Vietnam - Burns style

[tennbengal]

Anyone watching this? I've seen episodes 1 and 2 now, and the rave reviews appear to be spot on. God damn it's good. 10 episodes and 18 hours apparently. First episode covered the colonial history from 1858-1961 in a manner I had not remotely ever been taught. So helpful in understanding what came after.

[brian]

I'm DVRing it. Something like that I'll probably just wait until I have all the eps and then gorge later. I don't have to worry about spoilers.

[tennbengal]

It's gonna take me awhile to work through it too.

Watching it with Quinn. A ton to talk through with a high school sophomore. The footage burns has is a stunner. Also, scored by Trent Reznor and it has been outstanding on that count through first two eps as well.

[Rush2112]

Also, scored by Trent Reznor and it has been outstanding on that count through first two eps as well.

Straight CCR I'm hoping.

I'm waiting to gorge on the entire thing as well.

[degenerasian]

I thought the first two episodes were poor and lacking. The colonial stuff is off. Very flawed as if Burns didn't know how or where to start his documentary and I can get into the details.

This 3rd episode tonight was very good and I believe it'll be good going forward.

[howard]

Bengal, with all the hurricanes in the news, impressed you've put away two episodes so far.

I thought the first two episodes were poor and lacking. The colonial stuff is off. Very flawed as if Burns didn't know how or where to start his documentary and I can get into the details.

Interesting. On one hand, he devoted more time to the French colonial period than most works (the Karnow book, not the film, one exception.) But, he seemed to want to make one single point; many many errors made by the French, politically and militarily, were duplicated by the Americans.

A couple of things that he did mention, often overlooked, the magnitude of the French combat losses over nine years (175K casualties), and the magnitude of the American cash support during Truman and Eisenhower.

But yeah, as you've (degen) have taught us, the French (and Japanese) stories are deep and complex.

I am very impressed, I'm four episodes in (they are available on the PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-vietnam-war/home/ )

The treatment of JFK's views and actions is the most balanced I have ever encountered, I feared another 'Kennedy would've prevented the whole thing' approach (and don't get me wrong, that was a real historic possibility, but we can never know that what if), and Burns nailed it.

Interesting that the American historic memory is being introduced to Lê Duẩn (Ho's successor, and second most powerful politician in Hanoi during the ramp up of American military engagement). Better five decades late than never I suppose.

Unlike many previous films, Burns is faced with an overwhelming amount of videos and photos to choose from, and so far I love his use of this abundance. The visual tone is unique compared to his other famous films, but still clearly a Burns-style piece. And the music choices are excellent; using all the big hits (Eve of Destruction, Turn Turn Turn, Hard Rain) in non-chiche terms, and mixed in with cool tunes not commonly used in Viet era Hollywood and documentary stuff.

So far I think it is superb, digging it completely.

[tennbengal]

The treatment of JFK's views and actions is the most balanced I have ever encountered, I feared another 'Kennedy would've prevented the whole thing' approach (and don't get me wrong, that was a real historic possibility, but we can never know that what if), and Burns nailed it.

Completely agree. 100%. That narrative was always too easy, but this peels it back to where things stood just before Dallas in 1963 in a way that I had not remotely appreciated. Does a tremendous job in my opinion of layering on the nuance. And the part about how they backed into signing off on the coup was absolutely new to me.

Interesting that the American historic memory is being introduced to Lê Duẩn (Ho's successor, and second most powerful politician in Hanoi during the ramp up of American military engagement). Better five decades late than never I suppose.

Here is where I express some shame and regret that even though I was an American history major and European history minor in college, I somehow managed to get through years of study completely blind to American history, really, post WWII. Other than the most fascile notions of what the cold way was, the details of how that played out from 1946-1964 I never studied nor was it really taught. Maybe still to close to it, dunno. In any event, that piece of it was hugely helpful and revealing to me, anyway. Hell, the details about the regime in Saigon pre-coup were something I had really never looked at. At all. The crackdown on the Buddhists and that being the background to the iconic picture of the priest burning himself - absolutely never had looked at that at all, to my discredit. I have some reading to do.

