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
You give Cronkite way too much credit. Instead of reporting the real conditions in South Vietnam -- the deceptions that led to the creation of the puppet government in the first place, the South's refusal to hold promised elections, the rampant corruption at every level -- Cronkite and CBS had acted like servants and sycophants of our government, dutifully trumpeting almost every lie and distortion passed to them by the Pentagon and White House. It was no coincidence that the daily MACV news briefing in Saigon was referred to by many as the Five O'Clock Follies.
Like most reporters then -- AND NOW -- Cronkite didn't begin telling the real truth about Vietnam until his corporation had stuck its finger into the wind and decided that doing so might not only be acceptable but ultimately profitable. Other media quickly followed suit, but nervously kept up their drumbeat of Red-baiting as they tip-toed toward opposing the war. This collective cowardice allowed our government to kill tens of thousands more U.S. troops and literally millions more Southeast Asians before the carnage ended. Of course, today the dead Richard Nixon is often praised as a "flawed but often brilliant" man and Henry Kissinger still shows up to be lionized on TV talks shows, so that gives you some idea of how we hold public officials accountable for their actions. No wonder much of the world hates the U.S.
Too bad there are no reporters who could've stopped the slaughter of civilians in Iraq.
Baloney. Cronkite changed nothing in the real world: He denounced the Vietnam war in 1968, but the war continued until 1974 and tens of thousands of GIs were killed.
Choke on that baloney - it takes a mile or two to bring a train to a complete stop - if he hadn't so publicly pulled the brake, it might still be rolling...
First: thank you for you're support of Eugene McCarthy.
Second: thank you for the transcript of the commentary by WC. I appreciate it.
I must respectfully disagree with you that Walter Cronkite "helped save thousands of lives." It would be another seven year until the war was ended by Gerald Ford. Another seven years of war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
Often, we (regardless of political leanings) take a person's actions and embellish them to make them more important than they were. Walter Cronkite's commentary was courageous in the face of a bellicose (Democratically controlled) government which gave "permission" to the people to continue the protests through another bellicose (Republican controlled) government. But, please, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that Walter Cronkite ended the war. Let us celebrate his words as a testiment to the First Amendment to the Constitution which protects our right to question the government which we have elected.
That is, in and of itself, worthy of praise.
Maybe you should begin with accuracy. Ford did not end the Viet Nam war. By treaty, the US involvement ended in January, 1973. Ford simply refused to authorize US troops to re-enter the war when Viet Nam fell during approximately 6 weeks between March, 1975 & April 30, 1975.
You are correct that Cronkite did not end the war, however, you ignore (or unaware of) the fact, that when he began to speak against the war, Johnson was correct. The government lost middle America. More & more of the hardcore "...my country, right or wrong" types began to realize that there was no possible victory in Viet Nam.
Finally, on what basis, in fact, do you assert that the Democratic government ALLOWED protesters to continue to protest the war against a Republican government?
I will answer you're last point first: I did not mean to say that the "Democratic government ALLOWED" anything. It was Walter Cronkite who, as I said, "gave permission" to continue to protest. You might ask: why do people need permission? Some people don't; some people need to hear the truth from a person they respect before they change their minds and that was what I was saying.
As to your first point, I would say it is a distinction without a difference. Ford ended our involvement in Vietnam. An american-centric person would say it was the end of the Vietnam war (even though the killing went on after we left) because that is how we view it.
I think I have addressed you second point in my first paragraph.
1968 was a bit late to wake up to what was going on in Vietnam, especially if you were part of the media and cared about what was going on. I also don't get how Cronkite turning against the war saved many lives. He might have discouraged Johnson, who decided not to run for re-election, but The American people, bless their dumb hearts, elected Nixon, who was raring to keep the war effort going. He implemented that classic Republican ploy -- do one thing and call it the opposite. That was how he could escalate the war while claiming he was moving toward peace. That was when 1969 became "1984."
"I also don't get how Cronkite turning against the war saved many lives." I agree
He saved thousands of lives by suggesting that any massive "surge" of the number of troops sent to Vietnam would be basically adding them to the slaughter and the death toll. The US was never going to win in Vietnam, so sending thousands of more men to their deaths would have been all for naught. There are a lot of freepers out there who claim this makes the deaths of those that came before Cronkite's change of heart were no for nothing. One, this was not Cronkite's fault. The US, in its hubris, could not accept that it was losing, and would indeed lose, this war. Despite carpet bombing the entire country as well as Laos and Cambodia with unprecedented millions of bombs for years, the North Vietnamese were undiminished. They were the better military, better strategists, more committed and willing to die for their cause. They won. And the saddest thing about our loss is that the US military and governments since then seem to have learned nothing from it. That we continue to insert ourselves into the affairs of other countries unbidden is the true tragedy, the true disservice to the memory of the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam.
Good by Mr. Cronkite.
Great post, Greg. All I add is... I'm one of the guys who's life was saved by Walter Cronkite. Here's what happened:
I had a pretty high number, so when I got to the draft, and passed all the tests I resigned myself to my fate. But, on the way downtown, my dad--who flew in China with the Flying Tigers--handed me a letter, and said, "when you get to the doctor, you hand him this." 


I didn't even think about it, both of us spent every night, WATCHING WALTER CRONKITE screaming at the tops of our lungs.
Me: "what's 'honorable' about killing people that have done nothing to us".
My dad: "It's your 'duty' as an AMERICAN citizen."

