Ken Burns’ lecture
Went to lecture by film historian Ken Burns
I went to a lecture by the great film documentarian Ken Burns this evening. He has produced celebrated docuementaries on topics from the Civil War to Jazz, Baseball to Mark Twin and lately, World War Two.
Sure, I like history, and might even be considered somewhat of a history nerd. I’ve enjoyed books by David McCullough, Will Durant, Daniel Boorstin and others. But I’ve never seen a Ken Burns documentary.
OK, if you really dig Ken Burns, forgive me, but he sounded like a walking thesaurus, given to grandiloquent language and awfully impressed with himself. Of course, he has a lot more reason for self-satisfaction than I do, (it’s not like I’ve produced any hit 16-hour documentaries about the Civil War) but still…
After his prepared speech came questions and he sounded much more direct. Asked what he thought were the differences between the current war and WWII, he said the main difference was the sense of investment that we lack in this war. “If my president after 9/11 had asked me to sacrifice fifty things I would have sacrificed fifty-one and felt richer for it. Instead I was told; ‘Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, just go shopping’”.
And, of course, like most shopping sprees, the real cost gets paid later ...
The observation isn’t new with Burns, but there’s certainly something to it. The whole WoT has been woefully mishandled from a public relations standpoint—the attempt has been to inculcate fear, not determination; to get people to give up liberties, rather than material goods; to consider opponents to the war wrong, rather than be convinced that the war is right.
Posted by *** Dave on 11/02/07 at 06:36 AMWell I guess I didn’t miss much after all.
I agree with Burns, I think that is a pretty big difference between WWII and Iraq. But I’m not sure it would have made much difference in societies sentiments about the war.
Posted by webs05 on 11/02/07 at 08:40 AMI have watched a few hours on Burns documentaries, I will say it seems he tries to give the full picture. The WWII documentary reveals a lot more than is taught in any of the schools. One of the major differances between WWII and the WoT is the visiblity of the enemy. WWII had a highly visible enemy, known leaders who we could blame and know that if they went down the rest crumbled. This united a lot of the country, not all but most. Now we have a war against an enemy who has multiple leaders who are replacable. We might want to target all Muslim’s but in reality there is no one leader of the Muslim world. There is no Hitler, there is no leader of a nation, the closest thing is the leader of Iran who for the time is not directly an enemy.
This is not a stupid enemy, they don’t want a united America, they win only as long as we continue to fight among ourselves. They learned lessons from our past, the press can be manipulated and with the press you can convince people of anything.
I can tell you this for a fact, I spent 30 years in the Army, I have fought in more than one war. My experiences after 30 years do not qualify me to pass judgement on people who are fighting a war who have much great actual knowlege of what is going on. I can’t depend on the press to report accurate , factual information, and I can’t depend on the government press to do the same. I can depend on my friends who are in the battle, and they tell me not to believe a word the press has to put out.
So what is actually the main difference, its the press, they have decided that the war is wrong, lost or whatever. That sells papers and it doesn’t make a difference if it correct or not.
The dollar is more valuable than their integrity.Posted by james old guy on 11/02/07 at 09:09 AMMaybe I should rent the WWII series when it comes out on video. My dad told many stories, but said he had a pretty safe life driving a truck in the SeaBees, and that people from heavy combat usually wouldn’t talk about it. Apparently Burns found some people who, as he put it, were finally ready.
He described a couple individuals who agreed to talk, but then got in front of the camera, and just broke down. He said we will simply never know what it was like for them.
Posted by george.w on 11/02/07 at 09:30 AMMy dad was a combat veteran from WWII,he wouldn’t talk about it. When I came back from Viet-Nam he asked me how was it, I told him the same thing, I don’t want to talk about it. He just said “now you understand”, and finally I did. We never brought the subjects up again.
Posted by james old guy on 11/02/07 at 11:08 AMMy dad was a combat veteran from WWII,he wouldn’t talk about it. When I came back from Viet-Nam he asked me how was it, I told him the same thing, I don’t want to talk about it. He just said “now you understand”, and finally I did. We never brought the subjects up again.
I’ll use your quote, but I don’t mean you.
