Midway through Stanley Kubrick’s 1987 Vietnam epic, Full Metal Jacket, there’s an editorial meeting of The Sea Tiger, the official Marine newspaper.
The correspondents are discussing how best to portray America’s faltering efforts to win a war that most of the “grunts” have come to see as unwinnable.
Lieutenant Lockhart, who’s presiding, wants his reporters to make some changes in the way they report the war.
LOCKHART: Chili, if we move Vietnamese, they are “evacuees.” If they come to us to be evacuated, they are “refugees.”
CHILI: I’ll make a note of it, sir.
LOCKHART (reading): “A young North Vietnamese Army regular, who realized his side could not win the war, deserted from his unit after reading Open Arms program pamphlets.”
That’s good, Dave. But why say “North Vietnamese Army regular”? Is there an irregular? How about “North Vietnamese Army soldier”?
DAVE: I’ll fix it up, sir.
LOCKHART: “Search and destroy.” Uh, we have a new directive on this. In the future, in place of “search and destroy,” substitute the phrase “sweep and clear.” Got it?
Lt. Lockhart (right) briefs his Marine reporters
JOKER: Got it. Very catchy.
LOCKHART: And, Joker–where’s the weenie?
JOKER: Sir?
LOCKHART The Kill, Joker. The kill. I mean, all that fire, the grunts must’ve hit something.
JOKER: Didn’t see ’em.
LOCKHART Joker, I’ve told you, we run two basic stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to buy gooks toothbrushes and deodorants–Winning of Hearts and Minds–okay?
And combat action that results in a kill–Winning the War. Now you must have seen blood trails … drag marks?
JOKER: It was raining, sir.
LOCKHART: Well, that’s why God passed the law of probability. Now rewrite it and give it a happy ending–say, uh, one kill. Make it a sapper or an officer. Which?
JOKER: Whichever you say.
LOCKHART Grunts like reading about dead officers.
JOKER Okay, an officer. How about a general?
LOCKHART Joker, maybe you’d like our guys to read the paper and feel bad. I mean, in case you didn’t know it, this is not a particularly popular war. Now, it is our job to report the news that these why-are-we-here civilian newsmen ignore.
* * * * *
Kubrick’s film is set in the South Vietnam of 1968.
This was a war where military newspapers like Stars and Stripes offered a gung-ho, all-systems-go version of constant American progress against a tough enemy.
And where civilian reporters like David Halberstam and Walter Cronkite saw the war for what it was and labeled it a brutal, wasteful and ultimately doomed effort.
Now, 47 years after the events depicted in Full Metal Jacket, the Obama administration wants to censor the American news media as the military censored its own.
The President wants the media to stop using footage from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during newscasts.
“We are urging broadcasters to avoid using the familiar B-roll that we’ve all seen before, file footage of ISIL convoys operating in broad daylight, moving in large formations with guns out, looking to wreak havoc,” Emily Horne, a spokeswoman for the State Department, told Politico.
The “B-roll” is stock footage that appears onscreen while reporters/commentators talk. It’s the stuff that keeps an audience watching the newscast, even if they ignore what’s being said.
“It’s inaccurate–that’s no longer how ISIL moves,” she added.
Since August, 2014, the United States and its allies have dropped thousands of bombs on ISIL–especially on its convoys–in Iraq and Syria.
As a result, claim U.S. officials, ISIL can no longer mass its forces in daylight–or move in large convoys. Such large concentrations can be easily spotted–and attacked–from the air.
ISIL convoy
So how would the Pentagon like ISIL to be portrayed in file footage?
“One Toyota speeding down the road by itself at night with its headlights off,” said Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren.
Warren added that some of the B-roll the networks are using comes from propaganda videos made by ISIL.
Senior State Department and Pentagon officials have begun contacting television network reporters to suggest news sources switch to using more U.S.-friendly videos, such as Iraqi army soldiers being trained, or footage from coalition airstrikes.
When contacted by Politico for comment, ABC, CNN, Fox and NBC refused to comment.
Covering how Americans behave in war has proven a challenge for American news media since the Vietnam conflict.
In 1966, New York Times reporter Harrison E. Salisbury was allowed to enter North Vietnam to cover the war from their perspective.
His reports of heavy American bombing raids and their resulting civilian casualties and infrastructure damage provoked national controversy.
Officials of the Johnson administration charged Salisbury with “aiding and abetting the enemy” by reporting North Vietnamese claims of loss.
Salisbury–and the Times–replied that of course they were reporting what North Vietnamese officials were saying. That was why he was there–to get the other side’s point-of-view.
So long as freedom of the press exists in reality as well as theory, there will always be tension between those who want to report the news–and those who want to censor it.