Unlike many previous films, Burns is faced with an overwhelming amount of videos and photos to choose from, and so far I love his use of this abundance. The visual tone is unique compared to his other famous films, but still clearly a Burns-style piece. And the music choices are excellent; using all the big hits (Eve of Destruction, Turn Turn Turn, Hard Rain) in non-chiche terms, and mixed in with cool tunes not commonly used in Viet era Hollywood and documentary stuff.

So far I think it is superb, digging it completely.

The stuff I am jaw-dropped over are the scenes from North Vietnam of Ho Chi Minh. I would guess Burns was granted access to Vietnamese archives for some of that footage?

It's so good.

Finally, Degen, I know you are WAY closer to this than the rest of us, but...I cannot begin to emphasize enough just how little of the French colonial history in Asia is taught to American students. Like, ZERO. So, in terms of understanding more about that as prelude to the US involvement, that could not be more new to most viewers I would imagine. I thought Burns did a pretty damn good job trying to sum up 103 years of history in that first episode, stage set for me to better understand what came next than it ever has before, really.

[Nonlinear FC]

I'd missed this thread, somehow. Very much looking forward to catching up. Hope it's on demand or whatever.

[wlu_lax6]

Vietnam- Skinner/Tamzarian style


On a more serious note, this may be the first Burns documentary that I commit the full time to.

[degenerasian]

I'd missed this thread, somehow. Very much looking forward to catching up. Hope it's on demand or whatever.

it's on the PBS site
http://www.pbs.org/show/vietnam-war/

[tennbengal]

I'd missed this thread, somehow. Very much looking forward to catching up. Hope it's on demand or whatever.

Considering I just started the thread last night, I think you stumbled across it pretty timely. I don't think you will be disappointed when you get a chance to start it.

[Nonlinear FC]

I'd missed this thread, somehow. Very much looking forward to catching up. Hope it's on demand or whatever.

Considering I just started the thread last night, I think you stumbled across it pretty timely. I don't think you will be disappointed when you get a chance to start it.

I'm not very bright.

[degenerasian]

The treatment of JFK's views and actions is the most balanced I have ever encountered, I feared another 'Kennedy would've prevented the whole thing' approach (and don't get me wrong, that was a real historic possibility, but we can never know that what if), and Burns nailed it.

Completely agree. 100%. That narrative was always too easy, but this peels it back to where things stood just before Dallas in 1963 in a way that I had not remotely appreciated. Does a tremendous job in my opinion of layering on the nuance. And the part about how they backed into signing off on the coup was absolutely new to me.

Interesting that the American historic memory is being introduced to Lê Duẩn (Ho's successor, and second most powerful politician in Hanoi during the ramp up of American military engagement). Better five decades late than never I suppose.

Here is where I express some shame and regret that even though I was an American history major and European history minor in college, I somehow managed to get through years of study completely blind to American history, really, post WWII. Other than the most fascile notions of what the cold way was, the details of how that played out from 1946-1964 I never studied nor was it really taught. Maybe still to close to it, dunno. In any event, that piece of it was hugely helpful and revealing to me, anyway. Hell, the details about the regime in Saigon pre-coup were something I had really never looked at. At all. The crackdown on the Buddhists and that being the background to the iconic picture of the priest burning himself - absolutely never had looked at that at all, to my discredit. I have some reading to do.

Unlike many previous films, Burns is faced with an overwhelming amount of videos and photos to choose from, and so far I love his use of this abundance. The visual tone is unique compared to his other famous films, but still clearly a Burns-style piece. And the music choices are excellent; using all the big hits (Eve of Destruction, Turn Turn Turn, Hard Rain) in non-chiche terms, and mixed in with cool tunes not commonly used in Viet era Hollywood and documentary stuff.

So far I think it is superb, digging it completely.

The stuff I am jaw-dropped over are the scenes from North Vietnam of Ho Chi Minh. I would guess Burns was granted access to Vietnamese archives for some of that footage?

It's so good.

