Posted on 12/20/2005 10:48:51 AM PST by smoothsailing
The Legacy of Tet
By J.R.Dunn
December 20th, 2005
It was with Tet '68 that the American media first knew sin. Anyone seeking to understand the character of consistently negative media coverage of the Global War on Terror must understand Tet.
The Tet offensive of February 1968 is widely regarded as one of the turning points of the Vietnam War – though not for the customary military reasons. Tet had its origins in the plans of North Vietnamese commander Vo Nguyen Giap, a competent general given to flights of overconfidence. Giap decided to throw all available assets, both PAVN (People's Army of North Vietnam) and Viet Cong, against every major target across South Vietnam. He anticipated a massive revolt by the South Vietnamese populace, who would overthrow the government, set out the welcome mat for their Communist liberators, and leave U.S. and allied forces sitting high and dry.
The attack was scheduled to begin on the night of January 30, the beginning of Tet, the Vietnamese New Year. Tet was normally considered a truce period, when the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) was at its lowest level of alertness.
The result of all Giap's efforts was a total rout. The South Vietnamese, utterly horrified by the prospect of a Communist takeover, sat tight while U.S. and government troops crushed the attack in a matter of days. The sole holdout was the old imperial citadel at Hue, which required three weeks to be retaken. The government stood firm, the ARVN, once recovered from its initial surprise, did a creditable job.
The Viet Cong, on the other hand, were ruined as a military force, their rural infrastructure left in tatters. They never fully recovered, forcing the PAVN to take over the bulk of combat duties. Giap, his reputation saving him from the usual fate of failed generals in communist societies, went back to the drawing board. (Though not very fruitfully—his next scheme was a "mini-Tet" in April, which ended much the same way.)
But that's not how the U.S. public saw it.
American readers and viewers were presented with a disaster nearly beyond comprehension, with U.S. forces hanging on by their fingernails, ARVN troops tossing guns aside and running for safety, government officials given over to complete panic, Viet Cong and PAVN forces running wild with no losses to speak of, while General Giap, the 20th century Napoleon, nodded in approval at seeing his plan unfold. Tet ended up being a major success for communist forces after all.
It was the first time in history that the news media overturned a victory won by forces on the ground.
One observer struck by the dichotomy between what occurred and how it was reported was a journalist named Peter Braestrup, chief of the Washington Post's Saigon bureau. Braestrup had also worked for Time Magazine and The New York Times. In later years he became a fellow of the Smithsonian's Woodrow Wilson International Center and editor of The Wilson Quarterly. Not the CV of any sort of conservative, and in fact Braestrup was an establishment liberal of the type that scarcely exists any longer.
But he was also the kind of reporter who treats a story as personal property. After ten years work, Braestrup produced his book Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington, an analysis of every major news reportconcerning the Tet Offensive, along with the military, political, and social results that ensued.
Big Story is sui generis, a book as remarkable as the event it describes. The book punctured not only the myth of Tet, but the myth of the news coverage surrounding it, revealing exactly how the national media acted as a catalyst for the loss of a war.
Braestrup portrayed a press corps living a privileged, near-aristocratic existence in Saigon, feeding off of gossip and rumor, cynical about the country, the government, and prospects for victory. Most were ignorant of military affairs. None could speak Vietnamese or had any deep knowledge of the country.
When the attack came, the press corps responded with shock. The first stories were written in a state of panic, expressing reporter's own confusion rather than anything occurring in the quotidian world. As the picture began to coalesce – a picture that completely contradicted early dispatches – most of the journalists, out of stubbornness, fear of looking foolish, any mixture of human frailties, stuck with their original reports, aided and abetted by editors back home who knew a great story when they saw one.
Many of the names involved are still well-known today.
The New York Times' Charles Mohr, once a supporter of the war effort, was among the first to cast doubt on claims of Allied success. The Washington Post's China expert Stanley Karnow wrote a front-page appreciation of Giap as a "military genius," followed a few weeks later with another piece claiming that the offensive had "scored impressive gains." His Post colleague Ward Just played the "unidentified official" angle to draw pessimistic conclusions. Hanson Baldwin, the Times' resident military expert, consistently overrated North Vietnamese capabilities while downgrading allied forces. Even Robert Novak (at that time partnered with Rowland Evans) added his bit of alarmism from10,000 miles away.
