iraq in control of its own resources? What is a reasonable symbol of victory that you will accept?

Not all wars are, or should be, winnable. A "winnable" war is too easy to fall into.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

A "winnable" war is one in which you have clear objectives from the outset, i.e., destroy Germany & Japan's ability to wage war against the world. Total war until that objective is obtained. Why would anyone consider entering into an unwinnable war, unless the alternative was the annihilation of your country? Wars are not playthings. Should not be easily entered into.

[k4freedom]

You first, wise guy...I am going to emmulate Sotomayor on my answer to your question....you were saying??

[robert234]

He was a good man committed to his work, and I (an extreme dissident at the time) liked him. But I'll stop there. He wasn't a Gore Vidal or an Edwin Black, and certainly not an activist in the street or on campus. Where far more successful warriors helped bring LBJ to his knees. One more thing, those were not thugs beating people in the streets--I was there; they were COPS much more vile and violent than a thug.

[GailAnn]

I think that Walter Cronkite would not have fallen for the seduction into complicity that was called "embedding". Had only one reporter been willing to tell the truth about Iraq as he did about Vietnam, so many thousands of lives on both sides might have been saved. He set a journalistic standard that no reporter working on air today seems willing to attempt to reach. Our news organizations have substituted style for substance, bombast for careful research, good looks and a toothy smile for honesty. And we, the listeners, allow it. Certainly we are better entertained by Knut the polar bear than roadsde bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mourned his retirement, I mourn his death.

[ProfessorDuh]

Cronkite talked about "embedding." He said it sounded just like "in bed with" to him. As a WWII reporter, he had contempt for it.

[noneIn2008]

Saved thousands of American lives and cost millions of lives in SE Asia. Blood is on everyone's hands.

[ProfessorDuh]

Real reporters have always tended to be "liberal" — which means sympathetic to the poor and the oppressed and mistrustful of the powerful and the well-heeled — because they get to see undeserved individual suffering and privation up close and personal, as well as the pious hypocrisy of the government and the cruel, exploitative indifference of the rich.
They're in a position to see just how much sheer BS is peddled by people like Fox News reporters.
You've got to love the way right wingers condemn ordinary Americans for wanting to secure decent wages, health care and retirement benefits through union representation, but have no problem with CEOs grabbing billions through "deregulated" financial manipulations that benefit no one but the CEOs' Swiss bank accounts.
These right wingers are cheering for the economic destruction of this nation, and they're either too stupid to know it, or too corrupt to care.

[3dtrix]

A very fine and true observation!

[robiform]

Thanks for a great and insightful comment. In reading comments at other news sites regarding Mr. Cronkite's passing, I am totally astonished (I know, I shouldn't be!) by the stupidity of the right-wing cheerleaders, a number of whom are wonderful examples of the "ignorance by choice" philosphy of the current Republican party!

I remember watching the CBS Evening News the night Mr. Cronkite reported on his findings during his trip to Vietnam. As has been pointed out, it was the beginning of the end for the Johnson presidency--unfortunately, we got Nixon who dragged American participation in the war out until he was safely re-elected. In the meantime, thousands more American troops lost their lives in a useless military adventure, and sadly, I see a lot of parallels between Vietnam and what's going on today. The main difference (and probably the main reason why war protests have been much more muted than those in the sixties) is the lack of a military draft. That old cliche is true: those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it!

[PDH5204]

Cosmic disaster? And kindly note this extraordinary statement, to wit, "the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North". Walter, the NVA were already invading the RVN, or did you miss those main force NVA in Hue? So maybe we needed to relieve the pressure on the RVN via counterinvasion of the north. And the French and allied Vietnamese forces defended the Red River Delta with 192,000 or so souls, so I also don't know how Walter could say that "three hundred thousand more American troops to [a] battle" in the Red River Delta could not possibly matter. For those not in the know, the Red River Delta is the breadbasket of the north [helpful thing, yes, to occupy the opposition's primary source of nutrition].

Lastly, the aspect that Walter well and truly missed, the whole ball of wax: the nature of the war. We weren't fighting a war. We were fighting what Truman called a "police action". For what I mean, while I forget his name, the one Admiral asked, why go to war if you don't intend on changing the opposition regime? We saw how the war ended, yes? The flag of the RVN came down. That was never our goal in relation to the opposition from the north. For that reason alone we could never win that war. And for the same reason, while it isn't quite so hot as it was before, we are still fighting the Korean War.

[MelRoy]

I know that Hal Moore was against the strategy, and he was the first in. I believe he thought victory could be achieved, but after Tet, nobody in the military (not the commanders, anyway) believed it.

The Tet Offensive was a crystallizing point in the war - it is when those who knew a thing or two about military history finally came to the realization that not only was Charlie well organized on a national level, they had widespread support among the population on a national level. It was like the whole country screamed in unison "Yankees Go Home". The "liberation" of the Vietnamese people was exposed as a pretence; the Vietnamese knew they were proxies in an ideological war between the United States and the communist powers, and by the end of 1968, we knew they knew.

[PDH5204]

Thanks for your reply. The problem, though, is that it wasn't the southern insurgents who prevailed. It was main force NVA, illustrated best by that one NVA main battle tank crushing that one gate at the Independence Palace moments before the flag of the north flew over the RVN. Then the northern insurgents spit out, like cherry stones, their southern comrades. Then the war was over. The spitting out means that it wasn't proxy war. You might also consider the bodies exhumed at Hue. Lastly, large southern insurgency, but all those dreams and hopes of general or mass uprising during Tet failed to material.