Finally, Degen, I know you are WAY closer to this than the rest of us, but...I cannot begin to emphasize enough just how little of the French colonial history in Asia is taught to American students. Like, ZERO. So, in terms of understanding more about that as prelude to the US involvement, that could not be more new to most viewers I would imagine. I thought Burns did a pretty damn good job trying to sum up 103 years of history in that first episode, stage set for me to better understand what came next than it ever has before, really.

I'm glad that the documentary touched on colonialism but it reaches it's negative conclusion too swiftly.

Here's is my checklist for the first two episodes.

1. General Thoughts:

Like most American made productions about the Vietnam War, It's too sympathetic to the North in the pre-1954 period, it's telling the story from the North's point of view. It's always Ho Chi Minh was the great patriot and Ngo Dinh Diem was the incompetent stooge. Diem was a very capable leader who did have issues, mostly religious. But he knew how to hold power and fight the communists in difficult times. This was not easy as was proven when the South had 8 different governments in the year after Diem's assassination.

It's the old cliche: bumbling American do gooder vs ruthless communist patriots. There was another side to that story that Burns glaringly failed to address, South Vietnam. He interviewed a few people from that side, but seemingly he failed to ask the necessary questions, such as why they needed to exist (people lamenting "we lost because we weren't strong enough or virtuous enough" isn't a fully realized point of view.)

South Vietnam is always portrayed as useless and needed to be propped up by the Americans but in fact they knew how to fight the war better than Americans (something emphasized better in Episode 3).

2. French Colonialism

Burns' failing to comprehend colonial Vietnam beyond typical post-1945 "colonialism was inherently evil and anything that replaced it can only be good" was his blind spot. Because he couldn't or wouldn't challenge that notion, he fell into the old beaten tracks and couldn't see the forest for the trees. Throwing a bunch of opinions from people very close to the conflict out there without a historian to give an overall context isn't presenting "many faces of truth", that's just people venting or repeating what they've heard all their life.

As it was, they had Bao Ninh coming on "My father hated the French, we hated the French, e.t.c... We don't need the French culture, we have our own culture, blah blah ... " and one South Vietnamese also went "We hated the French", then nothing, no perspective to modulate or contextualize the opinions. How and why they hated the French, or how they came to hate the French? It's like colonialism bad, the end let's move on. And the line, some Vietnamese welcomed the Japanese when they kicked out the French but Ho Chi Minh would have none of that. That's just propoganda BS. That's like saying Tunisians welcomed Hitler.

3. Land reforms

I don't think the documentary talks about enough North Vietnam from 1945-54. They take the sympathetic view that Vietnam's nationalist movement was no different than America's nationalist movement in 1776. From 1945-54 there were land purges and collective farming in the North like the Chinese Leap Forward. There were executions of dissenters. They glossed over it. It was not quantified.

4. Dien Bien Phu

They failed to mention why Dien Bien Phu existed. It was established for the Chinese and Vietnamese to plunder Laos. They told the myth of Vietnamese bringing guns to DBP by themselves as Chinese labor was paramount. This does not surprise me because the Communist propaganda will to this day mention Dien Bien Phu as a great military victory against the French by General Vo Nguyen Giap. But in fact it was a Chinese victory but Chinese soldiers and artillery. Giap was viewed a hero internationally but was pretty useless and was thrown away by the Communists by 1960 (sorry Howard). You shouldn't hear him mentioned again in this documentary but if you do, that's propaganda. Communists do everything in the shadows. Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap were the frontmen but it was Le Duan and Le Duc Tho who pulled the strings. They were so good at it that when Le Duc Tho finally appeared to meet Kissinger in Paris 1973, not only did the Americans not know him, even the South Vietnamese were like, who the fuck is this guy?

