Abstract Democratic Oversight and Military
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
! Abstract Democratic Oversight and Military Autonomy: The U.S. Army’s Management of American Journalism, 1939-2004 Thomas Crosbie 2014 This dissertation investigates the historical development of the U.S. Army’s public affairs policy as a dimension of that organization’s domestic political strategy. I sketch key aspects of how changes in media technologies and the types of conflicts confronting militaries have shifted the burden of war within contemporary democratic polities. While the theory of a critical press has been challenged by several scholars, one key issue, the Army’s own role in shaping the relationship, has been largely overlooked. I believe this link helps explain the broader phenomenon of why some American reporters became unprecedentedly critical of their military during the Vietnam War. Each chapter in the dissertation addresses a pivotal moment in the history of the Army’s relationship with state and society. In the first chapter, I investigate the degree to which press work occupied the attention of the Army’s top soldier, Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, during the golden age of the military’s relations with the American public, World War II. In the second chapter, I provide a thick description of the collapse of the golden age paradigm in the first phase of the Vietnam War and the revitalizing of Army media management in the wake of the Tet Offensive in the second phase of the war. Finally, in the third chapter I analyze contemporary dynamics of military mediatization through the lens of scandal, focusing on the Abu Ghraib affair, the biggest scandal of the Global War on Terror. Based on extensive archival research and targeted interviews, my analysis of the Army’s development of media management policies suggests two findings of general ! ! interest. First, in reconstructing the development of Army media management doctrine, I have developed a new approach to the enduring sociological question of the degree to which democratic states balance public oversight with their monopoly on legitimate violence. By sacrificing degrees of monopoly (to the other services, to other governmental agencies and to contractors) and by creating more effective media management techniques, the Army reasserted its traditional autonomy from state oversight. My second finding builds on this first claim to suggest that the role of media technologies and practices in modulating the autonomy of state structures must be considered as a highly significant element in foreign affairs. This can be classed as a civilianizing of war, but must be understood as a very contingent and responsive process complemented by new spaces for covert action. ! ! Democratic Oversight and Military Autonomy: The U.S. Army’s Management of American Journalism, 1939-2004 A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Thomas Crosbie Dissertation Director: Julia P. Adams December, 2014 ! ! © 2015 by Thomas Alexander Crosbie All rights reserved. ! ! Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Violence of the Democratic State Chapter 1 40 The Golden Age, Revisited: George C. Marshall’s Press Work Chapter 2 69 The Tet Paradox: U.S. Army Media Management, 1962-1975 Chapter 3 145 Scandal and Military Mediatization in the Global War on Terror Conclusion 171 The Worlding of the U.S. Army Bibliography 179 Appendix 1 207 Appendix 2 210 Appendix 3 212 ! ! List of Figures 1 The frequency of Marshall’s press work by month and year 52 2 U.S. Federal Outlays by Department, 1962-2014 in $000’s 206 3 U.S. Total Federal Outlays and Outlays by Selected Departments, 207 1962-2014 in $000’s 4 U.S. Federal Outlays by Selected Department, 1962-2014 in $000’s 207 5 Incremental withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam 210 ! ! List of Tables 0.1 Comparison of the Autonomy and Monopoly of the U.S. Army 29 1.1 Types of press activity personally conducted by George C. 49 Marshall, by year 1.2 Marshall’s press work, August 18, 1941-December 13, 1941 53 1.3 Marshall’s press work, November 7, 1942-February 13, 1943 58 2.1 Sources for New York Times report with keywords “Ap Bac” or 77 Vietnam, 2-15 Jan., 1963 2.2 Reports with keyword “Tonkin” in New York Times, Aug 2-16, 90 1964 by region 2.3 Reports with keywords “Tet” or “Offensive” in New York Times, 100 Jan 31-Feb 13, 1968 by region 2.4 Reports with keywords “My Lai”, “Son My” or “Songmy,” in 119 New York Times, 20 Nov-4 Dec, 1969, by region 2.5 Reports with keywords “My Lai”, “Son My” or “Songmy,” in 120 New York Times, 20 Nov-4 Dec, 1969, by content coding 2.6 Reports with keywords “Vietnam” and “offensive” or “attack” 131 in New York Times, 31 Apr-13 May, 1972, by region 2.7 Comparison of New York Times articles for 14 days following 138 major news events 2.8 Reports with keyword “Saigon” in New York Times, 30 Apr.