As Bob Woodward morphs into Kitty Kelly, Vietnam’s shadow hovers over us all
Bob Woodward has done an about-face from the relatively Bush-approving stance of his last two books on the administration. The present one, State of Denial, is by all accounts a description of a quarrelsome and conflict-ridden administration, with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Kissinger as the main sources of trouble.
Woodward, of course, had his glory hour during Watergate, when he and Carl Bernstein slayed the Nixonian dragon, if not quite single-handedly or even quadruple-handedly. With the help of long-anonymous informant Deep Throat (recently revealed to be the FBI’s Mark Felt), Woodward and Bernstein not only were instrumental in publicizing and explaining the Watergate scandal, but became heroes of a movie, in which their roles were played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.
It turns out that informer Felt had an agenda. But then, who doesn’t?
That’s the problem with this sort of journalism, both then and now. It requires scrupulous fact-checking and source-checking by the authors, to make sure what they are printing is the truth, because the reader lacks even the usual ability to do so afforded by knowing the name and exact position of the source.
Even history-writing is difficult to get right; witness the David Irving trial (and see this post of mine for a discussion of some of the issues involved in the writing of accurate history). Historians use sources and documents that are named and ordinarily available to other scholars for cross-checking, and even then there are arguments. But a book that relies on secret sources for nearly all of its information–as Woodward’s apparently does–is especially suspect. And this is true whether it supports some point of view I happen to agree with, or not.
So, what do you do when all of the people Woodward is talking about say he’s–to put it rather more kindly than one otherwise might–talking out of his hat? If the picture Woodward paints of the Bush White House is one that’s copasetic with yours, you might be likely to say “Of course they’re saying he’s lying; they’re all liars anyway, and they’re trying to protect Bush and themselves.” If you’re on the other side, you might be more inclined to wonder if Woodward’s sources have gotten things a tad wrong, for one reason or another.
At least when Laura Bush and General Abizaid deny Woodward’s allegations that they asked for Rumsfeld’s resignation, we know who they are, and we can try to evaluate what they’re saying and why. Not so for Woodward’s sources; we simply have to trust him and evaluate him.
That’s just not possible, I’m afraid. Not just for Woodward, but for anyone who relies on this “reliable-but-unnamed-sources-tell-all” method. Whether the author be Woodward, Sy Hersh, or Kitty Kelly, it’s a titillating but ultimately unsatisfying experience.
As for Woodward, who knows? But he does have his own history, biases, and motivations. As a member of the increasingly tiresome boomer generation in which I must plead inclusion myself, his formative political experience was Vietnam and Watergate. As a major player in the latter, his investment is particularly keen, and the tendency to compare (or even equate) Iraq with the former and the Bush administration with the latter might be hard to resist.
When I read this recent Washington Post article, the following passage leapt out at me:
Woodward also tells Wallace that aged Republican war-horse Henry Kissinger is closely advising Bush, telling him there is no exit strategy other than victory.
“Woodward adds. ‘This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.’ . . .
There were many problems in Vietnam, and I think analogies to the Iraq war are facile and mostly incorrect. However, there are certain general principles that apply to both, and surely “losing our will” is one. It’s a danger of all such conflicts–especially with much of the press doing its utmost to make sure that happens. I’ve written before about Vietnam, and at great length (see this, for example), and there is a decent argument to be made for the fact that Vietnamization was working far better than we knew in the early seventies, and loss of will caused Congress to abandon the ARVN when it actually had some chance of winning.
Is Kissinger still fighting Vietnam? Or is he simply standing for a basic principle of winning wars against insurgencies and terrorists?
There’s no doubt that many people in this country are still fighting the Vietnam war–just take a look at the enormous number of comments on my “A mind is a difficult thing to change” posts about Vietnam, for starters.
And it would be foolish to think that Woodward isn’t still fighting the Vietnam War, as well.
