Monthly Topic: What If?
18/12/12 08:10![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere is no division in America as broad and deep as the war in Vietnam. It has usurped the role of the war between the states as the great rift that distinguishes one group from another. When we probe more thoroughly we find that the war itself is not as critical as how we experience the war and the tint on the spectacles with which we view the world. Those value differences determine our attitudes toward the topic at hand.
Mark Moyar is an historian who openly states his value bias right up front. As a Pentagon employee he also has a professional bias that led him down a particular path of historic interpretation. If he had any doubts about the virtue of the American military mission, he would not have sought out that professional relationship to begin with. For him the American imperium is above criticism. The imperium defines his life and his work.
Moyar gives us insight into why some people are dissatisfied with liberal journalism. He targets the press as the culprit in the deterioration of conditions in Vietnam. If Halberstam and company had been more responsible in their reporting Diem would not have fallen out of favor in Washington. Without a coup against Diem, the Vietnamese military would have defeated the Communist insurgency. If only Halberstam et al shared Moyar's values for authoritarian command and control the world would be a better place today. The journalists would have seen through the facade of Communist influence of the Buddhist demonstrations. They would have backed Madame Nhu in her puritanical endeavors to put Saigon on a war footing by banning divorce. They would not have been conned by the glory seeking upstart, John Vann, in his campaign to besmirch the quality of Vietnamese martial prowess. Moyar lumps them in with other dupes of totalitarian subversion in the press who formed negative opinions of Chiang Kai-shek and Fulgencio Batista. If Moyar was truly honest with us he would show us how Hitler got a bum rap from bleeding heart liberal journalists.
I agree with Moyar that American imperialism is a noble pursuit, but only within a framework of very limited values. Once we free ourselves of the chains of those primitive precepts we can see how pathetic that "nobility" really is. It becomes like a child's toy that amuses in youth but seems trivial in old age. The Pentagon Papers showed us the reality behind the facade of altruism that captivates the immature minds of people like Moyar. Moyar goes out of his way to denigrate the honesty of John McNaughton's famous 70/20/10 rationale for the war that shows up in the Pentagon Papers. The imperium is self-serving but it is also self-destructive. Without the imperium, Halberstam would have had no war on which to misreport in the first place.
What if...?
Links: Mark Moyar on the war in Vietnam. David Halberstam on the same topic. Other historians on Mark Moyar. Time article on the Pentagon Papers and the 70/20/10 rationale.
Mark Moyar is an historian who openly states his value bias right up front. As a Pentagon employee he also has a professional bias that led him down a particular path of historic interpretation. If he had any doubts about the virtue of the American military mission, he would not have sought out that professional relationship to begin with. For him the American imperium is above criticism. The imperium defines his life and his work.
Moyar gives us insight into why some people are dissatisfied with liberal journalism. He targets the press as the culprit in the deterioration of conditions in Vietnam. If Halberstam and company had been more responsible in their reporting Diem would not have fallen out of favor in Washington. Without a coup against Diem, the Vietnamese military would have defeated the Communist insurgency. If only Halberstam et al shared Moyar's values for authoritarian command and control the world would be a better place today. The journalists would have seen through the facade of Communist influence of the Buddhist demonstrations. They would have backed Madame Nhu in her puritanical endeavors to put Saigon on a war footing by banning divorce. They would not have been conned by the glory seeking upstart, John Vann, in his campaign to besmirch the quality of Vietnamese martial prowess. Moyar lumps them in with other dupes of totalitarian subversion in the press who formed negative opinions of Chiang Kai-shek and Fulgencio Batista. If Moyar was truly honest with us he would show us how Hitler got a bum rap from bleeding heart liberal journalists.
I agree with Moyar that American imperialism is a noble pursuit, but only within a framework of very limited values. Once we free ourselves of the chains of those primitive precepts we can see how pathetic that "nobility" really is. It becomes like a child's toy that amuses in youth but seems trivial in old age. The Pentagon Papers showed us the reality behind the facade of altruism that captivates the immature minds of people like Moyar. Moyar goes out of his way to denigrate the honesty of John McNaughton's famous 70/20/10 rationale for the war that shows up in the Pentagon Papers. The imperium is self-serving but it is also self-destructive. Without the imperium, Halberstam would have had no war on which to misreport in the first place.
What if...?
Links: Mark Moyar on the war in Vietnam. David Halberstam on the same topic. Other historians on Mark Moyar. Time article on the Pentagon Papers and the 70/20/10 rationale.
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 16:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 16:28 (UTC)I agree that Kennedy's loss at the Bay of Pigs played a role, but so did McCarthyism in general. There was a significant fear of another flare-up of rabid anti-Communism.
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 17:11 (UTC)McCarthyism was dead for a decade before US involvement in Vietnam began to turn into a boots-on-the-ground basis.
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 17:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 18:04 (UTC)Bias and historic interpretation are close to what he is. The more accurate terms are agenda and historic revisionism, because Mark Moyar creates a narrative and then looks for evidence to support it, unlike actual historians who do the opposite.
(no subject)
Date: 18/12/12 18:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 04:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 16:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 05:11 (UTC)As for Vietnam, is it really so divisive or even relevant now? It was front of mind for a while, and I'm sure it left an indelible mark on the Boomers, but with all the other issues that have divided the country, it seems very secondary at this point.
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 16:42 (UTC)If you do not see the divisions left by the Vietnam experience, you have not looked deeply enough. Even George Jr. spoke of learning from that experience.
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 07:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 16:48 (UTC)The American mission in Vietnam had little to do with economic development. It was strictly one of political subjugation. Some Americans even spoke openly of preserving Vietnam's medieval way of life. Moyar certainly smiles upon those who advocated medieval feudalism for Vietnam. The Communists presented a modernist threat to quaint provincialism.
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 07:58 (UTC)Oh, indeed?
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 08:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 08:12 (UTC)It may help if you consider this man as being a READER of the quoted phrase.
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 08:58 (UTC)Everything? When was the last time I did that?
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 16:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 17:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 17:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 18:14 (UTC)Wood vs. wood, it's a fair play, huh?
(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 18:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 18:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/12/12 10:13 (UTC)