A doomsday gap -- in reporting?

At long last, I have some good news (and, unfortunately, some bad news) to report from the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I have been complaining for some time about the Inquirer's glaring lack of coverage of the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, but finally I am able to report that yesterday I got a call from Carl Lavin, Deputy Managing Editor/News. Mr. Lavin, who was quite courteous, apologized for taking so long to call me back, and said that he was replying to my call about the U.N. scandal.

I explained that I was a lifelong reader, but that I was very disappointed in the Inquirer because this very serious story had received a great deal of worldwide coverage, and it appeared that the Inquirer was ignoring it. I reminded Mr. Lavin of the Inquirer's stated commitment to "the importance of an informed electorate."

Mr. Lavin said that the Inquirer is aware of the U.N. scandal, that he is aware that some people have complained about the lack of reporting, but that they are doing the best they can with the resources they have.

"Don't feel that we are ignoring the story," was his reassuring bottom line.

Whether my feelings count or not, I do appreciate a polite call like that, but I knew that the Inquirer is aware of the U.N. scandal; otherwise, why would they carry a story at their website that never ran in the paper?

Since the UNSCAM story broke, I have searched the Inquirer daily in vain looking for any coverage. I can't find any. The big story this week has been torture in Iraq, Rumsfeld on the spot, Kerry invoking Harry Truman to criticize Bush, and the like.

Not enough resources for even a mention of the biggest scandal to hit the U.N., though. Not enough room in the paper, perhaps?

Yet there was room in today's paper -- on page two no less -- for a fascinating piece of international news. The subject was another Vietnamese anniversary!

Another anniversary?

So close to Mother's Day?

Yes Mom! Anniversaries count. I guess in the spirit of last Saturday's May Day anniversary report on the fall of Saigon, today there was this stirring report of the anniversary of the victory against foriegn imperialism at Dien Bien Phu:

Vietnam marks anniversary of victory over French in '54

50 years after the siege of Dien Bien Phu, one leader saw parallels to Iraq.

By Margie Mason

Associated Press

DIEN BIEN PHU, Vietnam - Vietnam yesterday celebrated the 50th anniversary of its victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu, an achievement that continues to serve as a lesson for strong nations attempting to impose their will on poorer countries armed with determination.

The battle of Dien Bien Phu was a bloody 56-day siege that killed more than 2,000 French and three times as many Viet Minh soldiers before France surrendered May 7, 1954. It led to the end of colonialism in Indochina and foreshadowed the doom that would come to U.S. forces 20 years later.

Although Vietnam remains poor, Defense Minister Pham Van Tra said that a nation's strength was not measured in wealth and that Dien Bien Phu should serve as a reminder to powerful countries that continue occupying weaker nations today.

"When a country realizes that national independence is above all, no other forces can oppose them," Tra said in an interview a day before the anniversary. "For the Iraqi people, national independence is the most important thing. For those who go against this human right, I think they will all lose."

Well, there you have it, straight from the source: IRAQ IS VIETNAM!

We should have learned our lessons, shouldn't we?

It's one thing to feature the Dien Bien Phu story while ignoring the United Nations scandal, and I guess you could argue that the stern warnings from Vietnam's Stalinist gerontocracy are only being reported as accurately as possible.

Now, it wouldn't be nice to accuse the Inky of siding with ancient Stalinist enemies of the United States. But -- I must take issue with the claim that Dien Bien Phu "foreshadowed the doom that would come to U.S. forces 20 years later." American forces fought the North Vietnamese army to better than a stalemate. They came to the peace table, and signed the Kissinger/Le Duc Tho agreement to leave South Vietnam alone. Only then were U.S. forces withdrawn and P.O.W.s repatriated. This was called "Peace with Honor" by President Nixon, who was a tough enough son of a bitch to have enforced it, as the enemy well knew. But when Nixon was removed from office, the whole deal changed. Within months, the North Vietnamese invaded the South, and the United States abandoned its treaty commitments. (Here's a fairly good chronology of events.)

Try as I might, I can't characterize an orderly U.S. withdrawal after a peace treaty with the word "doom." Historians can argue about the wisdom of abandoning South Vietnam, but the simple fact is, the U.S. forces had beaten the enemy back, and were not there when the "doom" arrived.

A good argument can be made that South Vietnam was doomed by Watergate, however.

Might that be the kind of doom the Inquirer intends to foreshadow?

(Just asking....)

posted by Eric on 05.08.04 at 08:23 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1009








March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits