What I have to address is his assertion that “there’s no question its general position is that the war could have been won had it not been for the media, a dissatisfied and squeamish public and politicians that were more concerned about re-election than doing the best for the soldiers.”

This is flat out wrong.

In the beginning President Johnson had a two-fold fear: the impact a declared war in Vietnam would have on his Great Society program (recounted on pages 7-9, 13, and elsewhere in the beginning)–the most sweeping social program to affect the nation since the New Deal (a classic “guns or butter” fiscal dilemma), and the possible intervention of the Soviet Union and China that could lead to World War III. As it later turned out, the former was a genuine concen, the latter less of one (during that time we saw communist nations as a monolithic entity, and they weren’t). Regardless, these were legitimate concerns.

Yes, Vietnam was an issue in the 1964 presidential election, but I make clear Johnson’s manipulations, as well as Goldwater’s forthright statement that we should either be all-in or all-out (page 12).

Regarding the “dissatisfied and squeamish public,” as the graphic history makes clear, at first most people didn’t know where Vietnam was on the globe. In the first years of the war, the public supported the war–insofar as those who even paid attention to it. When we started seeing that there was no real progress (1967) that’s when the first ripples of dissatisfaction arose. 1968 was when everything hit the fan. At no time was the public ever “squeamish”–they were angry! And the public had every right to be–both those who were pro-war and those who were anti-war. By this time the Johnson administration had lost credibility and was no longer to be trusted. There are many parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts (which I attempted to avoid making after one gets past the opening sequence). I wrote about protesters spilling animal blood on military records, of organizing anti-war marches across the country–the largest numbering in the tens of thousands. To stage massive demonstrations–not just once, but often–against a government is hardly a “squeamish” action.

Now, about this claim regarding that the media contributed to the losing of the war. In a contentious and controversial war this is one of the real flash-points. I spent a lot of time researching this issue and then in composing a summary that would avoid distortion.

I pointed out on page 87 that this subject still draws very passionate responses on both sides of the issue–after more than 40 years! It was such a complex subject that I had to devote two lengthy side-bars on the subject to give the important background to scenes that were shown in the graphic narrative itself. On page 87, I wrote: “Television coverage during the Tet Offensive sparked much criticism, the most extreme claim being that it caused America to lose the war in Vietnam. More common charges were television’s tendency toward sensationalism, and during 1968 and later, an antiwar bias. The subject is one that arouses much passion even to this day.”

Any study of print and television reporting of the war reveals this shift–and I must add that the “sensationalism” charge against television continues to this day and is not one confined to military matters. Earlier, on pages 70 & 71, I praise reporters. They worked under extraordinarily difficult situations–worse than what reporters experience now. And I specifically state “For the most part, reporters in South Vietnam delivered accurate news, and many military commanders later commented that the journalists who filed the best reports were those who accompanied the troops into the field.”

By the time biased reporting became common–not the norm, but “common”–the nation had already turned away from the war.

Finally, as for the story being “pro-military”–if I’m to be damned by my text for that bias, then, okay, guilty as charged. But, Chris Mautner’s comment is an oversimplification. Yes, Wayne and I do spotlight some heroic actions, such as the battle where Boatswain’s Mate First Class James E. Williams received the Medal of Honor. But Wayne and I also spent five pages recounting the My Lai massacre–still regarded as the blackest moment in US Army history, far exceeding the Abu Gharib abuses. And we do point out numerous high command failures.

I respect Chris Mautner’s opinions. In the above I have only sought to correct his errors of fact.

Dwight Jon Zimmerman

Got a big pile of trades waiting in my read pile. The ones I’m most looking forward to are the complete Essex County, Pax Romana and Parker. Also been loving Wednesday Comics.

Think I’m gonna have to go on a Batman binge in the next week or so with the arrival of Arkham Asylum for the XBox. Ordered the five issues of A Lonely Place Of Dying from eBay last week and had them arrive in the post this morning, so that’s gotta be the top of the list. Read Grant Morrison’s Batman run last week – still not sold on RIP, although I think that has more to do with the poor Tony Daniel art not being able to live up to the ideas in the script.

As an aside does anyone know of a good collection of Alan Grant’s late 80′s/early 90′s work on Batman? I remember reading it as a teenager in UK reprints and loving it. If I remember right Norm Breyfogle was the artist for a lot of the run. It had Anarky, The Fear and a number of other great villains first appearances. If there’s no collection of this there really should be. i know it was the first contact for a lot of people my age with the more “grown-up” American comics that came out in the wake of Dark Knight Returns and the TIm Burton movie.