1991 IRAQ WAR, 2003 IRAQ WAR, ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BOMBING, CBS NEWS, CNN, D-DAY, FACEBOOK, FLAMETHROWERS, GENERAL CURTIS E. LEMAY, ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA, NAVY SEALS, NAZI GERMANY, NBC NEWS, PREDATOR DRONES, REPUBLICANS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, U.S. AIR FORCE, VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER, VIETNAM WAR, WALT DISNEY, WORLD WAR 11
FORGET ABOUT “VICTORY THROUGH AIR POWER”
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on May 27, 2015 at 12:07 amVictory Through Air Power is a 1943 Walt Disney animated Technocolor feature film released during World War II. It’s based on the book–of the same title–by Alexander P. de Seversky.
Its thesis is summed up in its title: That by using bombers and fighter aircraft, the United States can attain swift, stunning victory over its Axis enemies: Germany, Italy and Japan.
Although it’s not explicitly stated, the overall impression given is that, through the use of air power, America can defeat its enemies without deploying millions of ground troops.
The movie has long since been forgotten except by film buffs, but its message has not. Especially by the highest officials within the U.S. Air Force.
Although the Air Force regularly boasted of the tonage of bombs its planes dropped over Nazi Germany, it failed to attain its primary goal: Break the will of the Germans to resist.
On the contrary: Just as the German bombings of England had solidified the will of the British people to resist, so, too, did Allied bombing increase the determination of the Germans to fight on.
Nor did the failure of air power end there.
On June 6, 1944–D-Day–the Allies launched their invasion of Nazi-occupied France.
It opened shortly after midnight, with an airborne assault of 24,000 American, British, Canadian and Free French troops. This was followed at 6:30 a.m. by an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armored divisions on the French coast.
The operation was the largest amphibious invasion in history. More than 160,000 troops landed–73,000 Americans, 61,715 British and 21,400 Canadians.
Allied air power bombed and strafed German troops out in the open. But it couldn’t dislodge soldiers barricaded in steel-and-concrete-reinforced bunkers or pillboxes. Those had to be dislodged, one group at a time, by Allied soldiers armed with rifles, dynamite and flamethrowers.
This situation proved true throughout the rest of the war.
Then, starting in 1964, the theory of “Victory Through Air Power” once again proved a dud–in Vietnam.
Air Force General Curtis E. LeMay said, “We should bomb Vietnam back into the Stone Age.” And the bombers under his command did their best to achieve this.
From 1964 to 1975, 7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia–more than twice the amount of bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II.
Yet the result proved exactly the same as it had in World War II: The bombing enraged the North Vietnamese and steeled their resolve to fight on to the end.
The belief that victory could be achieved primarily–if not entirely–through air power had another unforeseen result during the Vietnam war. It gradually sucked the United States ever deeper into the conflict.
To bomb North Vietnam, the United States needed air force bases in South Vietnam. This required that those bombers and fighters be protected.
So a force to provide round-the-clock security had to be maintained. But there weren’t enough guards to defend themselves against a major attack by North Vietnamese forces.
So more American troops were needed–to guard the guards.
North Vietnam continued to press greater numbers of its soldiers into attacks on American bases. This forced America to provide greater numbers of its own soldiers to defend against such attacks.
Eventually, the United States had more than 500,000 ground troops fighting in Vietnam–with no end in sight to the conflict.
Now, with forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) launching a blitzkreig throughout Iraq, President Barack Obama seems to have caught the “Victory Through Airpower” disease.
ISIS has thrown the American-trained Iraqi Army into a panic, with soldiers dropping their rifles and running for their lives.
This has led Republicans to accuse the President of being about to “lose” Iraq.
As a result, since September, 2014, he has ordered massive bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria.
Yet that has not altered the balance of power in Iraq.
As political columnist Mark Shields observed on the May 22 edition of the PBS Newshour, this has only led to greater Republican demands for “boots on the ground”:
“Now, there are 60 nations in this coalition. I haven’t seen people lining up to join this fight. I mean, in a proxy war, you are dependent upon your proxies. And the Iraqis turn out to be not particularly engaged, divided, not unified, not committed the same way….
“Get tough, get tough, swagger. [Senator] Lindsey Graham wants to put in [10,000 troops]….
“George Pataki said, put in as many as you need, and kill everybody you can and get out. Now, getting out, I think, was the question and it remains the dilemma to this moment.
“And…anybody who walks around with a flag pin in his lapel now who is running for president or running for Congress and says let’s go in and let’s kick some tail and let’s take some numbers and bomb some people, that takes no courage at all, because it’s not their blood they’re talking about, and it’s not their children’s blood.”
Once again, the United States has bought into the lie of “victory through air power.” And, as a result, the nation stands poised to once again sacrifice billions of dollars and thousands of lives in a worthless cause.
Share this: