Many years ago, a patient told me a story. She was trying to impress me with the power of her mother's personality and how her mother's hair trigger temper made everyone reluctant to challenge her. She recalled a summer at a lake in the country; her father would stay with them on the weekends and work in the city during the week. Her mother had found and rented the cabin and would not tolerate any criticism of their accommodations. One weekend night when her father was at the lake, there was a terrible rain storm; the roof began to leak. When her father mentioned the leak to her mother, her mother screamed at him that the cottage was fine, there was no leak, and he should go to sleep, whereupon her father dutifully rolled over ands went to sleep, with the ceiling dripping on him throughout the night. There was never any further mention of the incident.
And the most interesting aspect of the story?
When my patient told me this story, she suddenly realized that though she had not thought of it for years, she had been, to that moment, uncertain whether or not the roof had really leaked.
I mention this story for two reasons. First, it is important to recognize the importance of "authority" in shaping perceptions; second, the plasticity of perception and memory requires constant vigilance to safe guard reality.
The Vietnam War was arguably lost 38 years ago today, when Walter Cronkite, "the most trusted man in America", during the CBS Evening News broadcast, declared, after the Tet Offensive in 1968, that our war effort was " mired in stalemate."
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. [Emphasis mine-SW]
Cronkite was wrong. General Tra (North Vietnamese) wrote in his memoirs:
However, during Tet of 1968 we did not correctly evaluate the specific balance of forces between ourselves and the enemy, did not fully realize that the enemy still had considerable capabilities and that our capabilities were limited, and set requirements that were beyond our actual strength. In other words, we did not base ourselves on scientific calculation or a careful weighing of all factors, but in past on al illusion based on our subjective desires. For that reason, although that decision was wise, ingenious, and timely, and although its implementation was well organized and bold, there was excellent coordination on all battlefields, everyone acted bravely, sacrificed their lives, and there was created a significant strategic turning point in Vietnam and Indochina, we suffered large sacrifices and losses with regard to manpower and materiel, especially cadres at the various echelons, which clearly weakened us. Afterwards, we were not only unable to retain the gains we had made but had to overcome a myriad of difficulties in 1969 and 1970 so that the revolution could stand firm in the storm.
Cronkite was not anti-American, however, his error was instrumental in turning a terrible defeat for the North Vietnamese into a disaster for America. By virtue of his unassailable authority, he turned himself into the best weapon the North Vietnamese Communists would ever acquire.
In my post on Friday, Fast Forward: Part IV, I parenthetically asked a question about the MSM:
... do they even realize they are active participants in an information war?
Mr. Phillips commented:
My suspicion is that the MSM does know this, and they chose their side a long time ago.
It occurred to me that while many people have assumed that the MSM have "chosen sides" and are in opposition to the West, there is really no particular evidence for such a claim. How is it that so much of the MSM reporting is inaccurate, slanted, partially accurate, and seemingly almost designed to damage our war efforts, not only in Iraq, but throughout the entire sphere of the Information War against Islamic fascism?
For now I would suggest there are four main groups of individuals who are actively involved, often without their conscious knowledge, in the Information War, whose work tends to damage the interests of the West:
1) The Anti-Americans: There is a small cadre of overt Anti-American, far left extremists, who follow an agenda best described as Anti-American; Ward Churchill is an obvious example.
2) The Sympathizers: A larger cohort are active sympathizers with the first group but try to hide their sympathies while finding less overt ways to side with the enemy. These are people who think the use of American military power is never justified, unless it is not in our national interest, ie we should intervene in Darfur but not Iraq.
3) The Opportunists: A somewhat larger group consists of those who appear to have some sympathy for the anti-American position, at least as long as George Bush is President, but seem to be much more opportunistic in their opposition. They often appear to have no idea how their actions damage our country and our war effort.
4) The Useful Idiots: Finally, the largest group consists of those who believe they are serving the public interest as they understand it, but through short-sighted concentration on the immediate and the fuzzy thinking engendered by an adherence to political correctness, tend to frame their perspective in ways that are inimical to Western Civilization; these would be the heirs to Stalin's "useful idiots."
The most valuable and powerful weapon these people have is their authority. By appearing in the pages of the New York Times or interviewed on CBS News, an overt anti-American like Cindy Sheehan is granted a patina of authority ("unquestioned authority" in the immortal phrase of Maureen Dowd, who most likely belongs in the "useful idiot" category).
In 1968, there was no countervailing authority to question Walter Cronkite. Today, there is An Army of Davids; however, lets not forget that David needed some luck and ammunition to vanquish Goliath and at this point Goliath still has a home field advantage.
Recent Comments