William Prochnau: I was there twice, first in 1965 and then again in 1967. In each case I was there a couple of months, almost all of it covering combat.

Club Leader: What is the role of correspondents in wartime?

William Prochnau: The role is pretty straightforward despite all the controversy. It is to get the story home to the American people who make the ultimate decision about what our government should do in war or peace.

Club Leader: Describe the process of writing your book on Vietnam.

William Prochnau: It was complex to say the least. The book took me eleven years, almost as long as the war in Vietnam lasted. I started out trying to do one thing and ended up doing another. Basically, the goal of the book was to illustrate in a novel-like fashion -- a good story -- the controversy about press coverage in Vietnam. To do that, I went back tot he beginning and did the story of the young war correspondents, Halberstam, Sheehan and a few others who were there at

Club Leader: Let's take some questions from viewers. Freethinker asks: Where in Viet Nam did you spend most of your time?

William Prochnau: On the first trip, I spent most of my time south of Saigon in the Mekong Delta. On the second visit, the war had moved north and I situated myself in what was known as the Central Highlands, an area where the North Vietnamese were invading with regular army troops. Mean place. They were both mean places.

Russ of Kent, WA asks: though it was a poorly executed politically and military affair - and for the most part can only be counted as a defeat, was not the vietnamese version of communism infected if you will, by a healthy dose of capitalism? Did this not have an affect on viet nam was ultimately going to become?

William Prochnau: You're right about at least part of that. What you have now in Vietnam is a real mix. The old South Vietnam has a sort of capitalistic feel to it and a modernization. But the ruling government is still pretty bare bones about its ideological underpinnings. It will change further. It is changing. Time changes most things.

fredt in asks: Why is so little said about the Kennedy decision to support the coup in Vietnam that killed Diem, after Johnson had been sent to develop a relationship with Diem? At a personal and national level, the killing committed the US to oversee the total re-establishment of government in the South.

William Prochnau: Actually, quite a bit has been written about it. It was not a nice moment in American history. I think you are absolutely right about the commitment: With complicity in killing our ally, Diem, we were morally bound to help Vietnam get through the next few years. It was a bad deal. It had a bad end, coming out of a bad beginning.

Club Leader: Can you tell us how covering war today differs from when you were in Vietnam?

William Prochnau: They are almost incomparable. We went out freely with troops and covered almost anything that happened in Vietnam. Today's wars are different. They are commando wars and the government is taking correspondents in with commandos. It is uneasy situation. Even with mistakes by the media, and they make plenty of them, I don't see how the American public can ever get the real story without outside observers in there.

Sam Stetson of Charleston, WV asks: Did you see the movie featured recently on HBO titled The Path To War and what are your impressions? Do you feel as I do that they treated secretary of defense MacNamara too positively?

William Prochnau: Let me just say this. One of the great myths about the war in Vietnam is that the media didn't like the military and vice versa. That they were at war inside the war. But the bad guy, if I may, was a civilian. Mr. McNamara. He dissembled and misled himself, the president and the country. Have to point your finger at one man, and maybe that is a bit unfair, point it at MacNamara.

Wellen of Charlottesville, VA asks: The so-called war on terrorism is often compared to World War 2 for obvious ideological reasons. But is it more like the Vietnam War in your view? For example the whole world was begging the US to enter world war2 to save the world. Yet as the Vietnam war, support for US military action is lukewarm at best. Ant totally lacking throughout most of the third world. Can you make other comparisons?

William Prochnau: I guess I have trouble comparing it to either. The Second World War had a clear and present enemy. The war on terrorism does not. The enemy is murky and not easily identified. We may think we can identify him easily, but there are 300,000 Arabs in Detroit. Are they the enemy. Of course not.

Cybergeek asks: How has technology changed news reporting and coverage of the war on terrorism?

William Prochnau: oh, boy. In about every way possible. In Vietnam, we at times had trouble making a telephone call to the United States. No live television footage ever made it on to the screen. In Afghanistan, tv can go live, although primitively. We talk by satellite phones. I know one correspondent who was driving down a road in Afghanistan when he saw planes overhead and said, oh s--- and he called the American command and soon there was a three way conversation going on between him, the command and the planes to make sure they didn't bomb his truck. The change is overwhelming.

