The American War/The Vietnam War

[clay dube]

Asia Pacific Arts reviewed A Beautiful Country:
http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=25976

Damien Nguyen is the star of the film. He was interviewed by APA:
http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=26462

Bai Ling is also in the film. She was interviewed by APA:

http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=16321[Edit by="Clay Dube on May 31, 5:32:07 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

I had not thought about the possible parallels between the Vietnam war and what is currently going on in Iraq in terms of civilian causalities and the backlash that this might create in terms of loss of goodwill between the Middle East region and the US.

With regards to the Vietnam war, the images being sent back home via news reports showing civilian loss of life and a growing body count for US soldiers were some of the main reasons that the anti-war sentiment began to grow in the US. And it is for this reason that today the US government is so careful in what kind of images it allows to be broadcast back to the states in terms of battle footage. In fact, the term "embedded" is now used today to describe the news reporters that are allowed to travel with US troops.

Taking that historical perspective, one thinks how much more significant, if at all, the anti-war movement would be today if similar to the Vietnam eara there was a more free flow of information for what is happening in Iraq.

It does seem that the US is in a no-win situation regardless of the outcome in Iraq because if we fail in our democracy mission then we allow chaos to rule the country, and if we do institute some form of democratic process we run the risk of having some extremist faction taking power that will be extremely hostile to US interests.

[Anonymous]

The whole idea of “embedding” our press with the military and then controlling their access to the people and places they are trying to cover is appalling. Any form of democracy requires freedom of information so that voters can make informed choices. I don’t understand how we have allowed our government to so severely limit the flow of information. Bush obviously took these steps to severely curtail the news coming home so that he could contain the antiwar sentiment that the horrors of war inevitably engenders.

The ongoing investigation into the possible murder of civilians in Haditha also harkens back to the murder of civilians by Americans in Vietnam and Korea before that. Interestingly, civilian casualties in Korea are still a cause for debate, specifically in regards to a massacre of refugees that took place in No Gun Ri. The government maintains that there were no standing orders to kill civilians in Korea. However, American soldiers and officers have always said that they had direct orders from US commanders, and a recent letter discovered seems to support this claim. Also, the numbers killed in this incident at No Gun Ri were underreported at the time and are still much lower than the 400 or more that Korean survivors report were murdered.

All 3 of these horrible massacres (if Haditha proves to be another) were followed by methodical cover-ups. It saddens me to think of the people in Asia who have been hurt by American military actions and it concerns me for the future of our “democracy”, both in the US and around the world. How can we claim to be supporting the growth of democracy around the world when we perpetrate these kinds of horrors and then we literally try and bury the truth?
[Edit by="rboller on Jun 1, 9:38:01 AM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Response to rboller comment on 6/1/06.

I totally agree with your comments regarding the role of the press in a working democracy. Indeed, a vigilant press can act as another check on the powers of various branches of the US government.

What is rather disconcerting is the extent to which our current administration has gone to limit access to what is not only happening in Iraq but also to gain information on what is occurring to fight the threat of terrorism. And it is always the same rhetoric that is used to justify the restrictions on the access to information, namely that it American citizens cannot have a complete picture because national security will be jeopardized.

There is a long a record of past administrations doing the same thing. Perhaps the most infamous example is President Nixon’s attempts to shut down congressional investigations on the Watergate break-in based on the pretext that it would jeopardize US national security.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the how the American press has given a pass on the current administration’s handling of the war on terror and Iraq in particular. For example, the recent issue regarding random/court unapproved phone tapping has received a lot of media attention but much of it has been critical of those that actually are questioning whether this should be happening. There have been various news anchors/pundits on cable channels basically saying that if we don’t allow the Bush administration to engage in this type of activity then we have no one to blame but ourselves of another terrorism attack occurs.

[Anonymous]

Hey Walt,

I also find it chilling how extensive the administration's control of the media has become, although I think it has probably always been greater than we would've expected.

In my comments in other posts regarding democracy in general and the feelings of some Asians in particular towards democracy, and the possibility that not everyone thinks democracy would be the most fabulous improvement on their current system -

Isn't freedom of information fundamental to true public participation in government decisions? Aren't elections supposed to be an opportunity to act rationally on accurate and complete knowledge of possible choices?

If we see that the availability of information is not functioning properly (as is the case when the power players control access to information) how can we even pretend people are making "informed" choices?

Did you see what happened in Guantanamo yesterday? They asked the 3 journalists that had been allowed in to leave. SOmething about the fact that tthey can't allow all other journalists making requests entry, so therefore in order to be fair they had to make all journalists leave. Does anyone really buy that explanation?

If other countries have had negative contact with the US, and they see our own domestic issues being played out in a decidedly UNdemocratic fashion, why would they buy into the sacredness of democracy as a way of life?

Instead of trying to force democracy down the throats of other nations, we should be working to improve its functioning at home.

Ricki

[Author]

Posts