How the Vietnam War Changed America

Vietnam was the first war in which the media was allowed front line access and complete, unmasked coverage of a war. America, absent of the internet, cell phones, and all the techonoligical splendors of today's society, was naive to the atrocities that took place on a battle field. How could they not be? What little they could know was the information of the surviving veterans, who, as we saw in the brilliant Slaughter-House Five, are mentally beriddled by conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and others like it. And not only was information about war limited, it was also glorified by the government to try enhance the military power. For example: The United States government during the second world war generated positive hysteria by demanding a sense of nationalism and pride and calling to its people a cry for heros. Before Vietnam, people believed that war was a place to build a legacy-stories like the Iliad, and situations like Mr. Crotty talked about where fighters were idolized and placed on pedestals (he also said that today we rarely see that). Before Vietnam, war was essentially a secret, a pandora's box to civilian life, and the Vietnam war, without warning and without regard, shattered the box, releasing the horrors of war and the reality of death for all the world to see.

Because of the capabilities of the American media during the war, the nightly news became an anti-war pacifists ultimate oximoron. The fears these anti-war advocates held were materialized by the pictures of death and destruction. The oximoron lies in that these newly published images of war solidified their thoughts and most likely enhanced the rage and sadness towards war, but it also became an outlet to spread like wildfire this young campaign which denounced force and war as it led essentially to death. The access journalists and photographers were granted, demanded a full fledged portrayal of the extremely unknown and otherworldly atmosphere war permitted. This exposure (no pun intended) most certainly was fueled by the vague and indirect reasons for the costliest loss in American war history.

Now, the question does not become one about the change in war as a result of the revelations about the subject to the everyday citizen, the answer to that is obvious (yes, it did), the questions which I believe become increasingly more important are ones that assess the "for better or for worse" conflict. Even better, I believe, is a question like, did these depictions of war alter foreign policy and better the chances of waging peace as opposed to war? We have been fighting for all of eternity, but, those not fighting, which is usually the majority, may not have been aware of the realness of the atrocities that were taking place.

I feel like the potential exists for me to ramble on and on and on and on....etc about these conflicts. For every point I make that supports the idea that we have hope for less war and more peace in the future, I can make a point that claims the inevitability of war. For Example, since Vietnam, where the media was first granted access to reveal humanity's most atrocious tradition, America has yet to win a war (we still havent won in Iraq) and if America is not winning, and the other country certainly is not, we then discover that no participant is victorious and we can potentially claim that if there are no winners why fight? But to counter that, I could argue that all this idealism is good and well, but when enemies like Jihadist militants are willing to give their life to defend their cause, we simply have no choice but to take their lives before they take ours and theirs at the same time. And to take their lives we must wage war.

So, it seems that with every question I try to answer a million more arise, all I can say is that the role of the media and their capabilities is changing the fundamentals of warfare. Good times on the blog.