Coming when it did -- exactly five years ago -- the photograph seemed like a cruel joke, or a Photoshop prank, just as nearly everyone in America (except perhaps a few Fox News commentators) was awakening to the bone-chilling reality of a quick war that was threatening to turn into a longer slog. And there, splashed across a spread in The New York Times, during the second week of the invasion of Iraq, was a picture of a smiling Donald Rumsfeld bending over to shake the hand of an equally buoyant Robert S. McNamara.
Unfortunately, it did not look like McNamara was whispering, "What part of the word Vietnam don't you understand?"
It was a Pentagon luncheon for former defense secretaries hosted by Rumsfeld to discuss the war in Iraq, which seemed to be undergoing more "Vietnamization" by the hour. We had seen it all before: the apparently false claims that we had won the "hearts and minds" of the people; the charges that the enemy was not fighting fair; and a rising toll of dead, wounded, or missing military personnel -- and journalists. And that was even before a postwar occupation.
I wrote much of the above, and what follows below, at Editor & Publisher on the last day of March 2003. Less than a month later, after Saddam fell, but as the insurgency began in Iraq -- and it started to look like we might, indeed, be there for awhile -- I may have been the first writer to predict that this would turn into a "quagmire." I was roundly ridiculed for that.
Flash forward to March 2008. In an article marking the fifth anniversary of the war, famed correspondent John F. Burns in The New York Times dryly referred to the "Iraq quagmire" -- as a fact, not an assertion.
Here is an excerpt from that March 31, 2003, piece. It also appears in my new book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq.
Of course, it is absurd to compare a war of less than two weeks with one that lasted decades. But still, many hear echoes, faint or strong, of Vietnam. Only a few days have passed since CNN's Walter Rodgers, in Iraq in the early moments of the war, told anchor Aaron Brown, "It's great fun," but that seems like a year ago now.
With the conflict under way -- and getting nastier - -we thought we'd check back with some well-known reporters we had visited during the long run-up to war.
As with Vietnam, too many in the press follow the Pentagon line, says Joseph L. Galloway, the Bronze Star winner and author who is now military-affairs correspondent for Knight Ridder. "One thing not lacking," he adds, dryly, "is optimism for the game plan, but if it hasn't been cleared with the enemy, it tends not to work." He called the press briefings "bullshit."
Tom Wicker, columnist for The New York Times from 1966 to 1991, tells us that he wonders why more didn't question earlier Rumsfeld's plan for a lighter and quicker force in Iraq when many generals were predicting the war would have to be won with more boots on the ground. "Journalists," he says, "share the common perception that technology will triumph."
John R. MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine and author of an important book about media coverage of the first Gulf War, warns that if the war goes on for months, you "could see a breakdown in the discipline of the Pentagon's control of coverage. The soldiers may start to become paranoid about the reporters, and the reporters angry they're getting lied to by officers. Maybe more embedded reporters will be emboldened to report what they see, and then there might be reprisals from the military, revoking privileges."
Another troubling reminder of past conflicts is the relative little attention on civilian casualties. "We pay more attention to American deaths," says Anthony Marro, editor of Newsday in Melville, N.Y., whose paper publishes few photos of dead bodies, even fewer if they are Iraqi. "It is easier to report on people we know, we put more faces on the Americans, we know who they are."
Geneva Overholser, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, says that strong civilian coverage had been lacking at newspapers. "I wish they were showing us more of that reality of war," she adds. "We have more than 600 reporters embedded, and we have better access, but we are not seeing much in the way of civilian casualties."
The Boston Globe received complaints after playing up a photo of an Iraqi civilian killed by a stray bullet. Paula Nelson, Globe deputy director of photography in charge of Page One, reveals that the photo department debated using the image. "You got a lot from that photo," she explains. "It showed a casualty, but it also showed the urban fighting involved. It was the first dead body we printed." Nelson says the paper has declined to run other photos of the dead if they showed identifiable faces.
