The Vietnam War and the Global War on Terror: The Media and Politics

 

The Vietnam War and the Global War on Terror: The Media and Politics

Comparing and contrasting the media reporting of the American involvement in South Vietnam between 1965 to 1975 and the US led Global War on terror between 2001 to 2020 reveals some profound issues still facing the American people and specifically, the U.S. government. In comparing the U.S. involvement in South Vietnam and the Global War on Terror, three of the most damning rebukes of the US involvement and the US government from legacy media at the height of the war are selected. For the sake of comparison, the three most damning press reports of the Global War on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan) are also provided and highlighted with interesting revelations.

Here’s a comparison of the most damning media reports from legacy press outlets about U.S. involvement in South Vietnam (1965–1975) and the Global War on Terror (2001–2020).

 

 

Vietnam War (1965–1975)

Walter Cronkite’s CBS News Special Report (1968)

Key Rebuke: In February 1968, after the Tet Offensive, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite delivered a special report concluding that the U.S. was “mired in stalemate” and unlikely to achieve victory. His statement influenced public opinion and reportedly led President Lyndon B. Johnson to say, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.”

Impact: This was a pivotal moment that helped turn public sentiment against the war, as Cronkite was one of the most trusted journalists in America.

Walter Kronkite: Declared the Vietnam War Unwinnable.

 

Seymour Hersh’s My Lai Massacre Report (1969)

Key Rebuke: Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, writing for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and later published widely, exposed the My Lai Massacre, in which U.S. troops killed hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians.

Impact: The report shocked the American public and further delegitimized U.S. involvement in Vietnam, reinforcing the perception of an unjust and unwinnable war.

The Pentagon Papers (1971)

Key Rebuke: The New York Times and Washington Post published classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, revealing that multiple U.S. administrations had misled the public about the progress of the war and the likelihood of victory.

Impact: The revelation eroded public trust in the government, deepened anti-war sentiment, and contributed to the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.

 

 

Global War on Terror (2001–2020)

The Abu Ghraib Scandal (2004)

Key Rebuke: 60 Minutes II (CBS) and The New Yorker (Seymour Hersh again) exposed the abuse and torture of detainees by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Impact: The scandal severely damaged America’s moral standing and fueled anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, as well as increasing skepticism about U.S. military actions abroad.

  

 

The Afghanistan Papers (2019)

Key Rebuke: The Washington Post published a trove of internal U.S. government documents showing that officials had systematically misled the public about the progress of the war in Afghanistan, similar to the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.

Impact: The revelations reinforced the notion that the war was unwinnable and had been mismanaged for nearly two decades, adding pressure for the final U.S. withdrawal in 2021.

 

The Collateral Murder Video (2010)

Key Rebuke: WikiLeaks, in collaboration with major newspapers, released a classified U.S. military video showing an American Apache helicopter killing civilians, including journalists, in Baghdad.

Impact: This visual evidence of civilian casualties reinforced critiques of the war’s brutality and lack of accountability, fueling anti-war sentiment globally.

 

Comparison and Contrast

Similarities: Both wars were plagued by government deception, exposed through leaked documents (Pentagon Papers vs. Afghanistan Papers). Both conflicts saw revelations of U.S. military atrocities that damaged credibility (My Lai vs. Abu Ghraib and Collateral Murder).

Differences: The Vietnam War had a more centralized anti-war movement fueled by mainstream legacy media, whereas the Global War on Terror’s most damning rebukes often came from leaks (WikiLeaks) rather than traditional press alone. Additionally, Vietnam’s turning point (Tet Offensive and Cronkite’s report) was clearer than any singular moment in the War on Terror.

It  appears to me that the press during the Vietnam War, while of course reporting on massacres and civilian casualties, provided reportage more specifically criticizing the politics and administrations of Johnson and Nixon more frequently. The GWOT reportage appears to have ever seriously avoided criticizing the administrations of Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden save for the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The Vietnam War reporting was far more pointed in its critique of U.S. political leadership, particularly Johnson and Nixon, than the Global War on Terror (GWOT) coverage was toward Bush, Obama, Trump, or even Biden (except for the withdrawal from Afghanistan).