Club Leader: If you had the Internet back in Vietnam - how would you have reported on the war?

William Prochnau: I don't know if I'm smart enough to figure it out. But obviously we would have used the internet to every possible effect we could have -- from chat rooms to direct communication with our newspapers or television stations.

lotus in asks: If Henry Luce of TIME asked Who lost China?, then MacArthur (70 yrs old) decided to land at Inchon thinking he had the back up of Chiang's army for Korea, was there anyone at that time (early 1960's) who made the right call that winning Vietnam was not possible? And our past policy and present course in the Middle East is flawed?

William Prochnau: Back on the question above about the Internet, briefly. If you can take the internet to the top of Mount Everest, I would think you could do a blow by blow coverage of battle. Yes, there were people within the administration who strongly disagreed.

On those who disagreed on policy. George Ball, the undersecretary of state, was one. John Kenneth Galbraith, ambassador to India, a famed economist and a good friend of John Kennedy thought the thing was a disaster from the beginning. The support for the policy was not uniform through the administration at all.

Alvin Hofer of st. Petersburg, FL asks: Do you think that the Vietnam war criticisms of US killings of civilians has paradoxically made present commanders in Afghanistan less sensitive to Collateral killings such as those of Canadians or innocent Afghan citizens? Our VP seems not to get it!

William Prochnau: Difficult one. First, however, I do not think the government is really -- and especially the military -- indifferent to collateral damage. There is an acceptance that some of it is inevitable. But surely not an indifference, and I'm sure every reasonable effort to avoid it. The problem that I have in the present situation is that we seem to have a need to sound so macho all the time that we may seem indifferent. That is something I do not like to see in the U.S. government or in our society, a kind of macho, cowboy attitude verbally. We have to do tough things at times. Part of the real world. But we sound almost as if we are gloating at times when we get into the cowboy talk.

Freethinker asks: When you were covering the central highlands; was there a specific unit or operation that you were attached to?

William Prochnau: For the bulk of the time I was with 4th Infantry Division at the battle of Dak To near the Laotian border.

EdS in asks: I have read your very fine book as well as those by Neil Sheehan, Malcom Browne, and Halberstam. How is it, do you suppose, that the men most frequently associated with the arrogance and hubris in policy making during the LBJ administration have escaped closer scrutiny in print, I'm referring to Walt Rostow, Mac Bundy, among others.

William Prochnau: I am somewhat puzzled by it, too. I live in Washington, DC. And Washington is a strange town. Almost anything is forgiven that has to do with policy. At Katharine Graham's funeral, Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara gave eulogies. I worked for the Grahams and I like and admire them. I don't understand that part of Washington. Someone has to be held responsible for such insanities.

Guinzo in asks: Are you familiar with the writings of Angelo Mercure? He wrote of Saigon in the 1950's and described a corrupt society based on gambling.

William Prochnau: Vaguely. I am aware of Saigon society more intimately. It was dreadfully corrupt. During the 50's gambling, prostitution and organized crime, mafia style, were widespread. Ironically, Diem cleaned a lot of that out. But the very nature of bribes of all kinds, and other kinds of moral corruption, never went away.

neophyte asks: Do you think if JFK had lived and been reelected in '64, he would have pursued negotiations to have South VN neutralized as had been done with Laos in '62?

William Prochnau: That, of course, is the ultimate question that intrigues us all. I think a couple of things. One, I think that the moral commitment we established to the country of Vietnam after the immoral act of complicity in the killing of Diem would have kept Kennedy in Vietnam much longer than some think.

I also think, however, that it would not have kept him in Vietnam through another full Presidential term. I think he would have been out before 1968.>

James Hiestand of Chattanooga TN asks: I remember clearly reading a NY Times editorial back in late '64/early '65 in which they castigated M. L. King for opposing the war in Viet Nam. The widespread support for the war effort at that time seems to be forgotten and often denied now. Comment please. You're absolutely right.

William Prochnau: Support for the war was near total in public and, for that matter, throughout the press. It stayed that way a long time, only beginning to change among "respected" political leaders and intuitions in 1967 and, then, with a burst in 1968 after the Tet offensive. There were some college kids, some liberals and left-wing thinkers, etc., opposing the war earlier. But not many.

joec asks: Will the press take any responsibility for disheartening the American public so as to make winning the vietnam war not possible?

