The Telling of the Pentagon

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

In a five-hour documentary, CBS incisively probes U.S. defense

The picture that will remain longest in most viewers' minds will doubtless be the simulation of a 15-megaton thermonuclear fireball devastating Omaha. The $87,000 worth of special effects lavished on that sequence conveyed as much vivid horror as any megabucks sci-fi movie. But it would be a pity if that memory distracted attention from other merits of the CBS News series The Defense of the United States, which aired for an hour on each of five successive nights last week. Complex issues, like that of high-technology vs. simpler weapons, usually the preserve of scholarly tomes, were tackled head-on --and in prime time. The series was not only the longest and most expensive network documentary ever but perhaps the most thoughtful and incisive TV examination of the American military as well.

Putting the documentary together cost roughly $1 million and took nine months; Executive Producer Howard Stringer at one point or another brought in some 80 CBS News people. Camera crews roamed from the Egyptian desert to Moscow; correspondents interviewed everyone from Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger to a raw recruit getting his flowing locks shorn into a G.I. cut (asked why he had joined the Army, he replied laconically, "Can't find no jobs"). Walter Cronkite, in his first reportorial appearance since retiring as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, journeyed to Moscow and brought back some Soviet TV footage never before seen in the U.S. One sequence depicted draftsmen, incongruously garbed in what looked like chefs' aprons and hats, drawing up what appeared to be missile blueprints (the Soviets refused to specify what was going on) while a piano boomed classical music in the background.

Visually, the series was nearly always interesting, from its pictures of U.S. officeworkers wearing gas masks and rubber gloves while pecking away at typewriters during a chemical-warfare exercise to a shot of a live American MIRV (three nuclear warheads mounted on the nose cone of a Minuteman III missile). Understated ironies abounded. A fresh-faced American missileman exclaimed with Boy Scout enthusiasm that his task of getting ready to launch a Minuteman at a Soviet target gave him "more responsibility than I could obtain in a civilian world." Commenting on film showing a C-5A cargo plane losing a wheel during a landing, a Lockheed official remarked. "With respect to the wheel coming off, I don't like that."

Most striking was the consistent intelligence of the commentary by six on-camera reporters, headed by Dan Rather. After the series opened with a bang over Omaha, illustrating the horrors of even a "limited" use of strategic nuclear weapons, Part 2 examined U.S. and Soviet preparations for tactical nuclear war in Europe and questioned whether the resulting devastation would allow the word victory to retain any meaning. The third segment explored manpower and readiness issues, ranging from the low retention rate of Navy petty officers to the reinstitution of the draft (favored by many training officers although opposed by the Administration); it also made a plea for increased spending on spare parts and realistic training to enhance the flashy weapons. The fourth followed the metamorphosis of the Navy's F-18A Hornet from a $5 million fighter into a $30 million, all-purpose plane and questioned whether the military would not be better off with less complex, more reliable weapons that could be turned out faster in much larger quantities. In the last hour, Cronkite tried to tot up the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S.S.R.

There were some disappointments. CBS could not get interviews with any of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former President Jimmy Carter canceled an appointment after a camera crew had arrived in Plains, Ga. "The reason given," says Stringer, "was that his advisers decided this was an 'inappropriate forum.' " Cronkite found the Soviets so uninformative that he was reduced to interviewing Alexander Bovin, a journalist who is said to be a speechwriter for Leonid Brezhnev, and exploring Moscow's motives by taping a long bull session with Western correspondents.

Inevitably, given the difficulties of jamming such complicated issues into five hours, the series had some regrettable omissions and some too-sweeping conclusions. CBS did not examine the possibility of fighting a European war without nuclear weapons or whether the 11.7% military pay boost last fall and another big one scheduled for Oct. 1 have eased manpower problems. Correspondent Ed Bradley criticized plans to spend $17 billion in 1982 on the four-service Rapid Deployment Force "when all they needed to do was send in the Marines." Matters are not quite that simple: Marine units are indeed organized and trained for quick assaults, but Army units that might be assigned to the R.D.F. would have more staying power for a long campaign because of their heavy equipment.

CBS was on target with its main point, however. While not opposing President Ronald Reagan's plan for a $1.3 trillion military buildup over the next five years, it emphasized that money alone will not ensure a strong defense, and called for a national debate on just what the dollars should be used to buy. The Pentagon huffed that "the series turned out to be an editorial rather than a documentary." Even so, Pentagon Spokesman Henry Catto Jr. applauded CBS "for its seriousness of purpose."

CBS's message reached a surprising number of viewers. Heavily promoted, the first two programs in the series outdrew the movies and entertainment shows spotted against them, attracting 30% of the viewing audience. That is a virtually unheard-of performance for a documentary.

In this case, effort, quality and thought did more than draw critical plaudits; they produced something that would sell. --By George J. Church

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.