 

Why Was the Media More Critical of Political Leadership During Vietnam?

 

The Draft and Domestic Unrest:

The Vietnam War directly affected millions of Americans through the draft, leading to massive protests, civil disobedience, and a politically engaged press. The GWOT relied on an all-volunteer military, meaning fewer Americans had a personal stake in the war.

1967 Anti-War Protest on the Mall: Washington D.C.

 

Legacy Media’s Influence:

In the 1960s and early 1970s, newspapers like The New York Times, Washington Post, and networks like CBS (Cronkite, Dan Rather) dominated the news cycle. There was no Fox News, MSNBC, or social media to fragment narratives, so the legacy media had a unified impact.

 

Direct Access and Leaks:

The Pentagon Papers exposed how multiple administrations had lied about Vietnam, giving the press direct ammunition to criticize government leadership. During the GWOT, leaks like the Afghanistan Papers or WikiLeaks occurred much later in the war and were often dismissed by mainstream media or overshadowed by political partisanship.

 

 

Watergate and Post-Vietnam Distrust of Government:

The Vietnam-era press had a more adversarial relationship with the government, especially after Watergate. Investigative journalism surged in this period, whereas post-9/11, there was greater deference to presidential authority, especially in the early years.

 

Why Was GWOT Political Criticism More Muted?

Post-9/11 National Unity & Fear of Appeasement

The press, particularly from 2001–2004, hesitated to criticize the Bush administration aggressively, fearing accusations of being "unpatriotic" or "soft on terrorism." The Iraq invasion in 2003 was largely accepted by mainstream outlets (New York Times, Washington Post) before skepticism grew later.

 

 

Partisan Media Landscape

By the time Iraq and Afghanistan became quagmires, media narratives were highly polarized. Conservative outlets like Fox News defended the wars, while liberal outlets criticized them selectively (e.g., criticizing Bush but hesitating to attack Obama’s drone campaigns or Trump’s continuation of troop deployments).

 

Lack of a Clear "Turning Point"

Vietnam had moments like the Tet Offensive and the Pentagon Papers that turned public opinion rapidly. GWOT had numerous scandals (Abu Ghraib, drone strikes, civilian casualties), but there wasn’t a single moment where the press or public decisively turned against the war until the botched 2021 withdrawal.

 

Who Got a Pass?

Bush (2001–2008): Initially, media was deferential after 9/11. The Iraq War criticism intensified post-2004, but Afghanistan was largely ignored.

Obama (2009–2017): Expanded drone warfare, surged troops in Afghanistan, and presided over intervention in Libya, yet the press was far less critical.

Trump (2017–2021): Promised to withdraw but continued operations. The press focused more on domestic politics and scandals than his handling of GWOT.

Biden (2021–Present): The media lambasted him for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan but largely avoids revisiting the war itself.

The US Armed Forces: Hardley ever questioned and never taken to task, especially for the progress or lack of progress of the campaigns in both, Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, its rather apparent that the US led Coalition efforts to train and equip the Afghan security forces were costly and resulted in the total collapse of Afghanistan during the withdrawal. At least the ARVN, in South Vietnam, fought on with no U.S. support for another two years before being defeated not by a guerilla army or an insurgency, but by artillery and armor of the PAVN/NVA in 1975.

     The Vietnam-era press was willing to directly challenge the authority of sitting presidents, while post-9/11 coverage was more cautious, fragmented, and sometimes complicit in government narratives. The shift from investigative journalism to a more entertainment-driven, partisan media ecosystem likely played a role in this shift.

This then leaves us to ponder…The Russo-Ukrainian War, The IDF in Gaza, and potentially, Taiwan. I wonder what role and how the current media apparatus will shape opinion during a PRC-Taiwan crisis.

 

Beneath the Surface: A Deeper Dig

Many of the contemporary observations  and comparisons between the Vietnam War and GWOT are valid, at least on the surface, but they represent an orthodox appreciation of the GWOT. The successive administration post-Vietnam incorporated various lessons for the future and these were implemented effectively by the Bush administration and more importantly, by the Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld.