William Prochnau: Probably not. I don't mean to be a smart-arse. The press doesn't apologize very often. But on the other hand, I don't really think the press disheartened the American public the way time and bodies did. This war dragged on 12 years. Body bags were coming back 200-300 a week. The public won't hold for that. That is truly disheartening.

James of MN asks: Do you think it is the job of journalists to sell the war to the public as in the war on terrorism? How can the public impact military policy? Does the media overstep its boundaries from reporting to endorsing at times?

joec asks: As a Vietnam veteran I remember the press discouraging the armed forces in Vietnam of which I was a member. We knew that the press was mocking us.

lotus asks: I think joec, unfortunately, makes the mistake that many Americans do of thinking that US media and technology have the power to defeat people on their own land in their own country...therefore, we have a foreign policy which creates resentment and instability in many poor countries around the world.

William Prochnau: No, it sure is not the press's job to sell a war to the public. There is a lot of that going on. The press, however, is a reflection of the people. The people are scared and they want to strike back. The press is beginning to find the raw edges of the war. I hope they do more of it. I kind of missed a question there. I'll go back to it. Well, maybe that was an exchange between two chat members. But I must say I don't think any responsible reporter ever mocked the American soldier. The American soldier was doing his job. The American civilian leadership was not.

rosesxjx asks: sir, there seems to be a perception in the islamic world that the us media is selling the war in the middle east, by being pro israel, is there any validity to that.

William Prochnau: I think it is more complicated than that. I don't think you can isolate such a question to the media. The American government role in Israel is controversial -- it's a difficult question for America, and we will not come out without scars no matter what we do. I guess if I were a Palestinian I wouldn't like us very much.

Club Leader: How can journalists be sure not to be used by governments for disinformation or fall victim to mortal deeds such as WSJ reporter Danny Pearl?

William Prochnau: I taught a class in war correspondence at the University of Maryland this year and had many war correspondents come in and speak. There is one simple way not to fall for disinformation. It sounds harsh but I believe it: Don't believe anything anybody tells you, whether it's your government or some other government. Not in time of war. Truth is the first casualty, an old cliche but true.

Freethinker asks: Without journalists in the field reporting the actions and consequences how can actual events be separated from propaganda?

William Prochnau: As for Danny Pearl, there is unfortunately no way to really protect ourselves against such events -- finally and certainly assure ourselves that we won't get killed -- except to not do our job. Take precautions, be careful, and you minimize the odds of getting killed. That's the best you can do. Hundreds of war correspondents have been killed since the Second World War. Since that war.

joec in asks: So the journalists say truth is first - even if it is to the detriment of US forces. If the press would have found out about the German enigma machine being discovered by the allies, would not they have had the obligation to report it to the world?

William Prochnau: No, I don't think I said truth is first. The American press had a reporter, from the NYTimes at the first test of the atomic bomb in New Mexico. He didn't report it till after the war. Nobody with a soul would report troop movements or information that would put soldiers in harm's way. I know people don't always believe it: But that's a basic tenet of war journalism.

lotus asks: Mr. Prochnau, if you want to understand DC mannerisms (Meg Greenway's funeral was almost all-white), see the film Fastrunner where an Inuit tribe survives by forgiving each other's human hubris and deceit.

Club Leader: Last question: Guinzo in asks: What would have happened if Barry Goldwater had won in 1964?

William Prochnau: Well, I hear you. I am pretty good at Inuit philosophy. But I'd like to hear the people who want the forgiveness admit that they screwed up. Barry Goldwater. I knew Goldwater personally, or at least as personally as reporters know politicians. He would have fought the war pretty much the same way as LBJ. He probably would have tried to get out by 1968 as Johnson tried. He would not have used any nuclear weapons. He would have made a lot of noise, I suppose. But not done much different. American politics.

Club Leader: Thank you for participating in the chat! Thank you Mr. Prochnau for sharing your insight and spending time with us.

William Prochnau: Thanks to all of you. They were stimulating questions. We need more functions like this.>

Club Leader: please come back!

William Prochnau: Will do.

Club Leader: Thank you book club members for your great questions! A chat transcript will be available within the hour!