5. Elections

This is my own crazy theory. People always conclude that if there had been elections in 56, as stated in the Geneva Accord, Ho Chi Minh would have won 90%. I'm not so sure. Those elections would have been very interesting as Ho Chi Minh's support was declining from the brutality that was happening up North and a lot of the North's population came south (in which rural northerns were blocked from going to the south). The US should have made Diem go through with that election and win it. Heck he rigged his own election to win 98%, he could probably fudge this one. And even if Ho Chi Minh won the election there would have to be conditions. The new united Vietnam would have President Ho plus a congress with a senate a house and congressional districts. If Ho Chi Minh were to then just take power, they would then be the bad guys. Instead by not having that election, that galvanized the North and was the first step to mistrust of the south.

I know the documentary can't have everything but an extra episode for this period to explain the above would have been nice.

I'm hearing through the grapevine that the Current Vietnamese government is really unhappy with the 2nd half of the series as it portrays dirty politics within the Communist party and the brutal treatment of the people in the South after 1975.

I'm looking forward to that!

[tennbengal]

Defending European colonialism is certainly an interesting tact, Degen, I will give you that. I heard plenty of context and background to their hating the French, but I don't have time to go back and re-watch it and write it all down.

[Rush2112]

I'm glad that the documentary touched on colonialism but it reaches it's negative conclusion too swiftly.

I know the documentary can't have everything but an extra episode for this period to explain the above would have been nice.

Are there any books or documentaries that expand on this? Love to dig deeper into the subject.

[degenerasian]

Defending European colonialism is certainly an interesting tact, Degen, I will give you that. I heard plenty of context and background to their hating the French, but I don't have time to go back and re-watch it and write it all down.

From what I know French colonialism was good in the cities and brutal in the country. If you lived in Hanoi or Saigon you could get a cushy french job and be an aristocrat. If you were in the country you were a slave farming the land and building roads for the French (and urban vietnamese). Problem was at that time around 80% of the population lived in villages to be exploited. The mountain resort of Da Lat was built on the backs of slaves to give the French a nice cool place to vacation. This is where the hatred comes from and where the Viet Minh drew their support. When the partition happened in 54 people from Hanoi fled south and the farmers took over Hanoi.

If you were a guy in Saigon, none of this affected you. Say you were born in 1910. You were working for the French in the 30s. Then the Japanese kicked them out and it was a bit worse but survivable for 4 years. Then the Japanese surrendered and Saigon was back under imperial control. All the fighting with the French when they came back was up North. After 54 the French, British and Americans were around Saigon where you and your kids continued to work for them. Only in the 60s did it start to get dicey because Saigon was actually under attack.

I'm glad that the documentary touched on colonialism but it reaches it's negative conclusion too swiftly.

I know the documentary can't have everything but an extra episode for this period to explain the above would have been nice.

Are there any books or documentaries that expand on this? Love to dig deeper into the subject.

The best book I've read is Colonialism Experienced: Vietnamese Writings on Colonialism, 1900-1931 by Truong Buu Lam

[howard]

Oh boy, this is fun.

Degen, you prob remember the last time we kicked this around, I had not read anything negative about Gen Giap, until you unloaded. I've opened my mind, but I have yet to take the time to read the other side, about Giap's career during the American phase (or who was calling the military shots while he was figurehead.) (I have read a bit about the Chinese role at Diem Bien Phu - thanks again for opening my eyes to that.) So much to read/learn, so little time.

It's funny, there are a couple of moments where the film tip toes right up to the line that 'Ho did some really ruthless, murderous things' (execution of Japanese collaborators in 1945) but he gets right up to that line, and then shifts the focus to Le Duan as 'the really bad guy'. Ho's hero wasn't Lenin just for his intellectual gifts; he admired the nuts and bolts of how the Bolshevik's seized and consolidated power (bloody and brutal). (I wonder if Uncle Ho and Uncle Joe ever chatted over tea, those years he lived and studied in Moscow)

(these three got together, at least once)



WRT colonialism, I consider the positive, 'civilizing' effects of the British project in India as one perspective when considering the French in Vietnam. And I mean this without snark or irony. Particularly the creation of a new class of people in India, extending across generations, emerging via employment by the Brits, education in the Brit system, serving in the Brit military, and urbanization of large numbers of people. I am guessing some parallels can be drawn with Saigon. But, another broad area of ignorance on my part to address with further reading. I was about to ask about how much the French fucked with the rural peasant population, guess quite a bit.

