Vietnam was corrupted by Sixties radicalism and the fake moral superiority held by the radical left (when they were not throwing tantrums, or being nihilistic, or destroying cities or college campuses). One account I have from Vietnam includes an invasion of Cambodia (for which people in the military fought each other for the privilege of being first or early, despite lies back home), who bristled not only at being told not to wear their uniforms when back in the USA on leave because it offends the anti-war people (“I'll show them anti-war!” they roared), but when they uncovered Communist caches in Cambodia that featured care packages sent by college radicals “in solidarity” with the Commies in Southeast Asia. (The US soldiers should have identified the senders and paid them a mortal visit on their college campuses. Hanging them from the Campanile at Berkeley, for example, would be perfectly befitting.)

At least I'm glad to be the friend of someone who escaped from Vietnam and came here, learning English from _scratch_ (learning to swim off the hard way on the trip here, when her boat ran around off the coast of Malaysia) and consequently also (unsurprisingly) displayed Fox News-style trivia like the US flag, etc.

Cronkite would probably not be liberal or PC enough in today's media. At least he wasn't as bad as Rather.

Like Iraq, it was a boondoggle from the start. We destroyed millions of lives and an entire country — to get what? A stalemate? The US propagandized South Vietnam as a democracy- but it was in reality a puppet government that wouldn't have had a good prospect of survival. No government survives for too long with insufficient popular support.

This becomes evident when we remember the fate of another of our puppets– the Shah of Iran.

Bs, everyone knows what I mean. The regular guy, joe public, ect ect.

Kathy said “The U.S. construct for the war was completely wrong-headed. This was not about Communism versus Capitalism. The North Vietnamese were fighting for their country. It was a national war of liberation. They defeated the French (whom we supported against the Vietnamese, naturally), and they defeated us.”

They didn't “defeat” us. We had a peace treated and when they broke it we waved goodbye from helicopters as we abandoned those we promised to support. Look the start of the conflict was nationalism but that was conscripted by the Soviets and used to change it to an ideological war. We should not of supported the French in the post war era in trying to retain their former colonies. It was wrong and got us into all kinds of problems. By the time we had real troops into Vietnam the war had changed and was no longer about nationalism. The VC were done after Tet so it was no uprising it was a separate group conquering an adjacent country by the end.

Every anti war protester wants to ignore that the public pressure effects not just politicians but how the enemy views it's prospects. Cronkite on his own couldn't make the difference but as a barometer and with his weight on the scale it could and did affect how both we and they made decisions. If Johnson hadn't given up and replaced Westmorland and West was allowed to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos then we would of won. Period. He may have failed when he tried but if he had succeeded we would have won for a generation. Heres a quote from Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. It's from an article in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995 by Stephen Young.

“Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.”

He was speaking of the American antiwar movement and people like Clark and Fonda.

Can you imagine their surprise when their forces in South Vietnam were wiped out but they were declared the victors. It would not of required us “to feed every draft-age young man and woman into the death machine” not even close.

I would also like to note before we ever became involved there were two countries and there never would of been a successful war, by either side, without the mass interference of other nations. China and the Soviets were involved and supplying arms and aid before the US ever got involved. Hell, that is why we got involved.

1. I have no idea what you mean by a “regular” American. The very phrase chills me to the bone. Anyone born or naturalized in the U.S. is an American. Period, full stop.

Of course, it's not quite true that I don't know what you mean. I know what you mean. A “regular” American during the Vietnam war would have been one who publicly supported U.S. policy whether they agreed with it or not, and even if they thought it was profoundly immoral and ill-conceived. A regular American actually wouldn't even have that thought. A “regular” American, in short, is one who does not feel the need or desire to dissent, and if he does feel the need, squelches and stifles that impulse the instant he becomes aware of it.

In point of fact, there have been many Americans who stood up against wars they disagreed with, even though their government supported the war. For just one: My father's first cousin worked in the State Department during the Kennedy administration, and he was one of the earliest open opponents of the war. He was certainly the only one within the administration to openly oppose it. His name was Paul Kattenburg. Look him up. You'll find lots of information about him on the Internet.

2.The idea that “It (Cronkite's op-ed) did give the “Enemy” hope that they could simply outlast us if they couldn't defeat us (militarily) is just absurd. It flies in the face of and has been debunked over and over and over again, countless times, by everyone you can imagine: Americans who fought in the war, journalists who reported the war, military experts of every stripe, widely respected historians like Stanley Karnow, Frances Fitzgerald, David Halberstam, and many more (these are the three that pop into my head instantly), government figures, declassified documents that show us what the North Vietnam government's thinking was (which we did not know as clearly back then), and just the entire history of the region, going back to 1945, Ellis. War in Vietnam was continuous for 30 years, it didn't begin when Kennedy sent the first advisers.

The U.S. construct for the war was completely wrong-headed. This was not about Communism versus Capitalism. The North Vietnamese were fighting for their country. It was a national war of liberation. They defeated the French (whom we supported against the Vietnamese, naturally), and they defeated us.

