The Public's War

As I researched life in America during the Vietnam War, I can’t help but feel that the perception of war drastically changed. Even though we are currently involved in a war, I very rarely watch news stories about what is happening in Iraq. When the war first started, the media was all over it and covered every last detail of the events taking place. But now people genuinely seem disinterested. I’m not saying people don’t care about American troops or the outcome of the war, but The War in Iraq is no longer a part of people’s day to day life. We as a country have moved on and have bigger problems to worry about and larger deficits to overcome.

The economy has become a very relevant issue as it affects the large majority of people where it hurts most, their wallet. The war is often linked to the cause of the plummeting economy. People seem to be more focused on the affects of the war, rather than the actual battle or event itself. There is a good portion of Americans who believe in the war efforts, but even they are not fully engaged in every event or action that takes place in the war. During The Vietnam War, people would be glued to their television sets and watch the news ritually. Even though people disagreed with the actions of America, they still kept up to date and informed about the war.

Is it better to be constantly involved in the daily events of war or to be dethatched from the realities of war? I am trying to decide what method of public opinion and influence is better suited for war. People today criticize war motives, but are not disheartened because of the lack of morality shown to Middle Eastern civilians. People are mad because the war is costing America too much money and in turn taking money and jobs out of their pockets. The American protests during the Vietnam War called for justice and humane treatment of the Vietnamese people. Innocent people are dying every day in the Middle East, but people are not really focused on this aspect of the war. The number of casualties is of course smaller in this war, but is killing innocent people acceptable if in small numbers?

Media Bias Over the Years

I found the power point presentation on media bias during the Civil War to be very intriguing in terms of how the media has evolved over the years and at the same time retained many of the same qualities. I think it is impossible for news or media coverage to be unbiased. Every aspect of media coverage can be presented in numerous forms and holds the bias and intentions of a certain target audience. During the Civil War, the two audiences of news coverage were the confederates and the union. Two complete opposite opponents presented news and media coverage from rival points of view. Each side used the news and media coverage of the war to rally hope and inspire armies that they were fighting for a winning cause. Blatant lies about victories and defeats in battle were printed in papers. Fact and fiction was inseparable between these opposing papers, yet today the news is not completely different.

Different channels, newspapers and other news medians have a labeled bias. FOX News appeals to a certain demographic, while NBC may appeal to a different audience. A good majority of people base their TV viewing according to these perceptions of what the news will be like. People can basically choose what news they want to hear. Regardless of popular perception or belief, opposing news stories can be found. When people watch certain channels or news reporters there is an anticipation of the ideology behind the news coverage that will be presented. Similarly, the South and North anticipated success stories in the paper for their respective sides. There was an understanding between these rival news sources to essentially give their people what they wanted. People from the North and South expected inspiring news for their armies and it was an excepted bias.

News is very open ended and needs to be interpreted. Straight facts are boring and dry and hold no substance by themselves. Often time the job of media members is to create stories where there are none or spin stories to make them enticing and interesting. Media bias will continue to exist because it has become an essential aspect of news itself. News coverage without bias is simply boring and almost impossible to truly achieve.

Lee's Power

General Lee proposes that Longstreet cares too much about the soldiers and needs to get rid of this sentimental attachment. Lee does not believe that any sensible man could disagree with his military tactics, so he accredits Longstreet’s defensive propositions to excessive sympathy for the men. The truth of the matter is that while Longstreet does care about his men, he more so believes that his own military techniques are better suited and more appropriate for the confederates. These generals have completely different mindsets and ideas of how to fight a war, but are unable to openly communicate these indifferences. I used to think Longstreet’s silence represented respect and admiration for General Lee, but now it seems to be a detrimental force in the downturn of the confederate army.

The South’s top two generals disagree on the fundamental principles of military warfare. Preparation and communication are key elements to fighting a war. Lee continues to give military orders and commands, but fails to recognize the reservations Longstreet takes to these military tactics. Longstreet resents the fact that Lee ignores his opinions as overly sentimental and compassionate. Regardless of his position as general, Longstreet has little power over Lee and never challenges this authority.

A strong and powerful military is not composed of one absolute leader. The southern people admired and revered Lee as great military leader, but this god-like status prevented any criticism to his actions. Great leaders often times question themselves and their actions as exemplified by Chamberlin. Being a former college professor, he questions why he was chosen to be a head military officer. This constant search for answers creates an open minded view of the world that allows for progression. Lee is never challenged and therefore his word is taken as a message from god and carried out exactly. I believe the outcome of the war could have been very different had someone challenged Lee’s military tactics and his power.

Who's In Charge

The contrasting military minds of Robert E. Lee and Longstreet are very dangerous and problematic for the confederate army. Lee is presented as somewhat vulnerable due to his weakening heart condition, yet his military strategy is aggressive and offensive. As opposed to Longstreet, who takes a defensive and more practical approach to the movement of the military. We discussed in class that Longstreet respects the ranking of general and the leader of the confederate army. Lee happens to be in this role of leadership, yet Longstreet makes a more efficient and thoughtful leader. Longstreet may be somewhat conservative, but he also wants to conserve the lives of his fellow soldiers if possible. It is easy for Lee to assert aggression and increase cavalry sizes when he is not on the front lines putting his life on the line. We discussed in class how Longstreet lost multiple sons in the war and has deeper feelings of sympathy for putting his men in unnecessary danger. I feel Longstreet makes a more logical and intelligent leader who understands the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the confederate army. An offensive military attack is important, but I feel Lee is too determined to be aggressive and is unwilling to allow the war to slowly evolve and develop.

Longstreet is a loyal general, who truly respects the confederate party. Regardless of Longstreet’s personal opinions about war tactics, he is obedient and respectful of Lee’s final decision. Longstreet represents the archetype general. He is creative and passionate about the confederate cause and truly cares about his people and his troops. Lee even has to remind him not to risk his life on the front line, because he is too important of a general and leader. While Longstreet is courageous and passionate, he is not arrogant and never questions his leader, Robert E. Lee. Often times generals that are second in command envy the power and respect of the leader, yet Longstreet respects the military ranks and system. Even though Longstreet has differing opinions, he never second guesses Lee’s power or decision making capabilities as a leader.

I am interested to see how their relationship will develop as the war progresses and see how the military is affected by the leadership and military minds of these two men. Generals played a huge role in leading armies into battle and inspiring thousands of men that this was a war they could win. Lee was an inspirational figure, but I do not know how realistic he was in his military tactics.