IME, when I’ve ran into people that said, “I’m not willing to talk about it”, often it signaled a compromise of principles—an extreme exposure to cognitive dissonance—i.e. morality compromised by circumstances—that the only way to explain it to someone else would be to have them encounter similar experiences so they can make similar decisions and then judge others by those. And there are others that are just too traumatized, but I don’t understand why they don’t go out and get vociferous enough to do more about it, in the vein that holocaust survivors often go and give speeches to HS students, college students, etc.
I support the draft (and maybe some day, the draft will be fair enough to encompass those that gain the most from a military). It produces the right number of malcontents and inefficiencies such that politicians look at them as a risk not worth taking except in the most dire of circumstances.
Posted by Ted on 11/02/07 at 12:51 PMAnd there are others that are just too traumatized, but I don’t understand why they don’t go out and get vociferous enough to do more about it, in the vein that holocaust survivors often go and give speeches to HS students, college students, etc
Um ... what percent of Holocaust survivors go out and give speeches to students, etc.?
From what I have read, I suspect that the majority—the vast majority—of them were quiet about their experiences, for similar reasons: it’s simply too painful to discuss, esp. with those who cannot relate to the circumstance.
Posted by *** Dave on 11/02/07 at 02:04 PMWe might want to target all Muslim’s but in reality there is no one leader of the Muslim world.
Would you recommend targeting the congressman that is a Muslim, or is he excluded?
its the press, they have decided that the war is wrong, lost or whatever.
Which parts that the press reports on are wrong? Any specific examples? Everyone in the press, or just certain groups? For example is Faux News not to blame because they love to beat the war drum?
Posted by webs05 on 11/02/07 at 02:24 PMUm ... what percent of Holocaust survivors go out and give speeches to students, etc.?
I don’t know. I got one in grade school, one in middle school in the US, and another in HS. My kids each got at least one in HS.
Contrast that to Kerry that comes back from Vietnam, and says, “Yo, that was some f*cked up sh*t!“ For which he got swiftboated. To have some vet come back, go to a HS and give the obligatory, “Yo that was some f*cked up sh*t” PPT presentation, just isn’t done—it’s so patently unpatriotic in the eyes of many.
So the result is that we have people, kids, women, pets get dismembered, sometimes by us, and then we feel poorly about it because in our maudlin moments we conclude that hey, I guess they’re not all that different from us. But god forbid if we should show up at the local HS with a slide deck trying to prevent the next one.
The stuff about the liberal media is laughable as is the notion that any particular soldier knows jack outside his personal eyesight.
In 2002-2003 when the media had a use—pointing out ######## in the buildup and questioning, they didn’t do jack except prepare to get bedded by the MICFiC. And NOW they’re all librul lefties?
Posted by Ted on 11/02/07 at 03:37 PM“I can tell you this for a fact, I spent 30 years in the Army, I have fought in more than one war. My experiences after 30 years do not qualify me to pass judgement on people who are fighting a war who have much great actual knowlege of what is going on. I can’t depend on the press to report accurate , factual information, and I can’t depend on the government press to do the same. I can depend on my friends who are in the battle, and they tell me not to believe a word the press has to put out.“
So what you’re saying is that we (citizens) cannot possibly understand enough about the war and the political situation to comment on it. We can only trust that the military and policy-makers who know more than we do are doing the right thing.
“This is not a stupid enemy, they don’t want a united America, they win only as long as we continue to fight among ourselves. They learned lessons from our past, the press can be manipulated and with the press you can convince people of anything.“
Moreover, anything negative we see about the war is just enemy propaganda designed to divide us.
It sounds like to you don’t believe the people should have a say in which wars we fight and why. If what you say is true, then any pro-war stance is just as invalid as an anti-war stance. We are all too stupid, uninformed and myopic to make decisions about people who go around the world and drop bombs in our names. As someone who believes in democracy this view is repugnant to me, and opposed to all the values of the founding fathers of our country.
Posted by Lucas on 11/02/07 at 04:55 PMYou people read a lot into one paragraph. Lucas, you have your views I have mine. No where did I say anything about the constitutional process required to go to war. I didn’t say people shouldn’t have a say in what there government is doing. What I am saying is opinions should be based on more than your favorite 6pm news show. Ted, no you don’t understand and if I tried to explain it to you, you still wouldnt.
Posted by james old guy on 11/02/07 at 06:09 PMWe’re probably not just reading from that one paragraph, James, but from a legacy of denial about war. It isn’t about you. I don’t know how to address this without offending good people and I apologize but it has to be said.