Braestrup was the first to identify Peter Arnett as a serial prevaricator. Arnett was the source of the story that became emblematic of the entire offensive: that the Viet Cong had shot their way into the U.S. Saigon embassy and held it overnight. In truth, the VC sappers who penetrated embassy grounds were quickly dispatched before entering any buildings, a fact that went unmentioned by Arnett and many later histories of the war. Shortly afterward Arnett reported a quote from an American major concerning operations in the town of Ben Tre:
"We had to destroy the town in order to save it."
Nobody, not Arnett, not the reporters who accompanied him, not his employers at the AP, were ever able to produce this "major," which didn't prevent the line from becoming the leading catchphrase of the antiwar movement. (Braestrup's research uncovered the fact that the phrase was already in the air – almost identical words were used by the Times' James Reston in an editorial appearing the same day as Arnett's report.)
Alternately, all reports calling the disaster narrative into question were downplayed. A mid-February analysis by counterinsurgency expert Douglas Pike concluding that Communist forces had overextended themselves and been badly whipped was either ignored or dumped onto the back pages.
Media coverage of Tet destroyed public confidence in the war effort.
The antiwar movement, until then little more than a freak show, exploded in size and influence. Various rebel Democrats began scheming. The Johnson Administration, already off balance, was effectively shattered. Within weeks Walter Cronkite, speaking ex cathedra from his CBS anchor's chair, pronounced judgment on both the war and the administration, prompting Lyndon Johnson, with the spinelessness of a lifelong bully, to withdraw from the 1968 presidential campaign.
Of course, after the offensive was put down and calmer days returned, the papers and networks examined the reports, uncovered the facts, disciplined those responsible, issued corrections, and instituted procedures to assure that such a situation would never recur.
Actually, no. There are errors so vastly wide-ranging that they can't ever be admitted to, and Tet was one of these. No such actions were ever taken. Quite the contrary – the type of distortion so evident during Tet became standard procedure for Vietnam reportage. Within a few months, the battle of Khe Sanh, a hard-fought, undeniable U.S. victory which accounted for something on the order of 40,000 North Vietnamese casualties, was reported as a defeat of American arms.
As the years passed, Giap-worshipper Stanley Karnow achieved fame as author of the war's standard history. Ward Just became noted for topical, well-written, and extraordinarily dull political novels. Arnett pursued a long and varied career until events caught up with him in the form of the Tailwind scandal, appropriately involving lies concerning a U.S. operation in Vietnam.
Braestrup was reluctant to draw any conclusion as to reasons behind the media distortion. He did not buy an ideological explanation, and found claims that media coverage led to allied defeat to be "highly speculative". As is true of most historical events, a single explanation is unlikely to be adequate. A list could start with cynicism, an embrace of the anti-authoritarian ethos of the period, journalism enduring a period of decadence as every human endeavor eventually does), and continue from there. It scarcely matters at this point.
What does matter is that the Tet style became accepted practice. Journalism was becoming "professionalized" at the time, with the press thinking itself an elite, and the attitudes and procedures surrounding Vietnam reportage were institutionalized. Virtually every military confrontation since 1968 has been covered from the same adversarial stance that marked theTet reports. (And not only wars – Katrina coverage was just as distorted, hysterical, and harmful as any recent war reportage.)
Big Story is not considered suitable for Vietnam scholarship, and is very rarely referenced or even mentioned. College students studying the era are rarely if ever exposed to its contesting of the conventional wisdom. But it remains one of those rare volumes that actually does a service, by identifying a malady, giving its origins, and listing it symptoms. It is a book of value, and will eventually find its place.
Not the least of its virtues is how much light it sheds on events in Iraq. To read Braestrup is to understand fully why current war reportage is so relentlessly downbeat. Why stories in the legacy media are at such variance with sources such as warblogs or Iraqi websites. Why reporters appear to take on the role of advocate for the enemy. Why Cindy Sheehan and Jimmy Massey – both almost pure media constructs – get the coverage they do. Why bogus issues involving Guantanamo Bay, prisoner interrogation, and "torture" receive such attention. Why Coalition successes go virtually unmentioned. Why the unfolding of a political miracle, an Arab democracy, has been greeted with near-indifference.
And why the media will never again play a useful role until the legacy of Tet is eradicated.