Amen! The only thing about Iraq that is similar to Vietnam is watching a leftist, biased press once again stabbing the American military in the back.
Well Said!! The more I read about this Woodward book, the more I feel like credibility is being given where none is deserved. I guess Bob has some bills due that he needs to pay, and he’s looking for another “-gate” to collect some duckets.
«There were many problems in Vietnam, and I think analogies to the Iraq war are facile and mostly incorrect »
I wouldn’t be so sure my dear Madam Neo…
As several veterans of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations rightly said (think Spiro Agnew, Jim Webb), foreign policy under the Bushcheneys father & son and under Clintongore was marked by America’s shameless submission to the Kings of Israel and the Princes of Arabia…which has brought about a fatal loss in autonomy and leeway as our foreign policy fell under the spell of shady Middle-Eastern operatives such as Prince Bindar Bin Saud and Jack Bin Abramoff.
Clearly, it’s time we got our country and our liberty back!
Jim Webb and Pat Buchanan are right: throughout the 1980’s classical political pragmatism (as opposed to the Neocons’ faux Pharisaic “idealism”) led President Reagan and Pope John Paul to play successfully Baghdad against Teheran; and Belgrade and Beijing against Moscow.
In those days, America and the West won wars in Iraq, Eastern Europe and Central Asia without firing a single shot!
All US wars that last more than a Grenada take over in a week or month, will become “like Vietnam”.
Marc Cooper has an interesting take, though his agreeable Bush hate peanut gallery adds little.
Marc continues that the idea of “a light at the end of the tunnel” was wrong, a lie, and always a lie.
This is the false Leftist view. All the US had to do was stay committed to supporting S. Vietnam, keep giving cash and occassional military support to our allies (our corrupt, incompetent, cowardly allies), for 15 more years, and we would have won.
25 years from Gulf of Tonkin in 64 to Berlin wall fall in 89.
Winning wars might be quick for America, but winning a nation building peace might take 25 years or more.
I notice we’re still in Germany and Japan, 60 years later.
Bush HAS failed to explain the possible need for nation building time.
“Bush HAS failed to explain the possible need for nation building time.”
Well, Tom, no he hasn’t. Mentioned “lasting beyond my administration” in several speeches, talked about a “generational” war. Most folks apparently didn’t listen too well—or went with the lousy summaries provided by the MSM.
One of the ways that I think it is interesting about how the media saps American will, is that they do it in such a subtle way. For example, even if you had someone depressed to the point of almost suicide, you can still change that person’s outlook almost magically by giving him some good news. Good news that others might not bother with cause they believe it to be small, would be taken by someone in depression to be a boon, a relief from the ever living darkness of their lives. A respite from their own souls.
The media doesn’t take America’s morale down to depression levels, because if you do, it would be very very easy to uplift. Anyone who has faced defeat, certain death, and is living in fear, will LOVE any, any I say, small victory. This was proven at Antietam as well as various other military conflicts, as well as the good old Tug of War scenario in which the losing side gains greater strength as they approach defeat.
So the media saps America’s will by moderating our morale. Always keeping it at a medium level, just below the average. Low enough for it to hurt, but not low enough for it to hit rock bottom and cause people to desire change. Not high enough for anyone to feel truely good, for any sustained periods of time. Just high, I suppose, for them to crash us down to a lower depth as with the statues falling.
The only thing worse than a up and down rollercoaster of will, is a rollercoaster that only goes up a little and down a little. You get kind of sick after that. It’s a great will to sap will by making people apathetic. So that they don’t care about victory or defeat. Apathy is a greater counter to willpower. People who believe we are losing or we are winning, at least care about the outcome. People who are apathetic, have no desire to win or lose, thus their willpower is almost non-existent.