Once you invest in something, you have to think it is right. The more you invest, the harder it is to change your thinking. Politicians can in perfect safety ask soldiers to invest their personal honor - to say nothing of their lives - in wars started by lies, wars that have little to do with national security. The soldier makes the investment, not the politician. In this way, war is self-perpetuating.
And then the politician postures in front of the camera like he is the courageous one! And says things like “I will fight for…“ Yeah, when I see your fat ass in body armor doing guard duty on some anonymous road in Iraq we’ll call it fighting, senator. What you do in your elegant chambers is called “legislation”. Or maybe “taking bribes”.
No question a soldier knows something about battle that you couldn’t learn any other way. But I have read complaints from many soldiers that they are kept in the dark about anything beyond the moment and their orders. Regarding questions of geopolitical priority and questions about going to war ... from what I have read from soldiers, not journalists, that soldiers are given the answers their commanders and our political leaders want them to have.
And then… I have read complaints from soldiers about other soldiers who saw the insanity for what it was, or even denigrating soldiers who came home with mental health problems. At first I was so astounded by this that I just didn’t know what to say.
So far Ted’s explanation (of cognitive dissonance) best explains why a study of 320 thousand war vets from WW II through Vietnam found a suicide rate approximately double that of the general population. Or why military.com reports a huge uptick in active-duty suicides - currently the highest rate in 26 years of record keeping. And for every individual who commits suicide, there are probably many who think about it often.
It also explains why so many oppose any effort to question the basis of the next war. How could anyone fight in a war and then conclude the war was immoral in the first place, or that there could have been a better way? You don’t have to be a psychologist to know, that way lies no end of pain. The soldier has invested too much to think that.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
The crime lies not with the soldier but with the chickenhawk politicians and media bobbleheads.
Posted by george.w on 11/03/07 at 08:53 AMMaybe the experience of war is metaphysical and mystical and can’t be discussed—like any secret society, some need to be kept out to make it more exclusive. As a rite of initiation into manhood/nationalism, it is not a revealed phenomena, but covertly signaled like any other secret society worth its salt with winks and nods.
My opinion is that use of force is politically necessary, and it won’t do to discourage it outright so that people might develop a personal compass on it. However a public compass is just fine and is the encouraged type—when the government tells you it’s just, or the pulpit telly you it’s justified, or media tells you it’s just, then it’s OK. Also, I think most people find it distasteful to openly discuss the notion that some of our population is disposable for the sake of nationalism. But they are.
But I have read complaints from many soldiers that they are kept in the dark about anything beyond the moment and their orders.
IME, the culture of the military is to restrict knowledge for a variety of reasons. Soldiers need to know enough to do their job, when they need to do it, and not much more. This goes hand in hand with the notion of sharing secrets; secrets are exposed on a need-to-know basis, and not more than that. If it’s not necessary for your job, you don’t need to know it. And that gets extrapolated out in common daily tasks as well, because leaders “think”, but soldiers “execute”. And overthinking by soldiers—by knowing more than the leaders want you know—leads to indecisiveness and questioning. (And he who hesitates is lost.) We value questioning and inquisitiveness in the general population, but that’s not a quality valued in the military because it leads to sluggishness and re-interpretation. Charge that hill? Me?
What people in the military know is: “what’s in their defined lane, and what’s in their defined paygrade”. If it’s outside their paygrade (authorized knowledge), it can be used to segment personal responsibility. (I did what I was told. My superiors knew the full picture and the strategic plan; I’m the instrument of execution.) Similar to the notion that intelligence services know where the WMDs in Iraq are, but everyday Joes don’t. So trust us. And afterwards, the politicians are shocked, yes shocked, that they were misled. They understand well the concept of “staying in their lane, in their paygrade” to slough off responsibility.
The notion that the average military guy knows more than the reporter that is free to travel and question everyone is highly debatable. The average military knows what’s in his paygrade. He knows what he’s told. He’s controlled where he can go, and where he can look. He may get operational summaries, but keep in mind the notion of compartmenting information (plus the notion that the military is highly politicized so that even daily summaries delivered to higher ups are very suspect due to the officer corps willingness to suck up.)
Posted by Ted on 11/03/07 at 12:46 PMTed will never have to worry about drowning.
Posted by james old guy on 11/05/07 at 10:56 AM
Next entry: Victims two, three, and four
Previous entry: Happy Halloween!