Those Who Forget History...

Are doomed to be exploited by it, at least by those who know it well enough to twist it to their ends. A recent New York Times editorial written by Vietnam activist and grandson of the famous WWII general Lucien Truscott contained a wonderfully false but almost throwaway conclusion that stretched the truth beyond breaking. It is best covered on the blog John in Carolina. To reproduce the quote at least from this anti-war editorial that seeks to use history to describe why the military could be in trouble from a leftist viewpoint, see below:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it."

Now, my major wasn't even in history, and yet I still saw this as blatantly false the minute I read it. Patton was the only one of those men to actually see combat in WWI and that was as a tank commander. Interestingly, he's credited with being in the first mechanized battle in history where he could even claim a kill, while he was part of Pershing's expeditionary force on the Texas/Mexico border hunting down Pancho Villa. But I digress.

These men did understand the difficulty of a shrinking Army that was not a national priority. They understood that very well. But none were trench fighters, and to do so makes the implication that by enduring that horror, they have a greater moral authority. While I'd stake any one of the listed soldiers as excellent men, even Ike, I think it's pathetic that a Vietnam war protester is now using his same West Point classes to try and snow the general public.

But even this isn't the core of my reason for posting today. What is the reason is my offense that likely Mr. Truscott viewed the public would be too ill educated to pick up on his lie. And it's not an unreasonable assumption on his part. How many of you knew the histories of those men or would have cared enough to look them up? Well, probably more of you than most if you're seeking out this isolated little blog. I'd wager, though, the average NYT reader does not know or care to do the same. In general, I'd imagine they would accept that a former West Point grad would know his stuff and that he or the NYT Op editor wouldn't intentionally lie to them. Well, as you can see from the links, one or the other did lie, and it was a big lie given how it was used.

It saddens me that so many readers, and even with a declining circulation the Old Grey Lady still has a big following, are going to be duped by this, and unless the Times runs a correction will possibly spout off this fact over their next decaf latte lunch chat, because they're either too uneducated or lazy to care. Again, as a disclaimer, I know most of us do this on issues we believe heavily in. We don't all check the facts as much as we probably should, but historical manipulation is a GIANT pet peeve of mine, so when I see it, I spend a bit more time on it than a casual glance between sips of my morning coffee.

Let's take this little lie for what it is, a reminder to always be vigilant on the facts, even the little things, regardless of who is telling us the story. It might also be a reminder to always keep an eye on our collective history. With some going to such great efforts to rewrite it these days, I'd venture it's more important than ever.