Keep it coming, degen, bengal, and everyone else.

[BSF21]

I'd like to contribute here but my DVR missed the first episode and they aren't rerunning it until Sunday, so once I get caught up I'm excited to jump in here. Really interesting to have Degen's perspective.

[DaveInSeattle]

I'd like to contribute here but my DVR missed the first episode and they aren't rerunning it until Sunday, so once I get caught up I'm excited to jump in here.

Episodes are available for streaming on the PBS website.

We watched the first episode last night. It was fascinating to watch the American's head down the same path as the French, even going as far as making a bunch of the same statements.

[degenerasian]

I'd like to contribute here but my DVR missed the first episode and they aren't rerunning it until Sunday, so once I get caught up I'm excited to jump in here.

Episodes are available for streaming on the PBS website.

We watched the first episode last night. It was fascinating to watch the American's head down the same path as the French, even going as far as making a bunch of the same statements.

and making their base in Da Nang, just like the French! That was stupid.

[degenerasian]

BTW, I've watched the whole thing. The Vietnamese version is fully out on youtube.
Overall a very good series that tells the American story for Americans. It's a bit lacking on the South Vietnamese story but that's expected for a series made for American audiences.

[Rex]

So what was the South Vietnamese objective? From the sound of things, it was maintaining the status quo, which may have made some sense in the post-WWII days but by the late 1960’s what status quo was there to maintain? Was there any real meaningful pro-West or anti-communist sentiment, or something else that I’m missing?

[degenerasian]

So what was the South Vietnamese objective? From the sound of things, it was maintaining the status quo, which may have made some sense in the post-WWII days but by the late 1960’s what status quo was there to maintain? Was there any real meaningful pro-West or anti-communist sentiment, or something else that I’m missing?

Yeah, try to be a stable country, survive bring run over by communists and maybe even attack one day if stable. But there was never stability. So many factions attacking the government. Then Diem's crackdown was too brutal and he had to be removed. Then 8 governments, military infighting, generals arguing over who should lead and what to do. How to handle US forces. More rigged elections. The 1971 elections with Thieu running unopposed left a sour taste.

For a Vietnamese kid like my dad (born in 1948), go to school, graduate and try not to get conscripted to the army.

[Rex]

In retrospect, it's not too hard to see how a bland appeal to staying the course lost out to some crazy nationalist telling everyone to grab a gun and shoot the foreigners.

[howard]

In retrospect, it's not too hard to see how a bland appeal to staying the course lost out to some crazy nationalist telling everyone to grab a nuke and bomb the foreigners back to the Stone Age.

fify. An idea whose time hadn't yet come (but 53 years later…)

wrt setting up shop at Da Nang, it started off nice. Here is the welcoming committee:''

eta: link to the story as told by the Marine's official taxi service (that should get Ensign Billy's attention)

[howard]

And episode 6, we get to 1968. It always comes down to 1968. This horrible stupid war, and the whole period of American history. (And episode 6 only covered half the year.)

The oft repeated assessment that Tet was a military victory for the US/ARVN infuriates me. If true, it lacks any relevance to the outcome of the war. Cause morale and will to fight, on behalf of not only the soldiers but on the part of the society, counts. A lot. Just as in our Civil War. Or in Russia during WWI. Or Russia in their Afghanistan debacle. But I maintain Tet was not a military victory for the US.

Body count does not define victory or defeat. At D-Day, German casualties were much smaller than Allied losses. So, Germany won D-Day, right?

The US stated and believed that such an offensive by the NVA/Viet Cong was impossible. You achieve what your enemy thinks impossible, that goes a long way toward victory.

The losses suffered by the NVA/Viet Cong caused the US to double down, by asserting such massive casualties would cripple any future efforts. The losses would make it impossible for the North to continue their war effort. Yet, the NVA/Viet Cong managed not only to continue to fight effectively in the months to come, they launched two more major offensives, against multiple cities and regions later that same year.