When I got to the draft doctor, I found out I had bad knees and allergies. My dad was president of the Bay Area Medical Association (LA) at the time, and he'd sent me to two specialists before I went to the draft without even telling me why.
I'm convinced that Walter had changed my dad's mind. Years later, my dad said he was wrong about Viet Nam, and he was glad he saw the light in time.

He never specifically mentioned that broadcast, but... I'm pretty sure it's what convinced him that Nam wasn't the same as WWII.
True story. Thanks for letting me share it, I have a big PERSONAL reason to honor the memory of my favorite journalist of all time.
A nice tribute to Walter C..
AirForceVet/Vietnam
Fanned. From one who grew up with that damned war.
Your experience seems to coincide with so many others who were and are the sons of the WW II generation. So many of them weren't hearing what was being said. The greatest contribution that Cronkite may have made in his life was expressing his thoughts in a way that got through to them.
My father was an ex-Marine who fought in the Pacific, and I served my time. He thought that my changed views were due to battle fatigue. Prior to Tet, he just didn't understand. What Cronkite said was important. He didn't necessarily make a difference in the thinking of our generation, but he did with theirs.
Exactly, McIntosh. Some of us here are viewing Cronkite's commentary through 2009 glasses. It was rare in 1968 for a journalist of Cronkite's stature to question the government, particularly the president. Cronkite's assessment of our efforts in Vietnam was the first major shot fired back at LBJ and the war hawks. LBJ understood that. Those who were born before the "hippie generation" weren't listening to the unclean, unshaven throngs in the streets advocating our exit from Southeast Asia (clearly they should have been, but they weren't). They listened to Cronkite.
I suspect that one of the reasons it took Cronkite until 1968 to break ranks with his colleagues and offer a critical assessment of our involvement in Vietnam was because he was uncomfortable with betraying what he probably thought was sacrosanct: journalistic impartiality, only reporting the events as they happened. But I suspect that ultimately he did it because he thought he would have been derelict in his duties as a truth teller and human being if he hadn't.
Much different than the choices between mousses that seem to be the biggest decisions so many "journalists" make today.
Thank you, good story.
Cronkite's death reminds us all how poorly we have been served by the major media outlets since Cronkite's departure from the anchor chair at CBS. Not only did he speak truth to power, but his presence in our homes every weeknight made him a genuine member of the family.
What ever happened to the bravery and integrity to seek and tell the truth....w
Oh man I wonder the same thing and I don't even remember Walter. Rip Walter Cronkite
Tune into Jon Stewart and see some "bravery and integrity to seek and tell the truth!" He's all we have left who will tell the unvarnished truth about politics and he doesn't care if the offenders are Democrats or Republicans! He has verbally sliced and diced both sides and I applaud that!
It's frightening to realize that nobody in traditional media today would ever be as honest as Cronkite. http://www
"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
Think about this statement for a minute. A reporter should find out the real truth especially when the government is putting out lies and propaganda but speculation has no business being part of the "news". This was the beginning of news becoming blurred with commentary.
And you COMPLETELY miss the point of Cronkite's commentary, Count. He prefaced his commentary with the truth: that his analysis "must be speculative, personal, subjective
As a child I remember Cronkite being an everyday part of my life, like my parents, family and friends. I was a politically precocious child, sitting in front of our TV watching the 1972 Democratic Convention (age 9) and the Watergate hearings the next year. I remember Shirley Chisholm, Sam Irvin, Frank Church, and Barbara Jordan. I remember those historic figures largely because Cronkite brought them to me.
Of the many deaths of icons this year, Cronkite's BY FAR is the most meaningful. True journalists are hard things to come by these days. We now have one fewer. Cronkite will be missed.
As pointed out, it wasn't blurred.
He admitted the subjectivity, clearly, up front.
What was important about it was that Cronkite was speaking as a rational intelligent human being who had looked at as many facts as possible, weighed what he'd heard and seen, and reached a conclusion, admittedly tentative.
Now, commentators reach conclusions before the fact based on their ideologial bent, whether left or right, and shape the facts to suit those conclusions.
It is a complete perversion of the role of the fifth estate, and it's a danger to the country.
I was a young 1LT stationed at Fort Lewis when the Tet offensive took place. I had just enough time left in the service to pull a tour in Vietnam. I did not want to go. I had volunteered for every school the army would send me to to eat up time. Luckily, I did not go. My best friend, who I enlisted with, went and died.
Thank you Walter Cronkite.
Among the results of the Vietnam war are two things that threaten our failing democracy. The elimination of required military service with a volunteer army. This places people in the service who are less likely to question illegal orders. It also removes the wars from most of America...
Excellent LT. So true. The moral high ground needs to be "occupied" by those untainted.
Absent a sense that we are all in it together, we all fail.
I hope that the next generation of politicians, journalists and officers will remember this.
Thanks for posting Cronkite's words. In retrospect, they seem very moderate. Another impression, both now and then, was that he had a sense of pride in what he did, he was an ethical person, and he would not deliberately lie to us.
Cronkite's guts are underappreciated. To tell the American public that the Vietnam War was going to end in a stalemate, informed the American public that "Wars cannot always be won" and let's move on.
Who's to say, he might have helped save us from Nuclear War.
Cronkite's guts are underappreciated. To tell the American public that Vietnam War was going to end in a stalemate, informed the American public for that "Wars cannot always be won." Let's move on.
Who's to say, he might have helped save us from Nuclear War.
See Joseph A. Palermo's Profile
http://www
thank you Greg, great post!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