I can explain things better than Bush, so it is not as if I care whether he explains things to “me”. But it does matter that he explains things to others, who don’t get it or can’t get it any other way. One of the ways Bush can do this, is to become a devious guy, a liar as with Roosevelt, and just ride the wave. Since this is also a complaint about Bush with the criticism that he doesn’t explain, it is a sort of no win situation. For Bush to be more charismatic, would mean people would hate him more for actually being suave and smooth. People may understand him better, but they are not going to agree with him automatically just because he is as smooth or smoother than Clinton and Roosevelt.
A Contrarian’s Vietnam
By Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, U.S.A.Ret.
Wall Street Journal
September 28, 2006; Page D8[$$$]:
[Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 by Mark Moyar, Cambridge University Press; 2006] might have been interesting only to Vietnam vets like me seeking solace in our old age were it not for the events of today. Mr. Moyar draws lessons from Vietnam that subtly but unmistakably apply to contemporary warfare: that national leaders make life-and-death decisions sometimes without understanding the complexities of a distant and unfamiliar theater of war; that a nation initially committed to going to war is sometimes reluctant to expend the resources, both human and financial, to finish it; and that our society has a proclivity to lose confidence and resolve should a conflict last too long. The lesson is clear: Iraq and other, related post-9/11 conflicts will require perseverance, resources and resolve.
Author’s Comment from Amazon.com:
I spent seven years writing Triumph Forsaken in order to correct the historical record on one of the most important episodes in U.S. history. In the course of writing my first book, Phoenix and the Birds of Prey, I had come to understand how the negative portrayals of the war hurt America’s Vietnam veterans and their families. I also had gained a stronger appreciation of the ways, mostly negative, in which the historical accounts of the Vietnam War influenced American culture, society, and politics. By the time I had finished Phoenix and the Birds of Prey, I had determined that the conventional interpretations of the Phoenix program were fundamentally flawed, often because of the authors’ determination to show that Vietnam was an unjustifiable and unwinnable war. I decided it was my duty as an American to go beyond the relatively narrow scope of my first book to see how much of the history of the whole war had been misrepresented by partisan journalists and historians.
When I began working on Triumph Forsaken, I planned to rely heavily on existing histories for information, but I soon discerned that those histories were far too flawed and incomplete to serve as the basis for the book. I chose instead to reconstruct the history from scratch on the basis of documents and other primary sources, which was why it took seven years. The end product is a drastically different account of the struggle for South Vietnam.
Book’s Official Web Site
You could maybe focus on the facts in the book rather than the messenger.
“Well, Tom, no he hasn’t. Mentioned “lasting beyond my administration” in several speeches, talked about a “generational” war. Most folks apparently didn’t listen too well—or went with the lousy summaries provided by the MSM.”
The problem is that, as you say, he mentioned them.
Yes, he did – and still does – mention it time to to time but he has definatly failed at explaining it (especially if you consider success at explaining something that people understand it).
Is the media remotly helpful? Not in the least – yet he is still president and has something of a bully pulpit no matter what. As much as I dislike Clinton I can assure you that he would have made people understand what he wanted them too.
There are a lot of things I pretty much admire Bush for – I think he truly believes in what he is doing (and I very much agree with 95+ percent of it). But his ability as an orator is not one of them. And unfortunatly many around the world today value getting smoke blown up thier collective asses (the further the better) over having someone who does tries to fix things and Bush can not even blow smoke up the True Believers ass (I could get more graphic with that saying for humors sake, but I’ll leave that up to the reader).
More people are reading the numbers on the gas pumps than Woodard’s book. We get a few years of college under our belts and the implications and ramifications of books per se become seriously over estimated when the basis of meaning for about 250 million of our fellow citizens is finding the best sale at Wal Mart and they do their grubbing not at the book rack. As such, we endorse his claim to fame every bit as much as those needing to pat him on the back by eschewing his bullshit because the signifcance of what he says pertains to so very few. About half of our citizens are registered to vote and of that number, half vote, so with roughly a 25% participation rate in our Democracy, Woodard will have as much impact on the coming elections as does a single ant at a pic-nic. It may be difficult for many of us to accept that our analysis and dissection of Woodard is essentially a luxary and trivial at best, yet what else are we to do? I saw a documentary on the civil rights movement last night and in particular, I was struck by the significanc of the Montgomery, AL bus boycott that went on for months. Cooks, maids, janitors and petty clerks made the history of that moment and did so without the intellectual fires burning on their behalf. This reminds me that what little insight I have remains rather insignificant and I am not one to easily accept the necessity of humiliity. Woodard will fade, like the meaning of last month’s Wal Mart sale, and what little impact he has will slide into oblivion much like my rambling in blogs.