Indeed, Westmorland's entire theory of victory was based upon inflicting such personnel losses as to be irreplaceable by the North. That the US would win a war of attrition. That there was a magic number of casualties, when achieved, the North would not be able to replace. Yet, despite the massive casualties of Tet, the NVA just kept supplying more and more men (and women), rendering the US strategy of attrition a failure. A strategic military failure.

See Pyrrus of Epirus. He won great victories against the Romans. He, unlike his 20th century American counterparts, had the insight to recognize, "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined"

Finally, in episode 7 they describe the Khe Sahn siege, a key part of Tet, which lasted 77 days. 274 American deaths, vs about 5000 NVA deaths. Americans prevailed, broke the siege, and the NVA retreated. American victory. But, one week later, Khe Sahn is evacuated, and bulldozed. Literally abandoned and destroyed. By the victors. Perhaps I am wrong in calling that a defeat, but that is the American military experience in Vietnam in a nutshell.

[degenerasian]

The problem with the Tet Offensive was that it was a military victory against the wrong opponent.

The entire narrative of the Vietnam War was American going there to stop communist forces from North Vietnam.

So who the fuck were these guys? What is this Southern Resistance? Aren't we on the same team?

So either

A) The South Vietnamese government hid how strong the NVA were to the Americans
or
B) The Americans knew this but hid it from their public.

When the American people found out that the American Embassy and Hue and areas all over South Vietnam were attacked by forces within the South that's when questions arise. What are we doing there? Who are we fighting? Will there be another internal offensive? How can we fight multiple enemies? Who the fuck is who?

Even though it was a military failure for the NVA as their plan fell short, it created enough doubt that is paralyzed the US. There would be more 'offensives'but not in that scale. It didn't matter though what was done was already enough.

To the South Vietnamese this was a great victory against the resisters they already knew about and had been fighting periodically. What was the American's problem?

[DaveInSeattle]

The problem with the Tet Offensive was that it was a military victory against the wrong opponent.

The entire narrative of the Vietnam War was American going there to stop communist forces from North Vietnam.

So who the fuck were these guys? What is this Southern Resistance? Aren't we on the same team?

So either

A) The South Vietnamese government hid how strong the NVA were to the Americans
or
B) The Americans knew this but hid it from their public.

When the American people found out that the American Embassy and Hue and areas all over South Vietnam were attacked by forces within the South that's when questions arise. What are we doing there? Who are we fighting? Will there be another internal offensive? How can we fight multiple enemies? Who the fuck is who?

Even though it was a military failure for the NVA as their plan fell short, it created enough doubt that is paralyzed the US. There would be more 'offensives'but not in that scale. It didn't matter though what was done was already enough.

To the South Vietnamese this was a great victory against the resisters they already knew about and had been fighting periodically. What was the American's problem?

I mentioned this in the reading thread, but the new book "Hue 1968" by Mark Bowden (who wrote "Black Hawk Down") is a great book that goes into all this in detail.

[howard]

That Bowden book on Hue sounds great, added to my list. I really enjoyed Black Hawk Down.

But this may be the most significant post of this thread. Pay attention.

Online, on the PBS site, they have different versions of the film. The broadcast edit, one with Vietnamese subtitles (degen mentioned that one), and an 'explicit' version, with the curse words left in.

The explicit version, the segment on Jane Fonda, is significantly more revealing than the broadcast version. In two notable ways. Specifically, the scene taken from the film Barbarella.

Be an informed viewer. Especially, in honor of the memory of Hef.

[tennbengal]

Got through the 3rd episode last night, continue to be stunned at the footage available and Burns has done a great job using it.

All of this, obviously, right before my time (I was born in 1970) - so didn't realize the impact of the Safer report on the CBS News on the burning of huts in 1965 early in the official ground troop days. The anecdote about LBJ calling president of CBS and asking "why are you fucking me" made me laugh. Roots of why I heard CBS referred to as Communist Broadcast Network in the late 70s and 80s from people my parent's generation go back to that, apparently.