These lessons include:

1.      The DoD stranglehold on the media; all journalists required "credentialling" and were 'embedded' and managed by DoD theater Public Affairs.

 

2.          The Bush administration and subsequent administrations ensured that no draft or invocation of selective service inductees was ever entertained. In fact, the draft was prohibited and a decision was made to use the all-volunteer force in rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Reserve (Army Reserve and Army National Guard), however, was fully utilized as a form of 'back door' draft, and at the height of the war, almost 51% of all personnel in Iraq were Reservists/National Guardsmen.

 

Ant Anti-War Protest in 2010.

 

3.      By not implementing a draft and managing the legacy media, an anti-war effort was prevented from ever gaining momentum. Like the Second World War, there was indeed national unity and a demand for some type of action. And subsequent administrations took full advantage of the public mood.

These weren’t accidental shifts but deliberate adaptations based on Vietnam-era failures. The Pentagon and successive administrations ensured that the mistakes of the Vietnam War—particularly unrestricted media access and conscription—were avoided in GWOT.

 

Expanded Breakdown of Lessons Applied from Vietnam to GWOT

1. DoD Stranglehold on Media ("Embedded" Journalism)

During Vietnam, reporters like Morley Safer (CBS) and Neil Sheehan (New York Times) had near-total freedom to roam the battlefield and report as they saw fit. This resulted in raw coverage of civilian massacres, failures, and operational shortcomings.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon imposed a system of credentialing and embedding journalists with military units. This gave the DoD control over access, messaging, and narratives, ensuring a more sanitized version of the war reached the public.

 

 

Key Effects:

The media largely echoed DoD-approved narratives during the early years of both wars.

While some investigative journalism still emerged (Abu Ghraib scandal, Afghanistan Papers), it was delayed and far less frequent than during Vietnam.

Journalists who broke from the narrative (like Al Jazeera reporters) were often accused of being anti-American or even targeted.

 

2. No Draft = No Mass Public Opposition

In Vietnam, conscription ensured that middle-class and working-class Americans had "skin in the game," leading to mass protests, a counterculture movement, and ultimately, political pressure to withdraw.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the all-volunteer force insulated the broader public from the costs of war. Without a draft, there was no mass anti-war movement comparable to Vietnam.

The "Backdoor Draft" (Reserve & National Guard):

Since a full-scale expansion of the military was politically unpalatable, the Pentagon heavily relied on Reserve and National Guard units for sustained deployments.

At the height of the Iraq War, 51% of all deployed personnel were from the Reserve and National Guard. This was an unprecedented reliance on part-time soldiers, many of whom never expected to serve multiple combat tours.

 

3. The Use of Contractors and Special Operations

Unlike Vietnam, where conventional troop numbers peaked at over 500,000, GWOT relied on private military contractors (PMCs) and SOF (Special Operations Forces) to keep official troop counts lower.

By 2007, there were more contractors in Iraq than uniformed personnel.

This allowed the administration to sustain operations without triggering a major political backlash over high troop levels.

 

4. Framing GWOT as a "Forever War" Without a Clear Exit

Vietnam had a defined enemy (North Vietnam/Viet Cong), but the GWOT was framed as a fight against an amorphous, global terrorist threat that justified perpetual U.S. military presence.

This "long war" approach prevented a single Tet Offensive-style moment from shifting public sentiment. This ‘long war’ approach also punted any immediate decision for termination and ensured many inside and outside the administration, including civilian and military personnel an ability to take full advantage of the war with no end in sight,

 

Final Thoughts

The Vietnam War taught U.S. leaders that wars are not just won or lost on the battlefield—they're won or lost in the realm of public opinion. Bush, Rumsfeld, and later administrations implemented these lessons with precision, ensuring that mass opposition never reached the levels seen in the 1960s and 70s. And an argument for another day? How 300+ flag officers who were charged with prosecuting the GWOT are today…comfortable millionaires.