We in Russia also had experience comparable to Vietnam war – fist, Afganistan war, and later Chechen war. At the time of first Chechen war almost all Moscow intelligentsia was against it. After painful defeats humiliating for Russia peace accords were signed. And, of course, as it was anticipated, Chechen rebels broke all their obligations. So when second Chechen war began, it has almost unanimous popular support. We have understood that it is better to occupy Chechnya indefinitely long than allow it became a terrorist safe heaven. Is it imperialist approach? Of course. But it is also the only acceptable one.
Oh, me. So Woodward wants to sell another book? My, my.
And complete with all the secret info/gossip you already heard? Meme, meme. Buy, buy. Me, me. The End.
You could maybe focus on the facts in the book rather than the messenger.
Woodward praises Dear Leader in his first two books on the Bush presidency, and he is praised for his critical, unbiased approach.
Woodward Criticizes Dear Leader in his third book, and he is criticized for being biased and partisan.
So, according to Republican parlance, “unbiased” means unfailingly praising Dear Leader, and “biased” means reporting on both his strengths and weaknesses.
Also, war is peace and freedom is slavery, natch.
Sergey, you’ve got some problems with Georgia too I hear… what is your take on that??
Gourney, the last I heard of Viet Nam was they were making Nike shoes for us at .35 a day. I like them kind of victories. That’s been 4-5 years ago – I’m sure they are up to maybe .40 a day and able to buy even more Marlboros and Coca-Cola. After all, after having a couple million of their number wasted, they are entitled to some better living under the communists. Freedom is such a bitch, wouldn’t you agree?
Interesting observation, especially the subtle muse about Woodward’s bias and bias in general, but I think that you are missing the larger point.
The strongest parallel between Vietnam and the Iraq occupation is the pretence.
In both case our elected representatives lied or fabricated intelligence to push the public into war.
The American public does not want to go to war, to lose sons, fathers, daughters and mothers is not exactly high on our priority list. No, a war is sold, packaged and marketed to us.
The American people are catching on to the motives of the White House, the motives for war were not WMD’s or terrorism, but hegemony – See PNAC
“The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? “
.
The American people are not behind a prepetual war on an abstract noun, American dominance via military action and a global miliatary economic empire.
Just look at the polls, how many adult voters support this President’s war? Not many.
By 1972 how many adult voters supported the war in Vietnam? The parallel is the same; it just took longer then, in the Nixon era, for the truth to rise to the top.
It seems to me that the day of the Neocon is nearing it’s necessary end.
Of course, Woodward has tapped into the most powerful and dangerously insideous tactic of the left from the VN era- the re-writing of history, and of course, it starts before the events are even fully in our collective rear-view mirror, because you need to start shaping the truth before it soldifies in the mind of the public- strike while it is still malleable.
sorry- that shoudl’ve read “…shaping the ‘truth’ before…”
Bob Woodward has presented me with a dilemma: I’ve always thought of him as an old-fashioned and hard-working reporter – fair and factual.
For the past two years, I’ve held up his two Bush-era books, “Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack” as sources to disprove my lefty friends’ “Bush-lied” accusations.
Now what?…
Well, I’ll have to read the book, and more importantly, at least some of the reaction to the book from people who were there at the White House, Defense Dept, etc during the time period covered by the book.