..............
Among many other things, J.R. Dunn was the editor of the International Military Encyclopedia for twelve years.
Actually the 1st Tet Offensive was the German's attack in the Ardennes on December 16, 1944. So Tet wasn't Tet, it was "the new bulge."
I was there. They decided to come out and fight and we whipped their @sses.
The Viet Nam war was lost in America.
And if the Lefties have their way;
history will repeat itself in Iraq.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Drip, drip ...drip
That is the only way we lose this war. If the Left-wing along w/ their friends in the media continue to try to break the will of the American citizen.
So the question is,who in the MSM will be this era's Cronkite?
"So the question is,who in the MSM will be this era's Cronkite?"
Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, Blitzer, Matthews... The list is endless.
5.56mm
Not this time,kelly.
No one.
They've already tried to be, the public doesn't trust them anymore. At least not to the extent that one man in an anchor's desk has the power to lose a war.
The President will not back down and he's been running the war confidently by letting those on the Ground be in charge. All The troops are there voluntarily winning the war so burning draft cards isn't an issue. The Iraqi's have joined in the effort to build their country. The alternative media combined with the president's pulpit is an effective combination to counter the MSM.
Well then that's two badges of honor you should wear proudly, first your service to our country for which I thank you and second whatever you did to earn your tagline.
I am convinced that Peter Arnett is a liar of the lowest order and meant harm to you and your bros back then.
I remember well, the nightly news body counts for the day. Walter Cronkite, every single night traumatized with our injured on stretchers and body bags. We never heard about our victories or our enemies losses. It was a very disturbing time for we who had loved ones in Nam.
Disgusting man. And what is more disgusting is that Cronkite is often called "the most trusted man in America".
"It was with Tet '68 that the American media first knew sin."
HUH???? While it appears that this article is slamming the MSM, this author is forgetting such classic reporters as Walter Duranty, The Times' Stalinist Propagandist. Sin in the media was perfected long before we decimated the commies in 1968.
Cronkite revealed on the air that he was a Communist?
That is a typical con artist tactic. Keep reminding their mark of how 'trustworthy' they are, while they set you up for the big lie or ripoff.
I would love to see and honest journalist summon the courage to go back through history and shine a very bright light on their deceptive and DESTRUCTIVE productions.
Not on the air,in his columns.Have you ever read any of them?
I knew Peter Braestrup pretty well. I grew up near him and went to primary school with him, and he was married to a close friend of mine for a while.
He left his prestigious positions on The Times and the Post basically because they had no use for an honest reporter after they decided to sell out our country. His interest was going to dangerous places and reporting on wars; their preference was to hire skilled liars.
I haven't seen him in years. It's truly remarkable how his book has been ignored by the chattering classes. There were a few nervous foot shufflings when it came out, and dead silence ever since.
I have a bumper sticker that says "Vietnam: We Were Winning When I Left".
This is a war that the US did NOT lose. We never suffered a battlefield defeat. Rather, the US abandoned the war (and South Vietnam) due to the efforts of journalists, "anti-war" protestors, and craven politicians in newsrooms, college campuses, and the streets.
Good post.
Well, I still here and a hell of a lot more respected then that turd Arnett
Where did you get the bumper sticker??
Armed with distortions and outright lies, they protected the enemy when he was at his weakest, and wrested defeat from victory's jaws.
Heh. After destroying the Viet Cong in 1968, he went on to defeat in 1972, when the Central Committe finally relieved him of command.
We had North Vietnam defeated in 1973: it took the communists and their sympathizers here in the press to hand a victory to the NVA that it could not achieve on its own.
This makes me nauseous. What a colossal betrayal by the press. Of course, it is one in a long line of betrayals, but the impact of this one was (and is) so terrible.
My next door neighbor's father was a General in the South Vietnamese Army. We have had the occasion to speak about Vietnam (I am a Vietnam Vet.) and he always says all we have to do is take the North Vietnamese Military and Political leaders at their word - in that it was the press coverage and anti-war movement and the press coverage in the U.S. that inspired them to keep on keeping on each time they were ready to accept Nixon's peace terms in Paris.
This is not just about fixing blame as to who caused us to lose in Vietnam, it is about bringing into historical focus the consequence of such behavior, in term of the millions of lost lives caused by such dishonest self serving dispicable behaviour.
great post. thanks
This article by Dunn and your comment has peaked my interest in the book.I've called my local citizen's library and they are locating a copy for me.