- 139 14 May, by region 3.1 List of reports by media context 157 3.2 “Abu Ghraib” in American Newspapers 160 4.1 Reports with keyword “Tonkin” in New York Times, Aug 2-16, 208 1964 by source. 4.2 In-theater reports with keywords “Tet” or “Offensive” in New 209 York Times, Jan 31-Feb 13, 1968 ! ! Acknowledgements My greatest intellectual debt is to my advisor, Julia Adams, whose own insights into the history of the state, sovereignty and oversight are reflected, sometimes all too dimly, throughout these pages. She is justly renowned for her intellect, good nature and enthusiastic support, all of which were instrumental to the success of this project. Considerable debts are also owed to the other members of my committee: Miguel Centeno, Philip Smith, and Jonathan Wyrtzen. Each challenged and enriched the project, and all were unflagging in their support and encouragement. This dissertation began life as a work of cultural sociology inspired by Jeffrey C. Alexander’s notion of civil society actors invading the closed organizations of the state, and I am in his debt for this inspiration, for much help in the early stages of the project, and for the rich vision he has articulated with Philip Smith of a profoundly democratic perspective on American social life and its scientific study. The Yale community proved exceptionally rich in collegiality and inspiration, and I thank in particular the members of the Center for Cultural Sociology and the Center for Comparative Research for feedback on many elements of this work. Special thanks must be extended to Werner Binder, Scott Boorman, Nick Couldry, Ron Eyerman, Jeff Guhin, Volker Heins, Andreas Hess, Meyer Kestnbaum, Anthony King, Richard Lachmann, Matthias Revers, Ian Roxborough, Ian Sheinheit, Lyn Spillman, Nick Wilson, and Xiaohong Xu. During the course of this project, I developed close intellectual relationships with several Yale colleagues, whose ideas and interests can be glimpsed in many of the pages that follow. These include Shai Dromi, John Hartley, Tim Malacarne, Elizabeth Roberto, Sam Stabler, and Luke Wagner. Special thanks in particular to Joseph Klett, Jonathan Roberge, Esteve Sanz and Jensen Sass, who commented on, challenged and encouraged the project for many years, much to my benefit. Thanks should also be extended to Chuck Allen, Morten Ender and Janeen Klinger for the help they provided me in navigating the Army’s intellectual arenas. I am especially indebted to the individuals who spoke with me on and off the record about their experiences with war correspondence and public affairs, including especially Gen. Anthony Cucolo, Don North, Ron Steinman, Craig Whitney, Ray Wilkinson, and Marvin Wolfe. Anonymous reviewers with the journals Communication Theory, Media, War & Conflict, and Parameters all helped improve the ideas expressed here. Generous funding was provided by the Smith-Richardson Foundation, the Brady- Johnson Program, the George M. Camp Grant as well as the Center for Cultural Sociology and Center for Comparative Research at Yale University. My extended family provided much-needed support and encouragement, especially Suzanne Brake, David Crosbie, Nicholas Crosbie, Jessica Dellow, David Slater, DeAnne Slater and Melanie Slater. My wife, Jill Slater, helped me to refine many of the ideas at the core of this project. Without her support and encouragement, and the many sacrifices she has made, I would not have written this dissertation. Our daughter Annie Rae Crosbie inspired me to write another 60,000 words of daily reflections on her many fine qualities while writing the 60,000 or so words of this dissertation, which was time well spent. I could never adequately thank either for their love and support. Finally, I dedicate this work to the memory of my grandparents, Bill and Gert Crosbie and Matt and Annie Brake. All four taught me the value of education and the lessons of sacrifice and humility. ! ! This work is dedicated to the memory of my grandparents, A.H. (Bill) and Gertrude Crosbie and Matthew and Annie Brake. “Newfoundland is heaven.” ! ! 1! Introduction “Among the calamities of war may be justly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictate and credulity encourages” - Samuel Johnson, 1758 The democratic state, the most successful political configuration of our time, is marked by a peculiar tension in the way power and information inform its sovereignty. The democratic impulse toward inclusion and representativeness hinges on open debate, the rule of law, and the capacity of elected officials to oversee actions done in the name of the state. But the state itself is a thing of exclusion. It is an exclusion of space: inside is the state, outside the world. It invites the exclusion of time, a community imaging a story of itself as it moves through the decades and centuries.