One item in the new book that just doesn’t sound right is the assertion that Condi Rice and Rumsfeld wouldn’t even talk to each other while she was National Security Advisor. There was not a single hint of this in Woodward’s first 2 books that I can recall.
A remark by Tony Snow that I saw online at TCV may explain a lot:
“…Snow also advised that Woodward’s book and similar ones were partly based on interviews of those “smart” people who didn’t ‘get their way’ and said that an appropriate subtitle for the book might be: ‘If Only They’d Listened To Me….'”
There are lot of problems with Georgia, and the most important is that Georgia is not monoetnic or old, natural entity. It is to some extent artificial state, whose boundaries were arbitrary set by previous communist leaders and have very little in common with any natural divides, geographical or etnical. Politically, it is an empire, just as Soviet Union or Yugoslavia in miniature, and failed by the same reasons. The only thing that holds it together is malignant nationalism based on denial of reality and massive falsification of history. The same problems, as with the late Yugoslavia, and the same futile attempts to solve them by forcing nationalistic hysteria and waging brutal wars against separatists (Osetins and Abkhas people), making etnic cleanses (against turks-meskhetins and other Muslims), and so on. No real functioning democracy is possible in such intellectual and moral atmosphere, only gangocracy and demagogy. And now their leader Saakashvilly, narcistic psychopath and hysterical demagogue (if you cross Hitler with Miloshevich – it will be what you get) plays on anti-Russian sentiments by organizing knowingly arrogant provocations. He knows that Russia will never invade Georgia or take any other really aggressive action against it, so he can make any insults with impunity.
“The American people are not behind a prepetual war (sic) on an abstract noun, American dominance via military action and a global miliatary (sic)economic empire.”
HI, Liberal?! Avenger!?! (go for it)
A: I suspect Americans always have been. You’re defining the Cold War, you know, and every Administration fought it, with popular support.
I suspect, too, LA, that you are not American ; still entitled to a different view.
Americans have fought a number of wars for a better world. That’s a proud record. We will continue.
Aside: With the downfall of Dan Rather for ‘not telling the truth’ (his infamous accusation about Nixon) and the scandalous MSM behavior of today, I wonder when someone will look deeper at the events that brought that President down. Woodward strikes me as powershaker wannabe– not exactly the proper credentials for a disinterested observer.
Journalists disinterested observers? Come on, I just saw Ted Koppel on some show spouting the ‘definition’ of journalist as ‘someone who comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable’. Does that sound like a disinterested observer to you?
neo-neocon writes: At least when Laura Bush and General Abizaid deny Woodward’s allegations that they asked for Rumsfeld’s resignation, we know who they are, and we can try to evaluate what they’re saying and why. Not so for Woodward’s sources; we simply have to trust him and evaluate him.
That’s just not possible, I’m afraid. Not just for Woodward, but for anyone who relies on this “reliable-but-unnamed-sources-tell-all” method.
Wonder of wonders, this “reliable-but-unnamed-sources-tell-all method” is exactly the method favored by Bush and the administration when trying suspected terrorists, who are, under the administration’s proposal, not to be allowed to see the evidence against them.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?
Ugly Duckling,
“…this “reliable-but-unnamed-sources-tell-all method” is exactly the method favored by Bush and the administration when trying suspected terrorists, who are, under the administration’s proposal, not to be allowed to see the evidence against them…”
You’re confusing apples with oranges.
What you’re describing here is a protocol for dealing with unlawful combattants who are not “US Persons” – citizens and legal residents. Even then, the validity of the evidence is subject to rulings by the judge(s) in the case.
“US Persons” are afforded the many rights and protections of the Constitution and numerous federal and state statues.
What is not “…favored by Bush and the Administration…” is extending these rights to persons who have no connection to the US except to be caught in the act of waging war or plotting terrorism against the US.