3. You say, “If the bad guys don't think we'll give up and know they can't beat us militarily then….” Another baseless myth. First of all, that “bad guys/good guys” model doesn't work for Vietnam (not that it really does in most human affairs, but especially not in Vietnam). This is not to put down or vilify the individual American soldiers who fought in Vietnam, BUT… In a very real way, the Americans were the bad guys in Vietnam, at least as much as the NVA. We destroyed their country and killed millions of their people, Ellis. It's not even possible to convey in a few words the enormity of the wrong we did them, in so many ways: the horrendous abuses, torture, atrocities of the Phoenix program, the environmental devastation caused by defoliating the Vietnamese jungles, the horrifying birth defects caused by the defoliants and by napalm, the destruction of everything they needed to survive, it's just horrendous. We have so much to answer for to that country, and the fact that we never can do so adequately is bad enough without making it worse by actively defending the war.

The second point about the “if the bad guys think we won't give up” myth is that it completely misrepresents North Vietnamese strategy, thinking, and motivation. Of course, they knew we would give up eventually. They knew Americans were not prepared to see millions upon millions of their loved ones killed.You *know* Americans would not have allowed that. But that's what it would have taken, Ellis. Because the Vietnames *were* prepared to make that kind of sacrifice. Because Vietnam is their country, Ellis.

4. You say, “Let's face it of course we could of won with military might alone. It wasn't a question of ability but willingness to use it. That is not a validation of the cause itself or if it would be worth it, but “we” could of paved over NV if we put enough effort into it.”

Um, okay, yeah, like I said above, if we had been willing to feed every draft-age young man and woman into the death machine, sure. Americans usually don't want to do that when the cause is not our own national survival or liberation. I'll betcha no country would want to sacrifice their entire male population if the cause was not their own national survival or liberation. The Vietnamese were willing, because it was.

So yeah, you're right it was not ability it was willingness. But if we had been willing, as a nation, to do that, and we had, an entire generation of young Americans would be in their graves now, and Vietnam, as you say, would have been “paved over” — turned into a vast wasteland devoid of human life and completely uninhabitable.

But you're right. We would have “won.”

Scott Simon's reporting style, openness and genuine concern about the stories he covers is about as close to Walter Cronkite as we'll likely see in our lifetimes.

Today, so much media doesn't try to reach a mass audience, with all its unpredictable diversity and variations. They look for like-minded people who want a view of the news that will reassure them that they're right — that “that's the way it is.” But in the welter of news sources, who will they trust to tell them when it's not?

I hate to believe that Walter Cronkite in his prime wouldn't be able to survive in today's media climate.

What I'm seeing is how people view Cronkite's death depends very much on how they view Vietnam, which is a little unfair as he did have an impressive career.

Clearly “you were there” and so was I. Maybe that’s why you and I see this stupidity for what it is. Silly political propaganda.

We never would have won the Vietnam war. We never would have met our original goals for winning. We were absolutely paranoid of communism and our paranoia caused the death of millions. It also delayed the union of a nation that never should have been divided to begin with.

Well Kathey in some respect it is true. One of the biggest problems is we all guess how much certain factors have to do with outcomes and there is no objective way of quantifing the results.

Tet was a huge loss for the NVA. The VC forces were destroyed and never again were any major factor in any significant way. The NVA's offencive ability was completely destroyed. That destruction and other factors led to the Paris accords and peace in Vietnam. People seem to forget that we did win in Vietnam by some standards. There was a draw down of US forces after Tet and after '73 real peace for almost 2 years. But we failed to help our allies as promised. We quit after Nixon. We had won but turned our back on our ally. Unfortunately the Soviet Union kept pumping aid and weapons into North Vietnam and when in 75 the NVA came riding into Saigon on T-54s we couldn't wait to abandon those who depended on us.

So where did that start? With Cronkite? Of course not, but he was a watermark at the very least. Personally I think the draft did it. Before and after people didn't care that much the protests were minor and just not a big deal. During the draft that all changed and it seems to have become some “Trend” that carried over into popular culture. Before Cronkite it would have been unthinkable for a “regular” american to think and say we were losing. After………. well if he said it then maybe it was so. It did give the “Enemy” hope that they could simply outlast us if they couldn't defeat us. If the bad guys don't think we'll give up and know they can't beat us militarily then….. It's a double edged sword that anti war protesters have never acknowledged. Let's face it of course we could of won with military might alone. It wasn't a question of ability but willingness to use it. That is not a validation of the cause itself or if it would be worth it, but “we” could of paved over NV if we put enough effort into it.

I think it was inaccurate of him to say what he did.
I do think we was wrong in his statement.
I think that statement affected americans views on Vietnam.

If I was invested in the conflict having served or lost close family there then I could easily see having a negative viewpoint for his negligent and incorrect statements. I also have trouble with someone condemning those who hold those viewpoints, cavalierly dismissing their feelings and beliefs, as if they are not worthy to hold them.