Ever wonder why God lets bad things happen? Ever heard the phrase "There's a reason for everything?" I sometimes reflect on how the Vietnam War, and especially the MSM's defeatist response to TET has shed such an important light on what is happening regarding the MSM and Iraq throughout this war. I wonder; What if the WOT, not Vietnam, had been the first war in which, in this author's words "reporters appear to take on the role of advocate for the enemy."? In retrospect, was military success in the Vietnam War less critical to our survival than military success in the WOT? If America did not have the history of the MSM's shameful TET reporting to reflect on and to temper our acceptance of their negative Iraq reports, might the demonstrations of 1968 not taken place until 2004? Might we now have a "defeatist" President? Might we have already withdrawn our troops from Iraq? Might this country and it's people be in greater danger today? Is it possible that the sacrifice of those who were lost in Vietnam actually contributed more to the survival of this country than history, up until now, has realized? Just wondering.
"Not this time,kelly."
smoothsailing that reply is - Priceless!!!!!
"NOT THIS TIME!" "NOT THIS TIME!" "NOT THIS TIME!"
No I haven't. Do you have a link for them?
BTW, Cronkite also hated Huntsville, Alabama, where Werner Von Braun and hi team were moved to from White Sands. Huntsville was too country for him and he rarely mentioned it while at the same time promoting Houston.
Imagaine the way these guys would have reported the battle of the Bulge. The NYT would have demanded that Roosvelt negotiated a ceasefire with Hitler--exactly what Hitler aimed at.
My Christian faith tells me that what you suggest is entirely possible.Certainly the public at large is more informed than ever before.
Some may suggest technology and the alternative media as the sole reasons, but the phrase "God works in strange ways" certainly deserves contemplation.
And the same media sumbitches are still spinning the same lies over the War on Terror!
As we say in Texas, "Get a rope."
Tet 1968 resulted in more of an annihilation of some Viet Cong units than it did a decimation. The Viet Cong Main Force 9th Division, consisting of the 271; 272; 273; and 101 Regiments, went into Saigon and didn't come out. Except for a handful who were captured, the 9th Division was wiped out.
As I sit here in Huntsville reading your comments (and learning in the process), I am reminded why I like FreeRepublic so much. Thank you.
Semper Fi,
Oh, my no. William R. Hearst started the Spanish-American War with deft media manipulation - Cronkite was a piker and an amateur compared to him. But with respect to Tet I am in full agreement with the author.
I think, though that two things were involved, and that they are different between the generations. These days the motivation is a sheer lust for power - Vietnam and especially Watergate gave the media a taste of this, and what happened was that the sort of person to whom this power to transform society by information control is attractive, were drawn to journalism as a means of effecting their utopian designs.
Cronkite, IMHO, was motivated more by a weak and sordid desire to please the counterculture that was at that point in full bloom in academia and entertainment media. His subsequent unapologetic behavior indicates that he succeeded in that at least in his view and that a stubborn refusal to admit that he was wrong has taken precedence over a professional newsman's skepticism. That's too bad, but he's only a man and hence imperfect. He will go down as a dupe and a profoundly destructive model to anyone writing an objective history of those events. To admirers and would-be imitators he will always be Saint Walter.
Hello Neighbor. I'm in Huntsville too.
Never forget.
You are, as a matter of fact, correct. I did use decimate in the contemporary definition, which is incorrect, as it means killing every tenth man. We did virtually annihilate the commies during Tet.
I was a kid watching Walter The Liar II spread his Barbara Streisand, and did not know better for years. I now despise him, and spit on his legacy for the lies he told and the people who died because of him and those like him (fellow commies). I hope Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are his cellmates in hell.
I believe he died about 5-7 years ago. I delivered copies of a couple of books on the Military and the Media during the Vietnam War to him for the book's author Dr. William Hammond. Dr. Hammond, a historian at the US Army Center of Military History spoke very highly of Mr. Braestup, and made comments similiar to yours about his honesty.
Fantastic post.
Just do a google search on the phrase; a couple of online stores sell them
Yes, you're right, he died in 1997. I lost touch after he and my friend were divorced. Here's a brief obituary I just found.
http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/1997/97-134.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.