Ms Neo: your slip is showing…
“… when he and Carl Bernstein slayed the Nixonian dragon,…”
(ZZMike, compulsive editor, suggesting “slew”. There is a “slayed”, but it doesn’t seem to fit here.)
Wonder of wonders, this “reliable-but-unnamed-sources-tell-all method” is exactly the method favored by Bush and the administration when trying suspected terrorists, who are, under the administration’s proposal, not to be allowed to see the evidence against them.
Can’t the Left find some better technique than this amateurish propaganda attack called tu quoque?
For someone like me who reads propaganda of all variations and colors, I would prefer some variety you know.
But the duck got something right. The media sees Bush as an enemy that they must kill and imprison, just as Bush sees terrorists as an enemy that he must kill and imprison.
It turns out that informer Felt had an agenda. But then, who doesn’t?
So what’s your agenda Neo?
We were attacked on 9/11, and you jumped on the what you thought was a great white stallion to carry you to safety. It turns out you landed on a hitching post. That’s gotta hurt. If you remain hysterically composed (ie, it’s the media’s fault, everyone but us has an agenda, the Baby Boom Generation ate my brain!) maybe nobody will notice.
Mugged by reality? Honey, you could’nt pick out reality in a lineup after said mugging.
Good Night and Good Luck.
“As much as I dislike Clinton I can assure you that he would have made people understand what he wanted them too.”
Sure. Just like he made Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and Osama bin Laden understand.
You can’t MAKE people understand just by giving public speeches. You can help them understand, if they actually want to understand and it’s just a gap in communication preventing it, but you can’t MAKE a person understand if they do not want to understand, by any means short of beating them into submission.
No matter how carefully Clinton could try to explain his policies, I really don’t think he would have been any more successful at reaching an understanding with McVeigh, Rudolph, or bin Laden as he was with Arafat at Camp David. And I don’t think Bush would be able to make the press understand his views, even if he was as silver-tongued as Clinton, because they are just as determined to hate him with the same undying passion.
“… and there is a decent argument to be made for the fact that Vietnamization was working far better than we knew in the early seventies, and loss of will caused Congress to abandon the ARVN when it actually had some chance of winning.”
Indeed, though decidedly more than merely decent, when the history is more conscientiously reviewed it’s a highly convincing argument. The ’73 Congress – led by Ted Kennedy and a few others – failed not merely to keep our promises vis-a-vis funds and armaments to the South Vietnamese people, they even cut funds for such humanitarian staples as medical supplies to the South. Lewis Sorley’s A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam is a well written, well documented and finely argued account of the Creighton Abrams years (post-Westmoreland) which evidenced military and popular (among indigenous South Vietnamese) and a general strategic victory. Defeat was grabbed from the jaws of victory essentially by the Left, the MSM (with some help furnished by the Soviets and Mao’s China) and other popular/political factors in the U.S. and the West in general.
Creighton Abrams’s overall strategy represented a volte face compared to Westmoreland’s, and Abrams, with the help of William Colby and Amb. Ellsworth Bunker, was hugely successful. The military war and popular war among the South Vietnamese peoples** was won.
** One example only: in 1969 alone, 47,000 Viet Cong (So. Vietnamese militia allied with the North) switched their allegiances back to the govt. of So. Vietnam. These types of incidents were caused by a variety of factors, including the continued use of terror by the North to force recruitments in the South, positive reasons such as land titles being granted in the South where previously only tenancy and predominated (a vestage not only from the French colonial period, but prior to that colonial period as well). In fact, by 1972 over 400,000 former tenant farmers had been given titles to land, in South Vietnam.
What an awful country you must live in, Neo, where at least a fifth, and possibly as much as a third, of the people are actively working to cause its destruction.
How can you even walk down the street, know that so many people you pass are just waiting for the chance to stab you in the back?
“How can you even walk down the street, know that so many people you pass are just waiting for the chance to stab you in the back?”
With a gun in my belt, a trained police force on speed-dial, and the National Guard standing by, that’s how.