[degenerasian]

I was discussing this with a colleague who has been watching the series.

Even though there is new footage and a few new stories I think enough has been done about the period of the war itself and Americans continue to try and explain and perhaps justify their participation. Been beaten to death.

To understand the Vietnam War is to not only to go back to French Colonialism (which Burns attempted to do) but to look at the period after. There needs to be an American production of a documentary called "After the Vietnam War". People think everything ends when that helicopter took off from the US Embassy in 1975. After that day there were horrible atrocities in the region. Why were the Americans in Vietnam? Because they were trying to prevent THIS. That's a story that needs to be told.

[govmentchedda]

In Austin this weekend, and just saw that Mark Bowden is signing books at this bookstore tonight. That's all I have to add to this thread at this time.

[Giff]

In Austin this weekend, and just saw that Mark Bowden is signing books at this bookstore tonight. That's all I have to add to this thread at this time.

Book People?

[govmentchedda]

In Austin this weekend, and just saw that Mark Bowden is signing books at this bookstore tonight. That's all I have to add to this thread at this time.

Book People?

You know it.

[govmentchedda]

In Austin this weekend, and just saw that Mark Bowden is signing books at this bookstore tonight. That's all I have to add to this thread at this time.

Book People?

You know it.

Not to threadjack, but that was an amazing bookstore.

[Giff]

In Austin this weekend, and just saw that Mark Bowden is signing books at this bookstore tonight. That's all I have to add to this thread at this time.

Book People?

You know it.

Not to threadjack, but that was an amazing bookstore.

Yeah, one of the many things I love about that town. Give me some heads up next time and I'll come over.

[govmentchedda]

Will do. I don't think of Austin as close to Houston though. Surprised it's only 2.5 he drive.

[tennbengal]

FYI - with the well done look at how pushing "body count" as a measure for success in Vietnam led inevitably to lies, this piece from the NY Magazine shows the lie of "surgical air strikes" against ISIS in a relief that looks awfully familiar:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... &smtyp=cur

Between April 2016 and June 2017, we visited the sites of nearly 150 airstrikes across northern Iraq, not long after ISIS was evicted from them. We toured the wreckage; we interviewed hundreds of witnesses, survivors, family members, intelligence informants and local officials; we photographed bomb fragments, scoured local news sources, identified ISIS targets in the vicinity and mapped the destruction through satellite imagery. We also visited the American air base in Qatar where the coalition directs the air campaign. There, we were given access to the main operations floor and interviewed senior commanders, intelligence officials, legal advisers and civilian-casualty assessment experts. We provided their analysts with the coordinates and date ranges of every airstrike — 103 in all — in three ISIS-controlled areas and examined their responses. The result is the first systematic, ground-based sample of airstrikes in Iraq since this latest military action began in 2014.

We found that one in five of the coalition strikes we identified resulted in civilian death, a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged by the coalition. It is at such a distance from official claims that, in terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent American history. Our reporting, moreover, revealed a consistent failure by the coalition to investigate claims properly or to keep records that make it possible to investigate the claims at all. While some of the civilian deaths we documented were a result of proximity to a legitimate ISIS target, many others appear to be the result simply of flawed or outdated intelligence that conflated civilians with combatants. In this system, Iraqis are considered guilty until proved innocent. Those who survive the strikes, people like Basim Razzo, remain marked as possible ISIS sympathizers, with no discernible path to clear their names.

Charles Pierce with a take on same:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... lian-isis/

[Nonlinear FC]

Got through the 3rd episode last night, continue to be stunned at the footage available and Burns has done a great job using it.

All of this, obviously, right before my time (I was born in 1970) - so didn't realize the impact of the Safer report on the CBS News on the burning of huts in 1965 early in the official ground troop days. The anecdote about LBJ calling president of CBS and asking "why are you fucking me" made me laugh. Roots of why I heard CBS referred to as Communist Broadcast Network in the late 70s and 80s from people my parent's generation go back to that, apparently.

I'm pissed they put it behind a pay-wall before I could get past the 2nd episode. Didn't know that was a thing.