At least 60 readers wrote or called USA Today with complaints after it ran a picture of dead Iraqi soldiers on its front page March 28. Several asked why the paper did not replace it with an inside photo of a U.S. soldier walking with several smiling Iraqi children.
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq, which features a foreword by Joe Galloway and a preface by Bruce Springsteen.
Loading comments… 
None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida.
Why are we there?
Are we joining the CIVIL WAR?
Which Side are we fighting for?
Sunni's that used to be Insurgents or part of Sadamm's Army and now Our Awakening Force?
The Shia controlled government
The Mahdi Army?
Radical Shiites in Basra?
"Thugs" in Basra, Baghdad and Mosel?
Kurds?
I thought the LATEST REASON for staying in Iraq was to DEFEAT Al Qaeda there so they
do not come here to kill Americans.
Between the Allied Force of 160,000, the Awakening Force of 70,000 and the 430,000 Iraqi
Security Forces (660,000 Total) shouldn't we be focusing on the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda Terrorists
So if we stay focused 100 years will not be necessary.
http://afp
http://new
http://blo
http://www
In Vietnam, even though there was an organized and deadly lethal army there to fight us, it was still an occupation
In Iraq, there is no army, just insurgents who want their country back, and an overblown romantic hodgepodge of resisters our president and media calls "Al Queada." In Iraq, no matter what anyone says, or how our media trumps it up, it is not a war. Not in the honorable historic sense that has always had America in the right. It is, and always will be, nothing more then an Occupation
The better move in the mid-east would have been secure Afghanista
After we lost in Vietnam, Thailand didn't fall to a communist tidal wave. Nor did Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. The domino theory was wrong.
I remember Dan Rather reporting on the war from Vietnam. Sitting in our easy chairs, Americans saw the bloody violence of war on TV for the first time. Reporting from Vietnam then wasn't like being an embedded reporter in Iraq, i.e. it wasn't censored (at least not at first.) We saw wounded, dead Vietnamese civilians and American soldiers on TV and in LIFE magazine. Americans were SHOCKED. That, as well as the draft, propelled anti-war demonstrat
Today, we hear about the violence in Iraq, but aren't allowed to SEE its visceral effects. We see bombed out building and streets, but not the dead and bloodied bodies, which doesn’t allow us to place this confrontat
There is no draft today; we're told to go shopping and live "normally,
The Fourth Estate needs to step up to the plate and do its job.
What do you suppose the Russian generals who got thrown out of Afghanista
Iraq is identical to Viet Nam in that both were attempts to enforce Colonialis
Colonialis
Ironically
Iraq is like Viet Nam for the same reason Phil Ochs sang in the 1960's. we are "White Boots Marching In A Yellow Land."
Vietnam was about money.
Iraqi is about 4 things.
1. Protecting the Sadui Kingdom
2. Protecting Isreal.
3. Making sure that there is a U.S. Friendly government in Iraq setting on 25 % of the worlds OIL.
4. MONEY MONEY MONEY AND STILL MORE MONEY. DID I MENTION MONEY?????
But to ascribe it to "Democrats
There was a political consensus supporting the war in Viet Nam. Read anything from the time and you will see. Johnson got in over his head because he felt he had to "outhawk" the Republican
Just because the Republican policies of the 50a and 60's ensured a national Democratic majority at the time in no way absolves the Republican
Everyone got fat off this war. It was good for business.
Like ALL of the US's wars.
Do you think that the U.S. as a whole will be as prosperous after Iraq as it became after WWII? I wonder...
http://www
What you don't seem to be looking at, however, is the uncanny resemblanc
I recall that on my first tour in Vietnam during 1967 that many of us made a joke of that phrase. At first, in 67, we joked about it by saying "the light at the end of the tunnel is a VC coming after you." In 1968 (my second tour), after the Tet offensive we said "the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train." Then, in 1969 (my third tour) we said "will the last person out of the tunnel please turn out the light."
Funny how so many people in government and military always see the merits of their arguments as authoritat