A reader writes:
James,
JimmyWhen I figured out that the Iraqi elections were
scheduled on the anniversary of the eve of the Tet
Offensive, I had a theological question I have never
heard asked. Is it possible that embedded within
history, in the unfolding of God’s plan (Divine
Governance), are sort of historical ironies or puns?
If one looks at puns in the Bible it would seem that
God had to predestine not only the characters and
their circumstances, but the language (Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek) and its development.
It is possible that God has all kinds of buried puns in history, but I wouldn’t suggest that you go looking for them until the next life. That’s when we’ll have the balance and maturity to appreciate such things. In this life the danger of becoming obsessed with them and seeing connections where none exist is too great. (Many people drive themselves nuts this way.)
For example, (while you’re not nuts) I’m not sure that I see a big connection between the Tet offensive and the Iraqi election. They were both things that (a) occurred in other countries and (b) were significant and (c) happened on the same day, but there are only 365.2422 days in the year, and significant things are happening in other countries all the time. There’s bound to be some that have the same anniversary.
Sure, in this case they were both things that happened in connection with insurgency and a controversial U.S. war, but their fundamental nature is different: The insurgency on Tet was not trying to thwart a local election being held at the same time.
On the other hand, here’s a hopeful note: The U.S. defeated the insurgency in Tet; may it do the same in Iraq. (And on a cautionary note: The media was so anti-U.S. policy that it portrayed Tet as a U.S. defeat when it wasn’t; the same may happen with Iraq.)
As far as puns in the Bible, while God may have predestined the development of biblical languages to allow the precise puns he wanted to use, this isn’t a necessity. Every human language is capable of producing puns, and God may have given Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scope to develop and then used their native pun-generating capacity when it came time to write the Scriptures.
The media was so anti-U.S. policy that it portrayed Tet as a U.S. defeat when it wasn’t
Death to the Old Media!
Long live the New Media!
Down with Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite!
Glory to the Pajamahadeen!
🙂
I want to note that although Tet was a US victory, it was not obvious during the battle. If the government tells you the Viet Cong are beaten and the next day they seize the US Embassy, it does not look good.
It was BECAUSE of Tet that the media message became “we can’t win the war” although I don’t think that was the message before that (although some commentators had already reached that conclusion). There was not some conspiracy to purposely spin Tet so that it would appear as a defeat. It LOOKED bad.
It is also important to note that a major reason Tet proved so decisive in forming people’s minds is that the government was not being honest with the people. Whatever the military benefits of Tet to the US, it proved that the government and the military’s presentation of what was happening in Vietnam was not accurate.
And this was not something made up. LBJ, Sec Def McNamara, and Gen Westmoreland did not know how to win the war. Many, many mistakes were made. The journalists who first went to Vietnam (say 1963-1968) were not reflexively anti-war. What they saw slowly convinced them that the US was not winning it.
Even those who believe that Gen Abrams turned the war effort around (who was appointed by Nixon I believe and after Tet in any case), the argument implicitly agrees that the war was not going well before then.
Because of certain falsehoods (some deliberate lies, others honest mistakes) the US government did not have the credibility to convince people that Tet was a victory afterwards. Although there was a vocal minority against the war, the anti-war movement did not become mainstream until this. It was the government which created the anti-war movement.
The lesson of Tet should not be, “Don’t trust the media.” The media was actually fairly accurate before Tet. If LBJ honestly appraised the problems the media were reporting, he might have made changes that would have resulted in a US victory. The lesson is that mistakes by Presidents fuel anti-war movements when they lack credibility, even if the anti-war movement is not accurate itself, which creates a vicious spiral. I wish the current President knew this. Many of our current problems are a direct result of his decisions.
People can accurately point to other battles that did not look good – say the Battle of the Bulge – and use it to crucify the media because they don’t know how to interpret war. However, other governments than those of LBJ and GWB knew that morale was vital and constantly worked to keep it up, explain war aims, and clearly connect the dots.
However, those governments generally concentrated on the war itself. Both LBJ and GWB had ambitious domestic agendas they wanted to implement as well and expended much energy on that rather than the war itself. Both LBJ and GWB have much personal blame for how much they have inspired the anti-war movement.
HAHAHA. I THOUGHT there was a name change. For some time now, I’ve noticed Catholic Answers refers to you as “Jimmy” Akin instead of James. I thought it was some Karl Chick conspiracy or something. I guess not! 🙂
I read your little dissertation on why it’s Jimmy and not James. James seems to me a hybrow version of the name, so Jimmy’s much better, and Jim on its own goes down okay too.
When I was young I was called Donny, the diminutive of Don. But as I grew up I didn’t appreciate it so much, especially when Donny Osmond came along, so it had to be plain Don.
When I lived in Australia, a lot of the Aussies called me Donny again -the alternatives were Kiwi, or Mate – the cover-all name for anyone, male or female, and I didn’t mind so much.
What’s in a name ?
Anyway, in relation to the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968, my understanding of the reporting is that it was a victory for US, but the problem was that the Political considerations were so strong that in the Vietnam war the military would never be permitted to do what was required to win anyway, so was a foregone conclusion that the an honorable extraction was what was persued.